Annals of Forest Science

, 74:65 | Cite as

Influence of different forest protection strategies on spruce tree mortality during a bark beetle outbreak

  • Pavel Mezei
  • Miroslav Blaženec
  • Wojciech Grodzki
  • Jaroslav Škvarenina
  • Rastislav Jakuš
Original Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Risk Analysis


Key message

Under an outbreak scenario in a buffer zone of a protected area, bark beetle-caused tree mortality was modulated by earlier natural disturbances (wind and bark beetles), sanitary management and seasonal temperature. In buffer zones, the effects of sanitary management on tree mortality remained limited due to the migration of bark beetles from unmanaged areas.


The European spruce bark beetle (Ips typographus L.) is regarded as an economically significant pest of Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst). However, in protected areas, it is regarded as a keystone species for biodiversity. This results in two contrasting management strategies that meet in buffer zones of protected areas.


To assess which environmental and management variables are most important for tree mortality in an ongoing bark beetle outbreak and to gain a better understanding of the challenges and recommendations for buffer zone management under the influence of nearby unmanaged stands in a protected area.


Norway spruce tree mortality was assessed in 419 forest stands in the High Tatra Mountains. To account for spatial and temporal autocorrelations, generalized additive mixed models (GAMM) were used, and an information-theory (I-T) approach was adopted for model selection to test the influence of environmental variables, natural disturbances and the previous year’s sanitary cutting on bark beetle-caused tree mortality.


In buffer zones, P. abies tree mortality caused by I. typographus was positively correlated to natural disturbances and sanitary cutting in the previous year.


The previous year’s sanitary cutting, maximum temperature sums, wind disturbance and trees left in no-intervention stands contributed to tree mortality in buffer zones. In these zones, the decrease of tree mortality in response to sanitary management remained limited due to the migration of bark beetles from unmanaged areas. However, sanitary management in buffer zones remains necessary for the isolation of bark beetle outbreaks in unmanaged areas.


Picea abies Ips typographus Disturbance Temperature Wind Protected area 



The authors wish to thank the staff of the state forests of Tatranský Národný Park (TANAP) in Slovakia and the staff of Tatrzański Park Narodowy (TPN) in Poland for their cooperation in data collection.


  1. Allen CD, Macalady AK, Chenchouni H et al (2010) A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. For Ecol Manag 259:660–684. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderegg WRL, Hicke JA, Fisher RA et al (2015) Tree mortality from drought, insects, and their interactions in a changing climate. New Phytol 208:674–683. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderegg WRL, Kane JM, Anderegg LDL (2013) Consequences of widespread tree mortality triggered by drought and temperature stress. Nat Clim Chang 3:30–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Angst A, Rüegg R, Forster B (2012) Declining bark beetle densities (Ips typographus, Coleoptera: Scolytinae) from infested Norway spruce stands and possible implications for management. Psyche A J Entomol 2012:1–7. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bače R, Svoboda M, Janda P et al (2015) Legacy of pre-disturbance spatial pattern determines early structural diversity following severe disturbance in montane spruce forests. PLoS One 10(9):1–18. Google Scholar
  6. Bače R, Svoboda M, Pouska V et al (2012) Natural regeneration in Central-European subalpine spruce forests: which logs are suitable for seedling recruitment? For Ecol Manag 266:254–262. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baier P, Pennerstorfer J, Schopf A (2007) PHENIPS—A comprehensive phenology model of Ips typographus (L.) (Col., Scolytinae) as a tool for hazard rating of bark beetle infestation. For Ecol Manag 249:171–186. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beudert B, Bässler C, Thorn S et al (2015) Bark beetles increase biodiversity while maintaining drinking water quality. Conserv Lett 8:272–281. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burnham KP, Anderson DR, Huyvaert KP (2011) AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral ecology: some background, observations, and comparisons. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:23–35. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dickie I, Whiteley G, Kindlmann P et al (2014) An outline of economic impacts of management options for Šumava National Park. Eur J Environ Sci 4:5–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dochtermann NA, Jenkins SH (2011) Developing multiple hypotheses in behavioral ecology. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65(1):37–45Google Scholar
  12. Fahse L, Heurich M (2011) Simulation and analysis of outbreaks of bark beetle infestations and their management at the stand level. Ecol Model 222:1833–1846. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fox GA, Negrete-Yankelevich S, Sosa VJ (2015) Ecological statistics: contemporary theory and application. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grodzki W (2016) Mass outbreaks of the spruce bark beetle Ips typographus in the context of the controversies around the Białowieża Primeval Forest. For Res Pap 77:324–331. Google Scholar
  15. Grodzki W, Guzik M (2009) Wiatro- i ś niegołomy oraz gradacje kornika drukarza w Tatrzańskim Parku Narodowym na przestrzeni ostatnich 100 lat. Próba charakterystyki przestrzennej. In: Guzik M (ed) Dlugookresowe zmiany w przyrodzie i uzytkowaniu TPN. Wydawnictwa Tatrzañskiego Parku Narodowego, Zakopane, pp 33–46Google Scholar
  16. Grodzki W, Jakuš R, Lajzová E et al (2006) Effects of intensive versus no management strategies during an outbreak of the bark beetle Ips typographus (L.) (Col.: Curculionidae, Scolytinae) in the Tatra Mts. in Poland and Slovakia. Ann For Sci 63:55–61. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grodzki W, Starzyk JR, Kosibowicz M (2014) Impact of selected stand characteristics on the occurrence of the bark beetle Ips typographus (L.) in the Beskid Żywiecki Mountains. For Res Pap 75:159–169. Google Scholar
  18. Grodzki W, Turčáni M, Jakuš R et al (2010) Bark beetles in the Tatra Mountains. International research 1998-2005-an overview. Folia For Pol Ser A 52:114–130Google Scholar
  19. Hedgren PO, Schroeder LM, Weslien J (2003) Tree killing by Ips typographus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) at stand edges with and without colonized felled spruce treesPhysiological and biochemical analysis. Agric For Entomol 5:67–74. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hilszczański J, Starzyk JR (2017) Is it possible and necessary to control European spruce bark beetle Ips typographus (L.) outbreak in the Białowieża Forest? Res Pap 78:88–92. Google Scholar
  21. Holeksa J, Zielonka T, Żywiec M, Fleischer P (2016) Identifying the disturbance history over a large area of larch–spruce mountain forest in Central Europe. For Ecol Manag 361:318–327. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chen H, Jackson PL (2015) Spatiotemporal mapping of potential mountain pine beetle emergence—Is a heating cycle a valid surrogate for potential beetle emergence? Agric For Meteorol 206:124–136. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jakuš R (1998) A method for the protection of spruce stands againstIps typographus by the use of barriers of pheromone traps in north-eastern Slovakia. Anzeiger für Schädlingskd Pflanzenschutz Umweltschutz J Pest Sci 71:152–158. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jonášová M, Vávrová E, Cudlín P (2010) Western Carpathian mountain spruce forest after a windthrow: natural regeneration in cleared and uncleared areas. For Ecol Manag 259:1127–1134. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kautz M, Dworschak K, Gruppe A, Schopf R (2011) Quantifying spatio-temporal dispersion of bark beetle infestations in epidemic and non-epidemic conditions. For Ecol Manag 262:598–608. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kautz M, Schopf R, Ohser J (2013) The “sun-effect”: microclimatic alterations predispose forest edges to bark beetle infestations. Eur J For Res.
  27. Kärvemo S, Van Boeckel TP, Gilbert M et al (2014) Large-scale risk mapping of an eruptive bark beetle—importance of forest susceptibility and beetle pressure. For Ecol Manag J 318:158–166. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Keele JL (2008) Semiparametric regression for the social sciences. John Wiley & Sons, IncGoogle Scholar
  29. Kelly M (2016) Trends in extreme weather events since 1900—An enduring conundrum for wise policy advice. J Geogr Nat Disasters 6:1–7. Google Scholar
  30. Keskitalo ECH, Pettersson M, Ambjörnsson EL, Davis EJ (2016) Agenda-setting and framing of policy solutions for forest pests in Canada and Sweden: avoiding beetle outbreaks? For Policy Econ 65:59–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Klopcic M, Poljanec A, Gartner A, Boncina A (2009) Factors related to natural disturbances in mountain Norway spruce (Picea Abies) forests in the Julian Alps. Ecoscience 16:48–57. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lindenmayer D, Thorn S, Banks S (2017) Please do not disturb ecosystems further. Nat Ecol Evol 1:1–8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Louis M, Grégoire J-C, Pélisson P-F (2014) Exploiting fugitive resources: how long-lived is “fugitive”? Fallen trees are a long-lasting reward for Ips typographus (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Scolytinae). For Ecol Manag 331:129–134. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Macek M, Wild J, Kopecký M et al (2016) Life and death of Picea abies after bark-beetle outbreak: ecological processes driving seedling recruitment. Ecol Appl 27:156–167. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marini L, Lindelöw Å, Jönsson AM et al (2013) Population dynamics of the spruce bark beetle: a long-term study. Oikos 122:1768–1776. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marini L, Økland B, Jönsson AM, et al (2017) Climate drivers of bark beetle outbreak dynamics in Norway spruce forests. Ecography (Cop) in print. doi:
  37. Markovic C, Stojanovic A (2010) Differences in bark beetle (Ips typographus and Pityogenes chalcographus) abundance in a strict spruce reserve and the surrounding spruce forests of Serbia. Phytoparasitica 38:31–37. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mellor AFP, Cey EE (2015) Using generalized additive mixed models to assess spatial, temporal, and hydrologic controls on bacteria and nitrate in a vulnerable agricultural aquifer. J Contam Hydrol 182:104–116. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Mezei P, Grodzki W, Blaženec M et al (2014b) Host and site factors affecting tree mortality caused by the spruce bark beetle (Ips typographus) in mountainous conditions. For Ecol Manag 331:196–207. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mezei P, Grodzki W, Blaženec M, Jakuš R (2014a) Factors influencing the wind–bark beetles’ disturbance system in the course of an Ips typographus outbreak in the Tatra Mountains. For Ecol Manag 312:67–77. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mezei P, Jakus R, Blaženec M et al (2011) Population dynamics of spruce bark beetle in a nature reserve in relation to stand edges conditions. Folia Oecologica 38:73–79Google Scholar
  42. Mezei P, Jakuš R, Blaženec M et al (2012) The relationship between potential solar radiation and spruce bark beetle catches in pheromone traps. Ann For Res 55:243–252Google Scholar
  43. Mezei P, Jakuš R, Pennerstorfer J et al (2017) Storms, temperature maxima and the Eurasian spruce bark beetle Ips typographus—An infernal trio in Norway spruce forests of the Central European High Tatra Mountains. Agric For Meteorol 242:85–95. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Michalová Z, Morrissey R, Wohlgemuth T et al (2017) Salvage-logging after windstorm leads to structural and functional homogenization of understory layer and delayed spruce tree recovery in Tatra Mts., Slovakia. Forests 8:88. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Montano V, Bertheau C, Doležal P et al (2016) How differential management strategies affect Ips typographus L. dispersal. For Ecol Manag 360:195–204. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Müller J, Bußler H, Goßner M et al (2008) The European spruce bark beetle Ips typographus in a national park: from pest to keystone species. Biodivers Conserv 17:2979–3001. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Müller M (2011) How natural disturbance triggers political conflict: bark beetles and the meaning of landscape in the Bavarian Forest. Glob Environ Chang 21:935–946. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Netherer S (2003) Modelling of bark beetle development and of site- and stand-related predisposition to Ips typographus (L.) (Coleoptera; Scolytidae): a contribution to risk assessment. Dissertation thesis BOKU, Vienna, p. 98Google Scholar
  49. Netherer S, Nopp-Mayr U (2005) Predisposition assessment systems (PAS) as supportive tools in forest management—rating of site and stand-related hazards of bark beetle infestation in the High Tatra Mountains as an example for system application and verification. For Ecol Manag 207:99–107. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nikolov C, Konôpka B, Kajba M et al (2014) Post-disaster forest management and bark beetle outbreak in Tatra National Park , Slovakia. Mt Res Dev 34:326–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nováková MH, Edwards-Jonášová M (2015) Restoration of Central-European mountain Norway spruce forest 15 years after natural and anthropogenic disturbance. For Ecol Manag 344:120–130. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Økland B, Berryman A (2004) Resource dynamic plays a key role in regional fluctuations of the spruce bark beetles Ips typographus. Agric For Entomol 6:141–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Økland B, Bjørnstad ON (2006) A resource-depletion model of forest insect outbreaks. Ecology 87:283–290CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Økland B, Nikolov C, Krokene P, Vakula J (2016) Transition from windfall- to patch-driven outbreak dynamics of the spruce bark beetle Ips typographus. For Ecol Manag 363:63–73. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Park Williams A, Allen CD, Macalady AK et al (2012) Temperature as a potent driver of regional forest drought stress and tree mortality. Nat Clim Chang 3:292–297. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pasztor F, Matulla C, Rammer W, Lexer MJ (2014) Drivers of the bark beetle disturbance regime in Alpine forests in Austria. For Ecol Manag 318:349–358. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Peltonen M (1999) Windthrows and dead-standing trees as bark beetle breeding material at forest-clearcut edge. Scand J For Res 14:505–511. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. R (2011) R development core team. In: R A Lang. Environ. Stat. Comput. Vienna.
  59. Raffa KF, Gregoire J, Lindgren BS, Gre J (2015) Natural history and ecology of bark beetles. Bark beetles: biology and ecology of native and invasive species. pp. 1-40Google Scholar
  60. Rosen J (2016) A forest of hypotheses. Nature 536:239–241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Seidl R, Müller J, Hothorn T et al (2015) Small beetle, large-scale drivers: how regional and landscape factors affect outbreaks of the European spruce bark beetle. J Appl Ecol 53:530–540. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. Shadish WR, Zuur AF, Sullivan KJ (2014) Using generalized additive (mixed) models to analyze single case designs. J Sch Psychol 52:149–178. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Shafer CL (1998) US National Park buffer zones: historical, scientific, social, and legal aspects. Environ Manag 23:49–73. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schroeder LM, Lindelöw Å (2002) Attacks on living spruce trees by the bark beetle ips typographus (Col. Scolytidae) following a storm-felling: a comparison between stands with and without removal of wind-felled trees. Agric For Entomol 4:47–56. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sproull GJ, Bukowski M, Mcnutt N et al (2017) Landscape-level spruce mortality patterns and topographic forecasters of bark beetle outbreaks in managed and unmanaged forests of the Tatra Mountains. Polish J Ecol 65:24–37.
  66. Stadelmann G, Bugmann H, Meier F et al (2013a) Effects of salvage logging and sanitation felling on bark beetle (Ips typographus L.) infestations. For Ecol Manag 305:273–281. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stadelmann G, Bugmann H, Wermelinger B et al (2013b) A predictive framework to assess spatio-temporal variability of infestations by the European spruce bark beetle. Ecography (Cop) 36:1208–1217. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Svoboda M, Fraver S, Janda P, et al (2010) Natural development and regeneration of a Central European montane spruce forest. For Ecol Manage 260(5):707–714Google Scholar
  69. Svoboda M, Janda P, Bače R et al (2014) Landscape-level variability in historical disturbance in primary Picea abies mountain forests of the Eastern Carpathians, Romania. J Veg Sci 25:386–401. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Szewczyk J, Szwagrzyk J, Muter E (2011) Tree growth and disturbance dynamics in old-growth subalpine spruce forests of the Western Carpathians. Can J For Res 41:938–944. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Švajda J, Koróny S, Zieba A, Adamski P (2016) Perceptions of natural disturbance in Tatra National Park, Poland. For J 62:105–109. Google Scholar
  72. Thom D, Rammer W, Seidl R (2017) Disturbances catalyze the adaptation of forest ecosystems to changing climate conditions. Glob Chang Biol 23(1):269–282Google Scholar
  73. Thom D, Seidl R, Steyrer G et al (2013) Slow and fast drivers of the natural disturbance regime in Central European forest ecosystems. For Ecol Manag 307:293–302. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Thorn S, Bässler C, Bußler H et al (2016) Bark-scratching of storm-felled trees preserves biodiversity at lower economic costs compared to debarking. For Ecol Manag 364:10–16. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Thorn S, Bässler C, Svoboda M, Müller J (2017) Effects of natural disturbances and salvage logging on biodiversity—Lessons from the Bohemian Forest. For Ecol Manag 388:113–119. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Trotsiuk V, Svoboda M, Janda P et al (2014) A mixed severity disturbance regime in the primary Picea abies (L.) Karst. forests of the Ukrainian Carpathians. For Ecol Manag 334:144–153. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Trzcinski MK, Reid ML (2008) Effect of management on the spatial spread of mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) in Banff National Park. For Ecol Manag 256:1418–1426. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wermelinger B (2004) Ecology and management of the spruce bark beetle Ips typographus—a review of recent research. For Ecol Manag 202:67–82. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. White TCR (2015) Are outbreaks of cambium-feeding beetles generated by nutritionally enhanced phloem of drought-stressed trees? J Appl Entomol 139:567–578. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wild J, Kopecký M, Svoboda M et al (2014) Spatial patterns with memory: tree regeneration after stand-replacing disturbance in Picea abies mountain forests. J Veg Sci 25:1327–1340. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wood SN (2006) Generalized additive models: an introduction with R. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  82. Zeppenfeld T, Svoboda M, DeRose RJ et al (2015) Response of mountain Picea abies forests to stand-replacing bark beetle outbreaks: neighbourhood effects lead to self-replacement. J Appl Ecol 52:1402–1411. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zielonka T (2006) When does dead wood turn into a substrate for spruce replacement? J Veg Sci 17:739.[739:WDDWTI]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Zielonka T, Malcher P (2009) The dynamics of a mountain mixed forest under wind disturbances in the Tatra Mountains, central Europe—a dendroecological reconstruction. Can J For Res 39:2215–2223. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ et al (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zýval V, Křenová Z, Kindlmann P (2016) Conservation implications of forest changes caused by bark beetle management in the Šumava National Park. Biol Conserv 204:1–9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer-Verlag France SAS 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pavel Mezei
    • 1
  • Miroslav Blaženec
    • 1
  • Wojciech Grodzki
    • 2
  • Jaroslav Škvarenina
    • 3
  • Rastislav Jakuš
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute of Forest EcologySlovak Academy of SciencesZvolenSlovak Republic
  2. 2.Department of Mountain ForestsForest Research InstituteKrakówPoland
  3. 3.Faculty of ForestryTechnical UniversityZvolenSlovakia
  4. 4.Department of Forest Protection and Game Management, Faculty of Forestry and Wood SciencesCzech University of Life SciencesPraha 6 - SuchdolCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations