One strategy to control the spread of mountain pine beetles in Banff National Park sometimes does the opposite, a study by a University of British Columbia researcher shows.
While pheromone baiting followed by tree removal — purposefully attracting the pests to a tree, which is then cut down in winter when the larvae are trapped inside — can be successful where there is a dense population of beetles, the strategy can increase the number of beetles in some areas of the Canadian Rockies, according to mathematical modeling led by Rebecca Tyson, an associate professor of mathematics at UBC’s Okanagan campus.
“What our study found is that where the beetle population is low, the pheromone is actually attracting more beetles and thus helping the beetle population increase,” said Ms. Tyson, whose research was recently published in ScienceDirect.
In these areas, the beetles have a hard time finding each other, she said. Additional pheromone, placed by humans, can help attract enough beetles to attack the baited tree.
“With pheromone baiting, this means that humans have put strong signals in the forest that help the beetles find each other. They can then collect in sufficient numbers to attack a tree,” she said. “In these situations, baiting is making things worse for the trees.”
Ms. Tyson described the mountain pine beetle as an endemic pest capable of killing entire stands of mature pine. While the beetle has a short lifespan, climate change and warmer winters have helped the population increase during an epidemic that began in the late 1990s.
The two-year simulation compared four strategies: no management (monitoring only), pheromone baiting, tree removal, and pheromone baiting combined with tree removal. Other management methods are prescribed burning and clearcutting, which Ms. Tyson said cause severe changes to the landscape and have not been proven to stop the spread of the beetle.
The study found that removal of beetle-attacked trees in the absence of baiting is the most successful strategy if managers are able to locate areas with significant pine beetle activity.
According to Ms. Tyson, an adult beetle emerges from a tree each summer and looks for a new one where it will nest. Once selected, the beetle emits a pheromone to attract other beetles to the same tree. Other beetles then arrive, release more pheromone, and the tree is attacked as adult beetles drill into the bark and make tunnels where they lay eggs. By the following summer, the larvae have hatched and turned into adults, and that tree is dead, with the needles turning red. The cycle continues as the beetles move to a neighboring tree.
Under normal population control circumstances, when a tree is baited with pheromone, it is cut down in winter when the larvae are trapped inside, Ms. Tyson said. Crews also search for other trees near the baited one, and all trees identified to contain beetles are removed.
“If all goes well,” said Ms. Tyson, “the beetle population is so severely reduced that it dies out.”
However, her models indicate that pheromone baiting is not working as expected.
“From the field work done in Banff, we know that baiting didn't stop the beetle epidemic,” she said. “Baiting may have slowed it down, but it did not stop it.”
Tyson was aided in her research by then-Ph.D. candidate Shaun Strohm and University of Calgary professor Mary Reid.
Stories about:
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
Interesting, when we had pine beetles come through Summit Count, people used pheromones to protect their trees. The theory was that the scent acted as a "no vacancy" sign on the tree. Must be different types of pheromones.
BTW if GW is the cause of the outbreaks why do the infestations occur at the same time at widely varied elevations? Take the Sugar Pines in Yosemite for example. Trees near the vally floor at 4,000 ft are being attacked at the same time as trees on Tioga Pass road at 8,000 ft. There probably is a 15+ degree difference in mean temperature between those locations. Saw the same phenomen here in Summit County. Also saw areas at 11,000 decimated while those nearby at 8,000 went untouched. Not to mention our attack ended five years ago and Yosemite is only happening now even though our average high is 54 degrees and Yosemite's is 69 degrees. If temperature and GW are the major cause why are cold areas being infested simultaneously or even years before warmer areas?
Went to a presentation where someone was arguing GW was leading to double life cycles in a single season. Asked him this obvious question and he was totally stumped.
1. There are attracting pheromones and repelling pheromones. They are indeed very different.
http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/docs/v-g/dpp-mpb/sec2/dpp-mpb2b.aspx
2. There are more than 16 papers that clarify and quantify the link between warming and MPB outbreaks. Your question is answered in those papers. Here is one of the earliest:
http://www.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/pubwarehouse/pdfs/25051.pdf
Interesting, from the introduction:
However, for North America, despite the development of several models predicting climate change impacts (e.g., Logan and Powell 2001), there is little empirical evidence that global warming has affected insect populations
Stubborn, like a dog worrying an old bone.
Rick, just another example of the AGW predictions being wrong. How long are you going to hold on to this failing theory.
I'm sure you think you're right. My only question is how many years down the road before you realize what an apology you owe your grandchildren. For now, I'm sure you think you're right.
If I'm wrong, we lose nothing. If you're wrong, we lose everything.
Someday, we humans will learn it's really true -- It's not nice to fool Mother Nature.
EC, I believe you misinterpreted that language in the introduction of the paper. My take is that the authors were making the statement that in the past there had been no connection between climate change and its effect on pine beetles, and that their studies now make the connection.
Midway through the paper they write:
...and...
In the conclusion, the authors note:
...and...
Thats were you are wrong. Following the path of AGW hysteria will cause us to lose much.
In the past, yet their "model" says it did happen in the past. The events didn't change, just the study. And this still doesn't address the question regarding differing elevations being attacked at the same time.
EC, if you could point out where in their study they say it happened in the past that'd be helpful. What I see is the authors stating that, "During the latter half of the last century, there has been a substantial shift in climatically benign habitats for mountain pine beetle northward, and toward higher elevations."
More so:
As for different elevations being attacked at the same time, I don't think their paper was intended to answer that question. But still, if there are large stands of mature lodgepole down low for the beetles to feast on, and similar stands up high where the beetle population is expanding into, why wouldn't that be possible if not even logical?
Kurt, they cited a 2001 study that said there was no apparent impact from climate change. They then applied their model to the same time frame that the 2001 study covered.
EC, and you don't think it's possible that using a new analysis could produce a different outcome? Obviously, as the bulk of their report states, they have reached a different conclusion.
Yep multiple studies, multiple different conclusions. But the science is settled. Riiiight. Just shows if you want to reach a conclusion looking backward you can always build a model to get there. Its the model looking forward that counts. And so far, those predictions have been horribly worng.
Even with these "different conclusions", I don't see any explaination of simultaneous attacks in dramatically different nearby elevations.
I am no scientist, but attacks at different elevation would always happen. The but the higher elevation would only happen if it is warm enough for the insect to survive and procreate. Also it is important to note that elevation is relative to how far north or south you are. For example...the elevation for tree line is different in Rocky Mountain N.P. than it is in Glacier N.P and even lower in Banff....and varies by how far you are from the coast. The spread of the beatle could be impeded by rivers, rock ridges, wind direction, maybe even roadways. It is also possible that the beatle could mutate and be more adaptable to colder or warmer enviroments than in the past...unless you do not believe in Darwin... LOL
I'm not talking about different latitudes. One example was Yosemite Park where Sugar Maples withint 5-10 miles of each other are being attacked at the same time despite 4,000 of elevation difference. The second as here in Summit County where we see the same phenomenon. And Yosemie is substantially warmer than Summit County but is being attacked years after Summit County. And since the beetles have now left here, does that mean our climate is cooling?
The elevation would only be important at its point where the conditions are not right to sustain the life cycle of the beetle. I know with some pine trees we have problems with here in Nebraska, they mainly only take trees that are 20 years old. So young trees are fine until the tree reaches about 20 and then they are taken quickly. It could be that there are less mature older trees left in Summit county except for a few pockets. Some times a forest fire will wipe out old forests and then the trees start young again. In which you might see a spike when the new trees reach that age in the future.
Beetles leaving could be the cause of them devouring all the trees they had an interest in. There are quite a few factors at play -- temperature, winter freezes, age and diameter of trees, collaborating diseases such as white pine blister rust -- that lead to infestations.
We still have plenty of trees left (BTW, contrary to the predictions that were made). Yes, there are many, many other factors in play. Temperature would seem to be amongst the least of them.
I would refer you to this article that states "that most mature trees lodgepoll pines have been depleated in the epidemic area"; http://www.summitdaily.com/news/summit-county-sees-decline-in-pine-beetl...
Settle down, David. You're arguing with the World's Foremost Authority.
I would also use this quote from the same article; Similar to mountain pine beetle, the increase in spruce beetle activity is due to factors that increase tree stress, including densely stocked stands, ongoing drought conditions and warmer winters.
First visit to National Parks Traveler, first comment, and probably the last, since this thread is so appalling. NPT, you're likely enabling the demise of the site by a thousand cuts administered by one determined thread hijacker. Obviously 97% of the world's climate scientists (not a real estate agent among them, astoundingly enough) have concocted a diabolical plot only to be exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies. Led of course by Jeanne d'Ayn Rand, who always must have the last word.
You might attract more readers and a greater number and diversity of comments if you decided to eliminate the truculent tinfoil-hat-sporting cranks. Most news sites are moderated by editors. If you can respond to them with such frequency, you can moderate.
David, I can look out my window and see that is not the case.
Frank, you should do a little leg work into where that 97% number comes from. It is as bogus as the numbers used to create the hockey stick.
Well my source was your local news from Summit County. So your saying that trees were not killed in large numbers or that the article has their facts wrong?
Trees were killed in large numbers but there are as many still here. "Most" makes it sound like there are no trees left. My neighborhood alone has tens of thousands. The bordering National Forest has hundreds of thousands if not millions. I had to pay to cut down every infected tree on my lot. It wasn't close to half the mature trees.
Well it does sound like your experience supports the same result as this article from Banf...their result also showed best results from cutting and removing infected trees.