1. West Virginia University Division of Forestry 3 rd Forest Vegetation Simulator Conference February 13-15, 2007 Fort Collins, Colorado

2. West Virginia University Division of Forestry Preliminary Results of the FVS Gypsy Moth Event Monitor Using Remeasurement Plot Data from Northern West Virginia.

3. West Virginia University Division of Forestry Matthew Perkowski West Virginia University John R. Brooks West Virginia University and Kurt W. Gottschalk USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station

4. West Virginia University Division of Forestry Brief Overview of Gypsy Moth Event Monitor  Program calculates susceptible, resistant, and immune basal area.

5. West Virginia University Division of Forestry Brief Overview of Gypsy Moth Event Monitor  Program calculates susceptible, resistant, and immune basal area.  Classifies stand susceptibility level, which impacts the severity of damage if an outbreak occurs.

6. West Virginia University Division of Forestry Brief Overview of Gypsy Moth Event Monitor  Program calculates susceptible, resistant, and immune basal area.  Classifies stand susceptibility level, which impacts the severity of damage if an outbreak occurs.  Assigns outbreak occurrence based on probability and random number generation. Probability of 0.10 for a 1-year cycle.

7. West Virginia University Division of Forestry Brief Overview of Gypsy Moth Event Monitor  Program calculates susceptible, resistant, and immune basal area.  Classifies stand susceptibility level, which impacts the severity of damage if an outbreak occurs.  Assigns outbreak occurrence based on probability and random number generation. Probability of 0.10 for a 1-year cycle.  Mortality and growth reductions are applied based on outbreak severity.

8. West Virginia University Division of Forestry Wild Wonderful West Virginia

9. West Virginia University Division of Forestry West Virginia University Research Forest

10. West Virginia University Division of Forestry A Look at the Study Area

11. Stand 14 Relative Density

12. West Virginia University Division of Forestry Cove Hardwood Site

13. Stand 5 Relative Density

14. Gypsy Moth Damage Stand 14Stand 15 West Virginia University Division of Forestry

15. Methods  Gypsy moth introduction was set to 1985.  Each stand was simulated 20 times in FVS using the Northeastern key component file.  Outbreaks were stochastically determined for each simulation.  Stands were simulated on a 1-year cycle over the fifteen year period.  Mean values and standard errors of simulations are based on the multiple trials.  In-growth was removed from the actual measurement data. West Virginia University Division of Forestry

16. Sanitation Thinning Stands and Paired Controls Residual TPA (Predicted-Actual) Residual TPA (Predicted-Actual) -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 1988199019921994199619982000200220042006 Year Residual TPA Stand 1 Stand 2 Stand 4 Stand 5 Stand 6 Stand 7 Stand 8

17. Presalvage Thinning Stands and Paired Controls Residual TPA (Predicted-Actual)

18. Sanitation Thinning Stands and Paired Controls Residual Basal Area Per Acre (Predicted-Actual)

19. Presalvage Thinning Stands and Paired Controls Residual Basal Area Per Acre (Predicted-Actual) Residual Basal Area Per Acre (Predicted-Actual)

20. Stand 7 TPA vs. Time West Virginia University Division of Forestry

21. Stand 8 TPA vs. Time West Virginia University Division of Forestry

22. Stand 7 Basal Area Per Acre vs. Time West Virginia University Division of Forestry

23. Stand 8 Basal Area Per Acre vs. Time West Virginia University Division of Forestry

24. West Virginia University Division of Forestry Conclusions Trees Per Acre Lower mortality prediction by the model resulted in an overestimation of TPA throughout the projection period.

25. West Virginia University Division of Forestry Conclusions Trees Per Acre Lower mortality prediction by the model resulted in an overestimation of TPA throughout the projection period. Presalvage Thinning and Control Stands  Prediction error was greater for control stands.  The model overestimated TPA at the time of mortality, this prediction error decreased over the simulation period.

26. Trees Per Acre Lower mortality prediction by the model resulted in an overestimation of TPA throughout the projection period. Presalvage Thinning and Control Stands  Prediction error was greater for control stands.  The model overestimated TPA at the time of mortality, this prediction error decreased over the simulation period. Sanitation Thinning and Control Stands  Stands exhibiting low mortality had increasing TPA error over the projection period.  Stands experiencing the highest actual mortality exhibited an early increase in TPA estimation error, but unlike the response noted for the Presalvage treatment, this prediction error did not exhibit a major decrease over time. Conclusions

27. West Virginia University Division of Forestry Conclusions Basal Area  The model overestimated BA at the time of mortality and gradually began to underestimate at the end of the projection period.

28. West Virginia University Division of Forestry Conclusions Basal Area  The model overestimated BA at the time of mortality and gradually began to underestimate at the end of the projection period.  Stands exhibiting low mortality were underestimated at an increasing rate over the simulation period.

29. Questions? West Virginia University Division of Forestry