Vegetatio

, Volume 122, Issue 1, pp 1–12 | Cite as

Response of understory vegetation to variable tree mortality following a mountain pine beetle epidemic in lodgepole pine stands in northern Utah

  • William E. Stone
  • Michael L. Wolfe
Article

Abstract

We examined the response of understory vegetation beneath monotypic, even-aged stands of lodgepole pine to increasing tree mortality following an epidemic of mountain pine beetles. we hypothesized that understory biomass would increase continually as the tree canopy was reduced and competition with trees for light and soil moisture decreased, but that plant species diversity and heterogeneity would peak at intermediate levels of beetle-caused tree mortality. Mean understory biomass clipped from 50 1-m2 circular plots/stand was an order of magnitude greater (40 g m-2) in beetle-killed stands, with typical levels of overstory tree mortality (50–70%), than in unaffected stands (4 g m-2); and it increased exponentially with disturbance severity. Frequency of fruit occurrence was positively related to increasing tree mortality, but was highly variable. Understory plant species richness and, to lesser degrees indices of diversity that incorporate evenness, peaked in stands with moderate mortality. Measures of vegetation patchiness (the coefficient of variation in mean plot biomass and an index of habitat interspersion) also peaked in stands with intermediate levels of disturbance. The response of understory plant species diversity to increasing disturbance severity is consistent with the pattern predicted by the intermediate disturbance hypothesis. However, other explanations of this pattern are discussed. Although understory plant community richness was higher in beetle-killed stands than in unaffected stands, new species were not abundant and therefore did not contribute substantially to greater evenness in understory plant diversity.

Key words

Community organization Coniferous forest Diversity Forest gaps Intermediate disturbance hypothesis Plant abundance Plant distribution 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amman, G. D., 1977. The role of mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pine ecosystems: impact on succession. In: Mattson, W. J. (ed), The role of arthropods in forest ecosystems, pp. 3–18. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Bazzaz, F. A., 1983. Characteristics of populations in relation to disturbance in natural and man-modified ecosystems. In: Mooney, H. A. & Godron, M. (eds), Disturbance and ecosystems, pp. 259–277. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  3. Bernier, G., Kinet, J.-M. & Sachs, R. M., 1981. The physiology of flowering, Vol. 2. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
  4. Blair, R. M. 1967. Deer forage in a loblolly pine plantation. Journal of Wildlife Management 31: 432–437.Google Scholar
  5. Blair, R. M. & Enghardt, H. G. 1976. Deer forage and overstory dynamics in a lodgepole pine plantation. Journal of Range Management 29: 104–108.Google Scholar
  6. Bratton, S. P. 1976. Resource division in an understory herb community: response to temporal and microtopographic gradients American Naturalist 110: 679–693.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, J. K. 1975. Fire cycles and community dynamics in lodgepole pine forests. In: Baumgarner, D. M. (ed.), Management of lodgepole pine ecosystems, Symposium Proceedings, Vol. 1, pp. 429–456. Washington State Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv., Pullman, Washington.Google Scholar
  8. Canham, C. D. & Marks, P. L. 1985. The response of woody plants to disturbance: patterns of establishment and growth. In: Pickett, S. T. A. & White, P. S. (eds), The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics, pp. 197–216. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.Google Scholar
  9. Chaneton, E. J. & Facelli, J. M. 1991. Disturbance effects on plant community diversity: spatial scales and dominance hierarchies. Vegetatio 93: 143–155.Google Scholar
  10. Christensen, N. L. & Peet, R. K. 1982. Measures of natural diversity. In: Cooley, J. L. & Cooley, J. H. (eds.), Natural diversity in forest ecosystems. Proceedings of the workshop, pp. 43–58. Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.Google Scholar
  11. Cole, W. E. & Amman, G. D. 1969. Mountain pine beetle infestations in relation to lodgepole pine diameters. Intermountain Forst and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Serv. Res. Note INT-95.Google Scholar
  12. Cole, W. E. & Amman, G. D. 1980. Mountain pine beetle dynamics in lodgepole pine forests: Part 1. Course of an infestation. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-89.Google Scholar
  13. Collins, B. S., Dunne, K. P. & Pickett, S. T. A., 1985. Resposes of forest herbs to canopy gaps. In: Pickett, S. T. A. & White, P. S. (eds), The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics, pp. 218–234. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.Google Scholar
  14. Connell, J. H. 1978. Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 199: 1302–1310.Google Scholar
  15. Dahlem, T. S. & Boerner, R. E. J. 1987. Effects of canopy light gap and early emergence on the growth and reproduction of Geranium maculatum. Canadian Journal of Botany 65: 242–245.Google Scholar
  16. Ehrenreich, J. H. & Crosby, J. S. 1960. Herbage production is related to hardwood crown cover. Journal of Forestry 58: 564–565.Google Scholar
  17. ERDAS. 1990. Earth resources data analysis systems: Tablet digitizing and image scanning module — version 4.3. ERDAS Inc., Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar
  18. Ford, E. D. & Newbould, P. J. 1977. The biomass and production of ground vegetation and its relation to tree cover through a deciduous woodland cycle. Journal of Ecology 65: 201–212.Google Scholar
  19. Grime, J. P. 1973. Competitive exclusion in herbaceous vegetation. Nature 242: 344–347.Google Scholar
  20. Grime, J. P. 1979. Plant strategies and vegetation processes. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  21. Halls, L. K. & Schuster, J. L. 1965. Tree-herbage relations in pinehardwood forest of Texas. Journal of Forestry 63: 282–283.Google Scholar
  22. Hill, M. O. 1973. Diversity and evenness: a unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology 54: 427–432.Google Scholar
  23. Huston, M. 1979. A general hypothesis of species diversity. American Naturalist 113: 81–101.Google Scholar
  24. Kovacic, D. A., Dyer, M. I. & Cringan, A. T. 1985. Understory biomass in ponderosa pine following mountain pine beetle infestation. Forest Ecology & Management 13: 53–67.Google Scholar
  25. Leuschner, W. A. & Maine, J. D. 1980. Estimating the southern pine beetle's grazing impact. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America 26: 117–120.Google Scholar
  26. MacArthur, R. H. 1965. Patterns of species diversity. Biological Review 40: 510–573.Google Scholar
  27. Maine, J. D. 1979. A qualitative analysis of the southern pine beetle's (Dendroctonus frontalis Zimm.) impact on wildlife, wildfire, and grazing. M.S. Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., Blacksburg, Virginia.Google Scholar
  28. Margalef, D. R. 1958. Information theory in ecology. General Systems 3: 37–71.Google Scholar
  29. McCambridge, W. F., Morris, M. J. & Edminster, C. B. 1982. Herbage production under ponderosa pine killed by the mountain pine beetle in Colorado. USDA Forest Serv. Res. Note RM-416. 4 pp.Google Scholar
  30. Mladenoff, D. J. 1990. The relationship of the soil seed bank and understory vegetation in old-growth northern hardwood-hemlock treefall gaps. Canadian Journal of Botany 68: 2714–2721.Google Scholar
  31. Moore, M. R. & Vankat, J. L. 1986. Resposes of the herb layer to the gap dynamics of a mature beech-maple forest. American Midland Naturalist 115: 336–347.Google Scholar
  32. Mosby, H. S. 1980. Reconnaisance mapping and map use. In: Schemnitz, S. D. (ed.), Wildlife management techniques manual, 4th ed., pp. 277–290. The Wildlife Society, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  33. Patton, D. R. 1975. A diversity index for quantifying habitat ‘edge’. Wildlife Society Bulletin 3: 171–173.Google Scholar
  34. Pitelka, L. F., Stanton, D. S. & Peckenham, M. O. 1980. Effects of light and density on resource allocation in a forest herb, Aster acuminatus (Compositae). American Journal of Botany 67: 942–948.Google Scholar
  35. Reader, R. J., Taylor, K. C. & Larson, D. W. 1991. Does intermediate disturbance increase species richness within deciduous forest understory? In: Esser, G. & Overdiek, D. (eds.), Modern ecology: basic and applied aspects, pp. 363–373. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  36. Ricklefs, R. E. 1977. Environmental heterogeneity and plant species diversity: a hypothesis. American Naturalist 111: 376–381.Google Scholar
  37. Roe, A. L. & Amman, G. D. 1970. The mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pine forests. Intermountain forest and range experiment station. USDA Forest Serv. Res. Pap. INT-71, 23 pp.Google Scholar
  38. Romme, W. H., Knight, D. H. & Yavitt, J. B. 1986. Mountain pine beetle outbreaks in the Rocky Mountains: regulators of primary productivity? American Naturalist 127: 484–494.Google Scholar
  39. Satoo, T. & Madgwick, H. A. I. 1982. Forest biomass. Martinus Nijhoff/Dr W. Junk Publishers, The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  40. Schowalter, T. D., Coulson, R. N. & CrossleyJr., D. A. 1981. The role of the southern pine beetle and fire in maintenance of structure and function of the southeastern coniferous forest. Environmental Entomology 10: 821–825.Google Scholar
  41. Shannon, C. E. & Weaver, W. 1963. The mathematical theory of communication. Univ. of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois.Google Scholar
  42. Simpson, E. H. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature 163: 688.Google Scholar
  43. Sprugel, D. G. 1991. Disturbance, equilibrium, and environmental variability: what is ‘natural’ vegetation in a changing environment? Biological Conservation 58: 1–18.Google Scholar
  44. Tilman, D. 1982. Resource competition and community structure. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  45. Tilman, D. & Pacala, S. 1993. The maintenance of species richness in plant communities. In: Ricklefs, R. E. & Schluter, D., (eds), Species diversity in ecological communities, pp. 13–25. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
  46. White, P. S. & Pickett, S. T. A. 1985. Natural disturbance and patch dynamics: an introduction. In: Pickett, S. T. A. & White, P. S. (eds), The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics. pp. 3–13. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  47. Yeager, L. E. & Riordan, L. E. 1953. Effects of beetle-killed timber on range and wildlife in Colorado. Transactions of the North American Wildlife & Natural Resources Conference 18: 596–616.Google Scholar
  48. Zimmer, K. 1985. Brunfelsia pauciflora var. calycina. In: Halevy, A. H. (ed.), Handbook of flowering, Vol. 2, pp. 85–88. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • William E. Stone
    • 1
  • Michael L. Wolfe
    • 1
  1. 1.Fisheries & Wildlife Department, UMC 5210Utah State UniversityLoganU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations