Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management

with Emphasis on Bureau of Land Management Lands in the Western United States

Paul C. Rogers, Western Aspen Alliance, Wildland Resources Department, and Ecology Center, Utah State University, Logan, Utah

Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management

with Emphasis on Bureau of Land Management Lands in the Western United States 2017 BLM-UT-G1017-001-8000. 98 p.

Paul C. Rogers Western Aspen Alliance, Wildland Resources Department, and Ecology Center, Utah State University

Produced in cooperation with U.S.Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Cooperative Agreement Number: L10AC20552

Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management

Contents

Chapter 1 – Introduction...... 1 How We Got Here...... 1 Why Is Aspen Important?...... 3 Chapter 2 - Aspen: An Evolving Picture...... 7 Issues Affecting Aspen Ecosystems...... 7 Science-Management Synergy...... 12 Chapter 3 - Landscape Interactions And Other Considerations...... 19 Disturbances...... 19 Past Management...... 21 Ungulate Herbivory...... 22 Chapter 4 - Aspen Types By Ecological Function...... 27 Overview of Functional Types...... 27 Seral and Stable Functional Types...... 29 Seral Aspen...... 32 Boreal...... 32 Montane...... 36 Stable Aspen...... 40 Parklands...... 40 Colorado Plateau Highlands And Mesas...... 43 Elevation/Aspect Limited...... 47 Riparian...... 54 Chapter 5 - Developing An Action Plan...... 57 Setting Objectives...... 57 Monitoring: Assess Before Action...... 58 Chapter 6 - Aspen ‘Monitor And Manage’ Toolbox...... 65 Selecting from Restoration Actions...... 65 Adapting Management to Monitoring Results...... 75 Where to Find More Aspen Information...... 77 References...... 81 Appendix 1: Key Terms...... 86 Appendix 2: Aspen Stand Condition Rating System...... 91 Appendix 4: Sample Monitoring Form...... 96

Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management Page left intentionally blank. Chapter 1 – Introduction

How We Got Here Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) have a rich history of both research and management. Particularly in the American West, aspen trees stand out as vibrant icons in forest communities dominated by evergreen-shaded mountainsides (Fig. 1.1). This individuality in the species piqued the interest of early forest scientists working in the region, and the fervor has not abated. Early on, though aspen were not as highly valued as they are today, foresters marveled at the expanses of this species on desert plateaus and its ability to grow profusely Chapter 1 – Introduction – 1 Chapter following fire. Foresters of the early 20th century, however, felt that the aspen species inhibited development of more valued timber species. In much of the West, this was also a time of new aspen growth and expansion in response to settlement-era cutting, grazing, and burning

Figure 1.1 Aspen leaf.

Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management 1 (Rogers et al. 2007a; 2011). Later, aspen’s value to humans increased, particularly as rich understory livestock forage. Managers and researchers alike became interested in methods of promoting aspen growth and sustainability. Currently, professionals and the public are attracted to the benefits of aspen for biodiversity, fire resistance, recreation, aesthetics, wood products, forage, water conservation, and wildlife habitat. Realization of aspen’s usefulness has paralleled a number of threats to these forest communities. Indeed, some threats may be attributable to past management actions, such as fire suppression, overgrazing, water diversion, wildlife management, and inappropriate timber harvesting methods. In Utah, for example, an estimated 60% of aspen cover was lost during the 20th century due to past practices (Bartos and Campbell 1998). However, such projections warrant caution, as they assume that each location with significant signs of live or dead aspen today was once an “aspen forest” where this species comprised the dominant cover. Nonetheless, the 20th century did witness both increases (Kulakowski et al. 2004) and decreases in aspen cover (Di Orio et al. 2005), some attributed to humans and some to the relatively moist climate (Rogers et al. 2011). More recently, reports of “sudden aspen decline” indicate rapid die-off of both overstory and root systems in some parts of the West (Worrall et al. 2008). Subsequent work has Chapter 1 – Introduction linked regional mortality in aspen and recent climate trends (Worrall et al. 2013). These and other works suggest future climates will acutely affect aspen on southern aspects and at low elevations, conditions commonly found on BLM lands across the West. Land managers, then, face the dilemma of applying the collective knowledge of a large body of aspen science to specific areas of interest, areas that they cannot treat as uniform representations of a single species behaving predictably across its wide range. In this field guide, I use a “systems approach” to aspen ecology and management. We have learned much, though perhaps not adequately communicated, about varying aspen types around our region (Rogers et al. 2014). For example, what new information is available about fire behavior in aspen, and how might we best apply that knowledge best

Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management 2 be applied to forest management practices? Or why do aspen forests vary in their contribution to wildlife management and landscape biodiversity? Are we as land managers making informed decisions about stewardship with processes in mind or working against ecosystem function, which controls such processes? Our driving paradigm in contemporary land management is to first understand, then emulate (to the degree possible), ecosystem function. In terms of western aspen, this means using the best available science and pairing it with local experience. Where there are knowledge gaps, often field monitoring and experimentation are required to move forward. These ideas are not necessarily new, though their application in widely varying quaking aspen communities provides novel opportunities for effective management. One key tactic is agency investment in “learning by doing,” which will be required to adapt to the dynamic institutional Introduction – 1 Chapter and ecological conditions expected. Why Is Aspen Important? Biodiversity—Among western forests, quaking aspen communities are often the most biodiverse (Kuhn et al. 2011; Chong et al. 2001). Due to the presence of relatively moist conditions and abundant flora, a wide range of wildlife species—both transitory and resident—is drawn to aspen forests (Manley et al. 2000). Thus, it is important to understand that we seek to sustain the range of aspen systems, not just the tree. As wildlife habitat, aspen types are often among the most critical concerns for state and federal agencies charged with managing viable populations in diverse landscapes (Fig. 1.2). Water Conservation—Relatively high understory biomass, deep snowpack, and rich soils allow aspen systems to retain higherlevels of water in the spring and early summer (Gifford et al. 1983; LaMalfa and Ryle [sic] 2008). While further work is needed on Figure 1.2 Biodiversity in aspen.

Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management 3 this topic, these preliminary investigations suggest that retention of aspen dominance in seral conditions allows deeper infiltration rates, thereby prolonging water availability later into the season. We expect similar water benefits in stable aspen systems where conversion to sage or other dry nonforest types is a possibility. More water in streams benefits fish as well as downstream human uses. Aesthetics—People often underestimate the benefit of landscape beauty to our well-being. Aspen landscapes are iconic in western North America, especially as their brightly colored autumn leaves appear. Regardless of activity, white trunks crowned with fluttering green or gold leaves often lie at the center of our outdoor experience. In addition to potential spiritual, healing, or calming values found among the quaking aspen, nature lovers gravitate to this tree for its photogenic qualities. Recreation—Skiing, hunting, biking, hiking, motor touring, camping, fishing, photography, and sightseeing are commonly centered on aspen scenes. Many western resorts that focus on recreational activities use aspen backdrops in their advertising. Large aspen die-offs, though perhaps endemic to forest ecosystems, are generally unappealing to recreational visitors. Forage—Historically, livestock growers have depended on the diversity, Chapter 1 – Introduction biomass, and nutrition of understory aspen communities to feed their animals. Often found at high elevations, aspen forests provide cooler and moister conditions for livestock during parched summer months. Use of forage in these locations, provides direct economic benefit to western ranchers, as well as indirect benefits to the municipalities where they reside. Fire Protection—Forests dominated by aspen are less prone to high- intensity burning compared to surrounding conifer types (Shinneman et al. 2013). In wildland urban interface (WUI) situations, aspen may be used as a firebreak around developed areas (Fechner and Barrows 1976). Thus, management that favors aspen (i.e., thinning conifers, light underburning) may be used as a prudent means of protecting homesites.

Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management 4 Social/Economic Values—Many of the benefits listed above, combined or individually, contribute to social and economic gains for residents of the West. For example, outdoor experiences not only contribute to our greater well-being and strong sense of place, but they add revenues to state and local businesses. Hunting licenses, in part powered by sustained aspen habitat, contribute to greater wildlife benefits via funding of state agencies. Perhaps rural communities, compared to urban locales, see more direct benefits, though this is probably subject to debate given the strong ties aspen have in promoting skiing and resort development. Purpose and Scope of the Field Guide

This field guide applies to quaking aspen ecosystems in the western Introduction – 1 Chapter United States broadly and Bureau of Land Management lands specifically. As we explore “functional types” further (Chapter 4), it will become clear that aspen communities—from southwest to Rocky Mountain to boreal—vary in their responses to natural and human disturbances. This field guide provides a framework for addressing aspen issues on local and regional scales with emphasis on conditions facing BLM managers (Fig. 1.3). While this guide assumes users will have some forest management experience, we acknowledge the interdisciplinary nature of aspen management, and therefore, we strove to minimize technical jargon recognizable only to specific job titles. Appendix 1 provides definitions for the technical terms used. Aspen acts as a keystone species (Campbell and Bartos 2001), supporting a complex web of plant and animal integration. Therefore, our ability to sustain these communities in the face of various threats is of high priority among broader landscape considerations. Fundamentally, Figure 1.3 Management.

Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management 5 this field guide intends to increase the ability of practitioners— foresters, silviculturists, ecologists, range and vegetation managers, botanists, and related professionals—to understand and appropriately manage aspen ecosystems. We do this by placing as many relevant tools, including access to current science, into the hands of those working most closely with these systems. Another goal of this field guide is to direct users toward appropriate, science-based, resources. Field managers have numerous priorities that claim their work time. This field guide aims to point professionals to relevant sources delivered in a variety of ways to encourage ongoing information sharing and knowledge expansion on aspen-relevant topics. Such resources include specific treatment options, available expertise, current and past literature, webinars, conferences, and field workshops. Lastly, the theme of system resilience is integral to aspen management, particularly in lower elevation stands subject to increasing droughts expected under warming climate regimes. BLM lands commonly encompass these highly vulnerable aspen landscapes. This guide will focus specifically on what it means to “manage for resilience” with the objective of developing sound adaptive strategies for addressing stressed aspen communities. Chapter 1 – Introduction

Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management 6 Chapter 2 – Aspen: An Evolving Picture 7 Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide —Previous messages regarding the long- regarding messages Decline Aspen —Previous Long-Term “encroachment” conifer to aspen related western of decline term of documentation recent has been There deserve reconsideration. et al. (Kulakowski gain (Di Orio 2005) and loss et al. both aspen cover within contraction and as expansion well as areas, 2004) in different Baker 2004). Climate 2009; Elliot and (Sankey landscape the same affect manipulations human other and suppression, fire fluctuations, are 2011). et Results al. (Rogers in varyingspecific ways landscapes (scale),of concern area time, available on highly dependent often independent, multiple, use selected; of explicit materials source and should We evidence investigations. solidifysuch of in lines findings the beyond not least occurred—at has decline long-term assume not local making investigations. variation”—without of range “natural Many contemporary issues affecting aspen have been around for for around been aspenhave affecting issues contemporary Many while have these issues However, readers. to familiar are decadesand are new issues technologies, modern with and been impacts evolving to describeis consider and here thesenew issues objective The arising. us. to those with familiar not) (or interface they may how Issues Affecting Aspen Ecosystems Affecting Issues Ecosystems, by their very nature, are complex. As professionals, we we professionals, As complex. are their very by nature, Ecosystems, present and past with these systems of understanding our weigh must prudent the most believe are we what implement to actions human based in physical complexity of Layers prescriptions. management what However, tasks. our social compound science and dynamics a knowledge with step, by step address, we can first at daunting appears the knowledge this section, I address In resources. to access base and aspen contemporary affecting issues the prominent out I lay base. First, import of science developments recent I look at Second, management. in management resilience discuss briefly I Third, practitioners. field to this information 5). Using in Chapter revisited (a theme aspen forests actions. management sound a baseas in developing will assist Chapter 2 - Aspen: An Evolving Picture Evolving An - Aspen: 2 Chapter 8 Chapter 2 – Aspen: An Evolving Picture al. 2003). pressure may eliminate such gains following disturbance (Turner et Periodic wildfire may rejuvenatethough intenseaspen, seral browse or predators. Where are aspen dependent on continuous recruitment potentially severe ungulates when are not kept incheck by humans implications for viability of stands impacts 2.1). These (Fig. are herbivores) may consume regenerating with aspen long-term Browsing Ungulate and disease, browsing.insects, should avoided be without site examination of inciting factors, such as leading to system collapse. Again, assumptions of short-term decline decreasing resilience aspen (Rogers and Mittanck 2014),sometimes common instances of combined effects of drought and browsing Ashleyobservation, National Forest, Utah). There appearsbe moreto may simply acommon be of mode stable regeneration aspen (author system die-off has not followed drought-induced aspen mortality and and it may range across areas. wider However, inmany instances, root provided documentation of phenomenon this for southern Colorado trees, as well as supporting root systems. Worrall etal. (2008,2013)have sudden decline, aspen presumes arelatively rapid die-off of overstory Short-Term—Short-term Aspen decline, Decline sometimes called Figure 2.1 Browsing. Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management —Both domestic—Both and ungulates wild (hooved across Colorado the Plateau. is particularly prominentis particularly throughout West, the but This phenomenon visibleis as mature trees age and die. as mature trees age and die. vulnerable to stand collapse standsaspen are highly biodiversity. Single-story collapse!) important to local (sometimes complete stand multi-layer stand structures may result loss inthe of (i.e., stable stands) browsing Chapter 2 – Aspen: An Evolving Picture 9 Figure 2.2 Drought. Figure —Forests dominated by aspen seem increase to by dominated —Forests Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide —Perhaps the greatest value in aspen communities is is in aspen communities value the greatest —Perhaps —Projections of warming, and possibly possibly and warming, of —Projections Change/Drought Climate that suggest West the Rocky Mountain throughout drying, conditions et (Rehfeldt century in coming the shrink significantly may aspen habitat can availability water low handle to ability 2009). Decreasedal. physical diseases 2013). insectsal. et to and (Anderegg resistance aspen’s reduce wildfires increased Conversely, scenarios may warming under aspen for opportunities pose great the complexity and expansion, seems disturbances multiple of over aspen dominance favor to (Kulakowski conifers competing is additional 2013). There et al. favoring conditions evidence that will lead to aspen expansion carbon of soil storage greater Miegroet Van and (Dobarco their capacity to support so many plants and animals. Among western western Among animals. and plants so many support to their capacity (Kuhn communities biodiverse the most aspen are forests, montane Idaho, southern Wyoming, western 2001). In et al. 2011; Chong et al. high evidence numbers of found have practitioners Utah, central and aspen of small acreages relatively on species dependent faunal of these Loss of Bartos, personal communication). D. and DeLong (D. as species, such in obligate declines leads to cause, of regardless forests, 2008). Ryel and (Rogers lichens arboreal Biodiversity Water Conservation Water and snow more accumulate to they as tend capacity, storage water to helps that a property matter, soil increased organic to contribute aspen that found (2008) [sic] Ryle LaMalfa and soilmoisture. retain (snow–water stands conifer adjacent than snow more accumulated led to in aspen forests rates higher evapotranspiration but equivalent), porosity), greater (i.e., capacity Soil loss. storage water summer faster to forests aspenof superiority net in the then, became the difference water. retain 10 Chapter 2 – Aspen: An Evolving Picture ski resorts, and insurrounding parking areas where stem soil scarring, modest. However, there are instances incampgrounds, along trails, at Recreation warming. browsing, fire, human uses and management decisions, and climate found complicating factors inpost-MPB disturbance form inthe of and Long 2010).As with many of other the issues here, authors these infestationsspruce beetle were common insouthern Utah (DeRose Smith 2013).Similarly, opportunities for regeneration aspen within was inconclusive, but made astrong for research call further (Pelz and investigating potential positive benefits to aspen after MPB outbreaks no attention on interface elements. the these between Arecent review either mountain (MPB) pine or there aspen, almost beetle has been Thoughthere extensivebeen has investment in research addressing establishmentaspen or regrowth (seedlings) and expansion (suckers). Theoretically, situationsthese may creategreat opportunities for entire landscapes of pine competing species with foraspen resources. —InfestationsConifer Bark Beetles ofcan damage bark beetles or kill applies here. Shinneman etal. 2013),thus maxim the of “one not sizedoes fitall” encompass types functional arange of fire (Rogersregimes al. et 2014; Field professionals, however, should aware be that aspen varied the near buildings provides (Fechner uses practical and Barrows 1976). Moreover,expected. active management favoring as aspen afirebreak disturbance protection required be will where elevated herbivory is for improvement of conditions aspen West, inthe although post- fire—both andprescribed lightning ignited—holdsgreat promise result resilience indecreased (Rogers etal. 2014).Judicious of use where herbivory is problematic, continued fire suppression may growth, and In expansion types. many inseral instances, particularly Fire Management—Forest fires generally favor aspen rejuvenation, outcomeswhether positive be or will negative toward forests. aspen empirical and modeling work is required before we can determine changingexpect dynamics with climatic warming, though additional 2014), potentially mitigating atmospheric warming. Certainly, we can —In general, recreation impacts to communities aspen are Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management Chapter 2 – Aspen: An Evolving Picture 11 Figure 2.4 Development. Figure Figure 2.3 Recreation. Figure Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide —Just as they as do —Just Monetary and emotional emotional and Monetary additional give considerations reasons the numerous to weight theseforests. sustaining for of developed expansion The adjustments will require areas such actions, management to fire prescribed the useas of on adjacent aspen, benefit to wildlands. on these locales. However, as more people move to such areas and come come and areas such to move people more as these locales. on However, their preservation. arise regarding issues their value, appreciate to aspen forests, public abut parcels owned smallSometimes privately public wider tracts limited own with times individuals other and (Fig. 2.4). boundaries for recreation, westerners favor favor westerners recreation, for place we therefore and development residential for aspenlandscapes estate, real of in the form monetary value, Development compaction, root damage, and localized air pollution impacts threaten threaten impacts localized pollution and air damage, root compaction, bole excessive “bleeding,” stem include signs health. Telltale stand use human frequent that also note We damage. leaf chemical and decay, beneficial effects, have may roads) and campsites (e.g., aspen sites of of deterrence passive as such suckers. of browsing ungulate around in and Recreation large generates aspen forests People too. benefits, economic biking, mountain who enjoy use, vehicle off-road skiing, photography, hiking, camping, viewing nature/wildlife and on a highplace premium (Fig. aspen ecosystems healthy 2.3). 12 Chapter 2 – Aspen: An Evolving Picture we understand traits functional and basic eventheir (e.g., Baker Zier noted, though such conditions require will investigation further before apparently devoid of stand-replacing disturbance, have been also 2013). Additionally, long-term of co-occurrence and aspen conifers, resistant except (Shinneman during uncommonly periods etal. dry advancing succession, stable communities aspen may nearly be fire While communitiesaspen some seral become more fire pronewith is arecognition types aspen of susceptibility varied to fire (Figure 2.5). foraspen, one centuries. to several Integral to understanding different state (no other characterized tree by species), multiple age classes of to-conifer succession, stable communities aspen maintain anearly pure widespread of occurrence stable In types. aspen contrast to an aspen- level, there are communities, seral above-described the but also different types”functional “aspen (Rogersal. et 2014). the At broadest appliesstill to many forests, aspen there is now greater recognition of ingrowth of one or more conifer While simple this species. formula and self-thinning, eventuallywhile succumb to shading by secondary grow profusely after disturbance, dominate sites decades forseveral on hasaspen successional focused communities:aspen suckersaspen Fire and Functional Types—Conventional forest management in might relate to contemporary forest management. developmentsnew and in science aspen how discuss discoveries these developments field. inthe The intentsection is tohighlight this of amountswhich to less to time devote to keeping abreast of scientific developments overall, absorb certainly considerably they more time, decision-makingin the process. tasks are While these positive agencies have evolved toward astate of much greater public inclusion teleconferencing, and learning software. new Additionally, government Policy Act (NEPA) documentation, budgets, personnel management, email correspondence, computer mapping, National Environmental Field foresters, ecologists, and biologists devote much of to time their overseeing field crews andlaying outsales aretimber farbehind us. challenging, not less, with advancing technologies. Thedays of simply It jobof the seems landscape stewardship has become more Science-Management Synergy Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management Chapter 2 – Aspen: An Evolving Picture 13 Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide Major drivers of aspen fire types include the interaction of fire probability probability fire of interaction the include types fire aspen of drivers 2.5 Major Figure commonly more it while types aspen stable affects rarely Fire time. over severity and al. 2013). et Shinneman from types. (Adapted seral influences —A great deal of research continues to explore explore to continues Cascades research deal of —A great Trophic aspenwith in herbivory and prey, between predators, relationships will adversely processes trophic out-of-balance that notion thegeneral for Few dispute, 2013). et (Eisenberg al. recruitment aspen affect will have predation from resulting elk populations reduced that example, Moreover, aspen sprouts. browsed heavily for repercussions positive spiral a downward cause can aspen sites the same using beaver elk and 2006). These recent advances have clear implications for effective forest forest effective for implications clear have advances recent 2006). These in treatment processes ecosystem emulate to strives that management decisions. 14 Chapter 2 – Aspen: An Evolving Picture suggests has of long-term that seedlings and survival widespread previously thought, but landscape- and regional-level genetic diversity et al. 2014).Not only are “events” seedling more common than following forest fires more country—the in aspen we find (Fairweather West, though now it clear seems that more the we look—particularly researchers thought was a“rare” occurrence seedling event arid in the establishment inquaking from Only aspen. afew years seed) ago, aspen toward understanding role the regeneration of sexual (i.e., genotype new Reproduction and Genetics ramificationsthat inform decision making. staffwith wildlife and related agencies understand fully to impacts and developmentsthese require managersaspen to work more closely herbivory and complexity decreased of forest aspen structure. of All where duration of winter access by plateau to elk high sites increased Arizona,northern Martin and Maron (2012)found fewer bird species climate warming, may affect interactions at multipletrophic levels. In Changing abiotic factors, such as diminishing snowpack related to well and understood (Beschta Ripple 2013;Kauffmanal. et 2013). behavior (i.e., movement and related use to fear of predation) are less numbers is somewhat ongoing settled, investigations regarding animal check (Runyan etal. 2014).While surrounding science population communityin aspen ifpredators health don’t keep numbers elk in vegetative suckering (left) andseedling (right). Figure 2.6 Genetics / Reproduction / Genetics Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management —Researchers are making great strides

For example, traditional (Long and Mock 2012). implications for management (see “Defense(see and Chemical warming, intensive browsing diversity face ofin the climate options genetic to conserve a range of management requires types) functional genotypesaspen (as well as agreaterin fact, diversity of for most situations, when clearfell-coppice management silviculture prescribes Chapter 2 – Aspen: An Evolving Picture 15 ) and leaf leaf ) and ), appear to be attracted to leaf surfaces with surfaceswith leaf to be to attracted appear ), Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide increased ozone damage (Kopper and Lindroth 2003). While there there 2003). While Lindroth and (Kopper damage ozone increased fueled dioxide tradeoff between carbon of be level to some appears with combined growth aspen root reduced damage, ozone and growth —Air-borne chemicals may directly and indirectly indirectly and directly may chemicals —Air-borne Pollutants Air been has the aspen research of area intriguing An aspen trees. impact a warming and insects, pathogens, of pollutants, effects interactive and photosynthesis of slowing pollutant-related general, In climate. example, for injury, via ozone systems defense natural of weakening Insect agents. damaging potentially other of host a to plants predispose (Malacosoma disstria caterpillars tent as such herbivores, (Chaitophorus aphids spp. Defense and Chemical and Defense Ecologyto striving are —Researchers in deterring defenses chemical plant of the role understand better high with leaves example, For herbivory. both mammal insect and while those elevated with ungulates, bad to taste glycosides phenolic 2013). A key Clair St. certain and insects repel (Lindroth tannins of allocation and the aspen genotype of the close is alignment tenet levels, high defense chemical develop may Aspen defenses. chemical other of at expensethe life during their cycle, fluctuating possibly of illustration simple a In rate. growth as such functions, physiological for “strategies” very different have may aspen clones adjacent this, two to escape attempting fast, grows the first browsers: among recruitment via consumption resists but slower grows the second and browsing, noted observers have many However, chemicals. defensive elevated aspen high, even “bad tasting” are populations when ungulate that chemical of knowledge our of Advancement will beleaves consumed. hold may herbivory, ungulate intense to specifically relation in ecology, regeneration of problem western the widespread to a partial solution wild browsers. and domestic to related failure Ecology”), and conservation of seed sources. While genetic research in research genetic seedWhile of Ecology”),sources. conservation and to as way a such in seems wise manage to it infancy, still aspenis its in Increased possible. as blocks” “building the genetic of preserve many as in diversity genetic aspen’s of role the long-term of understanding to ability our inform to history will continue disturbance to relation resilience. greater for manage 16 Chapter 2 – Aspen: An Evolving Picture the naturalthe range of variability (NRV) (Landres etal. 1999). NRV does for processes ecological communitiesthe necessary to remain within definition of resilient management involvesof aspen maintenance of clear toI need be on what we mean by “managing for resilience.” Our covered ingreater later detail Before field inthe guide. moving forward, for sustainable ecosystems. aspen How to develop an actionplan is incorporate credible toward science developing adaptive action plans The objective this fieldof guide is to understand current issues and Defining ManagementResilience in Aspen two species. these as well subalpine as whether “behaves” fir similarly acrossthe range of other conifer interact species at individual the both and stand levels, work is generally inits infancy, though there is much interest inhow of dependent (St. species Clair etal. 2013;Rogers and Ryel 2008).This mortality, high experience there is strong potential for reduced cover of trees. In these terms of resilience, where then, forests aspen to begin proximityclose to mature as aspen, well as on north(moister) the side found subalpine fir germinationbe be to to much more in successful establishment, and growth. For example, Buck and St. Clair (2014) supporting aspen’s facilitation role in“nursing” young fir germination, A key finding these of authors brings body sciencetogether a of with an eyetoward larger questions of resilience (St. Clair etal. 2013). Recent work has compiled advances insubalpine fir–aspen research ramifications for conifersother wider or a array of obligate plants. available regarding one such subalpine species, fir,which may have dependent are species often complex. More informationbecoming is Subalpine Fir Facilitation—The relationships between aspen and cities having levels high of such pollutants. understandto fully impacts, forests inaspen particularly these to close damage investigations inwestern occurs further aspen, are required and midwestern environments; studies while have shown that ozone These studies have takenprimarily in place more humid,eastern affect aspen mixedforests species (Karnoskyoverall al. et 2005). growth suppression (from incompeting CO2) trees would negatively Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management Chapter 2 – Aspen: An Evolving Picture 17 Resilience and diversity. and Resilience Figure 2.7 Figure Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide Monitoring forms a key element element a key forms Monitoring a not process; ongoing in an stewards land for task one-time both Information, off. check to specificexternal to and internal the ground taken on Actions management. adaptive drives landscapes, those do with mistakes managers what it’s errors; include to bound are take actions if we example, For management. will resilience drive that later, 1 year but response, aspen regeneration in a strong result that action our adjust we browsing, from suckers see of loss we total credible make cannot We outcome. sustainable a more toward plan documents that data monitoring from support without adjustments monitor–adapt the approach—called This failures. both and successes and management resilience sound for basis a strong us cycle—gives be local beyond control. may that changes unforeseen for allows not imply a static target and may involve adaptations to changing changing to adaptations involve may and target static a imply not resilience accomplishing for tools core The climates. and environments this besure, To cycle. adapt and a monitor on center management will be Land stewards challenging. management resilience to approach in ecological drivers of understanding a strong develop to will have the aspen dealing types they are only not require will This with. issues current of a knowledge but science, appropriate and stakeholder with also familiarity economic and concerns constraints. Page left intentionally blank. Chapter 3 – Landscape Interactions and Other Considerations 19 severity, particularly those that particularlythose that severity, competitors conifer reduce directly hormonal aspen, willand activate which stimulate roots, in responses (Schier et reproduction vegetative severe more 1985). Generally, al. in higher will result disturbance aspen regeneration, of densities the that ensure this does not but will survive stems to of majority quantity words, others In maturity. always not is regeneration of survival, of the best measure browsing especially intense where as Still, factor. a is herbivores by aspen of discussion in the earlier Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide Fires burn a varying Figure 3.1 Figure fire this peak the Around intensities. still-remaining the in while hot, burned fire little was there forest aspen mature impact. Recent research suggests that multiple, overlapping, disturbance disturbance overlapping, multiple, that suggests research Recent 2013). et al. types (Kulakowski forest confer aspen over favor events functional types, type-specific disturbances play a key role in long- role key a functionalplay types, type-specific disturbances cycles such of Interruption aspen communities. of sustainability term disturbance of Examples in aspen forests. decrease resilience to tends of rates elevated or introduced suppression, fire include disruptions development, harvest practices, land inappropriate herbivory, ungulate 2007a). et al. (Rogers engineering water and Disturbances species that “seral” or a “pioneer” considered traditionally is Aspen This traditional seral, sites. mainly disturbed, recently colonizes rapidly aspen types); stable (e.g., in a strict manner apply always doeslabel not disturbance between interaction strong a often is there nevertheless, disturbance All of levels patterns. aspen growth and processes Chapter 3 - Landscape Interactions And Other Other - Landscape 3 And Chapter Interactions Considerations 20 Chapter 3 – Landscape Interactions and Other Considerations 2008). structure of and three (LaMalfa riparian these Ryle types aspen [sic] broader different be landscape will depending the compositionon and for example, of riparian the Similarly,aspen. water retention on the vegetation communities has vastly different influences onuse, animal or in“stringers” surrounded by nonforest meadows. of Each these mayaspen found be near moist spruce–fir,ponderosa nearpine, dry influence fire behaviorSecond, stands.the within aspen riparian late adjacent senescence, season fire-prone communitiesgreatly will are extreme, or understory aspen fuels are cured during particularly relatively wildfire small, conditions resistant stands. If standsaspen are wildfirepenetrate to normally fire- stands, there is greater potential for in juxtaposition with coniferous 2013). Where stable are aspen fire (Shinnemantypes al. et forests greatly influence aspen illustrate point. this First, adjacent systems. Acouple of examples fromdetract sustainable aspen human that uses may benefit or foster water storage, increase erosion potential, or provide ahost of plants, may they encourage or discourage fire, provide wildlife habitat, communities provide sources for seed complementary and competing in isolation from surrounding vegetation. Not only can adjacent managersLand cannot understand or manage quaking forestaspen Context Aspen intheLandscape to site the to is effective critical or type management. functional and Mittanck 2014).Thus, awareness of disturbance processes specific herbivory, appear to have negative effects on (Rogersstabletypes aspen other disturbance combinations, such as drought and ungulate response, to flourish communities. aspen overseral time in However, Colorado innorthern allowed with aspen, itsbeetle quick regenerative Researchers found that combination the of fire,throw,wind and spruce Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management Figure 3.2 Landscape context. Landscape Chapter 3 – Landscape Interactions and Other Considerations 21 science occurs the social, within political and economic, cultural, said Having the day. of context management past some that, effects lasting had have practices We aspen sustainability. on periodic that fires know now varying intensities of and sizes (see seral aid aspen forests. greatly managers 4). Similarly, Chapter livestock and overallocated often the rich overexploited producers aspen communities of forage Declinesaspenin thein past. locations—due in some coverage management of combination a to wetter generally and practices 20th climates—were century Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide Past management. Past Figure 3.3 Figure Past Management Past based improved on techniques modify to management continue we As have or past policies actions that find often we knowledge, scientific not necessarily is ofknowledge evolution legacies. This left deleterious using resources natural steward to attempts generation each negative; informed even the most era, and that of knowledge the best available Perhaps the most cited reason for 20th century aspen decline is 20th is aspen century decline for reason cited the most Perhaps policies suppression that is likely it While suppression. fire aggressive If our intention is to manage aspen through emulation of ecological of emulation aspen through manage to is intention our If the to interactions landscape understand needto then we processes, context spatial the to consider is important it Thus, abilities. our best of basic functional types, of prior the understanding aspen, with even of action. takingto prescriptive et al. 2004; Rogers et al. in seralmostly functional types (Kulakowski managers century, of last the half in the first 2007a, 2011). Particularly woodbeneficial. fiberas economically aspen for over conifer promoted 22 Chapter 3 – Landscape Interactions and Other Considerations disturbance events. Under heavy browse pressure, however, even but aspen, seral there is greater chance of stand renewal with inevitable overstory stems to die. Browsing begin may affect also recruitment in greatlywhich lessens possibility the of stand resilience aging when of young suckers, therefore, eliminates recruitment crucial the layer, and mostly lack stand-replacing disturbance events. Chronic browsing standsaspen more on depend continuous they because regeneration 2008; Rogers etal. 2010).Generally, excess herbivory threatens stable reproductionaspen attests to long-term impacts of herbivory (Binkley decisions.and policy In some areas, loss of multiple layers vertical of fourAll of animals these are regulated, to some degree, by management are an important source food for seasonal deer, elk, cattle, and sheep. (e.g., Martinspecies and Maron 2012).Highly nutritious suckers aspen sustainability not only of trees but of also myriad aspen-dependent potential to greatly alter reproduction aspen and, therefore, long-term and wild domesticBoth ungulates (hoofed animals) have the Ungulate Herbivory long-term sustainability. reverse past actions that reduced cover aspen and may have threatened many benefits communitiesof aspen compels managers or to modify even less recognition (Shinneman modern of etal. 2013). Overall, the in future Ofcourse, decades. past suppression has affected stable aspen vegetationin all zones, thereby hedging infavor of conifer dominance suppression onlypotential will offset aspen regenerationevents further (Mori and 2009).Nonetheless, 2011;Baker Lertzman continued fire cohort fire (e.g.,regimes spruce, fir, some pines) of 200–400years suppressionaerial short too to seriously aperiod disrupt aspen tactics), locations, has only present been for 50–75years (with advent the of effective firefighting where aspenmost grow, in montane andsubalpine in cover.aspen However, a sound argument made that has been truly suppression has disruptedcycles fire potentiallyand led to decreases conifer forests—a minority of include which types— aspen seral elevation sites are No suspect. doubt inlow-elevation, short fire rotation, areas those particularly in accessible terrain, lasting impacts to higher have affectedlarge acreages of low- and mid-elevation forests, Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management Chapter 3 – Landscape Interactions and Other Considerations 23 Even though documentation of of documentation though Even a has ungulates by overbrowsing not has 1951), it history (Murie long interagency that beenrecently until the address to begun have efforts and difficult social, economic, the underlie that ecological issues federal, state, that Given problem. the govern interests private and both wild and of management collaborative ungulates, domestic balance a lasting attain to efforts causes between fundamental Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide Elk herbivory in the Book Book the in herbivory Elk Figure 3.4 Figure Cliffs, Utah. Cliffs, Development and Private LandOwnership Private and Development developments— human of the expansion is phenomenon A recent formerly also called wildland developed interfaces—into or exurban in interfaces” “wildland urban from differ areas (These wild areas. at some resort-based or rural- developments often they are that particularly those lands, with Private centers.) urban from distance aspen for considerations set of a unique present development, recent near or in locate to prefer often all, individuals of First management. a related In wildlife attractions. their aesthetic and for aspen forests bike ski resorts, facilities—campgrounds, recreational many manner, aspen specifically in sighted courses—are even golf hiking trails, and robust flushes of aspen regeneration following severe disturbance may may disturbance severe following regeneration aspen of flushes robust 2003). et al. (Turner by ungulates be swiftly consumed management, livestock Judicious imperative. are overbrowsing of producers, for beneficialoutcomes has periods rest, of ample including Likewise, users. parity water downstream and recreationists, wildlife, a minimum, at so that, wildlife management and between livestock 50% stable; (100% for level stand-replacement at targets recruitment effects, herbivory’s gauging of Other measures essential. seral) are for and visual evaluations, levels, browse diversity, bird and plant as such assessments. a part in such also play should condition, regeneration 24 Chapter 3 – Landscape Interactions and Other Considerations common. Herbivory may concentrated be on private lands as deer containing stands, aspen as previously is becoming more discussed, in decision Development making. of private lands with forests have multiple and policies use public involvement (to some degree) for stewardship. Public lands, such as and federal state forests, usually PPrivate and public landowners obviously have different mandates increase with proximity to homes. greater stewardship inaspen vigilance in developed sites often must property or safety threats trees eventually these when crash. Overall, frequent interior rot of mature stems aspen may heighten incidence of Herbivory”), eventually which ameliorate will benefits. Moreover, animalsthese may inhibit also regrowth of suckers “Ungulate (see may as apositive. view However, large herbivores, residents which drawbacks. Aspenalso trees draw to living among thereaspen, are While there are clearly advantages require other considerations. though homes forests inthese areaspen much less likely to burn, present a rising firethreat. Stable without active management and dominance increase over will time same area. In conifer aspen, seral fuels, such as slash piles, from the wildfire. cuttingSuch also requires removal of associated conifer to favor dominance aspen provides an line of extra defense against thinning of conifers within at least one length of tree-fall buildings more active forest manage prescriptions near homesites. For instance, (Fechner and Barrows 1976),an assetthat may exploited be using Previous authors have touted benefits the of as afirebreakaspen adjustments these forests.to specific into (and aspen other forest) communities that requires concomitant to attract patrons. Thus, we arewith a faced burgeoning intrusion Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management Photo E.Geisler by: Figure 3.5 Alaska development .

Chapter 3 – Landscape Interactions and Other Considerations 25 Low elevation dry sites are are dry sites elevation Low Figure 3.6 Figure climate. warming to vulnerable most Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide southwest facing slopes appear appear slopes facing southwest expected by long- threatened most with associated term drought al. et (Worrall warming climate 2009; Rogers et al. 2008; Rehfeldt 2014). Compounded Mittanck and insect,fire disease, and fungal, further affect may incidence drought- As these locations. begin thin to from forests stricken of these effects thecombined they willfactors, be to subject (Hogg felling and breakage wind 2015), further Michaelian and forests aspen low-elevation In contemporary die-off. rapid accelerating and a real is type conversion spiral, experiencinga downward are that herbivory. even without concern, present Climate Considerations Climate wide for projected locales are in some drying, and conditions Warming, impact to likely are and landscape States United the western of swaths limits at lower located often aspen forests, BLM aspen forests. quaking climate by impacted the earliest be to among likely are aspen habitat, of and south low-elevation, In particular, shifts. and elk have learned to avoid public forests during hunting seasons. seasons. hunting during forests public avoid learned to elk have and cases, decreasedin some to, leads suckers aspenof browsing Intensified aspen.In of loss complete potentially and perturbation to resilience policies incur steep wildlife management and forest instances, such may This boundaries. ownership they as cross in conditions gradients sets up between and jurisdictions social tensions concurrent lead to and diverse involving problem-solving collaborative case for a prime the On Plan”). Action an 5, “Developing parties (see vested Chapter quickly to the ability have aspen landowners private side, positive correct” “course to treatments implement and monitor, experiment, theirproperties. of the bounds within trends unsustainable 26 Chapter 3 – Landscape Interactions and Other Considerations regimes. we can know trends which prevail will under what functional aspen warming related impacts to communities aspen required be will before upper-elevation sites. However, much more research into climate increased coverage aspen likely will center and on to seral middle- we habitat would expect depletion to have amore prominent impact; ways.expanse inwidely varying Returning to low-elevation aspen, facilitated expansion—are to play expected out across aspen’s wide accompany climate warming—habitat reduction and disturbance- and grow (Kulakowski etal. 2013).So, divergent trends predicted to and incidence of stem and root rots, likely will enable to aspen thrive disturbances such as wind throw, outbreaks bark beetle inconifers, effects wildfireon patterns. Increased alongside burning, interacting prolonged drought. Additionally, climate change have will prominent reduction of browsing, can increase resilience to climate change and Maintenance of multilayer and multiage stand aspen structures, via presents most the acute threat across aspen’s western range. Ungulate browsing in combination with drought-affected forests Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management Chapter 4 – Aspen Types by Ecological Function 27 Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide Within the present broad range of aspen in western North America North aspen in western of range broad the present Within differing with regions biogeographic distinct are 4.1), there (Figure thespecies. These supporting conditions climatic and edaphic 3.1) and (Figure functional types, bothdistinctions, occur regional at a new system this situation, address scales. To shown) (not landscape on basedecological developed was function aspen classification of “aspen functional types” defined authors 2014). These et al. (Rogers physical in their markedly differ that aspen communities broad as Such functions). (i.e., interactions and processes biological and management to differently be expected would respond to communities The guide. field purpose the current a central which is of actions, works previous functional types from derived is plant of concept well as 2010), Gamon and 2000, Ustin der Maarel van and (Semenova Kashian 1990, aspen specificto (Shepperd publications recent key as marked is a focuson function 2007). This et al. 2007, Kurzel et al. based composition plant are that classifications earlier from departure the application discount this though 1985), doesn’t Mueggler (e.g., specific localesfor in which they systems typing community such of aspen an type function of scheme chief benefit The developed. were aspen in of range broad the present the focus places Within it that is with regions biogeographic distinct are America, there North western A key tenet of contemporary natural resource management is to to is management resource natural contemporary of tenet A key possible. the degree to ecological processes emulate and understand will likely process-based parameters within work to efforts Greater ecosystem to damage little while doing endpoints desired yield to likely species) are (i.e., components individual function. Moreover, linking that follows therefore It intact. are processes major where thrive connections intuitive will encourage typing vegetation to functionality landscapes monitoring and restoring, understanding, between naming, interest. of Overview Types Functional of Chapter 4 - Aspen Types By Ecological By Function Types - Aspen 4 Chapter 28 Chapter 4 – Aspen Types by Ecological Function expected to respondexpected differently to management actions. The concept processes and interactions (i.e., functions). Such communities are communitiesaspen that differ markedlytheir in physical and biological defined They function. ecological types” functional “aspen as broad systemet al. (2014) developed a new of classification aspen based on and landscape (not shown) To scales. address distinctions, these Rogers atdistinctions, regional occur both or types, functional (Figure 3.1) differingedaphic and climatic conditions supporting theThese species. functional Adapted types. from Rogers et al. (2014). Figure 4.1Total aspen coverage in North America with overlay of aspen Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management Chapter 4 – Aspen Types by Ecological Function 29 Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide Schematic of Aspen Functional Types of North America. North of Types Functional Aspen of 4.2 Schematic Figure Seral and Stable Functional Types Seral Functional Stable and focus between will the prime stable seral be distinguish and to Here aspen manage better may practitioners field so that aspen communities 2014). Those et al. (Rogers ecological parameters appropriate within aspenby dominated remain as those stands that stable define authors of plant functional types is derived from previous works (Semenova (Semenova works previous functional types from derived is plant of recent key as well as 2010), Gamon and 2000, Ustin der Maarel van and 2007, et al. Kashian 1990, specificaspento (Shepperd publications from departure marked is a focuson function This 2007). et al. Kurzel Mueggler based (e.g., composition plant are that classifications earlier community such of the application discount this1989), though doesn’t specificThe locales developed. for in were which they systems typing places it the aspenan typeis function of that scheme benefit chief ecological processes in the of realm clearly actions prescriptive focus of of the schematic presents 4.2 Figure identification. plant than rather of the remainder for a framework aspen functional provides types and this chapter. 30 Chapter 4 – Aspen Types by Ecological Function Figure 4.3 Seral (top) and stable (bottom) functional types. Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management Chapter 4 – Aspen Types by Ecological Function 31 Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide An important functional distinction between seral and stable between functional distinction stable seraland important An they disturbance landscape of the magnitude type is and communities landscape- or seralexperience. stand- While under thrive aspen typically experience individual commonly types more stable disturbances, level Likewise, time. disturbance a given at mortality small group or tree will be et al. higher generally in seral aspen (Shinneman intensities correlate frequency strongly and intensity, size, 2013). Disturbance characterized aspen are in aspen. Stable response regenerative with by amplified sometimes recruitment, and regeneration continuous by damage, frost or defoliation, drought, as such “events” stressing clone vertical structure stand complex overall an in result whichtypically et 2007; Rogers et al. Kurzel 1990; 1982; Shepperd Harper and (Harniss large/ to respond seral aspen commonly hand, 2010). On theal. other suckers. of flushes even-aged great with disturbances mixed or intense even in the levels low at suckers will seral produce stands Nonetheless, no when interpreting be cautious so should we disturbance, of absence Finally, seral of communities. “typical” as stands in mature suckering angles slope lower on and aspen seem occurstable to drier in conditions seral 2014) than et al. forests, 2014; Mittanck Mittanck and (Rogers fully to understand be needs to conducted furtheralthough research bearing on great has Overall, this basic division these relationships. 1). (Chapter processes natural mimic to strives that management cover through multiple ecological rotations, with little or no invasion invasion no or little with ecological rotations, multiple through cover which in pathway a successional Seral follow aspen stands conifers. by within conifers by replaced eventually are and on early aspen dominate of lifespan the average (Ecological rotation, ecologicala single rotation. range; aspen’s over considerably varies in a stand, trees canopy mature years.) of even a span or a certain number assigning I avoid therefore, focuses composition; on primarytree stable, seral This vs. division, stable In dynamics. stand of lack a implies way in no “stable” thus, regular is there though constant, remains composition tree stands, small and individuals among mortality and recruitment, regeneration, in aspen cover remain stands stable sum, In aspen stems. of groups temporarily are seralstands whereas disturbances, large and small after states vegetative alternate to transition usually aspenand by dominated time. over 32 Chapter 4 – Aspen Types by Ecological Function aspen in the successional inthe aspen process. disturbance, one or more eventually conifer will species overtake dominance may last multiple but, decades absence inthe of further with individual and community of ecologies cohort conifers. Aspen Interior West. Generally, communitiesaspen systems in seral interact areaspen common throughout major the mountain ranges of the western United States. inAlaska and montane occur aspen Boreal Two within BLM lands subtypes functional aspen occur of seral the Aspen Seral western range. constitute afirst approximation for of typology functional its an aspen or stable subtypes at Thescales. finer following therefore,subtypes, montane, parklands, and Colorado Plateau—may inclusive be of seral implementation. Further, broadest the geographic divisions—boreal, encouraging additional refinement and delineation of subtypeswith guide emphasizes “framework” the nature of and system; this expecting distinguishwill dominant traits by common these characteristics. This fireaspen types are from Shinnemanal. et (2013). Foreach subtype, I disturbance (Rogers etal. 2014).Approximation type/frequency of precipitation, ecohydrology, rooting depth, regeneration and type, followingthe physical characteristics: topography, stand size, annual discrimination of subtypes aspen inwestern North on based America schemeThe and supportingsources originatefrom asystematic appropriately manage conditions aspen varying (Figure 4.2). frameworkThisuses fielda guide to types functional for more Aspen Subtypes of Western North America balsamifera Pinus banksiana; Pinus contorta; Populus Picea glauca; Pinus mariana; Major Associates Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management Boreal Betula papyriferaBetula Minor Associates Chapter 4 – Aspen Types by Ecological Function 33 Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide Top recharge annually; probably linked to adjoining adjoining linked to annually; probably recharge Top Undulating to flat, low elevation low flat, to Undulating Alaska and northern Canadian provinces northern Canadian and Alaska —Boreal aspen “mixedwood” forests products comprise comprise products forests —Boreal aspen “mixedwood” Management also forests these However, region. industry in the a significant be should Care globally. sequestration carbon to heavily contribute healthy maintain and protect harvest to activities after and takenduring to related Stresses reproduction. adequate ensure to systems root health, particularly stand threatening diseases insects, and are drought, expected is have warming to Climate interface. the parklands near Managers century. in coming the on forests these effects profound as such approaches, strategic regionally consider should scientists and in the face of protection, habitat anticipatory and migration assisted aspenseedlings of germinating Documentation change. aspenhabitat be a harvest may conifer after locations uninhabited in previously —Very large stands of seral aspen communities are are seral of aspen communities stands large —Very Description relative harvest activities. The and events stand-replacing by regulated large at disturbance facilitates forest continuous and topography of lack the remote extraction. However, resource for scales accessibility and access to investment large requires aspen forests boreal many of nature locations, such In spread. wildfire reduce and/or wood products this functional govern to continue processes large-scale undiminished subtype. Fire and wind throw. Stand-replacing Stand-replacing throw. wind and Fire Type: Fire and Disturbance amount conifer high to severity on depending moderate disturbance 2003; et al. frequency (Stocks 50–200 yr. with composition and 2001). et al. Flannigan Soils exceed root depth; water table confined table water depth; Soils Depth: exceed root Rooting water tables; precipitation less than potential evapotranspiration potential than less precipitation tables; water Ecohydrology: 12-19 inches (317–479 mm) (317–479 12-19 inches Precipitation: Annual Large (10s-10,000s acres/ha) acres/ha) (10s-10,000s Size: Large Stand Topography: Location: 34 Chapter 4 – Aspen Types by Ecological Function Figure 4.4b Figure 4.4a Patchy seral Aspen Mixed seral aspen. Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management Photo S.Landhäusser by: Photo S.Landhäusser by: Chapter 4 – Aspen Types by Ecological Function 35 Photo by: E. Geisler Photo Photo by: E. Geisler Photo Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide (Alaska). spruce white with aspen Seral spruce. white aspen Seral Figure 4.4d Figure Figure 4.4c Figure 36 Chapter 4 – Aspen Types by Ecological Function communities, and climatic conditions. In general, firefrequencies are previous disturbance, previous disturbance adjacent type, vegetation Fire frequencies are dependent on cohort tree associates, since time by Shinneman etal. (2013)inFire Types 3,4,andAppendix 5(see 1). inducing a strong sprouting response. is well Fire described ecology development, etc.). Disturbances tend mixed- to to be high-severity geomorphic, and human caused (e.g., prescribed tree fire, harvest, Disturbance and Fire Type: Fire, wind, snow avalanche, gravity/ Rooting confined Depth: Bedrock Ecohydrology: Annual Precipitation: 15-71inches (379–1807mm) Stand Large Size: (10s-1,000sacres/ha) Topography: east andboth west of Mountains. Rocky the central Mexico; numerous SierraNevada; Cascades; minor ranges Location: al. 2010). harbinger of biogeographic dynamics subtype inthis (Landhäusser et menziesii Pseudotsuga Pinus Pinus jeffreyi; ponderosa; contorta; Pinus occidentalis; Picea engelmannii; Juniperus Abies Abies lasiocarpa; magnifica; Major Associates Rocky Mountains Rocky from British northern Columbia to variable elevation slope, aspect, Annual top recharge; limited lateral water flow Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management Montane Pinus flexilis;Salix scouleriana Pinus aristata; Pinus lambertiana; Picea pungens; Pinus albicaulis; gambelii; Libocedrus decurrens; Quercus scopulorum; Larix occidentalis; Juniperus Abies concolor; Acer grandis; Acer glabrum; Acer grandidentatum; Minor Associates Chapter 4 – Aspen Types by Ecological Function 37 Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide This functional subtype is probably the most common in the western western in the common most the probably is subtype This functional about seral aspen comprises that suggest estimates gross States; United 2002; 1989; Rogers (Mueggler all aspen in the of region two-thirds to location varies from of course, estimate, 2007). (This et al. Kashian —Seral aspen are of great value to a host of users for timber for users of a host to value great of —Seral aspen are Management wildlife viewing/photography, and nature wildlife habitat, products, tourist/business and forage, livestock recreation, conservation, water aspen of management varied stakeholders, so many With promotion. and be can contentious. difficult socially regions in mountain lands science- sustainable, using managed must be these systems Thus, sustainability. long-term to sensitive are that prescriptions driven, —The seral montane aspen subtype is what many (in (in the many is subtype what aspen —The seralmontane Description aspen forest. “classic” or the quintessential consider States) United management and of science history and veryrich a is long There 1985). Disturbance Winnoker DeByle (e.g., and this subtype featuring long-term on influence strong a have fire, notably most processes, (suppression) wildfire of lack believe that Many patterns. development or succession conifer advanced promoted century has the past over probably is this generalization although encroachment,” “conifer great is there elevations, upper particularly at where, too simplistic regenerate aspen general, In regimes (Baker 2009). in fire variability The cohorts. form even-aged and thus disturbance after masse en recent though sprouting, root type vegetative is reproductive dominant sexualof reproduction, instances numerous uncovering is research implications far-reaching have survival, and which may germination, 2012). Montane Mock and (Long strategies management evolving for disturbance, to response seraland varied timing aspen,because of intermixed they are instances, some In patchiness. landscape promote due subtypes stable isolated terrain and limited elevation/aspect with zones. in montane topography of the highto variation highly variable in ponderosa pine/aspen as frequent as 10 years and in in and 10 years as frequent as pine/aspen in ponderosa highly variable in seral disturbance After years. 300–400 as as long spruce–fir/aspen before 60–150 years for dominant remain aspen may forests, montane them (Baker 2009). overtake conifers 38 Chapter 4 – Aspen Types by Ecological Function seedlings were discovered in the second year post-fire at this site, too. Figure 4.5b Figure 4.5a Flush of vegetative suckering one year post-fire. Much smaller aspen Succession from aspen to fir may occur overseveral decades. Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management Chapter 4 – Aspen Types by Ecological Function 39 Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide Aspen overtopped by Douglas fir in northern Utah. northern in fir Douglas by overtopped Aspen At this subalpine seral site aspen appear much smaller under older firs. It firs. older under smaller much appear aspen site seral subalpine this At Figure 4.5d Figure Figure 4.5c Figure may be that forest expansion is occurring at stand edges with the oldest trees residing residing trees oldest the with edges stand at is occurring expansion forest that be may center. the at 40 Chapter 4 – Aspen Types by Ecological Function Rooting root exceed Depth: Soils depth; water table confined Ecohydrology: Annual Precipitation: 14-18inches (350-450mm) stands partitioned by activities agricultural Stand variable Size: to large (1-100sacres/ha); formerly contiguous elevation Topography: Great Plains U.S. (minor), and Alaska Location: toaspen address same the conditions. termhere this use where other authors have “persistent” used or “pure” stagnation of interactions ecological (Harniss and Harper 1982).We to make-up tree species over and time not does reflect stability or duringas occurs conventional succession. The term “stable” refers additional donot species compete over for time stand dominance such are thataspen types are those made of cohort, asingle-species where Colorado Plateau, elevation/aspect limited, and terrain isolated. Stable Four stable subtypes aspen exist within our region: parklands, Stable Aspen with prescriptionstypes on conventional based practices. seral quite common, managers have often inappropriatelytreated stable and/or national forest inventory data.) Even montane though seral is location and of is inneed arefined calculationbased on remotessensing Major Associates Canadian Prairie Provinces (major; AB, SK, MB),Northern low-angle slopes to flat, punctuated low valleys; by deep Annual top recharge; limited lateral flow Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management Parklands balsamifera glauca; Pinus banksiana; Populus Quercus macrocarpa; Picea Minor Associates Chapter 4 – Aspen Types by Ecological Function 41 Photo by: B. Pino by: B. Photo Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide Timber harvest has not traditionally been economically been economically traditionally not harvest has Timber Aerial photo of parklands landscape. Aspen regrowth under drought- under regrowth Aspen landscape. parklands of photo Aerial Figure 4.6a Figure trees. mature dying related — Management —The once contiguous stands of parkland aspen are are aspen of parkland stands contiguous once —The Description ranching, farming, as activities, such human highly dissected by now even that thought is it However, development. and transportation, this of one-third about covered aspen only settlement, to prior the 1980); remaining Wilson and (Archibold ecological province are The parklands shrubcover. and grassland primarily were portions the north, to forests boreal and the south to betweenlocated grasslands the northern tier of into extending forest stable of smallwith portions MN). ND, (MT, States the United Historically fire and bison use played useplayed bison and fire Historically Type: Fire and Disturbance insectoutbreaks and droughts stand-replacing Today, role. a larger 2005). et al. (Hogg dominate feasible in aspen parklands due to aspen’s slow growth rates and relatively relatively and rates growth slow aspen’s to due in aspen parklands feasible more and, grazing livestock used for are these forests Mostly stature. short warming reserves. climate While biodiversity and recreation as recently, (Sauchyn aspen parklands of migration a northward cause to predicted is grasslands into expansions clonal reported have studies 2009), field et al. 42 Chapter 4 – Aspen Types by Ecological Function Figure 4.6c Figure 4.6b Interior of parklands aspen stand. Prairie and aspen parklands forest. Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management Photo B. by: Pino Photo B. by: Pino Chapter 4 – Aspen Types by Ecological Function 43 Minor Associates Minor Abies concolor; A. lasiocarpa; A. lasiocarpa; concolor; Abies engelmannii; Picea gambelii; Quercus ponderosa; P. aristata; Pinus menziesii Pseudotsuga Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide Annual top recharge top Annual slopes flat to moderate, occasionally steep; steep; all aspects, occasionally moderate, to flat slopes Colorado Plateau Highlands And Mesas Highlands And Colorado Plateau across high-elevation mesas of the Colorado Plateau Plateau the Colorado of mesas high-elevation across Major Associates Major —Large, high-elevation, plateaus harbor spruce, fir, pine, pine, fir, spruce, harbor plateaus high-elevation, —Large, Description as Mexico, New and northern Arizona types across aspen forest and co-occur Seral in such aspen may Utah. and Colorado southern as well Fire is uncommon, but may occur with may but uncommon, is Fire Type: Fire and Disturbance fuels. downslope abundant drying perhaps late-season or extreme Appendix Type 1, (Fire subtype in this is rare fire large-scale Sustained, but occur, impacts diseases, wideA 1). of variety browsing insects, and broad not and clones or clumps, stems, individual affect to theytend landscapes. bedrock Depth: confined Rooting Ecohydrology: 16-31 inches (412-784 mm) 16-31 inches Precipitation: Annual Topography: (10-100s acres/ha) Size: moderate Stand ecological province (AZ, CO, NM, UT) (AZ, CO, ecological province 8,000 ft (2,440 m) above mostly Location: to the south due to elimination of both prairie fires and buffalo grazing and fires both prairie of elimination to due the south to historical large/frequent of 1980). Restoration Wilson and (Archibold is unlikely in the past forests these impacted greatly that fires grassland smaller be scales at may Burning patterns. modernbecause settlement of moister are understory fuels where years of butthe driest in difficult all prairie. surrounding than 44 Chapter 4 – Aspen Types by Ecological Function animal feces counts (Rogers and Mittanck 2014). responsible for recruitment cessation by pairing tree indicators with management Managers metrics. may pinpoint also browsers which are and increasing recruitment—canaspen form basis the for resilience Monitoring for key indicators—regeneration with low levels of browse available sprouts by browsers that causes single-layer stands. aspen leading to regeneration that is problematic, but consumption the of In stable communities, however, it is not lack the of disturbance practices)toburning aspen stimulate (seral regeneration. further subtype have often inappropriately clearfelling used or broadcast stress restoring diversity. structural Past management actions inthis grazing modified regimes, or wildlife reduced numbers, should problems. Management actions, mechanical whether thinning, layeringvertical of suggests aspen moderate-to-heavy browsing diversity (Rogers et al. 2010; Rogers and Mittanck 2014). Reduced of Colorado Plateau have aspen reduced and structural biological Management—In many instances, long-term human/livestock uses leave long-term marks on communities. aspen these understated.be Impacts from intense recreation and livestock uses of high-elevation forests surrounded by cannot hot seasonally deserts has commonly across occurred plateau. the In recent value the times, livestock. Thus, reduction or elimination of native understory diversity forestsaspen have desirable highly summer been grazing pastures for foreststo these from July through August. Historically, stable these summer “monsoon,” normally which brings regular precipitation stable are aspen strongly influenced southwesternby a United States tops (e.g., Smith and Smith 2005;Rogers etal. 2010).Colorado Plateau though expanses oflocales, stable may aspen cover relatively flat mesa Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management Chapter 4 – Aspen Types by Ecological Function 45 Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide Colorado Plateau stable aspen in southern Utah. southern in aspen stable Plateau Colorado Landscape view. Figure 4.7b Figure Figure 4.7a Figure 46 Chapter 4 – Aspen Types by Ecological Function Figure 4.7d Figure 4.7c Regrowth after drought-related mortality. Drought, herbivory, and sagebrush invasion, Book Cliffs, Utah. Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management Chapter 4 – Aspen Types by Ecological Function 47 Minor Associates Minor See Seral Montane Major and Minor Minor and Major Montane See Seral Associates; J. monosperma, Juniperus Elev.: Low Pinus osteosperma, J. occidentalis, monophylla P. edulis, Elevation/Aspect Limited Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide Annual top recharge; limited lateral flow (LaMalfa and and (LaMalfa flow lateral limited recharge; top Annual slopes moderate to steep; most commonly S to SW S to commonly most steep; to moderate slopes throughout the montane zone of Canada, U.S., and Mexico Mexico and U.S., Canada, of zone the montane throughout Major Associates Major —As the name implies, these stable aspen communities are are aspen communities these stable implies, the name —As Description They terrain. aspects or mountainous in certain elevations by restricted or conifer seralaspen either abut often small and be to relatively tend such cover, vegetative nonforest other by be bordered may but forests, : Periodic or partial burning can occur partial can or burning : Periodic Type: Fire and Disturbance intensity and communities forest or vegetation adjacent on depending aspen 1). limited Appendix Elevation/aspect Type(see 2 Fire fire. of insect including other disturbances, of by a range be affected may ski resorts, (e.g., development avalanches, diseaseand infestations, is warming climate Increasing drought. and etc.), homes, vacation Worrall (e.g., elevations affect theseat low to types, particularlylikely 2008, 2013). et al. bedrock Depth: confined Rooting Ryel 2008) Ryel Ecohydrology: similar to Seral Montane precipitation range, range, precipitation Seral to similar Montane Precipitation: Annual rates higher evapotranspiration have may sites although Topography: (1-10s acres/ha) Size: small moderate to Stand forests high aspects elevations at vary any this to may aspects, but Location: 48 Chapter 4 – Aspen Types by Ecological Function priority” for management action. (i.e.,species >15%cover), that such stands should considered be “high (2001) suggest that sagebrush when becomes adominant understory spp.) and/or other components shrub over time. Campbell and Bartos degradation forests inthese is ingrowth the of sagebrush (Artemisia disturbance,severity is most appropriate. Another telltale of sign stand manipulation to simulate gap/phase dynamics, not large-scale/high- potential causes should investigated be and addressed. Vegetation and canopy). Even more if critical, recruitment lapses are present, of diversity structural (i.e., increasing layers forest between floor persistent browsing is documented, achief should goal restoration be receive by use high browsers. Where recruitment is limited and by damage. As suggested above, elevation/aspect limited may aspen products. In trees are fact, often short, slowgrowing, and plagued Management—Typically, forests these are not favored for wood consume young the suckers that grow inresponse. initiatedor diseases by drought, and/or wild domestic ungulates may ungulates. While mature trees are dying from acomplex of insects accelerate mortality of whole clones attract they because browsing but are they frequently susceptible to rapid die-offs. Drought may habitats, shade, and moisture compared to downslope communities, and aspects elevationsdry has pros and cons: provide they diverse originally established during wetter Their presence periods. in relatively forests are as they subject to highly drought impacts and may have categorize elevation/aspect limited as aspen “marginal” being aspen as sage–steppe, meadow, or alpine communities. Sometimes scientists Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management Chapter 4 – Aspen Types by Ecological Function 49 Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide Low elevation drought-prone stable aspen. stable drought-prone elevation Low Stable aspen on south-facing aspect contrasts with montane seral aspen aspen seral montane with contrasts aspect south-facing on aspen Stable Figure 4.8b Figure north. facing Figure 4.8a Figure 50 Chapter 4 – Aspen Types by Ecological Function under subtype. this Specific situationsthat allow growth aspen by Description—A single description would not fitthe diverse situations conifer forests (Fechner and Barrows 1976). pressure. Avalanche shoots may as firebreaks act when surrounding by forming natural inbroader refugia landscapes of intense herbivore example on talus slopes and lava flows, is excluded by thusterrain, but often at low-to-moderate levels. Browsing situations, incertain for Stands are affected by arange and disease, physicalof insects, damages, communities and intensity of fire (Fire 1 Types or 2, Appendix 1). burning depending onor can adjacent partial occur vegetation or forest vegetation and/or presence of lithic substrates (e.g., lava flow). Periodic Disturbance and Fire Type: Fire limited to flammability of surrounding depending on situation specific Rooting confined Depth: bedrock (snowpocket and lithic); variable clay content Ecohydrology: Annual Precipitation: Similar to Montane precipitation range. Stand to moderate small Size: (1-10sacres/ha) situations moraines, lava fields, avalanche shoots, geomorphicand localized other Topography: of Canadaand U.S. Location: Major Associates specific topographic specific conditionswithin western mountains diverse formations: concave “snowpockets”, talus slopes, Annual top recharge; subterranean with high reserve Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management

Terrain Isolated edulis, P. monophylla occidentalis, J. osteosperma, Pinus Low Elev.: Juniperus monosperma, J. Associates; See Seral Montane Major and Minor Minor Associates Chapter 4 – Aspen Types by Ecological Function 51 Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide Landscape view of terrain isolated stable aspen in northwest Utah. Utah. northwest in aspen stable isolated view terrain of Landscape Figure 4.9a Figure Subterranean water sources often support these stands. these support often sources water Subterranean —As with other stable subtypes, maintenance or or maintenance subtypes, stable other with —As Management Luckily, guide management. should stands multilayered of restoration often these aspen communities of isolation to leading the factors human other and browsing, fire, from in their protection also assist degradation, undergoing are stands isolated terrain Where impacts. large- not dynamics, gap/phase simulate to strive should treatments aspen other any than more scale/high-severityPerhaps disturbances. restricting other tree species from establishing generally isolate these isolate generally establishing species tree from other restricting krummholz, lithic, snowpocket, include types.Examples stable mostly Theseisolated areas. track avalanche and pothole, prairie talus, moraine, water, suggesting forms aspen growth stunted display often situations (2006) describe et al. Shepperd limitations. disturbance or substrate, depressions in topographic those as found aspen stands snowpocket occurs Krummholz melt. to slow is and accumulates snow where exposed severely through aspen stands, blow winds persistent where desiccation. via and scouring twig growth limiting 52 Chapter 4 – Aspen Types by Ecological Function specific situationsspecific and management options. disturbance (e.g., annual avalanches), and human influence access will access to andsurface subterranean water sources, of periodicity prescriptions. Adjacent vegetation browse types, level, firecapacity, considerationsspecific theirboth assessment in eventualand (if any) subtype,functional isolated these communities require will site- Figure 4.9b Isolated stable aspen growing in subalpine talus. subalpine in growing aspen stable Isolated Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management Chapter 4 – Aspen Types by Ecological Function 53 Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide Isolated stable aspen surrounding a spring, western desert, Utah. western a spring, surrounding aspen stable Isolated Aspen at an outcrop. an at Aspen Figure 4.9d Figure Figure 4.9c Figure 54 Chapter 4 – Aspen Types by Ecological Function characteristics lieelsewhere, such as proximity intheir to water sources. under heading this may or either be stable. seral Their distinguishing to or running standing water. In for California, example, 20th Description—Riparian subtype aspen includes stands all adjacent removal may to lead increased pathogen damage. instances, physical wounds from rubbing, pecking, clawing, and bark grazing, may due high to be attraction of water source; thus, in some and subsurface water availability. Wildlife use, as well as browsing/ conditions or depending on stable, seral whether vary as well as surface Fire not addressed type specifically by Shinnemanal. et (2013).Fire Naiman 1990),browsing/trampling, and fire (infrequent/variable). Disturbance and Fire Type: beaver damage Flooding, (Johnston and Rooting confined; water Depth: Bedrock table confined TopEcohydrology: recharge; subsurface flow Available moisture supplemented highly by riparian flow. Annual Precipitation: Similar to Montane precipitation range. Stand Small, Size: narrow, linear stands e (1-10sacres/ha) Topography: ThroughoutLocation: montane zoneCanada and U.S. or StableSeral Aspen P. pungens; Populus angustifolia Abies magnifica; Picea engelmannii; Major Associates Steep to low gradient; aspects all Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management —As implies, type this types functional Riparian Populus angustifolia angustifolia Populus pungens; Pinus edulis, P. monophylla, scopulorum, Picea engelmannii; P. occidentalis, J. osteosperma, J. Juniperus monosperma, J. grandidentatum; Betula occidentalis; Abies magnifica; Acer Minor Associates Chapter 4 – Aspen Types by Ecological Function 55 Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide —Management of riparian aspen is often governed governed often aspen is riparian of —Management Management around “buffers” affecting timber regulations both and grazing by management in the differences of many Additionally, sources. water in other aspen mentioned between seral stable and approaches present aspen are where corridors Riparian well. as here apply subtypes to the oases: in addition biodiversity as value carry amplified an available to wildlife, of importance diversity floristic great of presence utilize not may that plants and animals additional attracts water in allfactor biodiversity and quantity, quality, water aspen. So, upland in stands apply not may that approaches and decisions management such ecological processes, of Restoration areas. riparian from distant resiliency long-term flooding, occasional affect (+/-) use and beaver as and uncommon are disturbances replacing 1988). Stand et al. (Naiman restoration use for models them as generally not should managers thus, artificial incision, stream caused has vegetation of loss Where efforts. may dams) beaver simulated (e.g., critical elements of replacement et al. (Marshall wildlife habitat other and riparian begin restore to 2013). centurychanges to water systems for agriculture and culinary diversions culinary and diversions agriculture for systems water to centurychanges around others spawned and 1984) et al. (Stine killedaspen stands some from apart stand aspen, whether seral stable, Riparian reservoirs. or difference to in their susceptibility only not aspen communities other reproduction and also in their growth but mechanisms, disturbance perennial straddling or When water. to access having to related stands “stringer” occur in narrow aspen may streams, intermittent Occasionally, communities. nonforest of drier uplands by surrounded local lines. tree above) (or below persist may stringers such 56 Chapter 4 – Aspen Types by Ecological Function Figure 4.10b Figure 4.10a Riparian stable aspen. Riparian seral aspen. Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management Chapter 5 – Developing an Action Plan 57 Field visits help inform objectives. Figure 5.1 Figure Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide 3) What is the geographic and social context? For example, are current current are example, For social and context? the geographic is 3) What vegetation other to aspect; proximity slope; by being affected conditions 2) What currently available resources can inform our objectives? Local objectives? our inform can resources available currently 2) What grazing, management/treatment, expertise, (climate, datasets past studies, published input, group collaborative wildlife records), and valuable all provide may directives and knowledge institutional and insights. 1) What aspen functional types are aspen functional types are 1) What 2014)? et al. (Rogers being addressed a of comprised usually are stands While larger typesingle seral stable), (e.g., or range a broader contain may landscapes an foundation ecological to establish meant is step This situations. of potential and expected conditions about assumptions subsequent for changes. climate and/or treatment, no treatment, to reactions Often resource specialists will have specialists willresource have Often they are conditions what idea of some causing are factors what and facing hypotheses, these are them. Essentially, of and in insufficient they are but objectives. formulating for themselves goals, resource fully understand To current a deeper of knowledge a preferably required, is conditions in grounded assessment preliminary evidence. Answers of lines many to one provide questions the following to initial formulating for a framework objectives: aspen resource Setting Objectives Setting Chapter 5 - Developing An Action Plan Action An - Developing 5 Chapter 58 Chapter 5 – Developing an Action Plan but more importantly, magnitude guidethe will of monitoring the ofcollection key indicator to indicate begin data will overall conditions, and available resources. At a minimum, assessments visual and the depend, ofwill course, on geographic the of scope target the landscape The amount of time total spent theand level dataof collection required plots situations aspen inwidely varying across landscape the of interest. A worthy exercise is to spend afew days conducting test monitoring “Setting(see Objectives”). landscapes, but anticipation of likely future forest dynamics is crucial important to thoroughly understand current issues affecting aspen monitoringpurposes, requires significant forethought. Not only is it (e.g., testing results aftersome treatment action). Given these dual provides aquantitative for baseline comparison to future measures conditions on ground the (rather than guessing at and them) it of forestaspen management: it allows a precise understanding of Monitoring provides at least two advantages within agreater scheme Monitoring: Assess Before Action managementscience-based actions. documentation. The elements presented here provide a structure for In sum, resource should specialists support action plans aspen with preliminary monitoring next the section). (see at objectives ontoneed set based data least partially through gleaned how dowe know that current conditions require some action?We 6) Finally, perhaps most importantly, other than simple observations, resilience and how should objectives the incorporate them? standsaspen resilient to be to? What arethreats expected to the is akey5) Resilience goal, but what domanagers exactly want these 4) How might site the or landscape limit or enhance treatment options? corridors, or feed/water attractions; or prominent past disturbances? facilities); human visitation; grazing allotments; habitat, valued wildlife water,types, and developed land (i.e., homes, roads/traffic, industrial Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management Chapter 5 – Developing an Action Plan 59 (Appendix 2) significantly predicts predicts significantly 2) (Appendix objective as well health, as basic stand basal area, age, stand of measures counts—a scat and pertrees stand, presence browser for surrogate In 2014). Mittanck and (Rogers understanding aiding to addition specific with logistical pitfalls of along methods, this assessment, data, and notes a reviewwith of measures final winnow to will help well as full-scalefor monitoring, about hypotheses further as refine aspen conditions broad for causes specific that Note the landscape. on should indicators, key for targets monitoring test on bebased refined section (see “Document” outcomes Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide . Monitoring for aspen aspen for . Monitoring Figure 5.2 Figure regeneration. Evidence should now be available for a comprehensive assessment of of assessment a comprehensive for be available now should Evidence the landscape within aspen status understand need to managers what will managers resource that is assumption underlying An in question. resources. survey available with credible possible the most for strive justify. easier to much decisions will eventual make assumption an Such ethical, legal, or to aspenprojects evidence opens supporting Weak and inefficiencies greater even ultimately, challenges; administrative effort ahead. Suggested measures for preliminary surveys preliminary include for measures Suggested ahead. effort dead mature and bothlive and recruitment, regeneration, counting circular/ nested or transects (e.g., belt areas fixed sample within trees disturbance recent of assessment some Additionally, plots). square to will impacts, help as development such influences, other and standard Finally, the landscape. of characteristics broad distinguish also assist aspect, may slope) (GPS, elevation, attributes environmental methodsfor needs and potential situations different in distinguishing work Previous landscape. given a across variability aspencondition system rating condition aspen stand a subjective determined that has this chapter). 60 Chapter 5 – Developing an Action Plan The next sections describe each stepgreater in Thesections describe next detail. adaptivethe as cycle asystematic approach for gaining desired results. the-ground results don’t match intentions. original Figure 5.3outlines waythe monitoring via and course corrections are made where on- implementing an “adaptive cycle” actions inwhich are checked along guide recommends, for nearly any actions involving restoration, aspen implementation step terminal the to be in resource management. This communities. In years past, land managers have considered project plan composed of steps specific toward managing for resilient aspen In our objective section, this is to “put it together” all in a restoration The Adaptive Cycle: Implement, Monitor, Assess 5.1). help and determine type final the suite of measurespossible (see Table to implement work inspections. Taken together, considerations these formalneed quality assurance plans and, potentially, designated people to ensure and consistency? accuracy Large monitoring programs may can change frequently)? Sixth,what level of quality control is required byaccessed appropriate personnel with little explanation (since staff not lost, well project the will documented, be be and will data the how managers will handle data the that so that so valuable information future admittedly needs, fraught task adifficult uncertainty.with Fifth, item entails careful consideration and some level of forecasting of information revisitswill useful glean without physical markers? This monitoringwill locations permanently be marked and remeasured or is requiredexpertise and available to train field technicians? Fourth, availablesets inprospective monitoring personnel? Third,what location—1 hour, 2hours, 4hours? Second, what are likely the skill monitoring. First, how much can time you afford each at monitoring administrators for appropriate funding and personnel to begin can now answer afew additional questions before approaching materials “The Adaptive (see Cycle”Resource section). specialists monitoringon good collecting data, supporting as well as ancillary implementation further. Thus, getting rightit frontup is contingent expenditures required be will ifmanagers to pursue choose project Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management Chapter 5 – Developing an Action Plan 61 Description live or dead? or live type/severity insect, disease, of required; etc. training & pellet groups/pies spp by counts scat ungulate diameter measured or diameter classes diameter or measured diameter assign name or establish spp code spp establish or name assign optional classes ht spp; aspen/multiple all % of (Y/N); as terminal leaders browsed regeneration canopy mature ht., < > 6 ft. spp; aspen/multiple describe notable disturbance or developments or disturbance describe notable ≥ 5 trees, count basal rings, ave. age to reach DBH DBH reach to age basal ave. rings, count ≥ 5 trees, 6 ft. code describe disturbance affecting > 50% of area of > 50% code affecting describe disturbance > 2 trees. by spp; ave. age, include growth to DBH to growth include age, ave. spp; by > 2 trees. derive from area ave. (office) or GPS reading or GPS (office) ave. area from derive estimate field of (office) ave. area from derive estimate field of (office) ave. area from derive count of number of distinct vertical distinct of layers number of count 2) (Appendix guidelines with visual estimate = seral cover aspen, > 10% conifer seral stable of advise to begin coordinates advise to database with Pre-number all potential sample plots sample all potential Pre-number Visual estimates at min. 10 distributed points min. 10 distributed at estimates Visual points min. 10 distributed at estimates Visual points min. 10 distributed at estimates Visual points min. 10 distributed at estimates Visual 5 5 5 1 1 0 20 10 15 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 5-10 Time Time 10-20 30-60 10-20 30-60 10-30 10-30 10-30 10-30 (min)* Estimate Estimate Type count count count count assess/ describe estimate estimate estimate estimate estimate estimate estimate estimate estimate measure assigned descriptive descriptive descriptive descriptive instrument instrument instrument instrument field field field field field field field field field field field field field field field field field field field field field field field office office office office office office office office Source Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide Measure Mature Tree Damage Tree Mature Counts Browser/Pellet Mature Tree Status Tree Mature Regeneration Browse Recruitment Trees Mature (measuring from less than the total area; specified sample frames)** specified area; sample the total than less from (measuring SUBSAMPLING Species Tree Comments Breast Ht/Recruitment Ht/Recruitment Breast Age Recent Disturbance Recent Aspect Slope Layers Aspen Aspen Condition Condition Aspen Rating Type Stand Stand Age Elevation PLOT LEVEL DESCRIPTORS PLOT Identifier Plot Cover Aspen Conifer Cover Conifer Cover Sagebrush Soil Cover Bare (area GPS Location center) * Time estimates are for items completed independently, efficiencies will increase with concurrent variable measurement. variable concurrent with efficiencies willincrease independently, completed items for are estimates * Time area(e.g., acre/ha) entire forthe estimates to expanded, post-field, are areas subsample fixed within recorded measures **Typically Partial List of Aspen Monitoring Variables, BLM Aspen Field Guide Field Aspen BLM Variables, Monitoring Aspen of List 5.1 Partial Table 62 Chapter 5 – Developing an Action Plan knowledge may impair alternative explanations of causes both and issuesaspen potentially affecting resources; however,sometimes such of often complex situations. Mostland managers arealready aware of Issues: Consult with research perspective to gain specialists further subsequent considerations. this Theof step is purpose to provideframework ecological an for broadthe previously types (Rogers functional etal. 2014). described well knowledge as some of local “fit” targetof stands/landscapes into include gaining an understanding of aspen’s variations, ecological as Chapter (see types functional aspen 4). This assessmentseveral will recipient of restoration efforts. Perhapslarger a landscape encompasses System: Figure 5.3Aspen adaptive cycle. Determine what Determine of type communityaspen prime the be will Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management Chapter 5 – Developing an Action Plan 63 Make and implement a decision on appropriate appropriate on decision a implement and Make Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide Determine the underlying cause(s) of the current aspen the current of cause(s) Determinethe underlying Implementation: plan. a developing and conditions documenting take after to actions very are with, so familiar professionals forest most one that is step This select active managers Whether further explanation. require doesn’t it Causes: collected, are data after initial assessment an Make Documentation: discuss and Then evaluate interpreted. and analyzed, stored, edited, develop and partners (if appropriate) and colleagues with the “results” is plan theimplementation of A centerpiece plan. implementation an These (indicators). variables specificmonitoring using setto targets triggering adjustments specific metricsfor will provide targets indicator to Management 6, “Adapting cycle (see Chapter the adaptive to an dictate practices savvy forest this point, At Results”). Monitoring expertise with individuals in resource review: more or outside one review thedata, independently to beencouraged should management and/ team interdisciplinary An plan. and interpretation, analysis, also Critical review evaluation specialist the plan. may research or time, save will colleagues likely sympathetic those than other from reviews and consider run. Objectively in long the effort and resources, implementation. to prior adjustments make fixes for declining forests. Consult with additional stakeholders, such such stakeholders, additional with Consult forests. declining for fixes larger through organizations, nongovernmental and users resource as of a variety from directly seeking input by or processes collaborative groups. interest after Even state. sustainable a from deviation some assuming condition, is information defensible experts with stakeholders, and consultation is This in aspen communities. baseline conditions calibrate to required also it section, discussed but step in the previous the actual monitoring pertinent aspen address that materials published gathering involves the requires probably step This interest. of in the landscape issues protocol, monitoring well-founded A effort. and consideration most the entire methods, the for basis will form in demonstrable grounded program. restoration 64 Chapter 5 – Developing an Action Plan ecological pathways.ecological of monitoring document intended outcomes and/or alignment with another at look issues andcycle causes. The repeats untilthe results back at documentation the step, or perhapsback to take further A reassessment is required, placing restorative logically the actions more/less intensity of stand deterioration, or ineffectivetreatments. forest responded to actions may taken causes, reveal unexpected a resilient or sustainable system. aspen at look Acritical how aspen the variables indicate will prescriptions whether had intended their affect: annual remeasurement of (and monitoring baseline several) ideally consider step this a“final” activity. After implementation,least at one FormalizeResilience: adaptive the cycle. Managers should not treatments according to prescription. or passive management want steps, will out they to ensure carry they Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management Chapter 6 – Aspen ‘Monitor and Manage’ Toolbox 65 Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide This photo suggests drought and herbivory are significant causal agents. causal significant are herbivory and drought suggests photo This Figure 6.1 Figure Aspen restoration, like many natural resource measures, rarely takes rarely measures, resource natural many like restoration, Aspen causal be multiple may there Rather, solutions. simple of the form given any for social or considerations treatments, appropriate agents, prominent most of the compilation a presents chapter This situation. of combinations innovative options; restoration and agents causal cons and pros weighingthe Thus, required. willbe often these elements for the best prescriptions at in arriving managers will assist options of “tools” aspen restoration organizes 6.1 theirparticular locales. Table symptoms common of description a brief with agents causal major by complete more provides guide this field 3 of Chapter these agents. of symptoms. and interactions, landscape disturbances, of descriptions Selecting from Restoration Actions Selecting Restoration from Chapter 6 - Aspen ‘Monitor And Manage’ Toolbox Manage’ And ‘Monitor - Aspen 6 Chapter 66 Chapter 6 – Aspen ‘Monitor and Manage’ Toolbox Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management Page left intentionally blank. Chapter 6 – Aspen ‘Monitor and Manage’ Toolbox 67 Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide Cut and fence. and Cut Figure 6.2 Figure Field managers must use available tools to craft on-the-ground on-the-ground craft to tools useavailable must managers Field In stewards. vegetation of task central the often which is prescriptions, management” “resilience and management” decades, “ecosystem recent disturbances natural emulating of the tenet on heavily relied have selectingin the functional as aspenusedtype well (as here) system wood products of utilization While 1996). (Rogers prescriptions forest is modern most aspenmanagement outcome, a treatment often is 5.1) (see Table when measurements restoration the goal with of initiated its from deviating or declining is landscape or aspen forest an indicate 1999). This al. sectionelaborates at (Landres variation of range natural a functional type under their applications and prescriptions key on contingent cycle approach adaptive an 4) and (Chapter framework an 3 provides 5). Appendix (Chapter monitoring systematic on aspen any for point a starting as outline plan management annotated prescriptions. Crafting a Functional Aspen Prescription Aspen Functional a Crafting 68 Chapter 6 - Aspen ‘Monitor And Manage’ Toolbox drought/ frost Climate/ outbreaks Insect &disease fire suppression encroachment/ Conifer Herbivory Agent Table 6.1: Potential restoration actions for communities aspen by causal agent. It is assumed embolism, leaf browning Mostly affecting maturetrees, may also affect roots; cavitation, regeneration response not entiredoes kill stands; should cause moderate-to-strong aspen die-offtakes usually years where and (particularly multiple clones) maylarge host-specific insects, kill portions of aspen clones; of stem, branch, root, and leaf pathogens, often combinedwith Mostly affecting maturetrees, may infestalso largeroots; variety dying overstory aspen ability of to aspen recover after disturbance; low regeneration; Advanced succession of conifers stands aspen inseral reduces diversitystructural/vertical stems inaspen vegetation trampling; mature stem long-term scarring; loss of in regeneration and recruitment; browsed leaders; terminal Cattle, sheep, deer, or consistently elk removing growth new Symptoms No action No action Spraying insecticide) (pesticide/ No action Burning Curb suppression -“wildland fire use” No action ripping Root or clearfell-coppice Tree patch, -select, harvest Burning Fencing Rest-rotation Move animals actions above actions diversity using active/passive Manage for age, landscape species, or clearfell-coppice cuts Tree patch, thin, -select, harvest or clearfell-coppice cuts Tree patch, thin, -select, harvest Reduce animals ActionPrimary that multiple actions may combined be where appropriate. structure diversity events; potentilly simulating regeneration and increasing age/ Plant tissue may recover quickly from brief drought and frost species Increases landscape/species diversity for many aspen-associated money expenditures Stimulate regeneration to increase resilience; save on time/ consistent application May decline stem of over tide the years local several with long-term resilience structure/age via diversity unaffected areas or clones; stimulatewill regeneration and build Useful for hazard tree reduction; may slow spread of I&Dto saves costs with intrusion minimal eventuallyConifers will reduced/removed be disturbance, via establishmentseedling formethod stimulating regeneration aspen and potential Where appropriate Chapter (see 3),provides relatively low-cost may save resources and (over reduce time) conifer buildup; Cessation of suppression inremote particularly activities, areas, water retention with conifer removal protection some suggests from evidence greater herbivory; cuts/leavingpartial logsmay cost effective be and providesome Income may offset costs of restoration; if only for regeneration, natural disturbances herbivores overwhelm will Low cost; intrusion minimal and possibility that large enough sucker response; where most not tree harvest useful economical cutting to promote device suckering; low cost; effective for quick rootsSever using cutter disc or other form of below ground protection from herbivory cuts/leavingpartial logsmay cost effective be and providesome Income may offset costs of restoration; if only for regeneration, establishmentseedling formethod stimulating regeneration aspen and potential Where appropriate Chapter (see 3),provides relatively low-cost effective for small areas and/or demonstration sties usually until stems aspen grow beyond “browse height”; very Effectively eliminates browsing time - of period forselect a use. years, allowed then to re-enter. Allows producers to continue treatment. Typically animals removed from target area 2-5 Provides temporary relief to suckers aspen after disturbance/ regrowth; increases quality of forage inlater years Provides immediate relief to and aspen understory plant success short-termterm use; increase inhunter opportunities for immediate livestock management increases changes of long- Provides immediate relief to and aspen understory regrowth; Pro system conversions and/or migrations Long-term effects maycause broad aspen mortality and/or actions employed chance of positive outcome; same potential pitfalls of any/all No guarantee of success, but increased resilience increases regional cover aspen loss and/or drought, I&Dcomplexes may result or inlocal Some/many mature may aspen die;combined with herbivory downstream and potential effects to ofplants, secondary animals, water on site Expensive to continually apply; may affect non-target plants; wood product low probability of cost recovery due to decayed or damaged Only minor effectiveness is likely outcome; expensivewith complexesinsects/disease exacerbated by herbivory, drought/climate, or stand-replacing Aspen may lost from be systems, certain where particularly herbivory reduction is not inplace prior to action lack of regeneration, evencomplete loss, aspen ifplan for Dangers of prescribed fire;possibility escaped of exacerbating browsers,overwhelm resulting cover inaspen loss development; evenlarge burns may not enough to be Cessation may facilitate dangerous fire conditions near herbivory appropriate but aspen, inseral comes with greatest risk with reduction of is herbiory not addressed; clearfell most dependent possible ifdirect detrimental effects species; Conifer reduction may have undesirable affects on conifer- depending on degree/constancy of browsing Potential for large-scale stable loss aspen (particularly aspen), not economical for large landscapes without browse protection strategy, may hasten stand die-off; damageLikely ancillary to tree and understory plants; ifdone comes with greatest risk with herbivory not addressed; clearfell most appropriate but aspen, inseral Possible ifdirect detrimental effects reduction of is herbiory herbivory reduction is not inplace prior to action lack of regeneration, evencomplete loss, aspen ifplan for Dangers of prescribed fire;possibility escaped of exacerbating line checking and maintenance costs must accounted be for andexpense maintenance; even for areas, small regular fence notExpense; realistic for large landscapes or regions due to sucker forage is available. are not excluded and may attracted be to target area ifmore low-level, regeneration large between disturbances. Wildlife After reintroduction of livestock,this may prevent continuous, possible increase inhunting difficultydecreased success or rate Additional expense/planning required for domestic livestock; and potentially revenues from license sales management increases costs; reduces long-term hunter success impact to economics of domestic livestock -proactive Con Chapter 6 - Aspen ‘Monitor And Manage’ Toolbox 69 Expensive to continually apply; may affect non-target plants; plants; non-target affect may apply; continually to Expensive on site water animals, secondaryplants, of to effects potential and downstream herbivory with combined die; aspen may mature Some/many in local or result may I & D complexes drought, and/or loss aspen cover regional increases resilience increased but success, of guarantee No any/all of pitfalls potential same outcome; positive of chance employed actions and/or mortality aspen broad cause may effects Long-term migrations and/or conversions system Conifer reduction may have undesirable affects on conifer- affects undesirable have may reduction Conifer species; effects detrimental if direct possible dependent most clearfell addressed; not herbiory is of reduction with risk greatest with comes in seral aspen, but appropriate herbivory near conditions fire dangerous facilitate may Cessation be to enough not may burns even large development; loss in aspen cover resulting overwhelm browsers, of exacerbating escapedpossibility fire; prescribed of Dangers for if plan aspen loss, even complete regeneration, of lack action to prior in place not is reduction herbivory particularly where certain systems, be from lost may Aspen stand-replacing or drought/climate, herbivory, by exacerbated insects/disease complexes with expensive outcome; is likely effectiveness minor Only damaged or decayed to due recovery cost of probability low product wood Additional expense/planning required for domestic livestock; livestock; domestic for required expense/planning Additional rate or success decreased difficulty in hunting increase possible continuous, prevent may this of livestock, reintroduction After Wildlife disturbances. between large regeneration low-level, if more area target to be attracted may and excluded not are available. is forage sucker to due regions or landscapes large for realistic Expense; not fence regular small areas, for even maintenance; expenseand for be accounted must costs maintenance and checking line of exacerbating escapedpossibility fire; prescribed of Dangers for if plan aspen loss, even complete regeneration, of lack action to prior in place not is reduction herbivory herbioryis of reduction effects detrimental if direct Possible in seral aspen, but appropriate most clearfell addressed; not herbivory with risk greatest with comes if done plants; understory and tree to ancillaryLikely damage die-off; stand hasten may strategy, protection browse without landscapes large for economical not aspen), (particularly aspen loss stable large-scale for Potential browsing of degree/constancy on depending Con proactive - livestock domestic of economics to impact success hunter long-term reduces costs; increases management sales license from revenues potentially and

Plant tissue may recover quickly from brief drought and frost frost and drought brief from quickly recover may tissue Plant age/ increasing and regeneration simulating potentilly events; diversity structure Increases landscape/species diversity for many aspen-associated aspen-associated many for diversity landscape/species Increases species Stimulate regeneration to increase resilience; save on time/ on save resilience; increase to regeneration Stimulate expenditures money May stem the tide of local decline over several years with with several local years the tide over of stem decline May application consistent Useful for hazard tree reduction; may slow spread of I & D to I & D to of spread slow may reduction; tree hazard for Useful build and regeneration willstimulate clones; or areas unaffected diversity via structure/age resilience long-term Conifers will eventually be reduced/removed via disturbance, via disturbance, be reduced/removed willConifers eventually minimal intrusion with costs saves Where appropriate (see Chapter 3), provides relatively low-cost low-cost relatively 3), provides (see Chapter appropriate Where potential and aspen regeneration stimulating method for seedling establishment Cessation of suppression activities, particularly in remote areas, areas, activities, particularly in remote suppression of Cessation buildup; conifer time) reduce (over and resources save may Income may offset costs of restoration; if only for regeneration, regeneration, for only if restoration; of costs offset may Income some provide and be effective cost logs may partial cuts/leaving herbivory; greater evidence from suggests some protection removal conifer with retention water Low cost; minimal intrusion and possibility that large enough enough large that possibility and minimal intrusion cost; Low will overwhelm herbivores disturbances natural Sever roots using disc cutter or other form of below ground ground below of form other or disc cutter using Sever roots quick for effective cost; low suckering; device promote to cutting economical useful harvest tree not most where response; sucker Income may offset costs of restoration; if only for regeneration, regeneration, for only if restoration; of costs offset may Income some provide and be effective cost logs may partial cuts/leaving herbivory from protection Where appropriate (see Chapter 3), provides relatively low-cost low-cost relatively 3), provides (see Chapter appropriate Where potential and aspen regeneration stimulating method for seedling establishment Effectively eliminates browsing for a selectfor periodof - time browsing eliminates Effectively very height”; “browse beyond grow aspen stems until usually sties demonstration and/or areas small for effective Provides temporary relief to aspen suckers after disturbance/ after aspen suckers to relief temporary Provides 2-5 area target from removed animals Typically treatment. continue to producers Allows re-enter. to then allowed years, use. Provides immediate relief to aspen and understory plant plant understory aspen and to relief immediate Provides years later in forage of quality increases regrowth; Provides immediate relief to aspen and understory regrowth; regrowth; understory aspen and to relief immediate Provides long- of changes increases management livestock immediate for opportunities in hunter increase term use; short-term success Pro that multiple actions may be combined where appropriate. where be combined may actions multiple that harvest - select, thin, patch, Tree cuts clearfell-coppice or species, landscape age, for Manage active/passive using diversity actions above Primary Action animals Reduce harvest - select, thin, patch, Tree cuts clearfell-coppice or No action No Spraying (pesticide/ insecticide) Spraying action No No action No Curb suppression - “wildland fire use” fire - “wildland suppression Curb Burning Burning harvest - select, patch, Tree clearfell-coppice or Root ripping action No Move animals Move Rest-rotation Fencing Mostly affecting mature trees, may also infest roots; large variety variety roots; large also infest may trees, mature affecting Mostly with combined often pathogens, leaf and root, branch, stem, of clones; aspenof portions kill insects,host-specific large may clones) multiple (particularlyand where years usually takes die-off aspen moderate-to-strong cause should stands; killdoes entire not response regeneration cavitation, roots; affect also may trees, mature affecting Mostly browning leaf embolism, Symptoms new growth removing elk consistently or deer, sheep, Cattle, terminal leaders; browsed recruitment; and in regeneration of loss scarring; long-term stem mature trampling; vegetation in aspen stems structural/vertical diversity reduces in seral aspen stands conifers of succession Advanced regeneration; low disturbance; after recover aspen to of ability aspen overstory dying Insect & diseaseInsect outbreaks Climate/ frost drought/ Agent Herbivory Conifer encroachment/ suppression fire assumed is It agent. causal by aspen communities for actions restoration Potential 6.1: Table 70 Chapter 6 – Aspen ‘Monitor and Manage’ Toolbox such communities ifbrowsing impacts improve. mortality patternsthese is likely to restore multilayer the structure of groups (root or stem decay infection centers). Thus, simulation of prescriptions. Mature trees tend to dieas individuals or insmall an intact stable forest aspen is instructive toward harvest selective exist, byharvest most varying percent of overstory removal. Visiting healthy stable Numerous types. aspen variations of aspen selective here theory Theis to create uneven agethat classes those mimic of where,aspen for whatever reason, recruitment unsuccessful. has been cover is acommon forestry practicethat is most appropriate instable Cut Selective fail. individuals to provide sustained suckering should regeneration initial concern, a safer approach is to leave mature small clumpsaspen and disturbance. Even insuch instances, ifbrowsing particularly is a is most appropriate that for types are seral subject to stand-replacing overstory. Once for widely used communities, aspen all method this As name the implies, clearfell–coppice involves total removal of the sometimes germinatewill withpractice (Landhäusser this etal. 2010). ondependence regeneration from root sprouting, although seedlings Cut—A coppiceClearfell-Coppice a“clearcut”) (unlike indicates total descriptions and appropriate of uses treatment alternatives. resilience (Rogers etal. 2014).The followingsections provide brief where multiple layers are natural the condition and provide greater of clearfell–coppice instable creates aspen asingle cohort structure rarely stand-replacing experience disturbance. Further, aftermath the appropriate as ameans of regenerating would stable as they types, Similarly, inmost instances, clearfell–coppice would harvest not be maintain, it has little precedent ecological (Shinneman etal. 2013). For example, prescribed fire in stable is aspen not only difficult to different restoration approachesthan stable communities. aspen processes (Rogers etal. 2014).Thus, communities aspen seral require optionsmanagers those select thatwill most closely mimic ecological The underlying assumptionthat is types functional thatof aspen is —Removal of less than mature the half canopy aspen Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management Chapter 6 – Aspen ‘Monitor and Manage’ Toolbox 71 Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide —Mechanically separating roots from parent root systems systems root parent from roots separating —Mechanically —In select areas, such as near homes, homes, near as such select areas, —In as fuel break Aspen and conifers of thinning areas, developed other or campgrounds, —There are many advantages to prescribed to advantages many are —There Prescribed burning et al. seral to aspen (Shinneman apply they only usually but burning, high-to moderate must be often burning appropriate, Where 2013). “Selective” conditions. natural under disturbance simulate to intensity aspen mature of in death result may burning understory or burning use, similar fire Wildland easily kill can stems. basal where trees scorch and benefits the same of many provide can burning, prescribed to and safe is it the extent to aspen restoration be used should toward possible. —Managers sometimes think that dense dense think sometimes that —Managers Removal Vegetation aspen suckers but aspen regeneration, prohibits vegetation understory or plants Exotic occur in very layers. do naturally dense herbaceous overwhelm successfulaspen establishment can understories shrubby may cases,managers such In floor. the forest to sunlight limit and/or and cover reduce to approaches burning or mechanical elect either of removal to applies principle This same aspen growth. stimulate the forest. all of species, levels from conifer usually trees, competing little is there regeneration, stimulate may cover reducing While pause should managers thus, approaches; such for ecological precedent managers where instances In objectives. theultimate reconsider and making temporary, likely is the result vegetation, competing remove necessary. objectives achieve to visits repeat is a means of stimulating sucker production (Shepperd et al. 2006). A 2006). et al. (Shepperd production sucker stimulating of a means is 6–10 inches of set a depth to and a tractor on device mounted ripping regeneration will tine, a single ample yield only using (15–25 cm), roots destroy tines can harvest tree (multiple the need for without experiment One sprout). will not that segments many creating by stems of the number doubled approximately ripping root that found (Shepperd area fenced untreated an to when compared produced half the other half the objective; only is stimulation again, 2004). Once browsing. posttreatment prevent to aims Root ripping 72 Chapter 6 – Aspen ‘Monitor and Manage’ Toolbox long-term resource and personnel commitments. grazing on private lands) that often encumber such actions may require obstaclespolitical, credits (e.g.,and tax social awarded for livestock approach to combating browsing issues. However, administrative, to reducespecialists or move ungulate populations is a more direct or regional Collaborative scales. work and/or with wildlife range targeted areas (<~100acres/40 ha), but is impractical at landscape of protection within resource budgets. Fencing works well for small active management. The liesin difficulty findingeffectivemethods prescriptions ought to target that cause and may forego additional of decline inagiven stand by (as evidenced onsite monitoring), then disturbances to stimulate suckers. If browsing is chief the causal agent purefoot (30–60m)localized stands aspen greatly will reduce or even inflammable nature (Fechner Barrowsand 1976).Creation of 100–200 management for as canbreaks aspen fuel act due to aspen’s generally Figure 6.3 Prescribed burn. Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management cannot rely on stand-replacing communities that normally importantparticularly instable protection from browsing is stableboth and However, seral. resilient communities—aspen browsing enough to be sustain will Often simple protectionfrom Browsing from Protection encouraged, near development. variation” are favored, even from “natural the range of Generally, greater deviations mimicking natural processes. our broad recommendation of and types aspen it defers from communities bordered by seral for urban and exurban interface This approach is recommended stop an oncoming forest fire. — Chapter 6 – Aspen ‘Monitor and Manage’ Toolbox 73 Fence allowing access for deer deer for access allowing Fence Figure 6.4 Figure elk. or cattle for not but base), at gap (see Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide Managers and ranchers have used a number of fence designs to prevent prevent to designs fence of used a number have ranchers and Managers 2007). et al. VerCauteren (e.g., aspen suckers of browsing posttreatment of way effective an are Fences herbivores keeping temporarily aspen emerging browsing from instances, most In suckers. use ranchers and managers aspensprouts allow to fencing such until herbivory “escape” to browse above theytimeas are situations (6 ft./2 m). (In height animals veryof high elk density, taller much over pushed have and leaves access to trees reach to required twigs.) Time of in theabsence this height, considerably varies browsing, more, or 2–10 years from conditions. growth on depending include Ancillarymay benefits of successful reproduction increased plants, understory Focus on Fencing: pros and cons and pros Fencing: Focus on As alluded to throughout this field guide, real guide, this field throughout alluded to As MixedPrescriptions: prescription multiple to commitment require will often solutions involve at least, will, approaches common most The approaches. protection. posttreatment and aspen stimulation for plans concrete areas aspentreatment from be removed should livestock Domestic herbivore Wild recommended). (4–5 years 2 years of a minimum for a for wildlife be coordination, with agency increased, may hunts reach to years aspen 5 take average, On periodsimilar treatments. after 2010), which et al. wildlife (Rogers for height browse normal above well as special of hunts, the duration for guidance some provide may whether to document way only The recommendations. rest livestock as plan. monitoring a systematic institute to successful is are prescriptions 74 Chapter 6 – Aspen ‘Monitor and Manage’ Toolbox actions. While may this intuitive, seem previous suggests experience inChapterAs discussed 5,monitoring results should drive followup Adapting Management to Monitoring Results maintenance, fencing-to-prevent-browsing cycles). simulate ecosystem (rather function than getting into high- high-cost, recommend striving for process balance, not complete restriction, to browsing are permissible without threatening resilience. aspen We more suckers initial than ultimate survivors; thus, modestlevels of on resource based self-thin availability, there are normally many times appropriate levels to sustain communities.aspen Since stemsaspen facilitatewill cohabitation by herbivores, or wild domestic, they be at to need address causes.will base Ideally, long-term management goals areas? Oftenthisthecase for is butperiods, shortultimately managers browsing. Is desired the objective to have zero herbivores in designated duration of fence use. Effective fencing preventslarge all herbivore serious thought is required to fencing determine exact aims and the can result loss inthe of of long sucker periods protection. Secondly, depending on quality forage availability and number the of animals, and timely repairs of missing Even sections. 1 week of animal access, far beyond construction original to active patrolling for fence breaches a passive treatment alone, is often not Costsfeasible. of fencing extend herbivores out of large landscapes, aspen posttreatment whether or as developments, or other noteworthy groves. aspen The cost of fencing situations such as campgrounds, riparian areas, recreation sites, housing expensive management tool that applied when is best targeted, insmall, Fencing cannot solve browsing all problems. Foremost, it is an effective at low-to-moderate herbivory levels. a low-cost alternative to traditional fencing techniques that may be has had some success (Kota and 2010). Pseudofencing Bartos presents least to barriers access from browsers, are apseudofencing option that with cutting trees inafashion to simulate fencing (“hinging”), or at effective demonstration sites of aspen sproutingpotential. Experiments and moisture soil retention from shading. Exclosures have proven to be diversity of animals requiring additional cover and diversity, structural Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management Chapter 6 – Aspen ‘Monitor and Manage’ Toolbox 75 Browse indicators: clipped clipped indicators: Browse Figure 6.5 Figure scat. elk and leader aspen Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide For example, the literature may may the literature example, For of amount for targets provide and recruitment, regeneration, in be found may level browse must Managers theliterature. standardized of theweigh benefits those developed versus targets past localized or through studies Normally, actions. monitoring targets standardized but will results, better yield local information Bartos and 1989; Campbell Mueggler (e.g., point a starting give metric a site-based for developing for approach 2001). A simple to is height) >6 ft./2 m stems (immature recruitment sustainable aspen. mature live a portion of as these stems of the percentage derive A goal. a minimum as 100% recruitment target should Managers for cause indicates recruitment-to-mature-trees of smallerpercentage So what are key trigger points and and trigger key points are So what should monitoring that actions management Specific prompt? set in theobjectives document section the adaptive of (plan) actions. drive cycle should that there are a number of barriers to establishing these practices, such these such practices, establishing barriers to of number a are there that outcomes), positive (assuming altogether neglectingas monitoring or data of collection,data loss shortfalls, insufficient budget lack and position, a leave when employees key knowledge institutional these reasons, For priorities. agency other to due resources employee of full of project the cost even at monitoring prioritizing recommends make and success/failure gauge we cannot if all, After implementation. ourselves find may we implementation, to adjustments appropriate we before deemed is a failure project entire an where in a situation make to data appropriate have loss total This corrections. course than common more scenario is be expected.might 76 Chapter 6 – Aspen ‘Monitor and Manage’ Toolbox determine points threshold as trigger metrics values, those use then Managers pilot should local studies use and similar studies review to for use. local modify easily a sample stand aspen monitoring form that resource managers can comparison to other areas (past and present). Appendix 4presents and anticipated plus needs, of aselection standard forest for metrics indicatorsselect on acombination based of immediate monitoring ormetrics indicators from to which Resource choose. managers should In summary, there are numerous Rogers etal. 2007b). (Hedenås and 2000; Ericson epiphytic lichen communities documentationhas been of assess community aspen health Europe and North to America A novel approach in both used arthropods, birds, mammals). on groups functional based (e.g., range of faunal monitoring targets erosion level, litter depth), and a conditions (bare exposure, soil diversityspecies or cover, soil objectives, may include understory dependent on documented of base indicators,wider again area,basal or stems area. per A recruitment, and conifer cover, suckers (nonbrowsed), aspen a combination of thrivingaspen area of “leave trees,” conifers acre per (hectare), light penetration, or in succession, objectives for conifer encroachment may include basal levels (Rogers and Mittanck 2014). Similarly, along though further adjustment to, for example, allowable browse concern. than Less 50%may “nonsustainable” deemed be and trigger Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management aspen in Arizona. Figure 6.6 Arboreal lichens growing on Chapter 6 – Aspen ‘Monitor and Manage’ Toolbox 77 — Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide (members login, register login, register (members http://western-aspen-alliance.org/ Science-based Organizations Aspen At several points within this field guide, we have urged managers to managers urged have we guide, this field within several points At taking to prior resources existing other or experts, literature, consult sources check to prudent is a rule, it As a plan. developing or action them incorporating before authors perspectives and multiple from expected base or personal knowledge implementation your either into it though time consuming, is sources background Checking practices. Following decisions. resource informed making part essential of an is aspen ecology this make to contemporary for sources key some are easier. a little task Where to Find More Aspen Information Aspen More Find to Where when evaluating monitoring results. Adjusting management practices practices management Adjusting results. monitoring when evaluating sign a of not management, smart collection is data based targeted on awry. gone a project or poor planning (Aspen) Expertise Database, Utah State University/Western Aspen Aspen University/Western State Expertise (Aspen) Utah Database, Alliance: Aspen Spatial Bibliography, Brigham Young University/Utah State State University/Utah Young Brigham Bibliography, Spatial Aspen http://byu.maps.arcgis.com/apps/ Alliance: Aspen University/Western webappviewer/index.html?id=924b25d70cc34cf685e79b57fc2bd8cd in dozens expertise information for their expertise, contact search and categories). topic/disciplinary of Aspen Bibliography, Utah State University/Western Aspen Alliance: Alliance: Aspen University/Western State Utah Bibliography, Aspen http://western-aspen-alliance.org/images/searchAspenLit_r2_c1.png Online Databases— Poplar and Willow Council of Canada: http://www.poplar.ca/ Council of Willow and Poplar Aspen Ecology, Brigham Young University: http://aspenecology.org/ University: Young Brigham Ecology, Aspen University: State Utah Alliance, Aspen Western http://western-aspen-alliance.org/ 78 Chapter 6 – Aspen ‘Monitor and Manage’ Toolbox http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/aspen_bib/6964/ and Range Experiment Station, Fort CO. Collins, 283pp. Department of Agriculture, Forest Mountain Rocky Service, Forest management western inthe United States. RM-GTR-119. U.S. DeByle, N.V. and R.P. Winokur and 1985. Aspen: (eds.). Ecology http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/aspen_bib/2512/ Centre, Edmonton, AB. 252pp. 1,ForestryReport Canada,Northwest Region, Northern Forestry of and aspen poplar balsam Prairie inthe Provinces, Canada.Special Peterson, E.B. and N.M.Peterson. 1992.Ecology, management, and use http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/4696 Research Station, Fort CO. Collins, 460pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Mountain Rocky Service, proceedings, June 13–15,2000,Grand Junction, Colorado. RMRS-P-18. (compilers). 2001.Sustaining inwestern aspen landscapes: Symposium Shepperd, W.D., D. Binkley, D.L. T.J. Bartos, Stohlgren, L.G.Eskew http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/24485 Mountain Research Station, Fort CO. Collins, 122pp. GTR-178. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Rocky Service, management, and restoration of SierraNevada. inthe aspen RMRS- Shepperd, W., P.C. Rogers, D. Burton, and D. 2006.Ecology, Bartos. http://western-aspen-alliance.org/pdf/AspenRestoration.pdf Utah State University, Logan, Utah. 47pp. restoration on National the Forests inUtah. Western Aspen Alliance, Hopkins, B. Christensen, and P. Dremann. 2010.Guidelines for aspen O’Brien, M., P.C. Rogers, K. Mueller, MacWhorter, R. A. Rowley, B. Reports: Proceedings, Reviews, Agency Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management Chapter 6 – Aspen ‘Monitor and Manage’ Toolbox 79

— Society Ecological Restoration for Society Foresters American of Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide Research Press Research Online) (Wiley (Wiley Online) (Wiley Special Issue: Resilience in Quaking Aspen: restoring ecosystem ecosystem Resilience restoring in Quaking Aspen: Special Issue: (review299. Vol. 2013. science. applied through processes areas: aspen subject ten in the state-of-the-science articles on chemical tools/genetics, molecular management, resilience cover historic declines/climate, recent regimes, fire defense, cascades, beetle, wildlife/trophic pine aspen/mountain change, facilitation/competition). and herbivory, ungulate http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03781127/299 Journals and Special and Issues Journals International Assoc. Vegetation Science Vegetation Assoc. International Science, Vegetation of -Journal Elsevier Management, Ecology and -Rangeland -Restoration Ecology, Natural Resources Canada Canada Resources Natural Research, Forest of Journal -Canadian Elsevier Conservation, -Biological -Western Journal of Applied Forestry, Society Foresters American of Forestry, Applied of Journal -Western -Journal of Forestry, Society Foresters Science, American of -Forest -Forest Ecology and Management, Elsevier Management, and Ecology -Forest 80 References Campbell, R.B., and D.L. Bartos, 2001.Aspen Buck, J.R., and St. Clair, S.B. 2014.Stand Binkley, D. 2008.Age distribution of aspen and Ripple, R.L., Beschta, W.J. 2013.Are D.L.,Bartos, and Campbell, R.B.J., 1998. Baker, W.L. inRocky 2009.Fire Ecology Archibold, O.W. and Wilson, 1980.The M.R. Anderegg, W.R., Plavcová, L., Anderegg, References Station: 299–307. Mountain Rocky Service, Research U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest RMRS-P-18.L.G. (eds.) Fort CO: Collins, D., D.L., Bartos, Stohlgren, T.J., and Eskew, biodiversity. In: Sheppard, W.D., Binkley, ecosystems: objectives for sustaining 381: 61-70. emergence Plant and survival. and Soil patterns of subalpine seedling fir and gradients of moisture soil influence composition, proximity to overstory trees 802. Forest and Management Ecology 255:797- in MountainRocky National Park, USA. Ecology, 94(6):1420-1425. mediated trophic comment. cascade: landscape-level test of abehaviorally wolves saving Yellowstone’s A aspen? 20: 17–24. West–examples from Utah. Rangelands ofDecline Aspen Quaking Interior inthe Washington, D.C. 605pp. Mountain Landscapes. Island Press, Journal of Botany 58(19):2031-2042. to settlement. agricultural Canadian natural vegetation of Saskatchewan prior change 19(4):1188-1196. biology portends increased future risk. Global widespread forest aspen die‐off and hydraulic deterioration underlies C.B. 2013.Drought’s multiyear legacy: L.D., Hacke, U.G., Berry, J.A., and Field, Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management Elliot, G.P., and W.L. Baker. 2004.Quaking Eisenberg, C.,Seager, S.T., and Hibbs, D.E. Di Orio, A.P., and Schaefer, R., Callas, Dobarco, and Van M.R., Miegroet, H. R.J.,DeRose, and Long, J.N. 2010. DeByle, N.V. P. and R. Winokur. 1985. Chong, G.W., Simonson, S.E.,Stohlgren, T.J., of Biogeography 31:733–745. Juan Mountains, Colorado, USA. Journal treeline: Acentury of change San in the (Populusaspen tremuloides Michx.) at 70-80. Forest and Management Ecology 299: relationships: Context and complexity. 2013. Wolf, and elk, web food aspen and Management 206,307–313. Mountains of Forest California. Ecology tremuloides and fragmentation of (Populus aspen R.J., 2005.Forty-eight year decline 5(4): 666-688. in Montane Forests in Utah, USA. Forests Stability Aspen-Conifer inthe Ecotone Organic2014. Soil Carbon Storage and Journal of Vegetation 21:377-387. Science Picea engelmanniikilled landscape. dynamics on aDendroctonus rufipennis- Regeneration response bank and seedling CO. Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Mountain Rocky Service, Forest and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest western United States. RM-GTR-119, andAspen: management ecology inthe Mountain Research Station: 261-271. of Agriculture, Forest Rocky Service, Fort U.S. CO: Collins, Department T.J., and Eskew, RMRS-P-18. L.G.,(eds.) W.D., Binkley, D., D.L., Bartos, Stohlgren, nonnative over? take species In: Shepperd, standsaspen have lead,but the will and Kalkhan, M.A.2001.Biodiversity: ) in the South) inthe Warner References 81 ) ) in the ). Journal of of ). Journal 2013. Are wolves saving Yellowstone’s Yellowstone’s saving wolves Are 2013. a of test aspen? A landscape-level cascade: trophic mediated behaviorally Ecology 94(6): 1425-1431. reply. G.R., Weinstein, M.E., Hendrey, Kubiske, K.E. 2005. Percy, M. and Nosal, D., to trees forest of responses Scaling ozone climate. in a changing level the ecosystem 28: 965-981. Cell Environment and Plant, ozone and dioxide carbon elevated of aspen and of the phytochemistry on Oecologia herbivore. an of performance 134(1): 95-103. aspen suckers protect to techniques of in the Black browsing ungulate from Forestry Applied of Journal Western Hills. 25:161-168. tremuloides (Populus 2011. Aspen K.W. plant to their contribution and stands a semiarid in coniferous diversity Ecology 212: 1451–1463. Plant landscape. of Quaking S., 2004. The persistence tremuloides (Populus Aspen Grand Mesa area, Colorado. Ecological Colorado. area, Mesa Grand 14: 1603–1614. Applications disturbances 2013. Compounded Veblen. Colorado in western forests in sub-alpine quaking by dominance future favour tremuloides aspen (Populus Science 24:168-176. Vegetation and accumulation snowpack Differential conifer in aspen and dynamics water water for Implications communities: function. Ecosystems ecosystem and yield 11(4): 569-581. Kauffman, M.J., Brodie, J.F., and Jules, E.S. and J.F., Brodie, M.J., Kauffman, D.R., Zar, K.S., Pregitzer, D.F., Karnosky, R.L. 2003. Effects Lindroth, and B.J. Kopper, 2010. Evaluation Bartos, D.L. A.M., and Kota, Tate, B.E. & Jones, H.D., Safford, T.J., Kuhn, Drinkwater, and T.T., Veblen, D., Kulakowski, Kulakowski, D., C. Matthews, D. Jarvis, and T.T. T.T. and Jarvis, D. C. Matthews, D., Kulakowski, sic], R. 2008. [Ryle Ryel LaMalfa, E.M., and ) biomass following following ) biomass Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide affecting fall down rates of deadaspen rates fallaffecting down tremuloides (Populus divergent 2007. Reconciling Regan. aspen the quaking of interpretations Front the northern Colorado on decline 17:1296- Ecological Applications Range. 1311. 2005. Factors affecting interannual interannual affecting 2005. Factors Canadian western of in growth variation 1951-2000. Canadian during aspen forests 35:610-622. Research Forest of Journal Canada. in west‐central drought severe biology 21:1968-1979. Global change macrolichens as conservation indicators: indicators: conservation as macrolichens tremula in Populus sequence successional Conservation Biological 93:43-53. stands. dynamics in seral and stable aspen stands aspen stands in seral stable and dynamics USDA INT-RP-297, Utah. central of and Forest Service, Intermountain Forest Utah. Ogden, Station, Experiment Range 7 p. Carcaillet, P. Richard, and Y. Bergeron. Bergeron. Y. and Richard, P. Carcaillet, boreal in Canada’s fire 2001. Future paleoecology general and forest: results model climate model-regional circulation Forest of Journal Canadian simulations. 31:854-864. Research Aspen Stands as Wildfire Fuel Breaks. Breaks. Fuel Wildfire as Stands Aspen Forest Agriculture, of Department U.S. and Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 29pp. Station. Experiment Range K.E. 2014. Aspen Seedling Establishment Seedling Aspen K.E. 2014. Establishment in Wildfire Central after Growth and Case History. Instructive An Arizona: Science 60(4):703-712. Forest Hogg, E. H. and M. Michaelian. 2015. Factors 2015. Factors M. Michaelian. E. H. and Hogg, C.M. and Romme, W.H. D.M., Kashian, Hogg, E. H., J. P. Brandt, and B. Kochtubajda. Kochtubajda. B. and Brandt, P. E. H., J. Hogg, Hedenås, H. and L. Ericson. 2000. Epiphytic L. Ericson. 2000. Epiphytic H. and Hedenås, Harniss, R.O. and Harper, K.T. 1982. Tree 1982. Tree K.T. Harper, and R.O. Harniss, Flannigan, M., I. Campbell, M. Wotton, C. M. Wotton, Campbell, I. M., Flannigan, Fechner, G.H., and Barrows, J.S., 1976. 1976. J.S., Barrows, G.H., and Fechner, Fairweather, M.L., Rokala, E.A., and Mock, Mock, Rokala,M.L., and E.A., Fairweather, 82 References Mueggler, W.F. 1989. Age distribution and Mori, A.S.and K. P. 2011.Historic Lertzman. Martin, T.E., and Maron, J.L. 2012. Climate Marshall, K.N.,N.T. Hobbs, and D. J. Long, J.N., and Mock, K. 2012. Changing Lindroth, and St. R.L., Clair, S.B. 2013. Landres, P.B., P. Morgan, and F.J. Swanson. Landhäusser, S.L.,D. Deshaies, and V. J. Forestry 4:41-45. stands. Western Journal of Applied reproduction of Intermountain aspen 22:45-58. Science JournalCanadian Rockies. of Vegetation heterogeneity of subalpine forests inthe variability infire-generatedlandscape Nature Climate Change 2(3):195-200. from altered animal-plant interactions. impacts on bird and plant communities 280:20122977. of London Society B: Biological Sciences reintroduction. Proceedings of Royal the recovery of riparian ecosystems after wolf Cooper. 2013.Stream hydrology limits 42(12): 2011-2021. Canadian Journal of Forest Research implicationsaspen: for silviculture. and genetic diversity inwestern quaking onperspectives regeneration ecology Management 299:14-21. against herbivores. Forest and Ecology tremuloides Michx. Adaptations of quaking (Populus aspen Applications 9(4):1179–1188. systems. ecological Ecological variability concepts inmanaging of of use the natural 1999. Overview Biogeography 37:68-76. under awarming climate. Journal of elevationshigher of Mountains Rocky the rapid range expansion of into aspen Lieffers. 2010.Disturbance facilitates Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management ) for defense Rogers, P. C.,A.J. Leffler, R. and J. Ryel. Rogers, P.C., and Ryel, R.J. 2008.Lichen Rogers, P. Rosentreter, C., R. andRyel. R. Rogers, P.C., Shepperd, W.D., and Bartos, Rogers, P.C. 2002.Using Forest Health Rogers, P.C. 1996.Disturbance ecology Rehfeldt, G.E.,Ferguson, D.E. &Crookston, Pelz, K.A.,and Smith, F.W. 2013.How will Naiman, J., R. C.A.Johnston, and J. C.Kelley. Murie, O. J. 1951.The elk of America. North 259:487-495. USA. Forest and Management Ecology communityaspen in southern Utah, 2010. Landscape assessment of astable Management 256(10): 1760-1770. Mountains.Rocky Forest and Ecology succession forests inaspen of southern the community change inresponse to Idaho and Utah. Evansia 24:34-41. communities River Range Bear of inthe 2007b. Aspen indicator inlichen species Naturalspecies. Areas J. 27(2):183–193. Regional conservation of acontinental DL. 2007a.Aspen SierraNevada: inthe 236. Forest and Management Ecology 155:223- change ecoregion. southern inthe Rockies Monitoring to assess forest aspen cover Ogden, UT. 16p. IntermountainService, Research Station, Department of Agriculture, Forest literature.the INT-GTR-336, U.S. and forest management: of areview and Management 258:2353–2364. decline in western USA.Forest Ecology N.L. 2009.Aspen, climate, and sudden Management 299:60-69. of knowledge gaps. Forest and Ecology ofA review literature and discussion respondaspen to mountain pine beetle? streams by beaver. Bioscience 38:753-762. 1988. Alteration of North American Teton Pub Bookshop Co., Jackson, WY. References 83 1985. Vegetative regeneration. Pages 29- Pages regeneration. Vegetative 1985. Winokur, R. DeByleand P. N. V. 33 in ecology management Aspen: and editors. U.S. States. United in the western Forest Agriculture, of Department and Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Collins, Fort Station, Experiment Range CO. U.S. in the western aspenforests Section of the Western of Transactions Society 40:52-60. the Wildlife and management, Bartos. 2006. Ecology, aspenthe in Nevada. Sierra of restoration Department U.S. RMRS-GTR-178, Service, Rocky Forest Agriculture, of Collins, Fort Station, Research Mountain CO. of regimes 2013. Fire D. & Kulakowski, West. aspenthe in Mountain quaking 299: Ecology Management and Forest 22–34. in pure in aspen dominance change year stands aspen/conifer mixed aspenand Colorado, Plateau, the Uncompahgre on Ecology Management: and USA. Forest 338-348. and of facilitation role 2013. The Y. and thein development competition Ecology Forest aspen forests. of resilience 299: 91-99. Management and to due systems Destruction riparian of Lake in the Mono development water R.in 528-533 Warver E. Pages watershed. California editors. K. M. Hendrix, and conservation, ecology, systems: riparian University management. productive and CA. Berkeley, California Press, of Schier, G. A., J. R. Jones, and R. P. Winokur. Winokur. R. and P. R. Jones, J. G. A., Schier, restore to Techniques 2004. W.D. Shepperd, D. and Burton, D. Rogers, C. P. W., Shepperd, P.C. Rogers, W.L., Baker, D.J., Shinneman, 2005. Twenty- W. Smith, F. A. E. and Smith, Bergeron, X., and Cavard, S.B., Clair, St. 1984. Vorster. P. and Gaines, D. S., Stine, ). Forest Science ). Forest Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide Henderson, M. Johnston, J. Pomeroy, J. J. Pomeroy, J. M. Johnston, Henderson, Williams. B. and Wheaton, E. Thorpe, in captial natural 2009. Saskatchewan’s of assessment An climate: a changing Regina, PARC, adaptation. and impacts 162 p. Saskatchewan. aspen change and spatial variability on on variability spatial and aspen change decadal 1(4): Sensing time scales. Remote 896-914. Morris, A., and Kuhns, M. 2015. Quaking Kuhns, A., and Morris, the Residential-Wildland at Aspen Forest Hinders Elk Herbivory Interface: Journal Areas Conservation. Natural 35:416-427. and R.J. Ryel. 2014. A Functional 2014. A Functional Ryel. R.J. and of Management Improved for Framework (Populus Aspen American North Western Michx. tremuloides in drought‐ resilience strains Herbivory the western of aspenlandscapes prone Vegetation of Journal States. United Science 25(2): 457-469. Ryel. 2013. Aspen status report and and report status Aspen 2013. Ryel. the Book for Cliffs. recommendations Wildland Alliance, Aspen Western State Utah Department, Resources 23 pp. Logan, UT. University. 60(2):345–359. 2011. Historical patterns in lichen in lichen patterns Historical 2011. aspen quaking montane of communities in advances (ed.) J.A. Daniels, In: forests. 33– 15, pp. Vol research, environmental US. NY, Science, Hauppauge, 64. Nova Sauchyn, D., E. Barrow, X. Fang, N. X. Fang, E. Barrow, D., Sauchyn, Sankey, T.T. 2009. Regional assessment of of assessment 2009. Regional T.T. Sankey, Rogers, P. C., Catlin, J., Jones, A., Shuler, J., J., A., Shuler, Jones, J., C., Catlin, P. Rogers, Rogers, P.C., S.M. Landhãusser, B.D. Pinno, Pinno, B.D. S.M. Landhãusser, P.C., Rogers, C.M. 2014. Mittanck, and P.C., Rogers, Rogers, P.C., C.M. Mittanck, , and R.J. R.J. , and C.M. Mittanck, P.C., Rogers, Rogers, P.C., Bartos, D.L. and Ryel, R.J. R.J. Ryel, and Bartos, D.L. P.C., Rogers, 84 References Zier, J.L., and Baker, W.L. 2006.Acentury Worrall, J.J., Rehfeldt, G.E.,Hamann, A., Worrall, J.J., Egeland, L.,Eager, T., Mask, R.A., VerCauteren, K.C.,N.W. Seward, M.J. Turner, M.G., Romme, W.H., and Tinker, D.B. Stocks, B., J. Mason, J. Todd, B. E.Bosch, Management 228:251-262. repeat photography. Forest and Ecology Mountains, Colorado: An analysis using of vegetation change San inthe Juan and Management 299:35-51. to linked America climate. Forest Ecology ( of M., and Gray, L.K.2013.Recent declines Hogg, E.H.,Marchetti, S.B., Michaelian, 255: 686–696. USA. Forest and Management Ecology tremuloides insouthwestern Colorado, W.D. 2008.Rapid mortality of Populus Johnson, E.W., Kemp, P.A. and Shepperd, andRangeland Management Ecology 60. withoutelk impeding other wildlife. 2007. Afence for design excluding Lavelle, J. W. Fischer, and G.E.Phillips. and Environment the 1(7):351-358. Yellowstone fires. Frontiers Ecology in 2003. Surprises and lessons from 1988 the 1-FFR5. 12. Journal of geophysical research 108:FFR5. Large forest firesCanada, in 1959-1997. Hirsch, K.Logan,and D. Martell. 2003. Wotton, B. Amiro, M. Flannigan, K. Populus tremuloides Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management ) inNorth Appendices 85 Boreal: the of south just region Forested (also called zone Arctic These taiga). of areas verylarge comprise forests where Alaska northern Canada and aspen with mix American North of lesser as amounts well as conifers, poplar. and birch Catkins: aspentrees. of portion flowering The female male be or either may Catkins in distinction aspen,in allowing sex (see by Dioecious). genotypes Clearfell–Coppice Harvest: aspen overstory harvest of Complete encouraging of the intent with suckering via root regeneration rather reproduction) (vegetative This planting. seedingthan or aspen harvest approach traditional seral than for appropriate more is additional are there aspen, but stable associated to impacts about concerns this with communities plant/animal approach. Community: “ecosystem.” with Synonymous species (often individual to not Refers communities whole to aspen),but or ecologically linkedto, are that species. that upon, even dependent Cytokinins: responsible hormones plant of A class plant and cell division increased for tips aspenroot in Cytokinins growth. Key Terms Key Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide Auxins: plant regulate that Hormones via usually cell elongation. growth, in the apical located aspen, auxins In ramet suppress may meristems healthy. are when trees sprouting the to transfer auxin of Interruption when the as aboveground such roots, of flush a facilitates dies, ramet regeneration. Adaptive Cycle (of management): management): (of Cycle Adaptive that stewardship to approach An ongoing on highlyis dependent adjustments inform to monitoring time. over actions management to with some contrasts approach This design involving practices traditional prescriptions of implementation and and/ monitoring followup without if undesirable correction course or persist. outcomes Active Management: Active to intend that actions Human manipulate directly, physically, a goal wildlife towards or vegetation composition ecosystem restoring of tree include function. Examples or ripping, root burning, cutting, or plant of seeding, introduction soil disturbance. species,animal or Appendix 1: Appendix 86 Appendices stable burn less severely— will aspen aftergiven a fire event. In general, (amount or biomass) from before to The measurable change in vegetation Fire Severity: types. discussiondetailed of fire aspen ShinnemanSee etal. (2013)for a density, and of species forest cohorts. and type age,functional presence, considerably vary in aspen on based seasonality, and severity. Fire regimes fire regimes arefrequency, size, Common measures expressed in specific forest types or communities. characterizewhich wildfire in expressed interms of an average, Measurable parameters, often Fire Regime: of both. elevations,aspects, or combinations bytypes preference their for specific apartset from conifer or mixed Relatively stable small, forests aspen Limited: Elevation/Aspect either female or male. clones. Thus, entire aspen clones are individuals or, of case inthe aspen, reproductive organisms on different Plants having or distinctmale female Dioecious: disturbance. followingparticularly aboveground for active ramet sprouting, may key chemical the responsible be Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management which harvests both young both harvests which and A notable exception is beaver, the ungulates, consume juvenile aspen. trees. Mammalian herbivores, often impacts inmass attacks on mature (soft) material andcan havegreat prey insects onspeaking, herbaceous mammals and Generally insects. generally come in two types: Relating to herbivores aspen, eatingThe of plants by animals. Herbivory: stems Ramet). (see genotypes, as opposed to as single groupings comprise as aspen a genetically identical stems. These The entiregroup, or clone, of Genet: (2013): Categories Shinneman per etal. Fire Type: types. for discussion adetailed of fire aspen Shinneman See etal. (2013) types. often not all—comparedat seral to • • • • • seral, subalpineseral, aspen–conifer Fire Type 5—Fire-dependent, montaneseral, aspen–conifer Fire Type 4—Fire-dependent, conifer–aspenseral, mix Fire Type 3—Fire-dependent, stable aspen Fire Type 2—Fire-influenced, stable aspen Fire Type 1—Fire-independent, Appendices 87 to restore ecosystem composition or or composition ecosystem restore to fencing include function. Examples scents or noises using out, herbivores reducing herbivory, dissuade to wildlife, encourage use to human and burn, to wildfires allowing use patterns. livestock changing Ramet: group a larger of branch or A stem organisms. identical genetically of a clone, within aspen, stem each In via attached whether remaining a ramet. as known is not, or roots Regeneration: new or suckers sprouted Recently regenerating seedlings. of Density provides basis a per area on stems disturbance, to response of estimates root general or growth, ongoing stems health. Regeneration system recruitment, from distinguished are (<2 beingft. <6 rule, a general by as m) in height. Recruitment: likely most are that suckers Aspen in stems canopy mature replace to are stems Recruitment the future. Stems thoseheight. ft. (<2 m) in >6 have to assumed tallerare 6 ft. than elk, deer, from browsing “escaped” instances). (in most sheep and cattle, Riparian Aspen: ready within growing forests Aspen and zone) (riparian water to access nonforested by surrounded often Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide Passive Management: Passive directly do not that Activities species animal or plant manipulate Parklands: aspen stable of A wide arc in south-central found communities small and Canada (AB/SK/MB) (MT/ States theUnited of portions has development MN). Agricultural the over thisarea of much impacted century. previous Natural Range of Variation (NRV): Variation Range of Natural ecosystem a given that concept The a time within over dynamic is of conditions defined range broadly and disturbance determined by compositions Species climate. outside Status time. over fluctuate restorative require may the NRV management. Indicators: in that, indices monitoring Key conditions broader represent theory, region or landscape, a community, of measures. mensuration simple than rate recruitment include Examples structural and herbivory (long-term soil bare health), percent stand plant and erosion, (trampling, diversity lichen and diversity), human biodiversity, (greater quality). air and alteration, relatively mature aspen stems for for aspenstems mature relatively lodge and modification, food, habitat building. 88 Appendices to succession, usually from shade Functional subject types aspen Aspen: Seral thought. other disturbances) than previously following fire (andpotentially as rare, being is much more common occurrence, traditionally described research has shown that seedling genotypenew (i.e., genet). Recent not root suckers) and comprising a reproductionsexual and (i.e., seeds Aspen regeneration originating from Seedling: variety of scales. management prescriptions at a provides for goal apractical many caused climate change, “resilience” outcomes under human- expected forces. With number the of unknown of stochastic, intrinsic, and extrinsic processes over and time face inthe but that it retains key ecological plant/animalexact composition, mean that an ecosystem retains Commonly, not does this necessarily disturbance over long periods. positively to human or natural Ability of an ecosystem to respond Resilience: regimes than upland types. characteristics and disturbance communities, display different and seral stable both types, aspen conditions.functional These Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management vegetative root regeneration and, less overstory die-offs are followed by Commonly, or regional local rapid vegetation and disturbance types. fire suppression, drought, alteredor invocation of longer term browsing, widely documentedbeen without term is frequently it used, has not (3–5years). While period the systems within arelatively short Death of overstory AND root AspenSudden Decline: sprouting ramets from lateral roots. from root meristems. The process of Aspen ramets originating asexually Sucker(ing): subsequent gap infilling. and group small mortality and over through occurs time individual events. Replacement of overstory the and rarely subject to stand-replacing forests are commonly multilayered These pure or nearly pure aspen competition from other tree species. Aspen communities with little or no Stable Aspen: resources. eventually compete with conifers for sites initially, though will aspen regenerationaspen dominate will Following such events, fast-growing disturbance events than stable types. governedbe by stand-replacing in general, are more likely to tolerant conifers. aspen, Seral Appendices 89 With respect to aspen, the WUI may aspen,the may WUI respect to With promote to managed be actively firebreaks. as aspen communities the higher the aspen Generally, (versus forest a of composition the likelihood the greater conifers), overall and spread fire reducing of impacts. Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide Wildland Urban Interface (WUI): Interface Urban Wildland human exurban or suburban Where forest with intermixes development communities Interface communities. by the defined technically more are Service with those as Forest lands 1.5 miles within (2.4 development wildland >50% vegetation. km)of Trophic Cascades: Trophic predator– often Ecological processes, interactions, prey–vegetation levels. trophic more or three affecting affecting research of abundance An investigated has aspen communities that not) (or influences negative predators apex of the absence herbivores key on has (e.g.,wolves) aspen reproduction. subsequent and Terrain Isolated: Terrain aspen small, stable Relatively nonforest by surrounded forests to related reasons for communities of Examples position. physiographic those aspen include isolated terrain on or depressions in landscape found volcanic chutes, avalanche moraines, Vegetation slopes. talus or outcrops, these surrounding communities the types, unique as well as isolated in which they occur, substrates their functional influence clearly ecology. often, seedling establishment; this seedling establishment; often, qualify does sudden as not pattern aspen decline. 90 Appendices 3. 2. “poor” more difficult to achieve. *The system is designed to favor ratings of moderate by rankingsmaking of “good” or 1. canopy. Record one of categories these on field the form: short of overstory the or canopy (recruitment), and overstory/ the of stems (regeneration)tall under 6ft./2m and tallover 6ft./2m but ranking tool. The indicatorskey include aspen mortality,the condition Estimate overall the stand visual condition using subjective this recruitment, browse level, and mature tree status and damage. supplementedwhen by (see 1–5field metrics Tableparticular 5.1),in and Mittanck 2014;Rogers etal. 2015).This measure worksbest significant measure of key, objective, field-measured variables(Rogers aretime limited. This system been tested has (and peer-reviewed) as a assessment of conditionsaspen at stand the level resources when and thevisual ratingThe of purpose system is to provide a quick subjective Appendix 2: • • • Poor two (meets criteria): Moderate* (stands not fitting intocategories 1 or 3). • • • • three criteria): all (meets Good Browsing impacts clearly evident (>50%)on regeneration. Visual layering aspen absent or (1-2 layers minimal only); OR mortality and/orOverstory stem cankers common (>25%); To ranked ‘good,’ be three criteria met. all Browsing impacts on regeneration uncommon (<25%). layers aspen Several identifiable; (>3)visually AND Minimal overstory mortality and present stem disease (<5%); Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management Aspen Stand Condition Rating System Appendices 91

Annotated Management Plan Outline Plan Management Annotated Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide Purpose Need and objectives. Define local key (cite aspen and overview issues quaking an of Provide literature). relevant Collection Data 1–4. cycle steps a detailed the summary aspen adaptive of Provide with supplement aspen system, for Select indicators key data remote Use (optional). measures locational and traditional and data, sensing remote databases, mapping available sources: photos. store and errors/correct, for check data, Collectmonitoring field in secure location. Results and Analysis basic Perform and tables. figures in descriptive data Summarize analysis. change or analysis—baseline data do they what they reliable, (are results document and Interpret mean). Implement Plan approvals. administrative and input necessary public Acquire 5). cycle step (aspen adaptive actions management Implement 2. 3. 4. 1. Introduction Summary language laymen’s using overview the project a brief of Provide project. scope of geographic Include This annotated management plan outline provides a “starter kit” for for kit” “starter a provides outline plan management annotated This aspen project. complex potentially and begin to those a large wishing plan management a completed Utah Vernal Office in Field BLM’s The 2013). et al. (Rogers approach a similar using Appendix 3: Appendix 92 Appendices 7. 6. 5. (If appropriate.) References actions, ifany, are required on monitoring based results? Is target stand aspen or landscape more/less resilient? What Formalize adaptive (step cycle 6). (Repeat 3above.) Management Recommendations and Adjusted Plan resultsDo confirm/reject expectations? remeasureCollect data, photos. monitoring? What is appropriate the gap time action and between Posttreatment Monitoring

Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management Appendices 93 Page left intentionally blank. intentionally left Page Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide 94 Appendices Page 1 Page Appendix 4: comments: Plot-level S___ C___ A___ S___ C___ A___ S___ A___ C___ S___ C___ S___ A___ A___ C___ S___ C___ A___ S___ Tr C___ #2 A___ Cover: S___ C___ A___ S___ C___ A___ S___ A___ C___ S___ C___ S___ A___ A___ C___ S___ C___ A___ S___ Tr C___ #1 A___ Cover: _____ plot#: Tree Tally (classes = 1 Regeneration; 2 Recruitment; 3 Mature): 2 Recruitment; 1 Regeneration; = (classes Tally Tree # Stand (aspen) layers ______layers (aspen) # Stand Line 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 transect # class date ______date species GPS X ______Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management count Sample Monitoring Form 1st Disturbance ______Disturbance 1st Data Sheet: Book Cliffs Aspen Monitoring 2012Data Book Sheet: Aspen Cliffs Monitoring browse GPS Y ______dead 2nd Disturbance ______Disturbance 2nd dbh class dbh Elev. ______Elev. Stand condition______Stand Stable (1) or Seral (2)_____ Seral or (1) Stable comments Fecal Count (transect): Count Fecal Deer Elk Sheep Cattle Percent polygon aspen ______aspen polygon Percent W S N E Photo Point ID Understory cover_____ Understory Aspen stand age _____ age stand Aspen 1 2

Appendices 95 2 m 2 comments 30 m dbhclass dead browse count Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management and Ecology Aspen Quaking to Guide species Plot layout: Book Cliffs Aspen Monitoring 2012 Monitoring Aspen Cliffs Book layout: Plot class Plot center Photo point & direction transects Sampling transect # transect 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Line Page 2 Page left intentionally blank.

This document was produced through a partnership between the USDA Bureau of Land Management and Utah State University’s Western Aspen Alliance (Agreement # L10AC20552). Contents of this field guide, whether purposefully or accidently, are the responsibility of the author. Further information about the Western Aspen Alliance may be found at: http://western-aspen-alliance.org/

Recommended Citation: Rogers, P.C. 2017. Guide to quaking aspen ecology and management. USDI, Bureau of Land Management, BLM-UT-G1017-001-8000. 98 p.