Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Apr 30;15(4):e0232248.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232248. eCollection 2020.

Caribou in the cross-fire? Considering terrestrial lichen forage in the face of mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) expansion

Barry R Nobert  1   2 , Terrence A Larsen  3 , Karine E Pigeon  1   4 , Laura Finnegan  1
Affiliations

Caribou in the cross-fire? Considering terrestrial lichen forage in the face of mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) expansion

Barry R Nobert et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Mountain pine beetle (MPB) has become an invasive forest pest of mature pine in western North America as it spreads beyond its former endemic range. Management actions such as timber harvest can reduce the spread of MPB but may affect species of conservation concern like woodland caribou. Our goal was to inform MPB management within caribou ranges by exploring the impacts of MPB on caribou habitat-focusing on terrestrial lichens, an important winter food for caribou. We evaluated differences in lichen cover among four MPB management actions: timber harvest, wildfires, leaving MPB killed trees as-is, and single-tree cut-and-burn control. We found little evidence that leaving MPB killed trees as-is or controlling MPB using single-tree cut-and-burn impacted lichen cover. However, we found that lichen cover was lower in timber harvested and burned areas compared to intact undisturbed forest but only 10 to 20 years post-disturbance, respectively. Our results suggest that despite short-term reductions in lichen cover, using timber harvesting and prescribed burns to control MPB may balance management needs for MPB while maintaining lichen cover over time. However, using timber harvesting and prescribed burns to manage MPB is likely to have detrimental population-level effects on caribou by increasing the proportion of disturbed habitat and thus predators within caribou ranges. Among the four management actions that we evaluated, the cut-and-burn control program balances the need to limit the spread of MPB while also limiting negative impacts on caribou food. Our work addresses some of the challenges of managing competing forest and ecosystem values by evaluating the consequence of forest pest management actions on an important food resource for a species-at-risk.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The full list of fRI Research partners and funders are: Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute, Alberta Conservation Association, Alberta Energy Regulator, Alberta Environment and Parks, Alberta Fish and Game Association, Alberta Institute of Agrologists, Alberta Innovates, Alberta Newsprint Company, Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc., Alberta Professional Planners Institute, Alberta Riparian Habitat Management Society, Apache Canada Ltd., Arctos Ecological Consulting, Aseniwuche Winewak Nation of Canada, Athabasca Watershed Council, Bandaloop Landscape-Ecosystem Services, Battle River Watershed Alliance, BC Oil and Gas Commission, BC Oil and Gas Research and Innovation Society, Beaver River Watershed Alliance, Borealis Ecology Wildlife Research, Bow River Basin Council, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement, Canadian Institute of Forestry, Canadian International Oil Corp., Canadian Natural Resources Limited, Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative, Canfor Corporation, Cenovus Energy Inc., City of Grande Prairie, ConocoPhillips Canada, Cumulative Environmental Management Association, Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd., Devon Energy Corporation, Ducks Unlimited Canada, Encana Corporation, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Explorers and Producers Association of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Followit Sweden, Foothills Forest Products, FORCORP, Forest Resource Improvement Association of Alberta (FRIAA), Forest Stewardship Council, Forsite Consultants Ltd., Fuse Consulting Ltd., Golder Associates, Government of British Columbia (Ministry of Environment; Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations), Government of Northwest Territories (Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources), Government of Saskatchewan (Ministry of Environment), Grande Cache Tourism and Interpretative Centre, Hinton and District Chamber of Commerce, Husky Energy Inc., Inside Education, Integrated Ecological Research, Jasper-Yellowhead Museum & Archives, Joss Wind Power Inc., Lesser Slave Watershed Council, Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, Mighty Peace Watershed Alliance, Millar Western Forest Products Ltd., Mistik Management Ltd., Mitacs, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Norbord Inc., North Saskatchewan Watershed Alliance, Northern Rockies Museum of Culture and Heritage, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research, Oldman Watershed Council, Paramount Resources Ltd., Parks Canada, Pembina Pipeline Corporation, Peregrine Helicopters, Peter J. Murphy Forest Consulting Ltd., Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada, Red Deer River Watershed Alliance, Repsol Oil and Gas Inc., Scandinavian Brown Bear Research Project, Seven Generations Energy Ltd., Shell Canada Ltd., South East Alberta Watershed Alliance, Spray Lake Sawmills, St’at’imc Government Services, Suncor Energy Inc., Sustainable Forestry Initiative, TAQA North Ltd., Teck Resources Ltd., TerrainWorks, Timberworks Inc., Tolko Industries Ltd., Tom Peterson, Toronto Zoo, Tourmaline Oil Corp., Town of Hinton, TransCanada Corporation, Trout Unlimited Canada, United States Department of Agriculture (United States Forest Service), University of Alberta, University of British Columbia, University of Calgary, Université Laval, University of Oslo, University of Saskatchewan, University of Victoria, Washington State University, Vanderwell Contractors (1971) Ltd., West Fraser Mills Ltd., Westmoreland Coal Company, Weyerhaeuser Company, Wild Year Productions Ltd., Woodlands Operations Learning Foundation, XTO Energy Inc., Yellowhead County, Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative. Authors TL and LF are employed by fRI Research – a non-profit. fRI Research did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors’ salaries and/or research materials. Author BN was employed by fRI Research at the time of data analysis and preparation of the draft manuscript and is currently employed by Alberta Environment and Parks. Alberta Environment and Parks and fRI Research did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Author KEP was employed by fRI Research at the time of data collection, analysis, and preparation of the draft manuscript and is currently employed by Carelton University. Carelton University and fRI Research did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The authors past and current employers did not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Map of predicted terrestrial lichen cover.
Predicted terrestrial lichen cover (Cetraria spp., Cladina spp., Cladonia spp. and Flavocetraria spp.) in west-central and north-western Alberta, Canada, mapped using landscape conditions in 2017. Blank areas within caribou range in west-central denote rock and ice covered mountain tops.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Simulated terrestrial lichen cover under different management actions.
Lichen cover simulated over forty years using the zero-inflated lichen models in west-central and north-western Alberta, Canada. Cut and Fire simulations assumed that the disturbances were created at year zero (2017), whereas for the Forest strata simulations the stand age at year zero was the mean stand age in each study area (west-central = 119 years, north-western = 97 years).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Clavero M, García-Berthou E. Invasive species are a leading cause of animal extinctions. Trends Ecol Evol. 2005;20: 110 10.1016/j.tree.2005.01.003 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lodge DM, Williams S, MacIsaac HJ, Hayes KR, Leung B, Reichard S, et al. Biological invasions: Recommendations for U.S. policy and management. Ecol Appl. 2006;16: 2035–2054. 10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[2035:birfup]2.0.co;2 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ. 2005;52: 273–288.
    1. Myers JH, Simberloff D, Kuris A, Carey JR. Eradication Revisited: Dealing with Exotic Species. Trends Ecol Evol. 2000;15: 316–320. 10.1016/s0169-5347(00)01914-5 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rejmanek M, Pitcairn MJ. When is eradication of exotic pest plants a realistic goal? In: Veitch CR, Clout MN, editors. Turning the Tide: The Eradication of Invasive Species. Auckland, New Zealand: Hollands Printing Ltd; 2002. pp. 249–253.

Publication types