Post-Fire Logging Effects on Conifer

Seedling Growth and Regeneration

By: Ryan Spaniel
Undergraduate, Natural Resources Conservation
University of Idaho

Introduction:
In northwestern America, fire has shaped forest compositions for as long as there has
been material to burn. Fire is essential to conifer forest health and control of fuels within and
surrounding forested areas. Technological advancements and understanding of fire behavior are
stronger than ever and humans have become well adapted to fire and fire suppression techniques.
The exclusion of fire has led to large fuel build-ups which has resulted in billions of dollars being
expensed every year in fire suppression costs that should be used in other sections of non-fire
work (USDA 2015). Fire suppression has been the cause of much of the fuel loading for the
inland northwest (Mutch et al. 1993). This build-up of understory trees can create large fire
hazard and contribute to high intensity fires via ladder fuels. In this study we examined fire
severity, tree species regeneration, and effects of post-fire logging at the School Fire in Pomeroy,
WA (Figure 5&6). The results will help us determine how these three factors influence forest
composition for future forests. Conifer species observed were: Douglas-fir (Psuedotsuga
menziesii-PSME), Englemann Spruce (Picea engelmannii-PIEN), Grand fir (Abies grandisABGR), Lodgepole Pine (Pinus contorta-PICO), Western Larch (Larix occidentalis-LAOC),
Ponderosa Pine (Pinus ponderosa-PIPO), and Western White Pine (Pinus monticola-PIMO)
(Higuera and Morgan 2015). The purpose of this experiment is quantify information derived that
can be used to draw conclusions for fire-ecologists and forest managers better understand the
future of mixed conifer forests.
There two questions addressed in this study. The first is: How does post-fire logging
affect growth rates of seedling and sapling regeneration in areas that have recently experienced
high severity fire? I hypothesize that post fire logging, thought it removes nutrients from the
ecosystem, will benefit conifer seedling and sapling regeneration.

The other is: do fire and post-fire logging favor any tree species ability to regenerate
after a low severity fire? I hypothesize that shade-tolerant species will benefit from post-fire
logging because of the removal of adult trees that compete for resources with juvenile trees.
Methods:
Firstly, our class was divided into 12 groups containing 3-4 students. Each group was
required to collect data from 1-2 transects of 30m length from each site. All transects were 2m,
4m, or 6m wide depending on site surveyed. The goal of each transect is to collect data from 4060 trees at each site. Elevation, longitude and latitude were recorded using personal handheld
GPS units. Aspect, slope, and position to other land forms were also cataloged. However, this
literature will not utilize all of those factors. Next, each trees height was measured along with
the number of internodes to estimate growth rates. Finally, we estimated ground cover of forbs,
seedlings, shrubs, and bare ground at each transect. In order to ensure accuracy of my findings I
calculated error bars and confidence intervals in Microsoft Excel by dividing the standard
deviation by the square root of the number of samples that were averaged: (STD/(SqRt(n)).
Secondly, I divided average height of each seedling/sapling by the average number of internodes
they possessed to determine growth rates of seedlings and saplings. This will reveal average
growth (cm) per year for each transect. I calculated this in HHL and HHU sites to determine if
post-fire logging effects can stunt growth rates of seedlings and saplings.
Lastly, I compared species density in LLL and ULU sites to understand if post-fire logging
favors any species ability to regenerate after a low intensity fire. The ULU site acted as a control
in this study because the two sites were very close to one another geographically and were
composed of similar species. The will indicate how ABGR and PSME respond to lower fire

intensity disturbance and shed light on their resilience to fire. The ULU site data will help draw
conclusions about what happens when fire is excluded from an area.
Results:
After reviewing the data from the entire class (Morgan et al. 2015), I concluded that, with the
exception of PSME, there isnt a noticeable difference of growth rates in conifer species in sites
where post-fire logging was preceded by high severity fire. Graph #1 shows that PICO, PIPO,
and ABGR growth rates were all similar in HHU and HHL sites.
A large difference in PICO measurements is due to a miniscule sample size. Unfortunately,
an insufficient amount of data cannot be considered representative of the species in this area for
PIMO and LAOC. Therefore, we will disregard them on Graph#1. More data will need to be
collected before resulting in a scientific conclusion. Soil nutrient levels would also benefit this
study.
Graph #2 explains that fire in the LLL area (Figure #3) consumed all ABGR in each of the 3
transects. When compared to the control group of the ULU (Figure #4) which has a rather high
density of ABGR. This tells us that ABGR trees and seed banks are possibly very susceptible to
fire, even at low intensities. Graph #2 demonstrates that PSME density in the ULU sites are due
to fire exclusion. We know this because the density of PSME in LLL sites is much lower. Finally
graph #2 also shows a large difference in PIPO seedling and sapling densities between the two
sites. PIPO are shade-intolerant species that can be out-competed by higher densities of grand fir
(Hunt 1993). That is why the density of PIPO is greater in LLL sites because fire has reduced the
amount of shade-tolerant species that compete for space in the understory.

Discussion:
Some sampling errors occurred because a few of the students in the class failed to
correctly identify seedling and sapling tree species. This can have large effects on the data that
has been analyzed here. Also, we had about thirty students conducting measurements and
recording data during two different days of sampling. I assume that this could result in human
error because of differences in their ability to measure and record accurate data. This experiment
was also conducted in one area following one fire. Therefore, this data is unique to this particular
area and ecosystem and the overall findings may be more relevant than the specific details if
these data are interpreted for further research outside of this ecosystem. It is also difficult to
understand what conditions were like before logging occurred because logging operations
remove large amounts of unwanted trees
Results derived from calculating standard deviation errors revealed that all of the growth
average calculations completed were within a ninety five percent confidence interval. Thus, the
information depicted in both graphs are accurate representations of the data. However, some
transects, especially HHU, lacked trees. This explains why it appears that some error bars were
not calculated. The lack of trees also explains that fire severity definitely has a negative effect on
the regeneration of seedlings and saplings for those transects. Unfortunately, these sites were
relatively small and cant be used to draw conclusions on a larger geographic scale.
PSME regeneration seemed to favor un-logged areas. This is probably because the HHU
sites were on steep slope (Avg. 3140) (Figure #1). When fire attacks steep slopes, it tends to move
quickly-reducing effects on a temporal scale for an area. The fire may have been hotter with long
flame lengths, but it may have not destroyed the soil and seed bank that the PSME had created
before the fire occurred. This could result in favorable regeneration conditions for the PSME.

Also, any trees left standing after the fire would be excellent sources for new seedling
development. The HHL PSME growth may have been stunted by a longer duration of fire on the
site. The hill slope isnt as extreme (Avg. 2610) (Figure #2) as the HHU site. Thus, the soil could
have been exposed to longer fire residence. This may have diminished available pre-fire nutrients
which could have stunted the initial growth of those trees.
Fire exclusion resulted in developments of large tracts of shade-tolerant understory at this
site like it has in many other un-logged or un-burned sites along the inland northwest (Keeling et
al., 2006). The ULU transects are likely examples of pre-fire densities of ABGR and PSME that
were large contributors to understory ladder fuels (Baker et al., 2007). These densities were
probably a large influence on surrounding sites that experienced higher fire severity. We have
attempted to exclude fire from fire-dependent ecosystems with disastrous results (Mutch et al.
1993).
Prescribed burning and mechanical thinning this area prior to the wildfire would have
resulted in less severe fires. Fire treatments would also aid forest health by cycling important
nutrients back into the soil (Stark 1977). These treatments will also help control understory
growth and limit the ladder fuels that they create. Ceteris paribus, if done correctly, this practice
of forest management can produce well-spaced stands of fire-resistant conifers-resulting in lower
severity fires, and lower financial cost to the owner.

Graphs and Figures:

Tree Growth HHL vs. HHU

30
25
20

Average Height(cm) per Internode

Species

15

HHL Growth

10

HHU Growth
Overall Growth

5
0

Species

Graph #1 depcits the average growth height(cm) per internode amongst the seven
conifer species and compares them between HHL and HHU sites against the overall
mean growth measured of the two sites combined. Error bars calculated for 95%
error confidence interval.

Mean Density per Species/Transect Site

1

6
0.53

Mean Density (#/M2)

0.32
0.22

0.2

0.03

0
Species
Transect

Graph #2 shows the comparisons of mean density per individual tree species in the
LLL and ULU transect sites. Error bars calculated for 95% error confidence interval.

Figure #1 depicts High Severity, High Density, Un-Logged (HHU) Transects in

relation to one another (Google 2015).

Figure #2 represents High Severity, High Density, Logged (HHL) Transects in relation
to one another (Google 2015).

Figure #3: This image shows where our Low Severity, Low Density, Logged (LLL) transects

were located in relation to one another (Google 2015).

Figure #4: This image is composed of our Unburned, Low Density, Un-logged (ULU) Transects

(Google 2015).

Figure #5 shows where Pomeroy is geographically located in southeast Washington.

Figure #6 shows how far apart the HHL, HHU, ULU, and LLL sites were located in relation to

each other.

Literature Cited:
Baker, W. L., Veblen, T. T. and Sherriff, R. L. (2007), Fire, fuels and restoration of ponderosa
pineDouglas fir forests in the Rocky Mountains, USA. Journal of Biogeography, 34: 251269.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2006.01592.x
Image Source: School Fire. 46.29092N and -117.56122 W. Google Earth. 8/5/2014. Accessed
10/20/2015.
Higuera, P. E. and P. Morgan. 2015. School Fire field trip handout and assignment. FOR 326.
Fire Ecology and Management, Department of Forest, Rangeland, and Fire Sciences,
University of Idaho.
Hunt, Richard S. 1993. Abies. Flora of North America Editorial Committee (eds.): Flora of North
America North of Mexico, Vol. 2. Oxford University Press.
Keeling, E.G., Sala, A., DeLuca, T.H. 2006. Effects of fire exclusion on forest structure and
composition in unlogged ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests. Forest Ecology and Management.
Volume 237, Issues 1-3. Pages 418-428. December 15, 2006.
Mutch, R.W.; Arno, S.F.; Brown, J.K.; Carlson, C.E.; Ottmar, R.D.; Peterson, J.L. 1993. Forest
health in the Blue Mountains: a management strategy for fire-adapted ecosystems. Gen. Tech.
Rep. PNW-GTR-310. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station. 14 p. (Quigley, T.M., ed. Forest health in the Blue Mountains:
science perspectives)
Stark, Nellie M.. 1977. Fire and Nutrient Cycling in a Douglas-fir/larch Forest. Ecology 58 (1).
Ecological Society of America: 1630. doi:10.2307/1935105.
United Stated Department of Agriculture. 2015. The rising costs of wildfire operations: Effects
on the Forest Services non-fire work. August 4, 2015.
http://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/2015-Fire-Budget-Report.pdf Accessed 12/01/2015. Web.