Reconciling divergent interpretations of quaking aspen decline on the northern Colorado Front Range

• Published in: Ecological applications Vol. 17; no. 5; pp. 1296 - 1311
• Main Authors: Kashian, D.M, Romme, W.H, Regan, C.M
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.07.2007
• Subjects: altitude; Colorado; community ecology; conifers; Conservation of Natural Resources - methods; Conservation of Natural Resources - trends; dieback; Ecology; Fires - prevention & control; forest decline; forest ecology; forest fires; montane forests; mountains; Population Dynamics; Populus - growth & development; Populus tremuloides; stand composition; stand density; Colorado
• ISSN: 1051-0761; 1939-5582
• DOI: 10.1890/06-1431.1

Ecologists have debated over the past 65 years whether quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) has or has not declined in abundance, vigor, or regeneration in western North America. Many studies have provided divergent interpretations of the condition of aspen forests, leading to difficulty in translating this ecological information into management recommendations. To reconcile these contrasting conclusions and to test the hypothesis that multiple types of aspen decline and persistence occur simultaneously on heterogeneous landscapes, we assessed 91 aspen stands across the northern Colorado Front Range to determine the range of ecological conditions that underlie aspen decline or persistence. Approximately 15% of aspen forest area in our sample exhibited dieback of mature stems coupled with a lack of young trees indicative of declining stands, most often at lower elevations where elk browsing is heavy and chronic, and where effects of fire exclusion have been most significant. However, 52% of the area sampled had multiple cohorts indicative of self-replacing or persistent stands. Conifer dominance was increasing in over 33% of all aspen forest area sampled, most often at high elevations among lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia Englem. ex Wats.) forests. Reconstructions of relative basal area and density of aspen and lodgepole pine in these stands suggest cyclical dominance of these species, where conifers gradually replace aspen over long fire intervals, and aspen vigorously re-establish following stand-replacing fires. The diversity of ecological contexts across the northern Colorado Front Range creates a variety of aspen dynamics leading to decline or persistence, and no single trend describes the general condition of aspen forests in appropriate detail for managers. Active management may be useful in preserving individual stands at fine scales, but management prescriptions should reflect specific drivers of decline in these stands.