Advertisement

Annals of Forest Science

, 76:78 | Cite as

Monitoring disturbance intervals in forests: a case study of increasing forest disturbance in Minnesota

  • David C. WilsonEmail author
  • Randall S. Morin
  • Lee E. Frelich
  • Alan R. Ek
Research Paper

Abstract

Key Message

We develop analytical methods and explore trends in disturbance interval via systematic forest inventory observations at a bioregional scale.

Context

Our study spans the dynamic ecotone at the intersection of southern boreal forest, mixed hardwood forest, and tall-grass prairie ecosystems in Minnesota, USA. Disturbance-related tree mortality is a major driver of demographic and successional change in this bioregion.

Aims

We aim to provide reliable disturbance estimates for forest ecology and economic research.

Methods

We develop methods applicable to any region with systematic forest inventory observations. We assess disturbances observed by the United States Department of Agriculture-Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis program on permanent sample plots in Minnesota, USA.

Results

A roughly 50% reduction in disturbance interval is apparent across all forest cover types and for most disturbance categories. The largest changes are for insect damage, disease, wind events, drought, and fire.

Conclusion

Publicly available forest inventory data captures the frequency of disturbance events across bioregional landscapes and over time. Our methods serve to highlight rapid changes in rates of damage to standing trees within the study area.

Keywords

Forest inventory Disturbance Rotation interval Field observation Trends Bioregional scale 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research has been supported by the University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources, the Interagency Information Cooperative through the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station FIA Unit. Special thanks to stackoverflow.com, crossvalidated.com and the R user community for excellent coding examples and support.

Contributions

Alan Ek provided the research direction and early interpretations of disturbance observations recorded by USDA-FIA. Alan’s participation in early discussions on how to use the FIA data for disturbance analysis was critical to sorting through the methodology involved. Alan also provided substantial review and critical expertise in honing the final manuscript.

Lee Frelich provided the disturbance analysis and forest ecology expertise to couch the current research in terms of past and ongoing efforts to assess return intervals for forest disturbance. Lee’s descriptions of the study area and the relevant disturbance ecology were also very helpful in outlining the natural history of the study area and relevance of the research.

Randall Morin provided the FIA insider view of the data collected, field procedures, and past analyses using FIA data for area estimation related to disturbance. Randall also participated in several rounds of review and contributed substantially to the final wordsmithing.

David Wilson is the lead author and performed all of the scripting and analysis presented in the current paper. David wrote early drafts, provided synthesis of multiple authors’ contributions, and developed the methodology and explanations presented herein.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aukema JE, McCullough DG, Von Holle B, Liebhold AM, Britton K, Frankel SJ (2010) Historical accumulation of nonindigenous forest pests in the continental United States. BioScience 60(11):886–897.  https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.11.5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayres MP, Lombardero MJ (2000) Assessing the consequences of global change for forest disturbance from herbivores and pathogens. Sci Total Environ 262(3):263–286, ISSN 0048-9697.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(00)00528-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bache SM, Wickham H (2014) magrittr: a forward-pipe operator for R. R package version 1.5. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package = magrittr
  4. Bechtold WA, Patterson PL [Editors] (2005) The enhanced forest inventory and analysis program - national sampling design and estimation procedures. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-80. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station 85 p.Google Scholar
  5. Bond WJ, Keeley JE (2005) Fire as a global ‘herbivore’: the ecology and evolution of flammable ecosystems. Trends Ecol Evol 20(7):387–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chakraborty S, Murray GM, Magarey PA, Yonow T, Sivasithamparam K, O'Brien RG, Croft BJ, Barbetti MJ, Old KM, Dudzinski MJ, Sutherst RW, Penrose LJ, Archer C, Emmett RW (1998) Potential impact of climate change on plant diseases of economic significance to Australia. Australas Plant Pathol 27:15.  https://doi.org/10.1071/AP98001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dale VH, Joyce LA, Mcnulty S, Neilson RP, Ayres MP, Flannigan MD, Hanson PJ, Irland LC, Lugo AE, Peterson CJ, Simberloff D, Swanson FJ, Stocks BJ, Wotton BM (2001) Climate Change and Forest Disturbances. BioScience 51(9):723–734.  https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0723:CCAFD]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frelich LE, Lorimer CG (1991) Natural disturbance regimes in hemlock-hardwood forests of the Upper Great Lakes Region. Ecol Monogr 61:145–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frelich LE, Reich PB (1995) Spatial patterns and succession in a Minnesota southern-boreal forest. Ecol Monogr 65:325–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frelich LE, Reich PB (2010) Will environmental changes reinforce the impact of global warming on the prairie-forest border of central North America? Front Ecol Environ 8:371–378.  https://doi.org/10.1890/080191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Friedman SK, Reich PB (2005) Regional legacies of logging: departure from presettlement forest conditions in northern Minnesota. Ecol Appl 15:726–744.  https://doi.org/10.1890/04-0748 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guyette R, Kabrick JM (2002) The legacy and continuity of forest disturbance, succession, and species at the MOFEP sites. In: Shifley, S. R.; Kabrick, J. M., eds. Proceedings of the Second Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project Symposium: Post-treatment Results of the Landscape Experiment. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-227. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 26-44.Google Scholar
  13. Heinselman ML (1973) Fire in the virgin forests of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, Minnesota. Quat Res 3(3):329–382.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0033-5894(73)90003-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heinselman ML (1996) The boundary waters wilderness ecosystem. Regents of the University of Minnesota. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis and LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Henry L, Wickham H (2017) purrr: functional programming tools. R package version 0.2.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=purrr
  16. Jaakko Pöyry Consulting, Inc. (1992) Maintaining productivity and the forest resource base. A technical paper for a generic environmental impact statement on timber harvesting and forest management in Minnesota. Prepared for the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. 305 p. plus appendices. http://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/169578. (See Section 2.3.8 and Table 2.24)
  17. Lesk C, Coffel E, D’Amato AW, Dodds K, Horton R (2017) Threats to North American forest: effects of species, diameter and stand age. J Ecol 95:1261–1273Google Scholar
  18. Matasci G, Hermosilla T, Wulder M, White JC, Coops NC, Hobart GW, Zald HSJ (2018) Large-area mapping of Canadian boreal forest cover, height, biomass and other structural attributes using Landsat composites and lidar plots. Remote Sens Environ 209:90–106.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.02.046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miles PD (2017) Forest Inventory EVALIDator web-application Version 1.6.0.03. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. [Available only on internet: http://apps.fs.fed.us/Evalidator/evalidator.jsp]
  20. Müller K, Wickham H (2017) tibble: simple data frames. R package version 1.3.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tibble.
  21. O’Connell BM; Conkling BL; Wilson AM; Burrill EA; Turner JA; Pugh SA; Christensen G; Ridley T; Menlove J (2017) The forest inventory and analysis database: database description and user guide for Phase 2 (version 7.0). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 830 p. [Online]. Available: https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/database-documentation/.
  22. Pickett STA, White PS (eds) (1985) The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics. Academic, New York, p 472Google Scholar
  23. Porter JH, Parry ML, Carter TR (1991) The potential effects of climatic change on agricultural insect pests, In Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, Volume 57. Issues 1–3:221–240, ISSN 0168-1923.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1923(91)90088-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. R Core Team (2018) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.
  25. Reilly MJ, Spies TA (2016) Disturbance, tree mortality, and implications for contemporary regional forest change in the Pacific Northwest, Forest Ecology and Management, Volume 374. Pages 15:102–110, ISSN 0378-1127.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rich RL, Frelich LE, Reich PB (2007) Wind-throw mortality in the southern boreal forests from southern pine beetle with warming winters. Nat Clim Chang 7:713–717. https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3303.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3303 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rogers P (1996) Disturbance ecology and forest management: a review of the literature. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-336. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 16 p.Google Scholar
  28. RStudio Team (2016) RStudio: integrated development for R. RStudio, Inc., Boston, MA URL http://www.rstudio.com/.
  29. Runkle JR (1982) Patterns of disturbance in some old-growth mesic forests of eastern North America. Ecology 63:1533–1546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Seidl R, Spies TA, Peterson DL, Stephens SL, Hicke JA (2016) Searching for resilience: addressing the impacts of changing disturbance regimes on forest ecosystem services. J Appl Ecol 53(1):120–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Seidl et al (2017) Forest disturbances under climate change. Nat Clim Chang 7:395–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Seymour RS, White AS, deMaynadier PG (2002) Natural disturbance regimes in northeastern North America – evaluating silvicultural systems using natural scales and frequencies. For Ecol Manag 155:357–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Swift K, Ran S (2012) Successional responses to natural disturbance, forest management and climate change in British Columbia forests. J Ecosyst Man 13(1):40–62Google Scholar
  34. Thom D, Seidl R (2016) Natural disturbance impacts on ecosystem services and biodiversity in temperate and boreal forests. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 91(3):760–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. USDA Forest Service (2001) Final environmental impact statement boundary waters canoe area wilderness fuel treatment. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Superior National Forest, Eastern Region. Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Volume 1. May, 2001.Google Scholar
  36. Virtanen T, Neuvonen S (1999) Climate change and macrolepidopteran biodiversity in Finland. Chemosphere Global Change Sci 1(4):439–448, ISSN 1465-9972.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1465-9972(99)00039-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vogeler JC, Braaten J, Slesak R, Falkowski MJ (2018) Extracting the full value of the Landsat archive: inter-sensor harmonization for the mapping of Minnesota’s forest canopy cover (1973-2015). Remote Sens Environ 209:363–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Welch BL (1951) On the comparison of several mean values: an alternative approach. Biometrika 38:330–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. White JC, Wulder MA, Hermosilla T, Coops NC, Hobart GW (2017) A nationwide annual characterization of 25 years of forest disturbance and recovery for Canada using Landsat time series. Remote Sens Environ 194:303–321.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.03.035
  40. Wickham H (2009) ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Wickham H (2017a) tidyr: easily tidy data with ‘spread()’ and ‘gather()’ functions. R package version 0.6.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tidyr.
  42. Wickham H (2017b) tidyverse: easily install and load ‘Tidyverse’ packages. R package version 1.1.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tidyverse
  43. Wickham H, Hester J, Francois R (2017a) readr: read rectangular text data. R package version 1.1.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=readr.
  44. Wickham H, Francois R, Henry L, Müller K (2017b) dplyr: a grammar of data manipulation. R package version 0.7.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr.
  45. Wilson DC, Ek AR (2018) Evidence of rapid forest change in Minnesota. Minnesota Forestry Research Notes. Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, 55108.Google Scholar
  46. Xie Y (2014) knitr: a comprehensive tool for reproducible research in R. In Victoria Stodden, Friedrich Leisch and Roger D. Peng, editors, Implementing reproducible computational research. Chapman and Hall/CRC. ISBN 978-1466561595Google Scholar
  47. Xie Y (2015) Dynamic documents with R and knitr. 2nd edition. Chapman and Hall/CRC. ISBN 978-1498716963.Google Scholar
  48. Xie Y (2018) knitr: a general-purpose package for dynamic report generation in R. R package version 1.20.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest ResourcesUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis UnitUSDANewtown SquareUSA

Personalised recommendations