Multiple diseases impact survival of pine species planted in red pine stands harvested in spatially variable retention patterns

Ostry, Michael E.; Moore, Melanie; Kern, Christel C.; Venette, Robert C.; Palik, Brian J.

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2012.08.017

Cited by 17 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Gall rust (likely caused by Cronartium quercuum f. sp. banksianae) was observed only in P. banksiana, and its incidence was significantly greater in the small gaps than the control (Ostry et al, 2012). In no cases were any significant differences in pathogen incidence found amongst the two gap sizes and the evenly-spaced retention systems.…”

Section: Tree Establishment Under Different Silvicultural Systemsmentioning

confidence: 76%

The Effect of Forest Management Options on Forest Resilience to Pathogens

Roberts

Gilligan

Kleczkowski

et al. 2020

Front. For. Glob. Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Invasive pathogens threaten the ability of forests globally to produce a range of valuable ecosystem services over time. However, the ability to detect such pathogen invasions-and thus to produce appropriate and timely management responses-is relatively low. We argue that a promising approach is to plan and manage forests in a way that increases their resilience to invasive pathogens not yet present or ubiquitous in the forest. This paper is based on a systematic search and critical review of empirical evidence of the effect of a wide range of forest management options on the primary and secondary infection rates of forest pathogens, and on subsequent forest recovery. Our goals are to inform forest management decision making to increase forest resilience, and to identify the most important evidence gaps for future research. The management options for which there is the strongest evidence that they increase forest resilience to pathogens are: reduced forest connectivity, removal or treatment of inoculum sources such as cut stumps, reduced tree density, removal of diseased trees and increased tree species diversity. In all cases the effect of these options on infection dynamics differs greatly amongst tree and pathogen species and between forest environments. However, the lack of consistent effects of silvicultural systems or of thinning, pruning or coppicing treatments is notable. There is also a lack of evidence of how the effects of treatments are influenced by the scale at which they are applied, e.g., the mixture of tree species. An overall conclusion is that forest managers often need to trade-off increased resilience to tree pathogens against other benefits obtained from forests.

show abstract

Section: Tree Establishment Under Different Silvicultural Systemsmentioning

confidence: 76%

The Effect of Forest Management Options on Forest Resilience to Pathogens

Roberts

Gilligan

Kleczkowski

et al. 2020

Front. For. Glob. Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to altered disturbance regimes, widespread establishment of fungal shoot 325 blight diseases (Diplodia pinea and Sirococcus conigenus) negatively impacts 326 regeneration in Pinus resinosa systems in the western Great Lakes region in planted and 327 naturally regenerated stands (Haugen and Ostry, 2013;Oblinger et al, 2013), including 328 our study site (Ostry et al, 2012). Other work has indicated that large gaps may decrease 329 infection by shoot blight diseases by removing the main inoculum source from directly 330 above or adjacent to seedlings (Albers, 2008); however, we found no evidence for such 331 an effect in the present study with P. resinosa densities in large gap-aggregated 332 treatments being similar to other retention patterns.…”

Section: Regeneration Response To Variable Retention Harvests 308mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of variable retention harvesting on natural tree regeneration in Pinus resinosa (red pine) forests

Roberts

D’Amato

Kern

et al. 2017

Forest Ecology and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This treatment is omitted from the current study because the residual basal area in this treatment was somewhat higher after harvest than treatments 2 and 3, which added another influencing variable beyond spatial pattern, making interpretation of response in the current study difficult. There is a growing portfolio of research from this experimental setting, including work on songbird communities (Atwell et al 2008), seedling disease and mortality (Ostry et al 2012), tree physiological processes (Powers et al 2008(Powers et al , 2009a(Powers et al , b, 2010(Powers et al , 2011, early survival and growth of seedlings in gaps (Peck et al 2012), individual seedling mortality and diameter and height growth (Montgomery et al 2013), and, importantly for our purpose, resource availability (Montgomery et al 2010, Boyden et al 2012.…”

Section: Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomass growth response to spatial pattern of variable‐retention harvesting in a northern Minnesota pine ecosystem

Palik

Montgomery

Boyden

2014

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Variable‐retention harvesting (VRH) is an approach for sustaining complex structure in managed forests. A criticism of VRH is that ecological benefits may come at a cost of reduced growth of regeneration, due to competition with residual trees. However, the spatial pattern of retention, i.e., dispersed or aggregated, in VRH systems can be manipulated to minimize suppression of regeneration, and resource limitation to regeneration might be mitigated by reduction of woody shrubs. Continued growth of the residual cohort will compensate for growth reduction of regeneration, although this may differ with retention pattern. We examined aboveground whole‐stand biomass growth of trees in a VRH experiment in Pinus resinosa forest in Minnesota, USA. Treatments included dispersed retention, aggregated retention, and an uncut control, as well as a shrub treatment (reduced density or ambient). We addressed the following hypotheses: (1) biomass growth of a cohort of planted pine seedlings will be highest with aggregated rather than dispersed retention, (2) biomass growth of the planted seedlings will increase with shrub reduction, and (3) biomass growth of the residual overstory will be higher with dispersed rather than aggregated retention. Aboveground biomass growth of the planted pines ranged from 0.4 kg·ha−1·yr−1 in the overstory‐control–ambient‐shrub treatment to 23 kg·ha−1·yr−1 in the aggregated‐retention–shrub‐reduction treatment. The difference between the control and the retention treatments was significant (P < 0.0001), but not between dispersed and aggregated retention (P = 0.97). Thus, our first hypothesis was not supported. In all treatments, biomass growth was significantly higher (>100% increase) with shrub reduction (P = 0.001), supporting our second hypothesis. Biomass growth of residual trees ranged from 2404 kg·ha−1·yr−1 in the uncut‐control–ambient‐shrub treatment to 1043 kg·ha−1·yr−1 in the aggregated‐retention–shrub‐reduction treatment. Differences were significant between the control and retention treatments (P = 0.003), and marginally higher with dispersed vs. aggregated retention (P = 0.09), lending support to our third hypothesis. Our results suggest that managers have flexibility in application of VRH and can expect similar stand‐level biomass growth of planted regeneration regardless of retention pattern, but somewhat higher stand‐level biomass growth of retained trees with dispersed retention.

show abstract

Multiple diseases impact survival of pine species planted in red pine stands harvested in spatially variable retention patterns

Cited by 17 publications

References 22 publications

The Effect of Forest Management Options on Forest Resilience to Pathogens

The Effect of Forest Management Options on Forest Resilience to Pathogens

Effects of variable retention harvesting on natural tree regeneration in Pinus resinosa (red pine) forests

Biomass growth response to spatial pattern of variable‐retention harvesting in a northern Minnesota pine ecosystem

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About