Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Ecologyarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Ecology
Article . 2016 . Peer-reviewed
License: Wiley Online Library User Agreement
Data sources: Crossref
Ecology
Article . 2018
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Why do trees die? Characterizing the drivers of background tree mortality

Authors: Adrian J, Das; Nathan L, Stephenson; Kristin P, Davis;

Why do trees die? Characterizing the drivers of background tree mortality

Abstract

Abstract The drivers of background tree mortality rates—the typical low rates of tree mortality found in forests in the absence of acute stresses like drought—are central to our understanding of forest dynamics, the effects of ongoing environmental changes on forests, and the causes and consequences of geographical gradients in the nature and strength of biotic interactions. To shed light on factors contributing to background tree mortality, we analyzed detailed pathological data from 200,668 tree‐years of observation and 3,729 individual tree deaths, recorded over a 13‐yr period in a network of old‐growth forest plots in California's Sierra Nevada mountain range. We found that: (1) Biotic mortality factors (mostly insects and pathogens) dominated (58%), particularly in larger trees (86%). Bark beetles were the most prevalent (40%), even though there were no outbreaks during the study period; in contrast, the contribution of defoliators was negligible. (2) Relative occurrences of broad classes of mortality factors (biotic, 58%; suppression, 51%; and mechanical, 25%) are similar among tree taxa, but may vary with tree size and growth rate. (3) We found little evidence of distinct groups of mortality factors that predictably occur together on trees. Our results have at least three sets of implications. First, rather than being driven by abiotic factors such as lightning or windstorms, the “ambient” or “random” background mortality that many forest models presume to be independent of tree growth rate is instead dominated by biotic agents of tree mortality, with potentially critical implications for forecasting future mortality. Mechanistic models of background mortality, even for healthy, rapidly growing trees, must therefore include the insects and pathogens that kill trees. Second, the biotic agents of tree mortality, instead of occurring in a few predictable combinations, may generally act opportunistically and with a relatively large degree of independence from one another. Finally, beyond the current emphasis on folivory and leaf defenses, studies of broad‐scale gradients in the nature and strength of biotic interactions should also include biotic attacks on, and defenses of, tree stems and roots.

Keywords

Insecta, Animals, Humans, Forests, California, Droughts, Trees

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    153
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 1%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 1%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
153
Top 1%
Top 10%
Top 1%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!