the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Assessment of Physiological Stress and Bark Beetle-Induced Mortality in Fir Trees, Zao Mountains, Japan
Abstract. In the Northern Hemisphere, bark beetles are responsible for high tree mortality rates in forest ecosystems. In recent decades, forest pest outbreaks have increased in frequency and scale related to climate change. Although, many studies have focused on the effect of pest outbreak on forests, there are few studies focusing on the early physiological stress on trees preceding the infestations. In the treeline of Zao Mountains in northeastern Japan, a double pest infestation of totrix moth (Epitonia piceae) and bark beetles (Polygraphus Proximus) that caused severe tree mortality in a natural fir forest (Abies mariesii), which is the first reported case worldwide of treeline retreat caused by bark beetle infestation. In order to understand forest dynamics prior to the outbreak, tree rings samples were collected from 20 trees in the treeline (dead trees) and 40 trees from living trees (healthy and damaged) at lower altitudes. In these samples a dendrochronological and carbon stable isotope analysis (Δ13C) was performed. Results indicate a declining trend in tree-ring indices (TRI) for dead trees, while living trees showed a strong an annual fluctuation, but did not show any declining trend. Healthy and damaged trees maintained relatively stable Δ13C values (14.9 ‰–18.5 ‰), reflecting stable physiological activity even in the partially defoliated damaged trees. During the years the infestation lasted, there was no response from tree rings Δ13C (16.2 ‰ and 16.4 ‰) to its surrounding environment in trees prior to their death. The decreasing trend of Δ13C values in tree rings prior to pest infestation in dead trees indicate a continuous decline in tree physiological activity caused by a tendency to close the stomata due to environmental stress. In Zao Mountains evidence shows that extreme events in winter lead to severe physical damage in trees, including fallen trees, caused by a combination of heavy snow, strong winds and recently observed high snow density. We speculate that this event gradually weakened trees in the treeline. Another factor that is probably related to this trend is the earlier snowmelt observed in the last two decades, which leads to decreases in soil moisture during spring, when precipitation is the lowest. These findings suggest that Δ13C values in tree rings can serve as early warning indicators of stress preceding severe natural disturbance and can contribute to scientifical based informing forest management strategies.
- Preprint
(1508 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-956', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 May 2025
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Anna Trigubenko, 13 Jun 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-956', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 May 2025
General comments:
- statistical analysis are missing to support their findings
- methodology is lacking details:
- both site descriptions are missing: for example tree height, species, age, beetle infestation …
- No clear characterization for healthy, damaged and dead trees. I assume the identification was done visually. What are the exact criteria
- How many cores were used for tree ring data
- no clear link between climate factors and beetle infestation is visible, as no statistical analysis were included
Line comments:
L20-22. Please check sentence structure
L36. Replace with “these events”
L60-69. Please add references
L71. Which area is meant with “affected area”. Zao mountains?
L81-83. Please check sentence structure
L129. Please add location of meteorological station. It would also be beneficial to mark where trees were sampled
L138-141. Does not belong in site description
L144. From which direction were core taken and/or direction of the slope?
L229. 4 trees per category were used for the TRI?
L230. Please add the site description
L232. It is assumed that all trees died in that year due beetle attack? How was the verified?
L240. Sample number is missing
L263. Sample number is missing
L280. What analysis were done to prove “significant”
L301: Is it the average annual wind direction distribution or for a season?
L301. Are these the findings of the authors or from previous publications?
L322. Sentence implies that tree mortality was only due to climate
L326. Please check sentence structure
L329. Please add the site description
L357. What analysis were done to prove “significant”
L360. What would be a critical level. Please elaborate
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-956-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Anna Trigubenko, 13 Jun 2025
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-956', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 May 2025
The text describes a retrospective analysis of tree growth in healthy trees and trees that died using tree ring widths and bulk ring 13c.
Major comments.
- The analysis lacks statistical support. See for example reporting of tree ring and 13c results
- The tree ring methods could be more clearly described. In particular, I am uncertain whether all “dead” tree cores contained the same years as it is not clear that all trees died in the same year. Crossdating also was only from a single core per tree and the comparison among the dated core and the isotope core is not well described.
- I do not find the assessment of climatic drivers compelling, given no statistical correlation or regression analyses are described or reported.
- Some justification for the use of bulk ring 13c instead of cellulose 13c should be included.
Line commments.
Ln 53. Please provide citation/evidence the beetle is non-aggressive. I have seen suggestions of exactly the opposite (aggressive). https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/37559
L61. This is kind of the definition of an aggressive bark beetle species, and D. ponderosae is an example of an aggressive species.
L96. Replace “thrives” with “is found”
L98. Any examples of such critical roles?
L117. None of the three example species are coniferous
L137. Also looks like it’s a ski area?
L145. So only a single core per tree was used for cross-dating? This is a bit unusual.
L146. It looks like only four trees were eventually used per category? I understand limitations on 13c measurements, but this is a relatively small sample size for inference on ring widths.
L159, 162. What were the criteria used for validation? It would be good to at least report sensitivity and perhaps the relative frequency of missing rings in later years, particularly for dying trees.
L165. Why would pre-whitening correct climate-driven growth anomalies? And, what is the benefit of doing so given the goal is (I think) to understand the effect of extreme climate on tree growth?
L169. Do the authors mean “four trees”? Were cores intended for isotopic analysis surfaced in any way prior to sectioning?
L177. Why not use individual rings for the same sets of years across health statuses?
L206. H6 in Fig 3 appears to also show progressive damage. This raises the question for me of how damage/health categories were assigned, as this is not described in L146.
L219. No statistical support in this results section?
L225-227. I would suggest to report a correlation
L230. How much higher? Please report? How is the climate different?
L232. So, some of the trees did not die in 2016? How can the authors be confident all the dead trees they sampled died in the same year, given they were sampled 6 years after mortality?
L240 no uncertainty is reported.
L242. I would suggest increasing trends are present in a and b. How were trends quantified?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-956-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Anna Trigubenko, 13 Jun 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-956', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 May 2025
General comments:
- statistical analysis are missing to support their findings
- methodology is lacking details:
- both site descriptions are missing: for example tree height, species, age, beetle infestation …
- No clear characterization for healthy, damaged and dead trees. I assume the identification was done visually. What are the exact criteria
- How many cores were used for tree ring data
- no clear link between climate factors and beetle infestation is visible, as no statistical analysis were included
Line comments:
L20-22. Please check sentence structure
L36. Replace with “these events”
L60-69. Please add references
L71. Which area is meant with “affected area”. Zao mountains?
L81-83. Please check sentence structure
L129. Please add location of meteorological station. It would also be beneficial to mark where trees were sampled
L138-141. Does not belong in site description
L144. From which direction were core taken and/or direction of the slope?
L229. 4 trees per category were used for the TRI?
L230. Please add the site description
L232. It is assumed that all trees died in that year due beetle attack? How was the verified?
L240. Sample number is missing
L263. Sample number is missing
L280. What analysis were done to prove “significant”
L301: Is it the average annual wind direction distribution or for a season?
L301. Are these the findings of the authors or from previous publications?
L322. Sentence implies that tree mortality was only due to climate
L326. Please check sentence structure
L329. Please add the site description
L357. What analysis were done to prove “significant”
L360. What would be a critical level. Please elaborate
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-956-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Anna Trigubenko, 13 Jun 2025
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
303 | 92 | 17 | 412 | 13 | 27 |
- HTML: 303
- PDF: 92
- XML: 17
- Total: 412
- BibTeX: 13
- EndNote: 27
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
The text describes a retrospective analysis of tree growth in healthy trees and trees that died using tree ring widths and bulk ring 13c.
Major comments.
Line commments.
Ln 53. Please provide citation/evidence the beetle is non-aggressive. I have seen suggestions of exactly the opposite (aggressive). https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/37559
L61. This is kind of the definition of an aggressive bark beetle species, and D. ponderosae is an example of an aggressive species.
L96. Replace “thrives” with “is found”
L98. Any examples of such critical roles?
L117. None of the three example species are coniferous
L137. Also looks like it’s a ski area?
L145. So only a single core per tree was used for cross-dating? This is a bit unusual.
L146. It looks like only four trees were eventually used per category? I understand limitations on 13c measurements, but this is a relatively small sample size for inference on ring widths.
L159, 162. What were the criteria used for validation? It would be good to at least report sensitivity and perhaps the relative frequency of missing rings in later years, particularly for dying trees.
L165. Why would pre-whitening correct climate-driven growth anomalies? And, what is the benefit of doing so given the goal is (I think) to understand the effect of extreme climate on tree growth?
L169. Do the authors mean “four trees”? Were cores intended for isotopic analysis surfaced in any way prior to sectioning?
L177. Why not use individual rings for the same sets of years across health statuses?
L206. H6 in Fig 3 appears to also show progressive damage. This raises the question for me of how damage/health categories were assigned, as this is not described in L146.
L219. No statistical support in this results section?
L225-227. I would suggest to report a correlation
L230. How much higher? Please report? How is the climate different?
L232. So, some of the trees did not die in 2016? How can the authors be confident all the dead trees they sampled died in the same year, given they were sampled 6 years after mortality?
L240 no uncertainty is reported.
L242. I would suggest increasing trends are present in a and b. How were trends quantified?