West Virginia University Division of Forestry 3 rd Forest Vegetation Simulator Conference February...

West Virginia UniversityWest Virginia University

Division of ForestryDivision of Forestry

33rdrd Forest Vegetation Simulator Forest Vegetation Simulator ConferenceConference

February 13-15, 2007February 13-15, 2007

Fort Collins, ColoradoFort Collins, Colorado



Preliminary Results of the FVS Gypsy Moth Preliminary Results of the FVS Gypsy Moth Event Monitor Using Remeasurement Plot Event Monitor Using Remeasurement Plot

Data from Northern West Virginia. Data from Northern West Virginia.



Matthew PerkowskiMatthew PerkowskiWest Virginia UniversityWest Virginia University

John R. BrooksJohn R. BrooksWest Virginia UniversityWest Virginia University

andand

Kurt W. GottschalkKurt W. Gottschalk

USDA Forest Service, Northern Research StationUSDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station



Brief Overview of Gypsy Moth Brief Overview of Gypsy Moth Event MonitorEvent Monitor

Program calculates susceptible, resistant, and immune basal area.





Classifies stand susceptibility level, which impacts the severity of damage if an outbreak occurs.






Assigns outbreak occurrence based on probability and random number generation. Probability of 0.10 for a 1-year cycle.






Assigns outbreak occurrence based on probability and random number generation. Probability of 0.10 for a 1-year cycle.

Mortality and growth reductions are applied based on outbreak severity.



Wild Wonderful West VirginiaWild Wonderful West Virginia



West Virginia University Research ForestWest Virginia University Research Forest



A Look at the Study AreaA Look at the Study Area

Stand 14 Relative DensityStand 14 Relative Density

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Perc

ent

BG SB CT SS SO BO WO CO RM BC RO



Cove Hardwood SiteCove Hardwood Site

Stand 5 Relative DensityStand 5 Relative Density

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Perc

ent

BC BO BG SO WO DW HI RO CO SS BT YP RM

Gypsy Moth DamageGypsy Moth Damage

Stand 14 Stand 15West Virginia UniversityWest Virginia University


MethodsMethods

Gypsy moth introduction was set to 1985.Gypsy moth introduction was set to 1985.

Each stand was simulated 20 times in FVS using the Northeastern key Each stand was simulated 20 times in FVS using the Northeastern key component file. component file.

Outbreaks were stochastically determined for each simulation.Outbreaks were stochastically determined for each simulation.

Stands were simulated on a 1-year cycle over the fifteen year period.Stands were simulated on a 1-year cycle over the fifteen year period.

Mean values and standard errors of simulations are based on the Mean values and standard errors of simulations are based on the multiple trials.multiple trials.

In-growth was removed from the actual measurement data.In-growth was removed from the actual measurement data.



Sanitation Thinning Stands and Paired ControlsSanitation Thinning Stands and Paired Controls

Residual TPA (Predicted-Actual)Residual TPA (Predicted-Actual)

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Year

Res

idu

al

TP

A

Stand 1

Stand 2

Stand 4

Stand 5

Stand 6

Stand 7

Stand 8

Presalvage Thinning Stands and Paired Controls Presalvage Thinning Stands and Paired Controls

Residual TPA (Predicted-Actual)Residual TPA (Predicted-Actual)

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Year

Res

idua

l T

PA

Stand 9

Stand 10

Stand 11

Stand 12

Stand 13

Stand 14

Stand 15

Stand 16

Sanitation Thinning Stands and Paired Controls Sanitation Thinning Stands and Paired Controls

ResidualResidual Basal Area Per Acre (Predicted-Actual)Basal Area Per Acre (Predicted-Actual)

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Year

Res

idua

l B

AA

C

Stand 1

Stand 2

Stand 4

Stand 5

Stand 6

Stand 7

Stand 8

Presalvage Thinning Stands and Paired ControlsPresalvage Thinning Stands and Paired Controls

Residual Basal Area Per Acre (Predicted-Actual)Residual Basal Area Per Acre (Predicted-Actual)

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Year

Res

idua

l B

AA

C

Stand 9

Stand 10

Stand 11

Stand 12

Stand 13

Stand 14

Stand 15

Stand 16

Stand 7 TPA vs. TimeStand 7 TPA vs. Time

0

50

100

150

200

250

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Year

TP

A

Measured Predicted



Stand 8 TPA vs. TimeStand 8 TPA vs. Time

0

50

100

150

200

250

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Year

TP

A

Measured Predicted



Stand 7 Basal Area Per Acre vs. TimeStand 7 Basal Area Per Acre vs. Time

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Year

BA

AC

(ft

2 )

Measured Predicted



Stand 8 Basal Area Per Acre vs. TimeStand 8 Basal Area Per Acre vs. Time

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Year

BA

AC

(ft

2 )

Measured Predicted





ConclusionsConclusionsTrees Per Acre

Lower mortality prediction by the model resulted in an overestimation of TPA throughout the projection period.



ConclusionsConclusionsTrees Per Acre

Lower mortality prediction by the model resulted in an overestimation of TPA throughout the projection period.

Presalvage Thinning and Control Stands

Prediction error was greater for control stands.

The model overestimated TPA at the time of mortality, this prediction error decreased over the simulation period.

Trees Per AcreLower mortality prediction by the model resulted in an overestimation of TPA throughout the projection period.

Presalvage Thinning and Control Stands

Prediction error was greater for control stands.

The model overestimated TPA at the time of mortality, this prediction error decreased over the simulation period.

Sanitation Thinning and Control Stands

Stands exhibiting low mortality had increasing TPA error over the projection period.

Stands experiencing the highest actual mortality exhibited an early increase in TPA estimation error, but unlike the response noted for the Presalvage treatment, this prediction error did not exhibit a major decrease over time.

ConclusionsConclusions




Basal Area The model overestimated BA at the time of mortality and gradually began to

underestimate at the end of the projection period.




Basal Area The model overestimated BA at the time of mortality and gradually began to

underestimate at the end of the projection period.

Stands exhibiting low mortality were underestimated at an increasing rate over the simulation period.

Questions?



West Virginia University Division of Forestry 3 rd Forest Vegetation Simulator Conference February...

Documents

Transcript of West Virginia University Division of Forestry 3 rd Forest Vegetation Simulator Conference February...