by: Sam Cimino
The Mountain Pine Beetle Dendroctonus ponderosae is a species of bark beetle native to western North America. The mountain pine beetle invades pine trees for shelter, reproduction, and to harvest their larvae. The most common pine trees invaded are the Lodgepole pine, Ponderosa Pine, and the Whitebark Pine. The invaded trees on average die within two to three weeks and their needles turn orange and red. The "dead stands" create an increase in fuel load for fires the lack of water intake creates greater erosion in the area. The mountain pine beetle outbreaks naturally occur on a decadal cycle; however, the recent outbreak has been ten times more devastating to the ecosystem than any others recorded in the past.
There are various measures being taken and even more ideas being observed in order to control this outbreak. The measures that are in effect as of now are not very effective and very costly. The Bureau of Land Management is working with private companies, typically ski resorts, on control policies in areas where public safety may be at risk. In areas that can be controlled, the BLM will remove all dead stands, thin out susceptible trees, and install repellent pheromone packs.
The steps the BLM are taking is a good start, but it may be too little too late. The removal of dead stands is mostly for safety reasons due to the high risk of falling trees in outbreak areas. Additionally, the thinning of susceptible trees should have been done years ago, and due to the suppression of fires Rocky Mountain forests have become increasingly unhealthy. Fire suppression has caused more intense fires when they do occur, which creates single aged forests. Pine beetle will only attack trees of a certain age and diameter and if all the trees are possible recipients of the beetle the entire forest could be invaded which is appears to be happening now. Finally, the installation of repellent pheromone packs is extremely expensive. What the repellent packs do is inhibit the pine beetles to send out a signal telling the other pine beetles that the tree is suitable for invasion. The packs need to be installed each year and can be up to twenty dollars per tree. If they install the repellent into a thousand trees (which is a little less than average) they are spending twenty-thousand a year just on the repellents.
What should be done in the control of the Mountain Pine Beetle outbreak? Is it too late to try and save the Rocky Mountain forests? Should there be a state or nationwide policy for the control of the pine beetle?
12 comments:
After doing some research on this issue myself, I am under the impression that this is part of the natural cycle of events. Potential costs for controlling the pine beetle are astronomical. Just to begin with a chemical treatment on trees is $50 per tree initially and additional costs mount as more treatments are needed. Although beetle-kill is aesthetically unpleasing and a potential burden to the lucrative tourism industry in Colorado, people are finding ways to utilize the beetle-kill wood so it doesn't go entirely to waste. Companies are using beetle wood as an option for building houses and the wood chips from beetle-kill trees are being used in fertilizers and as biochar. Although the beetle-kill problem is leaving a significant mark on the landscape of Colorado, I believe trying to prevent it would be a costly endeavor and going against natural cycles of the earth.
I also am doing research on this issue and I agree with both that this would be an extremely expensive project to fully take on the beetle epidemic. But I believe at a certain scale things can be done to help and it is not a total waste.
That's a very good question. Personally, I feel that although human activities may have exacerbated the problem, pine beetles are part of a natural cycle, and perhaps out meddling will be futile and have unforeseen consequences. Why are we trying to fix a problem with the same consciousness that made it such a problem to begin with? I don't believe that the forests will be irreversible decimated by the infestation, although a loss of resources is inevitable. I think we need to increase prescribed burning efforts to make up for past mistakes, and focus our energies on making the best of a bad situation. Thinning out and harvesting affected trees seems productive, but we need to lay off the resource-intensive chemicals.
I know that Copper Mtn. is taking preventative measure dealing with the pine beetle. Besides the expensive sprays they also simply just cut the trees down. In fact it has added to some new gladed terrain.
I do in fact believe that this is part of the natural cycle, but is at the extreme neg side. If we have the power and money to make a difference why not go ahead with it. Lets at least put a little bit of time into saving the natural aesthetics!
Chris, it would seem that a major part of the increased severity of this beetle outbreak vs. past outbreaks, is that we have exercised our "power and money" to great excess in the past with overbearing fire control, that has resulted in the unhealthy forests of today. I think we need to let it happen, use the resource as best we can, and learn to stop messing around with the forest. It worked well for a LONG LONG time before we started throwing money at it.
Good point Rex! but one of the reasons why we have been messing around with some areas of the forests is because people live and recreate there. They feel that they need protection from natural disasters so mitigation efforts are put into place. I would say let the forests be, but it could in return cause human lives.
The questions are...
Why do people choose to live in dangerous areas?
i.e. thick wooded forests that are prone to fires. or highly seismic areas like California. or even cities on the coast that are prone to hurricanes that have an average elevation of 1 to 2 feet bellow sea level.
The pine beetles are natural and there should be nothing that we do to prevent it. I think the fact that we are utilizing the tree deaths as a way to generate resources is great. The fact that there not going to waste is great. Due to the climate changing even a few degrees more of these beetles are able to survive the winter and reproduce and that is why we are seeing an increase in those species today.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it isn't actually the beetle that kill the tree, but a blue fungus. So if its not actually dying from the beetle, would there be some way to battle this by controlling the fungus?
Do we need to do any thing.....? The pine beetle infestation is a natural process. It does seem that it is more pronounced than in the past, that is not necessarily a bad thing. It has been considered healthy for forests to be thinned, allowing new diverse growth. Fires are often also healthy for a forest ecosystem. I personally feel that the removal of these dead trees is the best mitigation to this "problem". Sounds like the tree skiing is just guna get better!
I think that we need to do something to mitigate the negative effects of pine beetle infestation. Natural cycle or not, human beings have a vested interest in the outcome because of the value that we receive from healthy pine trees. This includes aesthetic values, recreational values, ecosystem value that the trees provide, the value of carbon sequestration of trees and values of safety from reducing wildfire damage. I understand people don't want to interfere with nature but think of the benefits that one gets out of the healthy trees. Also, consider all of the natural cycles that humans interfere with on a daily basis that make our lives better in some way. (I'm not saying screw the environment for human's sake but is "a natural cycle" convincing enough reason to not interfere in this case?)
Post a Comment