Skip to Main Content
Effects of stand structure, browsing, and biophysical conditions on regeneration following mountain pine beetle in mixed lodgepole pine and aspen forests of the southern RockiesAuthor(s): Kristen A. Pelz; Frederick W. Smith
Source: Forests. 9: 525.
Publication Series: Scientific Journal (JRNL)
Station: Rocky Mountain Research Station
Download Publication (1016.0 KB)
DescriptionAspen (Populus tremuloides) and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia) co-occur in the southern Rocky Mountains (USA), where mountain pine beetle (MPB, Dendroctonus ponderosae) has caused extensive lodgepole pine mortality since the late 1990s. Both species excel in post-disturbance high-light environments, but lodgepole pine has generally been thought to establish poorly on undisturbed seedbeds, and aspen suckering may be inhibited by intact aspen overstory. We ask whether lodgepole pine and aspen will regenerate in sufficient quantities to revegetate these forests. We visited a random sample of aspen and lodgepole pine stands across the affected landscape in northern Colorado and southern Wyoming to measure regeneration and overstory mortality. Lodgepole pine regeneration is occurring in 85% of stands, and most stands have >550 stems ha1. The median aspen sucker density was 6175 stems ha1. Surprisingly, neither lodgepole pine nor aspen regeneration density was related to overstory mortality level. Animal damage is currently affecting aspen in these forests. Over 50% of stands had damage to 60% or more of their suckers, but 30% of stands had <20% of their stems damaged. Browsed stems were significantly shorter for their ages and were shorter than the 2.5-m height threshold for possible elk browsing. However, the results suggest that sufficient quantities of down lodgepole pine may protect aspen from damage and allow aspen to successfully recruit to the overstory. Multiple regression analysis showed that down lodgepole pine basal area, followed by browsing pressure, were the most important predictors of sucker height and the proportion of suckers browsed. Although 15% of stands had no lodgepole pine regeneration, aspen and lodgepole pine forests are generally regenerating despite animal browsing on aspen. This study is the first to present a regional perspective on regeneration in MPB-affected lodgepole pine and aspen forests, and overall, intervention does not seem necessary to ensure a mix of both species in the future.
- You may send email to firstname.lastname@example.org to request a hard copy of this publication.
- (Please specify exactly which publication you are requesting and your mailing address.)
- We recommend that you also print this page and attach it to the printout of the article, to retain the full citation information.
- This article was written and prepared by U.S. Government employees on official time, and is therefore in the public domain.
CitationPelz, Kristen A.; Smith, Frederick W. 2018. Effects of stand structure, browsing, and biophysical conditions on regeneration following mountain pine beetle in mixed lodgepole pine and aspen forests of the southern Rockies. Forests. 9: 525.
Keywordstrembling aspen, lodgepole pine, mountain pine beetle, bark beetles, browsing
- Earthworms, arthropods and plant litter decomposition in aspen (Populus tremuloides) and lodgepole pine(Pinus contorta) forests in Colorado, USA
- Ecosystem-based management in the lodgepole pine zone
- Should ponderosa pine be planted on lodgepole pine sites?
XML: View XML