Impacts of Mountain Pine Beetle on Whitebark Pine in the Intermountain West

1. Kendra G. Schotzko & Stephen P. Cook19 September 2014 University of IdahoMoscow, Idaho Mountain Pine Beetle Impacts on Whitebark Pine: Mortality and Stand Dynamics in the Intermountain West

2. Whitebark Pine of the Intermountain West Primary Research Goals: • Determine extent and severity of mountain pine beetle impacts • Assess health and species composition of regeneration Secondary Research Goals & Complementary Objectives: • Insect assemblages • Risks and impacts of invasive species

3. Whitebark Pine of the Intermountain West Increasing whitebark pine mortality • Currently at risk • Mountain pine beetle • White pine blister rust • Forest succession

4. Insects and Disease Mountain Pine Beetle Dendroctonusponderosae • Native species, eruptive population cycles • Central British Columbia and eastern Alberta → California, Arizona, and New Mexico • All Pinus species within range White Pine Blister Rust Cronartiumribicola • Non-native species • N. Idaho by 1923  Erich G. Vallery, USDA Forest Service  http://www.nps.gov/

5. Research Justification • Aerial detection surveys • Estimate of current dead trees, not remaining live trees or regeneration • Link mortality estimates and remaining live trees

6. Primary Research Goals • Determine mountain pine beetle impacts on whitebark pine in intermountain west • Quantify dead and remaining live mature whitebark pine • Determining health of whitebark pine regeneration • Aid restoration of whitebark pine • Determining possible stand trajectory

7. Thirty-two sites within five National Forests

8. Quantify Dead & Remaining Live Mature Trees: Survey Methods • Mature Tree Assessment • Within areas of recent mountain pine beetle outbreak • Up to 10 plots per site • DBH > 5” • Data Collected • Tree characteristics • Species, diameter, and condition

9. Quantify Mature Trees:Kaniksu & Helena National Forests

10. Quantify Mature Trees: Salmon-Challis National Forest

11. Quantify Mature Trees: Sawtooth National Forest & Rec. Area

12. Quantify Mature Trees: Caribou-Targhee National Forest

13. Assess Regeneration:Survey Methods 6.8ft • Fixed Radius Plot • Fixed Area ‘Between’ Plot • Regeneration: • Diameter < 5” • Class 1 = Height less than 6” • Class 2 = Height between 6” and 4.5’ • Class 3 = Height greater than 4.5’ • Data Collected • Species , height class, rust occurrence 118.4 ft 6.6 ft

14. Regeneration: Kaniksu & Helena National Forests

15. Regeneration: Salmon-Challis National Forest

16. Regeneration: Sawtooth National Forest & Rec. Area

17. Regeneration: Caribou-Targhee National Forest

18. Mature Tree & Regeneration: Summary Dead and remaining live mature whitebark pine • Substantial mortality of mature whitebark pine in majority sites Health of whitebark pine regeneration • Blister rust detected in all geographic areas visited • Frequency variable

19. Mature Tree & Regeneration: Summary Dead and remaining live mature whitebark pine • Substantial mortality of mature whitebark pine in majority sites Health of whitebark pine regeneration • Blister rust detected in all geographic areas visited • Frequency variable Determining possible stand trajectory • Aid restoration of whitebark pine

20. Possible Stand Trajectory KaniksuNational Forest Mature Trees Regeneration

21. Possible Stand Trajectory Helena National Forest Mature Trees Regeneration

22. Possible Stand Trajectory Salmon-Challis National Forest Mature Trees Regeneration

23. Possible Stand Trajectory Sawtooth National Recreation Area Mature Trees Regeneration

24. Possible Stand Trajectory Caribou-Targhee National Forest Mature Trees Regeneration

25. Possible Stand Trajectory: Conclusions Variation across sites Minority of sites had greater number of regenerative whitebark pine compared to subalpine fir

26. Possible Stand Trajectory:Ecosystem Effects Could this impact insects assemblages? Secondary Research Objective • Sample insect assemblages

27. Secondary Research Goals:High Elevation Insect Assemblages • Aerial Flight Traps • Non-baited Yellow Japanese Beetle Traps • Three sites sampled in 2013, Salmon NF At each site: • Traps hung mid-canopy • 10 trap clusters • Each cluster included: • 1 whitebark pine • 1 subalpine fir • 1 lodgepole pine 90 traps total, active for 14 days

28. Possible Stand Trajectory:Ecosystem Effects Could this impact insects assemblages? Secondary Research Objective • Sample insect assemblages What effect could invasive species have on possible stand trajectories? Complementary Objective • Assess the risk • Assess impacts

29. Complementary Objective:Invasive Pest of Subalpine Fir “Establishing risk maps for balsam woolly adelgid, an invasive pest of true firs, under varying climate scenarios” Makar and Cook 2012 How high in elevation can the Balsam Woolly Adelgid migrate as temperature changes? • As winter temperatures increase: • Survive in a larger area and at higher elevation • Able to disperse anywhere in Idaho where true firs occur Makar and Cook 2012

30. Possible Stand Trajectory:Ecosystem Effects Could this impact insects assemblages? Secondary Research Objective • Sample insect assemblages What effect could invasive species have on possible stand trajectories? Complementary Objective • Assess the risk • Assess impacts

31. Complementary Objective:Impacts of Balsam Woolly Adelgid • Document balsam woolly adelgid (BWA) presence and impacts on true fir of the intermountain west • Impact of BWA on mature true firs • Mature trees and regeneration • Species abundance and composition • Assess impact of BWA • Determine possible stand trajectory

32. Whitebark Pine & High Elevation Ecosystems • What we’ve accomplished: • Assessed stand trajectories of high elevation ecosystems Mature Trees Regeneration

33. Whitebark Pine & High Elevation Ecosystems • What we’ve accomplished: • Assessed stand trajectories of high elevation ecosystems • What we’re doing: • Identifying patterns to help inform rehabilitation decisions • Determine possible shifts in high elevation insect assemblages associated with changing stand compositions • Using climate models to predict pest distributions of competing species • Assessing the risk BWA may pose to high elevation subalpine firs

34. Whitebark Pine & High Elevation Ecosystems • What we’ve accomplished: • Assessed stand trajectories of high elevation ecosystems • What we’re doing: • Identifying patterns to help inform rehabilitation decisions • Determine possible shifts in high elevation insect assemblages associated with changing stand compositions • Using climate models to predict pest distributions of competing species • Assessing the risk BWA may pose to high elevation subalpine firs • Future Questions: • How will climate change impact whitebark pine, mountain pine beetle, and white pine blister rust? • How will climate change effect species competing with whitebark pine, such as subalpine fir, and the insects and diseases of those competing species?

35. Acknowledgements Whitebark Pine USDA Forest Service, FHP, Evaluation Monitoring Program US Forest Service, Forest Health Protection Region 1: Sandy Kegley, John Schwandt, and Paul Zambino US Forest Service, Forest Health Protection Region 4: Carl Jørgensen, Laura Lazarus, Jim Hoffman, Phil Mocettini, Chad Nelson, Jeri Lyn Harris, and Dick Halsey Regional Forest Service offices: Deb Taylor, Lynn Bennett, James Hudson, Jim Robertson, and many others in the Idaho Panhandle NF, Helena NF, Salmon-Challis NF, SawtoothNF, Sawtooth NRA, and the Caribou-TargheeNF University of Idaho, Moscow ID: Laine Smith, Chelsea Walsh, Paul Rhoades, William Sweeney, Anna Giesmann, and Colleen Makar Subalpine Fir USDA Forest Service, FHP, Evaluation Monitoring Program: Rob Cruz US Forest Service, Forest Health Protection Region 1, 4, 6: Lee Pederson, Laura Lazarus, Phil Mocettini, Terri Johnson, and Darci Dickinson  University of Idaho, Moscow ID: Colleen Makar, Laine Smith, Xander Rose, Brita Olsen