Biological Invasions

, Volume 20, Issue 11, pp 3245–3254 | Cite as

Early-stage of invasion by beech bark disease does not necessarily trigger American beech root sucker establishment in hardwood stands

  • Marie-Ève Roy
  • Philippe NoletEmail author
Original Paper


Two concomitant phenomena currently affect the dynamics of sugar maple-American beech (AB) stands in northeastern North America: beech bark disease (BBD), and increased AB understory density. Many studies suggest a causal link between the two phenomena, i.e., BBD favouring beech regeneration. But this link has yet to be experimentally demonstrated. To address the question, we compared regeneration composition between recently BBD-affected and -unaffected stands. A total of 109 stands were sampled; half were affected by BBD. Seedling and sapling density were assessed, together with the origin (seedling or sprout). While BBD affects stands in the eastern part of the study region, AB was observed in the understory across the entire region. No clear difference in AB sprout density between BBD-affected and -unaffected stands was observed while AB seedling density—as well as pooled AB seedling and sprout density were higher in unaffected stands. Findings suggests that BBD, in its early stage, is not a necessary trigger of AB understory establishment. Yet, AB sapling basal area generally was higher in stands affected by BBD, likely indicating a greater rate of AB understory development due to increased light availability beneath a more open crown canopy. That development can lead to AB understory dominance. This distinction—BBD not necessarily triggering AB root sucker establishment but favoring AB advance regeneration development—also questions the generalized perception that dense AB thickets necessarily originate from root suckers.


Beech bark disease American beech regeneration Sugar maple regeneration Beech sprout 



This research was supported by the Programme de financement de la recherche et développement en aménagement forestier, Québec Ministry of Natural Resources. We especially would like to thank Caroline Gagné, Régis Pouliot and Julie Poirier for their help in the field. We are also grateful to Pascal Rochon for his assistance with statistical analyses, Martin Béland and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on an earlier version of the manuscript, and William F.J. Parsons for English editing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10530_2018_1771_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (123 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 123 kb)


  1. Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Thompson WL (2000) Null hypothesis testing: problems, prevalence, and an alternative. J Wildl Manag 64:913–923Google Scholar
  2. Anderson DR, Link WA, Johnson DH, Burnham KP (2001) Suggestions for presenting the results of data analyses. J Wildl Manag 65:373. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beaudet M, Messier C (2008) Beech regeneration of seed and root sucker origin: a comparison of morphology, growth, survival, and response to defoliation. For Ecol Manag 255:3659–3666. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaudet M, Messier C, Paré D et al (1999) Possible mechanisms of sugar maple regeneration failure and replacement by beech in the Boise-des-Muir old-growth forest, Quebec. Ecoscience 6:264–271. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beaudet M, Messier C, Canham CD (2002) Predictions of understorey light conditions in northern hardwood forests following parameterization, sensitivity analysis, and tests of the SORTIE light model. For Ecol Manag 165:235–248. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bose AK, Weiskittel A, Wagner RG (2017) Occurrence, pattern of change, and factors associated with American beech-dominance in stands of the northeastern USA forest. For Ecol Manag 392:202–212. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brisson J, Bergeron Y, Bouchard A, Leduc A (1994) Beech-maple dynamics in an old-grouth forest in southern Quebec, Canada. Ecoscience 1:40–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cale JA, McNulty SA, Teale SA, Castello JD (2013) The impact of beech thickets on biodiversity. Biol Invasions 15:699–706. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cale JA, Garrison-Johnston MT, Teale SA, Castello JD (2017) Beech bark disease in North America: over a century of research revisited. For Ecol Manag 394:86–103. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Canham CD (1990) Suppression and release during canopy recruitment in Fagus grandifolia. Bull Torrey Bot Club 117:1–7. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Canham CD, Finzi AC, Pacala SW, Burbank DH (1994) Causes and consequences of resource heterogeneity in forests: interspecific variation in light transmission by canopy trees. Can J For Res 24:337–349. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Curtis RO, Rushmore FM (1958) Some effects of stand density and deer browsing on reproduction in an Adirondack hardwood stand. J For 56:116–121Google Scholar
  13. Duchesne L, Ouimet R, Moore J-D, Paquin R (2005) Changes in structure and composition of maple-beech stands following sugar maple decline in Québec, Canada. For Ecol Manag 208:223–236. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Environment Canada (2016) Canadian climate normals: 1981–2010 climate normals & averages. Available online: Accessed 4 Dec 2016
  15. Forcier LK (1975) Reproductive strategies and the co-occurrence of climax tree species. Science 189(80):808–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garnas JR, Ayres MP, Liebhold AM, Evans C (2011) Subcontinental impacts of an invasive tree disease on forest structure and dynamics. J Ecol 99:532–541. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Giencke LM, Dovčiak M, Mountrakis G et al (2014) Beech bark disease: spatial patterns of thicket formation and disease spread in an aftermath forest in the northeastern United States. Can J For Res 44:1042–1050. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gravel D, Beaudet M, Messier C (2011) Sapling age structure and growth series reveal a shift in recruitment dynamics of sugar maple and American beech over the last 40 years. Can J For Res 41:873–880. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hane EN (2003) Indirect effects of beech bark disease on sugar maple seedling survival. Can J For Res 33:807–813. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hane EN (2005) The effects of land-use history on beech bark disease severity. In: Evans CA, Lucas JA, Twery MJ (eds) Beech bark disease: proceedings of the beech bark disease symposium. 16–18 June 2004, Saranak Lake, NY. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA. General Technical Report NE-331, pp 138–141Google Scholar
  21. Hane EN, Hamburg SP, Barber AL, Plaut JA (2003) Phytotoxicity of American beech leaf leachate to sugar maple seedlings in a greenhouse experiment. Can J For Res 33:814–821. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Held ME (1983) Pattern of beech regeneration in the east-central United States. Bull Torrey Bot Club 110:55–62. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hendershot WH, Lalande H, Duquette M (2007) Soil reaction and exchangeable acidity. In: Soil sampling and methods of analysis, 2nd edn. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  24. Hewitt CG (1914) Note on the occurrence of the felted beech coccus Cryptococcus fagi (Baerens) Dougl. in Nova Scotia. Can Entomol 46:15–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hough AF (1937) A study of natural tree reproduction in the beech-birch-maple-hemlock type. J For 35:376–378Google Scholar
  26. Houston DR (1975) Beech bark disease: the aftermath forests are structured for a new outbreak. J For 73:660–663Google Scholar
  27. Houston DR (1994) Major new tree disease epidemics: beech bark disease. Annu Rev Phytopathol 32:75–87. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Houston DR (2001) Effect of harvesting regime on beech root sprouts and seedlings in a Northnorth-central Maine forest long affected by beech bark disease. USDA Res. Pap. NE-717. US Dept. US Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA, USAGoogle Scholar
  29. Jones RH, Raynal DJ (1987) Root sprouting in American beech: production, survival, and the effect of parent tree vigor. Can J For Res 17:539–544. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kobe RK, Likens GE, Eagar C (2002) Tree seedling growth and mortality responses to manipulations of calcium and aluminum in a northern hardwood forest. Can J For Res 32:954–966. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McNulty SA, Masters RD (2005) Changes to the Adirondack forest: implications of beech bark disease on forest structure and seed production. In: Evans CA, Lucas JA, Twery MJ (eds) Beech bark disease: proceedings of the beech bark disease symposium. 16–18 June 2004, Saranak Lake, NY. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA. General Technical Report NE-331. USDA Forest Service, pp 52–57Google Scholar
  32. Nolet P, Bouffard D, Doyon F, Delagrange S (2008) Relationship between canopy disturbance history and current sapling density of Fagus grandifolia and Acer saccharum in a northern hardwood landscape. Can J For Res 38:216–225. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nolet P, Delagrange S, Bannon K et al (2015) Liming has a limited effect on sugar maple: American beech dynamics compared with beech sapling elimination and canopy opening. Can J For Res 45:1376–1386. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nyland RD (2004) Simple girdle kills small American beech (Fagus grandifolia Ehrh.). North J Appl For 21:220–221Google Scholar
  35. Ostrofsky WD (2005) Management of beech bark disease in aftermath forests. In: Evans CA, Lucas JA, Twery MJ (eds) Beech bark disease: proceedings of the beech bark disease symposium. 6–18 June 2004, Saranak Lake, NY. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA. General Technical Report NE-331, pp 133–137. USDA Forest Service, pp 133–137Google Scholar
  36. Poulson TL, Platt WJ (1996) Replacement patterns of beech and sugar maple in Warren Woods, Michigan. Ecology 77:1234–1253. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Core Team, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  38. Richards NA, Farnsworth CE (1971) Effects of cutting level on regeneration of northern hardwoods protected from deer. J For 69:230–233Google Scholar
  39. Robitaille A, Saucier J-P (1998) Paysages régionaux du Québec méridional. Les Publications du Québec, Québec, QuébecGoogle Scholar
  40. Rosemier JN, Storer AJ (2010) Assessing the responses of native small mammals to an incipient invasion of beech bark disease through changes in seed production of American beech (Fagus grandifolia). Am Midl Nat 164:238–259. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Runkle JR (2013) Thirty-two years of change in an old-growth Ohio beech-maple forest. Ecology 94:1165–1175. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Saucier JP, Robitaille A, Grondin P (2009) Cadre bioclimatique du Québec. In: Doucet R, Coté M (eds) Manuel de foresterie, 2nd edn. Ordre des ingénieurs forestiers du Québec, Editions Multimondes, Québec, Québec. pp 186–205Google Scholar
  43. Shigo AL (1972) The beech bark disease today in the Northeastern U.S. J For 70:286–289Google Scholar
  44. Twery MJ, Patterson WA (1984) Variations in beech bark disease and its effects on species composition and structure of northern hardwood stands in central New England. Can J For Res 14:565–574. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wagner S, Collet C, Madsen P et al (2010) Beech regeneration research: from ecological to silvicultural aspects. For Ecol Manag 259:2172–2182. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ward RT (1961) Some aspects of regeneration habits of the American beech. Ecology 42:828–832. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Woods KD (1979) Reciprocal replacement and the maintenance of codominance in a beech-maple forest. Oikos 33:31–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut des Sciences de la Forêt tempérée (ISFORT)Université du Québec en Outaouais (UQO)RiponCanada

Personalised recommendations