University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 5-2011 A Dendrochronological Approach for Analyzing the Geographic Range Structure of Tree Species John Balisen Sakulich [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss Recommended Citation Sakulich, John Balisen, "A Dendrochronological Approach for Analyzing the Geographic Range Structure of Tree Species. " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2011. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/1020 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by John Balisen Sakulich entitled "A Dendrochronological Approach for Analyzing the Geographic Range Structure of Tree Species." I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Geography. Henri D. Grissino-Mayer, Major Professor We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: Sally P. Horn, Carol P. Harden, Nicholas N. Nagle, Nathan J. Sanders Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) A DENDROCHRONOLOGICAL APPROACH FOR ANALYZING THE GEOGRAPHIC RANGE STRUCTURE OF TREE SPECIES A Dissertation Presented for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville John Balisen Sakulich May 2011 Copyright © 2011 by John B. Sakulich All rights reserved. ii DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my father, John Sakulich (1931 – 2005). iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to my advisor, Henri Grissino‐Mayer, for his guidance and mentorship, and to my committee members Sally Horn, Carol Harden, Nicholas Nagle, and Nate Sanders for their thoughtful comments and advice. I thank James Baginski, Christine Biermann, Grant Harley, Kevin Horn, Matthew McDonnell, and Mark Spond for assistance in the field. I am also grateful to Noah Newport, Chris Petruccelli, and Jennifer White for assistance in the laboratory. I am grateful to my fellow colleagues in the Laboratory of Tree‐Ring Science for thoughtful discussions of this research, especially Grant Harley, Justin Hart, Lisa LaForest, Mark Spond, and Saskia van de Gevel. I thank Randy Tate and Malcolm Hodges of The Nature Conservancy for facilitating sampling at Marshall Forest Preserve. I also thank USDA Forest Service personnel for sampling permission and FSVEG data, especially Mike Brod of the Chattahoochee National Forest and Russ McFarlane and Steve Croy of the Jefferson National Forest. I am grateful to the University of Tennessee, Department of Geography and Initiative for Quaternary Paleoclimate Research for financial support of my graduate studies. This research was funded by National Science Foundation grants BCS‐ 0902698 and DGE‐0538420 and by a dissertation research grant from the Association of American Geographers. Finally, I thank my wife, Kara Sakulich, not only for assistance in the field and laboratory, but also for years of support and encouragement. iv ABSTRACT The purpose of this dissertation research was to investigate the spatial patterns of abundance, growth, and stand structure across the geographic ranges of tree species using dendroecological methods. I assessed whether the biogeographic paradigms of the abundant center hypothesis and the principle of ecological amplitude adequately characterize spatial patterns of tree abundance, climate response, and stand composition. The abundant center hypothesis is a longstanding, yet rarely tested assumption that the centers of geographic ranges represent ideal conditions where species can achieve their greatest abundance, and abundance declines with increasing distance from the range center. A corollary to the abundant center hypothesis is the concept of ecological amplitude, which predicts that species will be subject to greater environmental stress near range margins, and thus, will be more sensitive to environmental variability and occupy restricted sites in peripheral locations. To investigate ecological amplitude predictions regarding tree species of North America, I analyzed: (1) the abundance of red fir to directly test the abundant center hypothesis, (2) the response of longleaf pine growth to monthly climate variables at peripheral and interior sites, (3) the spatial pattern of annual growth sensitivity to climate in networks of tree‐ring data for two widely‐distributed species, and (4) the composition and structure of pine‐oak stands at a central and a peripheral location within the ranges of several dominant tree species. The analyses presented here demonstrate that the abundant center hypothesis and ecological amplitude principle do not accurately characterize spatial patterns of v abundance, growth, or stand composition among North American tree species. Lack of support for the abundant center/ecological amplitude paradigm suggests that current models of forest change and species’ range dynamics should be reconsidered, and new models should be developed based on empirical analysis of range structure and dynamics. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose ..................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Geographic Ranges ................................................................................. 2 1.3 The Abundant Center Hypothesis ........................................................ 5 1.4 Predicting Species’ Responses to Climate Change ........................... 11 1.5 Ecological Amplitude ........................................................................... 14 1.6 Data from Trees and Tree Rings........................................................... 16 1.7 Research Objectives................................................................................ 17 1.8 Justification.............................................................................................. 18 1.9 Organization of the Dissertation.......................................................... 21 References....................................................................................................... 23 2. DISTRIBUTION OF RED FIR ABUNDANCE: A TEST OF THE ABUNDANT CENTER HYPOTHESIS............................................................... 33 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 35 2.2 Methods .................................................................................................. 39 2.2.1 Selection of Species ............................................................... 39 2.2.2 Abundance and Range Data ............................................... 40 2.2.3 Data Analysis ......................................................................... 41 2.3 Results ..................................................................................................... 42 2.4 Discussion ............................................................................................... 49 References ...................................................................................................... 54 3. CLIMATE RESPONSE OF LONGLEAF PINE RADIAL GROWTH ACROSS ITS GEOGRAPHIC RANGE: A COMPARISON OF MONTANE AND COASTAL PLAIN STANDS ............................................... 60 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 62 3.2 Study Areas ........................................................................................... 66 3.2.1 Marshall Forest Preserve ..................................................... 66 3.2.2 Coastal Plain Longleaf Pine Stands .................................... 70 3.3 Methods .................................................................................................. 71 3.3.1 Marshall Forest Chronology Development ....................... 71 3.3.2 Climate Data .......................................................................... 73 3.3.3 Response Function Analysis ............................................... 73 3.3.4 Comparisons with other Longleaf Pine Chronologies .... 74 3.4 Results ..................................................................................................... 76 3.4.1 Marshall Forest Chronology Development ....................... 76 vii 3.4.2 Climate–Growth Relationships ........................................... 77 3.4.3 Intra‐annual Climate Response ........................................... 80 3.4.4 Comparisons with Coastal Plain Sites ............................... 81 3.5 Discussion .............................................................................................. 85 References ..................................................................................................... 91 4. SPATIAL VARIABILITY OF CLIMATE SENSITIVITY IN ANNUAL GROWTH OF TREE SPECIES IN EASTERN NORTH AMERICA ................ 98 4.1 Introduction