FOREST PROTECTION

Forest protection is the preservation or improvement of a forest threatened or affected by abuse, or out of balance nature.

Thus forest protection also has a legal status and rather than protection from only people damaging the forests is seen to be broader and include forest pathology too. Thus due to this the different emphases around the world paradoxically suggest different things for forest protection.

Forest security in Lithuania.

In German speaking countries forest protection would focus on the biotic and abiotic factors that are non-crime related. A protected forest is not the same as a protection forest. These terms can lead to some confusion in English, although they are clearer in other languages. As a result, reading English literature can be problematic for non-experts due to localization and conflation of meanings.

The types of man induced abuse that forest protection seeks to prevent include:

• Aggressive or unsustainable farming and logging
• Expanding city development caused by population explosion and the resulting urban sprawl.

There is considerable debate over the effectiveness of forest protection methods. Enforcement of laws regarding purchased forest land is weak or non-existent in most parts of the world. In the increasingly dangerous South America, home of major rainforests, officials of the Brazilian National Agency for the Environment (IBAMA) have recently been shot during their routine duties.

Land Purchase

One simple type of forest protection is the purchasing of land in order to secure it, or in order to plant trees (afforestation). It can also mean forest management or the designation of areas such as natural reservoirs which are intended to be left to themselves.  However, merely purchasing a piece of land does not prevent it from being used by others for poaching and illegal logging.

On site Monitoring

A better way to protect a forest, particularly old growth forests in remote areas, is to obtain a part of it and to live on and monitor the purchased land. Even in the USA. these measures sometimes don't suffice because arson can burn a forest to the ground, leaving burnt areas free for different use.

Another issue about living on purchased forest-land is that there may not be a suitable site for a standard home without clearing land, which defies the purpose of protection. Alternatives include building a treehouse or an earthhouse. This is being done currently by indigenous people in South America to protect large reservoirs. In former times, North American Native Americans used to live in tipies or mandan earthhouses, which also require less land. An undertaking to develop modern treehouses is being taken by a company from Germany called "TrueSchool treehouses".

Other Methods of Protection

A number of less successful methods of forest protection have been tried, such as the trade in certified wood. Protecting a small section of land in a larger forest may also have limited value. For example, tropical rainforests can die if they decrease in size, since they are dependent on the moist microclimate, which they create. There is an excellent article in National Geographic October issue concerning redwood forest in California and their effort to maintain forest and rainforest.

A compromise is to conduct agriculture and stock farming, or sustainable wood management. This ascribes different values to forest land and farmland, for which many areas are clear felled.

Neighborhood Leakage

Two conflicting studies on the idea that protecting forests only relocates deforestation. This is called neighborhood leakage. According to the paradox of forest protection protected areas such as rural settlements near protected zones grew at twice the rate of those elsewhere. The IUCN implements such protocols that protect over 670 eco-regions. 46% of the eco-regions had less than 10% forest protection. Which means that these areas are not being monitored as they should and the protection is not working. Considering forest protection within global priority areas was unsatisfactory. An example given was that the average protection of 8.4% in biodiversity hotspots. Results have policy relevance in terms of the target of the Convention on Biological Diversity, reconfirmed in 2008, to conserve in an effective manner that “at least 10% of each of the world’s forest types”.

Urban Forests

A recent discovery in Europe relating to forest protection is that urban areas have forests of their own. Many cities have tens of thousands of trees which constitute forests. In addition the air in the cities is lately becoming better, providing conditions favorable for small associated species such as mosses and lichens.

References

1. ^ Schmitt, C.; Burgess, N. (2009). "Global analysis of the protection status of the world's forests" 142 (10 ed.). Biological Conservation. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.04.012.= (inactive 2015-02-01){{inconsistent citations}}
2. ^ Lund, H. Gyde (2006). Definitions of Forest, Deforestation, Afforestation, and Reforestation. Gainesville, VA: Forest Information Services.
3. ^ "Forest Protection Paradox.". New Scientist 202: 75–83. October 2009.
4. ^ Allen, CD; Savage, M (2002). "Ecological restoration of southwestern ponderosapine ecosystems: A broad perspective" 12. Ecological Applications{{inconsistent citations}}
5. ^ 2020-2008-Ldoc "FSM 2000-National forest resourcemanagement". Check |url=value (help) USDA Forest Service. October 2008.

External Links

• Forests in danger * Roadmap to Recovery: The World's Last Intact Forest Landscapes*Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005.
• CoolForests.org - Conservation Cools the Planet.

- Wikipedia 

FOREST PATHOLOGY

Forest pathology is the research of both biotic and abiotic maladies affecting the health of a forest ecosystem, primarily fungal pathogens and their insect vectors. It is a subfield of forestry and plant pathology.

Forest pathology is part of the broader approach of forest protection.

Ambiotic Factors

There a number of abiotic factors which affect the health of a forest, such as moisture issues like drought, winter-drying, waterlogging resulting from over-abundance or lack of precipitation, such as hail, snow, rain.

Wind is also an important abiotic factor as windthrow (the uprooting or breaking of trees due to high winds) causes an obvious and direct loss of stability to a forest or its trees.

Often, abiotic factors and biotic factors will affect a forest at the same time. For example, if wind speed is 80 km per hour then many trees which have root rot (caused by a pathogen) are likely to be thrown. Higher wind speeds are necessary to damage healthier trees.

Fire, whether caused by humans or lightning, and related abiotic factors also affect the health of forest.

The effects of man often alter a forest's predisposition to damage from both abiotic and biotic effects. For example soil properties may be altered by heavy machinery.

Other abiotic factors

• Nutrient imbalances: deficiencies, chemicals (toxic salts, herbicides, air pollutants)
• Stemflow which can concentrate dry deposits which via soil acidification can kill surrounding plants.
• Temperature.

Biotic Factors

• Fungi : Ascomycota, Basidiomycota and Fungi imperfecti.

There is a category listing fungal tree pathogens and diseases in Wikipedia.

• Oomycota : Phytophthora.
• Bacteria
• Phytoplasmas
• Viruses

Insects

There is a category listing insect pests of temperate forests in Wikipedia.

• Ips (genus) bark beetles
• Bark beetle
• Ambrosia beetle
• Cerambycidae
• Black arches

Some of these factors act in concert (well all do to a degree). For example Amylostereum areolatum which is spread by the Sirex woodwasp. The fungus gains access to new trees to live off and the woodwasp larvae gain food.

Parasitic Flowering Plants

• Many plants can parasitize trees via root to root contact. Many of these parasitic plants originate in the tropical and subtropical climates.

Animals

Nematodes, insects especially bark beetles, mammals may browse. Browsing can be prevented with tree shelters.

Part of forest pathology is forest entomology. Forest entomology includes the study of all insects and arthropods, such as mites, centipedes and millipedes, which live in and interact in forest ecosystems. Forest entomology also includes the management of insect pests that cause the degrading, defoliation, crown die-back or death of trees.

Thus the scope is wide and includes:

• Documentation of all insect species and related arthropoda in natural and man-made forests, and the study and ecology of those species.

• Description and assessment of damage to tree structures (parts of a tree), to forest stands, landscape effects and to wood products, timber in service and other ecosystem services.

• Eradication of recently introduced pests, or long-term management of established exotics and indigenous pests, to minimise losses in wood quality and wood production, and to reduce tree mortality.

• Assessments of forest operations, or of management impacts, on the invertebrate fauna, and the alleviation of any adverse effects on these invertebrates.

Hazard Trees

• The likelihood of property damage or personal injury due to tree failure. Hazard includes not only the tree's condition, but the potential target as well. Rating systems, procedures and guidelines have been developed for decision making but knowledge, judgement, and experience are an important part to the process.

Pathogens that Affects Trees

There is a category listing tree diseases in Wikipedia.

• Armillaria sp which causes white rot root disease
• Cenangium
• Hymenoscyphus fraxineus which causes Ash Dieback
• Heterobasidion annosum which causes Annosum or red root rot, the economically most significant pathogen in the Northern hemisphere.
• Chestnut blight
• Rickettsia which causes possibly this citrus greening disease.
• Spiroplasma
• Dutch elm disease
• Ink disease
• Emerald ash borer
• Olive tree pathology
• Witch's broom
• White Pine Blister Rust
• Phytophthora cinnamomi which causes root rot
• Phytophthora ramorum which causes sudden oak death.
• Polypore or bracket fungus.
• Tinder conk.

Signs and Symptoms

Symptoms are a result of a pathogen:

• Blight
• Burl
• Canker
• Chlorosis
• Drunken trees
• Forest dieback
• Gall
• Girdling
• Leaf scorch
• Root rot
• Virescence
• Wilt disease

Signs are the visible presence of a part of a pathogen:

• Ascus is a part of an acomycota fungus.
• Conk (fungi) is the fruiting body of a bracket fungus.
• Hypha are collectively called a mycelium.
• Mycelial cord or rhizomorphs

Pathology Detection

This can be done by dogs or machines smelling the trees. It is similar to noses used to find truffles. It can also be done by monitoring and identification can happen via tree clinics, experts such as arborists or even non-experts through citizen science.

It is important to consider the disease triangle when evaluating pathologies. Demonstration of suspected active agents can be done by confirmation of Koch's postulates.

References

1. ^ Christian Stauffer, Lecture on Forest Protection 2013, Institute of Forest Entomology, Forest Pathology and Forest Protection (IFFF), Department of Forest and Soil Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), Hasenauerstraße 38, A-1190 Vienna.

Further Reading

• Tainter, Frank H., and Fred A. Baker . Principles of Forest Pathology. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996.
• European Journal of Forest Pathology (Eur J Forest Pathol), Springer, ISSN 0300-1237 (printed), ISSN 1573-8469 (electronic), 1895–present, 5-Year Impact Factor: 2.054.

External Links

• Forest & Shade Tree Pathology
• Forest pathology team at INRA Nancy, France
• Hazard Trees.

- Wikipedia 

AMBROSIA BEETLE

Ambrosia beetles are beetles of the weevil subfamilies Scolytinae and Platypodinae (Coleoptera, Curculionidae), which live in nutritional symbiosis with ambrosia fungi and probably with bacteria. The beetles excavate tunnels in dead trees in which they cultivate fungal gardens, their sole source of nutrition. After landing on a suitable tree, an ambrosia beetle excavates a tunnel in which it releases spores of its fungal symbiont. The fungus penetrates the plant's xylem tissue, digests it, and concentrates the nutrients on and near the surface of the beetle gallery. The majority of ambrosia beetles colonize xylem (sapwood and/or heartwood) of dying or recently dead trees. Species differ in their preference for different parts of trees, different stages of deterioration, in the shape of their tunnels (“galleries”). However, the majority of ambrosia beetles are not specialized to any taxonomic group of hosts, unlike most phytophagous organisms including the closely related bark beetles. One species of ambrosia beetle, Austroplatypus incompertus exhibits eusociality, one of the few organisms outside of Hymenoptera to do so.

Classification and Diversity

Until recently ambrosia beetles have been placed in independent families Scolytidae and Platypodidae, however, they are in fact some of the most highly derived weevils. There are about 3,000 known beetle species employing the ambrosia strategy.

Gallery of Xylosandrus crassiusculus split open, with pupae and black fungus

Ambrosia beetles are an ecological guild, but not a phylogenetic clade. The ambrosia habit is an example of convergent evolution, as several groups evolved the same symbiotic relationship independently. The highest diversity of ambrosia beetles is in the tropics. In the Paleotropical region, hundreds of species of Xyleborini and Platypodinae are the main agent initiating dead wood decomposition. In the Neotropics, Platypodinae and Xyleborini are joined by the scolytine tribe Cortylini. Compared to the diversity in the tropics, ambrosia beetle fauna in the temperate zone is rather limited. In the Nearctic region it is dominated by a few species from Cortylini, Xyleborini and Xyloterini. In the Palearctic ecozone, significant groups are Xyloterini and Xyleborini, joined by Scolytoplatypodini in the Far East.

The Symbiotic Relationship

Beetles and their larvae graze on mycelium exposed on the gallery walls and on bodies called sporodochia, clusters of the fungus’ spores. Most ambrosia beetle species don’t ingest the wood tissue; instead, the sawdust resulting from the excavation is pushed out of the gallery. Following the larval and pupal stage, adult ambrosia beetles collect masses of fungal spores into their mycangia and leave the gallery to find their own tree.

Dinoplatypus chevrolati from Papua New Guinea, an example of Platypodinae, another species-rich group of ambrosia beetles.

A few dozen species of ambrosia fungi have been described, currently in the polyphyletic genera Ambrosiella (mostly Microascales), Raffaelea, Ceratocystiopsis and Dryadomyces (from Ophiostomatales), Ambrosiozyma (yeasts), and Entomocorticium (Basidiomycota). Many more species remain to be discovered. Little is known about the bionomy or specificity of ambrosia fungi. Ambrosia fungi are thought to be dependent on transport and inoculation provided by their beetle symbionts, as they have not been found in any other habitat. All ambrosia fungi are probably asexual and clonal. Some beetles are known to acquire ("steal") fungal inoculum from fungal gardens of other ambrosia beetle species.

Evolutionary Origin

During their evolution, most scolytid and platypodid weevils became progressively more or less dependent on fungi regularly co-habiting dead trees. This evolution had various outcomes in different groups:

• Some phloem-eating bark beetles (phloeophages) are probably employing aggressive phytopathogenic fungal associates to kill live trees.
• Many of phloem-feeding bark beetles use phloem-infesting fungi as an addition to their diet. Some phloeophages became more or less dependent on such a mixed diet and evolved mycangia to transport their symbionts from maternal trees to newly infested trees. These beetles are called mycophloeophages.
• Ambrosia beetles and ambrosia fungi are thus only one end of the spectrum of the weevil-fungus association, where both the beetle and the fungus became completely dependent on each other.

Impact on Forest

This class of insects attacks living, dead, and felled trees, as well as sawlogs, green lumber, and stave-bolts, often causing serious economic loss from the pinhole and stained-wood defects caused by their brood galleries. The galleries are excavated by the parent beetles in the sound sapwood, sometimes extending into the heartwood, and the young stages feed on a fungus growth on the walls of galleries. The young depend on this ambrosia-like fungus for food, which is induced or controlled by the parent beetles.

In central British Columbia, only white spruce felled well before the onset of winter are attractive to Trypodendron lineatum (Oliv.) during the spring swarming flight (Dyer 1967). However, logs < 3 m long felled in September and May were attacked during the first spring. Previous studies showed that short log sections become attractive more rapidly than corresponding long logs.

References

1. ^ Kuschel, G., R. A. B. Leschen, et al. (2000): Platypodidae under scrutiny. Invertebrate Taxonomy 14: 771-805.
   Marvaldi, A. E., A. S. Sequeira, et al. (2002): Molecular and Morphological Phylogenetics of Weevils (Coleoptera, Curculionoidea): Do Niche Shifts Accompany Diversifcation? Systematic Biology 51(5): 761-785.
   Duane D. McKenna, Andrea S. Sequeira, Adriana E. Marvaldi, and Brian D. Farrell. 2009. Temporal lags and overlap in the diversification of weevils and flowering plant. PNAS 106:7083-7088.
2. ^ Farrell, B. D., A. S. O. Sequeira, et al. (2001): The evolution of agriculture in beetles (Curculionidae: Scolytinae and Platypodinae). Evolution 55: 2011-2027.
3. ^ Malloch, D., and M. Blackwell. 1993. Dispersal biology of ophiostomatoid fungi. p. 195-206. In: Ceratocystis and Ophiostoma: Taxonomy, Ecology and Pathology. Eds., Wingfield, M.J., K.A. Seifert, and J.F. Webber. APS, St. Paul.
4. ^ Hulcr, J., Cognato, A. I. 2010. Repeated evolution of theft in fungus farming ambrosia beetles. Evolution, 64 (11): 3205-3212
5. ^ Paine, T. D., K. F. Raffa, et al. (1997): Interactions between scolytid bark beetles, their associated fungi and live host conifers. Annual Review of Entomology 42: 179-206.
6. ^ Klepzik, K. D. and D. L. Six (2004): Bark Beetle – Fungal Symbiosis: Context Dependency in Complex Associations. Symbiosis 37: 189-205.
7. ^ Beaver, R. A. (1989): Insect-Fungus Relationship in the Bark and Ambrosia Beetles. Insect-Fungus Interactions. N. Wilding, N. M. Collins, P. M. Hammond and J. F. Webber, Academic Press: 121-143.
8. ^ Dyer, E.D.A. 1967. Relation of attack by ambrosia beetle (Trypodendron lineatum (Oliv.)) to felling date of spruce in central British Columbia. For. Can., Can. For. Serv., Ottawa ON, Bi-mo. Res. Notes 23(2):11.
9. 
   

External Links

• Images and information on the Ambrosia Symbiosis at the University of Florida.
• The MSU HISL database contains a worldwide species list of Xyleborini, a major group of ambrosia beetles, from the Catalog of Scolytidae and Platypodidae of S.L. Wood and D.E. Bright (1992)]
• A USDA-sponsored information resource and key to the world genera of Xyleborini
• American Bark and Ambrosia Beetles.
• More information on ambrosia beetle social behaviour and fungiculture .
• Farewell to taco topping? The effects of the Redbay ambrosia beetle and laurel wilt disease
• Ambrosia beetles on the UF / IFAS Featured Creatures Web site
• Platypus spp., ambrosia beetle.
• Xylosandrus crassiusculus, Asian (or granulate) ambrosia beetle.
• Xylosandrus compactus, black twig borer.

- Wikipedia