Modeling mountain pine beetle infestation with an agent-based approach at two spatial scales

Environmental Modelling and Software

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 223-236

  Perez, Liliana ^a   Dragicevic, Suzana ^a  

^a SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Agent based models (ABM); Complex systems modeling; Forest disturbances; Geographic information systems (GISs); Mountain pine beetle (MPB); Spatiotemporal modeling

Indexed keywords

AGENT-BASED MODEL; COMPLEX SYSTEMS; FOREST DISTURBANCES; MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE; SPATIOTEMPORAL MODELING;

COMPLEXATION; ECOSYSTEMS; GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS; INFORMATION SYSTEMS; LANDFORMS; TRAJECTORIES;

FORESTRY;

CONIFEROUS FOREST; DISTURBANCE; FOREST ECOSYSTEM; FOREST MANAGEMENT; GIS; INSECT; LANDSCAPE PLANNING; PEST OUTBREAK; POPULATION DENSITY; REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR; SPATIAL ANALYSIS;

ECOSYSTEMS; FORESTRY; GIS; INFORMATION SYSTEMS; INSECTS; PINUS MUGO;

NORTH AMERICA;

COLEOPTERA; DENDROCTONUS PONDEROSAE; HEXAPODA; PINUS MUGO;

EID: 74249118232     PISSN: 13648152     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2009.08.004     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Allen E. Forest health assessment in Canada. Ecosystem Health 7 (2003) 28-34
2. Amman G.D. Characteristics of mountain pine beetles reared in four pine hosts. Environmental Entomology 11 3 (1982) 590-593
3. Amman G.D. The mountain pine beetle - identification, biology, causes of outbreaks, and entomological research needs. Proceedings of the Joint Canada/USA Workshop on Mountain Pine Beetle Related Problems in Western North America, Fairmont Hot Springs, British Columbia (1982), Environment Canada, Canadian Forestry Service
4. Amman G.D., and Cole W.E. Mountain Pine Beetle Dynamics in Lodgepole Pine Forests. Part II: Population Dynamics (1983), Intermountain Forest & Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Ogden
5. Anwar S.M., Jeanneret C.A., Parrott L., and Marceau D.J. Conceptualization and implementation of a multi-agent model to simulate whale-watching tours in the St. Lawrence Estuary in Quebec, Canada. Environmental Modelling & Software 22 12 (2007) 1775-1787
6. Argonne National Laboratory. Repast: Recursive Porous Agent Simulation Toolkit (2008). http://repast.sourceforge.net (Last accessed November 2008)
7. B.C. Ministry of Forests and Range. Aerial Detection for Bark Beetle Management Activity (2004), Forest Practices Branch and Canadian Forest Service, Victoria, BC, Canada. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hcp/fia/landbase/aerial_detection.htm (Last accessed November 2008)
8. Benenson I., and Torrens P. Geosimulation: Automata-Based Modeling of Urban Phenomena (2004), John Wiley & Sons, London
9. Berryman A.A., Raffa K.F., Millstein J.A., and Stenseth N.C. Interaction dynamics of bark beetle aggregation and conifer defense rates. Oikos 56 2 (1989) 256-263
10. Billings R.F., Gara R.I., and Hrutfiord B.F. Influence of ponderosa pine resin on response of Dendroctonus ponderosae to synthetic trans-verbenol. Environmental Entomology 5 1 (1976) 171-179
11. Bithell M., and Brasington J. Coupling agent-based models of subsistence farming with individual-based forest models and dynamic models of water distribution. Environmental Modelling & Software 24 2 (2009) 173-190
12. Bone C., Dragicevic S., and Roberts A. Integrating high resolution remote sensing, GIS and fuzzy set theory for identifying susceptibility areas of forest insect infestations. International Journal of Remote Sensing 26 21 (2005) 4809-4828
13. Bone C., Dragicevic S., and Roberts A. A fuzzy-constrained cellular automata model of forest insect infestations. Ecological Modelling 192 (2006) 107-125
14. Bone C., Dragicevic S., and Roberts A. Evaluating forest management practices using a GIS-based cellular automata modeling approach with multispectral imagery. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 12 2 (2007) 105-118
15. Bousquet F., and Le Page C. Multi-agent simulations and ecosystem management: a review. Ecological Modelling 76 3-4 (2004) 313-332
16. Burnell D.G. A dispersal-aggregation model for mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pine stands. Researches on Population Ecology 19 1 (1977) 99-106
17. Campbell E.M., Alfaro R.I., and Hawkes B. Spatial distribution of mountain pine beetle outbreaks in relation to climate and stand characteristics: a dendroecological analysis. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology 49 2 (2007) 168-178
18. Carroll, A.L., Taylor, S.W., Régnière, J., Safranyik, L., 2003. Effects of climate change on range expansion by the mountain pine beetle in British Columbia. In: Mountain Pine Beetle Symposium: Challenges and Solutions, Kelowna, British Columbia. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre.
19. Codehaus Foundation. GeoTools: the Open Source Java GIS Toolkit (2006). http://geotools.codehaus.org (Last accessed November 2008)
20. Cole W. Crowding effects among single-age larvae of the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Environmental Entomology 2 2 (1973) 285-293
21. Cole W., and Amman G.D. Mountain Pine Beetle Infestations in Relation to Lodgepole Pine Diameters (1969), USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station Research Note INT-95. 8 pp.
22. Coops N.C., Johnson M., Wulder M.A., and White J.C. Assessment of QuickBird high spatial resolution imagery to detect red attack damage due to mountain pine beetle infestation. Remote Sensing of Environment 103 1 (2006) 67-80
23. Ekbia H., and Reynolds K. Decision support for sustainable forestry: enhancing the basic rational model. In: Thompson A., and Reynolds K.M. (Eds). Forestry Management: the Past and the Future (2006), Springer Verlag 497-514
24. Elkin C.M., and Reid M.L. Low energy reserves and energy allocation decisions affect reproduction by mountain pine beetles, Dendroctonus ponderosae. Functional Ecology 19 (2005) 102-109
25. ESRI. ArcGIS 9.3: the Complete Enterprise GIS (2008). http://www.esri.com (Last accessed November 2008)
26. Ferretti M. Forest health assessment and monitoring - issues for consideration. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 48 (1997) 45-72
27. GeoBC. BC's Geographic Gateway (2008). http://www.geobc.gov.bc.ca (Last accessed June 2009)
28. In: Gimblett H.R. (Ed). Integrating Geographic Information Systems and Agent-Based Modeling Techniques for Simulating Social and Ecological Processes (2002), Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K
29. Heavilin J., Powell J., and Logan J. Dynamics of mountain pine beetle outbreaks. In: Johnson A.J., and Miyanishi K. (Eds). Plant Disturbance Ecology: the Process and the Response (2005), AP/Elsevier, Oxford, UK
30. Hicke J.A., and Jenkins J.C. Mapping lodgepole pine stand structure susceptibility to mountain pine beetle attack across the western United States. Forest Ecology and Management 255 5-6 (2008) 1536-1547
31. Hopping G.R., and Beall G. The relation of diameter of lodgepole pine to incidence of attack by the bark beetle Dendroctonus monticolae Hopkins. Forestry Chronicle 24 2 (1948) 141-145
32. Hynum B.G., and Berryman A.A. Dendroctonus ponderosae (Coleoptera: Scolytidae): preaggregation landing and gallery initiation on lodgepole pine. The Canadian Entomologist 112 (1980) 185-191
33. Koot, P., 1997. Overview Aerial Survey Standards for British Columbia and the Yukon. Forest Health Network Report 97-1. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, p. 1--14.
34. Lewis M.A., and He F. Modeling Spatio-temporal Patterns of MPB Infestation (2006), University of Alberta, Edmonton
35. Logan J.A., White P., Bentz B.J., and Powell J.A. Model analysis of spatial patterns in mountain pine beetle outbreaks. Theoretical Population Biology 53 3 (1998) 236-255
36. Maclauchlan L. Determining Susceptibility of Young Pine Plantations to the Mountain Pine Beetle, Dendroctonus Ponderosae, and Manipulating Future Stands to Mitigate Losses (2006), Ministry of Forests Southern Interior Region, Victoria, B.C.
37. Malanson G.P., and Armstrong M.P. Dispersal probability and forest diversity in a fragmented landscape. Ecological Modelling 87 1-3 (1996) 91-102
38. National Research Council of Canada's Institute for Information Technology. NRC FuzzyJ Toolkit (2006). http://www.iit.nrc.ca/IR_public/fuzzy/fuzzyJToolkit2.html (Last accessed November 2008)
39. Nelson T., Boots B., and Wulder M.A. Representing large area mountain pine beetle infestations. Forestry Chronicle 82 2 (2006) 243-252
40. Parker D.C. Integration of geographic information systems and agent-based models of land use: prospects and challenges. In: Maguire D.J., Batty M., and Goodchild M.F. (Eds). GIS, Spatial Analysis, and Modeling (2005), ESRI Press, Redlands, CA 403-422
41. Parker D.C., Manson S.M., Janssen M.A., Hoffmann M.J., and Deadman P. Multi-agent systems for the simulation of land-use and land-cover change: a review. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 93 2 (2003) 314-337
42. Parunak H.V.D., Savit R., and Riolo R.L. Agent-based modeling vs. equation-based modeling: a case study and users' guide. Multi-Agent Systems and Agent-Based Simulation (MABS'98) (1998), Springer, Paris, France
43. Powell J., Tams J., Bentz B., and Logan J. Theoretical analysis of "switching" in a localized model for mountain pine beetle mass attack. Journal of Theoretical Biology 194 (1998) 49-63
44. Raffa K., Phillips T., and Salom S. Strategies and mechanisms of host colonization by bark beetles. In: Schowalter T., and Filip M. (Eds). Beetle-Pathogen Interactions in Conifer Forests (1997), Academic Press, Corvallis
45. Raffa K.F., and Berryman A.A. The role of host plant resistance in the colonization behavior and ecology of bark beetles (Coleoptera - Scolytidae). Ecological Monographs 53 1 (1983) 27-49
46. Reid D.E.B., Lieffers V.J., and Silins U. Growth and crown efficiency of height repressed lodgepole pine; are suppressed trees more efficient?. Trees - Structure and Function 18 4 (2004) 390-398
47. Riel, W.G., Fall, A., Shore, T.L., Safranyik, L., 2003. A spatio-temporal simulation of mountain pine beetle impacts on the landscape. In: Mountain Pine Beetle Symposium: Challenges and Solutions, Kelowna, British Columbia. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre.
48. Roberts A., Dragicevic S., Northrup J., Wolf S., Li Y., and Coburn C. Mountain Pine Beetle Detection and Monitoring: Remote Sensing Evaluations (2003), Simon Fraser University, Vancouver
49. Safranyik L. Estimating attack and brood totals and densities of the mountain pine beetle in individual lodgepole pine trees. The Canadian Entomologist 120 4 (1988) 323-331
50. Safranyik L., and Carroll A.L. The biology and epidemiology of the mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pine forests. In: Safranyik L., and Wilson B. (Eds). The Mountain Pine Beetle: a Synthesis of Biology, Management, and Impacts on Lodgepole Pine (2006), Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, BC 3-66
51. Safranyik L., Barclay H., Thomson A., and Riel W.G. A Population Dynamics Model for the Mountain Pine Beetle, Dendroctonus Ponderosae Hopk. (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) (1999), Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, British Columbia 41 pp.
52. Safranyik L., Linton D.A., Silversides R., and McMullen L.H. Dispersal of released mountain pine beetles under the canopy of a mature lodgepole pine stand. Journal of Applied Entomology 113 5 (1992) 441-450
53. Safranyik L., Silversides R., McMullen L.H., and Linton D.A. An empirical approach to modelling the dispersal of the mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopk.) (Col., Scolytidae) in relation to sources of attraction, wind direction and speed. Journal of Applied Entomology 108 5 (1989) 498-511
54. Schmitz, R.F., McGregor, M.D., Amman, G.D., 1980. Mountain pine beetle response to lodgepole pine stands of different characteristics. In: Proceedings of the Second IUFRO Conference on Dispersal of Forest Insects: Evaluation, Theory and Management Implications, Pullman, WA.
55. Shepherd R.F. Factors influencing the orientation and rates of activity of Dendroctonus ponderosae (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). The Canadian Entomologist 98 (1966) 507-518
56. Shore T.L., Safranyik L., and Lemieux J.P. Susceptibility of lodgepole pine stands to the mountain pine beetle: testing of a rating system. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30 (2000) 44-49
57. Smajgl A., Heckbert S., Ward J., and Straton A. Simulating impacts of water trading in an institutional perspective. Environmental Modelling & Software 24 2 (2009) 191-201
58. Taylor, S.W., Carroll, A.L., 2003. Disturbance, forest age, and mountain pine beetle outbreak dynamics in BC: a historical perspective. In: Mountain Pine Beetle Symposium: Challenges and Solutions, Kelowna, British Columbia. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre.
59. Tso B., and Mather P. Methods Based on Fuzzy Set Theory. Classification Methods for Remotely Sensed Data (2001), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL pp. 149-185
60. Viaggi D., Bartolini F., and Raggi M. Combining linear programming and principal-agent models: an example from environmental regulation in agriculture. Environmental Modelling & Software 24 6 (2009) 703-710
61. Wulder M.A., White J.C., Bentz B., Alvarez M.F., and Coops N.C. Estimating the probability of mountain pine beetle red-attack damage. Remote Sensing of Environment 101 (2006) 150-166