Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Incorporating Carbon Storage into the Optimal Management of Forest Insect Pests: A Case Study of the Southern Pine Beetle (Dendroctonus Frontalis Zimmerman) in the New Jersey Pinelands

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Forest insect pest disturbance is increasing in certain areas of North America as many insect species, such as the southern pine beetle, expand their range due to a warming climate. Because insect pests are beginning to occupy forests that are managed for multiple uses and have not been managed for pests before, it is becoming increasingly important to determine how forests should be managed for pests when non-timber ecosystem services are considered in addition to traditional costs and revenues. One example of a service that is increasingly considered in forest management and that may affect forest pest management is carbon sequestration. This manuscript seeks to understand whether the incorporation of forest carbon sequestration into cost-benefit analysis of different forest pest management strategies affects the financially optimal strategy. We examine this question through a case study of the southern pine beetle (SPB) in a new area of SPB expansion, the New Jersey Pinelands National Reserve (NJPR). We utilize a forest ecology and economics model and include field data from the NJPR as well as outbreak probability statistics from previous years. We find under the majority of scenarios, incorporating forest carbon sequestration shifts the financially optimal SPB management strategy from preventative thinning toward no management or reactionary management in forest stands in New Jersey. These results contradict the current recommended treatment strategy for SPB and signify that the inclusion of multiple ecosystem services into a cost-benefit analysis may drastically alter which pest management strategy is economically optimal.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We are working with Illick and Aughanbaugh’s (1930) data because it is the most comprehensive data set on growth and yield of pitch pine stands in the Northeastern United States. Illick and Aughanbaugh’s (1930) data was consistent with Lathrop et al.’s (2011) growth and yield estimates from a ZELIG gap model of New Jersey pine stands, and with 2011 Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data on total volume in New Jersey pine stands. FIA data was not used in this study because FIA data in New Jersey lacked the specificity about volume and basal area over time that was needed in this model.

  2. In this study, the thin is conducted at a stand age of 50 because this is when a fully stocked pitch pine stand reaches the “high risk” basal area of 120 ft2/ac according to Illick and Aughanbaugh’s (1930) growth and yield estimates. At initial stand ages greater than 50, a thin was assumed to happen the first year modeled. While thinning in the South may occur every 5–8 years, pitch pine stands in New Jersey are much slower growing than loblolly and shortleaf pine in the South; thus after a one-time thinning at age 50, stands did not grow back in our model to a basal area of 120 ft2/ac and additional thinning was unnecessary.

References

  • Agee JK, Skinner CN (2005) Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. For Ecol Manag 211:83–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander ME (1988) Help with making crown fire hazard assessments. In: Fischer WC, Arno SF, comps. Protecting people and homes from wildfire in the interior West: Proceedings of the symposium and workshop. USDA For Serv, Intermt Res Stn, Ogden, Utah, pp 147–156

  • Aukema JE, Leung B, Kovacs K, Chivers C, Britton KO, Englin J, Frankel SJ, Haight RG, Holmes TP, Liebhold AM, McCullough DG, Von Holle B (2011) Economic impacts of non-native forest insects in the continental United States. PLoS One 6(9):e24587. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024587

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ayres MP, Lombardero MJ (2000) Assessing the consequences of climate change for forest herbivores and pathogens. Sci Total Environ 262:263–286

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bessie WC, Johnson EA (1995) The relative importance of fuels and weather on fire behavior in subalpine forests. Ecology 76:747–762

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown S, Lugo AE (1982) The storage and production of organic matter in tropical forests and their role in the global carbon cycle. Biotropica 14(3):161–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burkhart HE, Haney HL Jr, Newberry JD, Leuschner WA, Morris CL, Reed DD (1986) Evaluation of thinning for reduction of losses from southern pine beetle attack in loblolly pine stands. South J Appl For 10:105–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairns MA, Brown S, Helmer E, Baumgardner GA (1997) Root biomass allocation in the world’s upland forests. Oecologia 111:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell JL, Harmon ME, Mitchell SR (2012) Can fuel-reduction treatments really increase forest carbon storage in the western United States by reducing future fire emissions? Front Ecol Environ 10(2):83–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan-McLeod ACA (2006) A review and synthesis of the effects of unsalvaged mountain-pine-beetle-attacked stands on wildlife and implications for forest management. BC J Ecosyst Manag 7(2):119–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciesla WM (2011) Forest insect management. Forest entomology: a global perspective. Wiley, Chichester, pp 73–97. doi:10.1002/9781444397895.ch3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke SR, Billings RF (2003) Analysis of the southern pine beetle suppression program on the national forests in Texas in the 1990s. South J Appl For 27(2):122–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook DC, Thomas MB, Cunningham SA, Anderson DL, De Barro PJ (2007) Predicting the economic impact of an invasive species on an ecosystem service. Ecol Appl 17:1832–1840. doi:10.1890/06-1632.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cubbage F, Davis R, Frey G, Behr DC (2013) Financial and economic evaluation guidelines for community forestry projects in Latin America. Program on Forests (PROFOR), Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale VH, Joyce JA, McNulty S, Neilson RP, Ayres MP, Flannigan MD, Hanson PJ, Irland LC, Lugo AE, Peterson CJ, Simberloff D, Swanson FJ, Stocks BJ, Wotton BM (2001) Climate change and forest disturbances. Bioscience 51:723–734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels RF, Leuschner WA, Zarnoch SJ, Burkhart HE, Hicks RR (1979) A method for estimating the probability of Southern pine beetle outbreaks. For Sci 25(2):265–269

    Google Scholar 

  • de Wit MP, Crookes DJ, van Wilgen BW (2001) Conflicts of interest in environmental management: estimating the costs and benefits of a tree invasion. Biol Invasions 2:167–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DellaSala D, Olson D, Barth S, Crane S, Primm S (1995) Forest health: moving beyond rhetoric to restore health landscapes in the inland Northwest. Wildl Soc B 23(2):346–356

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Environmental Protection, State of New Jersey (2007) Land Use/Land Cover Update 29th July 2010. http://www.nj.gov/dep/gis/lulc07cshp.html. Accessed 26 February 2013

  • Department of Environmental Protection, State of New Jersey (2012) DEP Gears up Early in Pine Beetle Fight, Makes Suppression Grants Available to Landowners, Local Governments, and Civic Groups. State of New Jersey. http://www.nj.gov/dep/newsrel/2012/12_0014.htm. Accessed 8 May 2012

  • Feduccia DP, Dell TR, Mann WF Jr, Campbell TE, Palmer BH (1979) Yields of unthinned loblolly pine plantations on cutover sites in the West Gulf Region. USDA For Serv South Res 148:88

    Google Scholar 

  • Fettig CJ, Klepzig KD, Billings RF, Munson AS, Nebeker TE, Negron JF, Nowak JT (2007) The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention and control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the western and southern United States. For Ecol Manag 238:24–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald JW, Coulson RN, Pulley PE, Flamm RO, Oliveira FL, Swain KM, Drummond DB (1994) Suppression tactics for Dendroctonus frontalis (Coleoptera: Scolytidae): an examination of the occurrence of infestations adjacent to treatment sites. J Econ Entomol 87:417–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gan JB (2004) Risk and damage of southern pine beetle outbreaks under global climate change. For Ecol Manag 191:61–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutrich J, Howarth R (2007) Carbon sequestration and the optimal management of New Hampshire timber stands. Ecol Econ 62:441–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey AE, Geist JM, McDonald GI, Jurgensen MF, Cochran PH, Zabowski D, Meurisse RT (1994) Biotic and abiotic processes in eastside ecosystems: the effects of management on soil properties, processes, and productivity. USDA For Serv PNW RE Gen Tech Rpt PNW-GTR-323; p 70

  • Hurteau M, North M (2009) Fuel treatment effects on tree-based forest carbon storage and emissions under modeled wildfire scenarios. Front Ecol Environ 7:409–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Illick JS, Aughanbaugh JE (1930) Pitch pine in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Department of Forestry and Waters Research Bulletin 2

  • Jandl R, Vesterdal L, Olsson M, Bens O, Badeck F, Rock J (2007) Carbon sequestration and forest management. CAB Rev 2 (017). doi: 10.1079/PAVSNNR20072017

  • Jenkins M, Hebertson E, Page W, Jorgensen C (2008) Bark beetles, fuels, fires and implications for forest management in the Intermountain West. For Ecol Manag 254:16–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson DW, Curtis PS (2001) Effects of forest management on soil C and N storage: meta analysis. For Ecol Manag 140(2–3):227–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jolly MW, Parson R, Varner JM, Butler BW, Ryan KC, Gucker CL (2012) Do mountain pine beetle outbreaks change the probability of active crown fire in lodgepole pine forests? Comment. Ecology 93(4):941–946

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann WF Jr (1952) Thirty-six years of thinning research with loblolly pine. Proceedings, Louisiana State University first annual forestry symposium, 1952 March. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, pp 1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinson S, Ylioja T, Sullivan B, Billings R, Ayres M (2012) Alternate attractors in the population dynamics of a tree-killing bark beetle. Popul Ecol 55(1):95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell SR, Harmon ME, O’Connell KEB (2009) Forest fuel reduction alters fire severity and long-term carbon sequestration in three Pacific Northwest ecosystems. Ecol Appl 19(3):643–655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris CL, Copony JA (1974) Effectiveness of intensive salvage in reducing southern pine beetle in Virginia. J For 72:572

    Google Scholar 

  • Naumann NB (2012) An economic assessment of stand-level treatments for southern pine beetle prevention. Masters of Science Dissertation, North Carolina State University Forestry and Environmental Resources

  • Nordhaus W (2008) A question of balance: weighing the options on global warming policies. New Haven, Connecticut

    Google Scholar 

  • Price TS, Dogget HC, Pye JM, Smith B (1998) A history of southern pine beetle outbreaks in the southeastern United States. Georgia For Comm, Atlanta, Ga, p 78

  • Price JP, McCollum DW, Berrens RP (2010) Insect infestation and residential property values: a hedonic analysis of the mountain pine beetle epidemic. For Policy Econ 12(6):415–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prichard, SJ and Peterson, DL (2010) JFSP 07-1-2-13 Do fuel treatments reduce fire severity? Evaluating fuel treatment effectiveness in the Tripod Complex Fires. Final Report to the Joint Fire Science Program. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/fera/research/treatment/tripod/index.shtml. Accessed 12 January 2014

  • Raffa KF, Berryman AA (1983) The role of host plant resistance in the colonization behavior and ecology of bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Ecolog Monogr 53:27–49. doi:10.2307/1942586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raffa KF, Aukema BH, Bentz BJ, Carroll AL, Hicke JA, Turner MG, Romme WH (2008) Cross-scale drivers of natural disturbances prone to anthropogenic amplification: the dynamics of bark beetle eruptions. Bioscience 58:501–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed DD, Burkhart HE, Leuschner WA (1981) A Severity Model for Southern pine beetle Infestations. For Sci 27:290–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed DD, Hedden RL, Daniels RF (1982) Estimating the annual probability of southern pine beetle outbreak. For Sci 28:202–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Row C, Sessions J, Kaiser HF (1981) Discount rate for long-term Forest Service investments. J For 79(6):367–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheller RM, Van Tuyl SV, Clark KL, Hom J, La Puma I (2011) Carbon sequestration in the New Jersey pine barrens under different scenarios of fire management. Ecosystems 14:987–1004. doi:10.1007/s10021-011-9462-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simard M, Romme W, Griffin J, Turner M (2011) Do mountain pine beetle outbreaks change the probability of active crown fire in lodgepole pine forests? Ecol Monogr 8:3–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sims C, Aadland D, Finnoff D (2010) A dynamic bioeconomic analysis of mountain pine beetle epidemics. J Econ Dyn Control 34(12):2407–2419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tchakerian MD, Coulson RN (2011) Ecological Impacts of Southern pine beetle. In: Coulson RN, Klepzig KD (ed) Southern pine beetle II. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-140. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, North Carolina, pp 223–234

  • Graham RT, Harvey AE, Jain TB, Tonn, JR (1999) The effects of thinning and similar stand treatments on fire behavior in Western forests. USDA For Serv PNW RE Gen Tech Rep PNW-GTR-463; p 27

  • Tran JK, Ylioja T, Billings R, Régnière J, Ayres MP (2007) Impact of minimum winter temperatures on the population dynamics of Dendroctonus frontalis (Coleoptera: Scolytinae). Ecol Appl 17:882–899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ungerer MJ, Ayres MP, Lombardero MJ (1999) Climate and the northern distribution limits of Dendroctonus frontalis Zimmermann. J Biogeogr 26:1133–1145. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2699.1999.00363.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Kooten GC, Binkley CS, Delcourt G (1995) Effect of carbon taxes and subsidies on optimal forest rotation age and supply of carbon services. Am J Agr Econ 77:365–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vega J, Jimenez E, Vega D, Ortiz L, Perez JR (2011) Pinus pinaster Ait. tree mortality following wildfire in Spain. For Ecol Manag 261:2232–2242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lathrop RG, Clough B, Cottrell A, Ehrengeld J, Felder F, Green EJ, Specca D, Vail C, Vodak, M, Xu M., Zhang Y (2011) Assessing the potential for New Jersey forests to sequester carbon and contribute to greenhouse gas emissions avoidance. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. http://crssa.rutgers.edu/projects/carbon/. Accessed 1 July 2013

  • Werner RA, Holsten EH, Matsuoka SM, Burnside RE (2006) Spruce Beetles and forest ecosystems in south-central Alaska: a review of 30 years of research. For Ecol Manag 227(3):195–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Mark Borsuk, Matthew P. Ayres, and Carissa Aoki for their contributions to this manuscript. R. Niemiec was supported by funding from the Downey Family Prize in Environmental Studies and the James Dougherty’58 Fund in Environmental Studies. This work was supported in part by the New Hampshire Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) under Award # EPS 1101245 from the National Science Foundation. Additional support was provided by a grant to Dartmouth College from USDA Forest Service (Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry and Forest Health Monitoring Program). Special thanks to Lynn Fleming and the New Jersey Forest Service for their cooperation on this project. Additional thanks go to Ann Majchrzak for her support and the New Jersey Forest Fire Service, state foresters, and contractors interviewed who made this work possible.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Studies, Environmental Studies Program, Dartmouth College, 6182 Steele Hall, Hanover, NH, 03755, USA

    Rebecca M. Niemiec, David A. Lutz & Richard B. Howarth

Authors
  1. Rebecca M. Niemiec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David A. Lutz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Richard B. Howarth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rebecca M. Niemiec.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 42 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Niemiec, R.M., Lutz, D.A. & Howarth, R.B. Incorporating Carbon Storage into the Optimal Management of Forest Insect Pests: A Case Study of the Southern Pine Beetle (Dendroctonus Frontalis Zimmerman) in the New Jersey Pinelands. Environmental Management 54, 875–887 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0304-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0304-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation