Advertisement

Theoretical and Applied Climatology

, Volume 131, Issue 1–2, pp 153–165 | Cite as

Bark beetle-induced tree mortality alters stand energy budgets due to water budget changes

  • David E ReedEmail author
  • Brent E Ewers
  • Elise Pendall
  • John Frank
  • Robert Kelly
Original Paper

Abstract

Insect outbreaks are major disturbances that affect a land area similar to that of forest fires across North America. The recent mountain pine bark beetle (D endroctonus ponderosae) outbreak and its associated blue stain fungi (Grosmannia clavigera) are impacting water partitioning processes of forests in the Rocky Mountain region as the spatially heterogeneous disturbance spreads across the landscape. Water cycling may dramatically change due to increasing spatial heterogeneity from uneven mortality. Water and energy storage within trees and soils may also decrease, due to hydraulic failure and mortality caused by blue stain fungi followed by shifts in the water budget. This forest disturbance was unique in comparison to fire or timber harvesting because water fluxes were altered before significant structural change occurred to the canopy. We investigated the impacts of bark beetles on lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) stand and ecosystem level hydrologic processes and the resulting vertical and horizontal spatial variability in energy storage. Bark beetle-impacted stands had on average 57 % higher soil moisture, 1.5 °C higher soil temperature, and 0.8 °C higher tree bole temperature over four growing seasons compared to unimpacted stands. Seasonal latent heat flux was highly correlated with soil moisture. Thus, high mortality levels led to an increase in ecosystem level Bowen ratio as sensible heat fluxes increased yearly and latent heat fluxes varied with soil moisture levels. Decline in canopy biomass (leaf, stem, and branch) was not seen, but ground-to-atmosphere longwave radiation flux increased, as the ground surface was a larger component of the longwave radiation. Variability in soil, latent, and sensible heat flux and radiation measurements increased during the disturbance. Accounting for stand level variability in water and energy fluxes will provide a method to quantify potential drivers of ecosystem processes and services as well as lead to greater confidence in measurements for all dynamic disturbances.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank W. Massman and R. Leuning for constructive comments, J. Angstmann for assistance with data logger setup, C. Rumsey for her climbing experience, F. Whitehouse with sensor installation and dried biomass weights, Drew King with LAI data collection and processing, S. Peckham and G. Bolton for field site maintenance, and Yost R. for field processing of coarse woody debris samples. This chapter was written by D. Reed with edits by B. Ewers and E. Pendall, with additional analysis ideas supplied by J. Frank and R. Kelly. This work was funded by the National Science Foundation (GEO-1430396, EPS-1208909 and EAR-0910831), UW Agriculture Experiment Station, Wyoming Water Development Commission, the United States Geological Survey, and University of Wyoming NASA-EPSCoR.

References

  1. Allen CD et al (2010) A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. For Ecol Manag 259(4):660–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amiro, B.D. et al., 2010. Ecosystem carbon dioxide fluxes after disturbance in forests of North America. Journal of Geophysical Research-Biogeosciences, 115: G00 K02.Google Scholar
  3. Asrar G, Myneni RB, Choudhury BJ (1992) Spatial heterogeneity in vegetation canopies and remote-sensing of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation—a modeling study. Remote Sens Environ 41(2–3):85–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baldocchi DD, Law BE, Anthoni PM (2000) On measuring and modeling energy fluxes above the floor of a homogeneous and heterogeneous conifer forest. Agric For Meteorol 102(2–3):187–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baldocchi D et al (2001) FLUXNET: a new tool to study the temporal and spatial variability of ecosystem-scale carbon dioxide, water vapor, and energy flux densities. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 82(11):2415–2434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bearup LA, Maxwell RM, Clow DW, McCray JE (2014) Hydrological effects of forest transpiration loss in bark beetle-impacted watersheds. Nature Clim Change 4(6):481–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bergeron Y, Leduc A, Joyal C, Morin H (1995) Balsam fir mortality following the last spruce budworm outbreak in northwestern Quebec. Can J For Res 25(8):1375–1384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Biederman JA et al (2014a) Multiscale observations of snow accumulation and peak snowpack following widespread, insect-induced lodgepole pine mortality. Ecohydrology 7(1):150–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Biederman JA et al (2014b) Increased evaporation following widespread tree mortality limits streamflow response. Water Resour Res 50(7):5395–5409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Biederman JA et al (2015) Recent tree die-off has little effect on streamflow in contrast to expected increases from historical studies. Water Resour Res 51(12):9775–9789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Borkhuu B, Peckham SD, Ewers BE, Norton U, Pendall E (2015) Does soil respiration decline following bark beetle induced forest mortality? Evidence from a lodgepole pine forest. Agric For Meteorol 214–215:201–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bowen IS (1926) The ratio of heat losses by conduction and by evaporation from any water surface. Phys Rev 27(6):779–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown M et al (2010) Impact of mountain pine beetle on the net ecosystem production of lodgepole pine stands in British Columbia. Agric For Meteorol 150(2):254–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown MG et al (2012) The carbon balance of two lodgepole pine stands recovering from mountain pine beetle attack in British Columbia. Agric For Meteorol 153:82–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brown MG et al (2014) Evapotranspiration and canopy characteristics of two lodgepole pine stands following mountain pine beetle attack. Hydrol Process 28(8):3326–3340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burrows SN et al (2002) Application of geostatistics to characterize leaf area index (LAI) from flux tower to landscape scales using a cyclic sampling design. Ecosystems 5(7):667–679Google Scholar
  17. Edburg SL et al (2012) Cascading impacts of bark beetle-caused tree mortality on coupled biogeophysical and biogeochemical processes. Front Ecol Environ 10(8):416–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ewers BE, Oren R, Albaugh TJ, Dougherty PM (1999) Carry-over effects of water and nutrient supply on water use of Pinus taeda. Ecol Appl 9(2):513–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Finnigan JJ, Clement R, Malhi Y, Leuning R, Cleugh HA (2003) A re-evaluation of long-term flux measurement techniques part I: averaging and coordinate rotation. Bound-Layer Meteorol 107(1):1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Flannigan MD, Logan KA, Amiro BD, Skinner WR, Stocks BJ (2005) Future area burned in Canada. Clim Chang 72(1–2):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frank JM, Massman WJ, Ewers BE, Huckaby LS, Negrón JF (2014) Ecosystem CO2/H2O fluxes are explained by hydraulically limited gas exchange during tree mortality from spruce bark beetles. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences 119(6):1195–1215Google Scholar
  22. Fraterrigo JM, Rusak JA (2008) Disturbance-driven changes in the variability of ecological patterns and processes. Ecol Lett 11(7):756–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gower ST, Kucharik CJ, Norman JM (1999) Direct and indirect estimation of leaf area index, fAPAR, and net primary production of terrestrial ecosystems. Remote Sens Environ 70(1):29–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gu LH et al (2005) Objective threshold determination for nighttime eddy flux filtering. Agric For Meteorol 128(3–4):179–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hardiman B, Bohrer G, Gough C, Curtis P (2013) Canopy structural changes following widespread mortality of canopy dominant trees. Forests 4(3):537–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoerling M et al (2014) Causes and predictability of the 2012 Great Plains drought. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 95(2):269–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hopping GR, Beall G (1948) The relation of diameter of lodgepole pine to incidence of attack by the bark beetle Dendroctonus monticolae Hopkins. For Chron 24(2):141–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Horst TW (2000) On frequency response corrections for Eddy covariance flux measurements. Bound-Layer Meteorol 94(3):517–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Horst T, Lenschow D (2009) Attenuation of scalar fluxes measured with spatially-displaced sensors. Bound-Layer Meteorol 130(2):275–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hubbard RM, Rhoades CC, Elder K, Negron J (2013) Changes in transpiration and foliage growth in lodgepole pine trees following mountain pine beetle attack and mechanical girdling. For Ecol Manag 289:312–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Knight DH, Fahey TJ, Running SW (1985) Water and nutrient outflow from contrasting lodgepole pine forests in Wyoming. Ecol Monogr 55(1):29–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kurz WA et al (2008a) Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change. Nature 452(7190):987–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kurz WA, Stinson G, Rampley GJ, Dymond CC, Neilson ET (2008b) Risk of natural disturbances makes future contribution of Canada's forests to the global carbon cycle highly uncertain. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105(5):1551–1555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lee X, Massman W, Law B (2004) Handbook of micrometeorology: a guide for surface flux measurement and analysis. In: Atmospheric and oceanographic sciences library, 29. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  35. Liu HP, Randerson JT, Lindfors J, Chapin FS (2005) Changes in the surface energy budget after fire in boreal ecosystems of interior Alaska: an annual perspective. J Geophys Res-Atmos 110(D13):D13101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Loescher HW, Hanson CV, Ocheltree TW (2009) The psychometric constant is not constant: a novel approach to enhance the accuracy and precision of latent energy fluxes through automated water vapor calibrations. J Hydrometeorol 10(5):1271–1284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mackay DS et al (2002) Effects of aggregated classifications of forest composition on estimates of evapotranspiration in a northern Wisconsin forest. Glob Chang Biol 8(12):1253–1265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Man RZ, Rice JA (2010) Response of aspen stands to forest tent caterpillar defoliation and subsequent overstory mortality in northeastern Ontario, Canada. For Ecol Manag 260(10):1853–1860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Massman WJ (2000) A simple method for estimating frequency response corrections for eddy covariance systems. Agric For Meteorol 104(3):185–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McCaughey JH (1985) Energy-balance storage terms in a mature mixed forest at PETAWAWA, Ontario—a case-study. Bound-Layer Meteorol 31(1):89–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McNulty SG, Aber JD, Newman SD (1996) Nitrogen saturation in a high elevation New England spruce-fir stand. For Ecol Manag 84(1–3):109–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Meyers TP, Hollinger SE (2004) An assessment of storage terms in the surface energy balance of maize and soybean. Agric For Meteorol 125(1–2):105–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mikkelson K et al (2013) Bark beetle infestation impacts on nutrient cycling, water quality and interdependent hydrological effects. Biogeochemistry 115(1–3):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Minckley TA, Shriver RK, Shuman B (2012) Resilience and regime change in a southern Rocky Mountain ecosystem during the past 17 000 years. Ecol Monogr 82(1):49–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moncrieff JB, Malhi Y, Leuning R (1996) The propagation of errors in long-term measurements of land-atmosphere fluxes of carbon and water. Glob Chang Biol 2(3):231–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Monin AS, Obukhov AM (1954) Basic laws of turbulence mixing in the ground layer of the atmosphere. Acad Nauk SSR Trud Geofiz Inst 24:163–187Google Scholar
  47. Negrón JF, Popp JB (2004) Probability of ponderosa pine infestation by mountain pine beetle in the Colorado Front Range. For Ecol Manag 191(1–3):17–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Niinemets U (2010) Responses of forest trees to single and multiple environmental stresses from seedlings to mature plants: past stress history, stress interactions, tolerance and acclimation. For Ecol Manag 260(10):1623–1639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Norton U, Ewers BE, Borkhuu B, Brown NR, Pendall E (2015) Soil nitrogen five years after bark beetle infestation in lodgepole pine forests. Soil Sci Soc Am J 79(1):282–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Oliver CD (1980) Forest development in North America following major disturbances. For Ecol Manag 3:153–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Panek JA, Kurpius MR, Goldstein AH (2002) An evaluation of ozone exposure metrics for a seasonally drought-stressed ponderosa pine ecosystem. Environ Pollut 117(1):93–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pearson JA, Fahey TJ, Knight DH (1984) Biomass and leaf-area in contrasting lodgepole pine forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research-Revue Canadienne De Recherche Forestiere 14(2):259–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pelz KA, Smith FW (2012) Thirty year change in lodgepole and lodgepole/mixed conifer forest structure following 1980s mountain pine beetle outbreak in western Colorado, USA. For Ecol Manag 280:93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ponton S et al (2006) Comparison of ecosystem water-use efficiency among Douglas-fir forest, aspen forest and grassland using eddy covariance and carbon isotope techniques. Glob Chang Biol 12(2):294–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Potts DF (1984) Hydrologic impacts of a large-scale mountain pine-beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins) epidemic. Water Resour Bull 20(3):373–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Prescott CE (2002) The influence of the forest canopy on nutrient cycling. Tree Physiol 22(15–16):1193–1200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pugh E, Gordon E (2013) A conceptual model of water yield effects from beetle-induced tree death in snow-dominated lodgepole pine forests. Hydrol Process 27(14):2048–2060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pugh E, Small E (2012) The impact of pine beetle infestation on snow accumulation and melt in the headwaters of the Colorado River. Ecohydrology 5(4):467–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Raffa KF et al (2008) Cross-scale drivers of natural disturbances prone to anthropogenic amplification: the dynamics of bark beetle eruptions. Bioscience 58(6):501–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rammig A, Fahse L, Bugmann H, Bebi P (2006) Forest regeneration after disturbance: a modelling study for the Swiss Alps. For Ecol Manag 222(123):–136Google Scholar
  61. Reed DE, Ewers BE, Pendall E (2014) Impact of mountain pine beetle induced mortality on forest carbon and water fluxes. Environ Res Lett 9(10):105004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Reid RW (1962) Biology of the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus monticolae Hopkins, in the East Kootenay Region of British Columbia I. Life cycle, brood development, and flight periods. The Canadian Entomologist 94(5):531–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rhoades, C.C. et al., 2013. Biogeochemistry of beetle-killed forests: explaining a weak nitrate response. Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesGoogle Scholar
  64. Romme WH, Knight DH, Yavitt JB (1986) Mountain pine beetle outbreaks in the Rocky Mountains: regulators of primary productivity? Am Nat 127(4):484–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rousseeuw PJ, Ruts I, Tukey JW (1999) The bagplot: a bivariate boxplot. Am Stat 53(4):382–387Google Scholar
  66. Safranyik L et al (2010) Potential for range expansion of mountain pine beetle into the boreal forest of North America. Can Entomol 142(5):415–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schuepp PH, Leclerc MY, MacPherson JI, Desjardins RL (1990) Footprint prediction of scalar fluxes from analytical solutions of the diffusion equation. Bound-Layer Meteorol 50(1):355–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Szwagrzyk J, Szewczyk J (2001) Tree mortality and effects of release from competition in an old-growth Fagus-Abies-Picea stand. J Veg Sci 12(5):621–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Thompson, M.T., DeBlander Larry T., Blackard Jock A., 2005. Wyoming's forests, 2002. Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-6. Fort Collins, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 148 p.Google Scholar
  70. Tingey DT et al (2001) Elevated CO2 and temperature alter the response of Pinus ponderosa to ozone: a simulation analysis. Ecol Appl 11(5):1412–1424Google Scholar
  71. Turner MG (1989) Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:171–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Turner MG, Romme WH, Gardner RH, O'Neill RV, Kratz TK (1993) A revised concept of landscape equilibrium: disturbance and stability on scaled landscapes. Landsc Ecol 8(3):213–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tymstra C, Flannigan MD, Armitage OB, Logan K (2007) Impact of climate change on area burned in Alberta's boreal forest. Int J Wildland Fire 16(2):153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. van Mantgem PJ et al (2009) Widespread increase of tree mortality rates in the western United States. Science 323(5913):521–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Webb EK, Pearman GI, Leuning R (1980) Correction of flux measurements for density effects due to heat and water vapour transfer. Q J R Meteorol Soc 106(447):85–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Westerling AL, Hidalgo HG, Cayan DR, Swetnam TW (2006) Warming and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity. Science 313(5789):940–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Yamaoka Y, Swanson RH, Hiratsuka Y (1990) Inoculation of lodgepole pine with four blue-stain fungi associated with mountain pine beetle, monitored by a heat pulse velocity (HPV) instrument. Can J For Res 20(1):31–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • David E Reed
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Brent E Ewers
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Elise Pendall
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • John Frank
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • Robert Kelly
    • 2
    • 4
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Atmospheric and OceanicUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Program in EcologyUniversity of WyomingLaramieUSA
  3. 3.Hawkesbury Institute for the EnvironmentUniversity of Western SydneySydneyAustralia
  4. 4.Department of BotanyUniversity of WyomingLaramieUSA
  5. 5.US Forest ServiceRocky Mountain Research StationFort CollinsUSA
  6. 6.Department of Atmospheric ScienceUniversity of WyomingLaramieUSA

Personalised recommendations