Spruce–fir decline and gap dynamics on Camels Hump, Vermont

Abstract

Widespread and conspicuous dieback of red spruce (Picearubens Sarg.) accompanied by asymptomatic declines in balsam fir (Abiesbalsamea (L.) Mill.) and white birch (Betulapapyrifera var. cordifolia (Regel.) Fern.) trees on Camels Hump, Vermont, prompted an investigation into the role of spruce–fir decline on gap expansion, tree health, and regeneration dynamics. Forty percent of the study area on Camels Hump was occupied by recent forest gaps in the summer of 1989. Gaps were growing northwesterly (direction 322°) at a rate of 0.8–1.2 m•year−1. Prevailing winds in the study area are from the south-southeast. Gap expansion appears to play a dominant role in continuing forest disturbance. Red spruce vigor was low in all dominance classes (53% foliar retention), while vigor of balsam fir and birch (yellow (Betulaalleghaniensis Britt.) and white) was somewhat higher. Exposure and wind flagging of different tree species within the same crown dominance classes were similar, but apical foliar damage was greater in spruce than in fir or birch. Red spruce and birch trees were older than balsam fir within comparable crown classes. Wind flagging was significantly correlated with crown exposure in red spruce and balsam fir, while diameter was the most important factor related to flagging in birch. All three species tended to die while standing. Dead balsam fir trees were twice as likely as red spruce to have been windthrown or diseased, whereas dead red spruce showed a much higher incidence of past and present insect infestation. Live birch had low levels of biotic damage. Density of red spruce seedlings was low within gaps and adjacent canopy sites. Balsam fir seedling density was significantly higher in the canopied areas, whereas birch density was marginally higher in gap areas. There were no significant differences in ages of spruce or fir seedlings growing in gaps and closed canopy areas. Birch seedlings in gaps were older and taller than those under the canopy, indicating low survivorship of birch under the forest canopy. It is likely that this forest will be predominantly composed of balsam fir and birch in the near future.