Condition Of Live Fire-Scarred Ponderosa Pine Eleven Years After Removing Partial Cross-Sections
Affiliation
USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences LaboratoryUniversity of Minnesota, Department of Horticultural Science
Issue Date
2008-06Keywords
Tree RingsDendrochronology
Ponderosa Pine
Fire History
Oregon
Effect of Sampling
Partial Cross-Sections
Fire Scar
Catface
Wounding
Metadata
Show full item recordRights
Copyright © Tree-Ring Society. All rights reserved.Collection Information
This item is part of the Tree-Ring Research (formerly Tree-Ring Bulletin) archive. For more information about this peer-reviewed scholarly journal, please email the Editor of Tree-Ring Research at editor@treeringsociety.org.Publisher
Tree-Ring SocietyJournal
Tree-Ring ResearchCitation
Heyerdahl, E.K., McKay, S.J., 2008. Condition of live fire-scarred ponderosa pine eleven years after removing partial cross-sections. Tree-Ring Research 64(1):61-64.Abstract
Our objective is to report mortality rates for ponderosa pine trees in Oregon ten to eleven years after removing a fire-scarred partial cross-section from them, and five years after an initial survey of post-sampling mortality. We surveyed 138 live trees from which we removed fire-scarred partial crosssections in 1994/95 and 387 similarly sized, unsampled neighbor trees of the same species. These trees were from 78 plots distributed over about 5,000 ha at two sites in northeastern Oregon. The annual mortality rate for sectioned trees from 1994/95 to 2005 was 3.6% compared to 2.1% for the neighbor trees. However, many of the trees that died between 2000 and 2005 were likely killed by two prescribed fires at one of the sites. Excluding all trees in the plots burned by these fires (regardless of whether they died or not), the annual mortality rate for sectioned trees was 1.4% (identical to the rate from 1994/95 to 2000) compared to 1.0% for neighbor trees. During these fires, a greater proportion of sectioned trees died than did catfaced neighbor trees (80% versus 64%) but the difference was not significant.ISSN
1536-10982162-4585
