Natural Disturbance and Post-Disturbance Management

VOLUME 13 NUMBER 3

A Publication of FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources Journal of Ecosystems and Management Table of Contents

VOLUME 13, NUMBER 3, 2012

Editor-in-Chief’s Report Don Gayton ...... 4

Managing Editor’s Report Marilyn Bittman ...... 5

News Projecting future distributions of ecosystem climate niches in British Columbia Tongi Wang ...... 7

A Coordinated Approach to Prescribed Fire Treatments in British Columbia’s Ecosystems Glen Orkainetz & Al Neal ...... 10

Okanagan Invitation Drought Tournament, November 2012 Suzan Lapp ...... 13

Research Reports Impact of Biological Control on Two Knapweed Species in British Columbia Don Gayton & Val Miller...... 16

2010 Silviculture Techniques Information Needs Survey Al Wiensczyk ...... 30

Extension Note Forage Production Potential in a Ponderosa Pine Stand: Effects of Tree Spacing on Understorey Plants after 45 Years Percy Folkard, Lauchlan H. Fraser, Cameron N. Carlyle, & Rick Tucker ...... 58

Discussion Papers A Summary of Extraction, Synthesis, Properties, and Potential Uses of Juglone: A Literature Review Maryon Strugstad & Saško Despotovski...... 72

Analysis of Ancient Western Redcedar Stands in the Upper Fraser River Watershed and Scenarios for Protection Darwyn S. Coxson, Trevor Goward, & David J. Connell...... 88 JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management Book Review The 9 Habits of Highly Effective Resource Economies: Lessons for Canada by Canadian International Council Don Gayton ...... 108

Submission Guidelines ...... 110

Subscription Information ...... 112

About the Cover Photograph An aerial view of the snow covered Highland Valley Cooper open-pit mine near Kamloops, BC. Photo credit: Sa ško Despotovski

JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management About the Journal

he Journal of Ecosystems and Management (JEM) is a peer-reviewed electronic and print journal published by FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural TResources. Articles in JEM inform readers about innovative approaches to sustainable ecosystem management. Aimed at decision makers in the policy, management, and operational realms, as well as practitioners, professionals, researchers, and natural resource users, JEM extends research results, management applications, socio-economic analyses, scholarly opinions, and operational and Indigenous knowledge. JEM Perspectives are reviewed by one extension specialist; Extension Notes, Discussion Papers, and Re- search Reports are reviewed by one extension specialist and two external peer reviewers from the natural resource community. Articles first appear in the online “Issue-in- Progress”; when online issues are full, articles are compiled into print issues (available by subscription). Submission Guidelines for authors are included at the back of this issue. To obtain subscription information and to view current and archived issues of JEM, see our website at http://jem.forrex.org .

About the Publisher Forrex is a charitable organization focussed on promoting, supporting, and facilitating co-operative extension, technology development, and research ventures to support innovative and adaptive approaches to sustainable natural resource management. For more information, contact us at: Suite 400, 235–1st Avenue, Kamloops, BC V2C 3J4 Tel: 250.371.3746 / Fax: 250.371.3997 Email: [email protected] / Website: http://www.forrex.org

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Don Gayton MANAGING EDITOR Marilyn Bittman REVIEW COMMITTEE Saško Despotovski, Don Gayton, Rod Negrave PRODUCTION TEAM Marilyn Bittman (co-ordination, cross-checking, editing), Veronica Bonifacio (cross-checking and editing), Susan Bannerman (editing), Hayley Jones (editing), Brian Hydesmith (design and layout).

© 2012, FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources Society, Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada. Copyright in individual contributions in this publication belongs to the respective copyright owners in such contributions. ISSN 1488-4666. Articles or contributions in this publication may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use free of charge to the recipient in educational, training, and not-for-profit activities provided that their source and authorship are fully acknowledged. However, reproduction, adaptation, translation, application to other forms or media, or any other use of these works, in whole or in part, for commercial use, resale, or redistribution, requires the written consent of FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources Society and of all contributing copyright owners. This publication and the articles and contributions herein may not be made accessible to the public over the Internet without the written consent of FORREX. For consents, contact: Managing Editor, FORREX, Suite 400, 235 1st Avenue, Kamloops, BC V2C 3J4, or email 3 [email protected] .

While this is a peer-reviewed publication, the information and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the respective authors and FORREX does not warrant their accuracy or reliability, and expressly disclaims any liability in relation thereto. JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management Editor-in-Chief’s Report Editor-in- Chief’s Report

Don Gayton

ne of the great challenges of writing—and editing—a scientific paper is finding the right balance between methods and results. These two elements are the inter- Otwined Yin and Yang of communicating science. Each depends on the other. An overly brief and sketchy methods section throws doubt on the validity of the results. At the other extreme, too much technical detail and discipline-specific jargon in the methods section will drive readers away before they get to the results. Certainly other parts of an article are important, but methods and results stand at the very core of the document. They must each be carefully weighted with reference to each other, so the article finds the sweet spot between detail and readability. I wish there was a magic formula for achieving this balance, but the world of science and science writing is far too complex for a cookbook formula to be of any use. The other key element of a scientific paper is its figures—graphs, tables, maps, and photos. With the advent of digital publishing, photos, and maps have suddenly come alive, with full colour photos, slick overlays and high-resolution satellite imagery. But for me, the essence of a scientific paper is the graph. One good graph is worth a thousand words. In fact, the human brain seems to embrace visual information much more firmly than the same information conveyed verbally. I am a great fan of Edward Tufte, who has been described as “the Galileo of scientific graphics.” In his book The Visual Display of Quantitative Information (www.edwardtufte.com) he urges us to look closely at how we present our graphs and to get rid of extraneous and dis- tracting “chartjunk.” Tufte’s books are full of examples of truly excellent (and truly terrible) graphs, reaching back into history and forward to the present day. Tufte is surely the poet of the graph. The writer of the scientific journal article has an enormous challenge. He or she must synthesize months, years, or even decades worth of work into a comprehensive, well-ref- erenced, and highly condensed article and then submit to the often humiliating rigors of peer review. If the paper is co-authored, and most are nowadays, then the complexity increases yet again. Often in the protracted process of getting an article published, the ul- timate target of that paper—the reader—gets ignored. So this is your Editor’s plea for great writing and great graphs, along with great science.

JEM Editor-in-Chief’s Report Vol 13, No 3 Journal of Ecosystems and Management 13(3):4. Published by FORREX Forum for Research and Extention in Natural Resources. JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & http://jem.forrex.org/index.php/jem/article/view/567/482 Management Managing Editor’s Report Managing Editor’s Report

Marilyn Bittman

olume 13.3 of the Journal of Ecosystems and Management offers readers an eclectic collection of articles from invasive weed species to the information needs of silvi- Vculture practitioners and researchers, to the effects of tree spacing over time, to a literature review on the juglone, as well as the protection of ancient western redcedar stands. JEM also offers readers a collection of “News” articles: Tongli Wang looks at the distribution of ecosystem climate niches in British Columbia, Glen Okrainetz and Al Neal bring to our attention prescribed fire treatment, and finally, Suzan Lapp describes how teams were first brought together in Saskatchewan in a tournament to address drought issues. The tournament has become a popular event and has since been held in Alberta and British Columbia, with plans well underway for 2013. The first article is a research report by Don Gayton and Val Miller, “Impact of Biolog- ical Control on Two Knapweed Species in British Columbia.” The authors examine two types of knapweed species – diffuse and spotted – on numerous rangeland sites and how biological control has been used to successfully control this invasive species. They also offer explanations as to why certain biocontrol agents have been successful. Al Wiensczyk’s “2010 Silviculture Techniques Information Needs Survey” provides valuable information to BC natural resource management professionals on silvicultural systems and stand management techniques. The purpose of this FORREX generated electronic survey was to help pinpoint the main knowledge gaps within silviculture. Survey respondents identified numerous knowledge gaps and also identified other areas that will potentially affect silviculture systems and stand management techniques: climate change, forest fire frequency and intensity, as well as the impact of new industry. The information gathered will assist decision makers in extension programming, academic research programs, as well as government policy-makers. Forest health is top of mind for Percy Folkard, Lauchlan H. Fraser, Cameron N. Carlyle, and Rick Tucker. Their extension note, “Forage Production Potential in a Ponderosa Pine Stand: Effects of Tree Spacing on Understorey Plants after 45 Years,” examines understorey forage plant communities in relation to tree density. Using an experimental ponderosa pine stand that is 45-years old, their research revealed that tree spacing positively affects the growth of understorey plants and the productivity of tree stands, and that silvopasture principles could be applied advantageously to other ponderosa pine stands. Maryon Strugstad and Saško Despotovski’s “A Summary of Extraction, Synthesis, Properties, and Potential Uses of Juglone: A Literature Review” provides a summary of current information available on the extraction, synthesis, properties, and potential uses 5 of the walnut tree’s juglone, an organic compound that occurs naturally in the tree’s

Bittman, M. 2013. Managing Editor Report. JEM Vol 13, No 3 Journal of Ecosystems and Management 13(3):5–6. Published by FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources. JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & http://jem.forrex.org/index.php/jem/article/568/481 Management leaves, roots, and bark. Although juglone is toxic to marine organisms and can affect the MANAGING EDITOR’S REPORT growth of other trees, it also has a wide variety of beneficial uses in medicine. This article provides historical uses of juglone, some background on its toxicity, and outlines, with Bittman recommendations, common methodologies for extraction. “Analysis of Ancient Western Redcedar Stands in the Upper Fraser River Watershed and Scenarios for Protection,” by Darwyn S. Coxson, Trevor Goward, and David J. Connell looks at the emerging research around rare forest types within British Columbia’s inland temperate rainforest, specifically the ancient western redcedar. The authors detail how there has been widespread loss of the trees due to the development of road and rail corridors as well as actual logging, which has affected the watershed in this area. To preserve the remaining ancient cedar stands, the authors provide three scenarios that might assist in protecting these trees, as well as supporting the watershed around them. Adding to JEM’s diverse collection of knowledge dissemination is a book review by Don Gayton: “The 9 Habits of Highly Effective Resource Economies: Lessons for Canada” by the Canadian International Council. This book was written in 2012 and makes valuable recommendations around Canada’s natural resource sector and offers up a Canadian success story. Knowledge dissemination is a resource that should not be overlooked. It is the labour of researchers and practitioners who spend hours, days, months, years, even decades, gathering valuable information and then recording it to share with others. Within the FORREX realm, this includes foresters, silivculture specialists, agronomists, geomorphol- ogists, hyrdrologists, etc. These individuals, or teams of individuals, bring to light the past, present, and future of the environment around us. Simply put: Is it doing well? Does it need attention? How can we prevent this? How can we make it work better? Through decades, even centuries, our researchers and academia have gathered this valuable information to share with managers, policy-makers, business partners, and governments. With- out knowledge dissemination we will take a giant step backward. Although JEM has been open access in the past, lack of funding has required us to review our business model. Should we only publish articles that support JEM through author fees? Should we build on a subscription model? Should we combine the use of author fees and subscriptions to continue publishing? For those of you who have enjoyed reading JEM for free, it has come as a shock not to receive the print version, but this is saving us thousands of dollars as well as trees. Currently, we are continuing to publish online under a subscription business model, with a one-year delayed access to those who do not subscribe. We encourage you to subscribe; we are hoping that the subscription model will soon be covered by a JEM supporter or by more authors paying publishing fees, allowing us to provide you with full open access to the valuable articles submitted to the Journal of Ecosystems and Management. Thank you for your support and continuing interest in JEM.

JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management Projecting future distributions of ecosystem climate News niches in British Columbia1

Tongli Wang, University of British Columbia

Introduction ith accumulating evidence showing the ecological impacts of global climate change, scientists, land managers, and policymakers in British Columbia have W become increasingly concerned about its impact on local ecosystems. One of the major concerns is the mismatch between the climate that an ecosystem is adapted to and the climate that the ecosystem will experience in the future. If such a mismatch occurs, the health and productivity of the ecosystem are likely to be compromised. Niche-based bioclimate envelope models have been widely used to project future geographic distributions of ecosystem climate niches. However, challenges arising from model accuracy as well as the uncertainties of future climates make it difficult to apply the model projections with confidence in developing adaptive strategies in natural resource management. The bioclimate envelope models are built based on the relationships between the observed presence of an ecosystem type and the climatic conditions of a given ecosystem. However, such relationships are complicated and difficult to model. For the future climates, there are over 140 climate change scenarios from the Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, and they vary substantially in magnitude as well as in spatial and temporal patterns. Using different climate change scenarios may lead to totally different adaptation strategies. Several individual scenarios can be averaged to create an “ensemble scenario,” but specific details are lost in this process. The Centre for Forest Conservation Genetics, Department of Forest Sciences, Univer- sity of British Columbia (Tongli Wang and Sally Aitken), in collaboration with the Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resources Operations (Elizabeth Campbell and Greg O’Neill), have accurately modelled the Biogeoclimatic (BGC) ecosystem zones with climate variables. The model was built using Random Forest (a machine-learning classifier) with high-resolution climate variables generated by ClimateWNA (http://www.genetics.forestry .ubc.ca/cfcg/climate-models.html) and validated with an independent dataset. Consensus projections based on multiple climate change scenarios were used to cope with the uncertainty in future climate. The major results of this study are summarized below.

Predicted shifts in ecosystem climate niches have already occurred 7 Predictions based on weather instrument records from 2001–2009 indicated that 23% of the climate envelopes for BC ecosystems have already shifted to another ecosystem’s cli- JEM Wang, T. 2012. Projecting Future Distributions of Ecosystem Climate Niches in British Columbia. Vol 13, No 3 Journal of Ecosystems and Management 13(2):7–9. Published by FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources. JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & http://jem.forrex.org/index.php/jem/article/viewFile/551/476 Management mate (i.e., a combination of 44 annual, seasonal, and monthly climate variables) since the PROJECTING FUTURE DISTRIBUTIONS OF 1970s. The magnitude of this change was surprising; it was essentially equal to changes ECOSYSTEM projected for the 2020s, despite average temperature increases for 2001–2009 being smaller CLIMATE NICHES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA (0.71°C) than projected increases for the 2020s (1.17°C, averaged over the 20 climate scenarios). This is probably because increased temperature during 2001–2009 was not accom- Wang panied by increased precipitation (-0.5%) as projected for 2020s (3.3%), resulting in the expansion of grassland (Bunchgrass) and dry forest climates. However, we should be aware that decadal-term climate data can deviate from normal (30-year) data due to short-term climatic variability other than anthropogenic climate change.

Consensus projections for future periods Based on projected changes in temperature and precipitation, 20 climate change scenarios were selected from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Shifts in bioclimatic envelopes for BC ecosystem zones were projected based on each of the 20 climate change scenarios. A consensus projection for a future period was generated based on the most frequently projected ecosystem zone for each pixel among the 20 individual projections. We used the level of the model agreement among the 20 individual projections to represent the uncertainty of the ecosystem climate niche under climate change. Projected changes varied among BGC zones. Climates suitable for Montane Spruce (MS), Sub-Boreal Pine - Spruce (SBPS), Spruce - Wil- low - Birch (SWB), and Alpine Tun- dra (AT) zones are projected to contract. Meanwhile, climates suitable for Interior Cedar-Hemlock (ICH), Ponderosa Pine (PP), Interior Douglas-fir (IDF), Bunchgrass (BG), and Coastal Western Hemlock (CWH) zones are projected to ex- pand. Figure 1 shows the changes among the BGC zones based on the Figure 1: Projected shifts in ecosystem climate niches from the reference period consensus projections for the 2050s. (1961–1990) to the 2050s (2041–2070). The shades representing the BGC zones in the maps and in the bar chart are identical. Conclusions The bioclimatic envelope model built with Random Forest and high-resolution climate variables generated by ClimateBC/WNA accurately predicted the distribution of current 8 ecosystems in BC. Climate envelopes of some BC ecosystems have already shifted to a different envelope. Projected shifts in BC ecosystem climates are substantial under climate change, which may compromise the health of the ecosystems and impose challenges to land managers and policymakers. However, expansions of climate niches for several productive ecosystems (ICH, IDF, and CWH) may provide an opportunity to increase forest JEM Vol 13, No 3 productivity and carbon sequestration capacity in BC if appropriate species and populations JOURNAL OF are matched for future climates. Ecosystems & Management Spatial data visualization and access PROJECTING FUTURE DISTRIBUTIONS OF Spatial data generated from this study can be visualized and accessed using a Google Map ECOSYSTEM based web tool, “ClimateBC_Map,” recently developed by the Centre for Forest Conserva- CLIMATE NICHES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA tion Genetics (http://www.genetics.forestry.ubc.ca/cfcg/ClimateBC40/Default.aspx). This tool can be accessed through a web browser and no additional software installation is Wang needed. This tool also allows users to 1) access a large number of climate variables by click- ing at a location of their interest on the Google Map; 2) visualize climate variables, BGC units, and species distributions maps; and 3) download geographic information system (GIS) compatible data files.

Note 1. This article presents the highlights of a published scientific paper by Wang et al., 2012.

Websites ClimateBC_Map. URL: http://www.genetics.forestry.ubc.ca/cfcg/ClimateBC40/Default.aspx ClimateWNA. URL: http://www.genetics.forestry.ubc.ca/cfcg/climate-models.html

Reference Wang, T, E.M Campbell, G.A. O’Neill, & S. Aitken. 2012. Projecting future distributions of ecosystem climate niches: Uncertainties and management implications. Forest Ecology and Management 279:128–140.

Author information Tongli Wang, Ph.D., Centre for Forest Conservation Genetics, Department of Forest Sciences, University of British Columbia. Email: [email protected]

JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management A Coordinated Approach to Prescribed Fire News Treatments in British Columbia’s Ecosystems

Glen Okrainetz & Al Neal

ildland fire is a naturally occurring process and has also been intentionally used for centuries by First Nations peoples to shape and form the landscapes and re- W sources familiar to British Columbians (Beck et al. 2005). Fire has a historically founded role in nearly all ecosystems in British Columbia and, as such, most ecosystems are adapted to fire within a broad range of varying frequency and intensity (Keeley et al. 2009). As a result, fire is integral to maintaining the productive and healthy functioning ecosystems upon which all British Columbians depend (Hall 2010). In the context of a changing climate, reducing ecosystem vulnerability to The judicious use of future disturbances will be an important aspect of maintaining ecosystem re- prescribed fire is silience. A type of management action that could help build resilience is the increasingly regarded as reintroduction of fire into forest ecosystems where historical fire cycles have been disrupted by past fire exclusion and have therefore been made more vul- an effective tool in helping nerable to severe future fires (Campbell et al. 2009). to mitigate catastrophic The reintroduction of fire through the application of “prescribed fire” is wildfire risk and for recognized worldwide as an essential tool in environmental stewardship, how- creating greater resiliency ever, its practice in the province diminished during the 1990s for a variety of in the province’s forests in reasons. Beginning in 2000, there was a renewed interest in its application, light of climate change. especially with respect to supporting ecosystem restoration, habitat improvement, and forest fuel management activities within the Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations and the Ministry of Environment. With the renewed interest in prescribed fire in British Columbia came a perceived lack of administrative and professional leadership in managing it as a discipline, which led to a fragmented approach among the different practising agencies. This fragmented approach, along with a decline in the use of prescribed fire as well as an aging staff, resulted in a reduction in experienced practitioners and few opportunities available to younger staff to gain hands-on experience. A more co-ordinated approach in the application of prescribed fire, including standardized training, mentoring, and certification was needed to help provide opportunities for existing practitioners to maintain and improve their skills and for inexperienced staff to develop the expertise, while reducing overall wildfire risks to the province. As well, a more co-ordinated approach to public communication and prescribed fire 10 planning and operations was seen as desirable by the agencies involved. Additional benefits that could be realized included educating the public about the objectives and benefits of JEM Okrainetz, G., & Neal, A. 2013. A Co-ordinated Approach to Prescribed Fire Treatments in British Vol 13, No 3 Columbia’s Ecosystems. Journal of Ecosystems and Management 13(3):10–12. Published by FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources. JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & http://jem.forrex.org/index.php/jem/article/viewFile/560/475 Management prescribed fire, and advancing improvements to airshed management by helping to min- A COORDINATED APPROACH TO imize the potential negative health impacts of prescribed fires (primarily arising from PRESCRIBED FIRE smoke), especially in proximity to populated areas. TREATMENTS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA’S Importantly, in concert with wildfire management planning, the judicious use of pre- ECOSYSTEMS scribed fire is increasingly regarded as an effective tool in helping to mitigate catastrophic Okrainetz & Neal wildfire risk and for creating greater resiliency in the province’s forests in light of climate change. In consideration of this background, in 2008 the Executives from the Ministries of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations and Environment supported the establishment of a permanent, multi-agency Prescribed Fire Council for British Columbia. The key responsibility assigned to the Council was the provision of leadership for prescribed fire activities in British Columbia by promoting and supporting its safe and effective use. “Membership” on the BC Prescribed Fire Council is open to any province-wide or federal agency or organization that uses or promotes prescribed fire as a land management tool. Currently, the Council includes the BC Ministries of Forests, Lands, and Natural Re- source Operations and Environment, Parks Canada, Natural Resources Canada, the First Nations Emergency Services Society, and the First Nations Forestry Council. The Council’s terms of reference (http://bcwildfire.ca/prevention/PrescribedFire/) outline its scope, mission, and objectives. Notably, the Council’s objectives include • Promoting prescribed fire safety and research, and standardized planning and operations to improve overall efficiencies and effectiveness; • Promoting public education and communication that describes the objectives and benefits of prescribed fire, especially in relation to reducing the impacts of wildfire, helping to mitigate the impacts of climate change and increasing forest resiliency; • Standardizing training and implementing a provincial certification process for practitioners to maintain high standards and ongoing skill development while reducing overall risks; • Adopting best management practices for managing smoke and air quality impacts from prescribed fire in order to minimize the potential negative health effects, especially in proximity to populated areas; and • Making recommendations for amendments to existing policies and legislation. Recognizing the ecological importance of fire is one key part of maintaining forests that are resilient to our changing environment and that continue to function as productive ecosystems supporting British Columbia’s ecological, societal and economic sustainability goals (Campbell et al. 2009). For more information or to contact the B.C. Prescribed Fire Council visit: http://bcwildfire.ca/Prevention/PrescribedFire/ or phone the Wildfire Management Branch, MFLNRO in Victoria at 250-387-5965.

References Beck, J., J. Parminter, M. Alexander, E. MacDermid, T. Van Nest, A. Beaver, & S. Grimaldi. 2005. Fire 11 Ecology and Management. In: Forestry Handbook for British Columbia. 5th ed. S. B. Watts and L. Tolland (editors). University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. pp 491–525. Campbell, E. M., S. C. Saunders, K. D. Coates, D. V. Meidinger, A. MacKinnon, G. A. O’Neill, D. J. MacKillop, S. C. DeLong, & D. G. Morgan. 2009. Ecological resilience and complexity: a theoretical framework for understanding and managing British Columbia’s forest ecosystems in a changing climate. B.C. Min. For. Range, Forest Science Program, Victoria, BC. Technical Report 055. JEM www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Tr/Tr055.htm (Accessed January 2013). Vol 13, No 3 Hall, E. 2010. Maintaining Fire in British Columbia's Ecosystems: An Ecological Perspective. Report JOURNAL OF submitted to the Wildfire Management Branch, Ministry of Forests and Range. Ecosystems & Management Keeley, J. E., G. H. Aplet, N. L. Christensen, S. G. Conard, E. A. Johnson, P. N. Omi, D. L. Peterson, & T. W. A COORDINATED Swetnam. 2009. Ecological foundations for fire management in North American forest and APPROACH TO shrubland ecosystems. USDA Forest Service General technical Report PNW GTR 779. Pacific PRESCRIBED FIRE TREATMENTS IN Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. - - BRITISH COLUMBIA’S ECOSYSTEMS

Author information Okrainetz & Neal Glen Okrainetz is Co-Chair, BC Prescribed Fire Council and Manager, Clean Air Section, MOE. Email: [email protected] . Al Neal, P.Ag., RFT, is Co-Chair, BC Prescribed Fire Council, Ecosystem Restoration, Provincial Strategic Planning Leader Specialist, MFLNRO. Email: [email protected] .

JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management Okanagan Invitational Drought Tournament, News November 2012

Suzan Lapp, FORREX

early two years ago, I was approached by Dr. Harvey Hill and his Saskatchewan- based team from Agriculture and Agri-Foods Canada (AAFC), to be involved in the Ndevelopment of the South Saskatchewan River Basin’s iteration of the Invitational Drought Tournament (IDT)—a concept I was unfamiliar with at the time. My role was to develop the climate scenarios for this exercise, in this case an extended drought, using a combination of dendroclimatic (tree-ring) and observed climate data for the Basin. What is a Drought Tournament you may ask? Well, it’s a simulation game, where teams of water stakeholders are presented with a drought scenario. The teams strategize and compete against each other to develop the best drought management Drought Tournament teams policies and innovations to meet their region’s environmental, social, and economic needs. strategize and compete against Since its first iteration in Calgary nearly two years ago, the IDT is each other to develop the best slowly transforming, with events having been held in Saskatoon and drought management policies Winnipeg. The latest evolution of the tournament was held in Kelowna, and innovations to meet their BC, on November 16, 2012, in collaboration with the Okanagan Basin region’s environmental, social, Water Board (OBWB), BC Ministry of Environment, University of British and economic needs. Columbia – Okanagan (UBCO), and FORREX. The objective at this event was to provide a “safe and fun environment” that would stimulate conversation among the players and help them identify the key concerns in an extreme drought situation. Teams were encouraged to develop comprehensive drought management plans that minimized the environmental, social, and economic impacts within the watershed.

The game begins It's November 2012. Teams are provided with background information about the basin (climate, industries, tourism, geography, communities, water demands, etc.) and a budget. Based on this information and budget, they were able to buy multiple long-term management strategies, from a list, that would be implemented before the onset of the drought within the fictitious Seco Creek Watershed. A few of the long-term strategies included: increased water storage (dam or reservoir), enhanced irrigation for water efficiency, drought education, and development of a drought management plan. The teams were now prepared for the drought! 13 The date is now April 1, 2021. Teams are presented with the previous winter’s (November 2020 through March 2021) climate conditions (precipitation and temperature),

JEM Lapp, S. 2013. Okanagan Invitational Drought Tournament, November 2012. Vol 13, No 3 Journal of Ecosystems and Management 13(3):13–15. Published by FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources. JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & http://jem.forrex.org/index.php/jem/article/viewFile/561/477 Management snowpack levels, and reservoir storage capacity, et cetera. They were also presented with OKANAGAN INVITATIONAL a new budget. This allowed each team to purchase a variety of short-term management DROUGHT strategies, to ensure the environment requirements were met with minimal economic and TOURNAMENT, NOVEMBER 2012 social impacts to the community during the summer months, when water is low and demand is high. Strategies included predetermined bylaws, regulations, and programs such Lapp as no lawn watering, recycling domestic water, restricted groundwater usage, water use restrictions for commercial and industrial users, xeriscaping, agricultural payouts, drought education programs, and drought strategy developments. Teams were also given the choice to be innovative and develop their own bylaws or drought management strategies – this is where the fun began. Innovations included: spawning channel development, reinvestment in infrastructure, lake withdrawal programs, groundwater storage, taxation programs, community engagement activities, and so on. The catch was that each team had to convince the referees of their innovation’s soundness before they could implement it – creativity was the key. From there, each team’s choices were run through a number of models to determine the environmental impacts (primarily streamflow) and, to a lesser degree of accuracy, the economic and social impacts. A spokesperson from each team presented and defended their management choices and overall ability to address the short- and long-term needs of the community; then, the referees and the competing teams voted on each team. Following the voting process, the climate conditions were presented in the fall, on November 1, 2021, for the previous year (December 2020–October 2021; this allowed the teams to start thinking about next year’s drought management strategies. The drought prolonged year after year, following the same process as outlined above and the management strategies carried forward into the following years. In the end, the rain came and the drought ended. The teams’ votes were tallied up for each round to determine the overall champion. Team Red chose to stick to the environmental management options and came out on top. Their name will be added to the AAFC Invitational Drought Tournament Trophy and will live on forever. Participants at the Okanagan IDT included professors, middle school teachers, politi- cians, researchers, engineers, water planners, biologists, farmers, and local consultants. Overall the participants found the event a valuable learning exercise and recognized the importance in continuing these challenging conversations. It was a great opportunity for all water stakeholders to be faced with these trade-offs that decision makers are con- fronted with during times of hardship.

What’s next? An academic version of the Okanagan IDT is planned for the spring of 2013 with the participation of environmental science students at UBCO, Okanagan College, and Thompson Rivers University (TRU). It is also being explored as part of a Grade 8 science water unit class. FORREX was recently awarded a grant from the Real Estate Foundation of British 14 Columbia to fund a project titled “Developing social and economic indicators for drought preparedness.” In collaboration with AAFC, we will be working with researchers at UBCO and the University of Alberta to identify a suite of economic and social indicators for the agricultural, municipal, industrial, and environmental sectors that accurately reflect potential impacts of extreme drought events and water shortages. JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management The IDT framework is adaptable to other geographic regions within BC and interna- OKANAGAN INVITATIONAL tionally and also to other sectors, such as forestry or mining, particularly in relation to DROUGHT management decisions associated with a changing climate and a growing population. I’m TOURNAMENT, NOVEMBER 2012 looking forward to the next iteration of the IDT. Lapp Author information Suzan Lapp – Lead Watershed Management, FORREX, 400-235 1st Ave Kamloops, BC V2C 3J4. Email: [email protected]

JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management Impact of Biological Control on Two Knapweed Research Report Species in British Columbia

Don Gayton, FORREX & Val Miller, B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations

Abstract Diffuse and spotted knapweed (Centaurea diffusa Lam and C. stoebe L.) are two closely related invasives found in many parts of British Columbia’s Southern Interior, causing substantial economic losses in rangelands. Beginning in 1970, the provincial government initiated a long-term biological control effort against the knapweeds, introducing 10 different insect agents from 1970 to 1987. In an effort to evaluate the efficacy of the program, archival (1983–2008) data was amassed from 19 vegetation monitoring sites that contained knapweed. In 2010, these sites were relocated and re-monitored and cover values were analyzed. Diffuse knapweed showed significant declines at 14 of 15 sites; spotted knapweed declined at three of four sites. Possible alternative explanations for the decline are discussed. Evidence strongly points to a suite of biocontrol agents (seed feeders and root feeders) as the primary drivers of knapweed decline in British Columbia’s Southern Interior.

KEYWORDS: biological control; British Columbia; Centaurea; knapweed; monitoring

Introduction iffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa Lam.) and spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe L.) are two introduced, closely related invasive forbs. These species are most com- Dmon in the northwestern United States and in western Canada. Centaurea stoebe (also referred to as C. maculosa Lam. and C. biebersteinii DC) is particularly widespread, reported in 45 US states and all provinces of Canada (Marshall 2004; Zouhar 2001). The drought-tolerant C. diffusa has an altitudinal range of 150–900 m, whereas C. stoebe favours mesic sites and is found from sea level up to 1200 m (Watson & Renney 1974). Iso- lated C. stoebe populations are now found as high as 1700 m (B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 2012). Both species are tap-rooted, insect-polli- nated, biennials or short-lived perennials. A single plant can produce as many as 900 seeds, which remain viable for up to 7 years. Infested areas can have soil banks of up to 40 000 seeds per square metre (Watson & Renney 1974; Davis et al. 1993; Sheley & Jacobs 1998). Seedlings form ground-oriented rosettes; bolted plants have either a single stem (C. diffusa) or multiple stems (C. stoebe). In British Columbia, both knapweeds are found in the dry valleys and plateaus of the 16 Southern Interior, primarily in the Bunchgrass, Ponderosa Pine, and dry phases of the Interior Douglas-fir biogeoclimatic zones. Typical habitat for C. diffusa is semi-arid native

Gayton, D., & V. Miller. 2012. Impact of biological control on two knapweed species JEM Vol 13, No 3 in British Columbia. Journal of Ecosystems and Management 13(3):16–29. Published by FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources. JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & http://jem.forrex.org/index.php/jem/article/viewFile/136/472 Management bunchgrass rangeland and adjacent open ponderosa pine woodland. Both of these vege- IMPACT OF BIOLOGICAL tation types support high biodiversity, as well as concentrations of species at risk, and CONTROL ON both face other threats from land conversion, fire suppression, and overgrazing (Austin TWO KNAPWEED SPECIES IN BRITISH et al. 2008). Centaurea stoebe extends into the Interior Cedar-Hemlock and Montane COLUMBIA Spruce biogeoclimatic zones, typically along forest roads and in cutblocks and can nega- Gayton & Miller tively affect regenerating tree seedlings (Powell et al. 1997). The provincial Invasive Alien Plant Database shows current C. diffusa distribution extending northward to around Williams Lake (52°7’ latitude) and C. stoebe reaching to Fort St. John (56°10’ latitude), with isolated populations at the Yukon border (B.C. Min- istry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 2012; see Figure 1). The first North American report of C. stoebe was by Macoun in Victoria, B.C., in 1893 (Groh 1943). Centaurea diffusa was first reported in Grand Forks, B.C., in 19251 and subsequently in the Okanagan Valley in the late 1930s (Groh 1943). Starting in the 1970s, both species began a period of rapid expansion in British Columbia and the US Pacific Northwest (She- ley & Jacobs 1998; Newman et al. 2011).

Figure 1: Distribution of (a) Centaurea diffusa and (b) C. stoebe in British Columbia (B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 2012).

The impact of the knapweeds is both ecological and economic. Ortega and Pearson (2005) characterized C. stoebe as a “strong invader” in the rangelands of western Montana. Al- though both knapweed species typically invade after soil disturbance, wildfire, or overgrazing, they can also invade pristine native habitats (Tyser & Kay 1988; Ferguson et al. 2007; Duncan et al. 2011). Researchers have found greater surface water runoff and increased sediment loading in areas affected by C. stoebe (Lacey et al. 1989). Neither species is preferred forage for wild or domestic ungulates, but immature plants will be grazed when more desirable forage is in short supply. Watson and Renney (1974), working in the British Columbia Interior, found a negative correlation between knapweed biomass and available livestock forage. They also found that palatable forage underneath a knapweed canopy was poorly utilized. 17 Economic damage caused by knapweed in the United States has been well reported elsewhere (Griffith & Lacey 1991; Hirsch & Leitch 1996). In British Columbia, Frid et al. (2009) estimated cumulative economic losses at $20 million (for C. diffusa only) based on a 43% loss of forage production, soil erosional losses, and loss of recreational values in infested rangelands. Both species are on the province’s noxious weed list.2 Traditional JEM weed control methods (i.e., herbicide application, mowing, burning, reseeding, etc.) have Vol 13, No 3 had very limited success in controlling knapweeds (Sheley & Jacobs 1998). JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management Biological control IMPACT OF BIOLOGICAL Following a successful biocontrol initiative against St. John’s-wort (Hypericum perforatum CONTROL ON L.) in the early 1950s, the provincial government began an aggressive campaign against TWO KNAPWEED SPECIES IN BRITISH the knapweeds. They opted for the “classical” approach, searching for insect agents that COLUMBIA would self-perpetuate, self-distribute, and create a long-term balance between insect and Gayton & Miller weed (Powell et al. 1994). The first knapweed agent releases (Urophora affinis and U. quadrifasciata), small flies whose larvae feed on developing seeds, attack both knapweed species. Later releases included beetle and moth species, some of which feed on knapweed roots (Bourchier et al. 2002; De Clerck-Floate & Carcamo 2011). Early releases were con- centrated in the West Kootenay, Boundary, and Kamloops areas, with subsequent propa- gation and redistribution as the insect habitat preferences became known. With the exception of Chaetorellia acrolophi, Pelochrista medullana, and Pterolonche inspersa, all other knapweed bioagents have now established self-perpetuating populations (see Table 1).

Table 1: Knapweed biocontrol insects and year of first successful operational releases Host knapweed Year of first Year of Insect Type (C. diffusa or operational introduction C. stoebe) redistribution Seed feeders: Urophora affinis Fly Both 1970 1977 Urophora quadrifasciata Fly Both 1972 1977 Chaetorellia acrolophi Fly C. stoebe 1991 Not operational yet Metzneria paucipunctella Moth C. stoebe 1981 Not operational yet Larinus minutus Beetle C. stoebe 1991 1994 Larinus obtusus Beetle Both: prefers C. stoebe 1992 1999 Root feeders: Sphenoptera jugoslavica Beetle Mainly C. diffusa 1976 1985 Agapeta zoegana Moth Both: prefers C. stoebe 1982 1992 Pelochrista medullana Moth Both: prefers C. diffusa 1982 Not operational yet Pterolonche inspersa Moth Both: prefers C. diffusa 1986 Not operational yet Cyphocleonus achates Beetle Both: prefers C. stoebe 1987 1992 Over the past few years, there have been numerous field reports of observed declines in knapweed populations in the province’s Interior. We undertook the project reported here to provide program managers with objective answers to the following questions. 1. Are knapweed populations declining? 2. If populations are declining, what are the possible causes for the decline? 18 Comparing historical and contemporary vegetation cover data is one of several tools for assessing biocontrol impacts (Morin et al. 2009). Visual assessment of vegetation cover values is a commonly used technique for detecting changes in species dominance in herbaceous plant communities (Daubenmire 1959; Elzinga et al. 1998). Thus, we undertook a JEM broad-scale, metadata survey of previously documented knapweed sites to answer the first Vol 13, No 3 question. JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management Methods IMPACT OF BIOLOGICAL A large number of existing provincial government vegetation data records were scanned. CONTROL ON Previous analysis (Gayton 2004) directed us to several areas close to the United States bor- TWO KNAPWEED SPECIES IN BRITISH der as invasive plant hotspots. We were fortunate in locating archival data sets for 19 dif- COLUMBIA ferent sites, all of which listed either C. diffusa or C. stoebe. The data sets were either from Gayton & Miller weed monitoring or livestock grazing impact studies; all sites were located on Crown land. For the knapweed-positive sites that had not been re-monitored recently, a further sort was done to determine whether: 1. the monitoring transects could be relocated, and 2. the monitoring methodology was sufficiently explicit to allow precise re-monitoring.

This latter set of “historical sites” were relocated and re-monitored. These sites had been originally monitored using different variants (foliar and canopy cover; 6-class and 7-class) of the Daubenmire frame methodology (Daubenmire 1959). These were re-monitored with a Daubenmire frame, using the currently preferred method of estimating foliar values to the percent. Re-monitoring cover value averages were compared against cover class mid- points from the archival data. For the sites that were originally monitored using canopy cover, foliar cover re-monitoring values were multiplied by a factor of four to make the data equivalent. One site was originally monitored using the point-intercept method, and so this method was also used for the re-monitoring. The number of observations per site varied from 25 to 100, ranged along 1–5 separate transects. The minimum number of repeat monitoring events was two, the maximum six, with an average of three monitoring events per site. The earliest monitoring event was 1983; the latest occurred in 2010. Site locations are shown in Figure 2, and individual site descriptions and data are tabulated in the appendix at the end of this article. Raw data was located for 13 of the 19 sites, so vari- Figure 2: Location of knapweed study sites. ances were calculated for those. The sites were located in the Thompson, Salmon, Nicola, Okanagan, Kettle, and Kootenay river valleys, between 355 and 1010 m, with an average elevation of 700 m, and lying within the Bunchgrass and dry phases of the Ponderosa Pine and Interior Douglas- fir biogeoclimatic zones. These were primarily grassland sites, mid-seral examples of the 19 Pacific Northwest Bunchgrass type (Daubenmire 1988) of which these areas form a northern extension. Typical dominant native grasses were Pseudoroegneria spicata (Pursh) A. Löve, Achnatherum occidentale (Thurber) Barkw., and Hesperostipa comata (Trin. & Rupr.) Barkw.; leading introduced species were Bromus tectorum L, Bromus japonicus (Thunb.), Poa pratensis L., and Potentilla recta L. JEM Livestock grazing is a potential factor in knapweed population dynamics, so the graz- Vol 13, No 3 ing status for each site was noted. The eight Range Reference Area (RRA) sites consisted JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management of 1 ha grazing exclosures with an adjacent grazed control; grazing ceased in the “un- IMPACT OF BIOLOGICAL grazed” RRA treatments the year prior to first monitoring. Adjacent grazed and ungrazed CONTROL ON treatments were considered as separate sites. TWO KNAPWEED SPECIES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

Results and discussion Gayton & Miller Diffuse knapweed cover declined in 14 of 15 sites; at 11 of the 14 sites no plants were found on the transects at the last monitoring event (see Figure 3). The single exception was Pick- ering Hills RRA (graph reference “9” in the Appendix), but knapweed presence at this site was minimal, with cover values never exceeding 3% in the five separate monitoring years. At Johnstone Creek Weed Transects (graph reference “2” in the Appendix), cover values declined but were still at 25% in 2010. This site is immediately adjacent to a highway and

Figure 3: Time course of cover values for 15 C. diffusa sites. Note different Y-axis scales. Numbers refer to graph site references listed in the appendix. an access road, and the persistence of knapweed there may be the result of periodic vehic- ular disturbances. Spotted knapweed cover values declined at three of four sites (see Fig- ure 4). The persistent population at Westwold Station (graph reference “b” in the Appendix) may be due to the slightly cooler and wetter conditions, high levels of livestock disturbance, later insect release dates, or a combination of these factors. In spite of small individual sample sizes and variable data, a composite downward cover value trend is apparent for both species.

Figure 4: Time course of cover values for four C. stoebe sites. Summary values only. Letters refer to graph site references listed in the appendix. 20

JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management The possible proximal causes for the knapweed decline (the second research question) are: IMPACT OF BIOLOGICAL • hand pulling or herbicide use, CONTROL ON TWO KNAPWEED • changed weather patterns, SPECIES IN BRITISH • altered grazing regimes resulting in a more competitive native plant community, COLUMBIA and (or) Gayton & Miller • the impact of biocontrol agents. The wide dispersion of knapweed biocontrol agents renders a comparison with a non-attacked control site impossible; thus we must examine the alternative explanations. Spraying and hand pulling of knapweeds was ongoing during the period studied; however, it was confined to new and peripheral infestations along roadsides. Insect biocontrol monitoring and release sites, as well Mean annual precipitation (mm) as range reference areas, were specifically excluded from the spraying and hand-pulling program. Weather is a possible driver of knapweed decline. To test correlations with changing weather patterns, C. diffusa cover trends from a group of sites clustered around Midway, B.C., were visu- ally compared with mean annual precipitation and growing season degree-day data from this community (Wang et al. 2009; see Figure 5). Pre- cipitation trended downward and degree-days up- ward during the period studied, increasing stress on the entire plant community. However, the 1999–2003 period showed a reversed trend toward warmer, drier conditions, but no correspon- Figure 5: Comparison of mean annual precipitation, degree days, ding increase in knapweed cover was detected. and knapweed cover values, Midway B.C., 1983–2010. Trendlines The warmest and driest years for the Midway for weather values are linear. sites during the period of analysis are still well within the climatic ranges for C. diffusa- infested rangelands as cited by Watson & Renney (1974) (see Table 2). In addition, the geographical ranges of both knapweeds extend southward into regions both warmer and drier than the British Columbia Interior (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2011).

Table 2: Comparison of knapweed climate parameters as per Watson & Renney (1974) with values from Midway, B.C., 1983–2009

Climatic range of knapweed infested areas, British Columbia Interior 21 Mean annual precipitation Mean annual temperature

241–417 mm 7.2–9.4°C

Driest and warmest years, Midway, B.C., 1983–2009 JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF (1985) 345 mm (1998) 8.8°C Ecosystems & Management Drought stress has been identified as a source of seedling mortality in C. diffusa IMPACT OF BIOLOGICAL (Myers & Berube 1983; Powell 1990); however, Powell (1990) demonstrated that a major- CONTROL ON ity of the established rosettes that died during midsummer drought also showed signs of TWO KNAPWEED SPECIES IN BRITISH attack by S. jugoslavica. Corn et al. (2007) grew C. stoebe in field trials under different COLUMBIA soil moisture regimes. These trials revealed that both total plant biomass and plant height Gayton & Miller were relatively insensitive to moisture deficit but were negatively affected by the presence of biocontrol agent Cyphocleonus achates. Story et al. (2006) monitored C. stoebe in western Montana from 1993 to 2004, during which time plant density declined significantly, despite above-average precipitation in 7 years of the study. Broenniman et al. (2007) also demonstrated that C. stoebe is capable of niche shifts, enabling it to adapt to drier, warmer North American environments. Blumenthal et al. (2008) analyzed the effects of moisture on C. stoebe seeded into experimental plots of established native rangeland. Establishment was favoured more by added winter snowfall than by added summer irrigation. Alien species invasion into rangelands is affected both by livestock and wildlife through preferential grazing on the native plant community, animal transport, and soil disturbance. Vigorous native plant communities can impose competitive stresses on GRAZED invasive plant populations (Maron & Marler 2007), and plant vigour is affected by grazing by livestock and wildlife.

Crown grazing management improved through the 1970s UNGRAZED and 1980s, with cross-fencing, pasture rotations, and water developments. These activities could, after a lag period, be responsible for enhanced range condition and resulting knapweed suppression. Our metadata analysis fortunately GRAZED included three adjacent grazed/ungrazed comparison sites.

All three are subject to permitted livestock grazing plus UNGRAZED deer use; the Johnstone Creek and Murray Gulch sites are also subject to elk grazing. The Fairview Meadow and John- stone Creek ungrazed treatments excluded livestock only; the Murray Gulch RRA ungrazed site excluded all ungulates. Livestock stocking rates and rotations did not change significantly at any of the sites during the period of analysis. Based on these grazed/ungrazed comparisons, grazing ap- GRAZED peared to retard but not eliminate the downward C. diffusa trend (see Figure 6). UNGRAZED Based on the above information, weather and grazing may have indirect effects but do not appear to be the primary drivers of the observed knapweed decline. This con- Figure 6: Diffuse knapweed cover values in adjacent grazed and ungrazed sites. Note different cover value clusion mirrors that of the more in-depth study conducted and time scales. by Newman et al. (2011) in the Kamloops area. 22

Biocontrol impacts on knapweed In this study, we were able to secure a limited amount of relevant biocontrol agent attack monitoring data that was collected close (< 500 m) to two of the knapweed monitoring sites (see Figure 7). Johnstone Creek and East Midway showed increasing insect attack JEM Vol 13, No 3 rates in the years leading up to the period of knapweed decline; attack rates in East Midway JOURNAL OF declined simultaneous with reductions in knapweed cover (Table 3). Ecosystems & Management IMPACT OF BIOLOGICAL CONTROL ON TWO KNAPWEED SPECIES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

Gayton & Miller

Figure 7: Biocontrol agent attack monitoring data: yellow pins – bioagent release sites; red pins – knapweed cover monitoring sites; green pins – insect attack monitoring sites.

Table 3: Years of S. jugoslavica release and rates of attack

Year of first Site Year (% attack) Year (% attack) Year (% attack) release Johnstone Creek 1986 1987 (0) 1990 (63) —

West Midway 1985 1987 (10) 1990 (35) 2010 (no knapweed)

East Midway 1985 1988 (98) 1990 (41) 2010 (no knapweed)

Several existing studies link insect biocontrol agents to knapweed decline (see, for example, Figure 8). In field cage treatments in the south Okanagan, Myers et al. (2009) showed decreased numbers of seedlings, rosettes, and bolted C. diffusa plants in cages with Larinus minutus added, compared to both caged and uncaged controls. They also reported a de- Figure 8: Repeat cline in C. diffusa flowering stems at three photographs of of four Southern Interior sites between 1978 Coldwater (Merritt and 2009. Stephens et al. (2009) reported an- area) C. stoebe monitoring site. Top nual declines in C. diffusa cover in the White photo taken 1994; Lake Basin (south Okanagan). Five different bottom photo in 2008. knapweed biocontrol insects were either seen or known to have been released in the Basin, beginning in the 1970s. Story et al. (2006) monitored spotted knapweed plant density over an 11-year period (1993–2004) at two sites in western Montana where 23 Cyphocleonus achates was released. Spotted knapweed density declined significantly over time at both sites (99 and 77%, respectively), after C. achates numbers increased at both JEM sites. Corn et al. (2006) found increasing Vol 13, No 3 mortality in with increasing num- C. stoebe JOURNAL OF bers of C. achates in experimental plots. Ecosystems & Management Conclusions IMPACT OF BIOLOGICAL The preponderance of descriptive evidence in this study points to the biocontrol program CONTROL ON as the most plausible explanation for a decline in C. diffusa and C. stoebe cover values at TWO KNAPWEED SPECIES IN BRITISH representative sites in British Columbia’s Southern Interior, a conclusion supported by COLUMBIA

the studies cited above. We think a key turning point was the release and dispersal of root- Gayton & Miller feeding insects in the 1990s. The additive effect of root feeders combined with seed feeders offers a plausible explanation for the rapid knapweed collapse, and conforms to the logic of the cumulative stress hypothesis of Knochel et al. (2010). Centaurea diffusa appears to be more susceptible to current biocontrol agents than C. stoebe, but there was not enough data for a full comparison. Frid et al. (2009) estimated the return on biocontrol investment for C. diffusa in British Columbia at $17 for each dollar spent. In addition to the economic value of low- elevation bunchgrass and open ponderosa pine ecosystem types in the province’s South- ern Interior, these ecosystems support very high biodiversity and concentrations of species at risk (Austin et al. 2008). Even though direct negative impacts of invasive plants on biodiversity and species at risk are difficult to prove (Davis 2003), we should invoke the pre- cautionary principle and assume the knapweeds and other invasive plant species have negative ecological impacts on these biodiverse, spatially limited ecosystems, and continue the use of biological control as a component of a proactive, integrated invasive plant control effort.

Notes 1. Weed Control Act, Weed Control Regulation. B.C. Reg. 66/85. http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries /bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/10_66_85 (Accessed May 2012). 2. University of British Columbia Herbarium. Centaurea diffusa, Accession No. V9889. University of British Columbia, Department of Botany, Beaty Biodiversity Museum, Vancouver, B.C. http://herbie.zoology .ubc.ca/~botany/herbarium/details.php?db=vwsp.fp7&layout=vwsp_web_details&recid=40214 &ass_num=V9889 (Accessed May 2012).

References Austin, M.A., D. Buffet, D. Nicholson, G. Scudder, & V. Stevens (editors). 2008. Taking nature’s pulse: The status of biodiversity in British Columbia. Biodiversity BC, Victoria B.C. http://www.biodiversitybc .org/assets/pressReleases/BBC_StatusReport_Web_final.pdf (Accessed May 2012). B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2012. Invasive Alien Plant Program Application [web site]. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hra/plants/application.htm (Accessed May 2012). Blumenthal, D., R.A. Chimner, J.M. Welker, & J.A. Morgan. 2008. Increased snow facilitates plant invasion in mixedgrass prairie. New Phytologist 179:440–448. Bourchier, R., K. Mortenson, & M. Crowe. 2002. Centaurea diffusa Lamarck, diffuse knapweed, and Centaurea maculosa Lamarck, spotted knapweed (Asteraceae). In: Biological Control Programmes in Canada, 1981–2000. P.G. Mason & J.T. Huber (editors). CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. pp. 302–313. Broenniman, O., U. Treier, H. Muller-Scharer, W. Thuiller, A. Peterson, & A. Guisan. 2007. Evidence of climatic shift during biological invasion. Ecology Letters 10:701–709. Corn, J., J. Story, & L. White. 2006. Impacts of the biological control agent Cyphocleonus achates on spotted knapweed, Centaurea maculosa, in experimental plots. Biological Control 37:75–81. 24 ______. 2007. Effect of summer drought relief on the impact of the root weevil Cyphocleonus achates on spotted knapweed. Environmental Entomology 36(4):858–863. Daubenmire, R.F. 1959. Canopy coverage method of vegetation analysis. Northwest Science 33:43–64. ______. 1988. Steppe vegetation of Washington. Washington State University, Pullman, Wash. Davis, M. 2003. Biotic globalization: Does competition from introduced species threaten biodiversity? Bioscience 53(5):481–489. JEM Vol 13, No 3 Davis, E., P. Kay, T. Chicoine, & C. Lacey. 1993. Persistence of spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) JOURNAL OF seed in soil. Weed Science 41:57–61. Ecosystems & Management De Clerck-Floate, R., & H. Carcamo. 2011. Biocontrol arthropods: New denizens of Canada’s grassland IMPACT OF agroecosystems. In: Arthropods of Canadian grasslands: Inhabitants of a changing landscape. BIOLOGICAL Volume 2. R. De Clerck-Floate (editor). Biological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Ont. Biological Survey CONTROL ON TWO KNAPWEED of Canada Monograph Series No. 4, pp. 291–321. http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/bsc/english SPECIES IN BRITISH /grasslandbook2/Chapter12_ACGv2.pdf (Accessed May 2012). COLUMBIA Duncan, C., J. Story, & R. Sheley. 2011. Biology, ecology and management of Montana knapweeds. Montana State University Extension, Missoula, Mont. http://msuextension.org/publications Gayton & Miller /AgandNaturalResources/EB0204.pdf (accessed May 2012). Elzinga, C., D. Salzer, & J. Willoughby. 1998. Measuring and monitoring plant populations. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colo. BLM Technical Reference 1730-1. http://www.blm.gov/nstc /library/pdf/MeasAndMon.pdf (Accessed May 2012). Ferguson, D.E., C. Craig, & K. Schneider. 2007. Spotted knapweed (Centaurea biebersteinii DC) response to forest wildfires on the Bitterroot National Forest, Montana. Northwest Science 81(2):138–146. Frid, L., D. Knowler, C. Murray, J. Myers, & L. Scott. 2009. Economic impacts of invasive plants in British Columbia. Invasive Plant Council of British Columbia, Williams Lake, B.C. Technical Report No. 12. http://www.bcinvasiveplants.com/iscbc/images/stories/documents/reports/Report12_Econ _Impacts.pdf (Accessed May 2012). Gayton, D. 2004. Native and nonnative plant species in grazed grasslands of British Columbia’s southern interior. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 5(1):51–59. http://www.forrex.org /sites/default/files/publications/jem_archive/ISS25/vol5_no1_art6.pdf (Accessed May 2012). Griffith D., & J. Lacey. 1991. Economic evaluation of spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) control using picloram. Journal of Range Management 44(1):43–47. Groh, H. 1943. Canadian weed survey. 2nd annual report. Canada Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Ont. Hirsch, S., & J. Leitch. 1996. The impact of knapweed on Montana’s economy. North Dakota State University, Agriculture Experiment Station, Fargo, N. Dak. Agricultural Economics Report No. 365. http://www.mtweed.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/impact-of-knapweed-mt- economy.pdf (Accessed May 2012). Knochel, D., N. Monson, & T. Seastedt. 2010. Additive effects of aboveground and belowground herbivores on the dominance of spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe). Oecologia 164:701–712. Lacey, J., C. Marlow, & J. Lane. 1989. Influence of spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) on surface runoff and sediment yield. Weed Technology 3(4):627–631. Maron, J., & M. Marler. 2007. Native plant diversity resists invasion at both low and high resource levels. Ecology 88(10):2651–2661. Marshall, J. 2004. Biological control and ecological impacts of spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. MSc thesis, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Mich. http://users.ipfw.edu/marshalj/jmarshall/Marshall_Thesis.pdf (Accessed May 2012). Morin, L., A. Reid, N. Sims-Chilton, N. Buckley, W. Dhileepan, & K. Hastwell. 2009. Review of approaches to evaluate the effectiveness of weed biological control agents. Biological Control 51:1–15. Myers, J.H., & D.E. Berube. 1983. Diffuse knapweed invasion into rangeland in the dry interior of British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 63:981–987. Myers J., C. Jackson, H. Quinn, S. White, & J. Cory. 2009. Successful biological control of diffuse knapweed, Centaurea diffusa, in British Columbia, Canada. Biological Control 50:66–72. Newman, R.F., S. Turner, B.M. Wallace, & S. Ceselli. 2011. The decline of diffuse knapweed in British Columbia. B.C. Ministry of Forests and Range, Forest Science Program, Victoria, B.C. Technical Report No. 065. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Tr/Tr065.pdf (Accessed May 2012). Ortega, Y., & D. Pearson. 2005. Weak vs. strong invaders of natural plant communities: Assessing invisibility and impact. Ecological Applications 15(2):651–661. Powell, G., A. Sturko, B. Wikeem, & P. Harris. 1997. Knapweed growth and effect on conifers in a montane forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 27:1427–1433. 25 Powell, G.W., A. Sturko, B.M. Wikeem, & P. Harris. 1994. Field guide to the biological control of weeds in British Columbia. B.C. Ministry of Forests, Victoria, B.C. Land Management Handbook No. 27. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/Lmh/Lmh27.pdf (Accessed May 2012). Powell, R. 1990. The role of spatial pattern in the population biology of Centaurea diffusa. Journal of Ecology 78(2):374–388. Sheley, R., & J. Jacobs. 1998. Distribution, biology and management of diffuse knapweed (Centaurea JEM diffusa) and spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa). Weed Technology 12:353–362. Vol 13, No 3

Stephens, A., P. Krannitz, & J. Myers. 2009. Plant community changes after the reduction of an invasive JOURNAL OF rangeland weed, diffuse knapweed, Centaurea diffusa. Biological Control 51:140–146. Ecosystems & Management Story J., N. Callan, J. Corn, & L. White. 2006. Decline of spotted knapweed density at two sites in IMPACT OF Western Montana with large populations of the introduced root weevil, Cyphocleonus achates BIOLOGICAL (Fahreus). Biological Control 12:227–233. CONTROL ON TWO KNAPWEED Tyser, R., & C. Kay. 1988. Spotted knapweed in natural area fescue grasslands: An ecological assessment. SPECIES IN BRITISH Northwest Science 62(4):151–160. COLUMBIA

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2011. PLANTS database. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Gayton & Miller Washington, D.C. http://www.plants.usda.gov/java/ (Accessed May 2012). Wang,T., A. Hamann, & D. Spittlehouse. 2009. ClimateWNA [online version]. University of British Columbia, Department of Forest Sciences, Centre for Forest Conservation Genetics, Vancouver, B.C. http://www.genetics.forestry.ubc.ca/cfcg/ClimateWNA_web/ (Accessed May 2012). Watson, A., & J. Renney. 1974. The biology of Canadian weeds. 6. Centaurea diffusa and C. maculosa. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 54:687–701. Zouhar, K. 2001. Centaurea maculosa. In: Fire Effects Information System [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/cenmac/all.html (Accessed June 2012).

JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management IMPACT OF BIOLOGICAL CONTROL ON TWO KNAPWEED SPECIES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

Gayton & Miller Appendix: Site description and data for knapweed study sites

Location/species/ Graph No. of Year of monitoring/cover values (SE)c site descriptiona referenceb observations

McLellan RRA Gully (C. diffusa) 1998/0.7 2010/0.1 14 31 PPxh1a, 600 m, ungrazed (0.1) (0.02)

Fairview RRA Meadow (C. diffusa) 1998/1.4 12 50 2010/0 PPxh1a, 565 m, ungrazed (0.2) Fairview RRA Meadow (C. diffusa) 1998/1.9 10 50 2010/0 PPxh1a, 565 m, grazed (0.2) Osoyoos Desert Centre (C. diffusa) 1998 1999 2001 2002 2009 4 21 2000/9.30 BG, 355 m, ungrazed /36.0 /11.0 /1.00 /0.50 /0 Johnstone Creek RRA (C. diffusa) 1997/1.5 11 50 2010/0 IDFxh4, 950 m, ungrazed (0.4) Johnstone Creek RRA (C. diffusa) 1997/1.1 2010/0.7 13 50 IDFxh4, 950 m, grazed (0.3) (0.3) Johnstone Creek Weed Transects 1995/64.4 2000/69.8 2010/25.4 2 100 (C. diffusa) IDFxh4, 850 m, ungrazed (2.5) (2.5) (3.1) East Midway, Sphenoptera Release 1986/38.7 1996/16.3 3 25 2010/0 (C. diffusa) PPxh3, 650 m lightly grazed (3.6) (2.7) Erickson Transect (C. diffusa) 1998/16.1 6 50 1983/0 2010/0 PPxh3, 950 m, grazed (1.0) Murray Gulch RRA (C. diffusa) 15 50 1996/0.4 2002/0.2 2009/0 PPxh3, 910 m, ungrazed Murray Gulch RRA (C. diffusa) 8 50 1996/2.9 2002/4.4 2009/0.4 PPxh3, 910 m, grazed West Midway Sphenoptera Release 1986/34.8 1990/72.8 2010 1 25 1998/38.5 (C. diffusa) PPxh3, 585 m, lightly grazed (3.6) (7.4) /0 Bunchgrass Hill Weed Transects 1995 2000 2010/1.1 7 50 (C. diffusa) IDFdm1, 800 m, grazed /3.6 (0.9) /12.1 (2.4) (0.6) Overton Moody Transect (C. diffusa) 1983/0.15 1998/17.2 2005/1.21 2010 5 50 PPxh3 585 m, grazed (0.08) (2.7) (0.6) /0 Pickering Hills RRA (C. diffusa) 2007 2009 9 50 1992/3.0 1993/4.0 1994/3.50 IDFdm2, 1010 m, ungrazed /0.90 /1.70 Coldwater (C. stoebe) a 48 1993/16.4 1997/38.3 2008/2.66 PPxh2, 705 m, grazed Wallachin (C. stoebe) 2001 2008 d 48 1993/4.4 1995/3.2 1997/9.6 PPxh2a, 600 m, grazed /10.4 /1.09 Promontory (C. stoebe) 2001 2008 c 48 1993/0.6 1995/6 1997/17.2 PPxh2, 820 m, ungrazed /11.4 /0 Westwold Station (C. stoebe) b 48 1996/17.5 2001/36.6 2008/37 IDFxh2a, 690 m, ungrazed

27 a Biogeoclimatic zone abbreviations: BG = Bunchgrass; IDF = Interior Douglas-fir; PP = Ponderosa Pine. b Numbers refer to site references in Figure 3; letters refer to site references in Figure 4. c Standard error appears in parentheses. JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management Author information IMPACT OF BIOLOGICAL Don Gayton – MSc, PAg, Extension Specialist, Dry Forest and Grassland Ecology, FORREX, PO Box 851, CONTROL ON Summerland, BC V0H 1Z0. Email: [email protected] TWO KNAPWEED SPECIES IN BRITISH Val Miller – PAg, Provincial Invasive Plant Officer, B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource COLUMBIA Operations, 1907 Ridgewood Rd., Nelson, BC V1L 6K1 Email: [email protected] Gayton & Miller Article Received: April 19, 2011 • Article Accepted: January 26, 2012 Production of this article was funded, in part, by the British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. © 2012, Copyright in this article is the property of FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources Society. ISSN 1488-4674. Articles or contributions in this publication may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use free of charge to the recipient in educational, training, and not-for-profit activities provided that their source and authorship are fully acknowledged. However, reproduction, adaptation, translation, application to other forms or media, or any other use of these works, in whole or in part, for commercial use, resale, or redistribution, requires the written consent of FORREX Forum for research and Extension in natural resources society and of all contributing copyright owners. This publication and the articles and contributions herein may not be made accessible to the public over the Internet without the written consent of FORREX. For consents, please contact: Managing Editor, FORREX, Suite 400, 235 1st Avenue, Kamloops, BC V2C 3J4, or email [email protected] The information and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the respective authors and FORREX does not warrant their accuracy or reliability, and expressly disclaims any liability in relation thereto.

JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management IMPACT OF Test Your Knowledge BIOLOGICAL CONTROL ON TWO KNAPWEED How well can you recall the main messages in the preceding article? SPECIES IN BRITISH Test your knowledge by answering the following questions. COLUMBIA Gayton & Miller Impact of Biological Control on Two Knapweed Species in British Columbia

1. Spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe) was first identified in British Columbia in: a) 1893 b) 1925 c) 1972

2. The most effective type of biocontrol insect on knapweed appears to be: a) Stem miner b) Root feeder c) Leaf feeder

3. Knapweed populations are affected by biological control insects, but they can also be affected by: a) Native insect attacks b) Plant diseases c) Weather variations

JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF ANSWERS: 1=a; 2=b; 3=c. 2=b; 1=a; ANSWERS: Ecosystems & Management 2010 Silviculture Techniques Information Research Report Needs Survey

Alan Wiensczyk, FORREX

Abstract This research report summarizes findings of an electronic survey designed by FORREX to document the information needs of British Columbia natural resource management professionals in the area of silvicultural systems and stand management techniques, including their ability to use this knowledge to manage for different values on the landscape and the reasons why certain sources of information were not used. Conducted from September to October 2010, the survey was emailed to 561 key silviculture practitioners and researchers in British Columbia. A total of 107 recipients (slightly over 20%) responded to the survey. The main knowledge gaps identified by survey respondents were related to growth and yield, economic rates of return, treatment response, and effects of treatments on values such as biodiversity, wildlife habitat, and hydrology. Other information needs identified included potential impacts of climate change on forest health, forest fire frequency and severity; and production of biofuels or carbon sequestration, and trade-offs associated with managing for these new products. These survey results will help extension providers improve future extension programming. They will also prove useful in developing government and academic silviculture research programs and allocating funds for these programs. Survey results related to implementation barriers will also aid government policy-makers.

KEYWORDS: barriers; climate change; decision making; extension techniques; forest health; information needs; information sources; silvicultural systems; silviculture treatments; stand management techniques

Introduction oday’s society is demanding a greater array of values from our forests. These include traditional goods and ecosystem services, such as timber, recreation, water, aesthetics, Tspirituality, non-timber forest products; and new values, such as carbon bioenergy, biofuels, and carbon storage (Morford & Hollstedt 2007; Working Roundtable on Forestry 2009).1 To support these values, natural resource management professionals continue to need information on various silvicultural techniques and how these techniques will influence achievement of management objectives, particularly in light of climate change. 30 In March 2009, the British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range put forward a new vision for silviculture in the province (“Growing Opportunities: A New Vision For

Wiensczyk, A. 2012. 2010 Silviculture Techniques Information Needs Survey. JEM Vol 13, No 3 Journal of Ecosystems and Management 13(3):30–57. Published by FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources. JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & http://jem.forrex.org/index.php/jem/article/viewFile/104/478 Management Silviculture in British Columbia”; B.C. Ministry of Forests and Range 2009), which was 2010 SILVICULTURE TECHNIQUES a direct response to recommendations that came from the Working Roundtable on INFORMATION Forestry (2009). As part of this proposed vision, intensive silviculture activities (e.g., plant- NEEDS SURVEY ing improved stock, fertilizing, and spacing) could be used to bring second-growth forests Wiensczyk into the timber harvesting rotation sooner, thus alleviating some of the expected mid- term timber supply gap caused by the mountain pine beetle infestation in the interior of the province. Other Ministry initiatives involve other aspects of silviculture practice such as short-rotation fibre plantations. Natural resource management professionals will also need information on silviculture practices and how the utility and effectiveness of these practices may be affected by climate change. To develop a research and extension program that addresses the needs of natural resource management professionals, it is necessary to first assess their knowledge of silvicultural systems and stand management treatments and their ability to use these tools to manage for the desired values, products, and services. The information needs survey summarized in this research report is one tool used to determine this state of knowledge and to identify specific information needs and implementation barriers. The goal of this survey was to gather the opinions of natural resource management practitioners regarding the adequacy of the information currently available to help them make silviculture decisions. The results of the survey are valuable to extension providers, such as FORREX, in improving and developing their extension programming. Informa- tion generated by this survey should also be useful in developing government and university/college silviculture research programs and allocating funds for these programs. Government policy-makers should also benefit from the results of survey questions related to implementation barriers.

Methods The survey was conducted during September and October 2010 using a web-based survey system called Zoomerang™.2 Questions were developed to help determine natural resource managers’ satisfaction with their current level of knowledge on silviculture systems and pre– and post–free-growing stand management treatments, and their ability to use this knowledge to manage for different values on the landscape. Additional questions dealt with the sources of information used by natural resource managers when making silvicultural decisions and the reasons why certain sources of information were not used. Standard de- mographic questions were also included. Appendix 1 contains a full listing of the survey questions. A composite contact list of silviculture practitioners was compiled from the FORREX client database using the criteria specified in Table 1.

Table 1: Criteria for selection of names from the FORREX client database

Criteria Value 31 Region All Affiliations All except Library

Main Activity Area Management, planning, operations, research, stewardship JEM Bioenergy, climate change, forest entomology, forest health, forest Vol 13, No 3 Interests management, forest management systems, forest planning, growth JOURNAL OF and yield, mountain pine beetle, silviculture, tenures, timber supply Ecosystems & Management This was supplemented with subscribers to the FORREX Forest Resources Dynamics 2010 SILVICULTURE TECHNIQUES electronic mailing list as well as stewardship personnel from the B.C. Ministry of Forests INFORMATION and Range. Also added were silviculturists from the Association of BC Forest Professionals NEEDS SURVEY database and other silviculturists known by the Ecosystems and Stand Management Ex- Wiensczyk tension Specialist. The composite list was then reviewed for accuracy. The survey was sent out via email on September 23, 2010, to all practitioners identified through the composite contact list, with a stated deadline for completion by October 15th. Reminders were sent on October 12th and 15th. The survey was closed at the end of the workday on October 15th.

Results The survey was sent via email to the 561 natural resource practitioners in the compiled list. Thirty-two email addresses generated delivery error messages, reducing the sample size to 529 people. A total of 107 people responded to the survey, resulting in a response rate of 20%. Of the 107 respondents, 88 completed the entire survey while 19 only answered some of the questions. For many of the questions, respondents were asked to provide comments on what information they felt was missing. Comments were reviewed for similarities among respondents and only these common themes are presented here. In addition, a cross-tabulation of survey responses by survey respondent affiliation was examined and is only discussed where differences were noted.

Survey respondent profile Profile questions at the end of the survey were intended to provide background information about the respondents. Topics included primary affiliation and fields of practice. The survey also asked respondents to provide information on their experience with various silviculture techniques and to identify their most silviculturally challenging stands. The majority of survey respondents were involved in silviculture activities within the province of British Columbia (Table 2). One respondent indicated that they were involved in silviculture activities in all four locations within Canada. Five respondents indicated that they were involved in silviculture activities in all three regions of British Columbia, one indicated they were involved in the Coastal and Northern Interior regions, and two indicated they were involved in the Northern and Southern Interior regions.

Table 2: Location of involvement in silviculture activities

Location Responses Percent

Coastal BC 24 28

Southern Interior BC 41 47

Northern Interior BC 36 41 32

Another Province/Territory within Canada 1 1

Outside Canada 1 1 JEM Vol 13, No 3 Of those who were involved in silviculture activities in a single provincial region, 17 JOURNAL OF were involved in the Coastal region, 33 in the Southern Interior region, and 27 in the Ecosystems & Management Northern Interior region. The respondent who was involved outside of Canada indicated 2010 SILVICULTURE TECHNIQUES participation in silviculture activities in Europe from 1987 to 2007. INFORMATION Almost half of the survey respondents were affiliated with the provincial government NEEDS SURVEY (46%), 33% were affiliated with a major forest licensee, and 12% were affiliated with nat- Wiensczyk ural resource consultants (Table 3). The one minor licensee who responded to the survey was affiliated with a community forest. Groups not represented in the survey responses included landowners, regional/municipal government staff, and the general public.

Table 3: Primary affiliation of the survey respondents

Affiliation Responses Percent

Major forest licensee 28 33

Minor forest licensee 1 1

Woodlot licensee 3 3

Landowner 0 0

Natural resources consultant 10 12

Federal government 1 1

Provincial government 39 46

Regional/municipal government 0 0

Academic 1 1

First Nations/aboriginal 1 1

Non-government organization 2 2

Public 0 0

Other 0 0

Total 86 100

The majority (71%) of the survey respondents indicated that they primarily practised in the field of silviculture. This is not unexpected given the survey respondent composition. Thirty-one percent were involved in strategic/operational planning, 29% were involved in forest management planning, 15% were involved in forest health, and 13% were involved in forest operations/harvesting and road construction. All fields of practice listed in the questionnaire were selected by at least one respondent, and survey respondents could select more than one field. Of the seven who indicated “other,” two were involved in monitoring, one in auditing of forest practices, one in timber supply modelling, one in inventory, one in forest stewardship, and one in First Nations consultations. 33 Survey participants were asked to provide information on the types of silviculture treatments for which they had experience. All silviculture techniques listed in the questionnaire were selected at least once (Table 4). Respondents had the greatest experience with prescribing clearcut systems and conducting vegetation management, followed closely by juvenile spacing. Only four participants indicated that they had no experience JEM Vol 13, No 3 with silviculture techniques. Entries under the “other” category included ecosystem JOURNAL OF restoration, site preparation, sheep grazing, planting, and broadleaf silviculture. Ecosystems & Management Table 4: Silviculture technique experience 2010 SILVICULTURE TECHNIQUES INFORMATION Experience Responses NEEDS SURVEY

Prescribing/implementing clearcut silviculture systems Wiensczyk 69 (e.g., clearcut, clearcut with reserves, variable retention clearcut) Prescribing/implementing alternative silviculture systems 51 (e.g., shelterwood, single-tree selection) Juvenile spacing 62 Vegetation management 68 (e.g., herbicide application, manual and mechanical brushing, etc.) Pruning 32

Fertilization 41

Pre-commercial thinning 33

Commercial thinning 19

I do not have experience using silviculture techniques 4

Other, please specify 13

Participants were also asked to identify their most challenging stands. The most commonly identified problem stands included the following. • Stands on moist to wet sites with severe levels of competing non-crop vegetation. • Stands on dry sites. • Stands with forest health issues (e.g., Armillaria root disease, stem rusts, frost, etc.). • Immature lodgepole pine stands with large numbers of stems killed by the mountain pine beetle. Silvicultural systems responses Silvicultural systems (e.g., clearcutting, retention, shelterwood, selection, etc.) can be used to manage for a variety of different values on the landscape (e.g., timber production, biodiversity, wildlife habitat, cultural values, water, human well-being, etc.). The majority of respondents (68%) felt they had enough silvicultural systems information to allow them to effectively manage for these values (Table 5).

Table 5: Available information on silvicultural systems

Response Percent Question 1. Do you feel that you have the necessary Yes 68 information about silvicultural systems to allow you to effectively manage for these different values? No 32 Total 100 34

When asked to provide their thoughts on what information they felt was missing, respondents noted a lack of: • information on the growth and yield implications of the various alternative (non- JEM clearcut) silvicultural systems and, in particular, growth and yield models that ac- Vol 13, No 3

count for the spatial complexity associated with many of these systems; JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & • appropriate stocking standards for partial cuts; Management • cost data (e.g., harvesting, reforestation, stand tending, etc.) for alternative silvi- 2010 SILVICULTURE cultural systems; TECHNIQUES INFORMATION • an assessment of the adequacy of the various silvicultural systems in meeting the NEEDS SURVEY needs of the other values (e.g., wildlife habitat, biodiversity and coarse woody de- Wiensczyk bris, visual quality, cultural heritage, etc.); and • operational training on how to implement alternative silvicultural systems. Continuity of tenure for multiple-entry silvicultural systems was also identified as an issue. When asked about the potential trade-offs associated with the use of various silvicultural systems, approximately half of respondents (51%) indicated that they did not have enough information (Table 6).

Table 6: Available information on potential tradeoffs associated with different silviculture systems

Response Percent Question 2. Do you feel that you have enough information Yes 49 about these trade-offs? No 51 Total 100

Identified information gaps included a lack of: • growth and yield information; • models that would allow users to predict the impacts of different silvicultural systems on other values (e.g., wildlife habitat, non-timber forest products, hydrology, social considerations, etc.) and economics; • data on the impact of different silvicultural systems on values as well as the interactions between the different values which makes it difficult to evaluate trade-offs; and • a single source of information on the implications and considerations for the various silvicultural systems. When asked if they had enough information on the effects of climate change on their choice of silvicultural system, 65% of survey respondents suggested that they did not (Table 7).

Table 7: Available information on climate change impacts on choice of silvicultural system

Response Percent Question 8. Do you feel that you have enough information on Yes 35 how climate change may affect the choice of silviculture system? No 65 Total 100

“Uncertain” was a commonly used word in the comments received. Survey respon- 35 dents were uncertain about the accuracy of current climate change predictions and how these predictions would manifest at the stand or ecosystem level. Climate change predictions are often presented as changes to average temperatures. Some respondents felt this would have minimal impact on their choice of silvicultural system compared to changes JEM in temperature extremes (minimums and maximums). Changes to minimum tempera- Vol 13, No 3 tures will affect the occurrence of frost events that, in turn, will affect species selection. JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Several respondents felt more information was required on how different species will re- Management spond to changes in climate (e.g., growth, survival, regenerative ability). Other respon- 2010 SILVICULTURE TECHNIQUES dents suggested that climate change was a long-term issue and thus would not affect INFORMATION their choice of silviculture system, which was a short-term issue based on the climate NEEDS SURVEY during the stand regeneration period. Wiensczyk

Stand tending treatment responses Respondents were asked whether they had enough information on the use of stand tending treatments to manage for a variety of values on the landscape and on how climate change might affect the utility and effectiveness of various stand tending tools. Sixty-two percent of respondents indicated that they had enough information on the use of stand tending treatments to manage for different forest values (Table 8) but just 37% indicated that they had enough information on the impact of climate change on these treatments (Table 9).

Table 8: Available information on stand tending treatments

Response Percent Question 3. Do you feel that you have the necessary Yes 62 information on how to use stand tending treatments to effectively manage for these values? No 38 Total 100

Respondents felt more information was needed on the economic rate of return on investment (ROI) for various stand management treatments in different areas of the province. Related to this was a comment from one respondent who noted that the ROI needs to be adjusted to account for risk factors such as fire and forest health agents. Sev- eral respondents suggested that a need exists for a comprehensive synthesis of available information on the effectiveness of different treatments in different areas of the province. It was noted that this synthesis should include information on the effectiveness of treatments in achieving and balancing all stand management objectives and values rather than just focussing on timber production.

Table 9: Available information on effect of climate change on stand tending treatments

Response Percent Question 9. Do you feel that you have enough information on Yes 37 how climate change may affect the utility and effectiveness of various stand tending tools? No 63 Total 100

Similar to responses received for the question on climate change and silviculture systems, respondents indicated that a strong need exists for information and models on the manifestation of climate change at the local or stand level. Other noted information needs 36 included the following. • How competing vegetation and forest health agents will be affected by a changing climate. • How climate change may affect the species or stand responses to treatment. A synthesis of stand tending treatments and their effectiveness for different areas of JEM Vol 13, No 3 the province was suggested as a desirable extension product. JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management Silviculture strategy responses 2010 SILVICULTURE TECHNIQUES The proposed silviculture strategy (B.C. Ministry of Forests and Range 2009) suggests that INFORMATION British Columbia can increase stand volume production via certain post–free-growing NEEDS SURVEY stand tending treatments. Overall, 59% of respondents felt they did not have the needed Wiensczyk information and skills to prescribe post–free-growing stand treatments to meet this goal; however, the response to this question varied between the three major survey respondent groups (Table 10). The majority (63%) of natural resource consultants answered “Yes,” while the majority (65%) of major licensee respondents answered “No.” Provincial government respondents were in the middle with only 53% answering “Yes” to this question.

Table 10: Information and skills to meet goals in proposed silviculture strategy

Response Percent Question 4. Do you feel that you have the information and Yes 41 skills you need to prescribe these post–free-growing stand tending treatments to meet this goal? No 59 Total 100

Information and skills identified as missing included the following. • Site-specific information and data on the response of stands or trees to different stand tending treatments. • Treatment response information, including measures of stand or tree quality in addition to volume gain information. • Growth and yield models capable of predicting treatment responses.

• Cost/benefit analyses (which require treatment response estimates). • Risks associated with different treatments, especially given the potential changes to forest health agents as a result of climate change. • Skill sets relating to the application of stand management techniques. • Methods for identifying opportunities for treatments.

Bioenergy and carbon sequestration responses Recently, a lot of discussion has centred around the new economy and getting different products from the forest (e.g., feedstocks for bioenergy opportunities, carbon sequestration, etc.). Over 80% of respondents suggested they did not have enough information on the silviculture techniques that can be used to manage for these new products (Table 11). Similarly, 82% of respondents felt they did not have enough information on the trade-offs associated with managing for these new products (Table 12).

Table 11: Available information on silviculture techniques that can be used to manage for these new products

Response Percent 37 Question 5. Do you feel that you have enough information on Yes 19 the silvicultural techniques that can be used to effectively No 81 manage for these new products? Total 100

Identified information needs related to this question included the following. JEM • Basic knowledge on the new products, including carbon sequestration. Vol 13, No 3 JOURNAL OF • Target stand characteristics (e.g., species mixes, site quality, stand density, rotation Ecosystems & length, etc.) that would best provide for these new products. Management • Economics of these new products. 2010 SILVICULTURE TECHNIQUES • Stand-level modelling tools that incorporate carbon sequestration and storage. INFORMATION NEEDS SURVEY • How biomass production and carbon storage will respond to different silviculture treatments. Wiensczyk

Table 12: Available information on trade-offs associated with these new products

Question 6. Do you feel that you have enough information on Response Percent the trade-offs associated with shifting to these new products Yes 18 (e.g., associated positive/negative impacts on forest ecosystems, No 82 etc.)? Total 100

Information needs related to this question included the following. • How biomass removal may impact ecosystem function, including the long-term nutrient status of the sites, biodiversity and coarse woody debris levels, wildlife trees and habitat, and hydrological values. • How managing at different densities, species shifts, and using potentially shorter rotations may impact these values. • Social and economic impacts of managing for these new products. • How management for these new products may affect the ability to manage for and produce traditional forest products.

Natural disturbance/forest health responses The majority of survey respondents (68%) felt they had enough information on silviculture techniques that could be used to manage for the forest health factors affecting the forests in their locale (Table 13).

Table 13: Available information on management of forest health issues in your area

Response Percent Question 7. Do you feel that you have enough information on Yes 68 the silvicultural techniques that can be used to manage for the forest health factors that are affecting the forests in your locale? No 32 Total 100

Some respondents commented that although adequate information was available on how to manage for certain forest health factors (e.g., spruce weevil), information was lacking on management of others (e.g., elytroderma needle cast, pine stem rusts). Other identified information needs related to this question included the following. • Forest health risk assessments. • Training and support on the field recognition and diagnosis of forest health agents. 38 • Interactions between different silviculture treatments and forest health factors (e.g., fertilization and Dothistroma needle blight). • Rust disease dynamics. • Impact of forest health agents on young stands as well as on post–free-growing stands. Almost 60% of the survey respondents felt they did not have enough information on JEM Vol 13, No 3 how the frequency and severity of forest health disturbance events may be affected by climate JOURNAL OF change (Table 14). Ecosystems & Management Table 14: Available information on impact of climate change on forest 2010 SILVICULTURE health issues TECHNIQUES INFORMATION NEEDS SURVEY Response Percent Question 10. Do you feel that you have enough information on Yes 41 Wiensczyk how the frequency and severity of forest health disturbance events may be affected by climate change? No 59 Total 100

Respondents noted that information is needed on the following topics. • How climate change will affect the population dynamics of specific insects and diseases. • The interaction between these insects and diseases and their host(s). • Risk analyses to help forest managers determine where and when management actions should be taken. • How climate change may affect the number and severity of forest fires and how this may affect the regeneration of forest stands. The majority of survey respondents (59%) felt they had enough information on the effects that different post-disturbance management options (e.g., mountain pine beetle salvage harvesting, etc.) may have on forest ecosystems (Table 15).

Table 15: Available information on impact of post-disturbance management options on forest ecosystems

Question 11. Do you feel that you have enough information on Response Percent the effects that different post-disturbance management Yes 59 options (e.g., MPB salvage harvesting, etc.) may have on forest No 41 ecosystems? Total 100

Information needs related to this question included the following. • The effectiveness of the different post-disturbance management options, including growth and yield response, seedling ingress patterns, and brush species response. • The economics of different management options, and the impact of management options on other forest values (e.g., coarse woody debris, hydrology). • The interaction between different management options and the risk of the forest disturbance agents.

Climate change When asked whether they had any other silvicultural technique concerns relating to climate change, 31% indicated that they had other concerns. These concerns included the need for information on the following topics. • The effects of climate change on deciduous tree species populations and growth. 39 • Assisted migration and conifer species selection options. • Techniques that will help create complex and resilient stands. Also mentioned was the need to incorporate flexibility in stocking standards to address potential climate change effects, as well as the need to incorporate the risk of increased JEM wild fire into forest planning exercises. Vol 13, No 3 JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management Barriers 2010 SILVICULTURE TECHNIQUES Almost one-half of survey respondents had experienced some kind of barrier, be it policy, INFORMATION regulatory, or institutional, which prevented them from prescribing silviculture or stand NEEDS SURVEY tending treatments (Table 16). Wiensczyk

Table 16: Policy, regulatory, or institutional barriers

Response Percent Question 21. Have you experienced any policy, regulatory, or Yes 45 institutional barriers that have prevented you from prescribing silviculture systems or stand tending treatments? No 55 Total 100

The most commonly identified barrier was the lack of available funding or other mechanisms to cover the costs of applying stand management treatments or employing non- clearcut silvicultural systems. Other identified barriers included the following. • The lack of appropriate stocking standards and free-growing regulations for use with alternative (non-clearcut) silvicultural systems. • A perceived lack of field experience within approval agencies and their inability to think “outside the box” when non-traditional silvicultural systems are proposed.

Decision-making methods In this section of the survey, respondents were asked questions related to the way they made silviculture decisions. For professional sources of information, almost all respondents (94%) indicated that they had used or currently use past personal experience or knowledge when making silviculture decisions (Table 17). Colleagues/co-workers were indicated as source of information by 90% of respondents; colleagues/peers outside of the respondent’s organization were a source of information for 77% of respondents. Least used professional sources of information included traditional ecological knowledge (20%), non-government technical specialists (20%), and extension specialists (44%). “Other” sources included observations of adjacent or similar stands.

Table 17: Information sources for decisions made in the past (professional sources)

Information source Responses Percent Past personal experience/knowledge 81 94 Colleagues/co-workers in your organization 77 90 Colleagues/peers outside of your organization 66 77 Government researchers 65 76 Government technical specialists (other than researchers) 56 75 40 College or university researchers 49 57 Independent private contractors or consultants 48 56 Extension specialists 38 44 Non-government organization technical specialists 17 20 JEM Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) 17 20 Vol 13, No 3 JOURNAL OF Other, please specify 9 10 Ecosystems & Management For written/participatory sources of information, the vast majority of the respondents 2010 SILVICULTURE TECHNIQUES (90%) use or had used scientific literature (Table 18). Other top information sources in- INFORMATION cluded extension notes (86%), guidebooks (85%), and workshops/training sessions (81%). NEEDS SURVEY Least used sources of information were job shadowing/mentorship (21%), Internet-based Wiensczyk information sources (31%), and decision aids (42%). Other written/participatory sources included text books and informal trials. Although responses for professional information sources showed no variation among survey respondent groups, responses for the written/participatory sources of information did. Guidebooks were the most frequently selected source of information for respondents associated with the provincial government (97%), while this source was only selected by 71% of major licensee respondents and 88% of natural resource consultants. Scientific literature was the most frequently selected written/participatory source of information by major licensee respondents (93%). Exten- sion notes were selected by all natural resource consultants as a source of information, followed closely by guidebooks and scientific literature.

Table 18: Information sources for decisions made in the past (written/ participatory sources)

Information source Responses Percent

Scientific literature (e.g., research reports, journal articles) 77 90

Extension notes 74 86 Guidebooks (e.g., Forest Practices Code guidebooks, best 73 85 practices publications) Workshops/training sessions 70 81

Field guides 67 78 Decision aids (e.g., FORREX Stand Establishment Decision 36 42 Aids, etc.) Internet-based information sources (e.g., Wikis, discussion 27 31 boards, and forums, etc.)

Job shadowing/mentorship 18 21

Other, please specify 3 3

Respondents were then asked to rank (i.e., from most likely to be used to least likely to be used) both professional and written/participatory sources of information for silviculture decisions for which they did not have any past experience. The top two professional sources of information were colleagues/co-workers from within their organization followed by colleagues/peers outside of their organization (Table 19). Traditional ecological knowledge, non-government organization technical specialists, 41 and extension specialists were the top three professional information sources indicated as least likely to be used (Table 20). This was consistent across the three main survey respondent groups, although one natural resource consultant indicated that traditional ecological knowledge was the most likely source of information they would use. Similarly, two major licensee respondents, two provincial government respondents, and one natural JEM resource consultant ranked traditional ecological knowledge as their second most likely Vol 13, No 3 source of information. JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management Table 19: Professional information sources ranked by respondents as either 2010 SILVICULTURE most likely or second most likely to be useda TECHNIQUES INFORMATION NEEDS SURVEY

Respondents ranking source Wiensczyk Professional information source as most likely or second most likely to be used

Colleagues/co-workers in your organization 63 Colleagues/peers outside of your organization 38 Government researchers 14 Independent private contractors or consultants 12 Government technical specialists (other than researchers) 11 Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) 7 College or university researchers 6 Extension specialists 2 Non-government organization technical specialists 1

a Data presented in the table is the sum of the number of respondents who selected the information source as the most likely or second most likely to be used.

Table 20: Professional information sources ranked by respondents as either least likely or second least likely to be useda

Respondents ranking source as Professional information source least likely or second least likely to be used

Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) 51

Non-government organization technical specialists 35

Extension specialists 17

College or university researchers 11

Independent private contractors or consultants 9

Colleagues/co-workers in your organization 4

Government technical specialists (other than researchers) 4

Colleagues/peers outside of your organization 3

Government researchers 2

a Data presented is the sum of the number of respondents indicating that the information source was the least likely or second least likely to be used. 42

For written/participatory information sources, guidebooks were the information source most likely to be used (Table 21). Extension notes, scientific literature, and field guides were very similar in their likelihood of being used; however, the responses from JEM natural resource consultants were slightly different than those from major licensees or Vol 13, No 3 the provincial government. Consultants indicated that they were less likely to use guide- JOURNAL OF books and more likely to use extension notes or scientific literature. Ecosystems & Management Table 21: Written/participatory information sources ranked by respondents 2010 SILVICULTURE as most likely or second most likely to be useda TECHNIQUES INFORMATION NEEDS SURVEY Respondents ranking source as Written/participatory information source most likely or second most likely Wiensczyk to be used

Guidebooks 39

Extension notes 26

Scientific literature 25

Field guides 25

Workshops/training sessions 20

Job shadowing/mentorship 6

Decision aids 6

Internet-based information sources 4 a Data presented is the sum of the number of respondents indicating that the information source was the most likely or 2nd most likely to be used.

In general, job shadowing/mentorship was the least likely written/participatory information source to be used (Table 22). This was expressed very strongly by natural resource consultant respondents; however, one major licensee respondent and one provincial government respondent indicated that this information source was the most likely to be used. Internet-based information sources, such as Wikis or discussion boards, were the second, and decision aids the third written/participatory information source least likely to be used; however, one major licensee and two provincial government respondents ranked decision aids as the most likely written/participatory information source they would use.

Table 22: Written/participatory information sources ranked by respondents as either least likely or second least likely to be useda

Respondents ranking source as Professional information source least likely or second least likely to be used

Job shadowing/mentorship 43

Internet-based information sources 35

Decision aids 19

Workshops/training sessions 13

Scientific literature 5 43

Field guides 3

Guidebooks 2

Extension notes 2 JEM Vol 13, No 3 a Data presented is the sum of the number of respondents indicating that the information source was the least likely or JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & second least likely to be used. Management Participants were further asked to provide a reason for the sources of information 2010 SILVICULTURE TECHNIQUES that they ranked as least likely to be used. The main reasons given for the lack of use of INFORMATION traditional ecological knowledge were lack of awareness of who to talk to or where to find NEEDS SURVEY the information (42%), uncertainties about the trustworthiness of the information (23%), Wiensczyk and a lack of access or an inability to access the information (19%). Several respondent comments referred to a lack of knowledge about traditional ecological knowledge. For non-government organization technical specialists, uncertainties regarding the trustworthiness of the information (32%) was the primary reason this information source was unlikely to be used; lack of awareness (24%) and lack of access (17%) were given as other reasons. Lack of awareness (38%) was the primary reason why extension specialists were unlikely to be used, followed by lack of access (24%), and issues with the application and interpretation of the information (16%). For the written/participatory information sources unlikely to be used, lack of available time (47%) was the primary reason cited for not using job shadowing/mentoring, with lack of access (22%) the next most commonly given reason, followed by lack of awareness of who to talk to or where to find the information. Lack of trust in the information was the main reason that Internet-based sources such as Wikis and discussion boards were unlikely to be used (51%), followed by issues with the application and interpretation of the information (17%). Lack of awareness of who to talk to or where to find the information was given as the primary reason that decision aids were unlikely to be used (39%), followed by issues with the application and interpretation of the information (20%). Sev- eral respondents commented that most decision aids were too general in nature to be useful for providing information on specific silviculture treatments.

Extension methods In the two questions related to extension methods, respondents were asked to provide information on their current methods of accessing silviculture information and their preferred methods for receiving information. Workshops/conferences was the primary method respondents used to access information on silviculture techniques (Table 23), followed closely by online/Internet. Rarely used methods to access silviculture information were local libraries and the Association of BC Forest Professionals (ABCFP) website. “Other” methods specified included peers/colleagues/co-workers and discussions with silviculture researchers and experts.

Table 23: Current methods of accessing information on silvicultural techniques

Access method Responses Percent

Workshops/conferences 68 80

Online/Internet 63 74

FORREX website 46 54 44

Employer distribution networks 40 47

Subscriptions to journals 34 40 ABCFP website 18 21 JEM Local library 7 8 Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF Other, please specify 15 18 Ecosystems & Management Respondents were then asked to indicate their preferred methods for receiving infor- 2010 SILVICULTURE TECHNIQUES mation on silviculture techniques. Extension notes were the preferred method of exten- INFORMATION sion for 84% of the respondents, followed closely by workshops/technical sessions, field NEEDS SURVEY trips, and guidebooks/best management practices (Table 24). Least preferred extension Wiensczyk methods included videos, multi-media products, and one-on-one assistance. Several respondents commented that all methods were useful, depending on the level of experience of the user. Two other respondents mentioned that all extension materials should be on the Internet.

Table 24: Preferred extension methods for receiving information on silvicultural techniques

Preferred method Responses Percent Extension notes 71 84 Workshops/technical sessions 66 78 Field trips 62 73 Guidebooks/best management practices 60 71 Training courses 50 59 Literature summaries and syntheses 45 53 Journal publications 44 52 Conferences 42 49 Websites 41 48 Decision support tools 40 47 Conference proceedings 39 46 Newsletter/magazine articles 33 39 Webinar/online lecture series 31 36 Email/e-newsletters 23 27 One-on-one assistance 18 21 Multi-media products (e.g., DVDs, online flash 12 14 presentations, etc.) Videos 7 8 Other, please specify 6 7

Discussion To meet society’s demand for a greater array of values from our forests, natural resource management professionals will need information on the various silviculture systems and stand management practices, how these systems and practices will influence these values or can be used to produce these values, and how the utility and effectiveness of these sys- 45 tems and practices may be affected by climate change. To develop an extension program that addresses the information needs of natural resource management professionals, it is necessary to first assess their knowledge of silvicultural systems and stand management practices and their ability to use these tools to manage for the desired values, products, and services. The goal of this survey was to gather JEM the opinions of natural resource management professionals regarding the adequacy of Vol 13, No 3 the information currently available to help them make silviculture decisions. JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management As several sources were used to compile the list of survey recipients, it was assumed 2010 SILVICULTURE TECHNIQUES that it contained the majority of the key silviculture practitioners and researchers in INFORMATION British Columbia. Nevertheless, it is probable that some were missed owing to the recent NEEDS SURVEY government downsizing and reorganization activities as well as staffing changes within Wiensczyk the forest industry over the past few years. This was evident by the email delivery error messages received when the survey was launched (i.e., 5.7% of the sample). A couple of survey respondents also recommended that the survey be sent to other people within their organization or consultants that they used. The response rate for the survey was good, with slightly over 20% of recipients com- pleting the survey. All areas of the province were represented, with the majority of respondents being affiliated with one of three groups: (1) provincial government (46%), (2) major forest licensee (33%), or (3) consultants (12%). This grouping was attributed to the method and information sources used to compile the sample frame and is not deemed to be problematic given that the number of silviculture practitioners and researchers affiliated with other organizations is likely quite small. All fields of practice were represented and most of the respondents had experience with the application of one or more silviculture treatments. The majority of survey respondents felt they had enough information on silvicultural systems and stand tending treatments to manage for different values on the landscape but thought information was lacking on how the utility and effectiveness of these tools might be affected by climate change. Research and extension on climate change is ongoing and should help to address this information need. Respondents identified a need for a comprehensive synthesis of current research on the effectiveness of silviculture treatments by biogeoclimatic zone. Information on the effectiveness of these tools in light of climate change could also be included in such a synthesis. Approximately half (51%) of respondents felt they did not have enough information about the trade-offs associated with different silvicultural systems; in this regard, the most frequent comment concerned a lack of information on the growth and yield implications of the various systems. Exten- sion in this area has been minimal in the recent past primarily because of a lack of funding and the subsequent hibernation of the Southern Interior Growth and Yield Cooperative. Most respondents thought they had enough information on silviculture techniques to manage for the forest health factors in their locale but again indicated that they lacked information on how climate change might affect the frequency and severity of forest health agents. Specific information needs were identified, including the potential impacts of climate change on forest insect population dynamics and forest fire frequency and severity, and the need for risk analysis tools to aid management decisions. Most respondents felt they had enough information on post-disturbance management of forest stands, although some needs were identified, including potential impacts of climate change on deciduous tree species populations and growth, conifer species selection options and stocking standards, and management techniques to create complex and resilient stands. Some of these needs will be addressed through the FORREX project “Reducing Vulnera- 46 bilities and Promoting Resilience of British Columbia’s Natural and Human Systems Through Adaptation of Post-Disturbance Land Management Options.” This project in- volves the design of a decision-support framework to assist natural resource managers in assessing risk and adapting post-disturbance management strategies to changes in natural disturbance regimes as a result of climate change. It provides information on the JEM Vol 13, No 3 projected impacts of climate change on forest fire frequency and severity and specific for- JOURNAL OF est insects, as well as information on the anticipated impacts of climate-induced changes Ecosystems & Management to natural disturbance regimes and management responses to those changes on forest 2010 SILVICULTURE TECHNIQUES succession patterns, carbon storage, biodiversity and wildlife, watersheds, and human val- INFORMATION ues. These latter two project components, as well as information and tools currently under NEEDS SURVEY development in other similarly funded projects, will help inform and support the applica- Wiensczyk tion of the framework. The project, which was funded by the Future Forest Ecosystem Scientific Council, was completed in March 2012. Published results are available via the project website (http://ffesc.forrex.org). In addition to climate change impacts, the majority of respondents felt they did not have enough information about (or the skills to apply) post–free-growing silviculture treatments to meet the goals in the proposed provincial silviculture strategy; however, the response to this question varied considerably by survey respondent affiliation. The majority of natural resource consultants felt they had enough information, although the majority of major licensees felt they did not. Provincial government survey respondents were in the middle with only a slight majority, indicating that they had enough information. This difference may be attributed to respondent groups’ varying levels of familiarity with the proposed silviculture strategy, may be a result of differences in opinion regarding how much information is “enough,” or may reflect differences in levels of silviculture experience among the three groups. Nevertheless, it is only possible to speculate on the cause of the differences between groups because silviculture experience data was not collected in this survey and the level of familiarity with the proposed strategy was not as- sessed. As mentioned previously, respondents felt that a comprehensive synthesis on the effectiveness of the different treatments is required. A strong majority (over 80%) of respondents felt they did not have enough information to effectively manage for the production of bioenergy feedstocks or carbon sequestration, and also lacked information on the trade-offs associated with managing for these new products. This is a critical information need given the current provincial government’s planned development of this sector of the forest/energy industry; research and extension in this area should thus be assigned a high priority. Some research and extension efforts are currently under way in this area, but it appears that more needs to be done. When making past or current silviculture decisions, respondents relied heavily on personal experience (94%) or on colleagues within their organization (90%) as professional information sources. It is surprising that the use of personal experience when making silviculture decisions was not 100%. Scientific literature, extension notes, guidebooks, and workshops/training sessions were all used by over 80% of survey respondents as written/participatory information sources. In cases of making silviculture decisions for which respondents did not have any past experience, colleagues/coworkers within their organization were the most likely professional information source used, followed closely by colleagues/peers from outside their organization. This agrees with previous information needs survey results (Gregory & Sat- terfield 1999; Morford & Hollstedt 2007). Traditional ecological knowledge was the least likely professional information source to be used and respondents cited a lack of aware- 47 ness of who to talk to or how to find the information as the main reason for this. This is not unexpected given the unfamiliarity of this information source within the natural resource management field. This result highlights the need to increase awareness among professionals of how to access this valuable information source. Uncertainty about the trustworthiness of the information was the main reason given for not using information JEM Vol 13, No 3 from non-government organization technical specialists, which was ranked the second JOURNAL OF least likely professional information source. Ecosystems & Management The most likely sources of written/participatory information to be used by survey re- 2010 SILVICULTURE TECHNIQUES spondents were guidebooks followed by extension notes, scientific literature (i.e., research INFORMATION reports, journal articles), and field guides, which were all similar in their likelihood of NEEDS SURVEY use. This reflects survey results published by Gregory and Satterfield (1999), who reported Wiensczyk that interpretive and field guides ranked first and extension notes ranked third in their likelihood of use and their ability to reach key personnel. In the 1999 survey, however, journal articles were ranked lowest in their likelihood of being used and their ability to reach key personnel. This significant change is possibly due to the increased online availability of journal articles over the past decade. Lack of time was the primary reason given by respondents for the low likelihood of using job shadowing/mentoring as an information source. Internet-based information sources, such as Wikis or discussion boards, were the second least likely source of written/participatory information to be used by survey respondents. Uncertainties regarding the trustworthiness of the information was given as the primary reason for this ranking. This is similar to Gregory and Satterfield’s survey (1999), whose results showed that In- ternet information sources received only “a little trust,” although they also reported a much higher level of trust in university web pages. However, their survey question referred to the “Internet” in general; in the survey reported on here, the question was specific to certain Internet tools. As such, this result is not unexpected given the relative newness of the discussion board and Wiki information source in the natural resource management community. The Internet was the second most frequent method used by survey respondents to access information on silviculture techniques. Preferred extension methods for information on silviculture tools and techniques were extension notes, workshops/technical sessions, field trips, and guidebooks. This finding is also similar to Morford and Hollstedt’s survey results (2007). Least preferred extension methods included videos and multi-media products, such as DVDs and online flash presentations.

Conclusions The results of this survey have identified several key silviculture information gaps within the natural resource management professional community. It is critical to address these gaps so that natural resource practitioners can effectively manage both traditional goods and ecosystems services, along with the range of new products and services demanded by society from our forests, especially in light of projected climate change impacts on the environment. Some of these gaps may be filled through the extension and transfer of existing information and research; others, such as those related to climate change or new forest products (e.g., biofuels), may require investment in new research. These results will assist FORREX in their extension planning and program development, ensuring that the topics covered and the extension tools used will meet the needs of this client group. It is also im- perative that government and academia develop research projects and programs with sufficient resources to address the identified gaps. Finally, the removal of the policy, regulatory, 48 and institutional barriers to implementation identified in this survey is another key action required. Management of our natural resources in a changing climate will require the development of new and innovative approaches. Government, industry, and academia must work together to create an environment conducive to testing of non-traditional silviculture treatments and systems. JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management Acknowledgements 2010 SILVICULTURE TECHNIQUES I would like to thank the survey respondents for their time and thoughtful inputs. Thanks INFORMATION to Don Gayton, Suzan Lapp, Pedro Lara Almuedo, and Kathie Swift for their advice during NEEDS SURVEY the preparation of this report and to the anonymous peer reviewers for their helpful com- Wiensczyk ments and suggestions.

Notes 1. FORREX Forest Resource Dynamics Working Group. 2. MarketTools Inc. Zoomerang surveys. San Francisco, Calif. See: http://www.zoomerang.com

References B.C. Ministry of Forests and Range. 2009. Growing opportunities: A new vision for silviculture in British Columbia. Forest Practices Branch, Victoria, B.C. Discussion paper. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp /silviculture/discussion_paper/SilvicultureDiscussionPaper-FINAL.pdf [September 2012]. Gregory, R. & T. Satterfield. 1999. Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership client survey. B.C. Ministry of Forests Research Program, Victoria, B.C., and Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership, Kamloops, B.C. Working Paper No. 40. https://www.for.gov .bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/Wp/Wp40.pdf [September 2012]. Morford, S.R. & D.C. Hollstedt. 2007. Revisiting a forest extension strategy for British Columbia: A survey of natural resource practitioners and information providers. B.C. Ministry of Forests and Range, Research Branch, Victoria, B.C. Technical Report No. 42. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs /Docs/Tr/Tr042.pdf [September 2012]. Working Roundtable on Forestry. 2009. Moving toward a high value, globally competitive, sustainable forest industry. B.C. Ministry of Forests and Range, Victoria, B.C. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/mof/forestry _roundtable/Moving_Toward_a_Globally_Competitive_Forest_Industry.pdf [September 2012].

JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management APPENDIX 1 2010 SILVICULTURE TECHNIQUES INFORMATION Silvicultural Techniques Information Needs Survey 2010 NEEDS SURVEY Wiensczyk

Today’s practicing natural resource professionals are dealing with many complex natural resource management challenges and have to balance and manage for a variety of different values on the landscape such as biodiversity, wildlife habitat, cultural values, timber, water, and human well-being to ensure the long-term integrity of ecosystems is maintained and needs of communities are met. Silvicultural techniques (e.g., silviculture systems, stand tending activities, etc.) include tools and techniques that forest managers can use to help manage for these different values. The first series of questions in this survey are designed to gather your opinion on the adequacy of the currently available information on these techniques relative to the values that you have to manage for. Silviculture Systems Silviculture systems (e.g., clearcutting, retention, shelterwood, selection, etc.) can be used to manage for a variety of different values on the landscape (e.g., timber production, stand structure, wildlife habitats, aesthetics, etc.). 1. Do you feel that you have the necessary information about silviculture systems to allow you to effectively manage for these different values? ! Yes ! No ! If no, what do you feel is missing? There are potential tradeoffs when proposing various silviculture systems (e.g., growth and yield implications, vegetation management treatment options, socio-economic considerations, etc.). 2. Do you feel that you have enough information about these trade-offs? ! Yes ! No ! If no, what do you feel is missing? Stand Tending Treatments Stand tending treatments (e.g., thinning, pruning, fertilization, vegetation management, etc.) can also be used to manage for the variety of different values on the landscape. 3. Do you feel that you have the necessary information on how to use stand tending treatments to effectively manage for these values? ! Yes ! No ! If no, what do you feel is missing? The proposed silviculture strategy suggests BC can increase stand volume production via certain post free growing stand tending treatments. 4. Do you feel that you have the information and skills you need to prescribe these post free growing stand tending treatments to meet this goal? ! Yes ! No ! If no, what do you feel is missing? Bioenergy and Carbon Sequestration Recently, there has been a lot of discussion about the new economy and getting different products from the forest (e.g., feed stocks for bio-energy opportunities, carbon sequestration, etc.). 5. Do you feel that you have enough information on the silvicultural techniques that can be used to effectively manage for these new products? ! Yes ! No ! If no, what do you feel is missing? 50

JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management APPENDIX 1: Silvicultural Techniques Information Needs Survey 2010 2010 SILVICULTURE TECHNIQUES (Cont’d) INFORMATION NEEDS SURVEY

Wiensczyk 6. Do you feel that you have enough information on the trade-offs associated with shifting to these new products (e.g., associated positive/negative impacts on forest ecosystems, etc.)? ! Yes ! No ! If no, what do you feel is missing? Forest Health Forest health factors (e.g., mountain pine beetle, spruce budworm, Dothistroma needle blight, pine stem rusts, etc.) have had large impacts on our recent management of the forests. 7. Do you feel that you have enough information on the silvicultural techniques that can be used to manage for the forest health factors that are affecting the forests in your locale? ! Yes ! No ! If no, what do you feel is missing? Climate Change Climate change may affect the choice of silviculture system, the utility and effectiveness of stand tending treatments, and the severity and extent of forest health agents. 8. Do you feel that you have enough information on how climate change may affect the choice of silviculture system? ! Yes ! No ! If no, what you do you feel is missing? 9. Do you feel that you have enough information on how climate change may affect the utility and effectiveness of various stand tending tools? ! Yes ! No ! If no, what you feel is missing? 10.Do you feel that you have enough information on how the frequency and severity of forest health disturbance events may be affected by climate change? ! Yes ! No ! If no, what do you feel is missing? 11. Do you feel that you have enough information on the effects that different post-disturbance management options (e.g., MPB salvage harvesting, etc.) may have on forest ecosystems? ! Yes ! No ! If no, what do you feel is missing? 12.Do you have any other silvicultural technique concerns relating to climate change? ! Yes ! No ! If yes, please list and describe. Silviculture Experience and Decision Making Methods These next few questions are to gather information on your silvicultural technique experience and the information sources that you use to help you make silvicultural decisions. 13.Which silvicultural techniques have you had experience using? (Please select all that apply) ! Prescribing/implementing clearcut silviculture systems (e.g., clearcut, clearcut with reserves, 51 variable retention clearcut) ! Prescribing/implementing alternative silviculture systems (e.g., shelterwood, single-tree selection) ! Juvenile spacing

JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management APPENDIX 1: Silvicultural Techniques Information Needs Survey 2010 2010 SILVICULTURE TECHNIQUES (Cont’d) INFORMATION NEEDS SURVEY

! Vegetation management (e.g., herbicide application, manual and mechanical brushing, etc.) Wiensczyk ! Pruning ! Fertilization ! Pre-commercial thinning ! Commercial thinning ! I do not have experience using silviculture techniques ! Other, please specify 14.What are your more challenging stands when it comes to prescribing silviculture treatments? When making silviculture decisions, what sources of information do you currently use or have you used in the past? 15.Professional sources? (Please select all that apply) ! Past personal experience/knowledge ! Colleagues/coworkers in your organization ! Colleagues/peers outside of your organization ! Independent private contractors or consultants ! College or University researchers ! Government researchers ! Government technical specialists (other than researchers) ! Non-government organization technical specialists ! Extension specialists ! Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) ! Other, please specify 16.Written/participatory sources? (Please select all that apply). ! Guidebooks (e.g., FPC guidebooks, best practices type publications) ! Scientific literature (e.g., Research reports, journal articles) ! Extension notes ! Decision aids (e.g., FORREX Stand Establishment Decision Aids (SEDAs)) ! Field guides ! Internet-based information sources (e.g., Wiki's, discussion boards and forums, etc.) ! Workshops/training sessions ! Job Shadowing/Mentorship ! Other, please specify If you needed to make a silviculture decision for which you did not have any past personal experience or knowledge, what sources of information are you most likely to use? 17.Professional sources? (Please rank from most likely to be used (1) to least likely to be used (9)) 1234 5 6789 Colleagues/coworkers in your organization """" " """" Colleagues/peers outside of your organization """" " """" Independent private contractors or consultants """" " """" College or university researchers """" " """" Government researchers """" " """" Government technical specialists (other than researchers) """" " """" Non-government organization (NGO) technical specialists """" " """" 52 Extension specialists """" " """" Traditional Ecological Knowledge """" " """"

JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management APPENDIX 1: Silvicultural Techniques Information Needs Survey 2010 2010 SILVICULTURE TECHNIQUES (Cont’d) INFORMATION NEEDS SURVEY

(TEK) Wiensczyk 18.Written/participatory sources? (Please rank from most likely to be used (1) to least likely to be used (8)). 12345678 Guidebooks (e.g., FPC guidebooks, Best practices type publications) """""""" Scientific literature (e.g., Research reports, journal articles) """""""" Extension notes """""""" Decision aids (e.g., FORREX Stand Establishment Decision Aids (SEDAs) """""""" Field guides """""""" Internet-based information sources (e.g., Wiki's, discussion boards, and forums, """""""" etc.) Workshops/training sessions """""""" Job shadowing/mentorship """"""""

19.For the four (4) professional information sources that you ranked in question 17 as least likely (6-9) to be used, please indicate the primary reason that they are unlikely to be used. Access = lack of or inability to access the information Aware = lack of awareness of the information source (i.e., who to talk to, where to find information) Cost = cost to access the information Trust = uncertainties about the trustworthiness of the information Time = limited time available Interp. = Interpretation/application issues Accept = acceptability of the information to superiors and/or decision makers Other = any other reason - please specify in the comments box. Access Aware Costs Trust Time Interp. Accept Other Colleagues/coworkers in your organization """""""" Additional comment Colleagues/peers outside of your organization """""""" Additional comment Contractors/Consultants """""""" Additional comment College or university researchers """""""" Additional comment Government researchers """""""" Additional comment Government technical specialists (other than researchers) """""""" Additional comment NGO technical specialists """""""" Additional comment Extension specialists """""""" Additional comment Traditional Ecological Knowledge 53 (TEK) """""""" Additional comment

JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management APPENDIX 1: Silvicultural Techniques Information Needs Survey 2010 2010 SILVICULTURE TECHNIQUES (Cont’d) INFORMATION NEEDS SURVEY

Wiensczyk 20.For the four (4) written/participatory information sources that you ranked in question 18 as least likely (5-8) to be used, please indicate the primary reason that they are least likely to be used. Access = lack of or inability to access the information Aware = lack of awareness of the information source (i.e., who to talk to, where to find information) Cost = cost to access the information Trust = uncertainties about the trustworthiness of the information Time = limited time available Interp = interpretation/application issues Accept = acceptability of the information to superiors and/or decision makers Other = any other reason - please specify in the comments box. Access Aware Costs Trust Time Interp Accept Other Guidebooks !!!!!!!! Additional comment Field Guides !!!!!!!! Additional comment Scientific Literature !!!!!!!! Additional comment Extension Notes !!!!!!!! Additional comment Decision Aids !!!!!!!! Additional comment Internet-based information sources !!!!!!!! Additional comment Workshops/Training sessions !!!!!!!! Additional comment Job shadowing/mentorship !!!!!!!! Additional comment

21.Have you experienced any policy, regulatory, or institutional barriers that have prevented you from prescribing silviculture systems or stand tending treatments? " Yes " No " If yes, what barriers have you experienced or have knowledge of? Accessing Information and Extension Techniques 22.How do you currently access information on silvicultural techniques? (Please select all that apply) ! Online/internet ! Subscriptions to journals ! Local library ! ABCFP website ! FORREX website ! Employer distribution networks ! Workshops/conferences ! Other, please specify 23.Which of the following extension methods would be helpful to you for receiving information about silvicultural techniques? (Please select all that apply) ! Extension notes 54 ! Journal publications ! Guidebooks/Best management practices ! Literature summaries and syntheses

JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management APPENDIX 1: Silvicultural Techniques Information Needs Survey 2010 2010 SILVICULTURE TECHNIQUES (Cont’d) INFORMATION NEEDS SURVEY

! Newsletter/magazine articles Wiensczyk ! Conference proceedings ! Decision support tools ! Videos ! Multi-media products (e.g., DVD's, online flash presentations, etc.) ! Training courses ! Field trips ! Conferences ! Workshops/technical sessions ! Websites ! Email/e-newsletters ! Webinar/online lecture series ! One-on-one assistance ! Other, please specify Profile Questions 24.In which geographical area are you involved in silviculture activities? (Please select all that apply) ! Coastal BC ! Southern Interior BC ! Northern Interior BC ! Another Province/Territory within Canada ! Outside Canada, please specify 25.Please select your primary affiliation. " Major forest licensee " Minor forest licensee " Woodlot licensee " Landowner " Natural resources consultant " Federal government " Provincial government " Regional/municipal government " Academic " First Nations/Aboriginal " Non-government organization " Public " Other, please specify 26.In which field/area do you primarily practice? (Please select all that apply) ! Silviculture ! Forest Health ! Forest Research ! Forest Management Planning ! Tree Improvement ! Forest Operations/Harvesting and Road Construction ! Growth and Yield ! Ecosystem Restoration ! Planning (Strategic/Operational) ! Biology (e.g., terrestrial ecology) 55 ! Conservation Biology ! Conservation Ecology ! Natural Resources Management Policy ! Other, please specify A JEM Vol 13, No 3 JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management

Author contact Information 2010 SILVICULTURE TECHNIQUES Alan Wiensczyk, Extension Specialist, Ecosystems and Stand Management, FORREX Forum for Research INFORMATION and Extension in Natural Resources, 400–1488 4th Avenue, Prince George, BC V2L 4Y2. Email: NEEDS SURVEY [email protected] Wiensczyk

Article Received: February 11, 2011 • Article Accepted: April 27, 2012 Production of this article was funded, in part, by the British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. © 2012, Copyright in this article is the property of FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources Society.

ISSN 1488-4674. Articles or contributions in this publication may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use free of charge to the recipient in educational, training, and not-for-profit activities provided that their source and authorship are fully acknowledged. However, reproduction, adaptation, translation, application to other forms or media, or any other use of these works, in whole or in part, for commercial use, resale, or redistribution, requires the written consent of FORREX Forum for research and Extension in natural resources society and of all contributing copyright owners. This publication and the articles and contributions herein may not be made accessible to the public over the Internet without the written consent of FORREX. For consents, contact: Managing Editor, FORREX, Suite 400, 235 1st Avenue, Kamloops, BC V2C 3J4, or email [email protected] The information and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the respective authors and FORREX does not warrant their accuracy or reliability, and expressly disclaims any liability in relation thereto.

JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management 2010 SILVICULTURE Test Your Knowledge TECHNIQUES INFORMATION NEEDS SURVEY How well can you recall the main messages in the preceding article? Wiensczyk Test your knowledge by answering the following questions.

2010 Silviculture Techniques Information Needs Survey

1. Survey respondents identified the following areas as missing information when asked about using silvicultural systems to manage for different values. a) Stocking standards, cost data, growth and yield implications, what equipment to use b) Growth and yield implications, how to use GPS to map out treatment areas, stocking standards, and cost data c) Growth and yield implications, stocking standards, cost data, and continuity of tenure d) Effectiveness assessment, cost data, growth and yield implications, what stock types to plant

2. Survey respondents felt that they had enough information on silvicultural techniques to manage stands for biomass and forest carbon sequestration. a) True b) False

3. The top three professional information sources, in likelihood of use, were: a) Colleagues in their organization, colleagues outside their organization, and extension specialists b) Colleagues in their organization, colleagues outside their organization, and government researchers c) Government researchers, colleagues in their organization, college or university researchers d) Colleagues in their organization, colleagues outside their organization, and their mom

JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF ANSWERS: 1=c; 2=b; 3=b 2=b; 1=c; ANSWERS: Ecosystems & Management Forage Production Potential in a Ponderosa Pine Discussion Paper Stand: Effects of Tree Spacing on Rough Fescue and Understorey Plants after 45 Years

Percy J. Folkard,* Thompson Rivers University & British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture; Lauchlan H. Fraser, Thompson Rivers University; Cameron N. Carlyle, University of Alberta; *Corresponding Rick E. Tucker, British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations author

Abstract We examined the development of understorey forage plant communities in relation to tree density in an experimental ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) stand. We used a 45-year- old ponderosa pine spacing trial near Westwold, British Columbia, Canada, with five spacing treatments (1.22, 2.44, 3.66, 4.88, and 6.10 m) to sample understorey biomass and diversity, with a focus on pinegrass (Calamagrostis rubescens) and rough fescue (Festuca campestris)—two regionally important forage grasses. We predicted that there would be a positive correlation between tree spacing and understorey biomass and a compositional shift from pinegrass to rough fescue under increased tree spacing. We found that rough fescue, the preferred forage species, grew only under tree spacings equal to or greater than 3.66 m, with the greatest biomass at 4.88 and 6.10 m spacings, whereas pinegrass was equally abundant under all spacings. We believe that silvopasture principles could be applied to similar ponderosa pine stands to optimize and maintain both timber and forage productivity.

KEYWORDS: Pinus ponderosa; Festuca campestris; Calamagrostis rubescens; stand density; forage; plant biomass; plant community composition; silvopasture

Introduction onderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Dougl. ex Laws.) stands are often associated with well-developed understorey graminoid communities capable of producing highly Ppalatable forage for wildlife and livestock (Tisdale & McLean 1957; Meidinger & Pojar 1991). Researchers have studied the characteristics of ponderosa pine stands and associated vegetative communities to investigate overstorey–understorey relationships (Pase & Hurd 1958; Moir 1966; Jameson 1967; Uresk & Severson 1989; Naumburg & DeWald 1999; Martens et al. 2000; Peracca & O’Hara 2008; Barbier et al. 2009; Sabo et al. 2009) and to determine the impacts of thinning these stands on understorey communities (McConnell & Smith 1970; Uresk & Severson 1989; Sabo at al. 2009). However, the potential for agroforestry system development and the influence of ponderosa pine on individual understorey species are not well studied (Naumburg & DeWald 1999), and this information is required for managers to make appropriate tree stocking decisions in forests with overlapping tim- 58 ber and forage values. Considering that these ecosystems have limited distribution in British Columbia (BC) (Lloyd et al. 1990), it is important to understand this relationship

Folkard, P.J., Fraser, L.H., Carlyle, C.N., & Tucker, R.E. 2012. Forage Production Potential in a Ponderosa Pine Stand: Effects of Tree Spacing on Rough Fescue and Understorey Plants after 45 years. JEM Vol 13, No 3 Journal of Ecosystems and Management 13(3.3):58–71. Published by FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources. JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & http://jem.forrex.org/index.php/jem/article/viewFile/164/480 Management for the purposes of habitat conservation, ecological services, and economic valuation. Fur- FORAGE POTENTIAL UNDER PONDEROSA thermore, because graminoid species have different forage values, it is critical to determine SPACING overstorey effects on the relative composition and productivity of forage species for uti- Folkard, Fraser, lization in silvopasture systems. Carlyle, & Tucker In the absence of fire or other disturbances, competition for light and soil water ultimately influences the growth of ponderosa pine trees and the composition of the understorey community (Fernandez et al. 2008; Gea-Izquierdo et al. 2009). As tree density is reduced, water loss to tree transpiration decreases, soil water increases (Zou et al. 2008), and more water is potentially available for understorey herbaceous vegetation. Further- more, the reduced canopy structure of lower density stands with gaps between tree crowns increases light availability in the understorey (Lewis 1989) and allows more precipitation to reach the forest floor (Levia & Frost 2006). As tree density alters understorey resource availability, we can expect subsequent changes in community composition of the understorey vegetation. Rough fescue (Festuca campestris Rydb.) is an important rangeland species with high forage value (Johnston et al. 1968). It often dominates high-elevation grasslands (Tisdale 1947) and is prominent in open ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii Mirb.) forests in southern British Columbia (Tisdale & McLean 1957). Pinegrass (Calamagrostis rubescens Buckl.) is a common rangeland forage species but becomes unpalatable to livestock by mid-August (McLean 1967; Stout & Brooke 1985). Considering the high forage value of rough fescue and its limited tolerance to grazing, it is important to understand its association with ponderosa pine forests in order to set appropriate forest and range practices and management objectives. Understanding ponderosa pine and understorey vegetation relationships is important for the application of management regimes that optimize multiple land uses (Pase 1958; Jameson 1967; McConnell & Smith 1970). Plant communities in ponderosa pine–bunchgrass ecosystems can exhibit aspects of both forest and grassland community dynamics (Laughlin et al. 2006). Therefore, the open architecture of ponderosa pine stands is suitable for silvopasture applications where both timber and forage values are managed in an integrated system. Balancing these forest resources requires the co-management of timber production and cattle grazing practices (Wikeem et al. 1993), and monitoring field examples of over- and understorey dynamics provides the insight necessary to evaluate the results of our management and adjust accordingly. We present the findings of a ponderosa pine tree spacing trial with respect to understorey vegetation characteristics (biomass and species composition) after 45 years of tree growth. This study is unique among ponderosa pine density studies due to its wide range of inter-tree spacing treatments (1.22, 2.44, 3.66, 4.88, and 6.10 m) and the long duration of establishment. Most studies in ponderosa pine stands focus on thinning to decrease tree density and restore open conditions. Although our study lacks the replicated design required to make inferences for ponderosa pine stands throughout the Southern Interior of British Columbia, half-century studies such as this are rare. The long duration of the trial 59 makes this study particularly valuable for understanding plant community shifts between rough fescue and pinegrass, an understudied aspect of ponderosa pine stand dynamics. We hypothesized that understorey biomass would decrease with increasing tree density (decreasing inter-tree spacing) and that the composition of the plant community would shift towards species tolerant of reduced light and soil water. In our vegetation JEM Vol 13, No 3 analysis, we focused on the biomass of rough fescue and pinegrass because of their im- JOURNAL OF portance as forage. Ecosystems & Management Methods FORAGE POTENTIAL UNDER PONDEROSA SPACING Study site Folkard, Fraser, The study was conducted in a British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Re- Carlyle, & Tucker source Operations fenced exclosure (ungrazed) built in 1960 near Westwold, British Columbia, Canada (50o 50’45.39” N, 12o 28’47.20” W). The study site is north facing with a slope of 13%. The soils are highly calcareous and derived from till and fluvio-glacial materials with a loamy texture and varied coarse fragment content. Lloyd et al. (1990) describe the soils of the forested ponderosa pine zone as Orthic or Eluviated Eutric Chernozems. Precipitation during the sampling periods of July and August 2006 was lower than the mean monthly precipitation totals over the 20-year period leading up to 2006. The approximately 1.0 ha exclosure was constructed one year after a stand-replac- ing fire in 1959. The dominant vegetation was likely rough fescue and pinegrass, and two non-native agronomic species, crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertn.) and smooth brome (Bromus inermis Leyss.), were introduced by seeding in 1959 (Illingsworth & Clark 1963). No formal description of the initial plant community was recorded. The exclosure was planted with ponderosa pine directly following construction in 1960 (Illingsworth & Clark 1963). Figure 1 displays an air photo of the Westwold study site taken in 2007, indicating signs of mortality caused by a bark beetle infestation which occurred after measurements were collected for this study. Five unreplicated square planting densities were applied: 1.22 m (4 ft); 2.44 m (8 ft); 3.66 m (12 ft); 4.88 m (16 ft); and 6.10 m (20 ft). The 1.22, 2.44, 3.66, and 4.88 m spacing stands were each 0.08 ha in size, and the area of the 6.10 m stand was 0.19 ha (Figure 1). Table 1 Figure 1: Aerial photograph of Westwold ponderosa pine tree spacing trial shows the respective tree density for each study site in 2007 indicating spacing treatments. Tree mortality due to spacing treatment at the time of planting. bark beetle activity occurred after measurements were collected in 2006. Tree mortality and recruitment were minimal resulting in an even-aged stand within each spacing treatment at the time of measurement in 2006. 60

Stand characteristics and environmental measurements On June 1, 2006, height and diameter at breast height (dbh) were measured for each ponderosa pine tree, excluding the outer rows of each spacing treatment to avoid potential edge effects. Three transects were centred in the four central tree rows of each spacing JEM Vol 13, No 3 treatment for both environmental and plant biomass measurements. Five soil water and JOURNAL OF canopy photo sampling points along each transect were taken, centred at equidistant lo- Ecosystems & Management Table 1: Attributes of spacing treatments at the Westwold ponderosa pine FORAGE POTENTIAL spacing trial: mean tree height and diameter, calculated tree volume per UNDER PONDEROSA SPACING stand, and estimated basal area. Different within-column superscript letters indicate significant differences between height and diameter means among Folkard, Fraser, tree spacing treatments based on Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference test. Carlyle, & Tucker Values in parentheses are standard errors.

Planted tree Trees Mean tree Inter-tree Calculated Calculated density planted per Mean tree diameter at spacing tree volume basal area expressed treatment height (m) breast height (m) (m3/ha) (m2/ha) as stems/ha block (cm)

1.22 m 6726 69 4.33 (0.26) a 8.32 (0.84) a 65.24 36.5 2.44 m 1680 42 6.76 (0.65) b 14.80 (1.29) b 74.76 28.9 3.66 m 716 35 12.39 (0.21) c 21.55 (0.65) c 126.95 26.1 4.88 m 420 24 13.24 (0.27) c 23.64 (0.83) c 95.13 18.4 6.10 m 269 20 14.74 (0.49) d 27.58 (1.21) d 91.91 16.1 cations from the four trees surrounding each point for a total of 15 sampling points per spacing treatment. On August 14, 2006, a Nikon D40 Digital SLR camera with a hemispheric fish-eye lens attachment was used to photograph the canopy under a uniformly overcast sky. Photos were analyzed using Gap Light Analyzer software (Simon Fraser Uni- versity 1999) to quantify crown closure. Soil water content was measured on July 20 and August 19, 2006, under mainly clear skies to a depth of 10 cm using a FieldScout TDR 100 Soil Moisture Meter (Spectrum Technologies Inc.).

Plant biomass sampling Four 0.25 m2 plots were systematically located at 2 m intervals along each of the three transects established within each tree spacing treatment for a total of 12 sampling plots per spacing treatment. The three transects were centred in each spacing treatment, and each was centred between tree rows recognizing that this centred transect approach is bi- ased towards forage production. On September 20, 2006, plants in each plot were clipped at soil level, sorted to species, oven-dried at 65oC for at least 48 hours, and weighed.

Data analysis Data analyses and graphical outputs were completed using R software version 2.10.1 (R Development Core Team 2008). Biomass production data were tested for normality using a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Variances within groups were tested for homogeneity using a Fligner–Kileen test (Conover et al. 1981). Means from tree height and dbh measurements were used to estimate the volume of wood per hectare according to the B.C. Min- istry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations’ TIPSY program (B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 2001). An analysis of variance (ANOVA) 61 followed by a post-hoc Tukey test was used to test for differences in mean tree height (m), dbh (cm), and percent open sky measured in hemispherical photo analysis among the tree spacing treatments. Soil water for July and August sampling periods were grouped and tested for differences among spacing treatments using a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with Pillai’s trace test. Soil water was then reanalyzed for July and August in- JEM dependently to determine spacing treatment differences using Tukey’s Honestly Significant Vol 13, No 3 JOURNAL OF Difference test. Differences in total understorey biomass and biomass of several dominant Ecosystems & Management species under each spacing regime were also tested using an ANOVA, and the correlation FORAGE POTENTIAL UNDER PONDEROSA between rough fescue and pinegrass biomass production was examined with a linear re- SPACING gression. A permutational MANOVA test of the Bray–Curtis dissimilarity matrix was used Folkard, Fraser, to determine multivariate community differences among spacing treatments. We recognize Carlyle, & Tucker that these analyses are pseudoreplicated at the treatment block level, but we present the data to display the differences among spacing treatments. Differences encountered during all analyses were considered significant at P ≤ 0.05.

Results

Stand characteristics Mean tree diameter at breast height and mean tree height were both directly related to inter-tree spacing (Table 1). There was a three-fold difference in both mean diameter and height between the narrowest and widest spacing distances, with the largest difference occurring between the 2.44 and 3.66 m spacings. The estimated volume per tree according to TIPSY and density of trees per hectare were used to calculate the estimated total volume of wood per hectare (Table 1). The intermediate spacing of 3.66 m resulted in the highest volume of wood per hectare, and the highest density of trees at the 1.22 m spacing had the lowest volume of wood per hectare.

Environmental measurements Tree spacing affected the amount of estimated open sky (Figure 2A). The largest amount of open sky was in the 6.10 m spacing and smallest value in the 2.44 m spacing. A similar trend was observed for soil water (Figure 2B); the highest soil water volume occurred in the 6.10 m spacing and lowest in the 2.44 m spacing for both the July and August measurements.

Figure 2: Environmental measurements of (A) % open sky resulting from hemispheric canopy photo analyses and (B) volumetric soil water content for July and August 2006. Unique letters JEM indicate significant differences among spacing regimes (but not between months for soil water Vol 13, No 3 measurements) according to Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference test. JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management Understorey biomass FORAGE POTENTIAL UNDER PONDEROSA Total vegetation biomass and total grass biomass were greatest at 4.88 and 6.10 m tree spac- SPACING ings and lowest at 1.22 and 2.44 m spacings (Figure 3A). Tree spacing did not affect total Folkard, Fraser, forb or shrub biomass (Table 2). Tree spacing significantly affected rough fescue biomass but Carlyle, & Tucker had no significant effect on pinegrass biomass. Rough fescue comprised approximately 50% of the total understorey biomass in the 4.88 and 6.10 m spacing regimes while pinegrass comprised the majority of the remaining biomass (Figure 3A). No rough fescue was found in 1.22 and 2.44 m spacings, and rough fescue increased from the 3.66 to 4.88 m spacings (Table 3). Pinegrass biomass was consistently productive across all tree spacing treatments, and there was no significant difference between any of the treatments (Table 3). There was a negative correlation between pinegrass and rough fescue productivity (Figure 3B).

Figure 3: Biomass (A) produced by rough fescue (light grey), pinegrass (dark grey), and remaining understorey vegetation (black); and (B) correlation between biomass (g/0.25 m2) produced by rough fescue and pinegrass. Unique letters indicate significant differences in total biomass among spacing regimes according to Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference test.

Table 2: Statistical test results for all variables with indications of test employed, results, and significance of differences noted between spacing treatments (&F value approximated for MANOVA tests).

Sum of Mean MANOVA Variable Test df &F Value Prob. Squares Squares Pillai’s test Tree height (m) ANOVA 997.09 4 249.274 112.91 <0.001 *** Tree diameter (cm) ANOVA 9124.6 4 2281.14 183.64 <0.001 *** Volumetric soil water content MANOVA 4 0.5484 &6.611 <0.001 *** (% vol. water / % vol. soil) Canopy photo analysis (% open sky) ANOVA 1928.30 4 482.07 59.054 <0.001 *** Total biomass (g 0.25m-2) ANOVA 11210.3 4 2802.58 15.858 <0.001 *** Total graminoid biomass (g 0.25m-2) ANOVA 10696.4 4 2674.10 16.872 <0.001 *** Pinegrass biomass (g 0.25m-2) ANOVA 637.5 4 159.39 0.6127 0.655 63 Rough fescue biomass (g 0.25m-2) ANOVA 12488 4 3121.88 11.829 <0.001 *** Total forb biomass (g 0.25m-2) ANOVA 44.334 4 11.084 2.5059 0.052 Total shrub biomass (g 0.25m-2) ANOVA 30.38 4 7.5955 0.9239 0.4568 Species richness per 0.25 m2 plot ANOVA 17.933 4 4.4833 1.6699 0.1701 Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index ANOVA 1.0858 4 0.2714 2.8131 0.0339 * JEM Perm. Vol 13, No 3 Community group differences 3.4174 4 0.8544 &9.0056 0.001 *** MANOVA JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 Management Table 3: Species and functional group mean biomass (g) per plot harvested FORAGE POTENTIAL under each tree spacing regime. Values in parentheses are standard errors. UNDER PONDEROSA SPACING Different superscript letters within a column indicate significant differences between tree spacing regimes based on Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference Folkard, Fraser, test. Values in parentheses are standard errors. Carlyle, & Tucker

Spacing (m) 1.22 2.44 3.66 4.88 6.10 Grass Agropyron cristatum 0.0 0.205 0.0 0.0 0.0

Bromus inermis 2.289 1.618 3.223 1.197 0.150

Carex spp. 0.0 0.0 0.127 0.098 0.222

Calamagrostis rubescens 28.22 (2.03) 29.19 (3.02) 35.78 (3.63) 26.59 (6.12) 27.62 (6.67)

Elymus trachycaulus 0.053 0.053 0.0 0.0 0.0

Festuca campestris*** 0.0 (0.0) a 0.0 (0.0) a 4.78 (1.70) a 29.70 (6.36) b 31.88 (8.16) b

Koeleria macrantha 0.377 0.005 0.0 0.0 0.128

Poa pratensis 0.0 0.0 0.706 0.098 2.161

Achnatherum richardsonii 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.758 0.744

Total grass biomass*** 30.94 (2.17) a 31.07 (2.71) a 44.61 (4.10) ab 58.45 (3.19) bc 62.90 (5.19) c Forb Achillea millefolium 0.218 0.027 0.646 0.279 0.569

Allium cernuum 0.008 0.0 0.088 0.218 0.0

Antennaria racemosa 0.034 0.005 0.490 0.0 0.0

Aster ciliolatus 0.0 0.0 0.288 0.0 0.0

Aster conspicuus 0.057 0.104 0.493 0.304 0.0

Astragalus spp. 1.683 0.523 0.329 0.482 0.0

Centaurea biebersteinii 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.083

Erigeron speciosus 0.165 0.053 0.029 0.0 0.0

Fragaria virginiana 0.0 0.0 0.253 0.0 0.068

Galium boreale 0.463 0.006 0.030 0.523 0.415

Medicago lupulina 0.018 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Taraxacum officinale 0.0 0.110 0.0 0.0 0.0

Tragopogon pratensis 0.0 0.0 0.438 0.0 0.0

Viola adunca 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.004

Total forb biomass ^ 2.65 (0.69) a 0.83 (0.26) a 3.08 (0.88) a 1.81 (0.57) a 1.14 (0.45) a Shrub Arctostaphylos uva-ursi 0.056 1.088 1.084 2.300 1.051

Total shrub biomass 0.06 (0.06) 1.09 (0.63) 1.08 (0.57) 2.30 1.57) 1.051 (0.50) 64 Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05

Understorey community composition Twenty-four understorey plant species were collected and identified from the site (Table 3). Understorey species richness was not affected by tree spacing (Table 2). Species diversity JEM was affected by tree spacing (Table 2) as diversity was highest under the 3.66 m spacing and Vol 13, No 3 lowest under the densest and widest spacing regimes (Figure 4B). Plant community com- JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & position was significantly different across the tree spacing treatments (Table 2). Management FORAGE POTENTIAL UNDER PONDEROSA SPACING

Folkard, Fraser, Carlyle, & Tucker

Figure 4: Species richness per plot (A) and Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index values (B) by spacing regime. Unique letters indicate significant differences in total biomass among spacing regimes according to Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference test.

Discussion We found that the density of a 45-year-old ponderosa pine plantation in the Southern In- terior of British Columbia affected some vegetative and abiotic understorey properties and altered forage production potential. The volume of ponderosa pine in different stand densities was consistent with ponderosa pine growth results reported by Gyenge et al. (2010). Stands with higher inter-tree spacing had higher light and soil water levels and higher overall understorey biomass production. Rough fescue was unable to tolerate the low light and low soil water conditions created by the dense tree stands while pinegrass persisted, yet rough fescue dominated the open conditions. Increased tree spacing not only increased forage production but also allowed for a greater proportion of the grass species with higher forage value.

Stand characteristics and effects on understorey resources Differences in soil water between the spacing regimes were consistent with results noted by Zou et al. (2008) as greater overall soil water use and evapotranspiration by a higher density tree stand limits soil water availability. Soil water content in the upper soil layer represents the shallow soil zone where herbaceous understorey vegetation obtains the majority of its water requirements in spring and autumn (Fernandez et al. 2008). Schulze et al. (1996) found that 50% of the root biomass of dominant Patagonian grasses is in the upper 20 cm of the soil profile. Fernandez et al. (2008) noted proportionally more water use by trees from the upper soil horizon during spring in a moderately dense pine mono- culture than a silvopasture with a lower tree density. However, woody trees growing on poor sites have been shown to partition more resources to root production (Kozlowski & Pallardy 2002), thereby increasing below-ground competition for resources. The Ponderosa 65 Pine biogeoclimatic zone is the driest forested zone in British Columbia where soil water availability limits tree growth. Increases in tree density further contribute to soil water extraction adding to the effect of increased proportion of root growth per tree. As well, a longer transpiration period has been found in an open silvopasture stand with fewer signs of water stress when compared to a high density stand, indicating reduced cumulative de- JEM mand for soil water resulting in a longer growing season (Licata et al. 2008). Higher tree Vol 13, No 3 JOURNAL OF densities are likely to result in less overall available soil water and increased depletion in Ecosystems & Management late spring, leading to longer drought events in the upper soil horizon and shorter periods FORAGE POTENTIAL UNDER PONDEROSA of productive growing conditions for understorey vegetation. SPACING The relationship between canopy light transmission and stand density is similar to Folkard, Fraser, that of soil water content. The hemispherical photos reveal forest canopy characteristics Carlyle, & Tucker that could further influence water availability in the upper soil layer. Pine species intercept a proportion of total rainfall (Barbier et al. 2009), and from canopy gaps in photos, we speculate that low density treatments could allow more precipitation and ambient sunlight to reach the understorey and increase productivity. Higher ponderosa pine density and canopy cover results in reduced light levels and below-ground resources (Uresk & Severson 1989; Naumburg & Dewald 1999) ultimately influencing understorey plant community composition and reducing total biomass production. However, Gyenge et al. (2002) found increasing evapotranspiration in silvopasture systems as canopy cover decreased. In ponderosa pine stands, silvopasture stand objectives would target a tree density that balances timber and forage productivity while limiting climatic extremes and exces- sive resource consumption by either the over- or understorey plant community.

Understorey production and composition We are not aware of any previous study that investigated the relationship between rough fescue and pinegrass under a tree spacing gradient. However, our results are consistent with previous research that shows greater understorey biomass production in well-spaced and thinned stands (Pase & Hurd 1958; Moir 1966; McConnell & Smith 1970) and in ponderosa pine stands elsewhere (Uresk & Severson 1989; Fernandez et al. 2002; Bakker & Moore 2007). Dense crown cover has been shown to reduce range forage values (Dodd et al. 1972), and Lauchlin et al. (2006) recommend that gaps within the forest canopy be maintained to increase herbaceous standing crop. Pase and Hurd (1958) found increases in understorey herbage production following tree thinning to a basal area of 18 m2 ha-1 or less while Uresk and Severson (1989) found similar results at 14 m2 ha-1, both of which are supported by the calculated basal area estimations in our study (Table 1). Our study shows that rough fescue, a valuable forage grass, had the greatest biomass in the wide 4.88 and 6.10 m tree spacing treatments and was absent from the 1.22 and 2.44 m spacing treatments. This suggests that maintaining rough fescue in this ponderosa pine stand would require inter-tree distances of at least 3.66 m. Our results also suggest that moderate to wide spacing (lower tree densities) may increase species richness and diversity, although the pattern is not clear. Although tree spacing alters understorey community composition, this pattern is mainly driven by the presence of rough fescue at greater spacing. A plausible speculation for lower diversity towards either tree spacing extreme could be explained by the dominance of ponderosa pine in the high density treatments and competitive exclusion in the plant community by rough fescue in the low density treatments (Grime 1993). The negative correlation between rough fescue and pinegrass production (Figure 3B) provides further support as rough fescue displays the ability to completely exclude pinegrass in several plots. Mesic site conditions are preferred 66 by rough fescue (Hodgkinson & Young 1973) and the reduction in soil water deficits created in the open stands likely promote its dominance, but this effect is confounded by increased understorey light availability with decreased stand density. We must reiterate that this study occurred within a fenced exclosure, freeing the vegetative understorey from any detrimental effects caused by improper livestock grazing. JEM Vol 13, No 3 Considering the high susceptibility of rough fescue to anything but light, infrequent graz- JOURNAL OF ing, maintaining this species requires careful management of livestock grazing duration, Ecosystems & Management intensity, and timing. Hodgkinson and Young (1973) recommend that rough fescue be FORAGE POTENTIAL UNDER PONDEROSA managed as a key species when comprising more than 15% of the total plant composition. SPACING To avoid eliminating it altogether, ranchers and range managers must be able to recognize Folkard, Fraser, rough fescue and manage livestock to avoid heavy, repeated grazing. Meanwhile, land Carlyle, & Tucker managers must implement tree stand management practices that provide for conditions conducive to rough fescue persistence.

Conclusion The Interior Douglas-fir and Ponderosa Pine biogeoclimatic zones encompass most areas in BC where ponderosa pine occurs with at least one, and often both, forage species (Lloyd et al. 1990). Rough fescue is an important forage species for wildlife and livestock because it is highly palatable and capable of maintaining high nutrient value late into the growing season (Hodgkinson & Young 1973). If increased forage production is a major goal in ponderosa pine forests, gaps in the tree canopy are required (Laughlin et al. 2006). Further- more, high density stands may not be desirable as Peracca and O’Hara (2008) suggest that ponderosa pine may require a larger percentage of live crown than other conifer species. Agroforestry practices have been implemented in pine plantations in the form of silvopas- tures to integrate timber production with livestock grazing (Lewis 1989; Burner & Brauer 2003). Silvopasture systems manage tree density and distribution in balancing ecological, economic, and social values, including forage production and conservation of important species, within the ecology of the forest. Our study suggests that silvopasture management objectives would require the spacing of ponderosa pine to be 4.88 m or more to maintain rough fescue while providing a productive stand of growing trees. Our results excluded grazing from the system, and further research is warranted on the interacting effects of grazing and growing conditions created by tree stands on forage species. Although this research lacks the replicated treatments required to make inferences about ponderosa pine stands across B.C., it illustrates the potential variability of understorey plant communities in ponderosa pine forests. The gradient of direct and indirect influence of trees, and potential displacement by dominating rough fescue tussocks, appears to cause a shift in species within the understorey vegetative community. The overlapping habitat preferences and dynamics of a tree crop, in this case ponderosa pine, and desirable understorey vegetation, rough fescue, should be explicitly defined in any forest and/or range management plans prescribed for an area. Failure to set management objectives for forage, as well as stand objectives with both minimum and maximum tree density targets required to maintain forage production, could reduce or eliminate rough fescue from the understorey community. Silvopasture systems offer a solution by managing for the optimal combined potential of multiple resources, and ponderosa pine stands with a rough fescue understorey are ideal candidates.

Acknowledgements We thank Montana Burgess and Amber Greenall for field assistance. Walt Klenner, André 67 Arsenault, and Reg Newman provided helpful comments during the design of the study, and we thank Rita Winkler, Walt Klenner, and Francis Njenga for reviewing the manuscript. This work was supported by a Canada Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Discovery Grant, a Canadian Foundation for Innovation grant to Lauchlan Fraser, and funding received by the Beef Cattle Industry Development Fund. JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management Author information FORAGE POTENTIAL UNDER PONDEROSA Percy J. Folkard – MSc Student, Environmental Sciences, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, BC; Range SPACING and Agroforestry Agrologist, B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, Kamloops, BC. Email: [email protected] Folkard, Fraser, Lauchlan H. Fraser – Professor, Department of Natural Resources Sciences and Biological Sciences, Carlyle, & Tucker Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, BC. Email: [email protected] Cameron N. Carlyle – Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. Email: [email protected] Rick E. Tucker – Range Ecologist, B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Kamloops, BC. Email: [email protected]

References Bakker, J.D., & M.M. Moore. 2007. Controls on vegetation structure in southwestern ponderosa pine forests, 1941 and 2004. Ecology 88:2305–2319. Barbier, S., P. Balandier, & F. Gosselin. 2009. Influence of several tree traits on rainfall partitioning in temperate and boreal forests: a review. Annals of Forest Science 66:602–613. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Land and Natural Resource Operations. 2001. TIPSY: Tree Interpolation Program for Stand Yields. Province of British Columbia, Victoria, BC. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/gymodels/TIPSY/index.htm. Burner, D.M., & D.K. Brauer. 2003. Herbage response to spacing of loblolly pine trees in a minimal management silvopasture in southeastern USA. Agroforestry Systems 57:67–75. Conover, W.J., M.E. Johnson, & M.M. Johnson. 1981. A comparative study of tests for homogeneity of variances, with applications to the outer continental-shelf bidding data. Technometrics 23:351–361. Covington, W.W., P.Z. Fule, S.C. Hart, & R.P. Weaver. 2001. Modeling ecological restoration effects on ponderosa pine forest structure. Restoration Ecology 9:421–431. Dodd, C.J., A. McLean, & V.C. Brink. 1972. Grazing values as related to tree-crown covers. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 2:185–189. Fernandez, M.E., J.E. Gyenge, G. Dalla Salda, & T.M. Schlichter. 2002. Silvopastoral systems in northwestern Patagonia I: growth and photosynthesis of Stipa speciosa under different levels of Pinus ponderosa cover. Agroforestry Systems 55:27–35. Fernandez, M.E., J. Gyenge, J. Licata, T. Schlichter, & B.J. Bond. 2008. Belowground interactions for water between trees and grasses in a temperate semiarid agroforestry system. Agroforestry Systems 74:185–197. Gea-Izquierdo, G., G. Montero, & I. Canellas. 2009. Changes in limiting resources determine spatio- temporal variability in tree-grass interactions. Agroforestry Systems 76:375–387. Grime, J.P. 1973. Competitive exclusion in herbaceous vegetation. Nature 242:344–347. Gyenge, J.E., M.E. Fernandez, G. Dalla Salda, & T.M. Schlichter. 2002. Silvopastoral systems in Northwestern Patagonia II: water balance and water potential in a stand of Pinus ponderosa and native grassland. Agroforestry Systems 55:47–55. Gyenge, J.E., M.E. Fernandez, & T.M. Schlichter. 2010. Effect of stand density and pruning on growth of ponderosa pine in NW Patagonia, Argentina. Agroforestry Systems 78:233–241. Hodgkinson, H.S., & A.E. Young. 1973. Rough fescue (Festuca scabrella Torr.) in Washington. Journal of Range Management 26:25–26. Illingsworth, K., & M.B. Clark. 1963. A study of the effects of initial spacing on the growth and development of plantations of ponderosa pine in British Columbia. Research Division, B.C. Forest Service. Victoria, BC. EP 607. Jameson, D.A. 1967. Relationship of tree overstory and herbaceous understory vegetation. Journal of Range Management 20:247–49. Johnston A., L.M. Bezeau, & S. Smoliak. 1968. Chemical composition and in vitro digestibility of alpine 68 tundra plants. Journal of Wildlife Management. 32:773–777. Kozlowski, T.T., & S.G. Pallardy. 2002. Acclimation and adaptive response of woody plants to environmental stresses. The Botanical Review 68:270–334. Laughlin, D.C., M.M. Moore, J.D. Bakker, C.A. Casey, J.D. Springer, F.Z. Fule, & W.W. Covington. 2006. Assessing targets for restoration of herbaceous vegetation in ponderosa pine forests. Restoration Ecology 14:548–560. JEM Vol 13, No 3 Levia, D.F. Jr., & E.E. Frost. 2006. Variability of throughfall volume and solute inputs in wooded JOURNAL OF ecosystems. Progress in Physical Geography 20:605–632. Ecosystems & Management Lewis, C.E. 1989. Herbage yield response to the maturation of a slash pine plantation. Journal of Range FORAGE POTENTIAL Management 42:191–195. UNDER PONDEROSA SPACING Licata, J.A., J.E. Gyenge, M.E. Fernandez, T.M. Schlichter, & B.J. Bond. 2008. Increased water use by ponderosa pine plantations in northwestern Patagonia, Argentina compared with native forest Folkard, Fraser, vegetation. Agroforestry Systems 255: 753–764. Carlyle, & Tucker Lloyd, D, K. Angove, G. Hope, & C. Thompson. 1990. A guide to site identification and interpretation for the Kamloops Forest Region. Province of British Columbia. Martens, S.N., D.D. Breshears, & C.W. Meyer. 2000. Spatial distributions of understory light along the grassland/forest continuum: effects of cover, height, and spatial pattern of tree canopies. Ecological Modeling 126:79–93. McConnell, B.R., & J.G. Smith. 1970. Response of understory vegetation to Ponderosa pine thinning in eastern Washington. Journal Range Management 23:208–212. McLean, A. 1967. Beef production on lodgepole pine–pinegrass range in southern British Columbia. Journal Range Management 20:214–216. Meidinger, D., & J. Pojar. 1991. Ecosystems of British Columbia. Province of British Columbia. Moir, W.H. 1966. Influence of ponderosa pine on herbaceous vegetation. Ecology 47:1045–1048. Naumburg, E., & L.E. DeWald. 1999. Relationships between Pinus ponderosa forest structure, light characteristics, and understory graminoid species presence and abundance. Forest Ecology and Management 124: 205–215. Pase, C.P. 1958. Herbage production and composition under immature ponderosa pine stands in the Black Hills. Journal of Range Management 11:238–243. Pase, C.P., & R.M. Hurd. 1958. Understory vegetation as related to basal area, crown cover and litter produced by immature ponderosa pine stands in the Black Hills. In: Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters 1957, pp. 156–158. Peracca, G.G., & K.L. O’Hara. 2008. Effects of growing space on growth for 20-year-old giant sequoia, ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir in the Sierra Nevada. Western Journal Applied Forestry 23:156–165. R Development Core Team. 2008. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. http://www.R-project.org . Sabo, K.E., S.C. Hart, C.H. Sieg, & J.D. Bailey. 2008. Tradeoffs in overstory and understory aboveground net primary productivity in southwestern ponderosa pine stands. Forest Science 54:408–416. Sabo, K.E., C.H. Sieg, S.C. Hart, & J.D. Bailey. 2009. The role of disturbance severity and canopy closure on standing crop of understory plant species in ponderosa pine stands in northern Arizona, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 257:1656–1662. Schulze, E.D., H.A. Mooney, O.E. Sala, E. Jobbagy, N. Buchmann, & G. Bauer. 1996. Rooting depth, water availability, and vegetation cover along an aridity gradient in Patagonia. Oecologia 108:503–511. Simon Fraser University. 1999. Gap Light Analyzer software. Available from http://www.rem.sfu.ca /forestry/downloads/gap_light_analyzer.htm. Stout, D.G., & B. Brooke. 1985. Growth and development of pinegrass in Interior British Columbia. Journal Range Manage 38:312–317. Tisdale, E.W. 1947. The grasslands of the southern interior of British Columbia. Ecology 28:346–382. Tisdale, E.W., & A. McLean. 1957. The Douglas-fir zone of British Columbia. Ecological Monographs 27:247–266. Uresk, D.W., & K.E. Severson. 1989. Understory-overstory relationships in ponderosa pine forests, Black Hills, South Dakota. Journal of Range Management 42:203–208. Wikeem, B.M., A. McLean, A. Bawtree, & D. Quinton. 1993. An overview of the forage resource and beef production on Crown land in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 73:779–794. Zou, C.B., D.D. Breshears, B.D. Newman, B.P. Wilcox, M.O. Gard, & P.M. Rich. 2008. Soil water dynamics under low- versus high- ponderosa pine tree density: ecohydrological functioning and restoration 69 implications. Ecohydrology 1:309–315.

JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management Article Received: October 11, 2011 • Article Accepted: November 27, 2012 FORAGE POTENTIAL UNDER PONDEROSA © 2012, Copyright in this article is the property of FORREX Forum for Research and SPACING Extension in Natural Resources Society. ISSN 1488-4674. Articles or contributions in this publication may be reproduced in electronic or Folkard, Fraser, print form for use free of charge to the recipient in educational, training, and not-for-profit activities Carlyle, & Tucker provided that their source and authorship are fully acknowledged. However, reproduction, adaptation, translation, application to other forms or media, or any other use of these works, in whole or in part, for commercial use, resale, or redistribution, requires the written consent of FORREX Forum for research and Extension in natural resources society and of all contributing copyright owners. This publication and the articles and contributions herein may not be made accessible to the public over the internet without the written consent of FORREX. For consents, contact: Managing Editor, FORREX, Suite 400, 235 1st Avenue, Kamloops, BC V2C 3J4, or email [email protected] The information and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the respective authors and FORREX does not warrant their accuracy or reliability, and expressly disclaims any liability in relation thereto.

JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management FORAGE POTENTIAL Test your Knowledge UNDER PONDEROSA SPACING How well can you recall the main messages in the preceding article? Folkard, Fraser, Test your knowledge by answering the following questions. Carlyle, & Tucker

Forage production potential in a ponderosa pine stand: effects of tree spacing on rough fescue and understorey plants after 45 years

1) Increased inter-tree spacing selected for species that had higher forage quality. a. True b. False

2) Give three management objectives used in the implementation of a silvopasture system. a. Microclimate modification to increase productivity b. Diversification of forest resources c. Conservation of critically important species d. All of the above

3) Our study suggested that maintaining rough fescue in the understorey plant community required inter-tree spacing of greater than a. 1.22 m b. 3.66 m c. 6.10 m

JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF ANSWERS: 1=b; 2=d; 3=b 2=d; 1=b; ANSWERS: Ecosystems & Management A Summary of Extraction, Synthesis, Properties, Discussion Paper and Potential Uses of Juglone: A Literature Review

Maryon P. Strugstad, Vancouver Island University Alumni & Saško Despotovski, University of British Columbia and University of Fraser Valley Alumni

Abstract This literature review summarizes the state of current information on the extraction, synthesis, properties, and potential uses of juglone, a natural product produced by the walnut tree (Juglandacea). Juglone (5-hydroxy-1,4-naphthoquinone) is known primarily for its allelopathic effect against certain plants and toxicity towards marine organisms. It has a wide variety of potential uses in medicine, and as a biocide for organic farming and pest control. This summary also provides historical uses of juglone and the walnut tree in British Columbia and worldwide, current applications in the agroforestry management, a brief background on the biosynthesis, and mode of toxicity of juglone.

KEYWORDS: biocide; juglans spp.; juglone; natural product; walnut tree

The history of research he detrimental effect of the walnut tree has been observed for at least two millennia (Willis 1985; Jose 2002). Walnut trees were known for killing or damaging plants Tthat grew nearby—this effect is commonly referred to as “walnut wilt”; however, the cause of walnut wilt remained largely unknown for centuries. It was not until the 1850s that juglone (then termed “nucin”) was first isolated from the walnut tree (Vogel & Reis- chauer 1856), and in 1881 the first scientific report on juglone’s allelopathic effect was published (Stickney & Hoy 1881). In 1887, juglone was for the first time synthesized and characterized (Bernthsen & Semper 1887) and in 1928 the compound was identified and confirmed to be toxic to other plants (Davis 1928). Despite these findings, the allelopathic nature of the walnut tree and toxicity of juglone were questioned and heavily debated over many decades because of the incidence of varying results obtained by different research groups (MacDaniels & Muenscher 1941; MacDaniels & Pinnow 1976; De Scisciolo et al. 1990), but also because of the availability of anecdotal evidence and old myths. It appeared that the allelopathic effect of juglone was affected by many causes, including edaphic factors such as pH, texture, and organic matter (De Scisciolo et al. 1990; von Kiparski et al. 2007). One research group was able to isolate bacteria that could degrade juglone in soil (Inouye & Leistner 1988) and another study showed that certain Pseudomonas species are capable of using juglone as their only source of carbon (Schmidt 1988). 72 Numerous natural processes reduce juglone persistence in the environment, and allelopathy depends on the juglone concentration in the soil in the locations where the

Strugstad, M.P., & S. Despotovski. 2012. A summary of extraction, synthesis, properties, and potential uses of juglone: A literature review. JEM Vol 13, No 3 Journal of Ecosystems and Management 13(3):72–87. Published by FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources. JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & http://jem.forrex.org/index.php/jem/article/viewFile/119/473 Management compound meets the roots of the target plant (von Kiparski et al. 2007). Still, juglone’s A SUMMARY OF EXTRACTION, persistence in the field has on several occasions been recommended for use in walnut SYNTHESIS, alley agroforestry system management (von Kiparski et al. 2007). The allelopathic nature PROPERTIES, AND POTENTIAL USES OF of juglone and the walnut tree is acknowledged by the majority of research groups in the JUGLONE: A scientific community; this acceptance likely comes from the large extent of research done LITERATURE REVIEW on the topic (Lee & Campbell 1969; Sherman 1971; Soderquist 1973; Willis 1985; Jose & Strugstad & Gillespie 1998; Jose 2002; Terzi 2008; Li et al. 2010); however, some scientists still con- Despotovski sider allelopathy a controversial concept, even though the toxicity of juglone is widely recognized (Macías et al. 2007).

Historical uses and reported properties The use of walnut tree has historically been and still is widespread geographically around the world, especially within the field of traditional medicine (Leclerc 1976; Bruneton 1993). For example, the hulls of the walnut have been used as a remedy for parasites, ringworm, and other fungal infections, itchy and restless feet, to heal ulcers, skin eruptions and cracks in the palms of the hands (Morton 1974; Kirtikar et al. 1975). In the early 1900s, American doctors prescribed juglone for the treatment of various skin diseases (Soderquist 1973) and in southern America it was common practice to throw fresh, unripe husks from the walnut tree into ponds to stun fish so they could be easily collected (Gries 1943). In the Indian, Greek, and Arab cultures, the walnut tree has been used extensively to treat common illnesses and cancer (Sharma et al. 2009). In some countries, parts of the walnut tree have been used as a toothbrush and as a dye for colouring lips and hair (Alkhawajah 1997); juglone has been also been reported as an active ingredient in hair colour (Ghosh & Sinha 2008). Elixirs from parts of the walnut tree were reported to be astringent and keratolytic (Bézanger-Beauquesne et al. 1990), antifungal (Nahrstedt et al. 1981), antimicrobial (Clark et al. 1990; Sharma et al. 2009), antidiarrheal, anthelmintic, depurative and tonic (Wichtl 1994), antihemorrhagic (Dorland 1981), anti-scrofulous (Fournier 1948), hypoglycemic (Neef et al. 1995), diuretic, laxative, blood purifying, and detoxifying (Haque et al. 2003; Bhatia et al. 2006; Stampar et al. 2006). Other reported effective uses: antiviral against Vesicularis Stomatitis Virus (Husson et al. 1986), vascular protective (Perusquia et al. 1995), inhibitory to tumours (Bhargava & Westfall 1968), and sedative for animals (Westfall et al. 1961; Auyong et al. 1963; Girzu et al. 1998a). Still, what may be of the highest significance to agroforestry system management is the effect that juglone exerts on neighbouring plant life (von Kiparski et al. 2007). The most commonly reported symptoms of walnut toxicity range from stunting of growth via partial or total wilting to death of the affected plant (Leuty 2010). Such adverse effects are selective to specific genera of plant life and are discussed below (see the “Effects on various plant species”). However, toxicity is not limited to the Plant kingdom, as select members of the Protista, Fungi, and Animal groupings may also be controlled or killed by juglone or its extracts. Before we discuss these effects, we summarize the origins and localization of this quinone metabolite, with a specific focus on the geography of western Canada. 73

Origins in nature Juglone is produced by the numerous species of walnut tree, including the black walnut (Juglans nigra), English or Persian walnut (J. regia), and Japanese walnut (J. sieboldiana), and also by the butternut (J. cinerea) and hickory tree (Carya ovata) (Soderquist 1973). JEM Vol 13, No 3 Several research groups have reported finding juglone in plant families such as Proteaceae JOURNAL OF (Moir & Thomson 1973), Caesalpiniaceae (Nageshwar et al. 1984; Lee & Lee 2006), and Ecosystems & Management Fabaceae (Marichkova & Kumanova 1981). Most studies refer to the use of Juglans nigra A SUMMARY OF EXTRACTION, for isolation of juglone and allelopathic studies because this particular species produces SYNTHESIS, the largest amount of juglone (Cassens 2005; Leuty 2010). PROPERTIES, AND POTENTIAL USES OF JUGLONE: A Juglone in British Columbia LITERATURE REVIEW Since the arrival of the early settlers, different kinds and varieties of nuts have been grown Strugstad & in the more temperate areas of British Columbia. Tree nuts can be grown in the same areas Despotovski where tree fruits grow: southern Vancouver Island, the Fraser Valley, the Okanagan and West Kootenay, and even in the Peace River area. The most successful kinds of nuts in British Columbia include butternuts, buartnuts, chestnuts, filberts, heartnuts, and walnuts. Of the walnuts, the Carpathian, Japanese, and black are predominant commercially. Early attempts at commercial walnut production in the Fraser Valley, the Okanagan, and the Kootenays were thwarted by silver-thaws, winter injury, competing land uses, and the non- precocious nature of the walnut; however, this has changed as agricultural techniques have improved.

Localization of production Juglone (or its precursors) is produced mainly in the walnut tree’s roots and hulls (Lee & Campbell 1969), but it is also found in fresh leaves (Lee & Campbell 1969; Bruneton 1993; Girzu et al. 1998a, 1998b; Solar et al. 2006), stem bark (Mouhajir et al. 2001), husks (Binder et al. 1989; Buttery et al. 2000; Fukuda et al. 2003; Stampar et al. 2006), and inner root bark (Hedin et al. 1979). In addition, juglone can be found in the soil surrounding the walnut tree (De Scisciolo et al. 1990), but no juglone has been found to occur in the edible walnut itself (Ikekawa et al. 1967). Table 1 shows the juglone content in various parts of the walnut tree.

Table 1: Juglone content in various parts of the walnut tree, including seasonal variation (Lee & Campbell 1969)

Juglone content Seasonal variation in juglone content Tree part mg/g dry wt Month mg/g dry hulls mg/g dry leaves

Leaves 1.23 June 9.3 2.9

Hulls 6.71 July 10.3 2.8

Roots 7.73 August 11.5 2.5

September 10.9 1.8

Toxic forms of juglone As with most plants that produce toxic secondary metabolites, juglone is stored in a non- toxic form in the walnut tree. In 1943, juglone was shown not to be present in the inner 74 root bark and husks, but rather in the a-hydrojuglone form that is non-toxic and upon exposure to air becomes oxidized to juglone (Gries 1943). Less than a decade later, Daglish’s group discovered that juglone is stored in the walnut tree as the 5-glucoside of 1,4,5-tri- hydroxynaphthalene (Daglish 1950). The glucoside was demonstrated to be extremely labile and easily hydrolyzed to glucose and a-hydrojuglone. Figure 1 illustrates the conversion JEM of the glucoside to juglone, a proposed two-step process with ß-glucosidase (a common Vol 13, No 3 JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management soil enzyme) catalyzing the hydrolysis in the first step and fast chemical oxidation in the A SUMMARY OF EXTRACTION, second step (Duroux et al. 1998). SYNTHESIS, PROPERTIES, AND POTENTIAL USES OF Transport and potential biological pathways JUGLONE: A A compound can travel to the target organism through several routes. These include evap- LITERATURE REVIEW oration or rainwash from leaf surfaces, secretion from roots, and decaying tree material Strugstad & (Soderquist, 1973). The root theory, first proposed in the first half of 20th century, stipulates Despotovski that the juglone is released via plant roots (Cook 1921; Massey 1925). In 1958, Bode’s group suggested a different route called leaf theory, indicating the release via leaves (Bode 1958). The most likely pathway encompasses a combination of both theories, since juglone is produced in several parts of the walnut tree (roots, hulls, fresh leaves, husks, and inner root bark). Furthermore, juglone toxicity depends on its accumulation and concentration in the Figure 1: Conversion of glucoside to juglone in the soil where it comes in contact with the roots of the target plant walnut tree (Soderquist 1973). (von Kiparski et al. 2007). This accumulation of the quinone can, via active planning and agroforestry management, be applied to limit or control growth of certain species, whether plant, insect, or fungal, in the specific geographical proximities to juglone-producing trees.

Chemical class and composition Juglone is a naphthoquinone, an aromatic organic compound that is commonly found in nature—the most widespread naphthoquinones are juglone, lawsone, plumbagin, and lapachol (Babula et al. 2009). It has a distinct phenyl group and is not the only phenolic compound produced by the walnut tree; other phenolic compounds include flavonoids, terpenoids, other naphthoquinones and examples are gallic acid, caffeic acid, myricetin, and quercetin (Nahrstedt et al. 1981; Hirakawa et al. 1986; Wichtl & Anton 1999; Sharma et al. 2009). Juglone is also the compound responsible for yellow pigmentation in the walnut tree (Inbaraj & Chignell 2004). Juglone was historically known as a secondary metabolite and allelochemical—that is a compound classified as not required for the growth, development, and reproduction of an organism where it is produced, but instead is believed to have a biological effect often on other organisms. This notion has been challenged with a study suggesting that juglone may also play a role in plant development, thus making it a primary metabolite (Duroux et al. 1998). Further evidence is needed to support this process and additional studies are currently under way.

Biosynthesis The biosynthesis of juglone has not been fully established, but the shikimate pathway has been suggested as a likely candidate (Babula et al. 2009), since various key precursors include 1,4-naphthoquinone (Müller & Leistner 1976; Dey & Harborne 1997; Seigler 1998), o-succinylbenzoic acid (Dansette & Azerad 1970; Seigler 1998) [Figure 2], and 2-succinyl- 75

JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF Figure 2: Biosynthesis of juglone (Babula et al. 2009). Ecosystems & Management benzoate (Dey & Harborne 1997). Figure 2 illustrates the biosynthesis of juglone with A SUMMARY OF EXTRACTION, o-succinylbenzoic acid as the key precursor. SYNTHESIS, PROPERTIES, AND POTENTIAL USES OF Mode of toxic action JUGLONE: A The mechanism for the toxic effects of juglone is still not fully understood, and the mode LITERATURE REVIEW of action may be different in various organisms. Several pathways have been suggested in- Strugstad & cluding cell death, cell cycle disruption, DNA modifications (predominantly rapid dividing Despotovski cells), inhibition of mRNA synthesis, alkylation of thiol or amine groups of essential proteins, and decreasing levels of p53 (tumour suppressor) (O’Brien 1991; Paulsen & Ljung- man 2005). H+-ATPase inhibition is a possible mechanism (Hejl & Koster 2004) as well as K+ channel blocking (Varga et. al. 1996). Juglone can also be reduced by enzymes in the mitochondria or cytoplasm to form a semiquinone radical (Inbaraj & Chignell 2004). Ju- glone can be regenerated in a process called redox cycling and this produces hydrogen per- oxide, which is a strong oxidant and can cause oxidative damage to the cell (Inbaraj & Chignell 2004). The high toxicity of juglone compared to other naphthoquinones has been suggested to correlate with its high redox potential of -93mV (O’Brien 1991). Juglone also has high electrophilicity and thiol reactivity, which can cause irreversible protein com- plexation, especially in cysteine-rich proteins that are important for mitosis (von Kiparski et al. 2007; Fila et al. 2008).

Properties of juglone as related to various living organisms and plant species Many naphthoquinones, including juglone, have been demonstrated to exhibit a broad range of toxic effects that are associated with inhibition of growth, photosynthesis and respiration, reduced water transport in plants, larval development dysfunction, mitochondrial damage in insect muscles, sedative/depressant/carcinogenic/mutagenic/lethal effects on fish and animals, antimicrobial, antifungal, cytotoxic, and anti-parasitic effects (Westfall et al. 1961; Auyong et al. 1963; Krajci & Lynch 1978; Clark et al. 1990; Galey et al. 1991; Hejl & Koster 2004; Cassens 2005; Paulsen & Ljungman 2005; Kong et al. 2008; Babula et al. 2009; Leuty 2010). More recent studies (summarized below) have focussed on the toxicity of juglone and other naphthoquinones toward insects (Mitchell & Smith 1988; Ahmad 1992; Thiboldeaux et al. 1994, 1998), microorganisms (Krajci & Lynch 1978; Clark et al. 1990; Preira et al. 2007; Kong et al. 2008; Sharma et al. 2009), marine organisms (Marking 1970; Faimali et al. 2006; Wright et al. 2007a), and animals (Westfall et al. 1961; Auyong et al. 1963; Galey et al. 1991; Cassens 2005) as opposed to plants. Further studies on juglone for medicinal purposes have also been conducted recently (Krajci & Lynch 1978; Clark et al. 1990; Kong et al. 2008; Babula et al. 2009).

Effects on various plant species Allelopathic studies have been done on various vegetables, field crops, fruit trees, ornamen- 76 tal species, and medicinal plants (Cook 1921; Massey 1925; Pirone 1938; Reinking 1943; Strong 1944; Brooks 1951; Sherman 1971; MacDaniels & Pinnow 1976; Scott & Sullivan 2007; Li et al. 2010). Many species are reported to be negatively influenced by the walnut tree, but some appear unaffected (Funt & Martin 1993; Leuty 2010). Table 2 provides examples of plant species having an immunity to juglone as well as those most affected by the JEM Vol 13, No 3 compound. Plants such as asparagus, cabbage, tomato, magnolia, alfalfa, eggplant, potato, JOURNAL OF peonies, and blueberries, and trees, including white birch, linden, and white pine, are all Ecosystems & Management negatively affected by the compound, whereas onion, beets, parsnip, lima beans, snap beans, A SUMMARY OF EXTRACTION, various Prunus fruit trees, raspberry, squash, and corn are not affected. Various flowers SYNTHESIS, species (alliums, crocus, daffodils, hyacinth, and tulips) are hardly affected. PROPERTIES, AND POTENTIAL USES OF JUGLONE: A Table 2: Influence of juglone on some plants (Funt & Martin 1993; Leuty 2010) LITERATURE REVIEW

Negatively affected Unaffected or hardly affected Strugstad & Despotovski Asparagus officinalis (asparagus) Allium cepa (onion) Betula papyrifera (white birch trees) Beta vulgaris (beets) Brassica oleracea (cabbage) Pastinaca sativa (parsnip) Lycopersicon esculentum (tomato) Phaseolus zinnia (lima and snap beans) Magnolia x soulangiana (saucer magnolia) Prunus spp. (cherries, nectarine, peach, and Medicago sativa (alfalfa) plum) Solanum melongena (eggplant) Rubus occidentalis (black raspberry) Solanum tuberosum (potato) Most squashes Paeonia (some peonies) Zea mays (sweet corn) Pinus strobus (white pine) Most of the hardy, fall-planted bulbs, Tilia americana (linden trees) including alliums, crocus, daffodils, hyacinth, Vaccinium (blueberries) tulips, and a series of ornamental plants

In some agronomic crops, including maize (Zea mays L.) and soybeans (Glycine max L. Merr), juglone has been shown to inhibit shoot and root growth rates, leaf photosynthesis, transpiration, respiration and stomatal conductance (Hejl et al. 1993; Jose & Gillespie 1998).

Effects on commercial and private agriculture in British Columbia Plants that are commonly found in British Columbia that are sensitive to the presence of walnut in the landscape and garden include tomato, potato, pea, pear, apple, cucumber, watermelon, bean, garden cress, corn, and many ornamental ericaceous species such as rhododendron and azalea.

Effects on various insects Studies show that the saturniid moth Actias luna, which prefer members of the Juglan- daceae as their host, had more rapid larvae growth on a juglone-rich diet compared to a non-juglone diet. On the other hand, the moth Callosamia promethea, which is not naturally in contact with Juglandaceae, experienced reduced growth rates and a 3.6-fold decrease in consumption rate when fed juglone-supplemented diets (Thiboldeaux et al. 1994). Another study revealed that C. promethean experienced partial loss of epithelial structure, an increase in glutathione disulfide, and a small decrease in glutathione when fed walnut foliage (Thiboldeaux et al. 1998). Some herbivore insects that naturally consume juglone and other pro-oxidant allelochemicals produce special enzymes to prevent the generation of free-radical oxygen during quinone reduction (Ahmad 1992). Juglone also inhibits ecdysone 20-monooxygenase activity in protein extracts from larval Aedes aegypti, 77 Drosophila melanogaster, and Manduca sexta. (Mitchell & Smith 1988).

Effects on microorganisms Juglone has been shown to inhibit a broad spectrum of microorganisms including bacteria, algae, and fungi (Krajci & Lynch 1978). One study showed antimicrobial activity against JEM Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Burkholderia cepacia, Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus subtilis, Vol 13, No 3

Mycobacterium smegmatis, Candida albicans, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Helminthospo- JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management rium sp., Pycnoporus sanguineus, and Microsporum gypseum (Clark et al. 1990; Preira A SUMMARY OF EXTRACTION, et al. 2007; Sharma et al. 2009). The antifungal activity of juglone has also been compared SYNTHESIS, to other known antifungal agents, such as griseofulvin, clotrimazole, tolnaftate, triacetin, PROPERTIES, AND POTENTIAL USES OF zinc undecylenate, selenium sulfide, liriodenine, and liriodenine methiodenine (Clark et JUGLONE: A al. 1990). Clark et al. (1990) determined that juglone exhibited moderate antifungal activity LITERATURE REVIEW similar to zinc undecylenate and selenium sulfide, which are commercially available anti- Strugstad & fungal agents. Furthermore, the compound’s antimicrobial activity was established to be Despotovski low to moderate, with moderate activity against Gram-positive and acid-fast bacteria and no to low activity against Gram-negative bacteria. Another study showed that juglone potentially can inhibit three key enzymes from Helicobacter pylori, a Gram-negative bacterium that causes several human diseases (Kong et al. 2008). Several algae species are inhibited by juglone, including Anabaena variabilis and Anabaena flos-aquae (significantly inhibited), Nostoc commune (moderately inhibited), and Scenedesmus acuminatus (slight inhibition) (Krajci & Lynch, 1978; Randall & Bragg 1986).

Effects on marine organisms Marking (1970) discovered that juglone was an effective fish toxicant. His studies showed juglone was highly toxic to nine species of fish, including rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri), northern pike (Esox lucius), goldfish (Carassius auratus), carp (Cyprinus carpio), white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), black bullhead (Ictalurus melas), channel catfish (Ic- talurus punctatus), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) at concentrations ranging from 27 to 88 parts per billion over a 96-hour period. In a study conducted to screen natural product biocides for the control of non-indigenous species, juglone scored high. For example, in five out of six taxonomic groups tested, juglone was among the most toxic (Wright et al. 2007a).

Effects on animals

Lethal doses (LD50) of 0.25 mg juglone/100 g bodyweight in mice and rats have been reported and injection of 0.07 mg juglone/kg body weight in rabbits resulted in tranquiliza- tion for 2–3 hours (Westfall et al. 1961). In this study, a difference between the crude and the purified extract was noted, further indicating influence of other compounds in the crude extract. Laminitis in horses that were in contact with debris from walnut trees has also been reported (Galey et al. 1991; Cassens 2005; Belknap 2010).

Applications in agroforestry management Various examples of the compound and its inhibitory role in nature, as mentioned above, can be applied as specific case studies in the agroforestry management system. The evaluation of both nutrient and non-nutrient resource interactions provides information needed to sustainably manage agroforestry systems. Improved diagnosis of appropriate nutrient usage can help increase crop yields and also reduce financial and environmental costs. To achieve this, a management support system that allows for site-specific evaluation of nu- 78 trient-production imbalances needs to be established. Since juglone is not particularity water soluble, it does not readily leach through soil settings but instead can persist underneath the tree canopy where living roots are located. After walnut trees are removed from a site or die, toxicity can persist for up to 1 year following removal owing to the persistence of juglone in the soil. JEM Vol 13, No 3 Linking crop performance to appropriate nutrient application and compound inhibi- JOURNAL OF tion, along with quantifying existing nutrient cycles and interactions, will not only have Ecosystems & Management the economic advantage of increasing yields but will also diminish financial and environ- A SUMMARY OF EXTRACTION, mental costs, as well as negative competition impacts (Issac & Kimaro 2011). Common SYNTHESIS, examples of such linkages, using intercropping systems via vector analysis, are found in PROPERTIES, AND POTENTIAL USES OF field trials of cocoa and pigeon pea but are easily applied to corn, flax, wheat and barley, JUGLONE: A among others. LITERATURE REVIEW Strugstad & Known medicinal properties Despotovski Juglone has antifungal properties similar to some commercially available antifungal agents used to treat infections, such as athlete’s foot and ringworm (Clark et al. 1990). One study showed that juglone inhibits three key enzymes from Helicobacter pylori, a bacterium that can cause gastritis, peptic ulceration, and gastric cancer in humans. This bacterium affects approximately 50% of the world’s population and antibiotic resistance is a rising problem. Juglone could become a new antibacterial agent to treat infections from this bacterium (Kong et al. 2008). Recent data suggest juglone could be a promising chemo-pre- ventive agent for human intestinal neoplasia (Sugie et al. 1998) and anti-tumour properties have been reported (Bhargava & Westfall 1968; O’Brien 1991; Paulsen & Ljungman 2005; Xu et al. 2010). Finally, juglone has been noted to block K channels in human lymphocytes—a state often associated with lymphocyte depolarization (Varga et al. 1996).

Common extraction methods Typical juglone extraction methods use leaves, hulls, and bark material from the black walnut tree and maceration in an organic solvent followed by solvent evaporation, or from the soil beneath the walnut tree. The best extraction solvents for fresh walnut hulls appeared to be petroleum ether or hexane (more expen- sive), whereas for leaf and bark material chloroform was the most frequently used solvent. Yield appears to depend on temperature; the higher the temperature, the lower the yield.

Common synthesis methods Juglone is most commonly synthesized from 1,5-dihydroxynaphtha- Figure 3: Oxidation of 1,5- naphthalenediol (also known as lene by oxidation (Figure 3; Table 4). 1,5-dihydroxynapthalene) to juglone.

Table 3: Summary of synthesis procedures

Reactant Yield Reference

2- Sodium dichromate Cr2O7 ~10% Jesaitis & Krantz (1972)

C6H5IO2 30% C6H5IO 47% C H (OCOCH ) 26% 6 5 3 2 Barret & Daudon (1990) C6H5I(OCOCF3)2 58% 79 C6F5I(OCOCF3)2 76% C6F13I(OCOCF3)2 91%.

tert-butyl hydroperoxide 70% Taylor & Flood (1983)

Characterization of juglone JEM Table 4 presents the chemical characteristics of the juglone molecule. Vol 13, No 3 JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management Table 4: Chemical characteristics of juglone molecule A SUMMARY OF EXTRACTION, SYNTHESIS, Reference Reference PROPERTIES, AND POTENTIAL USES OF National Institute of Standards Formula C H O JUGLONE: A 10 6 3 and Technology LITERATURE REVIEW National Institute of Standards Molecular weight 174.15 g/mol Strugstad & and Technology Despotovski Chemical Abstracts Service National Institute of Standards 481-39-0 Registry No. and Technology International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry 5-hydroxy-1,4-naphthoquinone nomenclature Melting point 151°C Jesaitis & Krantz (1972) 153–154°C Barret & Daudon (1990) 155°C Budavari (1997) 161–163°C Aldrich Chemical Company Aqueous solubility 52 mg/L Weidenhamer et al. (1993)

Kow ≈2 Wright et al. (2007b)

pKa 8.85 Palit et al. (1986) –8 3 –1 KH 2.58x10 atm m mol von Kiparski et al. (2007) Infrared (IR) 3300–3600, 1670, 1645 cm-1 Barret & Daudon (1990) Nuclear magnetic (CDCl , 60MHz) ppm: 7.5 (s), 3 Barret & Daudon (1990) resonance (NMR) 7.2 (m), 6.8 (s)

UV-visible lmax: 420 nm in methanol Girzu et al. (1998b) 209, 249, and 421 nm Wright et al. (2007b) Gas Chromatography 9.1 min Girzu et al. (1998b) retention time Redox potential –93mV Wright et al. (2007b) Yellow insoluble solid Physical properties Wright et al. (2007b) Photodegradable

Stability of juglone Numerous studies have explored the fate of juglone in the environment, including the degradation of juglone in soil (De Scisciolo et al. 1990; von Kiparski et al. 2007), effect of wood-dwelling organisms (Curreli et al. 2004), fate in natural waters (effect of pH, micro- bial activity, photolysis, salinity, and octanol:water partitioning) (Wright et al. 2007b), and degradation in different solvents (Sharma et al. 2009). Juglone is reported to degrade in certain solvents and aquatic conditions that include acetonitrile, methanol, acidic solutions, alkaline solutions, and saline water (Marking 1970; Girzu et al. 1998b; Hadjmohammadi & Kamel 2006; Wright et al. 2007b); however, juglone is reported to be more persistent under acidic conditions (De Scisciolo et al. 1990; Wright et al. 2007b). 80

Potential uses The use of natural products is associated with preservation of the environment, thus supporting a sustainable natural resource management. Juglone is a natural product that has shown a multitude of properties that are deemed beneficial in the fields of medicine, farm- JEM ing, and aquaculture. In British Columbia, especially in the regions where juglone-growing Vol 13, No 3 JOURNAL OF species are readily found (southern Vancouver Island, the Fraser Valley, the Okanagan and Ecosystems & Management West Kootenay, and Peace River area), the presence of walnut trees in particular has a nat- A SUMMARY OF EXTRACTION, ural inhibiting effect on several species, and hence acts as a natural agroforestry growth- SYNTHESIS, limiting factor. Furthermore, even if these trees are removed or die, the toxicity can persist PROPERTIES, AND POTENTIAL USES OF for up to 1 year owing to the persistence of juglone in the soil. As such, a juglone derivative, JUGLONE: A or even juglone itself (readily available as a compound), can be used for site-specific growth LITERATURE REVIEW control in the areas where it is deposited or sprayed. The use of juglone compound in such Strugstad & cases would not be geographically limiting; the main impact factor would be the cost and Despotovski the ease of application.

Uses in medicine The use of juglone in medicine is limited because of its sedative effect on animals, though it could be used externally (fungal, bacterial, and viral infections). More studies are needed on juglone and its anti-tumour properties.

Herbicide A likely potential use of juglone is as a herbicide. Juglone could possibly be used in weed management, as it is harmful to many weeds but not to all cultivated plants (Topal et al. 2007; Shrestha 2009). Black walnut extracts have also been suggested as a pre- and post- emergence bioherbicide (Shrestha 2009). Similarly, it can be applied to various crops, especially in Canadian agricultural environments. As noted previously, the use of mapping and intercropping systems to manage or improve yields of specific plant species with the aid of natural herbicide, even if marginally cost effective, can be considered an organic alternative.

Biocide Invasive marine species transported in ballast water are a well-studied global threat on ecosystems and environments alike. Several treatment methods are suggested and these include chemical (ozone, bleach, chlorination, glutaraldehyde), UV radiation, heat, and fil- tration, but they all have implications (Faimali et al. 2006; Wright et al. 2007a). An effective treatment method with low environmental impact would be ideal and juglone, along with a few other naphthaquinones, are suggested as potential candidates. These compounds show significant toxicity towards both eukaryotes and prokaryotes, and methods for fish culture and treatment of aquatic pests, both using juglone, were patented in 2000 (Patent No. 6,164,244 and No. 3,602,194; Cutler et al. 2000, 2002). Juglone was identified for commercial use because of its broad toxic effects at low concentrations (Wright et al. 2007a). Other positive properties of juglone include biodegradability with non-toxic degradation products, enhanced degradation in sunlight, and short half-lives ranging from a few hours to less than 2 days in natural saline waters (Wright et al. 2007b). The potential for additional applications is not limited only to agroforestry practices, given quinone’s effectivness and short half-life.

Conclusion 81 Juglone is a compound with a long history and multitude of uses throughout various geographic locations; such longevity of usage has yielded a set of well-defined characteristics that include select toxicity towards plant species, microorganisms, and animals, specific stability in various chemical conditions, defined purity, well-established isolation methods, and agreed-upon chemical structure. Its applications in agroforestry management are JEM Vol 13, No 3 closely tied to the scope of available data, and given that the compound has been well char- JOURNAL OF acterized to date, it is indicative that its uses can be applied to various crop management Ecosystems & Management methodologies worldwide. In British Columbia, Canada, walnut trees have been used as A SUMMARY OF EXTRACTION, natural biocide and herbicide supplements in the areas in which they can grow—this scope SYNTHESIS, could be expanded with a simple cost-analysis model and complementary data sets that PROPERTIES, AND POTENTIAL USES OF show juglone’s effectiveness as a natural agroforestry management factor. What remains JUGLONE: A to be further explored are the biosynthesis pathways as well as additional insights into the LITERATURE REVIEW mechanisms of action, including the pathways of juglone’s byproducts and secondary prod- Strugstad & ucts. Having insight into its modes of action would potentially increase the spectrum of Despotovski juglone use, in addition to allowing the scientific and commercial communities alike a better understanding of its versatile pathways, some with potential for cross-application in other sectors of the industry, especially agriculture and aquaculture. Although the future uses of juglone remain to be seen, the amount of data and research conducted to date indicate a high demand for such a resourceful agent.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Todd Barsby of Vancouver Island University for his input on some of the beforementioned experimental setups and Dr. Lincoln Smith of Thompson Rivers University for his professional courtesy and technical resources he gra- ciously provided us with.

References Ahmad, S. 1992. Biochemical defense of pro-oxidant plant allelochemicals by herbivorous insects. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 20:269–296. Alkhawajah, A.M. 1997. Studies on the antimicrobial activity of Juglans regia. American Journal of Chinese Medicine 25:175–180. Auyong, T.K., B.A. Westfall, & R.L. Russell. 1963. Pharmacological aspects of juglone. Toxicon 1:235–239. Babula, P., V. Adam, L. Havel, & R. Kizek. 2009. Noteworthy secondary metabolites naphthoquinones: Their occurrence, pharmacological properties and analysis. Current Pharmaceutical Analysis 5:47–68. Barret, R., & M. Daudon. 1990. An efficient synthesis of juglone. Synthetic communications 20(18):2907–2912. Belknap, J.K. 2010. Black walnut extract: An inflammatory model. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Equine Practice 26(1):95–101. Berntsen, A., & A. Semper. 1887. Ueber die constitution des juglons und seine synthese aus naphtalin. Berichte der Deutschen Chemischen Gesellschaft 20:934–941. Bézanger-Beauquesne, L., M. Pinkas, M. Torck, & F. Trotin. 1990. Plantes Médicinales des Régions Tempérées. 2nd ed. Maloine, Paris. p. 58. Bhargava. U., & B. Westfall. 1968. Antitumor activity of Juglans nigra (black walnut) extractives. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 57:1674–1677. Bhatia, K., S. Rahman, M. Ali, & S. Raisuddin. 2006. In vitro antioxidant activity of Juglans regia L. bark extract and its protective effect on cyclophosphamide-induced urotoxicity in mice. Redox Report 11:273–279. Binder, R.G., M.E. Benson, & R.A. Flath. 1989. Eight 1,4-naphtoquinones from Juglans regia. Phytochemistry 28:2799–2801. Bode, H.R. 1958. Beiträge zur Kenntnis allelopathischer Erscheinungen bei einigen Juglandaceen. Planta 51:440–480. 82 Brooks, M. 1951. Effects of black walnut trees and their products on other vegetation. West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV. Agricultural Extension State Bulletin No. 347. Bruneton, J.P. 1993. Phytochimie. Plantes médicinales. 2nd ed. Lavoisier, Paris. pp. 348; 556–558. Budavari, S. 1997. The Merck index: An encyclopedia of chemicals, drugs, and biologicals. 12th ed. Whitehouse Station, NJ. Buttery, R.G., D.M. Light, Y. Nam, G.B. Merrill, & J.N. Roitman. 2000. Volatile components of green walnut JEM husks. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 48:2858–2861. Vol 13, No 3 Cassens, L.D. 2005. Laminitis caused by black walnut wood residues. Purdue Extension, West Lafayette, JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & IN. http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/FNR/FNR-254.pdf (Accessed February 2011). Management Clark, A.M., T.A. Jurgens, & C.D. Hufford. 1990. Antimicrobial activity of juglone. Phytotherapy Research A SUMMARY OF 4(1):1–14. EXTRACTION, SYNTHESIS, Cook, M.T. 1921. Wilting caused by walnut trees. Phytopathology 11:346. PROPERTIES, AND Curreli, N., A. Rescigno, A. Rinaldi, B. Pisa, F. Sollai, & E. Sanjust. 2004. Degradation of juglone by POTENTIAL USES OF Pleurotus sajor-caju. Mycological Research 108:913–918. JUGLONE: A LITERATURE REVIEW Cutler, H.G., N.A. Belson, R. Dawson, & D.A. Wright. 2000. Method for treating aquatic pests. US Patent 6,164,244, pp. 164–244. Strugstad & Despotovski Cutler, H.G., S.J. Cutler, R. Dawson, & D.A. Wright. 2002. Method of controlling zoological and aquatic plant growth. US Patent 3,602,194, pp. 340–468. Daglish, C. 1950. The determination and occurrence of hydrojuglone glucoside in the walnut. Biochemical Journal 47:458–462. Dansette, P., & R. Azerad. 1970. A new intermediate in naphthoquinone and menaquinone biosynthesis. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 40(5):1090–1095. Davis, E.F. 1928. The toxic principle of Juglans nigra as identified with synthetic juglone, and its toxic effects on tomato and alfalfa plants. American Journal of Botany15:620–621. De Scisciolo, B., D.J. Leopold, & D.C. Walton. 1990. Seasonal patterns of juglone in soil beneath Juglans nigra (black walnut) and influence of J. nigra on understory vegetation. Journal of Chemical Ecology 16:1111–1130. Dey, P.M., & J.B. Harborne. 1997. Plant biochemistry. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Dorland, N.W. 1981. Dorland’s illustrated medical dictionary. 26th ed. W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, PA. p. 691. Duroux, L., F.M Delmotte, J.M. Lancelin, G. Keravis, & C. Jay-Allemand. 1998. Insight into naphthoquinone metabolism: Beta-glucosidase-catalyzed hydrolysis of hydrojuglone beta-D- glucopyranoside. Biochemical Journal 333:275–283. Faimali, M., F. Garaventa, E. Chelossi, V. Piazza, O.D. Saracino, F. Rubino, G.L. Mariattini, & L. Pane. 2006. A new photodegradable molecule as a low impact ballast water biocide: Efficacy screening on marine organisms from different trophic levels. Marine Biology 149:7–16. Fila, C., C. Metz, & P. van der Sluijs. 2008. Juglone inactivates cysteine-rich proteins required for progression through mitosis. Journal of Biological Chemistry 283:21714–21724. http://www.jbc.org/content/283/31/21714.full.pdf [June 2012]. Fournier, P. 1948. Le Livre des Plantes Médicinales et Vénéneuses de France, tome III Lechevalier, Paris. p. 104. Fukuda, T., H. Ito, & T. Yoshida. 2003. Antioxidative polyphenols from walnuts (Juglans regia L.). Phytochemistry 63:795–801. Funt, R.C., & J. Martin. 1993. Black walnut toxicity to plants, humans and horses. Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Extension Fact Sheet HYG-1148–93. Galey, F.D., H.E. Whiteley, T.E. Goetz, A.R. Kuenstler, C.A. Davis, & V.R. Beasley. 1991. Black walnut (Juglans nigra) toxicosis: A model for equine laminitis. Journal of Comparative Pathology 104:313–326. Ghosh, P., & A.K. Sinha. 2008. Hair colors: Classification, chemistry and a review of chromatographic and electrophoretic methods for analysis. Analytical Letters 41:2291–2312. Girzu, M., A. Carnat, A.-M. Privat, J. Fialip, A.-P. Carnat, & J.-L. Lamaison. 1998a. Sedative effect of walnut leaf extract and juglone, an isolated constituent. Pharmaceutical Biology 36(4):280-286. Girzu, M., D. Fraisse, A.-P. Carnat, A. Carnat, & J.-L. Lamaison. 1998b. High performance liquid chromatographic method for the determination of juglone in fresh walnut leaves. Journal of Chromatography A 805:315–318. Gries, G.A. 1943. Juglone, the active agent in walnut toxicity. Northern Nut Growers Association Annual Report 34:52–55. Hadjmohammadi, M.R., & K. Kamel. 2006. Determination of juglone (5-hydroxy 1,4,-naphthoquinone) in 83 Pterocarya flaxinifolia by RP-HPLC. Iranian Journal of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering 25:73–76. Haque, R., B. Bin-Hafeez, S. Parvez, S. Pandey, I. Sayeed, M. Ali, & S. Raisuddin. 2003. Aqueous extract of walnut (Juglans regia L.) protects mice against cyclophosphamide-induced biochemical toxicity. Human and Experimental Toxicology 22:473–480. Hedin, P.A., V.E Langhans, & C.H. Graves. 1979. Identification of juglone in pecan as a possible factor of resistance to Fusicladium effusum. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 27:92–94. JEM Hejl, A.M., A.E. Frank, & A.R. James. 1993. Effects of juglone on growth, photosynthesis and respiration. Vol 13, No 3

Journal of Chemical Ecology 19(3):559–567. JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management Hejl, A.M., & L.L. Koster. 2004. Juglone disrupts root plasma membrane H+-ATPase activity and impairs A SUMMARY OF water uptake, root respiration, and growth in soybean (glycine max) and corn (Zea mays). Journal of EXTRACTION, Chemical Ecology 30(2):453–469. SYNTHESIS, PROPERTIES, AND Hirakawa, K., E. Ogive, J. Motoyoshiya, & M. Yajima. 1986. Napthaquinones from Juglandaceae. POTENTIAL USES OF Phytochemistry 25:1494–1495. JUGLONE: A LITERATURE REVIEW Husson, G.P., R. Vilagines, & P. Delaveau. 1986. Recherche des propriétés antivirales de quelques extraits d’origine naturelle. Annales Pharmaceutiques Francaises 44:41–48. Strugstad & Ikekawa, T., W.E. Lin, M. Hamada, T. Takeuchi, & H. Umezawa. 1967. Isolation and identification of the Despotovski antifungal active substance in walnuts. Chemical and Pharmaceutical Bulletin 15(2):242–245. Inbaraj, J.J., & C.F. Chignell. 2004. Cytotoxic action of juglone and plumbagin: A mechanistic study using HaCaT keratinocytes. Chemical Research in Toxicology 17(1):55–62. Inouye, H., & E. Leistner. 1988. Biochemistry of quinones. In: The quinonoid compounds. S. Patai and Z. Rappoport (editors). John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Vol. 2, pp. 1293–1349. Isaac, M., & A. Kimaro. 2011. Diagnosis of nutrient imbalances with vector analysis in agroforestry systems. Journal of Environment Quality 40(3):860. Jesaitis, R.G., & A. Krantz. 1972. Juglone: An organic chemistry-ecology interaction experiment. Journal of Chemical Education 49:436–437. Jose, S. 2002. Black walnut allelopathy: Current state of science. In: Chemical ecology of plants: Allelopathy in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. A.U. Mallik and Inderjit (editors), pp. 149–172. Birkhauser-Verlag, Switzerland. Jose, S., & A.R. Gillispie. 1998. Allelopathy in black walnut (Juglans nigra L.) alley cropping. II. Effects of juglone on hydroponically grown corn (Zea mays L.) and soybean (Glycine max L. Merr) growth and physiology. Plant and Soil 203:199–205. Kirtikar, S., B. Basu, E. Blatter, J. Cauis, & K. Mhaskar. 1975. Juglandaceae. Indian Medicinal Plants 3:2347–2349. Kong, Y., L. Zhang, Z. Yang, C. Han, L. Hu, H. Jiang, & X. Shen. 2008. Natural product juglone targets three key enzymes from Heliobacter pylori: Inhibition assay with crystal structure characterization. Acta Pharmacologica Sinica 29(7):870–876. Krajci, W.M, & D.L. Lynch. 1978. The inhibition of various micro-organisms by crude walnut hull extracts and juglone. Microbios Letters 4:175–181. Leclerc, M. 1976. Précis de Phytothérapie. 5th ed., pp. 105–106. Masson, Paris. Lee, C.H., & H.S. Lee. 2006. Color alteration and acaricidal activity of juglone isolated from Caesalpinia sappan heartwoods against Dermatophagoides spp. Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 16(10):1591–1596. Lee, K.C., & R.W. Campbell. 1969. Nature and occurrence of juglone in Juglans nigra L. Journal of Horticultural Sciences 4:31–35. Leuty, T. 2010. Walnut toxicity. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Toronto, Ont. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/info_walnut_toxicity.htm [February 2011]. Li, Q., J. Cai, Z. Jiang, & S. Zhang. 2010. Allelopathic effects of walnut leaves leachate on seed germination, seedling growth of medicinal plants. Allelopathy Journal 26(2):235–242. MacDaniels, L.H., & W.C. Muenscher. 1941. Black walnut toxicity. Northern Nut Growers Association Annual Report 31:172–179. MacDaniels, L.H., & D.L. Pinnow. 1976. Walnut toxicity, an unsolved problem. Northern Nut Growers Association Annual Report 67:114–122. Macías, F.A., J.M. Molinillo, R.M. Varela, & J.C.G. Galindo. 2007. Allelopathy: A natural alternative for weed control. Pest Management Science. 63:327–348. Marichkova, L., & B. Kumanova. 1981. Isolation of flavonoids and some accompanying substances from the above-ground part of some Astragalus centralpinus family Leguminosae (Russian). Problemy Farm 9:63–74. 84 Marking, L.L. 1970. Juglone (5-hydroxy-1,4-naphthoquinone) as a fish toxicant. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 99(3):510–514. Massey, A.B. 1925. Antagonism of the walnuts (Juglans nigra L. and J. cinera L.) in certain plant associations. Phytopathology 15:773–784. Mitchell, M.J. & S.L. Smith. 1988. Effects of chitin synthetase inhibitor plumbagin and its 2-demethyl JEM derivative juglone on insect ecdysone 20-monooxygenase activity. Experientia 44:990–991. Vol 13, No 3

Moir, M., & R.H. Thomson. 1973. Naphthoquinones in Lomatia species. Phytochemistry 12:1351–1353. JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Morton, J.L. 1974. Folk remedies of the low country, pp. 85–86. E. A. Seemann Publishing, Inc., Miami, FL. Management Mouhajir, F., J.A. Pedersen, M. Rejdali, & G.H.N. Towers. 2001. Phenolics in Moroccan medicinal plant A SUMMARY OF species as studied by electron spin resonance spectroscopy. Pharmaceutical Biology 39:391–391. EXTRACTION, SYNTHESIS, Müller, W., & E. Leistner. 1976. 1,4-Napthtoquinone, an intermediate in juglone (5-hydroxy-1,4- PROPERTIES, AND naphthoqinone) biosynthesis. Phytochemistry 12(3):407–410. POTENTIAL USES OF Nageshwar, G., M. Radhakrishnainah, & L.L. Narayana. 1984. Chemotaxonomy of Caesalpin. Current JUGLONE: A LITERATURE REVIEW Science 53:813–814. Nahrstedt, A., U. Vetter, & F.J. Hammerschmidt. 1981. Composition of the steam distillation product Strugstad & from the leaves of Juglans regia. Planta Medica 42:313–332. Despotovski Neef, H., P. Declercq, & G. Laekeman. 1995. Hypoglycaemic activity of selected european plants. Phytotherapy Research 9:45–48. O’Brien, P.J. 1991. Molecular mechanisms of quinone cytotoxicity. Chemico-Biological Interactions 80:1–41. Palit, D.K., T. Mukherjee, & J.P. Mittal. 1986. Photophysics and laser flash photolysis of hydroxyquinones: Studies on juglone and naphthazarin. Journal of Indian Chemical Society 63:35–42. Paulsen, M.T., & M. Ljungman. 2005. The natural toxin juglone causes degradation of p53 and induces rapid H2AX phosphorylation and cell death in human fibroblasts. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 209(1):1–9. Perusquia, M., S. Mendoza, R. Bye, E. Linares, & R. Mata. 1995. Vasoactive effects of aqueous extracts from five Mexican medicinal plants on isolated rat aorta. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 46:63–69. Pirone, P.P. 1938. The detrimental effect of the walnut to rhododendrons and other ornamentals. Nursery Disease Notes 11:13–16. Preira, J.A., I. Oliviera, A. Sousa, P. Valentao, P.B. Andrade, I.C.F.R. Ferreira, F. Ferreres, A. Bento, R. Seabra, & L. Estevinho. 2007. Walnut (Juglans regia L.) leaves: Phenolic compounds, antibacterial activity and antioxidant potential of different cultivars. Food Chemistry and Toxicology 45:2287–2295. Randall, V.D., & J.D. Bragg. 1986. Effects of juglone (5-hydroxy-1,4-naphthoquinone) on the algae Anabaena flos-aquae, Nostoc commune and Scenedesmus acuminatus. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of Science 40:52–55. Reinking, O.A. 1943. Possible back walnut toxicity to tomato and cabbage. Northern Nut Growers Association Annual Report 34:56–58. Schmidt, S.K. 1988. Degradation of juglone by soil bacteria. Journal of Chemical Ecology 14(7):1561–1571. Scott, R., & W.C. Sullivan. 2007. A review of suitable companion crops for black walnut. Agroforestry Systems 71:185–193. Seigler, D.S. 1998. Plant secondary metabolism. 2nd ed., pp. 82–85. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA. Sharma, N., P. Gosh, U.K. Sharma, S. Sood, A.K. Sinha, & A. Gulati. Microwave-assisted efficient extraction and stability of juglone in different solvents from Juglans regia: Quantification of six phenolic constituents by validated RP-HPLC and evaluation of antimicrobial activity. Analytical Letters 42:2592–2609. Sherman, R.R. 1971. An ecological evaluation of the allelopathic influence of Juglans nigra on Lycopersicon esculentum. MSc thesis. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Shrestha, A. 2009. Potential of a black walnut (Juglans nigra) extract product (NatureCur®) as a pre- and post-emergence bioherbicide. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 33:810–822. Soderquist, C.J. 1973. Juglone and allelopathy. Journal of Chemical Education 50(11):782–783. Solar, A., M. Colaric, V. Usenik, & F. Stampar. 2006. Seasonal variations of selected flavonoids, phenolic acids and quinones in annual shoots of common walnut (Juglans regia L.). Plant Science 170:453–461. Stampar, F., A. Solar, M. Hudina, R. Veberic, & M. Colaric. 2006. Traditional walnut liquor-cocktail of phenolics. Food Chemistry 95:627–631. Stickney, J.S., & P.R. Hoy. 1881. Toxic action of black walnut. Transactions of the Wisconsin Horticultural Society 11:166–167. Strong, M.C. 1944. Walnut wilt of tomato. Michigan Agriculture Experiment Station Quarterly Bulletin 85 26:194–195. Sugie, S., K. Okamoto, K.M.W. Rahman, T. Tanaka, K. Kawai, J. Yamahara, & H. Mori. 1998. Inhibitory effects of plumbagin and juglone on azoxymethane induced intestinal carcinogenesis in rats. Cancer Letters 127(1–2):177–183. Taylor, R.T., & L.A. Flood. 1983. Polystyrene-bound phenylselenic acid: Catalytic oxidations of olefins, ketones, and aromatic systems. Journal of Organic Chemistry 48:5160–5164. JEM Vol 13, No 3 Terzi, I. 2008. Allelopathic effects of juglone and decomposed walnut leaf juice on muskmelon and cucumber seed germination and seedling growth. African Journal of Biotechnology 7(12):180–1874. JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management Thiboldeaux, R.L., R.L. Lindroth, & J.W. Tracy. 1994. Differential toxicity of juglone (5-hydroxy-1,4- A SUMMARY OF naphthoquinone) and related naphthoquinones to saturnid moths. Journal of Chemical Ecology EXTRACTION, 20:1631–1641. SYNTHESIS, PROPERTIES, AND Thiboldeaux, R.L., R.L. Lindroth, & J.W. Tracy. 1998. Effects of juglone (5-hydroxy-1,4-naphthoquinone) POTENTIAL USES OF on midgut morphology and glutathione status in Saturniid moth larvae. Comparative Biochemistry JUGLONE: A and Physiology Part C: Pharmacology, Toxicology and Endocrinology 120(3):481–487. LITERATURE REVIEW Topal, S., I. Kocaçaliskan, O. Arslan, & A.Z. Tel. 2007. Herbicidal effects of juglone as an allelochemical. Strugstad & Phyton 46(2):259–269. Despotovski Varga, Z., L. Bene, C. Pieri, S. Damjavonich, & R. Gasper, Jr. 1996. The effect of juglone on the membrane potential and whole-cell K+ currents of human lymphocytes. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 218:828–832. Vogel, A., Jr., & C. Reinschauer. 1856. Uever einen neuen organischen Körper in den Fruchtschalen der Juglans regia. Neues Repertorium Für die Pharmacie 5:106–110. von Kiparski, G.R., L.S. Lee, & A.R. Gillespie. 2007. Occurrence and fate of the phytotoxin juglone in alley soils under black walnut trees. Journal of Environmental Quality 36:709–717. Weidenhamer, J.D., F.A. Macias, N.H. Fischer, & G.B. Williamson. 1993. Just how insoluble are monoterpenes. Journal of Chemical Ecology 19:1799–1807. Westfall, B., R.L. Russel, T.K. Auyong. Depressant agent from walnut hulls. American Association for the Advancement of Science 134:1617. Wichtl, M. 1994. Herbal drugs and phytopharmaceuticals, p. 282. Medpharm, Stuttgart. Wichtl, M., & R. Anton. 1999. In: Plantes therapeutiques, pp. 291–293. Tec. & Doc, Paris. Willis, R.J. 1985. The historical bases of the concept of allelopathy. Journal of the History of Biology 18:71–102. Wright, D.A., R. Dawson, S.J. Cutler, H.G. Cutler, C.E. Orano-Dawson, & E. Graneli. 2007a. Napthaquinones as broad spectrum biocides for the treatment of ship’s ballast water: Toxicity to phytoplankton and bacteria. Water Research 41:1294–1302. Wright, D.A., C.L. Mitchelmore, R. Dawson, & H.G. Cutler. 2007b. The influence of water quality on the toxicity and degradation of juglone (5-hydroxy 1,4-naphthoquinone). Environmental Technology 28:1091–1101. Xu, H.L., X.F. Yu, S.C. Qu, R. Zhang, X.R. Qu, Y.P. Chen, X.Y. Ma, D.Y. Sui. 2010. Anti-proliferative effect of juglone from juglans mandshurica maxim on human leukemia cell HL-60 by inducing apoptosis through the mitochondria-dependent pathway. European Journal of Pharmacology 645(1–3):14–22.

Author information Maryon Paulsen Strugstad – Vancouver Island University Alumni. Currently at McGill University, 3450 University Street, Montreal, QC H3A 0E8. Email: [email protected] Saško Despotovski – University of British Columbia & University of Fraser Valley Alumni, 1–3572 Marine Drive SE, Vancouver, BC V5S 4R3. Email: [email protected]

Article Received: March 30, 2011 • Article Accepted: March 30, 2012 Production of this article was funded, in part, by the British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. © 2012, Copyright in this article is the property of FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources Society. ISSN 1488-4674. Articles or contributions in this publication may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use free of charge to the recipient in educational, training, and not-for-profit activities provided that their source and authorship are fully acknowledged. However, reproduction, adaptation, translation, application to other forms or media, or any other use of these works, in whole or in part, for commercial use, resale, or redistribution, requires the written 86 consent of FORREX Forum for research and Extension in natural resources society and of all contributing copyright owners. This publication and the articles and contributions herein may not be made accessible to the public over the internet without the written consent of FORREX. For consents, contact: Managing Editor, FORREX, Suite 400, 235 1st Avenue, Kamloops, BC V2C 3J4, or email [email protected] The information and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the respective authors and FORREX does not warrant their accuracy or reliability, and expressly disclaims any liability in JEM relation thereto. Vol 13, No 3 JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management A SUMMARY OF Test your Knowledge EXTRACTION, SYNTHESIS, PROPERTIES, AND How well can you recall the main messages in the preceding article? POTENTIAL USES OF JUGLONE: A Test your knowledge by answering the following questions. LITERATURE REVIEW

Strugstad & A Summary of Extraction, Synthesis, Properties, Despotovski and Potential Uses of Juglone: A Literature Review

1. Which geographical regions of British Columbia have historically supported the growth of nut trees, specifically Carpathian, Japanese, and black walnuts? a) Only Fraser Valley and Okanagan areas b) Vancouver Island, Fraser Valley, Okanagan, West Kootenay, and Peace River c) Fraser Valley, Okanagan, West Kootenay, and Rocky Mountain areas

2. What is a common chemical name for organic compounds juglone, lawsone, plumbagin, and lapachol? a) Terpenoid b) Naphthoquinone or quinone c) Quiche

3. Walnut trees can produce all of the phenolic compounds mentioned below except what? a) Benzene b) Terpenoids c) Naphthoquinones or quinones

JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF ANSWERS: 1=b; 2=b; 3=a 3=a 2=b; 1=b; ANSWERS: Ecosystems & Management Analysis of Ancient Western Redcedar Stands in Discussion Paper the Upper Fraser River Watershed and Scenarios for Protection

Darwyn S. Coxson* and David J. Connell, University of Northern British Columbia; Trevor *Corresponding Goward, University of British Columbia author

Abstract Emerging research has highlighted the significance of ancient western redcedar (Thuja plicata) stands within the upper Fraser River watershed as examples of rare forest types within British Columbia’s inland temperate rainforest (ITR). These stands represent a globally significant repository of canopy lichen biodiversity. Ancient redcedar stands were historically found in greatest abundance in wet “toe-slope” topographic positions, where mountain slopes flatten out as they reach the valley bottom. Abundant groundwater runoff and wet soils in these topographic positions provided protection from fires and sustained trees during dry summer periods. However, the placement of road and rail corridors in these same topographic positions has facilitated the logging of many ancient redcedar stands. The result has been the widespread loss of ancient cedars, which today account for only 3.7% of the 130 571 ha ICHvk2 biogeoclimatic zone east of Prince George. Of the remaining ancient cedar stands found in the ICHvk2 less than 2% (approx. 100 ha) are currently protected within BC provincial parks. Here we outline three scenarios that would increase the proportion of this ecosystem within BC parks and would support landscape- level planning objectives for the upper Fraser River watershed. We suggest that the cultural and biological values represented by these proposed areas would meet criteria for nomination as a UNESCO World Heritage or Biosphere Reserve site, ultimately resulting in widespread positive benefits for diversification of the regional economy, by building on a regional tourist attraction that has already developed at the site of the Ancient Forest Trail.

KEYWORDS: inland temperate rainforest; western redcedar (Thuja plicata); Fraser River; tourism; protected areas

Introduction emperate rainforest ecosystems are usually found in close proximity to maritime environments (Lawford et al. 1996; DellaSala 2011). In western North America, Tcoastal temperate rainforests once extended from Oregon north to Alaska. These forests were the basis for much of the region’s economic development in the 20th century and continue to provide critical ecosystem services and socio-economic values. Significant contiguous landscapes of old-growth coastal temperate rainforests are still found in areas 88 such as Olympic National Park in Washington State, Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve on Haida Gwaii, the central coastal region of British Columbia, and Tongass National Forest

D.S. Coxson, T. Goward, & D.J. Connell. 2012. Analysis of Ancient Western Redcedar Stands in the Upper Fraser River Watershed and Scenarios for Protection. JEM Vol 13, No 3 Journal of Ecosystems and Management 13(3):88–107. Published by FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources. JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & http://jem.forrex.org/index.php/jem/article/viewFile/206/479 Management in Alaska, where they support productive and diverse plant and animal communities and ANALYSIS OF ANCIENT WESTERN socio-economic values (DellaSala 2011). REDCEDAR STANDS Less well known is British Columbia (BC)’s inland temperate rainforests (ITR). The IN THE UPPER FRASER RIVER same prevailing weather systems and precipitation that nourish coastal rainforests create WATERSHED AND a secondary zone of high precipitation as they cross Interior mountain ranges. These SCENARIOS FOR PROTECTION forests are largely found in valley-bottom to mid-slope positions on the windward slope Coxson, Connell, of the Interior mountain ranges, between latitudes 50 and 54˚N (Goward & Arsenault & Goward 2000a; Goward & Spribille 2005; Stevenson et al. 2011). We have followed the definition of ITR proposed by Stevenson et al. (2011): Inland rainforests were first defined by Goward and Arsenault (1995) and described in more detail by Arsenault and Goward (2000) as the wettest biogeoclimatic subzones of the Interior Cedar–Hemlock (ICH) zone—the wet cool (ICHwk) and very wet cool (ICHvk) subzones (Meidinger & Pojar 1991). They are restricted to a region of anomalously humid climate, in which a plentiful snowmelt during late spring is followed by ample rainfall during the height of the growing season. In no other region of the world has a similar integra- tion of humidity and continentality been documented.

The ITR climate differs from the coastal rainforest climates in several important respects. Not only does a higher proportion of annual precipitation fall as snow compared to coastal forests, but also June and July tend to be wetter and cooler in the Interior rainforests than in their coastal counterparts (Arsenault & Goward 2000). Within the upper Fraser River watershed in the Rocky Mountain trench east of Prince George, often referred to as the Robson Valley (Figure 1), the ITR supports remnant stands of very large, old western redcedar (Figure 2), with dominant trees reaching 3 m or more in diameter (Radies et al. 2009). The largest documented tree, the “Big Tree” on the Ancient Forest Trail, measures 4.13 m in diameter. These stands often support a Figure 1: The relative location of upper Fraser ancient cedar stands in dense understorey, with devil’s club the wet and very wet biogeoclimatic subzones of the northern portions (Oplopanax horridus) 2–3 m in height, of the inland temperate rainforest of BC (dark areas on smaller scale map on upper right). The inset box at centre-left outlines the location and lush lady fern (Athyrium filix-fem- of the ancient cedars map area as seen in Figure 5. ina) and skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanus) in wet seepage areas. Although the phrase “ancient forests” has been variously used in popular literature, 89 the original description by Lewington and Parker (1999) denoted trees or stands of trees that have been in place for a thousand years or more. The oldest redcedar stands of the upper Fraser River watershed (Figure 1) clearly qualify as ancient in this sense and will, accordingly, be referred to as “ancient cedar” stands. As thus defined, the oldest ancient cedar stands likewise qualify as “antique forests,” characterized by Goward (1994) as JEM “forests that have escaped catastrophic disturbance for a period longer than the age of Vol 13, No 3 the oldest trees within them.” JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management Ancient cedar stands within BC’s inland rainforest represent an ecosystem unique to ANALYSIS OF ANCIENT WESTERN BC (Stevenson et al. 2011)—and indeed globally (DellaSala 2011). The large stature and REDCEDAR STANDS exceptional age of western redcedar trees so far removed from maritime influences is re- IN THE UPPER FRASER RIVER markable in itself. In common with their counterparts in the temperate rainforests of the WATERSHED AND Pacific Coast, these forests support a rich assemblage of canopy lichens, including what SCENARIOS FOR PROTECTION appear to be several endemic species. Although small patches of ancient cedar stands can Coxson, Connell, be found southward as far as Idaho, for instance near waterfall spray zones, for the most & Goward part there is scant representation of this ecosystem outside of BC’s provincial boundaries (Stevenson et al. 2011). Within BC, ancient cedar stands are best developed in the upper Fraser River Valley, where natural disturbance regimes result in landscapes with a high proportion of old forests and few stand-destroying fires (Delong 1998). While inland temperate rainforests have recently been identified in a few other parts of the world (DellaSala 2011), only in British Columbia do large portions of it still remain intact. Although ITR ecosystems are worthy of special conservation concern wherever they occur in BC, their prospects for long-term survival may be best in the upper Fraser River watershed. There are two reasons for this: First, logging has been less extensive there than in southern portions of the ITR (Stevenson et al. 2011; Table 1), resulting in a higher proportion of intact old-growth and antique forests (Radies et al. 2009). And second, the future impacts of climate change are expected to be less extreme in the ancient cedar stands of the upper Fraser than in more southern locations (T. Wang et al. unpublished data, cited in Stevenson et al. 2011). Unfortunately, scientific recognition of this area came about after the completion of regional land use planning processes in the Figure 2: Large-stature ancient redcedar late 1990s (B.C. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management adjacent to the Ancient Forest Trail (Photo: 1999), hence little consideration was given to the designation of the D. Coxson). ancient cedar stands as protected areas at the time. It should be noted, however, that several non-governmental organizations, most notably the Save-the-Cedars League, were early

Table 1: Land designation (ha) within proposed park scenario area boundaries. Mapping of ancient cedar stand boundaries and the old-growth management area (OGMA) boundaries are from the British Columbia Integrated Land Management Bureau, Ministry of Lands and Agriculture (2008).1

Park Proposal Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Category Area Designated by Category Total park proposal area 6244 11065 16406 90 Park proposal area excluding young stands2 5497 9999 14143 Ancient cedar stands 662 943 1047 Area currently designated as legal OGMAs 2281 2533 2648 Area currently designated as non-legal OGMAs 1105 1721 1721 Areas outside OGMAs 2858 6811 12037 JEM Vol 13, No 3 1. The areas mapped as “High Biodiversity Cedar Stands” by ILMB are synonymous with our usage of the term ancient cedar stands. JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & 2. Young stands were stands < 40 years of age. Management advocates for greater recognition of ancient cedar stands and have since proposed the des- ANALYSIS OF ANCIENT WESTERN ignation of a conservation corridor in the upper Fraser River watershed (Zammuto 2008). REDCEDAR STANDS Protection of cultural and biological values represented by ancient cedar stands in the IN THE UPPER FRASER RIVER upper Fraser currently occurs mainly in old-growth management areas (OGMAs). However, WATERSHED AND the long-term future of ancient cedar stands within designated OGMAs is uncertain, as we SCENARIOS FOR PROTECTION outline in the section “Existing status of upper Fraser ancient cedar stands.” Ancient cedar Coxson, Connell, stands, furthermore, are poorly represented in existing regional provincial parks, which & Goward are either situated at upper forested and alpine elevations, that is, above the elevational limits of redcedar, (e.g., Ptarmigan Creek Provincial Park, Erg Mountain Provincial Park, Evanoff Provincial Park), or have lost much of their ancient redcedar to logging prior to park designation (e.g., in Sugarbowl–Grizzly Den Provincial Park). Slim Creek Provincial Park contains several small, but significant, ancient cedar stands, yet most of the park, especially in its lower portions, is comprised of other forest types. One of the major conservation objectives of BC’s provincial parks is to “contain viable representation of all the natural and cultural heritage diversities across the province in order to conserve sustainable ecological values” (BC Parks 1997). Given the global significance of the upper Fraser ancient cedar stands and their poor representation within BC parks, it seems appropriate to ask what options might be considered were the BC government to use provincial park legislation as a means of conserving ancient cedar stands for future generations. Here we explore three scenarios for designating the ancient cedar stands in the vicinity of Slim Creek Provincial Park within an expanded provincial park boundary. We also discuss the limitations of other protected area designations, such as OGMAs and ecological reserves. Before embarking on these discussions, however, it is necessary first to examine the timber and non-timber uses of the ITR, its ecological significance, and the existing levels of protection.

Timber values in ancient cedar stands Fully developed ancient cedar stands in the upper Fraser River watershed are best represented in the area east of Longworth through to Dome Creek and towards McBride. The east–west oriented Fraser River Valley in this part of the Rocky Mountain trench is broadly U-shaped, providing opportunity for the development of productive valley-bottom forests. Forestry is one of the traditional industries in the upper Fraser area. Harvesting in this area has focused primarily on white spruce (Picea glauca), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), with redcedar constituting only a relatively small percentage of total volume logged. Western redcedar was historically regarded as a low-value timber product in the ITR, owing to a high incidence of heart rot. As a result, and also due to previous highgrading, ancient cedar stands in the ITR have tradi- tionally been seen as “decadent,” with provincial policy encouraging their conversion to young (typically spruce) plantations (Stevenson et al. 2011). In the first part of the 20th century, small-diameter poles were the main target of western redcedar logging, but in the last several decades logging in the upper Fraser has increasingly targeted larger di- 91 ameter trees for their sound outer shells. A number of small cedar-harvesting businesses currently operate in the Robson Valley, producing cedar shakes, shingles, fence posts, and garden mulch, and are locally significant to these rural economies (Connell et al. 2011). As noted by Stevenson et al. (2011), however, overall harvesting of western redcedar within the ITR has declined dra- JEM Vol 13, No 3 matically. Nonetheless, redcedar remains a specified component of upper Fraser timber JOURNAL OF harvest quotas. Ecosystems & Management Ecological significance of ITR ancient cedar stands ANALYSIS OF ANCIENT WESTERN Although the ITR covers some 800 000 ha in BC (Figure 1), the places that we associate REDCEDAR STANDS with iconic images of giant redcedars are actually rare within this region. Radies et al. (2009) IN THE UPPER FRASER RIVER found that ancient cedar stands in the upper Fraser River watershed were largely restricted WATERSHED AND to wet lower-slope positions, often described as “toe-slope” positions (see Figure 3), where SCENARIOS FOR PROTECTION meltwater from the winter snowpack maintains groundwater supplies and creates condi- Coxson, Connell, tions of high stand humidity during the summer period. Occasionally, ancient cedar stands & Goward in the upper Fraser River watershed are also found in mid-slope positions, typically on flat, northeast aspect benches that receive seepage from melting snow above. Within these wet toe-slope positions and wet benches, the frequency of stand-destroying fires is apparently greatly reduced (Goward & Pojar 1998). Evidence from San- born et al. (2006) suggests that fire return intervals in Interior Cedar– Hemlock forests in this region may reach 1600 years or more. One factor that has confounded attempts to study forest dynamics within ITR ancient cedar stands is that the very old western redcedars are typically hollow. Anecdotal evidence for the age of ancient cedars in the upper Fraser comes from tree-ring counts Figure 3: Lower-slope position within Sugarbowl–Grizzly Den Provincial Park, of logged stumps, which can show which was logged of ancient cedars prior to park designation. Abundant 900 to 1000 years of growth in the groundwater flow has allowed beavers to impound runoff across the face of the mountain slope here. (Photo: D. Coxson). hollow outer shell (D. King pers. comm. Mar. 2012). A more rigorous dendrochronology study is currently underway at the University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC). Preliminary results suggest that mature cedars commonly reach 500 to 600 years of age, with occasional individuals much older than this (C. Konchalski pers. comm. Nov. 2012). Many larger cedars have been found with an outer shell of sound wood more than 300 years of age, yet this accounts for less than one-third of total stem diameter, the remainder of these stems being rotten or hollow. Equations for extrapolation of age based on diameter are being developed. The abundance of very old trees in many of the ancient cedar stands in the inland rainforest has been interpreted by some as evidence of past thinning, for instance, from harvesting of pole cedars, which was common in the Dome Creek area (see Stevenson et al. 2011, Figure 4.3 for illustrations of past harvesting). Yet Daniels et al. (1997) found that very few young cedars were naturally present in ancient cedar stands on Vancouver Island. Those that were present, because of long site continuity, were estimated to be 92 more than sufficient to maintain existing stands. Similar patterns of stand regeneration may occur in ITR ancient cedar stands; however, this has not been verified in formal scientific studies. Likely both factors, stand thinning and infrequent natural regeneration, apply to many ITR ancient cedar stands. Periodic episodes of western hemlock looper (Lambdina fiscellaria lugubrosa) are JEM Vol 13, No 3 another natural disturbance agent that occurs within old forests of the inland rainforest; JOURNAL OF however, the intensity of disturbance from hemlock looper can be highly variable, leaving Ecosystems & Management a legacy of snags and partially defoliated trees (Hoggett 2002). Some evidence suggests ANALYSIS OF ANCIENT WESTERN that large-diameter cedars may be more resistant to hemlock looper than other species REDCEDAR STANDS and size classes of trees (Stevenson et al. 2011). IN THE UPPER FRASER RIVER The lower-slope and valley-bottom topographic positions where ancient cedar stands WATERSHED AND grow provide convenient grades for road and rail development. Not surprisingly, the gen- SCENARIOS FOR PROTECTION tle terrain adjacent to roads and valley bottoms has been heavily affected by clearcut log- Coxson, Connell, ging. After decades of logging, old forests are now almost wholly absent from lower-slope & Goward positions in many tributary valleys of the upper Fraser River, as for instance the McGregor River Valley (see Stevenson et al. 2011, p. 231, Plate 40) and the valleys to the south of Driscoll Ridge (shown in the upper part of Figure 4). As a result, ancient cedar stands are now rarer within regional landscapes than they were historically. Old-growth (> 250 years of age) redcedar stands in sites with wet soils now represent only 7.1% of the 135 000 ha Very-Wet Cool Interior Cedar–Hemlock (ICHvk2) biogeoclimatic zone east of Prince George, down from perhaps 30% or more prior to the widespread in- Figure 4: Google Earth oblique aerial perspective looking southward towards troduction of clearcut logging in Driscoll Ridge. Slim Creek and the Fraser River are visible in the lower left and lower right of the image, respectively. The Ancient Forest Trail is located on the the 1960s (Coxson unpublished south side of the highway (left centre). Clearcuts are colorized false green. The data estimated from the area of approximate boundaries of Park Proposal Scenario 2 (see Figure 7 for detailed young [< 40 year old] ICHvk2 boundary) are shown enclosed within blue lines. Image centre is at stands in sites having wet relative 53°45’36.86”N, 121°24’29.38” W. Base image © Google Earth (download March 7, 2012). soil moisture status using methods of Radies et al. 2009, who found a high correlation between sites with wet relative soil moisture and the presence of ancient cedar stands; young stands identified in this analysis originate predominately from logging). The Integrated Land Management Bureau (ILMB) further refined the analysis of Radies et al. (2009) in 2008, by mapping the location of remnant ancient cedar stands within the ICHvk2 zone (B.C. Integrated Land Management Bureau 2008). Aerial photos were used to locate ancient cedar stands, which were found to cover only 3.7% of the ICHvk2 area (Figure 5). These stands survived periodic natural disturbance events caused by hemlock looper (Hoggett 2002), perhaps due to their very wet position in the landscape (Stevenson et al. 2011). Canopy structure in ancient cedar stands is quite open, with gaps often formed by 93 small seepage areas and springs (Radies et al. 2009). This is a major factor in the development of rich canopy lichen communities, whose growth is favoured by host branches available in well-illuminated, but humid, lower canopy positions (Radies & Coxson 2004; Radies et al. 2009). The long site continuity of ancient cedar stands, with some stands potentially having had continuous forest cover for a thousand years or more (Sanborn et al. JEM Vol 13, No 3 2006), is a further contributing factor to the development of rich canopy lichen commu- JOURNAL OF nities (Goward & Arsenault 2000b; Coxson & Radies 2009; Radies et al. 2009). This can Ecosystems & Management be seen in the presence of old forest lichen indicator groups such as the Calicioids (Selva ANALYSIS OF ANCIENT WESTERN 1994), which are far more abundant in ITR forests than in coastal temperate rainforests REDCEDAR STANDS (Arsenault & Goward 2000). IN THE UPPER FRASER RIVER Among species recently found in long-term monitoring plots within the park proposal WATERSHED AND areas outlined below are Nephroma occultum, Nephroma isidiosum, Lobaria retigera, Lep- SCENARIOS FOR PROTECTION togidium dendriscum, Sticta oroborealis, and Sticta wrightii (MacDonald et al. submitted), Coxson, Connell, all of which are ranked as rare and of conservation priority in the province by the British & Goward Columbia Conservation Data Centre (B.C. Ministry of Environment 2012). Collema coniophilum, recently designated as threatened in Canada (COSEWIC 2010), is a BC endemic lichen first located in the canopies of ancient cedar stands. New lichen species continue to be described from ancient cedar in BC’s ITR (Spribille et al. 2009), with more species new to science presently under examination (T. Goward pers. comm. Mar. 2011). The structural characteristics of large-diameter ancient cedars, which commonly have hollow centres, also provide critical habitat for wildlife species that use tree cavities for shelter or nesting habitats. In the wet ITR this includes vertebrate species such as Figure 5: The location of ancient cedar stands (high biodiversity cedar stands) is bats, pileated woodpeckers (Dry- shown in black within the upper Fraser River watershed east of Prince George. ocopus pileatus), and black bears The ICHvk2 biogeoclimatic zone is shown by the light grey shaded areas, while (Ursus americanus). Stevenson et existing provincial park boundaries by cross-hatching. The location of the park proposal maps (Figures 6, 7, & 8) is shown by the inset grey rectangle. Stand al. (2011) draws particular atten- locations are from the British Columbia Integrated Land Management Bureau, B.C. tion to the potential significance Ministry of Lands and Agriculture (2008). Image centre at 53°45’46.30”N, of cavities in large redcedars as 121°11’16.24” W. habitat for the blue-listed northern long-eared myotis (Myotis septentrionalis), a little-known species of bat in British Columbia. Because the managed (plantation) forests surrounding ancient cedar stands have a far lower frequency of structural elements such as snags and hollow trees, these structural attributes are now becoming increasingly localized and hence important to these and other animals. Although, we have no area-specific studies on wildlife tree usage in the upper Fraser River ancient cedar stands, Fenger et al. (2006) notes that the Interior Cedar–Hemlock zone has the second highest utilization of wildlife tree habitats of any ecosystem in BC and that with greater height and diameter of available trees, the higher the number of wildlife species and individuals that can potentially use them. 94

Existing status of upper Fraser ancient cedar stands Ancient cedar stands within the upper Fraser River watershed have to date largely been managed as part of the timber harvesting land base with the implicit or explicit objective of sustained timber production over time. As discussed above, much of this management has JEM Vol 13, No 3 been for extractive uses. In recent years there has been an increasing recognition of the JOURNAL OF ecological and social value of these old forests. As recently stated by the province’s Chief Ecosystems & Management Forester, it is “important to maintain old-growth redcedar on the landscape for future gen- ANALYSIS OF ANCIENT WESTERN erations and to meet requirements to manage old growth in the ICH” (Snetsinger 2011). REDCEDAR STANDS According to the 2004 Order Establishing Landscape Biodiversity Objectives for the IN THE UPPER FRASER RIVER Prince George Timber Supply Area, often referred to as the Provincial Non-Spatial Old WATERSHED AND Growth Order (B.C. Integrated Land Management Bureau 2004), 53% of upper Fraser SCENARIOS FOR PROTECTION forests must be maintained as old forests. However, the status of this Old Growth Order in Coxson, Connell, the Prince George Timber Supply Area is now uncertain. Recommendations from the re- & Goward cent review of the mid-term timber supply (B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 2012) state that “it is possible to increase mid-term timber supply in the Prince George TSA to 9.2 million cubic metres per year (almost the pre-beetle level) by removing the Prince George Old Growth Order.” The report acknowledged risks associated with this recommendation, namely that “removing the requirement for old growth increases the risk of survival for those species and plant associations reliant on old-growth habitats and structures,” and provides the caveat that “conserving remnants of these older forests, consistent with approved land use plans, is still extremely important.” The definition of old forests used in the Old Growth Order—as stands greater than 140 years of age—has, in any case, substantial limitations as a management tool for conserving ancient cedar stands. The 53% target is set aspatially and has no long-term or defined boundaries; rather stands may be located in different parts of the landscape as harvesting proceeds and managed landscapes evolve, regardless of species composition or site conditions. Again, this fails to recognize the long-term site continuity and site- specific topographic factors which constrain the development of ancient cedar stands. Recognition of this policy gap by the 2008 ILMB report (B.C. Integrated Land Man- agement Bureau 2008) resulted in the designation of many ancient cedar stands within old-growth management areas (OGMAs) (Table 1). In the upper Fraser these are spatially defined, some affording legal protection (so-called legal OGMAs) (B.C. Integrated Land Management Bureau 2002), others simply constituting advice to industry on best practices and are not legally binding (so-called non-legal or “guidance” OGMAs) (B.C. Inte- grated Land Management Bureau 2008). While these OGMAs provide near-term protection from logging, it must be stressed that OGMAs in general do not provide protection from other types of industrial development such as mining, hydroelectric development, or road construction—a concern highlighted in a recent Forest Practices Board report (B.C. Forest Practices Board 2012). Within legal OGMAs, forest industry contractors are mandated not to construct roads unless there is no other practicable option (B.C. Integrated Land Management Bureau 2002). However, the order establishing guidance OGMAs was silent on limitations respect- ing development activities (B.C. Integrated Land Management Bureau 2008). Current plans for construction of a new logging road through the core of one of the larger remnant ancient cedar stands on the north side of the Fraser River Valley near Red Mountain (S. Carson pers. comm. Nov. 2012) highlight this issue. Coxson (2010) provides further discussion of the limitations of guidance OGMAs as a management option for conservation 95 of ancient cedar stands. At present, none of the identified ancient cedar stands (B.C. Integrated Land Management Bureau 2008) fall within ecological reserves. While this designation would certainly be appropriate for some stands in the future, the generally small size of ecological reserves in BC can limit their usefulness as a management option for the conservation of landscape values. JEM Vol 13, No 3 The sole valley-bottom ecological reserve in the upper Fraser area is the Aleza Lake Ecological JOURNAL OF Reserve (242 ha), which protects a small area of old-growth sub-boreal spruce forest. Ecosystems & Management Similarly, only small patches of upper Fraser ancient cedar stands presently occur ANALYSIS OF ANCIENT WESTERN within protected areas or within BC provincial parks: 69 ha in Sugarbowl–Grizzly Den REDCEDAR STANDS and 27 ha in Slim Creek Provincial Parks (from B.C. Integrated Land Management Bureau IN THE UPPER FRASER RIVER 2008 mapping). This lack of representation within the BC provincial park system remains WATERSHED AND a major deficiency in landscape-level planning in the upper Fraser. SCENARIOS FOR PROTECTION

Coxson, Connell, Cultural and social values of ancient cedar stands & Goward Ancient cedar stands of the upper Fraser fall within the traditional territory of the Lheidli T’enneh First Nation. Turner (1988, 2010) describes the long-standing ethnobotanical significance of western redcedar for coastal First Nations communities in the Pacific North- west. In the Interior, the Thompson and Lillooet Interior Salish also used western redcedar as an ethnobotanical resource (Turner 1988), though whether the Lheidi T’enneh did likewise remains an outstanding information gap in the published literature. Access to ancient cedars stands in the upper Fraser would historically have been along river corridors, with seasonal camps located along the upper Fraser River. Local communities have long utilized ITR stands, including ancient cedars, for their non-timber values, from berry picking and hunting to weekend excursions and hiking (Shapiro 2012). However, recreational access to ancient cedar stands was never easy. Large fallen trees, prolific devil’s club, and wet ground all discouraged the casual hiker. This has now changed significantly, with local community groups having spearheaded construction of the Ancient Forest Trail near Highway 16 (Dome Creek area), which formally opened in September 2006. Since then, public awareness of these stands has grown rapidly, with an estimated 9500 visits to the Ancient Forest Trail site in 2011 (Connell & Shapiro 2012). Surveyed trail users included local day-users (54%) and visitors from outside the province (39%). Adjusted for average daily tourist expenditures in the region, this suggests an annual ex- penditure of about $200 000 (Connell & Shapiro 2012). The potential for increased visi- tation of this area is considerable, given its location on a major highway corridor and the public interest in the environmental values of the site. The Ancient Forest Trail has now been walked by visitors from around the world. Ac- cording to entries made in the visitor log book at the trailhead visitors to date represent 12 Canadian provinces/territories, 28 states of the United States, and 26 countries outside North America. Visitors’ comments typically speak to a strong desire that these sites be maintained in their natural state and visitors’ sense of discovery as they view, often for the first time, an ancient cedar stand (Appendix 1). Analysis of visitors’ comments by Shapiro (2012) suggests that a high value is placed on landscape-level values such as recreation and tourism. As noted by Shapiro, “Some trail users comment that the Ancient Forest Trail should be put in more guidebooks, and others say they would like to see the site created into a park, or national park.” The Ancient Forest Trail area now represents a significant asset for regional tourism development. Tourism is now the second largest industry operating within the forested 96 land of this region and is projected to increase over time (Connell et al. 2011; Connell & Shapiro 2012). Recognition of tourism values at the immediate Ancient Forest Trail site was conferred by a Recreation Order on November 19, 2008, which established the Driscoll Ridge Trail as a recreation trail and the Ancient Forest Trail as an interpretive site. Local recognition has included the awarding of the Protector Award to the Caledonia JEM Vol 13, No 3 Ramblers Trust – Friends of the Ancient Forest at a recent Northern BC Tourism confer- JOURNAL OF ence (Peebles 2012). The Ancient Forest Trail was also recently chosen as the feature lo- Ecosystems & Management cation for the video “Brains, Not Brawn” by the Association of BC Forest Professionals, a ANALYSIS OF ANCIENT WESTERN video encouraging students to consider careers in forestry and discussing the importance REDCEDAR STANDS of non-timber values at sites such as the Ancient Forest Trail (Association of BC Forest IN THE UPPER FRASER RIVER Professionals 2012). WATERSHED AND Shapiro (2012) also provides one of the first published surveys of local residents SCENARIOS FOR PROTECTION (Dome Creek and Crescent Spur) about their perceptions of the ancient cedar stands. Air Coxson, Connell, purifying was the most popular “most important” ancient cedar value chosen, followed & Goward closely by habitat values, being in a natural/undisturbed state, and beauty. Age of trees, tourism, and water quality and quantity were tied selections below this. These types of ecological services are increasingly a factor in landscape-level planning in other jurisdictions (Sherrouse et al. 2011).

Designation of core protected areas The ancient cedar stands of the upper Fraser River watershed are located on Crown lands within British Columbia, areas that are owned and managed by the Province of British Co- lumbia. The management of these lands is governed by relevant provincial legislation such as the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Park Act. The shaping and application of this legislation is also governed by an implicit social contract with the people of British Columbia, whereby land use planners are charged with transmitting the land base to future generations in optimal condition (Bunnell & Dunsworth 2009). In the past, old-growth forests have been regarded as decadent (Stevenson et al. 2011), leading to a policy framework that encouraged liquidation of old stands and conversion to plantation based forestry. However, changing social values and advances in our understanding of biodiversity and ecosystem processes now require land managers to balance many factors beyond timber production when considering the management of old growth. A common theme in recent discussions concerning forest management in the upper Fraser has been a call for forest policy that clearly recognizes the ecological and social significance of its ancient cedar stands. Many presenters at the BC’s Inland Rainforest – Conservation and Community symposium held at UNBC in 2008 (available from http://wetbelt.unbc.ca/2008-conference.html) advocated a tiered landscape-level management strategy, whereby core areas having exceptional biodiversity or important ecosystem services would be protected from development. These core areas would, in turn, be se- cured within a buffer zone in which only low intensity resource development is permitted. Areas outside these two zones could then be designated, as appropriate, for more intensive development. This strategy mirrors the triad forest management system (Maclean et al. 2009), which has lately been adopted in several jurisdictions, and which, in fact, is one of the major recommendations of Stevenson et al. (2011, pp. 288–301) for adoption in BC’s inland temperate rainforest (see also the 2008 report of the BC Forest Practices Board [Post 2008]). We hereby propose implementation of such landscape-level management strategies in the upper Fraser River watershed, starting with the designation of protected area status 97 for core ancient cedar stand ecosystems. In essence we pose the question, “What options would be available were the provincial government to consider protecting the most important of these stands using provincial park legislation?” Below we explore three scenarios for expanding Slim Creek Provincial Park. These scenarios will inform local communities, First Nations, land use planners, and delegated decision makers alike as JEM Vol 13, No 3 they consider options for the future sustainability of landscapes in the upper Fraser River JOURNAL OF watershed. Ecosystems & Management Scenario 1 ANALYSIS OF ANCIENT WESTERN This scenario, the most spatially constrained of the three, includes 6244 ha extending across REDCEDAR STANDS mid-elevation slopes of Driscoll Ridge, from Slim Creek in the east to Driscoll Creek in the IN THE UPPER FRASER RIVER west (Figure 6). The upper and lower boundaries of this proposal are largely defined by the WATERSHED AND upper and lower boundaries of the ICHvk2 biogeoclimatic zone. This proposal would include SCENARIOS FOR PROTECTION the core area of ancient cedar stands in the vicinity of the Ancient Forest Trail. Under these Coxson, Connell, boundaries, upslope forests would remain unprotected. Given the presumed importance of & Goward hydrological processes to maintaining ancient cedar stands, any disturbance above the remaining ancient cedar stands may impact their long-term viability. Fifty-four percent of the area mapped within Scenario 1 encompasses existing old-growth management areas.

Figure 6: Location of the proposed Slim Creek Park expansion of Scenario 1. Existing provincial park boundaries, high biodiversity cedar stands, legal and “guidance” (non-legal) old-growth management areas (OGMAs), and the Ancient Forest Trail are shown for reference.

Scenario 2 This scenario includes 11 065 ha, additionally encompassing upslope areas in subalpine forests and alpine areas above the ancient cedar stands to the height of land on Driscoll Ridge (Figure 7). This would provide important protection for hydrological processes and slope seepage that help protect ancient cedar stands from stand-destroying events such as fire and would have the added benefit of including the Driscoll Ridge Trail, a popular recre- 98 ational destination (Nash 2004). The proposed boundary also extends westward to include several major redcedar groves between Driscoll and Lunate Creeks, thereby providing significant additional protection for genetic diversity in the face of projected climate change impacts. Current climate change projections suggest that the ICHvk2 boundary will shift JEM significantly upslope in the next half century (T. Wang et al. unpublished data, cited in Vol 13, No 3

Stevenson et al. 2011); therefore, this park scenario would provide greater climate change JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & adaptation for biodiversity values held within the park scenario boundary. Management ANALYSIS OF ANCIENT WESTERN REDCEDAR STANDS IN THE UPPER FRASER RIVER WATERSHED AND SCENARIOS FOR PROTECTION

Coxson, Connell, & Goward

Figure 7: Location of the proposed Slim Creek Park expansion of Scenario 2. Existing provincial park boundaries, high biodiversity cedar stands, legal and “guidance” (non-legal) old-growth management areas (OGMAs), and the Ancient Forest Trail are shown for reference.

JEM Figure 8: Location of the proposed Slim Creek Park expansion of Scenario 3. Existing provincial Vol 13, No 3 park boundaries, high biodiversity cedar stands, legal and “guidance” (non-legal) old-growth JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & management areas (OGMAs), and the Ancient Forest Trail are shown for reference. Management Scenario 3 ANALYSIS OF ANCIENT WESTERN The boundaries of this scenario, the most spatially expansive, extend downwards to REDCEDAR STANDS IN THE UPPER the Fraser River, thus securing the entire watershed on Driscoll Ridge to the bottom FRASER RIVER of the valley and including Engelmann Spruce–Subalpine Fir, Interior Cedar–Hem- WATERSHED AND SCENARIOS FOR lock, and Sub-Boreal Spruce biogeoclimatic zone forests (Figure 8). From a conser- PROTECTION vation biology perspective, this level of watershed level protection is highly Coxson, Connell, desirable and would facilitate future adaptation to climate change in the region. & Goward Much of the lower third of the valley bottom is wetlands, which are likewise under- represented in regional parks. Scenario 3 totals 16 406 ha, of which 4369 ha are currently designated as OGMAs (Table 1).

Landscape-level management considerations in the upper Fraser One factor to consider in evaluating these park scenario proposals is the future impact of climate change in the upper Fraser. Current climate projections suggest that many of the more southern ITR stands in BC will cease to exist in their current location, while the climate envelope for many others will migrate upslope (Stevenson et al. 2011). The projected future climatic envelope for northern ITR stands, in contrast, expands significantly east- ward toward Prince George (T. Wang et al. unpublished data, cited in Stevenson et al. 2011). Together, these projections suggest that upper Fraser Valley ITR stands will have high conservation biology significance as refugia for rare species and as source areas for dispersal of propagules (including spores, seeds, and vegetative fragments that can resprout) into future adjacent suitable habitats. Both processes (loss of southern stands and expansion of northern stands) will be subject to an indeterminate lag phase, possibly involving novel successional trajectories. A second factor for consideration is the importance of meta-population dynamics for rare species within any protected area design. When populations in protected areas are isolated from adjacent populations, stochastic events commonly lead to local extinction events for rare species (Ockinger & Nilsson 2010). One advantage of the Driscoll Ridge (Scenario 2) proposal area is that it represents one of the largest remaining groupings of ancient cedar stands in the upper Fraser River Valley (Figure 5) and, indeed, in all of British Columbia. This proposal would allow for continued genetic exchange between dispersed populations within the scenario areas. From a conservation biology perspective, Scenario 3 is the most advantageous, as natural range of variability estimates point to the need for consideration of stochastic events when planning minimum viable areas for retention of rare species (Agee 2003). A final issue that must be considered when putting forth any proposal for the creation of parkland within the timber harvesting land base in BC is forgone economic activities from timber extraction. In the present case, opportunity costs from the loss of short-term available (old-growth) timber values within the park proposal scenario areas are mitigated, both by past logging history (many productive sites have already been logged) and by current land use designations (a significant proportion of the scenario areas has already been 100 designated as old-growth management areas). However, consideration must also be given to future timber values within the park proposal areas. Areas that have already been logged and are currently in young plantations will undoubtedly have important timber values as these stands grow. However, these stands are unlikely to develop the ecological attrib- JEM utes of ancient cedar stands for many centuries, if ever. What then is their place within Vol 13, No 3 the park proposal scenario areas? JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management One possibility for consideration might be to exclude major clearcuts from park sce- ANALYSIS OF ANCIENT WESTERN nario areas, instead designating them as special management zones, where future har- REDCEDAR STANDS vesting would be partial-cutting so that buffer properties are maintained. The areas of IN THE UPPER FRASER RIVER excluded young stands would be 747 ha for Scenario 1, 1066 ha for Scenario 2, and 2263 WATERSHED AND ha for Scenario 3. Another alternative may be to manage young stands within the park SCENARIOS FOR PROTECTION proposal areas for restoration of old forest attributes. This might involve use of timber Coxson, Connell, management approaches, such as thinning, that facilitate ecological restoration (Carey & Goward 2003). Irrespective of where park boundaries are set, the management of adjacent lands will be an important issue, due to the sensitivity of ancient cedar stands to edge effects (Coxson & Stevenson 2007). Looking at economic issues within a broader framework, the opportunities from designating ancient cedar stands as protected areas extend well beyond that of creating a more sustainable framework for forest harvesting in the region. The development of tourism opportunities along the Highway 16 corridor, especially when considered in light of the international significance of these ancient cedar stands (see below), could provide a major revitalization for the regional economy. Although it is too early to develop a formal cost-benefit analysis for these proposals, such efforts in the future might benefit from research studies now underway at UNBC, in which the benefits of tourism development in the region are being quantified (Shapiro 2012; Hall in preparation). Even so, it seems reasonable to suppose that land use management decisions of this kind will always have to be based on adaptive management principles, using current (and likely incomplete) knowledge, but respond to new information as it becomes available.

Looking to the future Heritage is our legacy from the past, what we live with today, and what we pass on to future generations. Our cultural and natural heritage are both ir- replaceable sources of life and inspiration. (UNESCO 1972)

It is worth noting that a majority of the world’s remnant old-growth wet-temperate rainforests now receive protected area status; many, for instance in Australia, New Zealand, and Japan, have been designated as World Heritage sites. As outlined by Stevenson et al. (2011) in Chapter 9, A Vision for a Unique Ecosystem, the Australian example is particularly instructive, as a network of dispersed old temperate rainforest remnants, similar to what we have today in the upper Fraser watershed, were collectively designated as the UNESCO World Heritage site Gondwana Rainforests of Australia. Among listing criteria that were considered were: • superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aes- thetic importance • outstanding examples representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, freshwater, coastal, and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals • the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation 101 of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation

We suggest that these criteria (UNESCO 2011) could be demonstrated for the ancient cedar stands of the upper Fraser River watershed. The designation of temperate rainforests JEM in Westland, New Zealand, and New South Wales, Australia, has in each case been a major Vol 13, No 3 turning point in the recognition of their scientific value and in the support of economic JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management diversification in these regions (Hall & Piggin 2002; Buckley 2004; Arezki et al. 2009). ANALYSIS OF ANCIENT WESTERN We argue that the same potential exists in the upper Fraser River watershed. Although REDCEDAR STANDS nominations would ultimately have to be presented by the Government of Canada, the IN THE UPPER FRASER RIVER prerequisite conditions for nomination would be in place with the designation of one of WATERSHED AND the park scenarios above. SCENARIOS FOR PROTECTION Another option for the ancient cedar stands of the upper Fraser would be designation Coxson, Connell, as a World Biosphere Reserve. Biosphere reserves are “places that seek to reconcile con- & Goward servation of biological and cultural diversity and economic and social development through partnerships between people and nature” (UNESCO 2012a). In Canada, the Clay- oquot Sound Biosphere Reserve (349 947 ha) provides an example of landscape-level planning for a coastal temperate rainforest, with a core reserve area designated as a National Park Reserve (UNSECO 2012b), and surrounding forested stands designated as buffer or transitional zones, where modified forest harvesting practices occur (Clayoquot Biosphere Trust 2012). The proposed expansion of the Slim Creek protected area, as described above in Scenarios 1 through 3, could similarly provide a core area for a larger biosphere reserve designation in the upper Fraser River ecosystem. Irrespective of the actual designation used, however, there is a pressing need for landscape-level planning in the upper Fraser River ecosystem that reflects the emerging social and biological values of the ancient cedar stands.

Acknowledgements We thank Shane Doddridge and Scott Emmons for preparation of maps and GIS analysis. Thanks are extended to Michael Jull and Dave King for review of an early draft of this manuscript and to Mike Nash and three anonymous reviewers for providing valuable comments at the review stage. We would also like to thank Shannon Carson for providing information on the status of old-growth management areas. Finally this work would not have been possible without the contribution of many students and colleagues, including Curtis Bjork and Susan Stevenson, who have participated with us in many valuable discussions on ITR ecology, and David Radies, whose research was instrumental in advancing our understanding of the ancient cedar stands.

Author information Darwyn S. Coxson – Ecosystem Science and Management Program, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC, V2N 4Z9. Email: [email protected] Trevor Goward** – UBC Herbarium, Beaty Biodiversity Museum, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4. Email: [email protected] David J. Connell – School of Environmental Planning, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC, V2N 4Z9. Email: [email protected] **Mailing address: 5369 Clearwater Valley Road, Upper Clearwater, BC, V0E 1N1

102

JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management References ANALYSIS OF ANCIENT WESTERN Agee, J. K. 2003. Historical range of viability in eastern Cascade forests, Washington, E.S.A. Landscape. REDCEDAR STANDS Ecology 18:725–740. IN THE UPPER FRASER RIVER Arezki, R., R. Cherif, & J. Piotrowski. 2009. Tourism specialization and economic development: evidence WATERSHED AND from the UNSECO World Heritage list. International Monetary Fund, Washington, D.C., Working SCENARIOS FOR Paper. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2009/wp09176.pdf (Accessed Nov. 19, 2012). PROTECTION Arsenault, A., & T. Goward. 2000. Ecological characteristics of inland rainforests. Ecoforestry 5:20–23. Coxson, Connell, Association of BC Forest Professionals. 2012. Forestry requires Brains, not Brawn. [Video] October & Goward 2012. http://www.abcfp.ca/about_us/media_centre/image_video_library.asp#videos (Accessed Nov. 19, 2012). British Columbia Forest Practices Board. 2012. Conserving old growth forests in BC: implementation of old-growth retention objectives under FIRPA. Victoria, BC. Special Investigation FPB/SIR/36. http://www.fpb.gov.bc.ca/SIR36_Conserving_Old_Growth_Forests_in_BC.htm. British Columbia Integrated Land Management Bureau. 2002. Order to establish the Dome and Slim landscape units and objectives. Oct. 31, 2002. http://archive.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/slrp/srmp/north /prince_george/legalobj_Oct31_02.pdf (Accessed Nov 19, 2012). British Columbia Integrated Land Management Bureau. 2004. Order establishing landscape biodiversity objectives for the Prince George Timber Supply Area. Oct. 20, 2004. http://archive.ilmb .gov.bc.ca/slrp/srmp/north/prince_george_tsa/pg_tsa_biodiversity_order.pdf (Accessed Nov. 19, 2012). British Columbia Integrated Land Management Bureau. 2008. Guidance and technical background information for biodiversity management in the Interior Cedar Hemlock Zone within the Prince George land and resource management plan area. Ministry of Lands and Agriculture. Prince George, BC. http://www.fpb.gov.bc.ca/IRC137_ILMB_Guidance_Policy_Dome_Creek.pdf (Accessed Nov. 19, 2012). British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2012. B.C. Conservation Data Centre Home. http://www.env .gov.bc.ca/cdc/ (Accessed Nov. 19, 2012). British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2012. Mid-term timber supply project: report for the Minister and Deputy Minister Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Victoria B.C. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/MPB_Mid_Term/Mid-Term%20Timber%20 Supply%20Report.pdf (Accessed Nov. 19, 2012). British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. 1999. Prince George land and resource management plan: January 1999. Resource Management Division, Victoria, BC. http:// www.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/sites/default/files/resources/public/PDF/LRMP/Prince%20George_LRMP.pdf (Accessed Nov. 19, 2012). British Columbia Parks (BC Parks). 1997. BC Parks Conservation Program. Victoria, BC. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/conserve/cpp_p1/conserve.pdf (Accessed Nov. 19, 2012). Buckley, R. 2004. The effects of World Heritage listing on tourism to Australian National Parks. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 12:70– 84. Bunnell, F., & G.B. Dunsworth. 2009. Forestry and Biodiversity. Learning how to sustain biodiversity in managed forests. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC. Carey, A.B. 2003. Biocomplexity and restoration of biodiversity in temperate coniferous forest: inducing spatial heterogeneity with variable-density thinning. Forestry 76:127–136. Clayoquot Biosphere Trust. 2012. Biosphere Reserve – On the Map. http://clayoquotbiosphere.org/web /what-we-do/on-the-map/ (Accessed Nov. 19, 2012). Connell, D.J., J. Shapiro, & J. Hall. 2011. Socio-economic benefits of non-timber uses of BC’s inland rainforest: Research bulletin, May 2011. School of Environmental Planning, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC. http://www.unbc.ca/assets/planning/ancient_cedar/bulletin _may_2011.pdf (Accessed Nov. 19, 2012). Connell, D.J., & J. Shapiro (editors). 2012. Socio-economic benefits of non-timber uses of BC’s inland rainforest: Research bulletin, April 2012. School of Environmental Planning, University of Northern 103 British Columbia, Prince George, BC. http://www.unbc.ca/assets/planning/ancient_cedar/aft _bulletin_2012_112.pdf (Accessed Nov. 19, 2012). Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2010. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Crumpled Tarpaper Lichen Collema coniophilum in Canada. Ottawa, ON. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2012/ec/CW69-14-606-2011-eng.pdf (Accessed Nov. 19, 2012). JEM Coxson, D. 2010. World Heritage Sites in the upper Fraser River watershed? Legislation not guidance Vol 13, No 3 needed to help forest professionals protect these sites. BC Forest Professional Magazine May– JOURNAL OF June:22–24. http://www.abcfp.ca/publications_forms/BCFORmagazine/documents Ecosystems & /BCFORPRO-2010-3_AllArticles/BCFP-2010-3_Coxson.pdf (Accessed Nov. 19, 2012). Management Coxson, D., & D.R. Radies. 2009. Old-forest conservation strategies in wet-trench forests of the upper ANALYSIS OF Fraser River watershed. In: Ecosystem management in the boreal forest. S. Gauthier, M.A. ANCIENT WESTERN Vaillancourt, A. Leduc, L. De Grandpré, D. Kneeshaw, H. Morin, P. Drapeau, & Y. Bergeron (editors). REDCEDAR STANDS IN THE UPPER Presses de l’Université du Québec, pp. 501–518. FRASER RIVER Coxson, D., & S.K. Stevenson. 2007. Influence of high-contrast and low-contrast forest edges on growth WATERSHED AND rates of Lobaria pulmonaria in the inland rainforest, British Columbia. Forest Ecology and SCENARIOS FOR Management 253:103–111. PROTECTION Daniels, L.D., J. Dobry, K. Klinka, & M.C. Feller. 1997. Determining year of death of logs and snags of Coxson, Connell, Thuja plicata in southwestern coastal British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research & Goward 27:1132–1141. DeLong, S.C. 1998. Natural disturbance rate and patch size distribution of forests in northern British Columbia: Implications for forest management. Northwest Science 72:35–48. DellaSala, D. 2011. Temperate and boreal rainforests of the world: ecology and conservation. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Fenger, M., T. Manning, & J. Cooper. 2006. Wildlife and trees in British Columbia. Lone Pine Publishing, Vancouver, BC. Goward, T. 1994. Notes on old-growth dependent epiphytic macrolichens in inland British Columbia, Canada. Acta Botanica Fennica 150:31–38. Goward, T., & A. Arsenault. 1995. Protected areas proposal: upper Adams River and Seymour River drainages. Report prepared for Dennis Lloyd for the Protected Area Strategy. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Kamloops, BC. Goward, T., & A. Arsenault. 2000a. Inland old-growth rain forests: safe havens for rare lichens? In: Proceedings of Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk, Feb. 15–19, 1999, Kamloops, BC, pp. 759–766. Goward, T., & A. Arsenault. 2000b. Cyanolichens and conifers: implications for global conservation. Forest Snow and Landscape Research 75:303–318. Goward, T., & J. Pojar. 1998. Antique forests and epiphytic macrolichens in the Kispiox Valley. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Smithers, BC. Forest Sciences Extension Note 33. http://www.for .gov.bc.ca/rni/research/Extension_notes/Enote33.pdf (Accessed Nov. 19,2012). Goward, T., & T. Spribille. 2005. Lichenological evidence for the recognition of inland rain forests in western North America. Journal of Biogeography 32:1209–1219. Hall, C.M., & R. Piggin. 2002. Tourism business knowledge of World Heritage sites: a New Zealand case study. International Journal of Tourism Research 4:401–411. Hall, J. In preparation. Assessing the economic benefits of Ancient Forest Trail ecotourism in McBride, British Columbia. MA Thesis, in preparation. University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC. Hoggett, A. 2002. Western Hemlock Looper and forest disturbance in the ICH wk3 of the Robson Valley. Stage 2: the effects of Western Hemlock Looper – report and silviculture recommendations. The Robson Valley Forest District, http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hcp/enhanced/robson/efmpp/research /looper1.pdf (Accessed Nov. 19, 2012). Lawford, R.G., P. Alaback, & E. Fuentes. 1996. High latitude rainforests and associated ecosystems of the West Coast of the Americas: climate, hydrology, ecology, and conservation. Ecological Studies Vol. 110, Springer–Verlag, New York. Lewington, A., & E. Parker. 1999. Ancient trees – trees that live for a thousand years. Collins and Brown, London. MacDonald, A., D. Coxson, & C. Bjork. Submitted. Climate biomonitoring with lichens in British Columbia’s inland temperate rainforest. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management. Maclean, D.A., R.S. Seymour, M.K. Montigny, & C. Messier. 2009. Allocation of conservation efforts over the landscape: the TRIAD approach. In: Setting conservation targets for managed forest landscapes. M.A. Villard & B.G. Jonsson (editors). Cambridge University Press. 104 Meidinger, D., & J. Pojar (editors). 1991. Ecosystems of British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Research Branch, Victoria, BC. Special Report Series 6. Nash, M. 2004. Exploring Prince George: a guide to north central B.C. outdoors. Driscoll Ridge pp. 124– 130. Rocky Mountain Books. Ockinger, E., & S.G. Nilsson. 2010. Local population extinction and vitality of an epiphytic lichen in fragmented old-growth forest. Ecology 91:2100–2109. JEM Peebles, F. 2012. Conversation about government role needs ‘reboot’. Prince George Citizen. Nov. 4, Vol 13, No 3

2012. http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/article/20121104/PRINCEGEORGE0101/311049992/- JOURNAL OF 1/princegeorge/conversation-about-gov-39-t-role-needs-39-reboot-39-little . Ecosystems & Management Post, R. 2008. Biodiversity in the Interior Cedar Hemlock forests near Dome Creek. B.C. Forest Practices Board ANALYSIS OF Complaint Investigation 070762. May 2008. FPM/IRC/137. http://www.fpb.gov.bc.ca/IRC137 ANCIENT WESTERN _Biodiversity_in_the_Interior_Cedar_Hemlock_Forests_Near_Dome_Creek.pdf (Accessed Nov. 19, 2012). REDCEDAR STANDS IN THE UPPER Radies, D.N., & D.S. Coxson. 2004. Macrolichen colonization on 120–140 year old Tsuga heterophylla in FRASER RIVER wet temperate rainforests of central-Interior British Columbia: a comparison of lichen response to WATERSHED AND even-aged versus old-growth stand structures. Lichenologist 36:235–247. SCENARIOS FOR PROTECTION Radies, D.N., D.S. Coxson, C.J. Johnson, & K. Konwicki. 2009. Predicting canopy macrolichen diversity and abundance within old-growth inland temperate rainforests. Forest Ecology and Management Coxson, Connell, 259:86–97. & Goward Sanborn, P., M. Geertsema, A.J.T. Jull, & B. Hawkes. 2006. Soil and sedimentary charcoal evidence for Holocene forest in an inland temperate rainforest, east-central British Columbia, Canada. Holocene 16:415–427. Selva, S.B. 1994. Lichen diversity and stand continuity in the northern hardwoods and spruce-fir forests of northern New England and Western New Brunswick. The Bryologist 97:424–429. Shapiro, J. 2012. Forest values surrounding ancient cedar stands in British Columbia’s inland temperate rainforest. MA Thesis. University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC. Snetsinger, J. 2011. Prince George Timber Supply Area rationale for allowable annual cut (AAC) determination. B.C. Ministry of Forests, Mines and Lands, Victoria, BC. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca /hts/tsa/tsa24/tsr4/24ts11ra.pdf (Accessed Nov. 19, 2012). Sherrouse, B.C., J.N. Clement, & D.J. Semmens. 2011. A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social value of ecosystem services. Applied Geography 31:748–760. Spribille, T., C.R. Bjork, S. Ekman, J.A. Elix, T. Goward, C. Printzen, T. Tonsberg, & T. Wheeler. 2009. Contributions to an epiphytic lichen flora of northwest North America: I. Eight new species from British Columbia’s inland rainforests. The Bryologist 112:109–137 Stevenson, S., H. Armleder, A. Arsenault, D. Coxson, C. DeLong, & M. Jull. 2011. British Columbia’s inland rainforest: ecology, conservation and management. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC. Turner, N.J. 1988. Ethnobotany of coniferous trees in Thompson and Lillooet Interior Salish of British Columbia. Economic Botany 42:177–194. Turner, N.J. 2010. The cultural roles of western redcedar and yellow-cedar for First Peoples of northwestern North America. In: A tale of two cedars – International symposium on western redcedar and yellow-cedar. C.A. Harrington (editor). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-828. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). 1972. Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. http://whc.unesco.org /archive/convention-en.pdf (Accessed Nov. 19, 2012). UNESCO. 2011. Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage WHC, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris, France. http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide05-en.pdf (Accessed Nov. 19, 2012). UNESCO. 2012a. Biosphere reserves – learning sites for sustainable development. Ecological Sciences, Man and Biosphere Program. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment /ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/ (Accessed Nov. 19, 2012). UNESCO 2012b. Clayoqout Sound Biosphere Reserves. Ecological Sciences, Man and Biosphere Program. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere- reserves/europe-north-america/canada/clayoquot-sound/ (Accessed Nov. 19, 2012). Zammuto, R. 2008. Rainforest conservation biology corridor for the Robson Valley. In: Conference Proceedings of BC’s Inland Rainforest – Conservation and Community, May 21–23, 2008, Prince George, BC. http://wetbelt.unbc.ca/2008-conference-Zammuto-Conservation-Corridor.html . (Accessed Nov. 19, 2012). 105

JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management Appendix ANALYSIS OF ANCIENT WESTERN REDCEDAR STANDS Sample Comments from the Ancient Forest Trail visitor log book IN THE UPPER FRASER RIVER (from Stevenson et al. 2011). WATERSHED AND SCENARIOS FOR PROTECTION

• Wow! What a wonderful place to stumble upon. It’s amazing and I’m happy that Coxson, Connell, I’m part of this country for all its natural beauties such as this one! Je le recom- & Goward mende a n’importe qui! Merci pour le beau trail! (Edmonton) • I’ve lived in Prince George for 36 years and never knew this place existed!! Amazing to see such a spectacle with my friends. (Prince George) • I thought I walked through a shrine of trees expressing eternity. What a wonderful trail! Thanks for all your efforts to preserve this old growth. (Germany) • Beautiful enchanted forest – please keep these beautiful old stands of trees – so inspiring and refreshing to the soul. (Australia) • A truly beautiful and sacred spot on the globe, I sincerely hope we are successful in preserving this wilderness. (Austria)

Article Received: June 22, 2012 • Article Accepted: November 23, 2012 Production of this article was funded, in part, by the British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. © 2012, Copyright in this article is the property of FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources Society. ISSN 1488-4674. Articles or contributions in this publication may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use free of charge to the recipient in educational, training, and not-for-profit activities provided that their source and authorship are fully acknowledged. However, reproduction, adaptation, translation, application to other forms or media, or any other use of these works, in whole or in part, for commercial use, resale, or redistribution, requires the written consent of FORREX Forum for research and Extension in natural resources society and of all contributing copyright owners. This publication and the articles and contributions herein may not be made accessible to the public over the internet without the written consent of FORREX. For consents, contact: Managing Editor, FORREX, Suite 400, 235 1st Avenue, Kamloops, BC V2C 3J4, or email [email protected] The information and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the respective authors and FORREX does not warrant their accuracy or reliability, and expressly disclaims any liability in relation thereto.

106

JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management ANALYSIS OF Test your Knowledge ANCIENT WESTERN REDCEDAR STANDS IN THE UPPER How well can you recall the main messages in the preceding article? FRASER RIVER WATERSHED AND Test your knowledge by answering the following questions. SCENARIOS FOR PROTECTION

Analysis of ancient western redcedar stands in the Coxson, Connell, upper Fraser watershed and scenarios for protection & Goward

1. Ancient cedars stands in the upper Fraser River watershed largely grow in “toe- slope” topographic positions, where the ground starts to level off at the base of mountain slopes. What factors promote the survival of ancient cedars at these locations in BC’s Interior mountain valleys? a) Toe-slope topographic positions were glacial refugia, where ancient cedar stands survived during the last glaciation. b) Very wet soils caused by springs and seepage areas at the base of mountain slopes reduce the incidence of fires and nourish trees during dry summers. c) Warmer temperatures in valley-bottom locations support greater germination of western redcedar seeds.

2. Many of the upper Fraser ancient cedar stands are found within spatially designated old-growth management areas. This designation presently protects remnant stands of ancient western redcedars from: a) Harvesting for wood fibre within ancient cedar stands. b) Construction of logging roads through ancient cedar stands. c) Development of mines and quarries in ancient cedar stands.

3. The proposal for designation of upper Fraser ancient western redcedar stands as a World Heritage site is modelled on which previous World Heritage site designation? a) The Nærøyfjord on Norway’s west coast protects boreal wet temperate rainforests in Norway. b) The Rainforests of the Atsinanana in Madagascar protects six national parks distributed along the eastern part of the island. c) The designation of a set of disjunct wet-temperate rainforest stands in eastern Australia as the Gondwana Rainforests of Australia.

107

JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF ANSWERS: 1=b, 2=a, 3=c 2=a, 1=b, ANSWERS: Ecosystems & Management Review Book Review

The 9 Habits of Highly Effective Resource Economies: Lessons for Canada. By Canadian International Council (Consel International du Canada), 2012. 96 pp. ISBN 9780986617560. ( http://www.opencanada.org/wp -content/uploads/2012/10/CIC-9-Habits-of-Highly-Effective-Resource- Economies.pdf )

ike many who work in natural resource management, I am more interested in the practical side of things, and have Lavoided reading about policy. However, national and global resource policies have become so overwhelmingly important that I could avoid them no longer. So I began searching for a thoughtful, clearly written, and contemporary primer on resource policy, and I think I have found it. The 9 Habits of Highly Effective Resource Economies: Lessons for Canada is a well-researched and well-illustrated look at successful resource policies in several countries, and how they apply to Canada. Riffing on Stephen Covey’s influential book on the seven habits of highly successful people, the Canadian International Council (CIC) has upped it to nine and applied the concept to countries. In the comparisons, Canada does not fare too well. It lacks a national resource strategy and a sovereign wealth fund, its government and industry spending on research and development lag behind other countries, and it tends to ex- port raw or partly processed natural resources. However, the book’s overall outlook is positive, in that it makes a series of recommendations to make better use of our abundant petroleum, mineral, and forestry resources. First among the nine key recommendations is to create sovereign wealth funds, as Norway has done with their North Sea oil revenues. The authors state: “all levels of government in Canada with revenues from non-renewable resources should stop treating them as income to be spent and start treating them as capital to be saved or invested” (p. 5). Sounds like pretty good advice. Another recommendation—a fairly obvious one—is to add, extract, or build more “value-added” into our natural resources. For that the authors recommend collaborative research involving government, academe, and industry. FPInnovations is singled out as one of the few such Canadian collaborative success stories. One recommendation that surprised me is for Canada to not wait for the Americans to make the first move, but to forge ahead on our own with a federal, revenue-neutral 108 carbon tax. This, the authors say, will give our businesses the incentive to develop the greener products and processes that are in demand in much of the rest of the world. JEM Gayton, D. 2012. Book Review. Vol 13, No 3 Journal of Ecosystems and Management 13(3):108–109. Published by FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources. JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & http://jem.forrex.org/index.php/jem/bookreview/viewFile/559/474 Management I was somewhat less comfortable with the recommendation to increase foreign in- BOOK REVIEW: THE 9 HABITS OF vestment in Canadian natural resource industries. A case can be made for expanded for- HIGHLY EFFECTIVE eign investment leading to more R&D, more value-added processing, and greater RESOURCE ECONOMIES: competitiveness, but at the risk of losing control of our resources, and ending up as a LESSONS FOR branch-plant economy. CANADA 9 Habits is a well-researched, timely, and very readable primer on contemporary Gayton Canadian natural resource policy, in a global context.

Don Gayton, Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Ecosystems and Management. Email: [email protected]

109

JEM Vol 13, No 3

JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management Journal of Ecosystems & Management Submission Guidelines Submission Guidelines for Authors

he Journal of Ecosystems and Management (JEM) welcomes contributions from practitioners, professionals, researchers, agencies, decision makers, and resource Tusers on all topics relating to research and management of British Columbia’s ecosys- teme. The pages of this journal are open to anyone who wants to write or read an informed, well-reasoned, and relevant article that will improve knowledge of provincial ecosystems and communities. Both original articles and previously published articles, which have been re-written to meet the goals of JEM, are invited. Authors are encouraged to contact the Managing Editor before preparing and submitting a manuscript.

General guidelines JEM accepts four categories of articles. • Perspectives: Commentaries on the current or future status of natural resource management. Articles may state an opinion, offer a challenge, or present a thought-provok-

ing idea on natural resource management issues. Maximum length: 2000–5000 words. • Extension Notes: Focus on simplified syntheses of existing or new research, opera-

tional trials, case studies, preliminary field results, techniques, and new tools or technology. Articles may offer suggestions to improve ecosystem management activities or provide accounts of how research results have been adopted and placed into practice.

Maximum length: 2000–5000 words. • Research or Discussion Articles: Full-length scientific research and discussion articles

that cover major research projects or programs, develop new concepts in natural resource management, or test ideas with data from field and laboratory experiments, ob-

servations, or simulations. Maximum length: 5000–10 000 words. • LINK News: Shorter articles are invited from FORREX partners and other members

of the natural resource community on current research and innovative practices or concepts applicable to sustainable natural resource management. If you have an idea for an article involving your research or innovative work, and would like assistance

from one of our specialists, please contact us. Maximum length: up to 650 words; not peer reviewed; however, articles will go through the editing process.

Please submit your manuscript electronically as a Microsoft Word document (.doc not .docx) to the JEM website: http://jem.forrex.org. For easy access, please click on the red “Submit” arrow and follow the submission instructions. If you haven’t already regis- 110 tered, the system will automatically ask you to do so. If your manuscript contains tables, or images, please ensure that these are submitted as supplementary files, indicating within your manuscript where they should be placed. Figures or illustrations should be submitted as pdf or high-resolution (300 dpi or equivalent) tiff, png, or jpg files with an appropriate caption. Remember that all tables, figures, and images should be referred to JEM at least once in the text. Vol 13, No 3 JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management Style and formatting guidelines SUBMISSION GUIDELINES FOR JEM uses the British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range Forest Science Program Style Guide AUTHORS and Authors Manual as its publishing standard. Authors may consult this guide online at: www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Mr/Mr041.htm Title: The title of the article should convey the content of the article in as few words as possible. Strive for titles that are 10 words or less. Author Documentation: If your manuscript includes more than one author, please include the name of each author, along with job title and institutional affiliation, mailing address, city, postal code, and email address. This information should be included both on your manuscript and in the metadata of your online file. Abstract: The abstract should appear at the beginning of the manuscript and contain 200 words or less. It should describe the manuscript topic in one sentence, if possible, and go on to briefly outline the manuscript’s purpose, scope, conclusions, and management implications, if appropriate. Keywords: Provide 5–10 words or short phrases that are applicable to your article. Keywords help us to find suitable peer reviewers and are used in metadata records so that our archives are easily and efficiently searchable. Headings and subheadings: These should cover all the major concepts in the manuscript and indicate the relationship between the sections. Try to use no more than three levels of headings. Use of a numbered heading hierarchy is recommended (i.e., 1 Level one; 1.1 Level two; 1.1.1 Level three). References: Use the author–date system when citing published works or acknowledging unpublished material in the text. List these references alphabetically at the end of the manuscript. Provide a date accessed (month, year) for all web-based sources. Try to keep explanatory footnotes to a minimum. For examples of bibliographic citation style, see the articles currently posted to the JEM “Issue-in-Progress” website (www.forrex.org/jem/). Peer review and publication If the content of the article is acceptable, the Review Committee will assign the article to a peer review. Perspectives are reviewed by one extension specialist; Extension Notes, Discussion Articles, and Research Reports are reviewed by one extension specialist and two external peer reviewers from the natural resource community. Depending on the results of the peer review, a final decision is made on the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript. A copyright release is required of all articles accepted for publication. If accepted for publication, the author then revises the manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments. Revised articles are published in the online “Issue-in-Progress” as soon as possible following an English edit and typesetting. Authors have the opportunity to approve the final proofs of their articles. Print issues are produced as each online issue closes, approximately three times per year. Article levies The author(s) will pay a levy as specified below, to be invoiced at the time of online publication of the article. • Extension Notes and Perspectives: $80 per journal page to a maximum of $600. Graphics-heavy articles may be subject to a surcharge of $50 per graphic if there are more than three graphics. • Research Reports and Discussion Articles: $80 per journal page to a maximum of $1000. Graphics-heavy articles may be subject to a surcharge of $50 per graphic if there are more than five graphics. 111 Submission inquiries Inquiries may be submitted by fax, mail, courier, or email to: Marilyn Bittman, Corporate Publications Manager Journal of Ecosystems and Management Forrex Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources JEM Suite 400, 235–1st Avenue, Kamloops, BC V2C 3J4 Vol 13, No 3 Tel: 604.984.8105; 250.371.3995, Fax: 250.371.3997 JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Email: [email protected] Management JEM Subscription Subscription

ublished three times yearly, the Journal of Ecosystems and Management (JEM) is a unique journal that covers a broad range of natural resource, ecological and management issues. PJEM publishes scholarly, peer-reviewed research articles as well as topical, news-style articles on ecosystem and management projects of current interest. Readers will also find reviews of recently published books and monographs on relevant topics. The 2013 subscription rate for online issues of JEM is $60 for individuals and $100 for institutions and organizations. Your subscription will help cover the costs of producing three JEM online issues in 2013. Subscription allows you immediate access to all recently published articles. You can download back issues of JEM for free by going to: www.forrex.org/JEM. To ensure that you have access to future online issues of the Journal of Ecosystems and Management, please complete the subscription form below, detach, and return to FORREX with your payment (cheque or money order). By registering on the JEM website, you will receive regular email updates of JEM publications. Visit JEM online at: www.jem.forrex.org

ANNUAL ONLINE ISSUE SUBSCRIPTION

January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 Issues 14(1), 14(2), and 14(3)

PAY BY PAYPAL OR CREDIT CARD: go to www.jem.forrex.org/subscribe or fill in the form below and mail in with your payment.

n New subscription n Renewal PAY BY CHEQUE OR MONEY ORDER, please complete the following and enclose with payment to the address below. Journal of Ecosystems and Management n Individual $60.00 $n n Institutional $100.00 $n Total Amount Payable to FORREX $n (Canadian funds only; no taxes applicable)

Name:

Organization:

Mailing Address:

Postal Code: Phone: Fax: 112 Email:

Please make cheques / money order payable to FORREX and mail to: FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources Suite 400–235 1st Avenue, Kamloops, BC V2C 3J4 Canada JEM Thank you for your support. Vol 13, No 3 JOURNAL OF Ecosystems & Management