Advertisement

Analyzing the impacts of forest disturbance on individual tree diameter increment across the US Lake States

  • Macklin J. Glasby
  • Matthew B. RussellEmail author
  • Grant M. Domke
Article
  • 38 Downloads

Abstract

Disturbances play a critical role in forest ecosystem dynamics. Disturbances cause changes in forest structure which in turn influence the species composition of the site and alter landscape patterns over time. The impacts of disturbance are seen over a broad spectrum of spatial scales and varying intensities, ranging from biotic agents such as insect and leaf disease outbreaks to abiotic agents such as a windstorm (a stand-replacing disturbance). This study utilized Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data collected between 1999 and 2014 in the US Lake States (Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin) to examine the impacts that disturbances have on the growth of residual trees using species-specific diameter increment equations. Results showed that animal and weather damage were the most common disturbance agents and fires were the least common in the region. Results also indicated that while the diameter increment equations performed well on average (overprediction of 0.08 ± 1.98 cm/10 years in non-disturbed stands), when the data were analyzed by species and disturbance agent, the model equation was rarely validated using equivalence tests (underprediction of 0.30 ± 2.24 cm/10 years in non-disturbed stands). This study highlights the importance of monitoring forest disturbances for their impacts on forest growth and yield.

Keywords

Tree growth Growth and yield Validation Forest Inventory and Analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Ram Deo, Chad Keyser, Jacob Muller, and two anonymous reviewers for their comments that improved this manuscript.

Funding information

This work was supported by the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station (project 42-063).

References

  1. Baker, W. L. (1995). Longterm response of disturbance landscapes to human intervention and global change. Landscape Ecology, 10, 143–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bechtold, W. A., & Patterson, P. L. (2005). The enhanced forest inventory and analysis program, General Technical Report SRS-80. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station.Google Scholar
  3. Brand, G. J., Nelson, M. D., Wendt, D. G., & Nimerfro, K. K. (2000). The hexagon/panel system for selecting FIA plots under an annual inventory. In R. E. McRoberts, G. A. Reams, & P. C. Van Deusen, (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Annual Forest Inventory and Analysis Symposium. General Technical Report NC-213. (pp. 8–13). St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station.Google Scholar
  4. Bruce, D. (1977). Yield differences between research plots and managed forests. Journal of Forestry, 75(1), 14–17.Google Scholar
  5. Canavan, S. J., & Ramm, C. W. (2000). Accuracy and precision of 10 year predictions for Forest Vegetation Simulator-Lake States. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 17, 62–70.Google Scholar
  6. Chen, C., Weiskittel, A., Bataineh, M., & MacLean, D. A. (2017). Evaluating the influence of varying levels of spruce budworm defoliation on annualized individual tree growth and mortality in Maine, USA and New Brunswick, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management, 396, 184–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cornett, M. W., Frelich, L. E., Puettmann, K. J., & Reich, P. B. (2000). Conservation implications of browsing by Odocoileus virginianus in remnant upland Thuja occidentalis forests. Biological Conservation, 93, 359–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crocker, S. J., Liknes, G. C., McKee, F. R., Albers, J. S., & Aukema, B. H. (2016). Stand-level factors associated with resurging mortality from eastern larch beetle (Dendroctonus simplex LeConte). Forest Ecology and Management, 375, 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crookston, N. L., & Dixon, G. E. (2005). The Forest Vegetation Simulator: a review of its applications, structure, and content. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 49(1), 60–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crookston, N. L., Colbert, J. J., Thomas, P. W., Sheehan, K. A. & Kemp, W. P. (1990). User's guide to the western spruce budworm modeling system. General Technical Report INT-274. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.Google Scholar
  11. Crookston, N. L., Rehfeldt, G. E., Dixon, G. E., & Weiskittel, A. R. (2010). Addressing climate change in the forest vegetation simulator to assess impacts on landscape forest dynamics. Forest Ecology and Management, 260(7), 1198–1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dale, V. H., Joyce, L. A., McNulty, S., Neilson, R. P., Ayres, M. P., Flannigan, M. D., et al. (2001). Climate change and forest disturbances. BioScience, 51(9), 723–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deo, R. K., & Froese, R. E. (2013). Refitting the large-tree diameter growth equations of the Lake States and Central States variants of the Forest Vegetation Simulator. School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science, Michigan Technological University. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328974689_Refitting_the_Large-Tree_Diameter_Growth_Equations_of_the_Lake_States_and_Central_States_Variants_of_the_Forest_Vegetation_Simulator/stats. Accessed 18 Nov 2018.
  14. Dixon, G. E., & Keyser, C. E. (2008). Lake States (LS) variant overview-Forest Vegetation Simulator. Revised October, 2017. Internal Report. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Management Service Center.Google Scholar
  15. Fox, J. C., Ades, P. K., & Bi, H. (2001). Stochastic structure and individual-tree growth models. Forest Ecology and Management, 154, 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frelich, L. E., & Lorimer, C. G. (1991). Natural disturbance regimes in hemlock-hardwood forests of the upper Great Lakes region. Ecological Monographs, 61, 145–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. García, O. (2006). Scale and spatial structure effects on tree size distributions: implications for growth and yield modelling. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 36, 2983–2993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gertner, G. Z., & Dzialowy, P. J. (1984). Effects of measurement errors on an individual tree based growth projection system. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 14, 311–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Henning, J. G., & Burk, T. E. (2004). Improving growth and yield estimates with a process model derived growth index. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 34, 1274–1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnsen, K., Samuelson, L., Teskey, R., Mcnulty, S., & Fox, T. (2001). Process models as tools in forestry research and management. Forest Science, 47(1), 2–8.Google Scholar
  21. Lacerte, V., Larocque, G. R., Woods, M., Parton, W. J., & Penner, M. (2006). Calibration of the forest vegetation simulator (FVS) model for the main forest species of Ontario, Canada. Ecological Modelling, 199(3), 336–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lessard, V. C., McRoberts, R. E., & Holdaway, M. R. (2001). Diameter growth models using Minnesota forest inventory and analysis data. Forest Science, 47, 301–310.Google Scholar
  23. Marsden, M. A., Eav, B. B., & Thompson, M. K. 1993. User's guide to the Douglas-fir Beetle Impact Model. General Technical Report RM-250. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.Google Scholar
  24. Munro D. D. (1974). Forest growth models—a prognosis. In: Growth models for tree and stand simulation. Research Note Number 30. Stockholm, Sweden. Swedish Royal College of Forestry.Google Scholar
  25. Parkhurst, D. F. (2001). Statistical significance tests: equivalence and reverse tests should reduce misinterpretation. Bioscience, 51, 1051e7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Payandeh, B., & Papadopol, P. (1994). Partial calibration of ‘ONTWIGS’: a forest growth and yield projection system adapted for Ontario. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 11, 41–46.Google Scholar
  27. Pokharel, B., & Froese, R. E. (2008). Evaluating alternative implementations of the Lake States FVS diameter increment model. Forest Ecology and Management, 255, 1759–1771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pretzsch, H. (2005). Diversity and productivity of forests: evidence from long term experimental plots. In M. Scherer-Lorenzen, C. Körner, & E.-D. Schulze (Eds.), Forest diversity and function: temperate and boreal systems (pp. 41–64).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Raymond, C. L., Healey, S., Peduzzi, A., & Patterson, P. (2015). Representative regional models of post-disturbance forest carbon accumulation: integrating inventory data and a growth and yield model. Forest Ecology and Management, 336, 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reyer, C. P. O., Bathgate, S., Blennow, K., Borges, J. G., Bugmann, H., Delzon, S., Faias, S. P., Garcia-Gonzalo, J., Gardiner, B., Gonzalez-Olabarria, J. R., Gracia, C., Hernández, J. G., Kellomäki, S., Kramer, K., Lexer, M. J., Lindner, M., van der Maaten, E., Maroschek, M., Muys, B., Nicoll, B., Palahi, M., Palma, J. H. N., Paulo, J. A., Peltola, H., Pukkala, T., Rammer, W., Ray, D., Sabaté, S., Schelhaas, M. J., Seidl, R., Temperli, C., Tomé, M., Yousefpour, R., Zimmermann, N. E., & Hanewinkel, M. (2017). Are forest disturbances amplifying or canceling out climate change-induced productivity changes in European forests? Environmental Research Letters, 12(3), 34027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Robinson, A. (2016). equivalence: provides tests and graphics for assessing tests of equivalence. R package version 0.7.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=equivalence. Accessed 18 Nov 2018.
  32. Robinson, A. P., & Froese, R. E. (2004). Model validation using equivalence tests. Ecological Modelling, 176(3–4), 349–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Runkle, J. R. (1982). Patterns of disturbance in some old-growth mesic forests of eastern North America. Ecology, 63, 1533–1546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Russell, M. B., D'Amato, A. W., Albers, M. A., Woodall, C. W., Puettmann, K. J., Saunders, M. R., & VanderSchaaf, C. L. (2015). Performance of the Forest Vegetation Simulator in managed white spruce plantations influenced by eastern spruce budworm in northern Minnesota. Forest Science, 61, 723–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Russell, M. B., Patton, S. R., Wilson, D. C., Domke, G. M., & Frerker, K. L. (2018). Impacts of alternative harvesting and natural disturbance scenarios on forest biomass in the Superior National Forest, USA. Forests, 9(8), 491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Seidl, R., Schelhaas, M.-J., Rammer, W., & Verkerk, P. J. (2014). Increasing forest disturbances in Europe and their impact on carbon storage. Nature Climate Change, 4, 806–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Trasobares, A., Zingg, A., Walthert, L., & Bigler, C. (2016). A climate-sensitive empirical growth and yield model for forest management planning of even-aged beech stands. European Journal of Forest Research, 135, 263–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. US Forest Service. (2014). The Forest Inventory and Analysis database: database description and user guide version 6.0 for phase 2. Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  39. Waring, K. M., & O’Hara, K. L. (2005). Silvicultural strategies in forest ecosystems affected by introduced pests. Forest Ecology and Management, 209, 27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wellek, S. (2003). Testing statistical hypotheses of equivalence. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  41. Woods, A., & Coates, K. D. (2013). Are biotic disturbance agents challenging basic tenets of growth and yield and sustainable forest management? Forestry, 86(5), 543–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest ResourcesUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA
  2. 2.Department of Forest ResourcesUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA
  3. 3.USDA Forest ServiceNorthern Research StationSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations