Ecosystems

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 233–247 | Cite as

Hemlock Woolly Adelgid in New England Forests: Canopy Impacts Transforming Ecosystem Processes and Landscapes

  • Bernhard Stadler
  • Thomas Müller
  • David Orwig
  • Richard Cobb
Article

Abstract

Exotic insect pests may strongly disrupt forest ecosystems and trigger major shifts in nutrient cycling, structure, and composition. We examined the relationship between these diverse effects for the hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA, Adelges tsugae Annand) in New England forests by studying its impacts on local canopy processes in stands differing in infestation levels and linking these impacts to shifts in canopy nutrient cycling and stand and landscape effects. HWA initiated major changes in canopy biomass and distribution. Whereas uninfested trees exhibit a significant decline in canopy biomass from the center to the periphery and a positive correlation between total needle litter and estimated biomass, infested trees have significantly less total canopy biomass, produce less new foliage, shed relatively more needles, and exhibit no correlation between litter and canopy biomass. Foliar N content of infested trees was 20%–40% higher than reference trees, with the strongest increase in young foliage supporting the highest densities of HWA. Foliar %C was unaffected by HWA or foliar age. Epiphytic microorganisms on hemlock needles exhibited little variation in abundance within canopies, but colony-forming units of bacteria, yeast, and filamentous fungi were 2–3 orders of magnitude more abundant on medium and heavily infested than uninfested trees. Throughfall chemistry, quantity, and spatial pattern were strongly altered by HWA. Throughfall exhibits a strong gradient beneath uninfested trees, decreasing in volumes from the canopy periphery to the trunk by more than 45%. The amount of throughfall beneath infested trees exhibits no spatial pattern, reaches 80%–90% of the bulk precipitation, and is characterized by significantly higher concentrations of nitrogen compounds, dissolved organic carbon, and cations.

Across the southern New England landscape there is a strong south-to-north gradient of decreasing hemlock tree and sapling mortality and understory compositional change that corresponds to the duration of infestation. Regionally, black birch (Betula lenta L.) is profiting most from hemlock decline by significantly increasing in density and cover. These findings suggest that it is necessary to study the connections between fast/small-scale processes such as changes in nutrient cycling in tree canopies and slow/integrative processes like shifts in biogeochemieal cycling and compositional changes at forest stands and landscapes to better understand the effects of an exotic pest species like HWA on forest ecosystem structure and function.

Keywords

hemlock woolly adelgid litter throughfall chemistry carbon–nitrogen dynamics forest ecosystems forest pests 

References

  1. Aber, JD, Ollinger, SV, Driscoll, CT, Likens, GE, Holmes, RT, Freuder, RJ, Goodale, CL 2002Inorganic nitrogen losses from a forested ecosystem in response to physical, chemical, biotic, and climatic perturbationsEcosystems564858Google Scholar
  2. Beers, TW, Dress, PE, Wensel, LC 1966Aspect transformation in site productivity researchJ For6469192Google Scholar
  3. Bell M. 1985. The face of Connecticut Bulletin 110. State Geology and Natural History Survey of Connecticut Hartford, CTGoogle Scholar
  4. Berg, B, McClaugherty, C, Virzo de Santo, A, Johnson, D 2001Humus buildup in boreal forests—effects of litter fall and its N concentrationCan J For Res3198898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonneau, LR, Shields, KS, Civco, DL 1999A technique to identify changes in hemlock forest health over space and time using satellite image dataBiol Invasions126979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlisle, A, Brown, AHF, White, EJ 1966The organic matter and nutrient elements in the precipitation beneath a sessile oak (Quercus petraea) canopyEcology548798Google Scholar
  7. Catovsky, S, Bazzaz, F 2002Nitrogen availability influences regeneration of temperate tree species in the understory seedling bankEcol Appl12105670Google Scholar
  8. Crabtree, RC, Bazzaz, FA 1992Seedlings of black birch (Betula lenta L.) as foragers for nitrogenNew Phytol12261725Google Scholar
  9. Crabtree, RC, Bazzaz, FA 1993Seedling response of four birch species to simulated nitrogen deposition: ammonium vs. nitrateEcol Appl331521Google Scholar
  10. Crooks, JA 2002Characterizing ecosystem-level consequences of biological invasions: the role of ecosystem engineersOikos9715766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crouch, MH 1983Soil survey of New London County, ConnecticutUSDA Soil Conservation ServiceStorrs, CTGoogle Scholar
  12. Day, KR, Leather, SR 1997

    Threats to forestry by insect pests in Europe

    Watt, ADStork, NEHunter, MD eds. Forests and insectsChapman & HallLondon177205
    Google Scholar
  13. Dixon, AFG 1971The role of aphids in wood formation. I. The effect of the Sycamore aphid, Drepanosiphum plantanoides (Schr.) (Aphididae), on the growth of Sycamore, Acer pseudoplantanus (L.)J Appln Ecol816579Google Scholar
  14. Gleason, HA, Cronquist, A 1991Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada2New York Botanical GardensBronx, NYGoogle Scholar
  15. Grimm NB. 1995. Why link species and ecosystems? A perspective from ecosystem ecology. In: Jones CG, Lawton LH, Eds. London: Chapman & Hall. p 5–15Google Scholar
  16. Hill DE, Sautter EH, Gonick WN. 1980. Soils of Connecticut. Bulletin Connecticut Agricultural Experimental Station 787, 36 pGoogle Scholar
  17. Hunter, MD 2001Insect population dynamics meets ecosystem ecology: effects of herbivory on soil nutrient dynamicsAgric For Entomol37784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jenkins, JC, Aber, JD, Canham, CD 1999Hemlock woolly adelgid impacts on community structure and N cycling rates in eastern hemlock forestsCan J For Res2963045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Knops, JMH, Nash, TH, Sehlesinger, WH 1996The influence of epiphytic lichens on the nutrient cycling of an oak woodlandEcol Monogr66159179Google Scholar
  20. Liebhold, AM, MacDonald, WL, Bergdahl, D, Mastro, VC 1995Invasion by exotic forest pests: a threat to forest ecosystemsFor Sci Monogr30149Google Scholar
  21. Lovett, GM, Ruesink, AE 1995Carbon and nitrogen mineralization from decomposing gypsy moth frassOecologia1041338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lovett, GM, Nolan, SS, Driscoll, CT, Fahey, TJ 1996Factors regulation throughfall flux in a New Hampshire forested landscapeCan J For Res26213444Google Scholar
  23. Manly, BFJ 1997aRandomization, bootstrap, and Monte Carlo methods in biology2Chapman and HallNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Manly BFJ. 1997b. RT: a program for randomization testing, ver. 2.1. Centre for Applications of Statistics and Mathematics Dunedin, New Zealand University of OtagoGoogle Scholar
  25. Mantel, N 1967The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approachCancer Res2720920PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. McClure, MS 1989aImportance of weather to the distribution and abundance of introduced adelgid and scale insectsAgric For Meteorol47291302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McClure, MS 1989bEvidence of a polymorphic life cycle in the hemlock woolly adelgid, Adelges tsugae Annand (Homoptera: Adelgidae)Ann Entomol Soc Am82524Google Scholar
  28. McClure, MS 1991Density-dependent feedback and population cycles in Adelges tsugae (Homoptera: Adelgidae) on Tsuga canadensisEnviron Entomol2025864Google Scholar
  29. McClure, MS, Cheah, C 1999Reshaping the ecology of invading populations of hemlock woolly adelgid, Adelges tsugae (Homoptera: adelgidae), in eastern North AmericaBiol Invasions124754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McClure, MS, Cheah, C 2002

    Important mortality factors in the life cycle of hemlock woolly adelgid, Adelges tsugae Annand (Homoptera: Adelgidae) in the Northeastern United States

    Reardon, RCOnken, BPLashomb, J eds. Proceedings: Hemlock Woolly Adelgid in the Eastern United States SymposiumNew Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station Publication New Brunswick, NJ1322
    Google Scholar
  31. McClure, MS, Salom, SM, Shields, KS 2001Hemlock Woolly AdelgidUSDA Forest SeviceMorgantown, WV14Google Scholar
  32. Michalzik, B, Dorsch, T, Matzner, M 1997Stability of dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) and mineral nitrogen in bulk precipitation and throughfallJ Plant Nutr Soil Sci1604334Google Scholar
  33. Michalzik, B, Muller, T, Stadler, B 1999Aphids on Norway spruce and their effects on forest floor solution chemistryFor Ecol Manage118110Google Scholar
  34. Michalzik, B, Stadler, B 2000Effects of phytophagous insects on soil solution chemistry: herbivores as switches for the nutrient dynamics in the soilBasic Appl Ecol1117123Google Scholar
  35. Mueller–Dombois, D, Ellenberg, H 1974Aims and methods of vegetation ecologyJohn Wiley & SonsNew York547Google Scholar
  36. Orwig, DA 2002Ecosystem to regional impacts of introduced pests and pathogens—historical context, questions, and issuesJ Biogeogr2914714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Orwig, DA, Foster, DR 1998Forest response to the introduced hemlock woolly adelgid in southern New England, USAJ. Torrey Bot Soc1256073Google Scholar
  38. Orwig, DA, Foster, DR, Mausel, DL 2002Landscape patterns of hemlock decline in New England due to the introduced hemlock woolly adelgidJ Biogeogr2947587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reynolds, CA 1979Soil survey of Middlesex County, ConnecticutStorrs, CTUSDA Soil Conservation ServiceGoogle Scholar
  40. Reynolds, BC, Hunter, MD 2001Response of soil respiration, soil nutrients, and litter decomposition to inputs from canopy herbivoresSoil Biol Biochem33164152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schowalter, TD 2000Insect ecology: an ecosystem approachAcademic PressSan DiegoGoogle Scholar
  42. Schowalter, TD, Hargrove, WW, Crossley, DA 1986Herbivory in forested ecosystemsAnnu Rev Entomol3117796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schowalter, TD, Sabin, TE, Stafford, SG, Sexton, JM 1991Phytophage effects on primary production, nutrient turnover, and litter decomposition of young Douglas fir in western OregonFor Ecol Manage4222943Google Scholar
  44. Schulze, E-D 1995Flux control at the ecosystem levelTrends Ecol Evol10403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Seastedt, TR, Crossley, DA 1984The influence of arthropods on ecosystemsBioscience3415761Google Scholar
  46. Smith, DM 1986The practice of silvicultureJohn Wiley & SonsNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Souto, D, Luther, T, Chianese, B 1996

    Past and current status of HWA in eastern and Carolina hemlock stands

    Salom, SMTignor, TCReardon, RC eds. Proceedings of the First Hemlock Woolly Adelgid ReviewUSDA Forest ServiceMorgantown, WU915
    Google Scholar
  48. Stadler, B, Müller, T 1996Aphid honeydew and its effect on the phyllosphere microflora of Picea abies (L.) KarstOecologia1087716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stadler, B, Michalzik, M 1998Aphid infested Norway spruce are “hot spots” in throughfall carbon chemistry in coniferous forestsCan J For Res28171722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stadler, B, Michalzik, B, Muller, T 1998Linking aphid ecology with nutrient fluxes in a coniferous forestEcology79151425Google Scholar
  51. Stadler, B, Solinger, S, Michalzik, B 2001aInsect herbivores and the nutrient flow from the canopy to the soilOecologia12610413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stadler, B, Müller, T, Sheppard, L, Crossley, A 2001bEffects of Elatobium abietinum on nutrient fluxes in Sitka spruce canopies receiving elevated nitrogen and sulphur depositionAgric For Entomol325361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Swank, WT, Waide, JB, Crossley, DA, Todd, RL 1981Insect defoliation enhances nitrate export from forest systemsOecologia512979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tukey, HB 1970The leaching of substances from plantsAnnu Rev Plant Physiol2130529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Westveld, MV Committee on Silviculture, New England Section, Society of American Foresters1956Natural forest vegetation zones of New EnglandJ For543328Google Scholar
  56. Wilcove, DS, Rothstein, D, Dubow, J, Phillips, A, Losos, E 1998Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United StatesBioscience4860715Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernhard Stadler
    • 1
    • 3
  • Thomas Müller
    • 2
  • David Orwig
    • 3
  • Richard Cobb
    • 3
  1. 1.Bayreuth Institute for Terrestrial Ecosystem ResearchUniversity of BayreuthBayreuthGermany
  2. 2.Centre for Agricultural Landscape and Land Use Research MünchebergInstitute of Primary Production and Microbial EcologyPaulinenaueGermany
  3. 3.Harvard ForestHarvard UniversityPetershamUSA

Personalised recommendations