1 / 27

January 19, 2011 Regional Prescribed Fire Workshop, USFS

Mountain Pine Beetle-Fire interactions in lodgepole pine forests Introduction to a session presenting recent work in Colorado, Wyoming, and Canada Jenny Briggs Research Ecologist Rocky Mountain Geographic Science Center, US Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado.

davin
Download Presentation

January 19, 2011 Regional Prescribed Fire Workshop, USFS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Mountain Pine Beetle-Fire interactions in lodgepole pine forestsIntroduction to a session presenting recent work in Colorado, Wyoming, and CanadaJenny BriggsResearch EcologistRocky Mountain Geographic Science Center, US Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado January 19, 2011 Regional Prescribed Fire Workshop, USFS

  2. Overview – 4 approaches (Jenny) • a. Observations • b. Experiments • c. Retrospective studies • d. Prospective studies - modeling • 2. MPB and fire: The BC experience (Dana Hicks) • – Approaches a, b • Additional perspectives & results from Canada (Brad Hawkes) • – Approaches a, b • Wildfire and bark beetle outbreak impacts in US lodgepole pine forests -including the post-fire picture(Dan Tinker) – Approaches c, d 5. Q and A – Discussion

  3. Our “burning question”: How will Mountain Pine Beetle infestation impact fire behavior and effects in lodgepole pine forests? Three Lakes area, Grand County, CO 2008 Jenny Briggs

  4. Typically moist climate – persistent winter snowpack, summer thunderstorms • Sparse understory, compact litter • Abundant down woody debris (DWD) and ladder fuels • Tightly compacted crowns • Many serotinous (heat-opening) cones  Weather, not fuels = typical driver of fire in these forests “Normal” lodgepole forests: the poster child for infrequent, high severity fire regimes Laurie Huckaby Credit: Paula Fornwalt, USFS-RMRS. From: Romme et al. 2003. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-114; Schoennagel et al. 2004. Bioscience 54: 661-676.

  5. Impacts of Mountain Pine Beetle

  6. Insect-caused tree mortality in CO - Aerial Detection Surveys, USFS/CSFS

  7. ~ 3 million acres affected in CO and southern WY by MPB to date Jenny Briggs

  8. MPB primarily affects 1 fire variable: FUEL • Where (distribution) • Surface: DWD, understory • Ladder • Overstory/Canopy Alters: canopy base ht, canopy bulk density, canopy closure Other fuel variables: • How much (loading) • How big (diameter size class) • How flammable (moisture content) •  All measurements, plus weather = inputs to FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELS

  9. Trees at different times since MPB attack Fader Early summer Green healthy tree TIME Before MPB attack Green-attack stage Between attack and next spring Red-attack stage 1 to 3 years after attack Grey-attack stage 3 to 5 years after attack Credit: J. Hicke and A. Meddens, U. Idaho

  10. Ways scientists can study MPB-fire interactions Direct observations - More from Dana Hicks, Brad Hawkes b. Experiments (e.g. prescribed burns) - More from Dana Hicks, Brad Hawkes c. Retrospective studies of correlations - More from Dan Tinker d. Prospective studies using modeling - Based on measurements or predictions of changes in input variables, e.g. fuels - More from Dan Tinker

  11. a. Direct observations: Fire in MPB-affected lodgepole forest, CO YMCA Camp fire, Grand Co., June 07 (~50 acres)

  12. Fire in MPB-affected lodgepole forest, CO Church Park Fire, Grand Co., October 2010 (~300 acres)

  13. b. Experiments • Some prescribed burning in MPB-affected forests in Canada • Challenging to implement/control/replicate! • Not yet published • Parks Canada (Kubian, Gray et al), BCFS (Dana Hicks et al), Natural Resources Canada (Brad Hawkes et al) – later talks! • Crown flammability study, Spring 2009: Rocky Mountain National Park and CSU (Drs. Romme & Rocca) • Small scale (<20 trees) • Winter conditions: low-risk

  14. ROMO Crown Flammability Study: lit ~ 3 trees in each of 4 different post-MPB stages 1.5 yr post attack Fader Early summer Green healthy tree TIME Before MPB attack Green-attack stage Between attack and next spring Red-attack stage 1 to 3 years after attack Grey-attack stage 3 to 5 years after attack 2.5 yr post attack

  15. Results: VIDEO: Torching only in crowns of “freshly” red trees, 1.5 yrs post-attack Photos/video: Nathan Williamson, ROMO Fire Ecologist

  16. c. Retrospective studies • Analyze overlaps between previous fires and MPB-affected areas • Often use ADS surveys, maps, dendrochronologic records (tree ring histories), GIS • MORE INFORMATION in Dan Tinker’s talk!

  17. d. Prospective studies: Measuring and modeling • Measure the fuels changes in MPB-affected forest plots • Input the new fuels data into physics-based models of fire behavior (e.g. in US – NeXus, Flammap, Farsite, FVS-FFE) • Run simulations with predicted weather to predict fires! • Relevant studies • Page W and M Jenkins, 2007a,b. Forest Science • Klutsch J et al. 2009. Forest Ecology and Management, 2010 Western Journal Applied Forestry (submitted) • Simard M et al., 2011. Ecol. Monographs • MORE INFORMATION in Dan Tinker’s talk!

  18. 2 studies: Klutsch et al. 2009, 2010 1 yr 2 yr 5 yr Measured stand/tree characteristics and fuels Predicted future fuel loads with 10% & 80% falling of infested trees Modeled fire behavior in FVS-FFE for all these current/future conditions • 221 plots in Grand County, CO • 2006 and 2007: 7 yrs after outbreak began • unaffected • recent (0-3 years since trees infested) • older (4-7 years since trees infested) Jen Klutsch, USFS-RMRS

  19. Klutsch et al. Results – fire type 70 60 50 40 % of plots 30 20 10 0 uninfested 0-7 years after 10% infested 80% infested outbreak tree fall tree fall initiation Chi-square = 79.5, df=9, p-value<0.0001 • more active crown fire modeled for uninfested plots Jen Klutsch, USFS-RMRS

  20. Some conclusions from US work to date • Little info from few wildfires/prescribed burns in MPB-affected forests so far • MPB alters fuels, but changes are patchy/variable within stands • Less active crown fire MODELED in infested plots- due to opened canopies? • Higher levels of passive (torching) fire MODELED - due to more surface/ladder fuels? • Weather may remain primary driver of fire in MPB forests Jenny Briggs • Existing US fire behavior models don’t • allow us to represent post-MPB conditions fully

  21. Limitations of these scientific approaches a. Direct observations - Wildland fires = unpredictable, rare events; all different! b. Experiments - either difficult to implement safely, or small in scale/limited in realism c. Retrospective studies - Can’t standardize weather, fire behavior, etc - Spatial accuracy issues with historic maps/records d. Modeling - Current models/equations don’t accurately represent post-MPB fuels - Regeneration, succession, dead dry canopy fuels not included John Popp

  22. Summary points • Tools and opportunities to study these complex natural and anthropogenic disturbances are limited. • Ecology has little in common with lab-based science where variables can be controlled and cause-and-effect relationships identified. • Fire scientists cannot do “fool-proof” studies to clearly answer “Will MPB change fire behavior and effects?” • Input from fire crews and fire managers will be key to help build information and predictions

  23. …More soon from our Canadian colleagues…Questions & comments welcome! Acknowledgments: Paula Fornwalt and Jen Klutsch, USFS-RMRS

More Related