Advertisement

European Journal of Forest Research

, Volume 137, Issue 5, pp 675–691 | Cite as

Modelling the predisposition of Norway spruce to Ips typographus L. infestation by means of environmental factors in southern Finland

  • Minna BlomqvistEmail author
  • Maiju Kosunen
  • Mike Starr
  • Tuula Kantola
  • Markus Holopainen
  • Päivi Lyytikäinen-Saarenmaa
Original Paper

Abstract

New measures for effective monitoring and controlling of bark beetle infestations are needed as a response to intensified outbreaks caused by the climate change. Various environmental factors affect tree health and susceptibility, as well as stand predisposition to bark beetles. European spruce bark beetle Ips typographus L. abundance and outbreak frequency in Finland has significantly increased during the last decade. The ability to identify sites under a high risk of infestation would facilitate adaptation to this new situation and help target limited forest health management resources. Accordingly, our goal was to investigate the importance of various stand, soil and topographic characteristics in the assessing predisposition of Norway spruce dominated urban forest in southern Finland to I. typographus infestations. Information on the environmental factors was assessed in the field in 2014 and derived from a digital elevation model. Ips typographus infestation intensity was classified into three infestation index classes based on tree-wise symptoms of resin flow, discoloration and defoliation. Cumulative logit link models were utilized for investigating stand-level infestation probability. The best explanatory factors were aspect, slope, site type and soil texture. Models with the highest cumulative probabilities for severe infestation were linked with eastern aspect, moderate steep slope and rich site type fertility (0.72) and eastern aspect, shallow soil and rich site type fertility (0.71). Higher soil C/N ratios with east aspect and rich site type fertility was associated with an increased risk of severe infestation in a third model. The lowest risk was associated with southern and southwestern aspects, fine soil texture, moderate site fertility and gentle slopes.

Keywords

Cumulative link model European spruce bark beetle Infestation risk Norway spruce Soil properties Topography 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by Maj and Tor Nessling Foundation, Niemi Foundation, the Finnish Society of Forest Sciences and the Finnish Cultural Foundation. Many thanks are due to Anna-Maaria Särkkä, head of the forestry unit of the city of Lahti, for her cooperation. In addition, we would like to express our thanks to Raimo Asikainen, former head of the forestry unit of the city of Lahti, who enabled an onset of the study. We wish to thank Jarkko Isotalo for statistical advice and Sini Keinänen for her help in the field and laboratory. In addition, we thank Elina Peuhu and the three anonymous reviewers for their comments in improving the paper.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10342_2018_1133_MOESM1_ESM.docx (10 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 10273 kb)
10342_2018_1133_MOESM2_ESM.docx (22 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 22 kb)

References

  1. Akaike H (1987) Factor analysis and AIC. In: Parzen E, Tanabe K, Kitagawa G (eds) Selected papers of Hirotugu Akaike. Springer series in statistics (perspectives in statistics). Springer, New York, pp 371–386.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1694-0_29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Annila E (1969) Influence of temperature upon the development and voltinism of Ips typographus L. (Coleoptera, Scolytidae). Ann Zool Fenn 6:161–207Google Scholar
  3. Baier P (1996) Defence reactions of Norway spruce (Picea abies Karst.) to controlled attacks of Ips typographus (L.) (Col., Scolytidae) in relation to tree parameters. J Appl Entomol 120:587–593.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.1996.tb01656.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baier P, Führer E, Kirisits T, Rosner S (2002) Defense reactions of Norway spruce against bark beetles and the associated fungus Ceratocystis polonica in secondary pure and mixed species stands. For Ecol Manag 159:73–86.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00711-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bakke A (1983) Host tree and bark beetle interaction during a mass outbreak of Ips typographus in Norway. J Appl Entomol 96:118–125.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.1983.tb03651.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartos D, Amman G (1989) Microclimate: an alternative to tree vigor as a basis for mountain pine beetle infestations. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Research Paper INT-400Google Scholar
  7. Burnham K, Anderson D, Huyvaert K (2011) AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral ecology: some background, observations, and comparisons. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:23–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christensen R (2015a) Analysis of ordinal data with cumulative link models—estimation with the R-package ordinal. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ordinal/. Accessed 5 Oct 2017
  9. Christensen R (2015b) A tutorial on fitting cumulative link models with the ordinal package. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ordinal/. Accessed 5 Oct 2017
  10. Christensen R (2015c) Ordinal—regression models for ordinal data. R package version 2015.6-28. http://www.cran.r-project.org/package=ordinal/
  11. Christiansen E, Bakke A (1988) The spruce bark beetle of Eurasia. In: Berryman A (ed) Dynamics of forest insect populations. Plenum, New York, pp 479–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Christiansen E, Waring R, Berryman A (1987) Resistance of conifers to bark beetle attack: searching for general relationship. For Ecol Manag 22:89–106.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1127(87)90098-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cook S, Shirley B, Zambino P (2010) Nitrogen concentration in mountain pine beetle larvae reflects nitrogen status of the tree host and two fungal associates. Environ Entomol 39:821–826.  https://doi.org/10.1603/EN09305 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. De Somviele B, Lyytikäinen-Saarenmaa P, Niemelä P (2007) Stand edge effects on distribution and condition of Diprionid sawflies. Agric For Entomol 9:17–30.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-9563.2006.00313.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dutilleul P, Nef L, Frigon D (2000) Assessment of site characteristics as predictors of the vulnerability of Norway spruce (Picea abies Karst.) stands to attack by Ips typographus L. (Col., Scolytidae). J Appl Entomol 124:1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0418.2000.00440.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eriksson M, Pouttu A, Roininen H (2005) The influence of windthrown area and timber characteristics on colonization of wind-felled spruces by Ips typographus (L.). For Ecol Manag 216:105–116.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.05.044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goodsman D, Erbilgin N, Lieffers V (2012) The impact of phloem nutrients on overwintering mountain pine beetle and their fungal symbionts. Environ Entomol 41:478–486.  https://doi.org/10.1603/EN11205 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Göthlin E, Schroeder M, Lindelöw Å (2000) Attacks by Ips typographus and Pityogenes chalchographus on windthrown spruces (Picea abies) during the two years following a storm felling. Scand J For Res 15:542–549.  https://doi.org/10.1080/028275800750173492 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Griffin J, Turner M, Simard M (2011) Nitrogen cycling following mountain pine beetle disturbance in lodgepole pine forests of Greater Yellowstone. For Ecol Manag 261:1077–1089.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.12.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haavisto-Hyvärinen M, Kutvonen H (2007) Maaperäkartan käyttöopas. Geologinen tutkimuskeskus, EspooGoogle Scholar
  21. Harrell F with contributions from Charles Dupont and many others (2017) Hmisc: Harrell miscellaneous. R package version 4.0-3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Hmisc
  22. Helmisaari H-S, Derome J, Nöjd P, Kukkola M (2007) Fine root biomass in relation to site and stand characteristics in Norway spruce and Scots pine stands. Tree Physiol 27:1493–1504CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hilszczanski J, Janiszewski W, Negron J, Munson A (2006) Stand characteristics and Ips typographus (L.) (Col., Curculionidae, Scolytinae) infestation during outbreak in northeastern Poland. Folia For Pol Ser A For 48:53–64Google Scholar
  24. Hodkinson I (2005) Terrestrial insects along elevation gradients: species and community responses to altitude. Biol Rev 80:489–513.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793105006767 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Jakuš R (1998) Types of bark beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) infestation in spruce forest stands affected by air pollution, bark beetle outbreak and honey fungus (Armillaria mellea). Anzeiger für Schädlingskunde 71:41–49.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02770619 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jakuš R, Edwards-Jonášová M, Cudlín P, Blaženec M, Ježík M, Havlíček F, Moravec I (2011) Characteristics of Norway spruce trees (Picea abies) surviving a spruce bark beetle (Ips typographus L.) outbreak. Trees 25:965–973.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-011-0571-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jurc M, Perko M, Džeroski S, Demšar D, Hrašovec B (2006) Spruce bark beetles (Ips typographus, Pityogenes chalcographus, Col.: Scolytidae) in the Dinaric mountain forests of Slovenia: monitoring and modeling. Ecol Model 194:219–226.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.10.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kaiser K, McGlynn B, Emanuel R (2013) Ecohydrology of an outbreak: mountain pine beetle impacts trees in drier landscape position first. Ecohydrology 6:444–454.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1286 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kantola T, Lyytikäinen-Saarenmaa P, Coulson RN, Strauch S, Tchakerian MD, Holopainen M, Saarenmaa H, Streett DA (2014) Spatial distribution and pattern of hemlock woolly adelgid induced hemlock mortality in the southern Appalachians. Open J For 4:492–506.  https://doi.org/10.4236/ojf.2014.45053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kärvemo S, Rogell B, Schroeder M (2014) Dynamics of spruce bark beetle infestation spots: importance of local population size and landscape characteristics after a storm disturbance. For Ecol Manag 334:232–240.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.09.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kärvemo S, Johansson V, Schroeder M, Ranius T (2016) Local colonization-extinction dynamics of a tree-killing bark beetle during a large-scale outbreak. Ecosphere 7:e01257.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1257 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 262:598–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kharuk VI, Ranson KJ, EV Fedotova (2007) Spatial pattern of Siberian silkmoth outbreak and taiga mortality. Scand J Forest Res 22:531–536.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02827580701763656 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kosunen M, Kantola T, Starr M, Blomqvist M, Talvitie M, Lyytikäinen-Saarenmaa P (2016) Influence of soil and topography on defoliation intensity during an extended outbreak of the common pine sawfly (Diprion pini L.). iForest 10:164–171.  https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor2069-009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lausch A, Fahse L, Heurich M (2011) Factors affecting the spatio-temporal dispersion of Ips typographus (L.) in Bavarian Forest National Park: a long-term quantitative landscape-level analysis. For Ecol Manag 261:233–245.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.10.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lausch A, Heurich M, Fahse L (2013) Spatio-temporal infestation patterns of Ips typographus (L.) in the Bavarian Forest National Park, Germany. Ecol Indic 31:73-81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Legendre P (1993) Spatial autocorrelation: trouble or new paradigm? Ecology 74:1659–1673.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1939924 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Martin P, Angel L, Armando E, Manuel C, Tulio M (2013) Relationships between site factors and bark beetle attack on pine trees. J Biol Sci 13:621–627.  https://doi.org/10.3923/jbs.2013.621.627 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mattson W Jr (1980) Herbivory in relation to plant nitrogen content. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11:119–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mezei P, Grodzki W, Blaženec M, Škvarenina J, Brandýsová V, Jakuš R (2014) Host and site factors affecting tree mortality caused by the spruce bark beetle (Ips typographus) in mountainous conditions. For Ecol Manag 331:196–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mezei P, Jakuš R, Pennerstorfer J, Havašová M, Škvarenina J, Ferenčík J, Slivinský J, Bičárová S, Bilčík D, Blaženec M, Netherer S (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 Meteorology 242:85–95.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.04.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mikola P (1982) Application of vegetation science to forestry in Finland. In: Jahn G (ed) Handbook of vegetation science, part 12. Dr W. Junk Publishers, The Hague, pp 199–224Google Scholar
  43. Morehouse K, Johns T, Kaye J, Kaye M (2008) Carbon and nitrogen cycling immediately following bark beetle outbreaks in southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Forest Ecol Manag 255(7):2698–2708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mulock P, Christiansen E (1986) The threshold of successful attack by Ips typographus on Picea abies: a field experiment. For Ecol Manag 14:125–132.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1127(86)90097-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Näsi R, Honkavaara E, Lyytikäinen-Saarenmaa P, Blomqvist M, Litkey P, Hakala T, Kantola T, Tanhuanpaa T, Holopainen M (2015) Using UAV-based photogrammetry and hyperspectral imaging for mapping bark beetle damage at tree-level. Remote Sens 7:15467–15493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Näsi R, Honkavaara E, Blomqvist M, Lyytikäinen-Saarenmaa P, Hakala T, Viljanen N, Kantola T, Holopainen M (2018) Remote sensing of bark beetle damage in urban forests at individual tree level using a novel hyperspectral camera from UAV and aircraft. Urban For Urban Green 30:72–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Näslund M (1937) Skogsförsöksanstaltens gallringsförsök i tallskog. Rep Swed Inst Exp For 29:1–169Google Scholar
  48. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Netherer S, Matthews B, Katzensteiner K, Blackwell E, Henschke P, Hietz P, Pennerstorfel J, Rosner S, Kikuta S, Schume H, Schopf A (2015) Do water-limiting conditions predispose Norway spruce to bark beetle attack? New Phytol 205:1128–1141.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13166 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Neuvonen S, Viiri H (2017) Changing climate and outbreaks of forest pest insects in a cold northern country, Finland. In: Latola K, Savela H (eds) The Interconnected Arctic—UArctic Congress 2016. Cham, Springer Polar Sciences, pp 49–59.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57532-2_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Niemelä P, Rousi M, Saarenmaa H (1987) Topographical delimitation of Neodiprion sertifer (Hym, Diprionidae) outbreaks on Scots pine in relation to needle quality. J Appl Entomol 103:84–91.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.1987.tb00962.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Öhrn P, Långström B, Lindelöw Å, Björklund N (2014) Seasonal flight patterns of Ips typographus in southern Sweden and thermal sums required for emergence. Agric For Entomol 16:147–157.  https://doi.org/10.1111/afe.12044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pohlert T (2014) The pairwise multiple comparison of mean ranks package (PMCMR). R package. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=PMCMR
  54. Powell J (1967) A study of habitat temperatures of the bark beetle Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins in lodgepole pine. Agric Meteorol 4:189–201.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-1571(67)90003-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Powers J, Sollins P, Harmon M, Jones J (1999) Plant-pest interactions in time and space: a Douglas-fir bark beetle outbreak as a case study. Landsc Ecol 14:105–120.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008017711917 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
  57. Raffa K, Aukema B, Bentz B, Carroll A, Hicke J, Kolb T (2015) Responses of tree-killing bark beetles to a changing climate. In: Björkman C, Niemelä P (eds) Climate change and insect pests. Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International (CABI), Wallingford, pp 173–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rainio H, Saarnisto M, Ekman I (1995) Younger Dryas end moraines in Finland and NW Russia. Quat Int 28:179–192.  https://doi.org/10.1016/1040-6182(95)00051-J CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ryan M, Sapes G, Sala A, Hood S (2015) Tree physiology and bark beetles. New Phytol 205:955–957.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13256 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Schroeder L (2013) Monitoring of Ips typographus and Pityogenes chalcographus: influence of trapping site and surrounding landscape on catches. Agric For Entomol 15:113–119.  https://doi.org/10.1111/afe.12002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Seidl R, Baier P, Rammer W, Schopf A, Lexer M (2007) Modelling tree mortality by bark beetle infestation in Norway spruce forests. Ecol Model 206:383–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Seidl R, Müller J, Hothorn T, Bässler C, Heurich M, Kautz M, Kaplan I (2016) Small beetle, large-scale drivers: how regional and landscape factors affect outbreaks of the European spruce bark beetle. J Appl Ecol 53(2):530-540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sproull G, Adamus M, Bukowski M, Krzyżanowski T, Szewczyk J, Statwick J, Szwagrzyk J (2015) Tree and stand-level patterns and predictors of Norway spruce mortality caused by bark beetle infestation in the Tatra Mountains. For Ecol Manag 354:261–271.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.06.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stadelmann G, Bugmann H, Meier F, Wermelinger B, Bigler C (2013) Effects of salvage logging and sanitation felling on bark beetle (Ips typographus L.) infestations. For Ecol Manag 305:273–281.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.06.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stevenson F, Cole M (1999) Cycles of soils: carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur, micronutrients. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  66. Tamminen P, Starr M (1994) Bulk density of forested mineral soils. Silva Fenn 28:53–60. http://hdl.handle.net/1975/9162
  67. Trahan N, Dynes E, Pugh E, Moore D, Monson R (2015) Changes in soil biogeochemistry following disturbance by girdling and mountain pine beetles in subalpine forests. Oecologia 177:981–995.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-015-3227-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Tschudi S, Ivy-Ochs S, Schlüchter C, Kubik P, Rainio H (2000) Be dating of Younger Dryas Salpausselkä I formation in Finland. Boreas 29:287–293.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1502-3885.2000.tb01211.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Venables N, Ripley B (2002) Modern applied statistics with S, 4th edn. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Viiri H, Ahola A, Ihalainen A, Korhonen KT, Muinonen E, Parikka H, Pitkänen J (2011) Kesän 2010 myrskytuhot ja niistä seuraavat hyönteistuhot. Metsätieteen Aikakauskirja 3:221–225 (In Finnish) Google Scholar
  71. Viro P (1951) Nutrient status and fertility of forest soil. I. Pine stands. Communicationes Instituti Forestalis Fenniae 39:54 pGoogle Scholar
  72. Wermelinger B (2004) Ecology and management of the spruce bark beetle Ips typographus—a review of recent research. For Ecol Manag 202:67–82.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.07.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wermelinger B, Seifert M (1998) Analysis of the temperature dependent development of the spruce bark beetle Ips typographus (L) (Col., Scolytidae). J Appl Entomol 122:185–191.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.1998.tb01482.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Worrell R (1983) Damage by the spruce bark beetle in South Norway 1970-80: a survey, and factors affecting its occurrence. Reports of the Norwegian Forest Research Institute 38.6:34 pGoogle Scholar
  75. Wulder MA, White JC, Bentz B, Alvarez MF, Coops NC (2006) Estimating the probability of mountain pine beetle red-attack damage. Remote Sens Environ 101(2):150–166.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2005.12.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zolubas P, Negron J, Munson S (2009) Modelling spruce bark beetle probability. Balt For 15:23–27Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Knowledge Engineering Laboratory, Department of EntomologyTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations