Forest Health: Integrating Spruce Budworm into Growth and Yield Models David A. MacLean University of New Brunswick
Prediction of SBW impacts on G&Y 1. relationships of growth & mortality vs. defol. 2. PSP data on indiv. tree defol., growth, mortality
3. calibrated defol.-based stand growth model (Erdle & MacLean 1999 For. Chron.)
4. use in Spruce Budworm DSS
Post Harvest Stand Development Conf.
Jan. 31, 2006
MacLean
2
Spruce budworm defoliation Life cycle
Post Harvest Stand Development Conf.
Jan. 31, 2006
MacLean
3
Extent of moderate-severe spruce budworm defoliation
Post Harvest Stand Development Conf.
Jan. 31, 2006
MacLean
4
Mod.-severe defoliation & area of beetle-killed trees in Canada from 1975-2000 80
Spruce budworm Forest tent caterpillar Other insects
Area ('000,000 ha)
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
(Can. Council Forest Ministers 2002) Post Harvest Stand Development Conf.
Jan. 31, 2006
MacLean
5
1979
Cape Breton plot in a mature fir stand 1985 1989
Post Harvest Stand Development Conf.
Jan. 31, 2006
MacLean
6
Growth loss during a budworm outbreak Stem analysis of 89 trees from Cape Breton Island 8,000
Years moderate to severe defol.
7,000 6,000
1975-77
Volume 5,000 increment4,000 , 3 cm /yr
1975-77, 1980-81 1974-80
3,000 Start of budworm outbreak
2,000
1,000 0
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
Ostaff & MacLean 1995 Can. J. For. Res. Post Harvest Stand Development Conf.
Jan. 31, 2006
MacLean
7
Calibrating tree growth & survival relationships (Erdle & MacLean 1999) ď Ź
use PSP data in which all independent variables (including damage level) have been recorded for observed trees:
(a) sort trees into strata based upon the variables that affect the normal growth and survival rates (b) sort trees in each stratum by degree of damage (c) calculate stratum-specific, normal growth & survival rates using the subset of trees in each stratum exhibiting little or no pest damage (d) determine growth & survival for trees at each damage level in each stratum (e) calculate incremental effect per damage level as the ratio between growth or survival at a given damage level and the normal rates for that stratum Post Harvest Stand Development Conf.
Jan. 31, 2006
MacLean
8
Relationships used in the STAMAN stand growth model Dependent variable
Normal Development
Pest-related Impacts
Independent variables Tree level
Stand level
[1] DBH growth
1. species 2. DBH
1. basal area 2. site
[2] Survival
1. species 2. age
1. basal area
[3] Growth loss
1. species 2. age
1. site 2. damage level
[4] Reduced survival
1. species 2. age
1. site 2. damage level
Post Harvest Stand Development Conf.
Jan. 31, 2006
MacLean
9
Erdle & MacLean 1999 For. Chron.
Construction of pest-related impacts on DBH growth & survival Cumul.
Dbh
Ratio to
defol.
incr.
normal
(%)
(mm/yr)
growth
Growth 5-yr loss
survival
(%) (% trees)
Ratio to
Reduced
normal
survival
survival
(%)
0-20
2.9
1.00 = 2.9/2.9
0
95
1.00 = 95/95
0
21-40
2.2
0.75 = 2.2/2.9
25
95
1.00 = 95/95
0
41-60
1.5
0.52 = 1.5/2.9
48
85
0.89 = 85/95
11
61-80
1
0.34 = 1.0/2.9
66
60
0.63 = 60/95
37
81-100
0.5
0.17 = 0.5/2.9
83
20
0.21 = 20/95
79
Post Harvest Stand Development Conf.
Jan. 31, 2006
MacLean
10
Erdle & MacLean 1999 For. Chron.
Construction of pest-related impacts on DBH growth & survival Cumul.
Dbh
Ratio to
defol.
incr.
normal
(%)
(mm/yr)
growth
Growth 5-yr loss
survival
(%) (% trees)
Ratio to
Reduced
normal
survival
survival
(%)
0-20
2.9
1.00 = 2.9/2.9
0
95
1.00 = 95/95
0
21-40
2.2
0.75 = 2.2/2.9
25
95
1.00 = 95/95
0
41-60
1.5
0.52 = 1.5/2.9
48
85
0.89 = 85/95
11
61-80
1
0.34 = 1.0/2.9
66
60
0.63 = 60/95
37
81-100
0.5
0.17 = 0.5/2.9
83
20
0.21 = 20/95
79
Post Harvest Stand Development Conf.
Jan. 31, 2006
MacLean
11
Erdle & MacLean 1999 For. Chron.
Construction of pest-related impacts on DBH growth & survival Cumul.
Dbh
Ratio to
defol.
incr.
normal
(%)
(mm/yr)
growth
Growth 5-yr loss
survival
(%) (% trees)
Ratio to
Reduced
normal
survival
survival
(%)
0-20
2.9
1.00 = 2.9/2.9
0
95
1.00 = 95/95
0
21-40
2.2
0.75 = 2.2/2.9
25
95
1.00 = 95/95
0
41-60
1.5
0.52 = 1.5/2.9
48
85
0.89 = 85/95
11
61-80
1
0.34 = 1.0/2.9
66
60
0.63 = 60/95
37
81-100
0.5
0.17 = 0.5/2.9
83
20
0.21 = 20/95
79
Post Harvest Stand Development Conf.
Jan. 31, 2006
MacLean
12
Erdle & MacLean 1999 For. Chron.
Construction of pest-related impacts on DBH growth & survival Cumul.
Dbh
Ratio to
defol.
incr.
normal
(%)
(mm/yr)
growth
Growth 5-yr loss
survival
(%) (% trees)
Ratio to
Reduced
normal
survival
survival
(%)
0-20
2.9
1.00 = 2.9/2.9
0
95
1.00 = 95/95
0
21-40
2.2
0.75 = 2.2/2.9
25
95
1.00 = 95/95
0
41-60
1.5
0.52 = 1.5/2.9
48
85
0.89 = 85/95
11
61-80
1
0.34 = 1.0/2.9
66
60
0.63 = 60/95
37
81-100
0.5
0.17 = 0.5/2.9
83
20
0.21 = 20/95
79
Post Harvest Stand Development Conf.
Jan. 31, 2006
MacLean
13
Erdle & MacLean 1999 For. Chron.
Construction of pest-related impacts on DBH growth & survival Cumul.
Dbh
Ratio to
defol.
incr.
normal
(%)
(mm/yr)
growth
Growth 5-yr loss
survival
(%) (% trees)
Ratio to
Reduced
normal
survival
survival
(%)
0-20
2.9
1.00 = 2.9/2.9
0
95
1.00 = 95/95
0
21-40
2.2
0.75 = 2.2/2.9
25
95
1.00 = 95/95
0
41-60
1.5
0.52 = 1.5/2.9
48
85
0.89 = 85/95
11
61-80
1
0.34 = 1.0/2.9
66
60
0.63 = 60/95
37
81-100
0.5
0.17 = 0.5/2.9
83
20
0.21 = 20/95
79
Post Harvest Stand Development Conf.
Jan. 31, 2006
MacLean
14
Erdle & MacLean 1999 For. Chron.
STAMAN growth loss calibration 120 A. Relative growth by species
DBH growth, %
100 80 60
• 356 CFS PSPs 123 stands, >4400 trees, 1983-1999
40 20 0 0
20
40
60
80
100
100
• 929 PSPs NB Coop. G&Y Network, 22,350 trees, 1987-1999
B. Growth reduction, all species combined
Growth reduction, %
Erdle & MacLean 1999 For. Chron.
Balsam fir Red/black spruce White spruce
80 60 40 20 0 0
20
40
60
80
Post Harvest Stand Development Conf. Cumulative defoliation, %
100
Jan. 31, 2006
MacLean
15
Manual defoliation expt. – bF, wS, bS 0.6 0.6
Balsam Dry/Rich fir Dry/Poor
Mean SVI (cm3/cm2/yr)
0.5 0.5
0.6 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.4
0.3 0.3
0.3
0.2 0.2
0.2
0.1 0.1 0
Dry rich sites
0.7 0.5 0.5
0
Wet/Poor Moist/Rich Dry/Rich
White spruce
0.6 0.5
0.6 0.4
0.4 0.5
0.4
0.3
0.4 0.3
0.3
0.2 0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2 0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1 0
Control 100% 50% 100% + Bud
Treatment years
0.1
0
0.6 0.6
Control spruce Dry/Rich 100% Black 50% 100% + Bud
0
Wet/Poor Control 100% 50% 100% + Bud
reduced growth caused by defoliation
0
0
Time (years) 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4
Wet/Poor
Time (years)
Post Harvest Stand Development Conf.
Jan. 31, 2006
MacLean
16
Factors affecting defol’n & growth reduction: 1. Species
Defol’n bF > wS +6-9% bF > rS/bS +15-17% Growth reduction wS > rS/bS
2. Surrounding forest
Defol’n wS in MW > SW +11% Sig. forest type * species inter. Growth reduction bF, wS, rS/bS MW < SW (ns)
3. Site – soil moisture & richness
Defol’n well > poorly drained +7-17% rich > poor sites Defol’n bF moist-rich > wet/poor +19% Growth reduction bF wet/poor > moist/rich
MacLean and MacKinnon 1997 Can. J. For. Res. MacKinnon and MacLean 2003 For. Sci. Post Harvest Stand Conf.Can.Jan. 31, 2006 MacKinnon and Development MacLean 2004 J. For. Res.
bF balsam fir wS white spruce rS/bS red/black spruce MacLean MW mixedwood 17 SW softwood
Stand/ landscape characteristics that alter SBW population dynamics 100 80 in stands mortality 30% less with ≥ 30% hardwoods 60
(MacLean 1980, Bergeron et al 1995)
40
effects of HW within stands, poss. in adjacent20stands landscape mosaic0 effects? 1988
1989
1990
Balsam fir defoliation, %
Hardwood content (%)
100
Hardw
80 60 40
1991
postulated effect, never tested Year
0-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100
1992 20 0 1988
1993
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
Year Su et al. 1996 Can. J. For. Res. Post Harvest Stand Development Conf.
Jan. 31, 2006
MacLean
18
Effects of hardwoods on bF defoliation Su et al. 1996 Can. J. For. Res.
Balsam fir defoliation, %
100
A. 1989
100
B. 1990
100
80
80
80
60
60
60
40
40
40
20
20
20
0
0
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
0
100
20
40
60
80
D. 1992 100 80
60
60
40
40
20
20
0
0 0
20
40
60
80
100
80
100
C. 1991
0
20
40
60
80
100
E. 1993
0
20
40
60
80
100
Hardwood content, % Post Harvest Stand Development Conf.
Jan. 31, 2006
MacLean
19
Mature fir Immature fir Mature spruce
Mortality caused by spruce budworm is predictable, given defol. level
Immature spruce 0
20
40
60
80
100
Mortality, %
MacLean 1980 For. Chron.
Post Harvest Stand Development Conf.
Jan. 31, 2006
MacLean
20
STAMAN mortality calibration Erdle & MacLean 1999 For. Chron. Cumulative defoliation
120
100
<41%
100
80
41-60
80
120
A. Balsam fir, actual data
B. Red-black spruce, actual data
5-year survival, %
61-80 60
60
40
40
20 0
81-100 n = 1496 646
20 120
376
40
4773
60
908
80
20 0
100
20 120
C. Balsam fir, adjusted data
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
0
0 20
40
60
80
100
n = 1565 2470 2995
40
5686
60
1435
80
100
D. Red-black spruce, adjusted data
20
40
Stand years Post Harvest Stand Development Conf.age,Jan. 31, 2006
60
80
MacLean
100
21
STAMAN mortality calibration 120
A. Balsam fir 100
Erdle & MacLean 1999 For. Chron.
80 60
5-year survival, %
40 NB PSP data CFS PSP data
20 0 0
20
40
60
80
100
60
80
100
120
B. Red-black spruce 100 80 60 40 20 0 0
20
40
defoliation, % Post HarvestCumulative Stand Development Conf. Jan. 31, 2006
MacLean
22
200
200
A. Fir dominated - immature
150
150
100
100
B. Fir dominated - mature
81% Loss
62% Loss
3
Softwood merchantable volume, m /ha
50
50 Outbreak
Outbreak
0
0 20
200
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
50 200
C. Fir-spruce mix - immature
150
150
100
100
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
110
120
D. Fir-spruce mix - mature
77% Loss
50% Loss
50
50 Outbreak
Outbreak
0
0 20
200
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
50 200
E. Spruce dominated - immature
150
150
100
100
60
70
80
90
100
F. Spruce dominated - mature
No Defoliation
STAMAN stand growth model forecasts of development for 6 stand types, under 3 scenarios: 1) no defoliation, 2) limiting max. defol. <40% by insecticide spraying, & 3) uncontrolled budworm outbreak (no protection).
Max Defol = 40% 58% Loss
36% Loss
50
50 Outbreak
No Protection
Outbreak
0
Erdle & MacLean 1999 For. Chron.
0 20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
50
60
70
80
90
Post Harvest Stand Conf. StandDevelopment age, years
100
110
120
Jan. 31, 2006
MacLean
23
Budworm impact plots in eastern Canada
Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
70 PSPs 1976-1985 - mortality & growth impacts (MacLean and Ostaff 1989, Ostaff and MacLean 1995)
New Brunswick
356 CFS PSPs (123 stands, >4400 trees, 1983-1999) + 929 PSPs NB Coop. G&Y Network – mortality & growth (Erdle & MacLean 1999), soil drainage effects (MacLean & MacKinnon 1997)
40 stands (120 plots) – landscape & stand effects on defol. & growth (MacKinnon & MacLean 2003, 2004) 25 stands (75 plots) – effects of hardwoods on defol. & growth impact (Su et al. 1996, Needham et al. 1999) 12 plots – artificial defoliation of balsam fir, white & red/black spruce (MacLean et al. unpubl.) Post Harvest Stand Development Conf.
Jan. 31, 2006
MacLean
24
Spruce Budworm DSS GIS-based decision support system uses defol.-based growth model and timber supply model predicts timber supply benefits of protection or forest restructuring at scheduled time of harvest
restructuring at scheduled time of harvest user can draw spray or harvest blocks & get m33/ha benefits bF 80% SP20% Immature CC 60%
Protected volume loss
180
Effect of protection on merch. volume, m3/ha
120
Unprotected
60 0 Now
+5
+10
+15
+20
+25
Year Post Harvest Stand Development Conf.
Jan. 31, 2006
MacLean
25
Spruce Budworm DSS
MacLean et al. 2001 Can. J. For. Res.
Volume loss m3/ha 0-30 61-90 >91 Implem. for all forest in NB, test areas in AB, SK, ON, QC Post Harvest Stand Development Conf.
Jan. 31, 2006
MacLean
26
Potential volume loss caused by SBW outbreak scenario 5.0M ha spruce-fir Potential losses for NB: Normal outbreak 82M m3 Severe outbreak 203M m3 MacLean et al. 2002 For. Chron. Post Harvest Stand Development Conf.
Jan. 31, 2006
MacLean
27
Sensitivity of AAC in NB to SBW & protection?
Volume (millions m 3)
100
100
Severe budworm outbreak
Normal budworm outbreak 80
80 Harvestable Growing Stock
60 40 20
20
0
0 5
10
0 20 40 60 80 100
40
Mgmt. plan harvest level
0
Area not protected(%)
60
15
20
25
30
35
40
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Years Post Harvest Stand Development Conf.
Jan. 31, 2006
MacLean
28
40
How does budworm affect deer habitat? Proportion of susceptible stands in deer wintering areas that achieve the habitat criterion 15 years after a SBW outbreak
Beaton et al. 2002 Post Harvest Stand Development Conf.
Moderate Outbreak Jan. 31, 2006
Severe Outbreak MacLean
29
Conclusions – Incorp. SBW into G&Y 1. relationships for growth & mortality vs. defol.
growth vs. defol. relationship similar among bF, wS, r/bS mortality vs defol. bF > wS > r/bS
2. PSP data on indiv. tree defol., growth, mortality 3. calibrated defol.-based stand growth model (Erdle & MacLean 1999 For. Chron.)
4. use in DSS stand impact matrix
% volume loss as f (defol’n, species comp., age, silv.)
5. DSS "value-added" conversion inventory/ monitoring data
raw data on no. insects, defol. converted to stand structure changes, productivity/AAC values
6. analysis of poss. future scenarios useful
insecticide protection planning, rescheduling, salvage planning
Post Harvest Stand Development Conf.
Jan. 31, 2006
MacLean
30