Annals of Forest Science

, 76:85 | Cite as

Climate has a larger effect than stand basal area on wood density in Pinus ponderosa var. scopulorum in the southwestern USA

  • Damon VaughanEmail author
  • David Auty
  • Thomas E. Kolb
  • Andrew J. Sánchez Meador
  • Kurt H. Mackes
  • Joseph Dahlen
  • W. Keith Moser
Research Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Frontiers in Modelling Future Forest Growth, Yield and Wood Properties


Key message

Stand basal area of ponderosa pine ( Pinus ponderosa var. scopulorum Engelm.) in the US Southwest has little effect on the density of the wood produced, but climatic fluctuations have a strong effect. Wood density increases during drought, particularly if the drought occurs in late winter/early spring. Future droughts, as are predicted to increase in the US Southwest, may lead to production of smaller radial increments of higher density wood in ponderosa pine.


Forest restoration treatments in the US Southwest are generating large quantities of small-diameter logs. Due to negative perceptions about ponderosa pine wood quality, this material is often seen as a “waste disposal” problem rather than a high-value resource.


Our objective was to understand more about variation in southwestern US ponderosa pine wood density, an important indicator of wood quality. Specifically, we investigated the effect of stand basal area on wood density, and the effect of annual and quarterly climatic variation on wood density.


We collected samples from 54 trees grown at six different basal area levels from a replicated stand density experiment. Pith-to-bark strips were used in an X-ray densitometer to obtain annual density and growth measurements from 1919 to the present.


Stand density had a strong effect on growth rate, but little effect on wood density. However, climatic variation did influence wood density, which increased in drought years before quickly returning to pre-drought levels.


Stand basal area is not a good indicator of wood density for foresters planning to utilize material from timber harvests in the southwestern USA. Future droughts, as are predicted to increase in the region, will likely reduce wood volume production but may increase wood density in ponderosa pine.


X-ray densitometry Forest restoration Wood density Ponderosa pine Growing stock level Dendroecology 



We would like to thank the ARCS Foundation, the Kay and Irene Hafen Forestry Scholarship, the Wally Covington Travel award, and the NAU Graduate Student Government International Travel Award for generous contributions. We thank the US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, for permitting access to their long-term level of growing stock study on the Fort Valley Experimental Forest. We have many individuals to thank: our 2017 field crew (James Forst and Scarlet Jackson) for their help collecting samples, Donald P. Normandin of the Ecological Restoration Institute for help with sample preparation, and Dr. Kristen Waring for sharing historical Taylor Woods tree growth data. Finally, thanks to two anonymous reviewers who provided detailed and constructive comments on an earlier draft.


Funding for the project was provided by McIntire-Stennis appropriations to Northern Arizona University and the State of Arizona. Additional funding was provided by the Ecological Restoration Institute.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Adams HD, Kolb TE (2005) Tree growth response to drought and temperature in a mountain landscape in northern Arizona, USA. J Biogeogr 32:1629–1640. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alden HA (1997) Softwoods of North America. Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL–GTR–102. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison 151 pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen CD, Macalady AK, Chenchouni H, Bachelet D, McDowell N, Vennetier M, Kitzberger T, Rigling A, Breshears DD, Hogg EH(T), Gonzalez P, Fensham R, Zhang Z, Castro J, Demidova N, Lim JH, Allard G, Running SW, Semerci A, Cobb N (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
  4. Auty D, Achim A, Macdonald E, Cameron AD, Gardiner BA (2014) Models for predicting wood density variation in Scots pine. Forestry 87:449–458. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bailey JD (2008) Forty years later at Taylor Woods: merging the old and new. Fort Val Exp For - a Century Res 1908-2008, Conf Proc 100–105Google Scholar
  6. Bannister MH, Vine MH (1981) An early progeny trial in Pinus radiata - 4: wood density. NZ J For Sci 11:221–243Google Scholar
  7. Bunn AG (2008) A dendrochronology program library in R (dplR). Dendrochronologia 26:115–124. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bunn AG (2010) Statistical and visual crossdating in R using the dplR library. Dendrochronologia 28:251–258. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Büntgen U, Frank D, Trouet V, Esper J (2010) Diverse climate sensitivity of Mediterranean tree-ring width and density. Trees 24:261–273. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burdon RD, Kibblewhite RP, Walker JCF et al (2004) Juvenile versus mature wood: a new concept, orthogonal to corewood versus outerwood, with special reference to Pinus radiata and P. taeda. For Sci 50:399–415Google Scholar
  11. Candel-Pérez D, Lo YH, Blanco JA, Chiu CM, Camarero J, González de Andrés E, Imbert J, Castillo F (2018) Drought-induced changes in wood density are not prevented by thinning in Scots pine stands. Forests 9:1–20. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cook ER (1981) The smoothing spline: a new approach to standardizing forest interior tree-ring width series for dendroclimatic studies. Tree Ring Bull 41:45–53Google Scholar
  13. Cook ER (1985) A time series analysis approach to tree ring standardization. Dissertation. University of Arizona, TucsonGoogle Scholar
  14. Cook E, Holmes RL (1984) User manual for program ARSTAN. Tucson, AZGoogle Scholar
  15. Covington WW, Fulé PZ, Moore MM et al (1997) Restoring ecosystem health in ponderosa pine forests of the southwest. J For 95:23–29Google Scholar
  16. Davi NK, Jacoby GC, Wiles GC (2003) Boreal temperature variability inferred from maximum latewood density and tree-ring width data, Wrangell Mountain region, Alaska. Quat Res 60:252–262. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dutilleul P, Herman M, Avella-Shaw T (1998) Growth rate effects on correlations among ring width, wood density, and mean tracheid length in Norway spruce (Picea abies). Can J For Res 28:56–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eamus D, Boulain N, Cleverly J, Breshears DD (2013) Global change-type drought-induced tree mortality: vapor pressure deficit is more important than temperature per se in causing decline in tree health. Ecol Evol 3:2711–2729. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Eberhardt TL, Samuelson LJ (2015) Collection of wood quality data by X-ray densitometry: a case study with three southern pines. Wood Sci Technol 49:739–753. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Flores O, Coomes DA (2011) Estimating the wood density of species for carbon stock assessments. Methods Ecol Evol 2:214–220. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gardiner BA, Leban JM, Auty D, Simpson H (2011) Models for predicting wood density of British-grown Sitka spruce. Forestry 84:119–132. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gartner BL, North EM, Johnson GR, Singleton R (2002) Effects of live crown on vertical patterns of wood density and growth in Douglas-fir. Can J For Res 32:439–447. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gaylord ML, Kolb TE, Wallin KF, Wagner MR (2007) Seasonal dynamics of tree growth, physiology, and resin defenses in a northern Arizona ponderosa pine forest. Can J For Res 37:1173–1183. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hampton HM, Sesnie SE, Dickson BG, et al (2008) Analysis of small-diameter wood supply in northern ArizonaGoogle Scholar
  25. Hjerpe EE, Kim Y-S (2008) Economic impacts of southwestern national forest fuels reductions. J For 106:311–316Google Scholar
  26. Hsiao TC (1973) Plants response to water stress. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 24:519–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jacquin P, Longuetaud F, Leban J-M, Mothe F (2017) X-ray microdensitometry of wood: a review of existing principles and devices. Dendrochronologia 42:42–50. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jordan L, Clark A, Schimleck LR, Hall DB, Daniels RF (2008) Regional variation in wood specific gravity of planted loblolly pine in the United States. Can J For Res 38:698–710. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kalies EL, Yocom Kent LL (2016) Tamm review: are fuel treatments effective at achieving ecological and social objectives? A systematic review. For Ecol Manag 375:84–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kerhoulas LP, Kolb TE, Koch GW (2013) Tree size, stand density, and the source of water used across seasons by ponderosa pine in northern Arizona. For Ecol Manag 289:425–433. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kolb TE, Holmberg KM, Wagner MR, Stone JE (1998) Regulation of ponderosa pine foliar physiology and insect resistance mechanisms by basal area treatments. Tree Physiol 18:375–381. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kolb TE, Fettig CJ, Ayers MP, Bentz BB, Hicke JA, Mathiasen R, Stewart JE, Weed AS (2016) Observed and anticipated impacts of drought on forest insects and diseases in the United States. For Ecol Manag 380:321–334. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kretschmann DE (2010) Mechanical properties of wood. In: Wood handbook - wood as an engineering material, pp 1–46Google Scholar
  34. Lachenbruch B, Moore JR, Evans R (2011) Radial variation in wood structure and function in woody plants, and hypotheses for its occurrence. In: Size- and age-related changes in tree structure and function. Tree Physiol:121–164Google Scholar
  35. Larson P (1969) Wood formation and the concept of wood quality. Yale Univ Sch For Bull:1–54Google Scholar
  36. Larson PR, Kretschmann DE, Clark A, Isebrands JG (2001) Formation and properties of juvenile wood in southern pines: a synopsisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lowell EC, Becker DR, Rummer R et al (2008) An integrated approach to evaluating the economic costs of wildfire hazard reduction through wood utilization opportunities in the southwestern United States. For Sci 54:273–283Google Scholar
  38. Lucas AM, Kim Y-S (2016) White Mountain Stewardship Project Final 10-year Socioeconomic AssessmentGoogle Scholar
  39. Lucas AM, Kim Y, Greco B et al (2017) The social and economic contributions of the White Mountain Stewardship Project: final 10-year assessment — lessons learned and implications for future Forest management initiatives. J For 115:548–558Google Scholar
  40. Lundqvist S-O, Seifert S, Grahn T, Olsson L, García-Gil MR, Karlsson B, Seifert T (2018) Age and weather effects on between and within ring variations of number, width and coarseness of tracheids and radial growth of young Norway spruce. Eur J For Res 137:719–743. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McDowell NG, Williams AP, Xu C, Pockman WT, Dickman LTl Sevanto S, Pangle R, Limousin J, Plaut J, Mackay DS, Ogee J, Domec JC, Allen CD, Fisher RA, Jiang X, Muss JD, Breshears DD, Rauscher SA, Koven C (2015) Multi-scale predictions of massive conifer mortality due to chronic temperature rise. Nat Clim Chang 6:295–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Megraw RA (1985) Wood quality factors in loblolly pine - the influence of tree age, position in tree, and cultural practice on wood specific gravity, fiber length, and fibril angle. TAPPI Press, Atlanta, pp 1–88Google Scholar
  43. Meurisse RT (1971) Soil report on the San Francisco peaks area. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Coconino National Forest, Elden and Flagstaff Ranger Districts, FlagstaffGoogle Scholar
  44. Miles PD, Smith WB (2009) Specific gravity and other properties of wood and bark for 156 tree species found in North America. Res Note NRS-38 35Google Scholar
  45. Myers CA (1960) Estimating oven-dry weight of pulpwood in standing ponderosa pine. J For 58:889–891Google Scholar
  46. Myers CA (1967) Growing stock levels in even-aged ponderosa pine. Res. Pap. RM-33. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 8 p, Fort CollinsGoogle Scholar
  47. Nicholls JWP, Wright JP (1976) The effect of environmental factors on wood characteristics. 3. The influence of climate and site on young Pinus radiata material. Can J For Resour 6:113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Palmer WC (1965) Meteorological drought. U.S. Weather Bureau, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  49. Panshin AJ, de Zeeuw C (1980) Textbook of Wood Technology, 4th edn. McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  50. Peltola H, Kilpeläinen A, Sauvala K, Räisänen T, Ikonen VP (2007) Effects of early thinning regime and tree status on the radial growth and wood density of scots pine. Silva Fenn 41:489–505. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pompa-García M, Venegas-González A (2016) Temporal variation of wood density and carbon in two elevational sites of Pinus cooperi in relation to climate response in northern Mexico. PLoS One 11:e0156782. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Rathgeber CBK, Cuny HE, Fonti P (2016) Biological basis of tree-ring formation: a crash course. Front Plant Sci 7:1–7. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rodman KC, Sánchez Meador AJ, Moore MM, Huffman DW (2017) Reference conditions are influenced by the physical template and vary by forest type: a synthesis of Pinus ponderosa-dominated sites in the southwestern United States. For Ecol Manag 404:316–329. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rodriguez-Zaccaro FD, Groover A (2019) Wood and water: how trees modify wood development to cope with drought. Plants People Planet:1–10.
  55. Ronco F, Edminster CB, Trujillo DP (1985) Growth of ponderosa pine thinned to different stocking levels in northern Arizona. Res Pap - US Dep Agric For Serv doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ryan MG, Gower ST, Hubbard RM, Waring RH, Gholz HL, Cropper WP Jr, Running SW (1995) Woody tissue maintenance respiration of four conifers in contrasting climates. Oecologia 101:133–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schubert GH (1971) Growth response of even-aged ponderosa pines related to stand density levels. J For 69:857–860Google Scholar
  58. Seager R, Lau N-C, Li C et al (2007) Model projections of an imminent transition to a more arid climate in southwestern North America. Science 316:1181–1184. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Sperry JS, Hacke UG, Pittermann J (2006) Size and function in conifer tracheids and angiosperm vessels. Am J Bot 93:1490–1500. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. State Import Data (2018) International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of commerce. Accessed 27 May 2019
  61. Taeroe A, Nord-Larsen T, Stupak I, Raulund-Rasmussen K (2015) Allometric biomass, biomass expansion factor and wood density models for the OP42 hybrid poplar in southern Scandinavia. Bioenergy Res 8:1332–1343. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Uzoh FCC, Oliver WW (2008) Individual tree diameter increment model for managed even-aged stands of ponderosa pine throughout the western United States using a multilevel linear mixed effects model. For Ecol Manag 256:438–445. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vaughan D R, Auty D (2019) Climate has a larger effect than stand basal area on wood density in Pinus ponderosa var. scopulorum in the southwestern USA. Version 25 July 2019. OpenKnowledge@NAU. [Dataset]. Accessed 8/2/19
  64. Voorhies G (1969) Specific gravity studies of young growth southwestern ponderosa pine. For Prod J 19:45–46Google Scholar
  65. Waltz AEM, Stoddard MT, Kalies EL, Springer JD, Huffman DW, Meador AS (2014) Effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments: assessing metrics of forest resiliency and wildfire severity after the wallow fire, AZ. For Ecol Manage 334:43–52. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zang C, Biondi F (2013) Dendroclimatic calibration in R: the bootRes package for response and correlation function analysis. Dendrochronologia 31:68–74. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zang C, Biondi F (2015) Treeclim: an R package for the numerical calibration of proxy-climate relationships. Ecography 38:431–436. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ForestryNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA
  2. 2.Warner College of Natural ResourcesColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  3. 3.Warnell School of ForestryUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  4. 4.Forest and Woodland Ecosystems ScienceU.S.D.A. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research StationFlagstaffUSA

Personalised recommendations