Journal of Forest and Environmental Science

Institute of Forest Science, kangwon National University (강원대학교 산림과학연구소)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effects of Thinning and Climate on Stem Radial Fluctuations of Pinus ponderosa and Pinus lambertiana in the Sierra Nevada

  • Andrew Hirsch (Division of Forestry and Natural Resources, West Virginia University) ;
  • Sophan Chhin (Division of Forestry and Natural Resources, West Virginia University) ;
  • Jianwei Zhang (United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station) ;
  • Michael Premer (School of Forest Resources, University of Maine)
  • Received : 2023.01.14
  • Accepted : 2023.05.24
  • Published : 2023.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Due to the multiple ecosystem benefits that iconic large, old growth trees provide, forest managers are applying thinning treatments around these legacy trees to improve their vigor and reduce mortality, especially in the face of climate change and other forest health threats. One objectives of this study was to analyze sub-hourly stem fluctuations of legacy ponderosa (Pinus ponderosa Dougl. Ex P. & C. Laws) and sugar pines (Pinus lambertiana Dougl.) in the mixed-conifer forests of the Sierra Nevada in multiple different radius thinning treatments to assess the short-term effects of these treatments. Thinning treatments applied were: R30C0 (9.1 m radius), R30C2 (9.1 m radius leaving 2 competitors), and RD1.2 (radius equaling DBH multiplied by 1 ft/in multiplied by 1.25). The other objective was to assess climatic drivers of hourly stem fluctuations. Using the dendrometeR package, we gathered daily statistics (i.e. daily amplitude) of the stem fluctuations, as well as stem cycle statistics such as duration and magnitude of contraction, expansion, and stem radial increment. We then performed correlation analyses to assess the climatic drivers of stem fluctuations and to determine which radial thinning treatment was most effective at improving growth. We found an important role that mean solar radiation, air temperature, and relative humidity play in stem variations of both species. One of the main findings from a management perspective was that the RD1.2 treatment group allowed both species to contract less on warmer and higher solar radiation days. Furthermore, sugar pine put on more stem radial increment on higher solar radiation days. These findings suggest that the extended radius RD1.2 thinning treatment may be the most effective at releasing legacy sugar and ponderosa pine trees compared to the other forest management treatments applied.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

We thank C. Johnson, I. Allen for providing assistance in field sampling. J. Zarlengo, L. Corral, E. Elliot, and H. Van Gieson from the Lassen National Forest, Almanor Ranger District and K. Finley from Pacific Southwest Research Station at Redding provided logistical support. We appreciate the feedback from Dr. J. Schuler on a prior version of the manuscript. This work was funded via a grant from the U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station (Joint Venture Agreements #14-JV11272139-016 and 19-JV-11272139-021). This work was also supported by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), McIntire Stennis Project #1017946, to S. Chhin.

References

  1. Bailey RG. 2004. Identifying ecoregion boundaries. Environ. Manag. 34: S14-S26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-0163-6
  2. Barringer BC, Koenig WD, Knops JM. 2013. Interrelationships among life-history traits in three California oaks. Oecologia 171: 129-139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-012-2386-9
  3. Bentz BJ, Regniere J, Fettig CJ, Hansen EM, Hayes JL, Hicke JA, Kelsey RG, Negron JF, Seybold SJ. 2010. Climate change and bark beetles of the western United States and Canada: direct and indirect effects. Bioscience 60: 602-613. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.8.6
  4. Bigelow SW, Papaik MJ, Caum C, North MP. 2014. Faster growth in warmer winters for large trees in a Mediterranean-climate ecosystem. Clim Change 123: 215-224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1060-0
  5. Biondi F, Rossi S. 2015. Plant-water relationships in the Great Basin Desert of North America derived from Pinus monophylla hourly dendrometer records. Int J Biometeorol 59: 939-953. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-014-0907-4
  6. Bradford JB, Bell DM. 2017. A window of opportunity for climate-change adaptation: easing tree mortality by reducing forest basal area. Front Ecol Environ 15: 11-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1445
  7. Chhin S, Hogg EH, Lieffers VJ, Huang S. 2010. Growth-climate relationships vary with height along the stem in lodgepole pine. Tree Physiol 30: 335-345. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpp120
  8. Deslauriers A, Anfodillo T, Rossi S, Carraro V. 2007. Using simple causal modeling to understand how water and temperature affect daily stem radial variation in trees. Tree Physiol 27: 1125-1136. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/27.8.1125
  9. Deslauriers A, Morin H, Urbinati C, Carrer M. 2003. Daily weather response of balsam fir (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.) stem radius increment from dendrometer analysis in the boreal forests of Quebec (Canada). Trees (Berl West) 17: 477-484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-003-0260-4
  10. Duchesne L, Houle D. 2011. Modelling day-to-day stem diameter variation and annual growth of balsam fir (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.) from daily climate. For Ecol Manage 262: 863-872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.05.027
  11. Eriksson B, Alexandersson H. 1990. Our changing climate. Agric For Meteorol 50: 55-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1923(90)90138-V
  12. Fecko RM, Walker RF, Frederick WB, Miller WW, Johnson DW. 2008. Stem dimensional fluctuation in Jeffrey pine from variation in water storage as influenced by thinning and prescribed fire. Ann For Sci 65: 201.
  13. Fettig CJ, Klepzig KD, Billings RF, Munson AS, Nebeker TE, Negron JF, Nowak JT. 2007. The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention and control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the western and southern United States. For Ecol Manage 238: 24-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.10.011
  14. Fule PZ, Crouse JE, Roccaforte JP, Kalies EL. 2012. Do thinning and/or burning treatments in western USA ponderosa or Jeffrey pine-dominated forests help restore natural fire behavior? For Ecol Manage 269: 68-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.12.025
  15. Hallman C, Arnott H. 2015. Morphological and physiological phenology of Pinus longaeva in the White Mountains of California. Tree Ring Res 71: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3959/1536-1098-71.1.1
  16. Hood SM, Cluck DR, Jones BE, Pinnell S. 2018. Radial and stand-level thinning treatments: 15-year growth response of legacy ponderosa and Jeffrey pine trees. Restor Ecol 26: 813-819. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12638
  17. IPCC. 2021. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis: Summary for Policymakers. Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva, SPM-17.
  18. Johnson C, Chhin S, Zhang J. 2017. Effects of climate on competitive dynamics in mixed conifer forests of the Sierra Nevada. For Ecol Manag 394: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.03.017
  19. King G, Fonti P, Nievergelt D, Buntgen U, Frank D. 2013. Climatic drivers of hourly to yearly tree radius variations along a 6 ℃ natural warming gradient. Agric For Meteorol 168: 36-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.08.002
  20. Liu Z, Wang Y, Tian A, Yu P, Xiong W, Xu L, Wang Y. 2017. Intra-annual variation of stem radius of Larix principis-rupprechtii and its response to environmental factors in Liupan Mountains of Northwest China. Forests 8: 382.
  21. Magruder M, Chhin S, Palik B, Bradford JB. 2013. Thinning increases climatic resilience of red pine. Can J For Res 43: 878-889. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2013-0088
  22. McDowell N, Pockman WT, Allen CD, Breshears DD, Cobb N, Kolb T, Plaut J, Sperry J, West A, Williams DG, Yepez EA. 2008. Mechanisms of plant survival and mortality during drought: why do some plants survive while others succumb to drought? New Phytol 178: 719-739. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02436.x
  23. Pallardy SG. 2008. Physiology of Woody Plants. 3rd ed. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
  24. USDA Forest Service. 1999. M261 Sierran Steppe--Mixed Forest--Coniferous Forest--Alpine Meadow Province. https://www.fs.usda.gov/land/ecosysmgmt/colorimagemap/images/ m261.html. Accessed 11 Apr 2021.
  25. van der Maaten E, van der Maaten-Theunissen M, Smiljanic M, Rossi S, Simard S, Wilmking M, Deslauriers A, Fonti P, von Arx G, Bouriaud O. 2016. dendrometeR: Analyzing the pulse of trees in R. Dendrochronologia 40: 12-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dendro.2016.06.001
  26. Vieira J, Rossi S, Campelo F, Freitas H, Nabais C. 2013. Seasonal and daily cycles of stem radial variation of Pinus pinaster in a drought-prone environment. Agric For Meteorol 180: 173-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.06.009
  27. Wang J, Sammis TW. 2008. New automatic band and point dendrometers for measuring stem diameter growth. Appl Eng Agric 24: 731-742. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.25361
  28. Williams CB, Reese Naesborg R, Ambrose AR, Baxter WL, Koch GW, Dawson TE. 2021. The dynamics of stem water storage in the tops of Earth's largest trees-Sequoiadendron giganteum. Tree Physiol 41: 2262-2278. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpab078
  29. Yeh HY, Wensel LC. 2000. The relationship between tree diameter growth and climate for coniferous species in northern California. Can J For Res 30: 1463-1471. https://doi.org/10.1139/x00-074
  30. Zhang JW, Finley KA, Johnson NG, Ritchie MW. 2019. Lowering stand density enhances resiliency of ponderosa pine forests to disturbances and climate change. For Sci 65: 496-507. https://doi.org/10.1093/forsci/fxz006
  31. Ziaco E, Biondi F. 2018. Stem circadian phenology of four pine species in naturally contrasting climates from sky-island forests of the western USA. Forests 9: 396.