Southeastern Naturalist
99
J.D. Goode, L.M. Brager, and J.L. Hart
22001199 SOUTHEASTERN NATURALIST V1o8l(.1 1):89,9 N–1o1. 21
Drought-induced Growth Response of Longleaf Pine in the
Alabama Fall Line Hills
Jonathan D. Goode1,*, Laney M. Brager1, and Justin L. Hart1
Abstract - Knowledge of tree-growth response to extreme climatic events, such as drought,
is useful for forest managers to model the effects of future disturbances, and to develop
management plans that mitigate the detrimental impacts. We analyzed the effects of an exceptional
drought on Pinus palustris (Longleaf Pine) radial growth in the Alabama Fall Line
Hills, based on site conditions and tree age. Results indicated that radial-growth response
to drought was not influenced by site condition as we initially hypothesized, but was influenced
by tree age. Management for resiliency to disturbance in Longleaf Pine ecosystems
should consider the complexity of individual tree-growth response as a function of age and
growing conditions.
Introduction
Moisture availability is often a limiting factor in forest productivity. Projected
increases in global temperature are expected to coincide with more frequent and
severe drought events in the southeastern US (Seager et al. 2009, Walsh et al. 2014).
Prior studies have analyzed the relationships between climate and radial growth in
Pinus palustris Mill. (Longleaf Pine) woodlands (Bhuta et al. 2009, Devall et al.
1991, Foster and Brooks 2001, Henderson and Grissino-Mayer 2009). However,
growth response of Longleaf Pine to exceptional drought is poorly understood.
Little is known about the influence of growing conditions (e.g., stand density) on
the growth response of Longleaf Pine to drought, and the same is true for most tree
species; yet, this understanding is important for the development of forest-management
systems in a changing climate.
Longleaf Pine woodlands are one of the most endangered forest ecosystems in
the US (Noss et al. 1995). It is estimated that Longleaf Pine occupied ~37 million
ha in the eastern US prior to European settlement (Landers et al. 1995). Agricultural
clearing, industrial logging, and fire suppression reduced the distribution of
this forest type to less than 3% of its original range (Frost 2007, Jose et al. 2007).
Fire-restored Longleaf Pine-dominated woodlands are typically characterized by
widely spaced canopy trees, a relatively open midstory, and one of the most diverse
herbaceous layers outside of the tropics (Jose et al. 2007, Peet 2007). The
structure and composition of Longleaf Pine woodlands is critical habitat for many
threatened and endangered species such as Leuconotopicus borealis Vieillot (Redcockaded
Woodpecker; Brockaway and Lewis 1997). Restoration of Longleaf Pine
woodlands is hypothesized to promote resiliency to future disturbances, including
1Department of Geography, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487. *Corresponding
author - jdgoode2@crimson.ua.edu.
Manuscript Editor: John Dilustro
Southeastern Naturalist
J.D. Goode, L.M. Brager, and J.L. Hart
2019 Vol. 18, No. 1
100
extreme climatic events that are expected to become increasingly common (Easterling
et al. 2000, Meehl et al. 2007). Johnsen et al. (2009) found that Longleaf Pine
growing in restored stands (reduced tree density and a prescribed fire program)
were more resistant to windthrow during Hurricane Katrina than Pinus elliotii
Englem. (Shortleaf Pine) and Pinus taeda Mill. (Loblolly Pine). Showalter and
Turchin (1993) found that thinned Longleaf Pine stands were less susceptible to
beetle infestations than unthinned stands. Structural restoration of Longleaf Pine
woodlands facilitates establishment of herbaceous species that are more droughttolerant
than woody species that may inhabit un-burned sites (Ford et al. 2008).
Furthermore, Longleaf Pine has been noted to require lower per-tree water and have
a higher stomatal sensitivity to soil moisture than other pine species (Brantley et al.
2017, Gonzalez-Benecke et al. 2011).
The overarching goal of this study was to quantify the growth response of Longleaf
Pine following an exceptional drought in 2007. The specific objectives of this
study were to examine the relationships between moisture availability and radial
growth, and compare the response to the 2007 drought in growth of Longleaf Pine
individuals (1) on sites with different stem densities and understory characteristics
and (2) of various ages. We hypothesized that Longleaf Pine individuals occurring
on the unmanaged site would be less resilient to the 2007 drought because of the
higher density of trees and greater competition for resources. We also hypothesized
that older trees would be more sensitive to drought conditions compared to younger
trees, which are generally more vigorous. Our results provide insight on the effects
of drought on Longleaf Pine growth among individuals of various ages occurring
on different site conditions.
Methods
Study site
We collected tree-ring and forest-inventory data in the Oakmulgee Ranger District
of the Talladega National Forest in west-central Alabama from January to June
2017 (Fig. 1). The Oakmulgee Ranger District is situated in the Fall Line Hills,
which is a transition zone between the Coastal Plain and Appalachians Highlands
physiographic realms (Shankman and Hart 2007). The Fall Line Hills region of
Alabama is characterized by steep, dissected slopes with sandy soils (Fenneman
1938). The geology is composed of the Tuscaloosa Coker and Gordo formations.
The Coker formation primarily consists of micaceous very fine to medium sand,
micaceous clay and gravel beds of quartz and chert. The Gordo formation is composed
of cross-bedded and gravely sands, carbonaceous clay, and chert and quartz
pebbles (Szabo et al. 1988). Soils in the study area are in the Maubila and Luverne
complex (USDA–NRCS 2017). The climate of the region is humid mesothermal,
with long, hot summers and short, mild winters (Thornthwaite 1948), a mean annual
temperature of 17.4 °C, a lowest monthly mean of 7.2 °C in January, and a highest
monthly mean of 26.9 °C in July. Mean annual precipitation is 1369 mm; the highest
and lowest amounts of rain occur in March (mean = 155.7 mm) and October
(mean = 70.1 mm), respectively (PRISM 2017).
Southeastern Naturalist
101
J.D. Goode, L.M. Brager, and J.L. Hart
2019 Vol. 18, No. 1
The Oakmulgee Ranger District is located within the central Longleaf Pine belt
in Alabama as defined by Harper (1943). The area was settled by Europeans in the
1820s, logged extensively in the early 1900s by the Kaul Lumber Company, and
acquired by the federal government to be managed by the USDA Forest Service in
1935 (Cox and Hart 2015). Prior to European settlement, Native Americans inhabited
areas around the Black Warrior River, located to the north and west of the study
site. Moundville, a social and political center of the Mississippian Indians until
1700, is located 13 km from the border of the Oakmulgee Ranger District (Maxham
2000). A current priority on the Oakmulgee Ranger District is management for
re-introduction of Longleaf Pine to suitable sites currently dominated by Loblolly
Pine and xeric hardwood species (USDA Forest Service 2005). Management for
Longleaf Pine in the Oakmulgee Ranger District may involve regeneration harvests,
site preparation, outplanting of Longleaf Pine, thinning of undesirable tree
species, and prescribed burning on a 3–5-y rotation. (USDA Forest Service 2005).
Some sites suitable for Longleaf Pine woodlands have remained unmanaged, resulting
in mixed pine–hardwood stands with remnant Longleaf Pine individuals.
Field methods
We used georeferenced forest-inventory data provided by the USDA Forest
Service to select potential study sites. We chose potential study sites in the same
subwatershed and composed of the same soil type (USDA–NRCS 2017). Once
we identified potential study sites, we conducted ground reconnaissance to ensure
that Longleaf Pine stems occurred on sites that were not actively managed (i.e.,
unthinned and unburned), henceforth referred to as the unmanaged sites. When
Figure 1. Location of the 2 treatments (managed and unmanaged) in the Oakmulgee Ranger
District of the Talladega National Forest, AL. Forest-inventory plots and focal Longleaf
Pine plots were established in the 2 treatment areas.
Southeastern Naturalist
J.D. Goode, L.M. Brager, and J.L. Hart
2019 Vol. 18, No. 1
102
we confirmed the presence of Longleaf Pine on an unmanaged site, we chose a
managed Longleaf Pine woodland site (i.e., thinned and burned on a 3–5-y rotation)
directly adjacent for comparison. The thinning operation on the managed site
occurred in the 1980s; the free thinning was used to reduce tree density and favor
Longleaf Pine dominance. The prescribed fire program was also implemented at
this time (data provided by USDA Forest Service). To objectively quantify species
composition and stand structure, we established twenty 0.04-ha plots on both the
managed and unmanaged sites (40 independent plots). We spaced all plots at 30-m
intervals along mid-slope positions. On each plot, we recorded species, measured
diameter at breast height (dbh; 1.37 m above the soil surface), and assigned crown
positions of all trees ≥5 cm dbh.
To quantify Longleaf Pine growth response to drought, we established thirty
0.04-ha plots on managed and unmanaged sites for a total of 60 plots (these 60
plots were distinct from the 40 used to quantify general stand conditions described
above). Each plot had a single Longleaf Pine, which was either dominant
or codominant in the canopy, at plot center, referred to as the focal Longleaf Pine
stem. On the unmanaged site, we established plots based on the first overstory
Longleaf Pine encountered while walking transects through the site, regardless
of any other conditions. We selected focal Longleaf Pine on the managed site to
match the range of stem dbh of Longleaf Pine on the unmanaged site by walking
parallel to the slope contours and selecting trees that were within the dbh range
of the 30 focal Longleaf Pine individuals from the unmanaged site. On each plot,
we measured dbh and extracted 2 cores from the focal Longleaf Pine tree. For all
trees ≤5 cm dbh, we also recorded species, measured dbh, and assigned crown
classes (dominant, codominant, intermediate, and overtopped) based on relative
crown height and position (Oliver and Larson 1996).
Analytical methods
To quantify species composition and structural characteristics of the study
stands, we analyzed standard descriptions of the tree layer (live woody stems ≥5 cm
dbh) based on the 20 plots established on each site for this purpose. We calculated
density (stems ha-1), relative density (contribution to total trees), dominance (basal
area; m2 ha-1), relative dominance (contribution to total basal area), and relative
importance (sum of relative density and relative dominance) for each species. We
prepared tree-core samples for analysis using the methods outlined by Stokes and
Smiley (1996). We prepped all cores by first air-drying, then glueing to wooden
mounts with cells vertically aligned, and finally sanding all cores with progressively
finer-grit sand-paper (Orvis and Grissino-Mayer 2002). We dated tree rings on all
cores to the calendar year of establishment, and employed pith estimators when the
pith was not present but showed significant ring curvature to estimate establishment
date (Villalba and Veblen 1997). We measured raw ring-widths to the nearest 0.001
mm using a Velmex measuring stage interfaced with the software Measure J2X
(VoorTech Consulting, Holderness, NH). We visually compared and statistically
analyzed the measurement series using segmented time-series correlation analysis
with the software COFECHA to ensure that each annual ring was assigned to the
Southeastern Naturalist
103
J.D. Goode, L.M. Brager, and J.L. Hart
2019 Vol. 18, No. 1
proper year of formation (Grissino-Mayer 2001). The software program flagged all
segments that fell below the pre-determined threshold (r2 = 0.32, P > 0.01). We reinspected
flagged samples for errors and re-dated them, if neces sary.
Basal area increment (BAI) is a common metric used to calculate secondary
tree-growth (West 1980). BAI represents overall tree growth better than other measures,
such as radial-ring growth, because it accounts for decreased ring-width with
age and increased tree diameter (Biondi and Qeadan 2008, Husch et al. 2003). In
other studies, BAI has been shown to approach a constant level in healthy, mature
trees (Duchesne et al. 2002, Valentine and Mäkelä 2005), and decline when trees
experience stress, such as moisture stress induced by drought (Phipps and Whitton
1988). We calculated BAI based on the methods outlined by Phipps and Field
(1989):
BAIt = π(Rt
2 - Rt - 1
2)
and
Rt - 1 = Rt - wt ,
where wt is total ring width and Rt is radius length at year t.
To quantify the impact of the 2007 drought, we determined percent growth reduction
by calculating the percent change in raw BAI in 2007 from the mean BAI
of the previous 10 y (1997–2006). We also calculated the 2008 BAI growth reduction
to account for the possible lag in response by some individuals. We calculated
recovery time for each individual by determining the number of years subsequent
to the 2007 drought that were less than that of the mean annual growth of the 10 y
prior to drought. Disturbance-history studies commonly use 10-y mean growth
(e.g., Fraver and White 2005, Hart et al. 2012, Nowacki and Abrams 1997), which
mitigates variability in short-term growth trends associated with climatic variability.
We acknowledge that the 2000 drought may have influenced mean BAI during
this 10-y window. However, we suspect that almost any 10-y window in these individuals
would contain some influence of drought based on the frequency of these
events in the region. We used independent-sample t-tests to determine if the 2007
and 2008 BAI percent growth-reduction and recovery time of the Longleaf Pine
individuals were statistically different between individuals on the managed (i.e.,
thinned and burned) and those on unmanaged sites, and between individuals ≥80 y
and those ≤55 y of age. We employed an age threshold because potential differences
in radial growth may not manifest in trees of similar ages. Of the 60 Longleaf Pine
trees analyzed, we removed 22 from analysis of age-related trends because they
were between 56 and 79 years of age. We also tested for a significant difference
between growth response to the 2000 drought on the managed and unmanaged site
because of the difference in seasonality between the 2 drought events (the 2000
drought occurred in late summer and early fall and the 2007 drought occurred in
spring and early summer). We used independent-sample t-test to test for a significant
difference in growth reduction as a function of treatment to the 2000 drought.
We also tested radial-growth response for the 2000 and 2007 droughts, regardless
of treatment.
Southeastern Naturalist
J.D. Goode, L.M. Brager, and J.L. Hart
2019 Vol. 18, No. 1
104
We used the Palmer drought severity index (PDSI) to determine the relationship
between Longleaf Pine radial growth and drought. PDSI is a regional metric
that uses temperature and precipitation to determine water balance, and includes
a regional calculation of soil-water storage based on the Thornthwaite evapotranspiration
model (Palmer 1965). We acquired PDSI values for the Upper Plains
Climatological Division of Alabama for the years 1980–2016 (NDIS 2017). We
selected these 36 y to ensure that use of chronologies from all 60 individuals
could be used in the correlation analysis (i.e., common life span of samples). We
used standard Pearson correlation to analyze the relationship between PDSI and
annual BAI values in the 60 Longleaf Pine individuals. We analyzed BAI
and PDSI for a 21-mo period (previous March to current November) because
previous and current growing conditions can affect productivity (Meldahl et al.
1999). We conducted all correlation analyses in SAS v. 9.4. All data met the assumption
of homoscedasticity.
Results and Discussion
Forest composition
The managed site contained 9 tree species and was dominated by Longleaf Pine,
which represented 92% of trees ha-1 and 97% of basal area ha-1. The site contained
304 stems ha-1 and had a total basal area of 21.29 m2 ha-1. The remaining 8% of
trees/ha were primarily hardwood species with 1 Loblolly Pine stem. (Table 1). The
majority (72%) of recorded trees on the managed site were in canopy dominant or
codominant positions. The remaining 28% had crowns that were in subcanopy positions
(intermediate or overtopped). Mean dbh of trees measured in our plots on the
managed site was 27.7 cm.
The unmanaged site contained 20 tree species, with a greater density of Quercus
(oak) and other hardwood species relative to the managed site (Table 2). Loblolly
Pine was the most important species, comprising 52% relative density and 66%
relative dominance. The site contained 25 Longleaf Pine stems ha-1 representing 4%
Table 1. Density, dominance, and importance (sum of relative density and relative dominance) measures
for all live stems ≥5 cm dbh on a managed (thinned and burned) site on the Oakmulgee Ranger
District of the Talladega National Forest, Alabama.
Density Relative Dominance Relative Relative
Species (stems/ha) density (%) (m2/ha) dominance (%) importance
Pinus palustris Mill. 279 91.8 20.57 96.6 188.4
Nyssa sylvatica Marshall 8 2.5 0.23 1.1 3.6
Quercus falcata Michx. 6 2.1 0.22 1.0 3.1
Quercus marilandica Münchh. 4 1.2 0.15 0.7 1.9
Quercus coccinea Münchh. 3 0.8 0.05 0.2 1.1
Quercus stellata Wangenh. 1 0.4 0.02 0.1 0.5
Liquidambar styraciflua L. 1 0.4 0.02 0.1 0.5
Quercus laevis Walter 1 0.4 0.01 0.1 0.5
Pinus taeda L. 1 0.4 0.01 0.1 0.5
Total 304 100.0 21.29 100.0 200.0
Southeastern Naturalist
105
J.D. Goode, L.M. Brager, and J.L. Hart
2019 Vol. 18, No. 1
of stems and 3% of total basal area ha-1. Oaks represented 17% of the stems ha-1 and
11% of the basal area ha-1. On the unmanaged site, stem density (P < 0.05) and basal
area (P < 0.05) were higher and mean diameter of trees was lower (P < 0.05). The
unmanaged site also had more trees in subcanopy positions (39%) than the managed
site. The majority (71%) of individuals in canopy dominant and codominant
positions were Loblolly Pine.
Climate–growth relationships
The BAI of Longleaf Pine trees showed a significant positive relationship to
PDSI in current July (r = 0.394, P < 0.05), August (r = 0.449, P < 0.05), September
(r = 0.459, P < 0.05) and previous November (r = 0.362, P < 0.05) (Fig. 2).
These significantly positive relationships indicated that Longleaf Pine responded
positively to increased moisture conditions during the late summer months. Henderson
and Grissino-Mayer (2009) found the strongest correlation of Longleaf Pine
radial growth to PDSI occurred between July and November. Similarly, Devall et
al. (1991) found that current August precipitation and February PDSI were the best
predictors of Longleaf Pine productivity. Knapp et al. (2016) found that latewood
growth in Longleaf Pine was strongly correlated to summer rainfall, which includes
tropical cyclone precipitation. We acknowledge that growth response to the 2007
drought based on treatment effects might elicit a significant difference if only
Table 2. Density, dominance, and importance (sum of relative density and relative dominance) measures
for all live stems ≥5 cm dbh on an unmanaged (no active management) site of the Oakmulgee
Ranger District of the Talladega National Forest, Alabama.
Density Relative Dominance Relative Relative
Species (stems/ha) density (%) (m2/ha) dominance (%) importance
Pinus taeda L. 360 51.9 16.07 66.2 118.1
Liriodendron tulipifera L. 46 6.6 2.15 8.8 15.4
Acer rubrum L. 46 6.6 0.76 3.1 9.7
Quercus montana Willd. 35 5.0 0.91 3.7 8.7
Quercus rubra L. 36 5.2 0.69 2.8 8.0
Liquidambar styraciflua L. 35 5.0 0.62 2.5 7.6
Pinus palustris Mill. 25 3.6 0.77 3.2 6.8
Oxydendrum arboreum (L.) DC. 31 4.5 0.53 2.2 6.7
Quercus alba L. 18 2.6 0.48 2.0 4.6
Quercus falcata Michx. 14 2.1 0.26 1.1 3.1
Quercus nigra L. 10 1.4 0.21 0.9 2.2
Nyssa sylvatica Marshall 8 1.2 0.25 1.0 2.2
Cornus florida L. 10 1.4 0.16 0.7 2.1
Carya glabra (Mill.) Sweet 5 0.7 0.25 1.0 1.7
Quercus stellata Wangenh. 4 0.5 0.04 0.2 0.7
Juniperus virginiana L. 2 0.3 0.05 0.2 0.6
Sassafras albidum (Nutt.) Nees 2 0.3 0.04 0.2 0.5
Fagus grandifolia Ehrh. 2 0.3 0.03 0.1 0.5
Vaccinium arboreum Marshall 2 0.3 0.03 0.1 0.5
Magnolia macrophylla Michx. 2 0.3 0.02 0.1 0.4
Total 694 100 24.29 100 200
Southeastern Naturalist
J.D. Goode, L.M. Brager, and J.L. Hart
2019 Vol. 18, No. 1
106
latewood growth were measured rather than whole-ring width. Longleaf Pine experiences
recurrent growth flushes (Kozlowski 1971), which may explain the higher
correlation in the late summer–early fall months rather than the spring months,
during which precipitation is generally greater. Orvis and Grissino-Mayer (2009)
speculated that early-season growth flushes in Longleaf Pine utilized stored carbohydrates
during earlywood formation, reducing the effects of spring precipitation
on radial growth. Therefore, in the late growing season, during a secondary flush,
precipitation is likely more utilized as carbohydrates are exhausted from previous
growth flushes during the early growing season. Our results concur with other studies
that found that Longleaf Pine was more responsive to late summer and early fall
moisture than spring moisture (Orvis and Grissino-Mayer 2009).
Growth response to drought
We noted no significant (P > 0.05) difference in 2007 BAI reduction between
Longleaf Pine individuals on managed and unmanaged sites. Longleaf Pine individuals
on the managed site showed a mean 16.4% BAI reduction in the year 2007
relative to the mean BAI of the preceding 10 y, as opposed to a 15.8% BAI reduction
for individuals on the unmanaged site (Table 3). In 2008, mean BAI reduction
was 14% on the managed site and 17% on the unmanaged site (P > 0.05). The mean
recovery time was 5.1 y for trees on the managed site and 4.9 y for the unmanaged
site (P > 0.05). Therefore, recovery time was nearly the same for trees on both sites
(Fig. 3). Trees ≤55 y old showed a significantly greater growth reduction than trees
≥80 y old (P < 0.001). Trees ≤55 y old showed a 18.6% growth reduction in the
year 2007, and trees ≥80 y old showed a 15.0% growth reduction in the year 2007
(Table 3). Therefore, our results indicated that younger trees were more sensitive to
drought conditions than older trees. The older trees in this study had larger crowns
and more growing space, and, we hypothesize, better-developed root networks than
Figure 2. Correlation analysis of the BAI chronology and mean monthly PDSI among 60
Longleaf Pine individuals. Monthly abbreviations preceded by ‘p’ indicate previous year.
Gray bars indicated significance values of P < 0.05.
Southeastern Naturalist
107
J.D. Goode, L.M. Brager, and J.L. Hart
2019 Vol. 18, No. 1
younger trees. The larger crowns, root networks, and growing space may have led
to a greater advantage in accessing water during drought conditions.
We hypothesized that Longleaf Pine would be more resilient to drought when
growing in low-density stands (i.e., woodland conditions of the managed site).
However, we found no significant difference in growth response to the 2007
drought of Longleaf Pine stems growing on the managed vs. unmanaged sites. We
attributed growth responses of individuals on the managed site to 2 possible explanations.
First, prescribed burning every 3–5 y may reduce the moisture holding
capacity of the soil and duff layer (Boyer and Miller 1994, Harrington and Edwards
1999). Reduced moisture holding capacity from frequent prescribed fire is a result
of exposure of bare mineral soil to rainfall and subsequent aggregate clogging of
soil pores (Bower 1966). Frequent prescribed fire has also been attributed to higher
moisture evaporation from the darkened soil and duff layer (Bond-Lamberty et al.
2009). Reductions in soil and duff-layer moisture-holding capacity, and the loss
of organic matter, may cause higher stress during drought years (Mitchell et al.
Figure 3. 2007 and 2008 average percent basal area increment (BAI) reduction and average
recovery time in years of Longleaf Pine individuals based on site conditions and age. BAI
reduction is shown as bars on the primary y-axis and recovery time is shown as a line on
the secondary y-axis.
Table 3. Average 1997–2007 basal area increment (BAI), 2007 BAI , 2007 BAI % reduction, 2008
BAI, 2008 BAI % reduction, and average recovery time among Longleaf Pine individuals based on
site condition and age in the Oakmulgee Ranger District of the Talladega National Forest, AL.
Average
1997–2006 2007 BAI 2008 BAI recovery
average BAI 2007 BAI 2008 BAI reduction (%) reduction (%) time (y)
Managed 1162.60 951.68 984.29 -16.4 -14.1 5.1
Unmanaged 1562.34 1355.87 1250.63 -15.8 -17.0 4.9
≥80 years old 1422.86 1222.26 1192.65 -15.0 -18.6 4.9
≤55 years old 1484.87 1214.04 1099.10 -18.6 -22.7 5.8
Southeastern Naturalist
J.D. Goode, L.M. Brager, and J.L. Hart
2019 Vol. 18, No. 1
108
1999). The managed site was burned in 2006, one year before the 2007 drought.
Second, the amount of light capable of reaching the understory may have increased
moisture evaporation on the managed site as opposed to the mixed pine–hardwood
unmanaged site (Battaglia et al. 2002). The managed Longleaf Pine stand has an
open, woodland structure; thus, more light can reach the forest floor, which may
increase evaporation rates thereby reducing available moisture. The structure and
composition of the unmanaged site likely allowed for more canopy and midstory
light-capture, and likely less soil-moisture evaporation. We acknowledge that transpiration
rates may be higher in stands with higher tree density. Importantly, we
note that our results suggest that management did not make the trees more sensitive
to drought conditions.
Analysis of growth in relation to climate revealed that Longleaf Pines were
more sensitive to PDSI in the late summer and early fall months (July–September
and previous November). These relationships indicated that Longleaf Pine is more
sensitive to late growing-season climatic conditions. The drought of 2007 was
most severe during the spring and early summer months. Each month in 2007 received
less precipitation than the 30-y normal. However, the most severe decrease
in precipitation occurred during the growing season, which cumulatively lowered
PDSI values into the late growing season and dormant season. Based on the climate–
growth correlation results, we speculate that Longleaf Pine individuals did
not significantly respond to drought conditions because the drou ght occurred early
in the growing season, and Longleaf Pine has been found to be less sensitive to
moisture conditions during the spring months. Results indicated that no significant
difference occurred in radial-growth response among the 2 treatments during the
2000 and 2007 drought events. Although the 2000 drought was more severe in
the months of August, September, and October, the 2007 drought had a sustained
severity through the growing season into the dormant season. However, when we
tested for significant difference in growth response between the 2000 and 2007
droughts, regardless of treatment, we noted a significant difference (P < 0.01) in
growth response between the 2 droughts. We found that Longleaf Pine individuals
showed a significantly greater growth-reduction response to the 2000 drought
than to the 2007 drought, a finding that agrees with our speculation that Longleaf
Pine was more sensitive to drought conditions in the late growing season. The
2000 drought was indeed more severe in August, September, and October. Results
revealed the importance of understanding not only the impacts of drought severity
on tree growth, but the impacts of the timing of drought on tree growth. Our results
highlight the complexity of predicting growth response to extreme climate conditions
across contrasting stand conditions or management approaches.
Conclusion
Tree-growth response to severe drought can be used as a predictive tool for response
to future droughts. An individual tree may experience a unique response to
drought conditions based on factors such as physical site conditions, stand density,
or tree age. We sought to test the growth response of Longleaf Pine to an exceptional
Southeastern Naturalist
109
J.D. Goode, L.M. Brager, and J.L. Hart
2019 Vol. 18, No. 1
drought in 2007 among individuals inhabiting sites of different growing conditions
and ages. We hypothesized that individuals on sites with lower tree density would
be less sensitive to moisture stress and thus, more resilient to drought conditions.
However, we found no significant differences (P > 0.05) in radial-growth reductions
between managed (thinned and burned) and unmanaged sites. We also hypothesized
that older trees would be more sensitive than younger trees, but results indicated that
age did not did not significantly influence drought response (P > 0.05). We speculated
that prescribed-fire frequency and soil and litter moisture evaporation influenced
the growth response of Longleaf Pine trees. Climate-growth correlation analysis
revealed a greater BAI sensitivity to PDSI in the late summer and early fall months.
The timing of the 2007 drought in the spring and early summer months may have resulted
in the lack of notable growth response in Longleaf Pine stems. As management
plans are developed to promote resiliency in Longleaf Pine ecosystems to future
disturbances such as drought, we should consider that tree response is complex and
influenced by multiple interacting variables, such as microclimatic conditions, phenology,
and the temporal variability of disturbance.
Acknowledgments
We thank Carson Barefoot, Scott Ford, Jonathan Kleinman, Jonathan Kressuk, and Kevin
Willson for assistance in the field and the processing of tree cores. We also thank the US Forest
Service Oakmulgee Ranger District for logistical support and use of stand-level data.
Literature Cited
Battaglia, M.A., P. Mou, B. Palik, and R.J. Mitchell. 2002. The effect of spatially variable
overstory on the understory-light environment of an open-canopied Longleaf Pine forest.
Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32:1984–1991.
Bhuta, A.A., L.M. Kennedy, and N. Pederson. 2009. Climate–radial-growth relationships
of northern latitudinal range margin Longleaf Pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) in the Atlantic
coastal plain of southeastern Virginia. Tree-Ring Research 65:105–115.
Biondi, F., and F. Qeadan. 2008. A theory-driven approach to tree-ring standardization:
Defining the biological trend from expected basal-area increment. Tree-Ring Research
64:81–96.
Bond-Lamberty, B., S.D. Peckham, S.T. Gower, and B.E. Ewers. 2009. Effects of fire on
regional evapotranspiration in the central Canadian boreal forest. Global Change Biology
15:1242–1254.
Boyer, W.D., and J.H. Miller. 1994. Effect of burning and brush treatments on nutrient and
soil physical properties in young Longleaf Pine stands. Forest Ecology and Management
70:311–318.
Bower, D.R.E. 1966. Surface soil recovers quickly after burn. USFS Research Note SO-
46. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station,
Asheville, NC. 2 pp.
Brantley, S.T., J.M. Vose, D.N. Wear, and L. Band. 2017. Planning for an uncertain future:
Restoration to mitigate water scarcity and sustain carbon sequestration. Pp. 291–309, In
K.L. Kirkman, and S.B. Jack (Eds.). Ecological Restoration and Management of Longleaf
Pine Forests. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 451 pp.
Southeastern Naturalist
J.D. Goode, L.M. Brager, and J.L. Hart
2019 Vol. 18, No. 1
110
Brockaway, D.G., and C.E. Lewis.1997. Long-term effects of dormant-season prescribed
fire on plant community diversity, structure, and productivity in a Longleaf Pine–Wiregrass
ecosystem. Forest Ecology Management 96:167–183.
Cox, L.E., and J.L. Hart. 2015. Two centuries of forest compositional and structural changes
in the Alabama Fall Line Hills. American Midland Naturalist 174:218–237.
Devall, M.S., J.M. Grender, and J. Koretz. 1991. Dendroecological analysis of Longleaf
Pine (Pinus palustris) forest in Mississippi. Vegetatio 93:1–8.
Duchesne, L., R. Ouimet, and D. Houle. 2002. Basal-area growth of Sugar Maple in relation
to acid deposition, stand health, and soil nutrients. Journal of Environmental Quality
31:1676–1683.
Easterling, D.R., G.A. Meehl, C. Parmesan, S.A. Changnon, T.R. Karl, and L.O. Mearns.
2000. Climate extremes: Observations, modeling, and impacts. Science 289:2068–2074.
Fenneman, N.M. 1938. Physiography of Eastern United States. McGraw-Hill Book Company,
New York, NY. 691 pp.
Ford, C.R., R.J. Mitchell, and R.O. Teskey. 2008. Water-table depth affects productivity,
water use, and the response to nitrogen addition in a savanna system. Canadian Journal
of Forest Research 38:2118–2127.
Foster, T.E., and J.R. Brooks. 2001. Long-term trends in growth of Pinus palustris and
Pinus elliottii along a hydrological gradient in central Florida. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research 31:1661–1670.
Fraver, S., and A.S. White. 2005. Identifying growth releases in dendrochronological studies
of forest disturbance. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35:1648–1656.
Frost, C. 2007. History and future of the Longleaf Pine ecosystem. Pp. 9–48, In S. Jose,
E.J. Jokela, and D.L. Miller (Eds.). The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem. Springer, New York,
NY. 438 pp.
Gonzalez-Benecke, C.A., T.A. Martin, and W.P. Cropper. 2011. Whole-tree water relations
of co-occurring mature Pinus palustris and Pinus elliottii var. elliottii. Canadian Journal
of Forest Research 41:509–523.
Grissino-Mayer, H.D. 2001. Evaluating cross-dating accuracy: A manual and tutorial for the
computer program COFECHA. Tree-ring Research 57:205–221.
Harper, R.M. 1943. Forests of Alabama. Geographical Survey of Alabama Monograph 10.
Alabama Geological Survey, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL.
Harrington, T.B., and M.B. Edwards. 1999. Understory vegetation, resource availability,
and litterfall responses to pine thinning and woody-vegetation control in Longleaf Pine
plantations. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 29:1055–1064.
Hart, J.L., S.L. Clark, S.J. Torreano, and M.L. Buchanan. 2012. Composition, structure,
and dendroecology of an old-growth Quercus forest on the tablelands of the Cumberland
Plateau, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 266:11–24.
Henderson, J.P., and H.D. Grissino-Mayer. 2009. Climate tree-growth relationship of
Longleaf Pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) in the Southeastern Coastal Plain, USA. Dendrochronologia
27:31–43.
Husch, B., T.W. Beers, and J.A. Kershaw Jr. 2003. Forest Mensuration. John Wiley and
Sons, Hoboken, NJ. 630 pp.
Johnsen, K. H., J.R. Butnor, J.S. Kush, R.C. Schmidtling, and C.D. Nelson. 2009. Hurricane
Katrina winds damaged Longleaf Pine less than Loblolly Pine. Southern Journal of Applied
Forestry 33:178–181.
Jose, S., E.J. Jokela, and D.L. Miller. 2007. The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem. Springer, New
York, NY. 438 pp.
Southeastern Naturalist
111
J.D. Goode, L.M. Brager, and J.L. Hart
2019 Vol. 18, No. 1
Knapp, P.A., J.T. Maxwell, and P.T. Soulé. 2016. Tropical cyclone rainfall variability in
coastal North Carolina derived from Longleaf Pine (Pinus palustris Mill.): AD 1771–
2014. Climatic change 135:311–323.
Kozlowski, T.T. 1971. Growth and Development of Trees: Cambial Growth, Root Growth,
and Reproductive Growth. Vol. II. Academic Press, New York, NY. 514 pp.
Landers, J.L., D.H. Van Lear, and W.D. Boyer. 1995. The Longleaf Pine forests of the
Southeast: Requiem or renaissance? Journal of Forestry 93:39–44.
Maxham, M.D. 2000. Rural communities in the Black Warrior Valley, Alabama: The role
of commoners in the creation of the Moundville I Landscape. American Antiquity
65:337–354.
Meehl, G.A., T.F. Stocker, W.D. Collins, P. Friedlingstein, T. Gaye, J.M. Gregory, A. Kitoh,
R. Knutti, J.M. Murphy, A. Noda, S.C.B. Raper, I.G. Watterson, A.J. Weaver, and Z.C.
Zhao. 2007. Global climate projections. Pp. 747–846, In S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning,
Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (Eds.). IPCC, 2007:
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I
to the 4th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK. 996 pp.
Meldahl, R.S., N. Pederson, J.S. Kush, and J.M. Varner III. 1999. Dendrochronological
investigations of climate and competitive effects on Longleaf Pine growth. Pp. 265–285,
In R. Wimmer and R.E. Vetter (Eds.). Tree Ring Analysis: Biological, Methodological,
and Environmental Aspects. CABI Publishing, Oxfordshire, UK. 320 pp.
Mitchell, R.J., L.K. Kirkman, S.D. Pecot, C.A. Wilson, B.J. Palik, and L.R. Boring.
1999. Patterns and controls of ecosystem function in Longleaf Pine–Wiregrass savannas.
I. Aboveground net primary productivity. Canadian Journal of Forest Research
29:743–751.
National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS). 2017. US drought portal. http://
www.drought.gov/drought/content/what-nidis. Accessed 19 September 2017.
Noss, R.F., E.T. LaRoe, and J.M. Scott. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United States:
A preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. Vol. 28. US Department of the Interior,
National Biological Service, Washington, DC. 60 pp.
Nowacki, GJ., and M.D. Abrams. 1997. Radial-growth averaging criteria for reconstructing
disturbance histories from presettlement-origin oaks. Ecological Monographs
67:225–249.
Oliver, C.D, and B.C. Larson. 1996. Forest Stand Dynamics. Wiley, New York, NY. 544 pp.
Orvis, K.H., and H.D. Grissino-Mayer. 2002. Standardizing the reporting of abrasive papers
used to surface tree-ring samples. Tree-Ring Research 58:47–50.
Palmer, W.C. 1965. Meteorological drought. Volume 30. US Department of Commerce,
Weather Bureau, Washington, DC. 58 pp.
Peet, R.K. 2007. Ecological classification of Longleaf Pine woodlands. Pp 51–93, In S.
Jose, E.J. Jokela, and D.L. Miller (Eds.). The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem. Springer, New
York, NY. 438 pp.
Phipps, R.L., and M.L. Field. 1989. Computer programs to calculate basal area increment
from tree rings. Volume 89. No. 4028. Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey,
Washington, DC. 47 pp.
Phipps, R.L., and J.C. Whitton. 1988. Decline in long-term growth trends of White Oak.
Canadian Journal of Forest Research 18:24–32.
PRISM Climate Group (PRISM). 2017. Data explorer: Time-series values for individual
locations. Northwest Alliance for Computational Science and Engineering, Oregon
State University, OR. Available online at http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/ explorer/.
Accessed 24 August 2017.
Southeastern Naturalist
J.D. Goode, L.M. Brager, and J.L. Hart
2019 Vol. 18, No. 1
112
Seager, R., A. Tzanova, and J. Nakamura. 2009. Drought in the southeastern United States:
Causes, variability over the last millennium, and the potential for future hydroclimate
change. Journal of Climate 22:5021–5045.
Shankman, D., and J.L. Hart. 2007. The Fall Line: A physiographic forest-vegetation
boundary. Geographical Review 97(4):502–519.
Showalter, T.D., and P. Turchin. 1993. Southern Pine Beetle infestation development: Interaction
between pine and hardwood basal areas. Forest Science 39:201–210.
Stokes, M.A., and T.L. Smiley. 1996. An Introduction to Tree-Ring Dating. University of
Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. 73 pp.
Szabo, M.W., E.W. Osborne, and T.L. Neathery. 1988. Geologic map of Alabama. Geological
Survey of Alabama Special Map 220, Scale 1:250,000. Geological Survey of
Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL.
Thornthwaite, C.W. 1948. An approach toward a rational classification of climate. Geographical
Review 38:55–94.
US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service USDA Forest Service). 2005. Longleaf
ecosystem-restoration project: Final environmental impact statement, National Forests
in Alabama. Talladega National Forest, Oakmulgee District, USDA Forest Service,
Brent, AL. 15 pp.
US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA–NRCS).
2017. Soil survey of Bibb County and Tuscaloosa County, Alabama. Available online at
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed 17 October 2017.
Valentine, H.T., and A. Mäkelä. 2005. Bridging process-based and empirical approaches to
modeling tree growth. Tree Physiology 25:769–779.
Villalba, R., and T.T. Veblen. 1997. Improving estimates of total tree ages based on increment-
core samples. Ecoscience 4:534–542.
Walsh, J., D. Wuebbles, K. Hayhoe, J. Kossin, K. Kunkel, G. Stephens, P. Thorne, R. Vose,
M. Wehner, J. Willis, D. Anderson, S. Doney, R. Feely, P. Hennon, V. Kharin, T. Knutson,
F. Landerer, T. Lenton, J. Kennedy, and R. Somerville. 2014. Our changing climate.
Pp. 19–67, In J.M. Melillo, T.C. Richmond, and G.W. Yohe (Eds.). Climate Change
Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. US Global
Change Research Program. 828 pp. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
DOI:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2.
West, P.W. 1980. Use of diameter increment and basal-area increment in tree-growth studies.
Canadian Journal of Forest Research 10:71–77.