Does More P Mean Less BBD? Beech bark disease in the

MELNHE plots

Aaliyah JasonShoestring Crew 2015SUNY-ESF

What is BBD?• Neonectria fungus (N. faginata, N. ditissima)

• Fagus grandifolia (American Beech)• Cryptococcus fagisuga (Non-native scale insect)

• Xylococculus betulae (Native scale)

Heavily cankered beech

Excretory tubes from X. Betulae

Backfiring defense mechanism• Root sprouts• Niche disturbance• Beech homogenous monoculture

patches • Overall lower forest diversity• Outcompeting timber crop

Welcome to the White Mountains, little guys!

• First documented in Bartlett in 1940.• 50% first wave mortality rate on

beech.• Only 1% of F. grandifolia have

displayed resistance.

No, but really, we don’t want you.

C. fagisuga wax masses under tape on infected beech

Soil Phosphorus• Beech that are the most

severely infected have lower levels of bark P (Cale et al. 2013)

• Looking at MELNHE soil-P data (provided by Dr. Fisk)

Forest Site

Plot Means

Bartlett C7 1 13.9956Bartlett C8 2 15.1281Bartlett C4 2 24.3440JB Y 4 25.2379Bartlett C4 1 32.7435JB O 4 32.8346JB Y 3 33.1009Bartlett C2 1 38.0039Bartlett C3 3 38.2839Bartlett C2 4 38.3831

10 lowest P readings per plot

Bartlett C4 4 101.0509JB Y 1 110.4363Bartlett C2 2 123.5172Bartlett C6 3 126.2816JB O 1 127.9724Bartlett C5 3 136.4526Bartlett C9 3 160.5715Bartlett C9 4 172.0302Bartlett C3 2 180.8428Bartlett C6 4 207.1948

10 highest P readings per plot

• Comparison of infected trees between different ratios of pre-treatment soil P ratings

Data from M. Fisk

Does higher soil P availability more effectively limit BBD progression in aftermath forests?

Procedure• Three frame

samples

(Getting that perfect shot can take a few tries)

Procedure• Combination of two modified score systemso% Canopy loss (1 less than 10% foliage loss – 3

more than 50% foliage loss)

oOverall tree health (1 healthy – 5 dead)

oSeverity of bark cover by fungus (1 small cracks – 4/5 large girdling cankers, dead)

oC. fagisuga wax mass coverage per frame (1-5) & number of masses per frame

oX. betulae excretory tubes (present or not)

Sources• Wild, A., Johnston, M., Cale, J. A (2013). Scoring beech bark

disease.

• Egan-Anderson, E., Turlip, J., Wild, A., Suttenberg, S., Littlefield, S. (2014). 2014 MELNHE mature stand stem mapping.

• Cale J. A. et al. (2014). New ecological and physiological dimensions of beech bark disease development in aftermath forests: State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry. Elsevier.

• Mason, M. E., Koch, J. L., Krasowski, M., & Loo, J. (2013). Comparisons of protein profiles of beech bark disease resistant and susceptible American Beech (Fagus grandifolia): Ohio State University. Proteome Science.

• Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (June 2008). Preparing Wisconsin’s forests for beech bark disease. pg. 1-2. Retrieved June 2, 2015. dnr.wi.gov

• Bartlett Experimental Forest (n.d.). Retrieved June 6, 2015. fs.fed.us

Melany Fisk - Pre-treatment soil P data for MELNHE stands

Acknowledgements

Matt Vadeboncoeur & Adam Wild – rating system

Ruth Yanai – Shoestring Leader

Shoestring Crew

Mariann Johnston - Mentor