Lodgepole Pine Devastation

[ray benson]

Tiny Beetle Chews Way Through Millions of Trees

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123033419759936309.html
DENVER -- State and federal lawmakers returning to work next month will face urgent requests for help dealing with a tiny bug that has chewed an enormous swath of destruction across the West.
The mountain pine beetle has killed tens of millions of trees in Colorado alone and has destroyed forests from New Mexico to Canada. Across the Rocky Mountain West, iconic postcard vistas are vanishing as entire mountainsides turn first a sickly shade of rust, then a ghostly gray.
Female beetles, about the size of a fingertip, bore into a tree and deposit their eggs in the layer of tissue under the bark. When the larvae hatch, they begin eating the tree from the inside, cutting off the flow of nutrients to branches and needles. It is impossible to get ahead of the beetle; all scientists can do is let the infestation run its course.
The beetle is expected to kill virtually every mature lodgepole pine in Colorado, or five million of the state's 22 million forested acres.

 

[litefoot]

I resurrected this post because I just got back from 2 weeks in Colorado and I'm not sure how many of you realize just how bad this really is. I was working at a tower site on the top of Blue Ridge Mt (above Silverthorne, CO) and virtually every tree within my site was dead. It was like sitting on a mountain-high stack of dead-standing dry tinder. We were instructed that at ANY hint of smoke, we were to evacuate the area immediately. Just drop your stuff, jump in your vehicle and flee.

Hikers can't even camp in the trees anymore for fear of being flattened by the falling trees. I can't imagine what the state will look like in 10 years.

 

[S Mc]

I have seen aerial photos of Wyoming, Colorado and British Columbia but have not seen the forests up close and personal. It must have made a serious impact to see the extent of the devastation.

In the link the original poster gave there is a common "causal agent" given of fire suppression and climate change. The comment of the "ideal forest" being trees set at 20' apart is a manmade conception of idealism. Not that of nature. I can't help but feel we constantly make matters worse, not better, in our effort to "manage and improve".

Whereas the two factors cited are indeed part of the equation, I am convinced that they are only two. Lodgepole pines historically grow thick and close. They also don't historically grow as a monoculture. They also don't spray pesticides and herbicides everywhere.

While taking a Global Forestry class, I was absolutely appalled to learn the extent of herbicide use in the public forests. Not just agricultural land, but the forests. I don't know why that had not occurred to me before. And not just "innoculous" products but serious pesticides the likes of Agent Orange.

In the desire to produce fast growing, straight timber for harvest did we make weaker trees, more susceptible to pests? We certainly adversely affected their growing environment as we destroyed the biological symbiosis that is so important to them. As an example, Pinus species are obligate to their mycorrhizal relationship. If you disturb that, as herbicides and fertilization will do, you are inherently weakening the tree to at least a certain extent.

A weaker tree is more susceptible to attack. As the beetle population grows and reaches levels of overinfestation, they will go on to healthier trees. They don't just cease their reproduction because a weak tree is no longer available. This is the situation we are now faced with. (And is why simply cutting down a food source for a beetle in an effort to eradicate the pest makes no sense to me.)

The imbalance of nature that man has caused by his desire to improve it is far reaching and devastating. And sadly, I believe we are only seeing the very beginning of the price we are ultimately going to have to pay.

Sylvia

 

[Urban Forester]

...In the desire to produce fast growing, straight timber for harvest did we make weaker trees, more susceptible to pests? We certainly adversely affected their growing environment as we destroyed the biological symbiosis that is so important to them. As an example, Pinus species are obligate to their mycorrhizal relationship. If you disturb that, as herbicides and fertilization will do, you are inherently weakening the tree to at least a certain extent.

A weaker tree is more susceptible to attack. As the beetle population grows and reaches levels of overinfestation, they will go on to healthier trees. They don't just cease their reproduction because a weak tree is no longer available. This is the situation we are now faced with. (And is why simply cutting down a food source for a beetle in an effort to eradicate the pest makes no sense to me.)

The imbalance of nature that man has caused by his desire to improve it is far reaching and devastating. And sadly, I believe we are only seeing the very beginning of the price we are ultimately going to have to pay.
Sylvia

VERY well said... and true. There was an old TV commercial that had a line in it I still remember "Don't mess w/Mother Nature". We have and we will continue to. I guess the following fits well here. "What ye shall sow, so shall ye reap". A pretty sharp guy said that...