1 / 45

Modeling bark beetle effects in a fireshed assessment

Modeling bark beetle effects in a fireshed assessment. An application of the Westwide Pine Beetle Model & the FFE in the Deschutes National Forest. Andrew McMahan 1 Alan Ager 2 , Helen Maffei 3 , Eric L Smith 4. 1 Systems Analyst, ITX, Inc., Ft. Collins

leland
Download Presentation

Modeling bark beetle effects in a fireshed assessment

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. Modeling bark beetle effects in a fireshed assessment An application of the Westwide Pine Beetle Model & the FFE in the Deschutes National Forest Andrew McMahan1 Alan Ager2, Helen Maffei3, Eric L Smith4 1 Systems Analyst, ITX, Inc., Ft. Collins 2 Operations Research Analyst, PNW Research Station 3 Forest Pathologist, Deschutes National Forest, Bend 4 Program Manager, Quantitative Analysis, FHTET, Ft Collins

  2. Primary Objective • Simulate effects of bark beetles on stands in context of landscape-scale fuel mgmt and wildlife habitat mgmt projects • How might beetle dynamics respond to fuel treatments? • How might beetle dynamics affect fuel dynamics (spatially and temporally)?

  3. Secondary Objectives • Simulate beetle “sanitation” concurrent with simulated thinning treatments • Consider dwarf mistletoe effects on beetle dynamics (partially done) • Consider fire effects on bark beetle dynamics (not done) • simulate effects of live, fire-scorched trees on stand attractiveness to beetles

  4. Scenario design • With & without thinning treatment • With & without beetles • NoTRT-b • NoTRT+B • TRT-b • TRT+B • Treatments include WWPBM “sanitation” • Sanitation removes dead, beetle-infested trees and their beetles • Treatments are SDI-based thins from below (thinning by point)

  5. Simulation Details • SDIMAX for pines set to 429 (Cochran) • If BSDI > 236 (55% of 429), and year=2003, then... • SetPThin to target SDI=150 (from below) • Favor retention of pines and DF • Run PPE for 7 3-yr cycles (2000-2021)

  6. WWPB Model details • Beetles (BKP) initialized into stands containing “significant” amounts of host in an amount = 1% of host BA • “Severe” bark beetle outbreak initiated in simulation year=2005 for 5 years

  7. Five Buttes Analysis Area Deschutes National Forest Oregon

  8. Davis Fire (2003)

  9. Mixed Conifer PAGs

  10. Average stand Basal Area (sq ft / acre) Green= No Beetles Red= with beetles Dashed= treated

  11. Basal area beetle-killed (BAK; sq ft / acre) in Mixed Conifer (MC) PAG and “Other” PAGs

  12. Basal area beetle-killed (BAK) No Treatment (NoTRT) scenario Mixed Conifer (MC) and “other” PAGs

  13. Basal area beetle-killed (BAK) Thinned (TRT) scenario Mixed Conifer (MC) and “other” PAGs

  14. Basal area beetle-killed (BAK) Mixed Conifer (MC) PAG Both TRT & NoTRT scenarios

  15. Basal area beetle-killed (BAK) “Other” PAGs Both TRT & NoTRT scenarios

  16. Orange: experience greater simulated beetle mortality after TRT Greens & blue: “protected”

  17. Potential Volume Mortality (Severe Fire) (Millions of Cu Ft)

  18. Acres Active Crown Fire Potential

  19. Polygons with Active Crown Fire Potential in 2020 Landscapes Without Treatments Without Beetles (ORANGE) on top of With Beetles (RED) Red: stands classed as “Active” Crown Fire if beetle outbreak

  20. Polygons with Active Crown Fire Potential in 2020 Landscapes With Treatments Without Beetles (ORANGE) on top of With Beetles (RED) Red: stands classed as “Active” Crown Fire if beetle outbreak

  21. Surface Fuels 2020 Thinned landscape No Beetles

  22. Surface Fuels 2020 Thinned landscape With Beetles

  23. Treated Landscape 2018 Orange  Blue: Increase in surface fuels due to beetles

  24. Untreated Landscape 2018 Orange  Blue: Increase in surface fuels due to beetles

  25. Untreated Landscape 2018 Orange  Blue: Decrease in standing fuels due to beetles

  26. Treated Landscape 2018 Orange  Blue: Decrease in standing fuels due to beetles

  27. Treatment Effect Beetle Effects

  28. Growth Effects Beetle Effects

  29. Discussion: BKP migration • Simulated beetles efficiently find remaining host • How realistically does the WWPBM simulate beetle migration? • Should in-flight beetle mortality algorithms be adjusted to account for distance traveled?

  30. Orange: experience greater simulated beetle mortality after TRT Greens & blue: “protected”

  31. Discussion: SDIMAX • Although FVS users may explicitly enter site-specific SDIMAX values, they can be overwritten by FVS when input treelists “disagree” • Should FVS handle SDIMAX readjustments differently? How?

  32. Summary • WWPB Model can be used in landscape analyses to simulate effects of beetles on landscape fuel dynamics • WWPB Model is sensitive to changes in host availability • ArcFuels—w/ FVS-DB—streamlines landscape-scale FVS simulation-building • ArcFuels—w/ FVS-DB—simplifies mapping FVS output data

  33. Acknowledgements Western Wildland Threat Assessment Center Prineville Jim Stone Dana Simon Lance David, ITX, Inc (FHTET) Gary Dixon, FMSC Frank Krist, FHTET Vern Thomas, ITX, Inc. (FHTET)

  34. END

  35. In all cases BAHost must be > 50 AND BA total > 100 sq ft Case 1: all stands that are MIXED CONIFER ("MC"), and meet above criteria Case 2: For those that are NOT classed as mixed conifer, they must either: a) have > 100 tpa LPP > 9"dbh, OR b) have > 50% host AND >50% of the host must be PP

More Related