The Effects of Mountain Pine Beetle Attack on Lodgepole Pine Wood Morphology and Chemistry: Implications for Wood and Fiber Quality
Keywords:
Mountain pine beetle, lodgepole pine, sapwood, heartwood, moisture content, specific gravity, extractive content, lignin content, carbohydrate content, permeabilityAbstract
The mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins, is currently devastating the lodgepole pine resource in western Canada, and in an attempt to circumvent the problem significant volumes of infested or dead wood are being harvested. In order to fully utilize the killed resource, it is crucial to understand how the pine beetle impacts wood quality. A thorough analysis of beetle-killed and sound lodgepole pine trees indicated that the infested sapwood and heartwood had substantial moisture loss, and that the moisture content decreased with increasing tree height when compared to sound wood. The infested wood was also shown to have a lower specific gravity than sound wood, and tended to decrease with increasing tree height. Chemical analysis indicated that the infested sapwood contained significantly lower concentrations of extractives when compared to sound sapwood, and that extractives content increased towards the crown. Additionally, the infested sapwood also had lower lignin and hemicellulose contents when compared to the sound sapwood. Wood permeability showed that infested sapwood was more permeable than sound sapwood, while the opposite was true for the heartwood, with the sound heartwood being more permeable than the infested heartwood. Permeability in both sapwood and heartwood varied with tree height and correlated with extractives content. These chemical and morphological changes significantly influence the quality of wood and fiber obtained from this substantial resource.References
Amman, G. D., and E. Walter. 1983. Mountain pine beetle dynamics in Lodgepole pine forests. Part II: Population dynamics. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. Pp. 1-59.nBack, E. L., and L. H. Allen. 2002. Pitch control, wood resin and deresination. Tappi Press. 1-83, 186-225, 307-324.nBallard, R. G., M. A. Walsh, and W. E. Cole. 1983. The penetration and growth of blue-stain fungi in the sapwood of Lodgepole pine attacked by mountain pine beetle. Can. J. Botany 62:1724-1729.nBao, F., J. Lu, and S. Avramidis. 1999. On the permeability of main wood species in China. Holzforschung 53(4): 350-354.nBramble, W. C., and E. C. Holst. 1940. Fungi associated with Dendroctonus in killing shortleaf pins and their effect on conduction. Phytopathology 30:881-899.nButterfield, B. G., and B. A. Meylan. 1979. Observations of trabeculae in New Zealand hardwoods. Wood Sci. Technol. 13:59-65.nFahey, T. D., T. A. Snellgrove, and M. E. Plank. 1986. Changes in product recovery between live and dead Lodgepole pine: a compendium. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. Pp. 1-25.nFernandez, M. P., P. A. Watson, and C. Breuil. 2001. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry method for the simultaneous determination of wood extractive compounds in quaking aspen. J. Chromatography A 922: 225-233.nFlynn, K. 1995. A review of the permeability, fluid flow, and anatomy of spruce (Picea spp.). Wood Fiber Sci. 27(3):278-284.nGiles, D. R. 1986. Harvesting and processing of beetle killed pine. Proc. Harvesting and Processing of Beetle Killed Timber. Prince George, BC, Forintek Canada Corporation. Pp. 1-26.nHarvey, R. D. 1979. Rate of increase of blue stain volume in mountain pine beetle killed lodgepole pine in northeastern Oregon USA, Can. J. Forest Res. 9:323-326.nHiguchi, T. 1985. Biosynthesis and biodegradation of wood components. Orlando, Academic Press, Inc. 43-50, 53-58, 441-464, 579-602.nJozsa, L. A., and G. R. Middleton. 1994. A discussion of wood quality attributes and their practical implications. Vancouver, BC, Forintek Canada Corp. Pp. 1-42.nKim, W. 1988. Chemical characterization of Lodgepole pine in North America for use as industrial raw material. College of Forestry, Moscow, Idaho, University of Idaho. 1-13, 15-164.nKlein, W. H., D. L. Parker, and C. E. Jensen. 1978. Attack, emergence and stand depletion trends of the mountain pine beetle in a lodgepole pine stand during an outbreak. Environ. Entomol. 7:732-737.nKoch, P. 1996. Lodgepole pine in North America Madison, Wisconsin, Forest Products Society. 35-45, 213-318, 667-695, 927-940, 1029-1041.nLieu, P. J., R. Kelsey, and F. Shafizadeh. 1979. Some chemical characteristics of green and dead Lodgepole pine and western white pine. Ogden, Utah, United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Pp. 1-8.nMcGovern, J. N. 1951. Pulping of Lodgepole pine. Madison, Wisconsin, United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Pp. 1-17.nMoeck, H. A., and C. S. Simmons. 1991. Primary attraction of mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopk. (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) to bolts of Lodgepole pine. The Canadian Entomologist 123:299-304.nNebeker, T. E., J. D. Hodges, and C. A. Blanche. 1993. Host response to bark beetle and pathogen colonization. Beetle-pathogen interactions in conifer forests. T. D. Schowalter and G. M. Filip. New York, Harcourt Brace & Company. Pp. 157-169.nNelson, R. M. 1934. Effect of blue-stain fungi on southern pine attacked by bark beetles. Phytopathology 7: 327-353.nPenner, D. 2002. Pine beetle infestation at epidemic proportions. The Vancouver Sun, Vancouver, BC P. A1.nRice, R. W., and M. D'Onofrio. 1996. Longitudinal gas permeability measurements from eastern white pine, red spruce, and balsam fir. Wood Fiber Sci. 28(3):301-308.nReid, R. W. 1961. Moisture changes in Lodgepole pine before and after attack by mountain pine beetle. Forestry Chronicle 37(4): 368-375.nReid, R. W. 1962. Biology of mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus monticolae Hopkins, in the East Kootney of British Columbia: life cycle, brood development, and flight periods. Canadian Entomologist 94:531-538.nSafranyik, L. 1978. Effects of climate and weather on mountain pine beetle populations Pages 77-87 in A. A. Berryman, G. D. Amman, R. W. Stark and D. I. Kibbee, eds. Proc. The theory and practice of mountain pine beetle management in Lodgepole pine forests. Moscow, Idaho, University of Idaho, Forest Wildlife and Range Experiment Station.nSafranyik, L. Barclay, A. Thomson, and W. G. Riel. 1999. A population dynamics model for the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins, Victoria, B.C., Canadian Forest Service Integrated Pest Management Network. Pp. 1-35.nScott, G. M., D. W. Bormett, N. R. Sutherland, S. Abubakr, and E. Lowell. 1996. Pulpability of beetle-killed spruce. Madison, WI, United States Department of Agriculture Forest Products Laboratory. Pp. 1-8.nShrimpton, D. M. 1973. Extractives associated with wound response of Lodgepole pine attacked by the mountain pine beetle and associated with microorganisms. Canadian J. Botany 51:527-533.nShrimpton, D. M. and A. Thomson. 1982. Growth characteristics of Lodgepole pine associated with the start of mountain pine beetle outbreaks. Canadian Journal of Forestry 13: 137-144.nSiau, J. F. 1984. Transport processes in wood. Springer-Verlag, New York. Pp. 24-103.nSiau, J. F. 1995. Wood: Influence of moisture on physical properties. Department of Wood Science and Forest Products Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. Pp. 1-63.nVologdin, A. I., A. F. Razumova, and E. V. Charuk. 1979. Importance of extractives for permeability of pine and spruce woods. Holztechnology 20(2):67-69.nWhitney, H. S. 1971. Association of Dendroctonus ponderosae with blue-stain fungi and yeasts during brood development in lodgepole pine. Canadian Entomologist 103:1495-1503.nZabel, R. A., and J. J. Morrell. 1992. Wood microbiology: decay and its prevention. Academic Press, Inc., New York, NY. Pp. 22-261, 326-339.n
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
The copyright of an article published in Wood and Fiber Science is transferred to the Society of Wood Science and Technology (for U. S. Government employees: to the extent transferable), effective if and when the article is accepted for publication. This transfer grants the Society of Wood Science and Technology permission to republish all or any part of the article in any form, e.g., reprints for sale, microfiche, proceedings, etc. However, the authors reserve the following as set forth in the Copyright Law:
1. All proprietary rights other than copyright, such as patent rights.
2. The right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. In the case of whole articles, such third parties must obtain Society of Wood Science and Technology written permission as well. However, the Society may grant rights with respect to Journal issues as a whole.
3. The right to use all or part of this article in future works of their own, such as lectures, press releases, reviews, text books, or reprint books.
