Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 28, Issue 7, pp 1307–1320 | Cite as

Spatial dynamics of a gypsy moth defoliation outbreak and dependence on habitat characteristics

  • Jane R. Foster
  • Philip A. Townsend
  • David J. Mladenoff
Research article

Abstract

Forest insects cause defoliation disturbances with complex spatial dynamics. These are difficult to measure but critical for models of disturbance risk that inform forest management. Understanding of spatial dynamics has lagged behind other disturbance processes because traditional defoliation sketch map data often suffered from inadequate precision or spatial resolution. We sought to clarify the influence of underlying habitat characteristics on outbreak patterns by combining forest plots, GIS data and defoliation intensity maps modeled from Landsat imagery. We quantified dependence of defoliation on spatial patterns of host abundance, phenology, topography, and pesticide spray for a recent gypsy moth outbreak (2000–2001), in a mixed deciduous forest in western Maryland, USA. We used semivariograms and hierarchical partitioning to quantify spatial patterns and variable importance. Habitat characteristics from plot data explained 21 % of defoliation variance in 2000 from tree density, phenological asynchrony, pesticide spray status, and landform index and 34 % of the variance in 2001 from previous-year defoliation, relative abundance of non-host species, phenological asynchrony, pesticide spray status, and relative slope position. Spatial autocorrelation in residual defoliation ranged over distances of 788 m in 2000 and 461 m in 2001, corresponding well with gypsy moth larval dispersal distances (100 m to 1 km). Un-measured processes such as predation, virus and pathogen occurrence likely contribute to unexplained variance. Because the spatial dynamics of these factors are largely unknown, our results support modeling gypsy moth defoliation as a function of dependence on significant exogenous characteristics and residual spatial pattern matching.

Keywords

Lymantria dispar L. Geostatistics Semivariograms Landsat Forest disturbance Dispersal Phenology Spatial patterns Appalachians 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Access to the CFI plot dataset was provided by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Funding support was provided by NASA Carbon Cycle Science grant NNX06AD45G and a NASA earth system science graduate fellowship (NNX08AU93H). F. Zumbrun and other foresters at GRSF supported field visits and shared invaluable historical and ecological perspective on the study area. B. Thompson (Maryland Department of Agriculture) provided spray block GIS data. We thank M. Turner (Department of Zoology, UW-Madison), K. Raffa (Department of Entomology, UW-Madison), and C. Lorimer (Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, UW-Madison) and two anonymous reviewers for input and reviews to experimental design and this paper. N. Keuler (Department of Statistics, UW-Madison) provided early statistical guidance. Discussions with R. Scheller (Conservation Biology Institute) and B. Sturtevant (Northern Research Station, US Forest Service) were helpful for defining the scope of this study.

References

  1. Anselin L (1995) Local indicators of spatial association—Lisa. Geogr Anal 27:93–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker WL (1941) Effect of gypsy moth defoliation on certain forest trees. J Forest 39:1017–1022Google Scholar
  3. Campbell RW, Sloan RJ (1977) Forest stand responses to defoliation by gypsy moth. For Sci Monogr 19:1–34Google Scholar
  4. Campbell EM, MacLean DA, Bergeron Y (2008) The severity of budworm-caused growth reductions in balsam fir/spruce stands varies with the hardwood content of surrounding forest landscapes. For Sci 54:195–205Google Scholar
  5. Candau JN, Fleming RA (2005) Landscape-scale spatial distribution of spruce budworm defoliation in relation to bioclimatic conditions. Can J For Res 35:2218–2232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Candau JN, Fleming RA, Hopkin A (1998) Spatiotemporal patterns of large-scale defoliation caused by the spruce budworm in Ontario since 1941. Can J For Res 28:1733–1741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chevan A, Sutherland M (1991) Hierarchical partitioning. Am Stat 45:90–96Google Scholar
  8. Cooke BJ, Nealis VG, Regniere J (2006) Insect defoliators as periodic disturbances in northern forest ecosystems. In: Johnson EA, Miyanishi K (eds) Plant disturbance ecology: the process and the response. Academic Press, Burlington, pp 487–525Google Scholar
  9. Cushman SA, McKenzie D, Peterson DL, Littell J, Mckelvey KS (2007) Research agenda for integrated landscape modelling. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-194, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  10. Davidson CB, Gottschalk KW, Johnson JE (2001a) European gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar L.) outbreaks: a review of the literature, vol. 278. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, p 15Google Scholar
  11. Davidson CB, Johnson JE, Gottschalk KW, Amateis RL (2001b) Prediction of stand susceptibility and gypsy moth defoliation in coastal plain mixed pine-hardwoods. Can J For Res 31:1914–1921Google Scholar
  12. Doane CC, McManus ML (1985) The gypsy moth: research toward integrated pest management. Technical Bulletin 1584 USDA Forest Service, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  13. Dobbertin M (2005) Tree growth as indicator of tree vitality and of tree reaction to environmental stress: a review. Eur J For Res 124:319–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dwyer G, Elkinton JS (1995) Host dispersal and the spatial spread of insect pathogens. Ecology 76:1262–1275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dwyer G, Elkinton JS, Hajek AE (1998) Spatial scale and the spread of a fungal pathogen of gypsy moth. Am Nat 152:485–494PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elkinton JS, Healy WM, Buonaccorsi JP, Boettner GH, Hazzard AM, Smith HR (1996) Interactions among gypsy moths, white-footed mice, and acorns. Ecology 77:2332–2342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fortin MJ, Dale MRT (2005) Spatial analysis. A guide for ecologists. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Fortin MJ, Boots B, Csillag F, Remmel TK (2003) On the role of spatial stochastic models in understanding landscape indices in ecology. Oikos 102:203–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Foster JR, Townsend PA (2004) Linking hyperspectral imagery and forest inventories for forest assessment in the central Appalachians. In: Yaussy DA, Hix DM, Long RP, Goebel PC (eds) 14th Central Hardwoods Forest Conference. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Wooster, p 11Google Scholar
  20. Foster JR, Townsend PA, Mladenoff DJ (2013) Mapping asynchrony between gypsy moth egg-hatch and forest leaf-out: putting the phenological window hypothesis in a spatial context. For Ecol Manag 287:67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fraser RH, Latifovic R (2005) Mapping insect-induced tree defoliation and mortality using coarse spatial resolution satellite imagery. Int J Remote Sens 26:193–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goodwin BJ, Jones CG, Schauber EM, Ostfeld RS (2005) Limited dispersal and heterogeneous predation risk synergistically enhance persistence of rare prey. Ecology 86:3139–3148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gray DR, Regniere J, Boulet B (2000) Analysis and use of historical patterns of spruce budworm defoliation to forecast outbreak patterns in Quebec. For Ecol Manag 127:217–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hohn ME, Liebhold AM, Gribko LS (1993) Geostatistical model forecasting spatial dynamics of defoliation caused by the gypsy-moth (Lepidoptera, Lymantriidae). Environ Entomol 22:1066–1075Google Scholar
  25. Hunter AF, Elkinton JS (2000) Effects of synchrony with host plant on populations of a spring-feeding Lepidopteran. Ecology 81:1248–1261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hunter MD, Varley GC, Gradwell GR (1997) Estimating the relative roles of top-down and bottom-up forces on insect herbivore populations: a classic study revisited. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:9176–9181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jenkins JC, Birdsey RA, Pan Y (2001) Biomass and NPP estimation for the mid-Atlantic region (USA) using plot-level forest inventory data. Ecol Appl 11:1174–1193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson DM, Liebhold AM, Bjornstad ON (2006) Geographical variation in the periodicity of gypsy moth outbreaks. Ecography 29:367–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Keena MA, Cote MJ, Grinberg PS, Wallner WE (2008) World distribution of female flight and genetic variation in Lymantria dispar (Lepidoptera : Lymantriidae). Environ Entomol 37:636–649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kleiner KW, Montgomery ME (1994) Forest stand susceptibility to the gypsy-moth (Lepidoptera, Lymantriidae) - species and site effects on foliage quality to larvae. Environ Entomol 23:699–711Google Scholar
  31. Liebhold AM, Zhang X, Hohn ME, Elkinton JS, Ticehurst M, Benzon GL, Campbelu RW (1991) Geostatistical analysis of gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) egg mass populations. Environ Entomol 20:1407–1417Google Scholar
  32. Liebhold AM, Gottschalk KW, Guldin JM, Muzika RM (1995) Suitability of North American tree species to the gypsy moth: a summary of field and laboratory tests, vol 211. USDA, RadnorGoogle Scholar
  33. Liebhold A, Luzader E, Reardon R, Bullard A, Roberts A, Ravlin FW, DeLost S, Spears B (1996) Use of a geographic information system to evaluate regional treatment effects in a gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) management program. J Econ Entomol 89:1192–1203Google Scholar
  34. Liebhold AM, Gottschalk KW, Mason DA, Bush RR (1997) Forest susceptibility to the gypsy moth. J Forest 95:20–24Google Scholar
  35. Liebhold A, Luzader E, Reardon R, Roberts A, Ravlin FW, Sharov A, Zhou G (1998) Forecasting gypsy moth (Lepidoptera : Lymantriidae) defoliation with a geographical information system. J Econ Entomol 91:464–472Google Scholar
  36. Liebhold A, Elkinton J, Williams D, Muzika RM (2000) What causes outbreaks of the gypsy moth in North America? Popul Ecol 42:257–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mac Nally R (2002) Multiple regression and inference in ecology and conservation biology: further comments on identifying important predictor variables. Biodivers Conserv 11:1397–1401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. MacLean DA, MacKinnon WE (1996) Accuracy of aerial sketch-mapping estimates of spruce budworm defoliation in New Brunswick. Can J For Res 26:2099–2108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Magnussen S, Boudewyn P, Alfaro R (2004) Spatial prediction of the onset of spruce budworm defoliation. For Chron 80:485–494Google Scholar
  40. Mason CJ, McManus ML (1981) Larval dispersal of the gypsy moth. In: Doane CC, McManus ML (eds) The gypsy moth: research toward integrated pest management. Technical Bulletin 1584, Forest Service, USDA, Washington, pp 161–202Google Scholar
  41. McCullough DG (2000) A review of factors affecting the population dynamics of jack pine budworm (Choristoneura pinus pinus Freeman). Popul Ecol 42:243–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McNab HW (1992) A topographic index to quantify the effect of mesoscale and form on site productivity. Can J For Res 23:1100–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Minasny B, McBratney AB, Whelan BM (2005) VESPER version 1.62. Australian Centre for Precision Agriculture, McMillan Building A05, The University of SydneyGoogle Scholar
  44. Montgomery ME (1990) Role of site and insect variables in forecasting defoliation by the gypsy moth. In: Watt AD, Leather SR, Hunter MD, Kidd NAC (eds) Population dynamics of forest insects. Intercept Ltd, AndoverGoogle Scholar
  45. Montgomery ME (1991). Variation in the suitability of tree species for the gypsy moth. In: Gottschalk KW, Twery MJ, Smith SI (eds) Proceedings, USDA Interagency Gypsy Moth Research Review, East Windsor. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  46. Nealis VG, Regniere J (2004) Insect-host relationships influencing disturbance by the spruce budworm in a boreal mixedwood forest. Can J For Res 34:1870–1882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Peltonen M, Liebhold AM, Bjornstad ON, Williams DW (2002) Spatial synchrony in forest insect outbreaks: roles of regional stochasticity and dispersal. Ecology 83:3120–3129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. R Development Core Team (2008) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  49. Regniere J (1996) Generalized approach to landscape-wide seasonal forecasting with temperature-driven simulation models. Environ Entomol 25:869–881Google Scholar
  50. Seidling W, Mues V (2005) Statistical and geostatistical modelling of preliminarily adjusted defoliation on an European scale. Environ Monit Assess 101:223–247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tobin PC, Blackburn LM (2008) Long-distance dispersal of the gypsy moth (Lepidoptera : Lymantriidae) facilitated its initial invasion of Wisconsin. Environ Entomol 37:87–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Townsend PA, Singh A, Foster JR, Rehberg NJ, Kingdon CC, Eshleman KN, Seagle SW (2012) A general Landsat model to predict canopy defoliation in broadleaf deciduous forests. Remote Sens Environ 119:225–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Turchin P, Taylor AD (1992) Complex dynamics in ecological time-series. Ecology 73:289–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Weseloh RM (2003) Short and long range dispersal in the gypsy moth (Lepidoptera : Lymantriidae) fungal pathogen, Entomophaga maimaiga (Zygomyeetes : Entomophthorales). Environ Entomol 32:111–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zeide B, Thompson LC (2005) Impact of spring sawfly defoliation on growth of loblolly pine stands. South J Appl For 29:33–39Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jane R. Foster
    • 1
    • 2
  • Philip A. Townsend
    • 1
  • David J. Mladenoff
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forest and Wildlife EcologyUniversity of Wisconsin MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Forest ResourcesUniversity of MinnesotaSaint PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations