Case Study

The Extent and Management of Mountain Pine Beetle in

Western U.S. Conifer Forests.
Nimnicht, (Dlaney) Christine 1*
1
University of Idaho
*
nimn3290@vandals.uidaho.edu

Abstract
A combination of limited management and changing climate have created an unprecedented

epidemic of bark beetles across North America. This paper describes the extent of the mountain

pine beetle epidemic across western United States conifer forests, and analyzes the U.S. Forest

Services response. Management has faced significant, but surmountable challenges. Successful

restoration of impacted forest and mitigation of future outbreaks needs increased public support

and funding to continue.

Keywords: mountain pine beetle, forest management, prevention, mitigation, climate change.

1.Introduction
Bark beetles, including the mountain pine beetle, are natural regulators of forest

ecosystems. These insects aid decomposition of dead wood, and some species even help prevent

overcrowding of trees by killing living trees. These beetles are classified as aggressive, and are

fewer than one percent of bark beetles. [1-4,12,13] In response, hosts of these aggressive beetles

have evolved effective responses to beetle invasion, and beetles have adapted their development

to over-come these responses. [1,7,9] In a balanced forest, even aggressive bark beetles are

beneficial, and help ensure optimal forest health.

 2 of 18

Over the last twenty years however, the forests and climate of the Western United states

have become unbalanced and overcrowded, and this has allowed for a massive increase in bark

beetle populations. [1-4,16] This is particularly problematic in the case of the mountain pine

beetle. This species of beetle is extremely aggressive, and response is difficult due to its

adaptability and lack of effective predators. [1-4, 12] This case study examines what features

make the mountain pine beetle especially problematic, the causes and extent of the current

mountain pine beetle epidemic and the response of the United States Forest Service.

2. Discussion

2.1 Beetle biology and description

Dendroctonus ponderosae hopkins, also known as the mountain pine beetle (M.P.B), is

native to western North America. Its range is reflective of the range of the trees it feeds upon,

primarily including lodgepole, sugar, ponderosa, and western white pines. It has been recorded

from northwestern Alberta to northwestern Mexico at elevations ranging from almost sea-level to

11,000 feet. [1] Most bark beetles, aggressive or not, target only one species of tree. The fact that

M.P.B. targets multiple species of conifers makes it especially aggressive and problematic for

managers due to a very large range, and different management practices needed for each species.

[1-4, 13]

M.P.B has the four life stages typical of most insects. These stages are egg, larva, pupa,

and adult. Beetles spend almost the entire lifecycle underneath the bark of an infected tree, with

the exception of the adult beetles that emerge for a few days in the summer months to infect new

trees. The lifecycle takes about 1 year typically. However, the cycle can take as little 6 months in
 3 of 18

low elevations with warm temperatures, and it can take up to two years in colder conditions at

higher elevations. Optimal temperatures for development are between 75 and 77 F. [1,2,7]

During summer and early fall, small white eggs are laid in the inner bark in vertical

tunnels bored by female beetles. A week and a half later, white larvae with brown heads hatch.

Larvae then feed on the tree for ten months by boring new tunnels perpendicular to the original

tunnels. After ten months, larvae make oval chambers and remain in them as pupae for about a

month as they become adults. Adult beetles are 4-7.5 mm in length, dark brown to black in color,

and cylindrical in shape. [3] The fully developed beetles eat their way to the outside of the tree,

making exit holes about 2 mm wide. After emergence, they will fly or crawl to a nearby tree, and

attempt to bore into the bark, furthering the infestation. [1,2]

2.2 Natural competition and predators

The most intense predation and competition that M.P.B. faces is from other insects.

Nematodes, wasps, and other parasitic insects including a fly and two species of checkered

beetles are very effective at killing M.P.B. and often eradicate mountain pine beetle from trees.

Unfortunately, negligible effect from these natural predators has been observed in curbing large

scale epidemics. There isnt enough predation to counteract the population explosions that occur

in epidemic conditions [1-4]

In addition to predation, competition also causes significant beetle mortality. M.P.B

larvae compete amongst themselves, and against the larvae of other bark beetles. [1-4,6]

Competition is especially intense with the round headed woodborer, whos larvae that consume

any food source nearby. Larvae of the round headed woodborer have been known to completely

eradicate M.P.B. larvae within a tree. However, these species of bark beetle are often just as
 4 of 18

damaging to the host tree, and effects of competition is more significant when numbers are not at

epidemic levels. [1,2]

Woodpeckers will feed upon larvae, and the holes they create can cause significant beetle

mortality in a tree by drying out the bark. Other birds like Nuthatches feed on adult beetles as

they emerge and attack new tree, and this also reduces beetle numbers. Again, this predation is

more relevant to endemic populations however. There arent enough birds to feed on the vast

numbers of beetles that proliferate during epidemics. [1,2]

The lack of predators that are effective on a large scale allows M.P.B populations to

increase unchecked when conditions are favorable, and can make this beetle an especially

difficult problem for forest managers. [1-4,13]

2.3 Evidence of infestation

M.P.B. is known as a particularly aggressive pest of North American pine trees. Attacks

are extremely damaging, often killing trees within one generation. [1,2] These bark beetles are

also one of the few that induce trees to produce pitch tubes when attacked. This is because they

are one of very few beetles that will feed upon living trees. [1-3, 13] Pitch tubes are dark-red to

cream colored mixtures of resin and boring dust produced by the beetles eating and boring into

the wood and bark. If a beetle attack was unsuccessful, the tubes will be large, 19 to 25 mm, and

widely spaced on the trunk. If an attack is successful, the tubes will be 6 to 13 mm wide, and

close together. [1,2] Boring dust is also evident in the crevices of the bark, and around the base

of the tree if the attack is successful. [1-3] Attacks usually occur on the lower 15 feet of tree.

[2,3] The exception to these patterns is the sugar pine. When attacking large sugar pine trees,
 5 of 18

beetles will attack the top of the tree first, and may attack lower regions of the tree in second and

third generations. [1]

Approximately a year after being attacked, a trees needles will slowly fade from green, to

yellow, to reddish brown, and eventually needles are lost all together as the tree succumbs to the

effects of the infestation. This change is gradual, and spreads from the bottom of the crown to the

top. [1-3] The change in color occurs as the photosynthetic pigments in the needle tissue are

slowly broken down as the tissues are deprived of water and nutrients.

2.4 Secondary damage and evidence of infestation.

In addition to the damage done to the tree by the beetles, their infestation attracts other

organisms that further damage the tree, and leave it more vulnerable to the beetles attack. Pine

beetles carry the spores of blue staining fungi with them as they invade trees, and the sapwood is

discolored after one to two months after infestation. [1,2] The fungus makes the environment

under the bark moister by inhibiting water flow to the crown of the tree. This increased moisture

is more conducive for the development of the bark beetle. The fungi also inhibit the flow of

pitch, which is a trees chief defense against attacks. It is the combined effects of these fungi and

the beetles together that cause tree mortality. [2]

Pieces of bark at the base of a tree can also be a sign of infestation. When the beetle

larvae become many, woodpeckers will feed on the larvae and this can remove large sections of

bark, and further damage the tree. This damage stresses the tree, and can increase vulnerability to

other insects and diseases if it has not succumbed to the beetle invasion. [1-3]

2.5 Risk factors and triggers for an epidemic.

 6 of 18

There are certain characteristics that leave stands more vulnerable to beetle attack.

Climatic factors, stand density and age, species composition, as well as tree diameter all have an

impact on the ability of beetle populations to rise to epidemic levels. [1,9] For an epidemic to

affect large landscapes, there need to be favorable climatic and forest conditions over large

continuous area. [1,4,9,13]

Drought, windfall, wildfires, defoliation from other pests and pathogens, and other

random events such as lightning strikes have all been associated with triggering pine beetle

epidemics. [9] These events often leave many dead trees either standing, or laying on the forest

floor. These trees provide increased habitat and food sources for the beetles. Favorable

conditions such as these often lead to a rapid increase in population, and therefore a pine beetle

epidemic. Trees that survive these events are often sustain damage, and are weakened. As a

result, they are more susceptible to pine beetle attack as well as other pests and pathogens while

the population is rising. [9]

Regardless of the trigger, some stands are more vulnerable than others once a beetle

epidemic has begun. Lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine are the beetles preferred food source

and therefore are inherently more vulnerable. In general, very dense stands of lodgepole pine

that have an average tree diameter of 8 inches or more as well as an age greater than 80 years are

the most susceptible to attacks by beetles. [1,4] Second generation stands of ponderosa pines that

are evenly aged, densely packed, and are ten inches in diameter or more are highly vulnerable as

well. These stands are highly vulnerable because trees with diameters 11.8 inches or more

support the beetle population once beetle populations have risen to epidemic levels. [6] Trees

larger than this may provide the large amount of resources needed for beetles to raise population
 7 of 18

to epidemic numbers, but trees between 8 and 11 inches have been shown to support beetle

populations during times of epidemic populations, as well as into post epidemic periods. [6]

In short, high density stands with evenly aged trees are more vulnerable to M.P.B.

[1,4,11] Stands of these descriptions that are also in elevations where the temperature is suitable

for beetle development are labeled as high hazard stands.[1-4] Stand density and tree size

mainly affect how vulnerable a stand is to infestation. When there are favorable climatic

conditions in addition to ideal habitat, M.P.B. will multiply exponentially, and there will be an

epidemic.

2.6 Factors that influence M.P.B outbreaks and forest resilience.

There are many factors ranging from tree resistance to temperature that may affect the

severity of outbreaks. These beetles are highly adaptive however, and have evolved to work

around these factors and in some cases, turn them to their advantage in the case of temperature.

Temperature is the most important factor in the survival and success of these beetles.

[6,7,1] Below average temperatures (0F) during fall and spring can significantly slow an

epidemic. Beetles can also be killed by extreme cold (-37F) during the winter months. [1,2,13]

Because conditions are not uniform across all areas of an outbreak, there are always beetles that

escape the cold under the bark of the trees they have infested. These survivors are then able to

continue the outbreak. It is important to note that the ability of beetles to survive severe winter

temperatures is highly variable and can change between locations, and even individual beetles.

[1,2,7] Unseasonably cold temperatures can easily kill large numbers of beetles and curb

epidemics. On the other hand, when temperatures are warmer, it can accelerate beetle

development and worsen an epidemic. [5,7,13]

 8 of 18

Temperatures also effect the timing and synchrony of beetle emergence. Beetles respond

to temperature by slowing or accelerating development and this adaptation helps beetles avoid

late spring and early summer temperatures that could prove lethal. Beetles will not develop past

the larval stage if the temperatures are not above 15 C. [7,8,13] In addition, large numbers of

beetles need to emerge at the same time for beetles to attack a tree in force. Cold temperatures

slow development of larvae that hatch earlier in the season, allowing for broods to mature at the

same time, so more beetles can emerge to attack trees in force when conditions are right. This

mass emergence of adult beetles allows for attacks to target large diameter trees, which provide

the resources for beetles to raise populations to epidemic levels. [7,13]

The second most important factor is food supply. Especially in stands of lodgepole pine,

surveys suggest that the M.P.B. attacks larger diameter trees first, where the inner bark is

thickest, and food most abundant. After the largest trees have succumbed, increasingly smaller

trees are targeted. Once the food supply is not enough to sustain the large population resulting

from an epidemic, the epidemic subsides. [1,2]

Another factor is the loss of adult beetles. This is when adult beetles fail to find a tree to

attack before natural death, are unsuccessful in their attack or it are preyed upon. It is difficult to

estimate the numbers of beetles lost in this way, but it is evident these can be significant in the

right conditions. [2]

A final factor is a trees resistance to attack by the beetles. In the right conditions, a

healthy tree can produce enough resin to prevent the beetles from boring too far into the bark.

This is known as pitching out a beetle. [1,4,9] If a beetle has managed to enter the tree and lay

eggs, the tree will form a necrotic region around the damage caused by the beetle. The tree will

then fill the region with resin to kill the beetle and its eggs. Trees also respond to the fungal
 9 of 18

infections associated with beetles in this manner. [9] These responses described are whats

generally seen in conifers and may differ slightly between species. For example, Grand Fir does

not have a resin duct system to repel intruding beetles, but has a wound response as described.

True firs in general do not have resin ducts, but form blisters of resin encased in the sapwood

to deter beetles. [9]

The growth rate of a tree is an important indicator of how effectively a tree can resist an

attack. [9] Growth rate is related to the trees health, age, and climatic factors like temperature

and precipitation and indicates how efficiently a tree is able to use its energy. The higher the

growth rate, the more extra energy a tree is able to store for later use. The energy is then used in

resin production, and replacing sapwood lost in wound response. [9] It has been proven that trees

with higher growth rates are more resilient to beetle attacks as well as attacks by other pathogens

like root-rotting fungi. [9]

Ultimately, climate, the health of the tree, tree species, the number of beetles attacking

the tree, and the longevity of the attack all ultimately decide how well the tree can resist. If an

attack is severe enough and prolonged however, even a healthy tree will be unable to resist. [1,2]

This is because these responses require a large amount of energy from the tree, and stored

carbohydrates cannot be mobilized fast enough in the case of a mass attack. [9]

2.7 Extent and characteristics of the current epidemic

For the last 20 years, there has been an ongoing M.P.B epidemic. It is unprecedented in

geographic scale, and severity. [10-14] It is also important to note that the M.P.B. is not the only

species of beetles seeing large population increases. Other species such as the Jeffrey pine beetle,

western pine beetle, and wood borers have seen rapid population increases. [13] However,
 10 of 18

M.P.B. is one of only a few beetles that attacks living trees and as such, is responsible for much

of the mortality in pine stands across the western United States. Especially in stands of lodgepole

pines, where M.P.B. attacks can reduce area by 90%. [15] The outbreak of multiple beetle

species at once also makes this epidemic unique from historical epidemics and highly unusual.

[1-4,10-13]

There have been concurrent outbreaks stretching from Alaska, across western Canada,

and into northern Mexico. Multliple epidemics in different areas at the same time, and for such

an extended period of time also makes this outbreak unusual and the subject of much study.[10-

13] Between 1996 and 2011, 41.7 million acres of forest in the western U.S. were affected.[13]

Of the 41.7 million total acres affected by M.P.B., 21.7 million acres is in the intermountain

west. Included in this count was 17.1 million acres of Forest Service land [10-13] This number

is likely to have increased, as the outbreak is ongoing. [10]

While the western united states as a whole has been experiencing elevated populations

since 1997, specific areas have experienced the peak of the epidemic at different times over the

last 20 years. [10-15] Most of the intermountain west saw the epidemic reach its peak between

2000 and 2009. [10,12] While the epidemic has peaked in some areas, there are other areas that

are still experiencing increasing beetle populations, with no sign of abatement. The beetle

epidemic is expected to continue for the next 5-10 years in north western states like Idaho and

Montana [12-18]

2.8 Specific examples

There are many areas affected, but these examples are fairly typical of the damage done

by the dramatic increase in beetle populations. Four million acres of lodgepole pine stands,
 11 of 18

across three separate national forests in Colorado were infested between 1996 and 2010. [11] In

Idaho, mortality of lodgepole pine trees due to M.P.B. has been increasing since 1994, and the

trend is expected to continue. Ponderosa pines have not been affected as severely in Idaho, but is

of some concern in a few areas. [17,18]

Ponderosa pine forests have also been affected, especially in the southwest. Between

2002 and 2005 there was a beetle outbreak in southern California that severely affected

Ponderosa Pine forests. Approximately 6 million acres of forest were infested in three years. [14]

The worst period of damage was between 2002 and 2003, at the beginning of the California

epidemic. Over half a million acres of trees were killed by beetles in a single season. [13,14]

Between 2007 and 2008 due to favorable climatic conditions, west-central Montana saw a

dramatic increase in beetle populations. M.P.B. populations doubled in ponderosa pine stands.

Beetle numbers also tripled and even quadrupled in lodgepole pine stands. [16]

These examples are only a few examples of areas impacted by the beetle epidemic.

There have also been documented outbreaks in South Dakota, Wyoming, Oregon, Washington,

and Arizona. [11-14]

2.9 Triggers for the current epidemic.

There has been extensive research into the triggers of the current epidemic and why it is

so severe. Two main factors have been identified; previous forest management, or lack thereof,

and changes in temperature and precipitation. Together, these two factors have created

conditions that are ideal for M.P.B. reproduction. [10-14,16]

M.P.B is highly sensitive and adaptive to temperature, as discussed. Normally, beetles

will pause their development to avoid temperatures outside of their tolerance range. This
 12 of 18

adaptation minimizes beetle mortality due to temperature, and synchronizes beetle emergence.

[5,13] In recent years, average temperatures have risen enough that temperatures are conducive

to beetle development, and more beetles are surviving. These beetles are also developing at a

more rapid rate, and in some low elevations they are completing two generations in a single

season, where only one was possible before. [7,10-13]

In addition, because temperatures are increasing in higher elevations and winter

temperatures are less extreme, beetles are expanding their range into areas that were previously

inhospitable, and are attacking new species of trees that were previously unavailable to them

such as white pine and jeffery pine. [10,13] This helps explain why the geographic area of the

current epidemic is so large compared to previous outbreaks. For example, beetles are being seen

in high elevation white pine forests in the Rocky Mountains that were previously thought

inhospitable to the beetles. [10,13] Previously, the colder temperatures would slow development

in these forests, and prevent the life cycle from being completed in one season. When the life

cycle is slowed, it curbs the population dramatically and prevents the rapid population growth

seen in the recent epidemic. [5,10-13]

A secondary factor relating to temperature changes is the prolonged and widespread

drought across the western United States. These drought conditions have caused significant tree

mortality and placed stress on the surviving trees. As previously discussed, the dead trees then

provide easy resources for the beetles to grow their population, and the survivors are more

vulnerable to attack. [9] These dead trees also increase the risk for wildfires, which is another

major stress on a forest ecosystem. The epidemic has had a positive feedback effect in this

regard. The beetles have increased the number of dead trees, which further increases the risk for
 13 of 18

fires, and continuously provides habitat and resources for the growing beetle population. [9-

14,16]

The final factor has been the way forests have been managed through the 20th century,

and public opinion of management practices. For decades, the public has had a very negative

opinion of thinning, logging, and of any and all activity in forests. [11,13] Managers have

therefore been either unable to thin the forests and clear undergrowth, or had their actions

severely limited. As a result, forests have been left unhealthy and very vulnerable.

Managers were aware of the increased risk for beetle infestation, but preventative action

was prohibited in many areas. A prime example is in the forests of southern Wyoming and

Northern Colorado. [11] In the 1990s, preventative treatments that would have reduced

competition and improved forest health were proposed. Activists successfully appealed these

treatments and they were not implemented. Activists failed to comprehend that there were many

trees that had only recently been infected, and therefore needle tissues were still green. Many of

the trees were in fact dead or dying and the needle tissues had not begun to decay. A year later,

when the needle tissues turned red and eventually fell, the extent of the damage was revealed.

However, it was too late to prevent the rapid spread of the beetles. [11,13]

There has also been a policy of complete wildfire suppression, when many ecosystems

have evolved to incorporate wildfire as a regulator. Wildfires help to prevent overcrowding, aid

some species of trees in their reproduction, and reduces stress from competition. [13] The lack of

stand replacing fires has allowed forests to mature and become incredibly dense. [11-13]

Wildfire suppression has also altered the species composition of western U.S forests. Preferred

hosts of M.P.B, such as lodgepole pine and ponderosa, are dominating forest composition due to

the lack of disturbance and removal. [10-14]

 14 of 18

The result of not having either nature or man disturb the forests has been vast areas of

very dense forest that is around the same age, dominated by the preferred hosts of the M.P.B. In

short, the ideal habitat for the M.P.B. [1-4,10-14] This density and lack of species diversity also

leads to increased competition, and increased stress on the trees. Increased stress then leads to

increased susceptibility to beetles and the fungi they carry. [9,10] Large areas of ideal habitat

that is vulnerable to invasion, coupled with warming temperatures, worked together to trigger

this unprecedented beetle epidemic. [1,4,11-14]

2.10 Response to the beetle epidemic

There has been a wide array of responses to this unprecedented epidemic, both directly

managing forests, and in the academic realm. Some scientists seek to better understand the

present epidemic by comparing it to epidemics in the past. Others seek to predict how the

epidemic will progress by constructing models. [13] Managers from the Forest service are

mainly working in the field, carrying out projects that range from reforestation and seed

collection, to finding markets for timber products, to helping homeowners better protect their

property against M.P.B.. There has also been a large public education effort, and the Forest

Service has been reaching out extensively to educate the public as well as lawmakers on this

issue. This is an important step in gaining support for management practices both in public

opinion and financially. [11,13,14]

There are three goals listed, in the U.S. Forest Services response plan. These goals are

human safety, forest recovery, and forest resilience. The Forest Service recognizes that public

support and an integrated approach are key to achieving these goals, and these have been

incorporated as part of the response. [11,12]

 15 of 18

Human safety is listed as the first, and most important goal in response to the epidemic.

[12] According to the U.S. Forest Service estimates, 100,000 trees are falling each day in

southern Wyoming and Northern Colorado. [12] These trees pose a real and present danger to

roads, trails, and recreation facilities such as campgrounds and ski areas. There are also threats to

municipal power and water supply infrastructure. In situations such as these, ensuring public

safety and access to facilities is critical. [11,12]

After a beetle invasion has affected an area, the focus falls on the recovery of the forest.

Seeds and cones of trees that are resistant to pests are collected, and healthy seedlings are

planted. [12,14] Mature trees are removed as needed to ensure a diverse tree cover and reduce

stand density. Reducing stand density reduces competition for sunlight, moisture, and nutrients.

The reduced competition and stress on the forest ecosystem also reduces risks for fire, and

improves overall forest health. [12,14] Improved forest health also reduces vulnerability to other

stresses from climatic factors as well as other pathogens and pests. [14]

Sustaining a forest after recovery efforts is listed as the third and final objective. This is

to be done by preventative thinning as the forest ages. This is very crucial because there is very

little that can be done once beetle populations reach epidemic levels. Prevention and mitigation

of future epidemics is crucial for successful management. [1-4,11,12] Managers can apply short-

term insecticide treatment that can be applied to protect a tree in imminent danger, but is

ineffective in the long term. In terms of long term, sustained management, preventative thinning

is the best option for both the Forest Service and private land owners. It improves overall forest

health, increases species diversity, and reduces susceptibility to beetle future attacks as a result.

[11,12]
 16 of 18

This final part of the Forest Service strategy also focuses on public education, and

research to fill knowledge gaps as a further preventative measure. Increased knowledge of the

dynamics of beetles and the ecosystems they affect is critical for understanding patterns and

predicting and mitigating future outbreaks. [11,12]

2.11 Challenges to management

Lack of funding, lack of authority, and inaccessible geography all pose significant

challenges to the implementation of the strategy described above. [12,13]

Thinning, seed collection, reforestation, as well as public education all are very costly

responses. Prevention has been proven to be the most cost-effective approach, but it is too late in

many areas. [11] As a result, costly measures such as dead tree removal and reforestation are the

main management responses currently being implemented. [11,12,14] In southern California

alone, over $500 million have been spent on tree removal and forest restoration by private land

owners, the Forest Service, and municipalities. [14] To put this in perspective, the United States

Forest Service budget to combat this crisis is $101 million dollars as of 2010, and is expected to

remain the same. This level of funding has severely limited response effectiveness, and the

number of acres that have been treated. [11]

In addition, the Forest Service is often unable to access the land that needs to be

managed. Fewer than 25% of the area needing treatment and management has been accessed.

This is due to both geography, and lack of authority. [11] The forests being affected are often on

steep slopes, with a 35-40% grade. This makes the slopes too steep for conventional management

and tree removal equipment. [11] In addition to geographic barriers, there are legal barriers.

Managers are prohibited from creating even temporary dirt roads, or using any machinery in
 17 of 18

designated wilderness areas. Unfortunately, these measures are often necessary for the removal

of dead trees and successful prevention of future outbreaks. [11,12] When the Forest Service is

able to access the area being affected it is often impossible to remove infected trees. This is

because the Forest Service does not have the authority to remove or salvage standing, green trees

even if they have been infected and are in fact dead already. [11]

3. Conclusion.

The current M.P.B. epidemic has been a major forest management challenge for the last

20 years and is expected to remain a problem in the near future. [12] Managerial and geographic

constraints, as well as climatic factors have synchronized to make this epidemic of M.P.B. and

unprecedented and challenging problem. [10-14,16]

The main trigger for this epidemic is is the unintentional creation of vast areas of dense,

mature forests that are ideal for beetle reproduction. [9,11,13] In addition, the M.P.B. is

particularly aggressive and unusually adaptive, with few effective natural predators. [1,2] Most

beetles only attack dead or dying trees of a single species. M.P.B. will attack both living and

dead trees of multiple species. [1-4,12] This means that climate, especially temperature, is the

main regulator of beetle populations. Rising temperatures have made conditions even more

favorable to beetles and they have spread into vulnerable areas and proliferated as a result. [5,10-

13]

Response to the epidemic has been limited in many cases due to shrinking budgets, and a

stagnation of funding. When there is management allowed it is often curtailed. [12] The

prognosis is not entirely bleak, however. There has been increasing public support and

understanding of management practices due to public education and outreach. In addition, while
 18 of 18

the epidemic is certainly on-going, many areas have already gone through the worst of the

damage, and are seeing beetle populations beginning to decline. [10-12] The main focus of the

response has been recovery, and restoration. These efforts have been highly successful in areas

that have been given the resources to respond. This also helps to improve public opinion and

makes private land owners more willing to cooperate with managers and give them more latitude

to mitigate future epidemics. [10,12]

Beyond forest management, the beetle epidemic is also symptom of the larger issue of

climate change. Efforts to stabilize temperatures and reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a

larger will go a long way towards reestablishing temperature as a limiting factor. [10,13]

Overall, forest managers need to have more funding and more latitude when it comes to

prevention measures and maintaining forest health. If managers were able to thin and apply

preventative treatments, the current epidemic would not have been as severe. Increasing public

support will help managers expand the ongoing recovery efforts and in mitigation efforts for the

future. [10-12,14]

References
1. United States Forest Service. Available online:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev2_042835.pdf (accessed on
18/11/2017)
2. United States Forest Service. Available online:
http://www.usu.edu/beetle/documents2/1979McCambridge%20etal_MPB%20Forest%20Inse
ct%20and%20Disease%20Leaflet%202.pdf (accessed on 18/11/2017)
3. United States Forest Service. Available online:
https://www.barkbeetles.org/mountain/fidl2.htm (accessed on 18/11/2017)
4. Klutsch JG, Negron JF, Costello SL, Rhoades CC, West DR, Popp J, Caissie R. Stand
characteristics and downed woody debris accumulations associated with a mountain pine
beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins) outbreak in Colorado. Forest Ecology and
Management. 2009 Aug 20;258(5):641-9.
5. Logan JA, Powell JA. Ghost forests, global warming, and the mountain pine beetle
(Coleoptera: Scolytidae). American Entomologist. 2001;47(3):160.
 19 of 18

6. Cole, WE. Some risks and causes of mortality in mountain pine beetle populations: a long-
term analysis. Researches on Population Ecology. 1981 Jun 1;23(1):116-44.
7. Bentz BJ, Logan JA, Amman GD. Temperature-dependent development of the mountain pine
beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) and simulation of its phenology. The Canadian Entomologist.
1991 Oct;123(5):1083-94.
8. Logan JA, Bentz BJ. Model analysis of mountain pine beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae)
seasonality. Environmental Entomology. 1999 Dec 1;28(6):924-34.
9. Christiansen E, Waring RH, Berryman AA. Resistance of conifers to bark beetle attack:
searching for general relationships. Forest Ecology and Management. 1987 Dec 1;22(1-
2):89-106.
10. United States Forest Service. Available online:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3791214.pdf (accessed on
18/11/2017)
11. United States Forest Service. Available online:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5340736.pdf (accessed on
18/11/2017)
12. United States Forest Service. Available online:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5338089.pdf (accessed on
18/11/2017)
13. United States Forest Service Available online:
https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2009_bentz_b001.pdf (accessed on 18/11/2017)
14. United States Forest Service. Available online:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev3_045320.pdf
15. (accessed on 18/11/2017)
16. Harvey BJ, Donato DC, Turner MG. Recent mountain pine beetle outbreaks, wildfire
severity, and postfire tree regeneration in the US Northern Rockies. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences. 2014 Oct 21;111(42):15120-5.
17. United States Forest Service. Available online:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev3_015564.pdf (accessed on
18/11/2017)
18. United States Forest Service. Available online:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev3_014862.pdf (accessed on
18/11/2017)