Advertisement

Trees

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 267–277 | Cite as

Differential relative bark thickness and aboveground growth discriminates fire resistance among hardwood sprouts in the southern Cascades, California

  • Kathryn R. KiddEmail author
  • J. Morgan Varner
Original Article
  • 80 Downloads

Abstract

Key message

Bark thickness relative to stem diameter and radial stemwood and height growth patterns provided a more accurate discrimination of fire resistance than absolute bark thickness alone in juvenile stems.

Abstract

Thick bark provides thermal protection to cambial tissues and adventitious buds during fires, and thus, is a functional trait associated with more fire-resistant species and species persisting in fire-prone environments. However, bark thickness alone may not provide the best indicator of fire resistance due to differences among species-dependent growth, reproductive, and survival strategies. We measured bark thickness relative to radial stemwood and height growth among five juvenile co-occurring hardwood species following the Chips Fire (2012) in the southern Cascades, California. We found canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis) and Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana), the most fire-resistant, did not have the greatest bark thickness (0.7–0.4 mm; 0.8–0.3 mm), but rather had significantly greater relative (to stem diameter) bark thickness (8–18%) at all heights along the stem (p < 0.001). These species grew at slower rates: 48 and 41% shorter than the more fire-sensitive bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum; 2.9 m) and had 53 and 41% less diameter inside bark (DIB) than faster-growing, but less fire-resistant California black oak (Quercus kelloggii; 3.4 cm). Two discriminant functions (explaining 90% of variance) confirmed that separation of species was most strongly driven by DIB and relative bark thickness, accurately depicting species placement along a fire resistance spectrum (where Q. chrysolepis > Q. garryana > Q. kelloggii > Pacific dogwood, Cornus nuttallii > A. macrophyllum). Our findings highlight the importance of considering bark thickness relative to stem diameter and aboveground growth patterns in assessing species fire resistance.

Keywords

Bark thickness Fire Functional traits Radial growth Regeneration Tradeoffs 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by the USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region and Pacific Southwest Research Station and the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Program. We appreciate the assistance of Lassen and Plumas National Forest personnel, particularly P. Doyle and M. Hennessey. D. Nemens provided field assistance. Lab assistance was provided by E. Barker and D. Walker and laboratory equipment by C. Copenheaver at Virginia Tech. Discussions with B. Wing, J. Kreye, and D. Nemens helped shape the research. Earlier reviews by T. Shearman improved the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Adler PB, Salguero-Gómez R, Compagnoni A, Hsu JS, Ray-Mukherjee J, Mbeau-Ache C, Franco M (2014) Functional traits explain variation in plant life history strategies. Proc. Natl Acad Sci USA 111:740–745.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1315179111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agee JK (1993) Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Bond WJ, van Wilgen BW (1996) Fire and plants. Chapman and Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Charles-Dominique T, Midgley GF, Bond WJ (2017) Fire frequency filters species by bark traits in a savanna-forest mosaic. J Veg Sci 28:728–7350.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12528 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarke PJ, Lawes MJ, Midgley JJ, Lamont BB, Ojeda F, Burrows GE, Enright NJ, Knox KJ (2013) Resprouting as a key functional trait: how buds, protection and resources drive persistence after fire. New Phytol 197:19–35.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cocking MI, Varner JM, Knapp EE (2014) Long-term effects of fire severity on oak-conifer dynamics in the southern Cascades. Ecol Appl 24:94–107.  https://doi.org/10.1890/13-0473.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coppoletta M, Merriam KE, Collins BM (2016) Post-fire vegetation and fuel development influences fire severity patterns in reburns. Ecol Appl 26:686–699.  https://doi.org/10.1890/15-0225 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crotteau JS, Varner JM, Ritchie M (2013) Post-fire regeneration across a fire severity gradient in the southern Cascades. For Ecol Manag 287:103–112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.09.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fried JS (1985) Two studies of Acer macrophyllum: I. The effects of bigleaf maple on soils in Douglas-fir forest: II. The ecology of bigleaf maple seedling establishment and early growth in Douglas-fir forests, Thesis. Oregon State University, CorvallisGoogle Scholar
  10. Graves SJ, Rifai SW, Putz FE (2014) Outer bark thickness decreases more with height on stems of fire-resistant than fire-sensitive Floridian oaks (Quercus spp.; Fagaceae). Am J Bot 101:2183–2188.  https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1400412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hammett EJ, Ritchie MW, Berrill J (2017) Resilience of California black oak experiencing frequent fire: regeneration following two large wildfires 12 years apart. Fire Ecol 13:91–103.  https://doi.org/10.4996/fireecology.1301091 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hammond DH, Varner JM, Kush JS, Fan Z (2015) Contrasting sapling bark allocation of five southeastern USA hardwood tree species in a fire prone ecosystem. Ecosphere 67:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1890/ES15-00065.1 Google Scholar
  13. Hare RC (1965) Contribution of bark to fire resistance of southern trees. J For 63:248–251Google Scholar
  14. Harmon ME (1984) Survival of trees after low-intensity surface fires in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Ecology 65:796–802.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1938052 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jackson JF, Adams DC, Jackson UB (1999) Allometry of constitutive defense: a model and a comparative test with tree bark and fire regime. Am Nat 153:614–632.  https://doi.org/10.1086/303201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Keeley JE, Pausas JG, Rundel PW, Bond WJ, Bradstock RA (2011) Fire as an evolutionary pressure shaping plant traits. Trends Plant Sci 16:406–411.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2011.04.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Laughlin DC, Strahan RT, Moore MM, Fulé PZ, Huffman DW, Covington W (2017) The hierarchy of predictability in ecological restoration: are vegetation structure and functional diversity more predictable than community composition? J Appl Ecol 54:1058–1069.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12935 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lavorel S, Garnier E (2002) Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem functioning from plant traits: revisiting the Holy Grail. Funct Ecol 16:545–556. http://www.jstor.org/stable/826737
  19. Lawes MJ, Richards A, Dathe J, Midgley JJ (2011) Bark thickness determines fire resistance of selected tree species from fire-prone tropical savanna in north Australia. Plant Ecol 212:2057–2069.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-011-9954-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lawes MJ, Midgley JJ, Clarke PJ (2013) Costs and benefits of relative bark thickness in relation to fire damage: a savanna/forest contrast. J Ecol 101:517–524.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McCune B, Grace JB (2002) Analysis of ecological communities. MjM Software Design, Gleneden BeachGoogle Scholar
  22. Miles SR, Goudey CB (1997) Ecological subregions of California: section and subsection descriptions. USDA For Serv R5-EM-TP-005. Pacific Southwest Region, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  23. Miller M (2000) Fire autecology. In: Brown JK, Smith JK (eds) Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of eire on flora. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, pp 9–34Google Scholar
  24. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2011) Summary of Monthly Normals, 1981–2010. National Climatic Data Center. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/climate-normals/1981-2010-normals-data. Accessed 16 Dec 2015
  25. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), USDA (2015) Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed 16 Dec 2015
  26. Nemens D, Varner JM, Kidd KR, Wing B (2018) Do repeated wildfires promote restoration of oak woodlands in mixed-conifer landscapes? For Ecol Manag 427:143–151.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.05.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pate JS, Froend RH, Bowen BJ, Hansen A, Kuo J (1990) Seedling growth and storage characteristics of seeder and resprouter species of Mediterranean-type ecosystems of S.W. Australia. Ann Bot 65:585–601.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a087976 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pausas JG (2015) Bark thickness and fire regime. Funct Ecol 29:315–327.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12372 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Paysen RE, Narog MG, Tissell RG, Lardner MA (1991) Trunk and root sprouting on residual trees after thinning a Quercus chrysolepis stand. For Sci 37:17–27Google Scholar
  30. Rowe JS (1983) Concepts of fire effects on plant individuals and species. In: Wein RW, MacLean DA (eds) The role of fire in northern circumpolar ecosystems. Wiley, New York, pp 135–154Google Scholar
  31. Roy DF (1955) Hardwood sprout measurements in northwestern California. USDA Res. Note 95. California Forest and Range Experiment Station, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  32. Schafer JL, Breslow BP, Hohmann MG, Hoffmann WA (2015) Relative bark thickness is correlated with tree distributions along a fire frequency gradient. Fire Ecol 11:74–87.  https://doi.org/10.4996/fireecology.1101074 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schwilk DW, Gaetani MS, Poulos HM (2013) Oak bark allometry and fire survival strategies in the Chihuahuan Desert Sky Islands, Texas, USA. PLoS One 8:e79285.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079285 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shearman TM, Wang GG, Ma PT, Guan S (2018) Patterns of bark growth for juvenile trees of six common hardwood species in the eastern United States and the implications to fire-tolerance. Trees 32:519–524.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-017-1649-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shryock DF, DeFalco LA, Esque TC (2014) Life-history traits predict perennial species response to fire in a desert ecosystem. Ecol Evol 4:3046–3059.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1159 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Skinner CN, Taylor AH (2006) Southern Cascades bioregion. In: Sugihara NG, van Wagtendonk JW, Shaffer KE, Fites-Kaufman J, Thode AE (eds) Fire in California’s ecosystems. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 195–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Uhl C, Kauffman JB (1990) Deforestation, fire susceptibility, and potential tree responses to fire in the eastern Amazon. Ecology 71:437–449.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1940299 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. VanderWeide BL, Hartnett DC (2011) Fire resistance of tree species explains historical gallery forest community composition. For Ecol Manag 261:1530–1538.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.01.044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Varner JM, Kane JM, Hiers JK, Kreye JK, Veldman JW (2016) Suites of fire-adapted traits in the southeastern USA oaks: multiple strategies for persistence. Fire Ecol 12:48–64.  https://doi.org/10.4996/fireecology.1202048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Violle C, Navas M, Vile D, Kazakou E, Fortunel C, Hummel I, Garnier E (2007) Let the concept of trait be functional! Oikos 116:882–892.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2007.0030-1299.15559.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Whittaker RH (1960) Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California. Ecol Monogr 30:279–338.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1943563 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wirth C (2005) Fire regime and tree diversity in boreal forests: implications for the carbon cycle. In: Scherer-Lorenzen M, Körner Ch, Schulze ED (eds) Forest diversity and function: temperate and boreal systems, Ecological Studies, vol 176. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 309–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wolfe BT, Saldaña Diaz GE, Van Bloem SJ (2014) Fire resistance in a Caribbean dry forest: inferences from the allometry of bark thickness. J Trop Ecol 30:133–142.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467413000904 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arthur Temple College of Forestry and AgricultureStephen F. Austin State UniversityNacogdochesUSA
  2. 2.USDA Forest Service, Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences LaboratoryPacific Northwest Research StationSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations