risk analysis framework 1. risk assessment triggers pest commodity pathway ecosystem identify threat...
TRANSCRIPT
Risk Analysis FrameworkRisk Analysis Framework
1. Risk assessment
Triggers• pest• commodity• pathway• ecosystem
Identify threat
Estimate likelihood of occurrence
Estimate magnitude of
consequences
Develop conclusionsand
Describe uncertainty
2. Risk response
Identify mitigation options
Evaluate mitigation options• efficacy• feasibility• impacts
Develop recommendationsand
Describe uncertainty
Decision
3. Risk communication
Communication
Strategic(policy advice)
Public
Science(feedback to process)
Identifying the threat Does MPB pose a threat to the boreal?
Identifying the threat Does MPB pose a threat to the boreal?
2006 long-distance dispersal event
Invasion of the Alberta plateau
Lodgepole-jack pine hybrid zone
Invasion corridor to the boreal forest?
2006 long-distance dispersal event
Invasion of the Alberta plateau
Lodgepole-jack pine hybrid zone
Invasion corridor to the boreal forest?
Identifying the threatIdentifying the threat
Pine-leading stands (working forest) = 35 million ha, 4.6 billion m3 Pine-leading stands (working forest) = 35 million ha, 4.6 billion m3
Source: D. McKenney and D. Yemshanov, unpublished results of host distribution research based on CanFI and EOSD data.
<0.1
0.1 - 2
3 - 5
6 - 10
11 - 20
21 - 40
41 - 80
81 - 120
121 - 250
251 - 500
Little's distribution range
Pine (lodgepole and jack) volume (m3/ha)
Uncertaintyo Historic range = very low; FIDS surveyso Expanded range = moderately low; incomplete/unconfirmed
surveys
Likelihood of occurrence
There has been a recent change in the geographic range of MPB
Likelihood of occurrenceLikelihood of occurrence
Successful reproduction in virtually all Pinus species (native or introduced)
Measures of performance identical in lodgepole and jack pines (lab studies)
Ophiostomatoid fungal mutualists successful in jack pine
Successful reproduction in virtually all Pinus species (native or introduced)
Measures of performance identical in lodgepole and jack pines (lab studies)
Ophiostomatoid fungal mutualists successful in jack pine
MPB has a wide range of host species (Pinus), including jack pine
Uncertaintyo Jack pine suitability = moderately low; lab/arboreta
studies
Likelihood of occurrenceLikelihood of occurrence
Pine forests less contiguous within the boreal zone vs BC
Stands capable of sustaining epidemic beetles fragmented
BC vs boreal differences = climate, soils, fire suppression, selective harvesting
Pine forests less contiguous within the boreal zone vs BC
Stands capable of sustaining epidemic beetles fragmented
BC vs boreal differences = climate, soils, fire suppression, selective harvesting
The demographics of boreal pines is suboptimal for epidemic MPB
Pine-leading (>50%) stands
Pine-leading (>50%) stands, pine volume >40m3/ha
CanFI data
Uncertaintyo Forest inventory data = moderately high; timber supply
analyseso Forest inventory relevance = moderate; applicability of BC
models
Likelihood of occurrenceLikelihood of occurrence
Climatic suitability high in area of recent outbreaks
Suitability relatively high in northern AB and SK, but declines in all models in central and eastern Canada
Isolated zones of suitability in ON, QC and NL
Northward shift in suitability with additional climate change
Climatic suitability high in area of recent outbreaks
Suitability relatively high in northern AB and SK, but declines in all models in central and eastern Canada
Isolated zones of suitability in ON, QC and NL
Northward shift in suitability with additional climate change
Climatic suitability is highest in the west, and decreases
eastward
Logan’s univoltinism (modified)
Safranyik’s (modified)
Régnière & Bentz cold tolerance
Geometric mean
Likelihood
… - 0.10.1 - 0.20.2 - 0.30.3 - 0.40.4 - 0.50.5 - 0.60.6 - 0.70.7 - 0.80.8 - 0.90.9 - …
… - 0.10.1 - 0.20.2 - 0.30.3 - 0.40.4 - 0.50.5 - 0.60.6 - 0.70.7 - 0.80.8 - 0.90.9 - …
… - 0.10.1 - 0.20.2 - 0.30.3 - 0.40.4 - 0.50.5 - 0.60.6 - 0.70.7 - 0.80.8 - 0.90.9 - …
… - 0.10.1 - 0.20.2 - 0.30.3 - 0.40.4 - 0.50.5 - 0.60.6 - 0.70.7 - 0.80.8 - 0.90.9 - …
Uncertaintyo Climatic suitability models = moderate; relevance to boreal
conditionso CC projections = moderate; GCM limitations
Régnière et al., unpublished
Magnitude of consequencesMagnitude of consequences
Lower pine volume in stands east of BC
Scale of threatened timber supply much lower
MPB may threaten operability of marginal, low-volume stands
Lower pine volume in stands east of BC
Scale of threatened timber supply much lower
MPB may threaten operability of marginal, low-volume stands
Expected volume losses in the boreal forests of AB/SK/MB less than BC
Uncertaintyo Forest inventory data = moderate to low; timber supply
analyses
<0.1
0.1 - 2
3 - 5
6 - 10
11 - 20
21 - 40
41 - 80
81 - 120
121 - 250
251 - 500
Pine (lodgepole and jack) volume (m3/ha)
2.36.9
0.7
11.4
43.3
25.2
2.16.1
23.5
87.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
NLNSPENBQCONMBSKABBC
Ha
rve
st (
mill
ion
m3 )
Harvest volumes by province
Source: CFS (2006)
Magnitude of consequencesMagnitude of consequences
Boreal/eastern pine forests = significant source of non-timber revenues(e.g. tourism, recreation, trapping)
Smaller scale of forestry in prairie region = greater relative significance of non-timber resources
MPB-related forest management interventions may conflict with these values
Boreal/eastern pine forests = significant source of non-timber revenues(e.g. tourism, recreation, trapping)
Smaller scale of forestry in prairie region = greater relative significance of non-timber resources
MPB-related forest management interventions may conflict with these values
Non-timber impacts will be relatively greater in the prairie region vs BC
0.55
0.23
0.34
0.44 0.440.51
0.88
0.96
1.12
1.56
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Can
ada
NB
BC
QC
NS
NL
ON
MB
AB
SK
“Nature-related” jobs as a proportionof direct jobs in forestry
Pro
port
ion
Source: Env’t Canada (2000); CFS (1997)
Uncertaintyo Non-timber impacts =
low
Magnitude of consequencesMagnitude of consequences
Dead pine may increase fuels for wildfire
Potential impacts complex – time dependent, and beetle dependent
Salvage harvesting may increase risk
Interactions with CC?
Dead pine may increase fuels for wildfire
Potential impacts complex – time dependent, and beetle dependent
Salvage harvesting may increase risk
Interactions with CC?
Additional wildfire risk may be present in post-MPB stands
Uncertaintyo Increased fire risk =
moderate
The bottom lineThe bottom line MPB has expanded its range:
milder winters and an abundance of susceptible trees has favored an unprecedented build-up of populations in BC and subsequent emigration to AB
There are few apparent biological impediments to successful completion of life history in eastern pine species (e.g. jack pine)
Spread and impacts in the boreal will likely be less than observed in BC but risks of further spread and damage are now significantly higher than previously
Control actions can reduce, but not eliminate the threat
MPB has expanded its range: milder winters and an abundance of susceptible trees has favored an unprecedented build-up of populations in BC and subsequent emigration to AB
There are few apparent biological impediments to successful completion of life history in eastern pine species (e.g. jack pine)
Spread and impacts in the boreal will likely be less than observed in BC but risks of further spread and damage are now significantly higher than previously
Control actions can reduce, but not eliminate the threat
Action recommended because…Action recommended because…
MPB is a new threat in the boreal, and its potential and unpredictable impacts are high
With less than ideal climate and forest structure in boreal forest, slowing the spread may be feasible
Control at the leading edge has proved more successful than control of outbreaks
The source area for beetle emigrants is decreasing, therefore control may only be required for a short time
MPB is a new threat in the boreal, and its potential and unpredictable impacts are high
With less than ideal climate and forest structure in boreal forest, slowing the spread may be feasible
Control at the leading edge has proved more successful than control of outbreaks
The source area for beetle emigrants is decreasing, therefore control may only be required for a short time