1

Reassessment of the threat of eastward spread of MPB in Canada

Kathy BleikerResearch Scientist, Bark Beetles

Pacific Forestry CentreCanadian Forest Service

2

CFS Approach to MPB – Risk Analysis FrameworkRisk Assessment; Risk Response; Risk Communication

Risk Assessment:• Trigger• Identify threat• Likelihood of occurrence• Estimate consequences• Provocative aff. Statements• Evidence• Describe uncertainties• Research needs

1. Risk Assessment 2. Risk Response

3. Risk Communication

3

Mountain Pine Beetle in Canada

It has “always” been here(west of Rockies in BC):

But, now it is here(east of Rockies in n AB):

Is it going to be here?

What will it do here?

?

4

Historic Range(pre-2000)

Expanded Range(since 2000)

Detected(established??)

Range Expansion

5

Long distance immigration events over the Rockies occurred multiple times in the 2000s

Photo: ne BC, May 2007Massive immigration event in 2006

2010 MPB RA (Nealis & Cooke 2014)

• 2007-11 spread faster than anticipated; host connectivity not as constraining

• Jack pine more susceptible to MPB than lodgepole

• → Need an analysis of response options• Safranyik et al. (2010). Can. Ent. (Focus: climate and stand susceptibility)

2007 Initial Emergency MPB RA (Nealis & Peter 2008)

• Persist in AB; slow spread; no barriers; novel habitat = uncertainty

• → Need a response plan; effectiveness of control

• → Need a detailed forest inventory

• → Determine ecological and socio-economic impacts

2012 CFS MPB Strategy & Research Plan (Burke & Sankey 2013)

• Identified key policy questions and priority research areas

(2015) MPB Response Plan (to Slow-the-Spread) (Hodge 2017)

• Technical aspects of population management

• “Winnable” vs. “unwinnable” battles; battleground – e. AB

Backg

rou

nd

2018 MPB RA (Bleiker et al. 2019)

Scope is mainly Prairie boreal

Timber $$

Carbon $

CommunityIntrinsic/Rec.

Wildfire

Ecosystemservices

Spread/Occurrence

Consequences

?

Movement Establishment

Host TreeDistribution,

Quality/Chem.

Sp. InteractionsSymbionts, Comp., N.E.

Dir

ect

Effective?

Control

Risk Response

Ris

k A

sses

smen

t

8

Contributing Authors

Bleiker, KatherineBoisvenue, CélineCampbell, ElizabethCooke, BarryErbilgin, NadirFriberg, RobLewis, KatherineStennes, BradleyStockdale, ChrisWhitehouse, Caroline

9

10

Highlights of 2018 RA

11

Previous RAs - CanFI/EOSD (Yemanshanov et al. 2011)

Pine at risk in Canada (pine volume)

kNN – NFI(Beaudoin et al. 2014)

(BC data reflects losses to MPB)

Provincial data(this RA; G. Thandi)

12

Prov. data on top of kNNkNNCanFI/EOSD

Used in previous RAs

→ More pine at risk than previously assessed→ Likely why spread faster in AB than anticipated

→ Still, e. AB has relatively low volumes, best “battleground”→ Needs: Accurate inventory data

13

Climatic suitability of Canada2 conclusions about current climate:

→ Climate of s. boreal can support MPB (Safranyik et al. 2010)

14

Climatic suitability of Canada2 conclusions about current climate:

→ Climate of s. boreal can support MPB (Safranyik et al. 2010)

→ low P(spread), favourable winter climate does not align with favourablesummer climate (Bentz et al. 2010)

Winter“-40°C”

Seasonality1-yr cycle

15

Climatic suitability of Canada

Winter“-40°C”

Seasonality1-yr cycle

Combo

2 conclusions about current climate:

→ Climate of s. boreal can support MPB (Safranyik et al. 2010)

→ low P(spread), favourable winter climate does not align with favourablesummer climate (Bentz et al. 2010)

Needs: Refine CSIs• Cold tolerance• Mechanism to

regulate development

16

Movement & Establishment

1) Human-assisted transport• Low probability, except specialty users

2) (Natural) Dispersal• LDD 100-300 km when pops extremely high• Many uncertainties• Needs: Understanding dispersal at different

population densities

3) Establishment/outbreak/persistence• New research • Needs: Stand-level studies in jack pine

17

18

Spread east

Slave Lake – current greatest threatHow far east established?Implications for controlMassive pops in west – threat?

Infestations plotted with old attack ON TOP of new attack to highlight recent spread

19

Control (Risk Response)

Control affects pop levels, dispersal, establishment, etc. → affects risk

Control can effectively slow spread under certain conditions (known since the 1930s!)

Detection rate for green attack~66% but this is related to method and $$

Needs: New methods and tools to increase detection or decrease cost of control

Is it worth the cost?

Carroll et al. 2006

20

Timber $$

Carbon $

CommunityIntrinsic/Rec.

Wildfire

Ecosystemservices

Consequences

• High uncertainty, but overall expected to be negative

• Need: Expected level of tree mortality?

• nw and wc AB, 20% of pine-ldg stands, mortality >30% BA as of 2016 (B. Horne)

• Mortality may be periodic. In BC, outbreaks occur every 25-40 yrs in stands

• Highly variable, but <BC (salvage opp. may be less though)

• Significant ecosystem service values at risk in Canada

21

Timber $$

Carbon $

CommunityIntrinsic/Rec.

Wildfire

Ecosystemservices

Consequences

Needs:

• Socio-economic analysis

• Estimates of tree mortality; rate(s) of spread

• Carbon data for smaller trees and vegetation

• Determine adaptive capacity of communities

• Challenge to quantify some impacts with $

22

Timber $$

Carbon $

CommunityIntrinsic/Rec.

Wildfire

Ecosystemservices

Spread/Occurrence

Consequences

?

Movement Establishment

Host TreeDistribution,

Quality/Chem.

Sp. InteractionsSymbionts, Comp., N.E.

Dir

ect

Effective?

Control

Risk Response

Ris

k A

sses

smen

t

23

A Few Highlights of Results and Needs:

• More pine at risk than previously thought

• LDD/spread of 100-300 km is normative during a large outbreak

• We know the recipe for successful control

• Winnable vs unwinnable battles

• Early detection, aggressive control, sustained over time

• Constraints for suppression – cost, limited tools/technology

• Control efficacy? Socio-economic analysis remains a need

• Some services hard to put a $ on

• Economists, managers, biologists, the public, may have different values

The need for an evergreen process

24

Contributing Authors: R. Friberg, C. Boisvenue, K. Lewis, B. Stennes, C.

Whitehouse, B. Cooke, C. Stockdale, N. Erbilgin, E. Campbell

Participants of RA Workshop, 17 April 2018: J. Hodge, E. Samis, C.

Whitehouse, R. McIntosh, N. Erbilgin, A. Carroll, B. Stennes, B. Riel, A. Hopkin, B.

Cooke, B. Bogdanski, K. Bleiker

Technical assistance, information or spatial data: G. Thandi, J. Fraser, J. Kang,

C. Whitehouse, R. Brett, B. Horne, J. Hodge, F. McKee, T. Ebata, M. Undershultz, J.

MacCormick, M. Hafer, A. Dyk, G. Stinson, F. Eichel, L. Watkins, A. Walton, A.

Viveiros, B. Wilson, L. Gelhorn, A. Walton

Feedback or edits on RA or the Exec. Summary: R. McIntosh, C. Whitehouse,

E. Samis, N. Erbilgin, J.L. Germain, V. Nealis

Acknowledgements