Forest Health Conditions on the Allegheny National Forest
NE Forest Inventory and Analysis Users’ Meeting
May 5, 2005
Randall S. Morin
USDA Forest Service
Forest Inventory and Analysis
Robert L. White
USDA Forest Service
Allegheny National Forest
Background
• Planning meeting took place in
October of 1999
• Integration of FHM/FIA plot data
with aerial survey data from the ANF
• Interim report published in 2001
350
300
Defoliation (thousands of acres)
• Analyst hired in December of 1999 to
provide statistical and GIS support
400
250
forest tent caterpillar
elm spanworm
200
cherry scallopshell moth
gypsy moth
150
100
50
• Final report to be published this year
1998
1997
1995
1996
1993
1994
1991
Year
1992
1990
1988
1989
1986
1987
1984
0
1985
• FHM Evaluation Monitoring project
was funded in 2002 to continue the
effort
Cooperators
• Sandy Liebhold, Research Entomologist, NE Research Station
• Bob White, Silviculturist, ANF
• Kurt Gottschalk, Research Forester, NE Research Station
• Dan Twardus, Forest Health Specialist, NA SPF
• Steve Horsley, Research Plant Pathologist, NE Research Station
• Bill Smith, Research Mathematician, Southern Research Station
• Gino Luzader, Computer Specialist, NE Research Station
Recent Disturbance Events
• During the past 15 years, ANF management has become increasingly
challenging due to actions by both native and exotic disturbance agents
• Pear thrips, forest tent caterpillar, gypsy moth, cherry scallopshell moth, fall
cankerworm, elm spanworm, oak leaftier, linden looper, beech bark disease
complex, maple decline, and ash dieback are of particular concern
• Since 1985, nearly 86 percent of the ANF has been defoliated at least once,
and over 53% has been defoliated twice
• While gypsy moth defoliation peaked in the mid-1980s, damage was also
observed between 1993 and 1995
• Trees were also stressed by severe droughts during the 1988, 1991, 1995,
and 1999 growing seasons (preceded by 15-20 years of plentiful rainfall)
Selected Objectives
• Evaluate tree crown conditions as a reflection of tree and forest health
• Quantify tree mortality and relationships to possible causes
• Document forest pest-caused damage and relationships to forest conditions
• Quantify habitat conditions for the federally endangered Indiana bat
• Describe diversity and distribution of lichens
• Document the occurrence and severity of ground level ozone injury
• Evaluate composition and distribution of herbaceous vegetation
• Quantify down-woody debris and forest fire fuel loadings
Standing Dead Trees
Among the 5 most dominant species, mortality appeared to be
proportionally greatest in sugar maple.
Species
black cherry
red maple
American beech
eastern hemlock
sugar maple
northern red oak
sweet birch
yellow birch
white oak
white ash
Live BA/Acre Dead BA/Acre % Dead
32.5
2.7
7.6
31
1.9
5.8
11.4
1.2
9.4
10.7
0.6
5.2
8.5
1.5
14.8
5.7
0.3
4.8
5.2
0.7
11.5
2.9
0.5
13.4
2.5
0.3
11.6
2
0.2
7.5
Cherry Scallopshell Moth
350000
Acres Defoliated
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
1993
1994
Year
1995
Use of FIA P2 and P3 Data
to Assess Effects of CSM Defoliation
Area
Basal
Cherry
Black
Cherry
BlackDieback
Crown
Dead
Cherry
Standing
Black
%%
45
12
20
18
40
10
16
35
14
8
30
12
25
10
6
20
8
15
4
6
10
4
2
5
2
0
00
11
Years
Years of
of Defoliation
Defoliation
22or
or33
Beech Bark Disease
Beech bark disease was discovered in Pennsylvania in 1958. Currently, the killing front is
moving from the northeast corner toward the southwest corner of the ANF.
Beech Bark Disease
Percent standing dead beech was more than twice as great inside the killing front compared to
outside the front. Beech mortality was most likely even higher than reported here since dead
beech trees often decay and snap rather quickly, and therefore would not have been measured
as standing dead.
2001 Killing Front
1989 Killing Front
In
Out
In
Out
1989 FIA
1.7% (50 plots) 0.8% (73 plots) 2.9% (17 plots) 0.9% (106 plots)
1998-2001 FHM 11.1% (27 plots) 5.0% (35 plots) 8.0% (10 plots) 7.6% (52 plots)
Indiana Bat Live Tree Habitat
For habitat to be considered suitable, 5% of the landscape under
consideration must be forested and must meet the criteria shown in the
“suitable” column. For habitat to be classified as optimal, 30% of the
landscape must be forested and must meet the criteria in the “optimal”
column.
Indiana Bat Requirements (# of live trees) ANF Conditions (# of live trees/acre)
D.b.h. Class
Suitable
Optimal
(Mean ± SE)
>9
8 per acre
16 per acre
79.08 ± 3.19
>20
1 per acre
3 per acre
7.84 ± 0.66
The results suggest that the average condition across the ANF easily meets
both the suitable and optimal Indiana bat live tree habitat requirements.
In addition, nearly 60% of the plots met both the suitable and optimal
conditions for both diameter classes.
Indiana Bat Dead Tree Habitat
Indiana Bat Requirements (# of dead trees) ANF Conditions (# of dead trees/acre)
D.b.h. Class
Suitable
Optimal
(Mean ± SE)
>9
3 per acre
5 per acre
8.34 ± 0.79
>12
>20
1 per 10 acres
3.49 ± 0.48
1 per 2 acres
0.39 ± 0.11
The results suggest that the likelihood of finding 5 percent of the area meeting
suitable habitat conditions is quite high. Because the estimated average number
of dead trees in the largest size class, 20” d.b.h., is below the threshold for
optimal habitat, ANF conditions are less certain of meeting that criterion.
However, only 30 percent of a landscape needs to provide more than one tree
greater than 20 inches d.b.h. per two acres, so it is quite possible (since the ANF
is 94% forested) that the optimal dead tree habitat condition would be met as
well. In addition, 35% of the plots met the suitable conditions and 7% met the
optimal conditions.
Lichen Communities
• Fungi that live in intimate
association with algae
• Great indicator of nitrogen
and sulfur-based pollution
• Sensitivity results from
reliance on atmospheric
sources of nutrition
Photo by Stephen Sharnoff
Lichen Communities on the ANF
A total of 46 lichen species were sampled and 7 lichen genera were recorded without
being identified to the species level.
Plot data collected 1999-2001
Lichen Communities on the ANF
Region 9 Forest Type
oak/hardwood transition
northern hardwoods
white oak/red oak
mixed upland hardwoods
red maple
hemlock
Allegheny hardwoods
sugar maple
Mean Species Richness
9.6
8.6
8.3
6.8
6.4
6.0
5.7
3.0
# of plots
7
15
8
45
28
9
37
7
Stand Development Stage
Mean Species Richness # of plots
stand initiation (0-14 years)
3.7
15
stem exclusion (15-49 years)
7.1
14
understory reinitiation (>49 years)
7.0
142
Lichen Communities on the ANF
Parmelia sulcata (VT)
Flavoparmelia caperata (T)
Cladonia coniocraea (T)
Phaeophyscia rub ropulchra (VT)
Punctelia sub rudecta (T)
Physcia millegrana (VT)
Not present
Species
Hypogymnia physodes (T)
Rare
Cladonia b acillaris (T)
Uncommon
Cladonia caespiticia
Common
Cetraria oakesiana (T)
Abundant
Punctelia rudecta (T)
Melanelia sub aurifera (I)
Phaeophyscia pusilloides (T)
Parmelia squarrosa (I)
Evernia mesomorpha (I)
Cladonia parasitica
0
20
40
60
80
100
% of Plots
I = intolerant, T = tolerant, VT = very tolerant
Ozone
• Ozone pollution reduces
tree growth, alters species
composition, and can
predispose trees to attack
• Causes direct foliar injury
to many species
• Presence of ozone injury
can be considered with
other data to assess the
impact of ozone stress
Photo by Gretchen Smith
Ozone on the ANF
Nearly half of the sampled plants (44.6%) showed some signs of ozone
injury in 1998. In contrast, less than 25% of the sampled plants
were injured in the other three years.
Year
# of plots
evaluated
1998
1999
2000
2001
6
10
7
9
# of plants
Injury severity categories
sampled No injury 1-6% 7-25% 56-50% 51-75%
% of sampled plants
244
55.33 12.70 17.21 7.38
4.92
648
92.59
0.93 3.86
1.85
0.62
417
75.30
5.52 7.19
4.56
4.08
971
92.38
2.06 2.27
2.57
0.72
>75%
2.46
0.15
3.36
0.00
Ozone on the ANF
Blackberry exhibited the highest occurrences of ozone injury.
Species
blackberry
black cherry
milkweed
pin cherry
sassafras
spreading dogbane
white ash
yellow-poplar
1998
118 (59%)
90 (61%)
31 (6%)
36 (14%)
37 (0%)
-
Year
1999
106 (41%)
283 (2%)
90 (0%)
31 (0%)
84 (0%)
30 (0%)
24 (0%)
2000
2001
118 (54%) 196 (19%)
167 (16%) 257 (10%)
29 (0%) 131 (6%)
30 (33%) 75 (1%)
26 (8%) 60 (0%)
165 (0%)
16 (0%) 73 (4%)
11 (0%)
-
Vegetation
• Designed to assess the
type, abundance, and
spatial arrangement of
plants occurring on plots
• Allows us to report on
diversity of native and
introduced species
• Monitoring for change
over time will be possible
by remeasuring plots
Photo by Will McWilliams
(Clearfield County, PA)
Vegetation on the ANF
Down Woody Materials
• Designed to estimate
biomass components not
sampled on P2 plots
• Can be used to explore
questions about fire risk,
wildlife habitat, and
carbon
• Also serves as a broad
indicator of forest health
Photo by Chris Woodall
Down Woody Materials
The mean tonnage per acre of duff and 100-hr fuels were higher on plots in
Pennsylvania outside of the ANF. In contrast, the mean tonnage per acre
of 1000-hr fuels was higher on plots within the ANF.
30
Tons/acre
25
20
ANF plots
15
Rest of PA plots
10
5
0
DUFF
LITTER
1-HR
10-HR
100-HR
1000-HR
Down Woody Materials
Duff and litter tended to increase with stand age.
25
Tons/acre
20
Duff
15
Litter
FWD
10
CWD
5
0
0-40
41-80
Stand Age (years)
81+
Future Uses for P3 Data
• Support analysis of emerging resource issues and management questions
• Assess soil characteristics with other indicators, forest health, ELT’s
• Monitor Forest Health indicator changes over time
• Monitor effects of specific insects and diseases
• Monitor habitat conditions for Indiana bat
• Characterize indicator differences between managed versus unmanaged
areas
• Characterize dead tree/snag longevity by species
Advantages of Using P3 data
• Part of a National network
• Provides integrated baseline for monitoring change
• Protocol and design by subject matter experts
• FIA support for data analysis, training, and quality control
• Low data collection cost (35 plots/year at approx. $1200-1700 per plot)
• Provide a current comparison with the rest of a state or region
• Assessment of current Forest-wide trends can provide a context for
project analysis
QUESTIONS?
CONTACT INFORMATION
Randall Morin
11 Campus Blvd., Suite 200
Newtown Square, PA 19073
610-557-4054
rsmorin@fs.fed.us
Draft ANF Report Available At:
http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/morgantown/4557/randy/anf_draft_3-04.pdf