16
Changes in Fire Regimes and the Successional Status of Table Mountain Pine in the Southern Appalachians Henri D. Grissino- Mayer Michael R. Armbrister Laboratory of Tree-Ring Science Department of Geography University of Tennessee Knoxville, Tennessee 37996

Changes in Fire Regimes and the Successional Status of Table Mountain Pine in the Southern Appalachians Henri D. Grissino-Mayer Michael R. Armbrister Laboratory

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Changes in Fire Regimes and the Successional Status of Table Mountain Pine in the Southern Appalachians Henri D. Grissino-Mayer Michael R. Armbrister Laboratory

Changes in Fire Regimes and the Successional Status of Table Mountain Pine in the Southern Appalachians

Henri D. Grissino-Mayer

Michael R. Armbrister

Laboratory of Tree-Ring Science

Department of Geography

University of Tennessee

Knoxville, Tennessee 37996

Page 2: Changes in Fire Regimes and the Successional Status of Table Mountain Pine in the Southern Appalachians Henri D. Grissino-Mayer Michael R. Armbrister Laboratory

• Table Mountain pine endemic to Appalachians• Fire-dependent species: cone serotiny, site prep• Considerable human alterations to native communities• Primary among these is 20th century fire exclusion = new fire regime• Effects on this species are a major concern for management agencies

• Information needed on site-specific fire history• Retrospective study provides needed reference conditions

Problem Statement

Page 3: Changes in Fire Regimes and the Successional Status of Table Mountain Pine in the Southern Appalachians Henri D. Grissino-Mayer Michael R. Armbrister Laboratory

• Evaluate current age structure of select TMP stands

• Identify and characterize historical fire regimes in these stands

• Combine this information to assess its current successional status

Objectives

Page 4: Changes in Fire Regimes and the Successional Status of Table Mountain Pine in the Southern Appalachians Henri D. Grissino-Mayer Michael R. Armbrister Laboratory
Page 5: Changes in Fire Regimes and the Successional Status of Table Mountain Pine in the Southern Appalachians Henri D. Grissino-Mayer Michael R. Armbrister Laboratory

Field Methods

1. Age structure analysis

Cored minimum 75 trees at 5 sites, 2 cores per tree

Aged seedlings and saplings via bud scars, branch nodes

2. Fire-scar analysis

Located suitable fire-scarred logs and snags

Collected small wedges from selected living trees

All sections collected via hand saws

Page 6: Changes in Fire Regimes and the Successional Status of Table Mountain Pine in the Southern Appalachians Henri D. Grissino-Mayer Michael R. Armbrister Laboratory

Laboratory Methods

1. Age structure analysis

Mounted, sanded, dated all tree rings on all cores

Developed histograms that depicted the age structure of all 5 stands

2. Fire-scar analysis

Sanded, dated all tree rings on all sections

Dated all embedded fire scars to year of formation *

Developed graphs depicting fire occurrence over time

Page 7: Changes in Fire Regimes and the Successional Status of Table Mountain Pine in the Southern Appalachians Henri D. Grissino-Mayer Michael R. Armbrister Laboratory
Page 8: Changes in Fire Regimes and the Successional Status of Table Mountain Pine in the Southern Appalachians Henri D. Grissino-Mayer Michael R. Armbrister Laboratory
Page 9: Changes in Fire Regimes and the Successional Status of Table Mountain Pine in the Southern Appalachians Henri D. Grissino-Mayer Michael R. Armbrister Laboratory
Page 10: Changes in Fire Regimes and the Successional Status of Table Mountain Pine in the Southern Appalachians Henri D. Grissino-Mayer Michael R. Armbrister Laboratory
Page 11: Changes in Fire Regimes and the Successional Status of Table Mountain Pine in the Southern Appalachians Henri D. Grissino-Mayer Michael R. Armbrister Laboratory
Page 12: Changes in Fire Regimes and the Successional Status of Table Mountain Pine in the Southern Appalachians Henri D. Grissino-Mayer Michael R. Armbrister Laboratory

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 - 9

10 -

19

20 -

29

30 -

39

40 -

49

50 -

59

60 -

69

70 -

79

80 -

89

90 -

99

100 -

109

110 -

119

120 -

129

130 -

139

140 -

149

150 -

159

160 -

169

170 -

179

180 -

189

190 -

199

Age Classes

Fre

quen

cy

Stagnation!

Page 13: Changes in Fire Regimes and the Successional Status of Table Mountain Pine in the Southern Appalachians Henri D. Grissino-Mayer Michael R. Armbrister Laboratory

Undated samples were very useful!

0

1

2

3

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Interval

Fre

quency

Page 14: Changes in Fire Regimes and the Successional Status of Table Mountain Pine in the Southern Appalachians Henri D. Grissino-Mayer Michael R. Armbrister Laboratory

Mean Fire Interval 8 yrsMedian Fire Interval 6Weibull Modal Interval (MOI) 5Weibull Median Interval (MEI) 7

Lower Exceedance Interval (LEI) 3Upper Exceedance Interval (UEI) 13Maximum Hazard Interval (MHI) 81

Preliminary statistics on fire history in TMP stands of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park

Page 15: Changes in Fire Regimes and the Successional Status of Table Mountain Pine in the Southern Appalachians Henri D. Grissino-Mayer Michael R. Armbrister Laboratory

Major Conclusions

1. Living TMP crossdate very well = great potential.

2. Older dead and downed more difficult.

3. Age structure shows peaks in 60-69 and 70-79 classes.

4. Little to no regeneration is occurring in these stands.

5. Fire history information can be obtained even on undated samples.

6. Fires occurred ca. every 6-7 years in pre-park era.

7. Maximum Hazard Interval indicates conditions in these park stands are strongly conducive to burning.

Page 16: Changes in Fire Regimes and the Successional Status of Table Mountain Pine in the Southern Appalachians Henri D. Grissino-Mayer Michael R. Armbrister Laboratory

Acknowledgements

Thank you JFSP!

GSMNP, NPS, Mike Jenkins

TVA, Charles Smart

Committee members: Ken Orvis, Sally Horn

Laboratory of Tree-Ring Science

Department of Geography, University of Tennessee

Field and lab help from:

Daniel Lewis, David Mann, Jake Cseke, Beth Atchley, Damian Kolbay, Bill Dennis, Brian Reed