Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Quantifying the consequences of conifer succession in aspen stands: decline in a biodiversity-supporting community

  • Published:
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides Michaux) stands are important for biodiversity in conifer-dominated forest landscapes. Our goal was to quantify the consequences of conifer succession on understory diversity and litter quality, as well as associated changes in aspen stand condition. We studied aspen stands on national park land in the transition zone between the northern Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade mountain ranges. We field-measured ten metrics of aspen stand condition in 29 aspen stands. Along a gradient of increasing current conifer cover, we observed decreases in herbaceous species diversity and richness and an increase in forest floor O horizon depth. We interpreted aerial photos from 1952 and 1998 to determine whether directional changes in conifer cover had occurred in the stands over the past half century, and used regression modeling to associate succession with the observed range of aspen stand condition. From the period 1952 to 1998, we found that conifer encroachment occurred in half the sampled stands, with an average increase in conifer cover of 1 % a year. Aspen were persistent in the remaining stands. Stand cover dynamics and percent total canopy cover interacted to influence species richness, diversity, aspen sprouting, and litter quality. In stands with conifer encroachment, both understory species richness and diversity declined. Although aspen sprouting increased, aspen establishment declined and the relative mass of woody to fine soil litter increased.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adair, E. C., Parton, W. J., Del Grosso, S. J., Silver, W. L., Harmon, M. E., Hall, S. A., et al. (2008). Simple three-pool model accurately describes patterns of long-term litter decomposition in diverse climates. Global Change Biology, 14(11), 2636–2660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, C. D., Savage, M., Falk, D. A., Suckling, K. F., Swetnam, T. W., Schulke, T., et al. (2002). Ecological restoration of Southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystems: a broad perspective. Ecological Applications, 12(5), 1418–1433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • AOAC (1997). Method 972.43. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. Arlington, VA: AOAC International.

  • Barnett, D. T., & Stohlgren, T. J. (2003). A nested-intensity design for surveying plant diversity. Biodiversity and Conservation, 12(2), 255–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartos, D.L. (2000). Landscape dynamics of aspen and conifer forests. In W.D. Shepperd, D. Binkley, D.L. Bartos, T.J. Stohlgren, & L.G. Eskew (Eds.), Sustaining aspen in western landscapes: symposium proceedings, grand junction, CO, 2000 (pp. 5–14). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

  • Bartos, D. L., & DeByle, N. V. (1981). Quantity, decomposition, and nutrient dynamics of aspen litterfall in Utah. Forest Science, 27(2), 381–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaty, R. M., & Taylor, A. H. (2001). Spatial and temporal variation of fire regimes in a mixed conifer forest landscape, Southern Cascades, California, USA. Journal of Biogeography, 28(8), 955–966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach (p. 488). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J., Finco, M., Warbington, R., Schwind, B. (2004). Digital mylar: A tool to attribute vegetation polygon features over high-resolution imagery remote sensing for field users. In Proceedings of the Tenth Forest Service Remote Sensing Applications Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, April 5–9, 2004 (pp. 1–7). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

  • Cole, D. N., Yung, L., Zavaleta, E. S., Aplet, G. H., Chapin, F. S., III, Graber, D. M., et al. (2008). Naturalness and beyond: protected area stewardship in an era of global environmental change. The George Wright Forum, 25(1), 36–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conlin, A. E. (2010). Soil survey of Lassen Volcanic National Park. California: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davey, C. A., Redmond, K. T., & Simeral, D. B. (2007). Weather and climate inventory, national park service, Klamath network. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/KLMN/NRTR-2007/035. Fort Collins, CO.: U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service.

  • Di Orio, A. P., Callas, R., & Schaefer, R. J. (2005). Forty-eight year decline and fragmentation of aspen (Populus tremuloides) in the South Warner Mountains of California. Forest Ecology and Management, 206(1–3), 307–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Facelli, J. M., & Pickett, S. T. A. (1991). Plant litter—its dynamics and effects on plant community structure. The Botanical Review, 57(1), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giardina, C. P., Ryan, M. G., Hubbard, R. M., & Binkley, D. (2001). Tree species and soil textural controls on carbon and nitrogen mineralization rates. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 65(4), 1272–1279.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Horman, C. S., & Anderson, V. J. (2003). Understory species response to Utah juniper litter. Journal of Range Management, 56(1), 68–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Insightful Corporation. (2001). S-PLUS 6.0 Professional Release 2. Seattle, WA.

  • Jones, J. R., & DeByle, N. V. (1985). Soils. In N. V. DeByle & R. P. Winokur (Eds.), Aspen: ecology and management in the western United States (p. 65). Fort Collins: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. E., Lile, D. F., & Tate, K. W. (2009). Effect of simulated browsing on aspen regeneration: implications for restoration. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 62(6), 557–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. E., Rickman, T. H., Vazquez, A., Sado, Y., & Tate, K. W. (2005). Removal of encroaching conifers to regenerate degraded aspen stands in the Sierra Nevada. Restoration Ecology, 13(2), 373–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kashian, D. M., Romme, W. H., & Regan, C. M. (2007). Reconciling divergent interpretations of quaking aspen decline on the northern Colorado Front Range. Ecological Applications, 17(5), 1296–1311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, C. E. (1997). Is Aspen doomed? Journal of Forestry, 95(5), 4–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, C. E., & Bartos, D. L. (2000). Ungulate herbivory on Utah aspen: assessment of long-term exclosures. Journal of Range Management, 53(2), 145–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeley, J. E., Lubin, D., & Fotheringham, C. J. (2003). Fire and grazing impacts on plant diversity and alien plant invasions in the southern Sierra Nevada. Ecological Applications, 13(5), 1355–1374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keigley, R. B., & Frasina, M. R. (1998). Browse evaluation by analysis of growth form: methods for evaluating condition and trend. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks.

  • Kuhn, T. J., Safford, H. D., Jones, B. E., & Tate, K. W. (2011). Aspen (Populus tremuloides) stands and their contribution to plant diversity in a semiarid coniferous landscape. Plant Ecology, 212(9), 1451–1463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legare, S., Pare, D., & Bergeron, Y. (2005). Influence of aspen on forest floor properties in black spruce-dominated stands. Plant and Soil, 275(1–2), 207–220.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maclean, D. A., & Wein, R. W. (1978). Weight-loss and nutrient changes in decomposing litter and forest floor material in New-Brunswick forest stands. Canadian Journal of Botany-Revue Canadienne De Botanique, 56(21), 2730–2749.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McCune, B., & Mefford, M. J. (1999). PC-ORD for Windows: multivariate analysis of ecological data. Gleneden Beach, OR: MjM Software.

  • Millar, C. I. (2009). Climate change: Confronting the global experiment. In California Native Plant Society Conservation Conference: strategies and solutions, Sacramento, CA, January 17–19, 2009.

  • Minnich, R. A., Barbour, M. G., Burk, J. H., & Fernau, R. F. (1995). Sixty years of change in Californian conifer forests of the San Bernadino Mountains. Conservation Biology, 9, 902–914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, D. W., & Sommers, L. E. (1996). Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In J. M. Bigham (Ed.), Methods of soil analysis. Part 3. Chemical methods (pp. 1001–1006). Madison: Soil Science Society of America and American Society of Agronomy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss, R. F. (1999). Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: a suggested framework and indicators. Forest Ecology and Management, 115(2–3), 135–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NPS. (2006). Management policies 2006. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, A. D., & Taylor, A. H. (2010). Competition and regeneration in quaking aspen-white fir (Populus tremuloides-Abies concolor) forests in the Northern Sierra Nevada, USA. Journal of Vegetation Science, 21(3), 507–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M. (2000). Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Potter, D. (1998). Forested communities of the upper montane in the central and southern Sierra Nevada. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-169. Albany: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prescott, C. E., Zabek, L. M., Staley, C. L., & Kabzems, R. (2000). Decomposition of broadleaf and needle litter in forests of British Columbia: influences of litter type, forest type, and litter mixtures. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 30(11), 1742–1750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romme, W. H., Turner, M. G., Gardner, R. H., Hargrove, W. W., Tuskan, G. A., Despain, D. G., et al. (1997). A rare episode of sexual reproduction in Aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx) following the 1988 Yellowstone fires. Natural Areas Journal, 17(1), 17–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutters, K. H., Law, B. E., Kucera, R. C., Gallant, A. L., Develice, R. L., & Palmer, C. J. (1992). A selection of forest condition indicators for monitoring. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 20(1), 21–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepperd, W. D., Rogers, P. C., Burton, D., & Bartos, D. L. (2006). Ecology, biodiversity, management, and restoration of aspen in the Sierra Nevada. General technical report RMRS-GTR-178. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

  • Smith, E. A., O’Loughlin, D., Buck, J. R., & St Clair, S. B. (2011). The influences of conifer succession, physiographic conditions and herbivory on quaking aspen regeneration after fire. Forest Ecology and Management, 262(3), 325–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soil Survey Staff (1999). Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. USDA-NRCS Agricultural Handbook (2 ed., Vol. 436). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

  • Stohlgren, T. J., Chong, G. W., Kalkhan, M. A., & Schell, L. D. (1997). Rapid assessment of plant diversity patterns: a methodology for landscapes. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 48(1), 25–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strand, E. K., Vierling, L. A., Bunting, S. C., & Gessler, P. E. (2009). Quantifying successional rates in western aspen woodlands: current conditions, future predictions. Forest Ecology and Management, 257(8), 1705–1715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stump, L. M., & Binkley, D. (1993). Relationships between litter quality and nitrogen availability in Rocky-Mountain forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 23(3), 492–502.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, A. H. (2000). Fire regimes and forest changes in mid and upper montane forests of the southern Cascades, Lassen Volcanic National Park, California, USA. Journal of Biogeography, 27(1), 87–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, B. R., & Parkinson, D. (1988). Patterns of water-absorption and leaching in pine and aspen leaf litter. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 20(2), 257–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wayman, R. B., & North, M. (2007). Initial response of a mixed-conifer understory plant community to burning and thinning restoration treatments. Forest Ecology and Management, 239(1–3), 32–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westerling, A. L., & Bryant, B. P. (2008). Climate change and wildfire in California. Climatic Change, 87, S231–S249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiong, S. J., & Nilsson, C. (1999). The effects of plant litter on vegetation: a meta-analysis. Journal of Ecology, 87(6), 984–994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The NPS Klamath Network Inventory and Monitoring Program provided funding. University of California ANR Analytical Laboratory, UC Davis Center for Spatial Technologies and Remote Sensing, Rodney Hart of the USFS Remote Sensing Lab, and Don Evans of the USFS Remote Sensing Applications Center provided technical assistance. Thanks to the staff of Lassen Volcanic National Park.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, One Shields Ave., Mail Stop 1, Davis, CA, 95616-8780, USA

    S. A. McCullough

  2. Department of Land, Air, and Water, University of California, Davis, One Shields Ave., Mail Stop 1, Davis, CA, 95616, USA

    A. T. O’Geen, M. L. Whiting & K. W. Tate

  3. Klamath Network I&M Program, National Park Service, Southern Oregon University, 1250 Siskiyou Blvd. Central Hall Room 029, Ashland, OR, 97520-5011, USA

    D. A. Sarr

Authors
  1. S. A. McCullough
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. T. O’Geen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. L. Whiting
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. A. Sarr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. K. W. Tate
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. A. McCullough.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McCullough, S.A., O’Geen, A.T., Whiting, M.L. et al. Quantifying the consequences of conifer succession in aspen stands: decline in a biodiversity-supporting community. Environ Monit Assess 185, 5563–5576 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-012-2967-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-012-2967-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation