white pine silviculture what’s new ? (or, what’s … oliver silviculture white...white pine...
Post on 04-May-2019
214 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
White Pine Silviculture – What’s New ? (or, what’s old is new all over again) Chris Nowak, Professor Quincey Oliver, M.S. candidate
Plant / Plant
Community
BIOTIC FACTORS
Associated plants and animals
Competition
Facilitation
Herbivory—mammal, insect
Predation—seed, seedling
Pathogens
ABIOTIC FACTORS
Soil
Texture, nutrients, drainage
Physiography
Landform, parent material, slope position, aspect
Water
Climate
Light and temperature
Disturbance
Type
Frequency
Timing
Intensity
Space Availability/Niches
The Plant Ecology “Diamond” SPECIES LIFE HISTORY
Allocation to reproduction, growth, & maintenance
Growth/development rates
Longevity
Reproductive strategy
Propagule type, dispersal, availability
Competitive ability
Site tolerances
SILVICULTURAL SYSTEMS* – white pine
Regeneration of white pine
• Clearcutting, strip cutting, seed-tree cutting and shelterwood cutting
– Two-cut shelterwood is deemed most successful • 1st cut: immediately after an abundant seed year (a cardinal rule) • Remove 40 to 60 percent of overstory • Disturb accumulated litter and expose mineral soil • Remove advance hardwood regeneration • Remove other hardwoods (other interfering plants?) before the
overwood removal
• Direct seeding? Planting? • Site considerations ?
*NOTE: these are convention for high quality sawtimber production *NOTE: all being tested as part of current R&D program After Lancaster and Leak (1978)
COMPLEX to SIMPLE (or, “Give up” to
“Take what you can get”) Polymorphic site index curves for white pine
(Parresol and Vissage 1998) showing HWF and PACK stands.
PACK
HWF
Silviculture to maintain white
pine is complex, difficult, and
intensive
Silviculture to maintain white
pine is simple, easy, and
extensive
HIGH QUALITY SITE SILVICULTURE: Finessing and managing white pine into the future stands
Regeneration research (ESF) - Shelterwood for refined attention to relative stand density
control - Direct seeding (w/wo scarification) - Planting (w/wo scarification) - Interfering plant control (field trip)
Tending (Literature, University of Maine, ESF – growth and yield) - Release (field trip) - Thinning – crop tree versus area-wide
HIGH QUALITY SITE SILVICULTURE: Finessing and managing white pine into the future stands
Regeneration research (ESF) - Shelterwood for refined attention to relative stand density
control - Direct seeding (w/wo scarification) - Planting (w/wo scarification) - Interfering plant control (field trip)
Tending (Literature, University of Maine, ESF – growth and yield) - Release (field trip) - Thinning – crop tree versus area-wide
Challenges in the high quality site on the Huntington Wildlife Forest
Light levels too low at ground-level - 2012 Shelterwood: 20
vs 40 RSD - Removal of
hardwood understory
- Scarification
No advanced regeneration, and off-year for natural seed supply - Artificial regeneration
- Direct seeding - Planting
Looking into the uncut control plot on the Huntington Wildlife Forest stand, circa 2012.
“The” Experiment
Split-split plot completely randomized design
HWF vs PACK (high vs low)
20 % RSD 40 % RSD
Scar 2
Unscar 2
Scar1
Unscar 1
Unscar 1
Scar 2
Scar 1
Unscar 2
Whole plot: Site
Subplot: Overstory treatment
Sub-subplot: Understory treatment (completely
randomized)
Source of variation Degrees of freedom P-value
Replicates (Rep) 1 0.16
Site 1 0.22
Site*Rep 1 0.69
Overstory Treatment (OTRT) 1 0.18
Site * OTRT 1 0.03
Site*Rep*OTRT 2 0.71
Understory Treatment (UTRT) 1 0.43
Site*UTRT 1 0.29
OTRT*UTRT 1 0.17
Site*OTRT*UTRT 1 0.31
Error 4
ANOVA example
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
Rep: 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Scarification: Y Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N
Overstory Treatment: (% RSD) 20 40 20 40
Site: Huntington Forest Pack Forest
Pe
rce
nt
Esta
blis
hm
en
t HYP: 20 = 40 w/HWF P-value = 0.18
HYP: 20 = 40 w/PACK P-value = 0.03
“The Result”
Old versus new
CONVENTION Shelterwood – 2-stage 1st cut high RSD with scarification to promote germination and establishment (Lancaster and Leak 1978; Burgess and Wetzel 2002; Dovciak et al. 2003), following by a reduction in RSD to promote growth and development of established seedlings while tempering interspecific plant competition and weevil damage; overstory removal when desired level of advance regen developed; weeding / cleaning as needed
Shelterwood cut at Pack Forest, circa Spring 2013.
This is what is new
NEW DISCOVERY Shelterwood LOW QUALITY SITE Follow convention
HIGH QUALITY SITE 1st cut low RSD to promote germination and establishment; else, follow convention ? Scarification ? ? Direct seeding – yes ? ? Release treatment ?
Seed spot at HWF, circa Spring 2013.
Newly germinated seedling, circa Spring 2013.
“The” Experiment
Split-split plot completely randomized design
HWF vs PACK (high vs low)
20 % RSD 40 % RSD
Scar 2
Unscar 2
Scar1
Unscar 1
Unscar 1
Scar 2
Scar 1
Unscar 2
Whole plot: Site
Subplot: Overstory treatment
Sub-subplot: Understory treatment (completely
randomized)
Rep: 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Scarification: Y Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N
Overstory Treatment: (% RSD) 20 40 20 40
Site: Huntington Forest Pack Forest
Pe
rce
nt
Surv
ival
“A Result”
HIGH QUALITY SITE SILVICULTURE: Finessing white pine into the future stands
Regeneration research (ESF) - Shelterwood for refined attention to relative stand density
control - Direct seeding (w/wo scarification) - Planting (w/wo scarification) - Interfering plant control (field trip)
Tending (Literature, University of Maine, ESF – growth and yield) - Release (field trip) - Thinning – crop tree versus area-wide
Huntington stand history
TREES PER ACRE
BA
SA
L A
RE
A P
ER
AC
RE
A
B C
18
14 12
8
16
350
0 0 700
10
20 %
40 %
Seymour et al.’s low density thinning
TREES PER ACRE
BA
SA
L A
RE
A P
ER
AC
RE
A
B C
18
14 12
10
8
16
350
0 0 700
Huntington versus Seymour et al.
TREES PER ACRE
BA
SA
L A
RE
A P
ER
AC
RE
A
B C
18
14 12
10
8
16
350
0 0 700
Cubic
Feet
per
Acre
per
Year
Wood production – tradeoffs with tending
Relative Stand Density 0 % 100 %
Generalized after: Leak 1981, 1982, 2003; Guiterman et al. 2011
TENDING tradeoffs continued
CROP TREE • HIGH live crown ratio (+)
– Increased red knots (+) – Fast individual tree growth (+)
• LOWERED stand-level wood production (-)
AND: - Unplanned regeneration (?)
- Interfering plants
- Problems with wind firmness (-)
AREA-WIDE • LOW live crown ratio (-)
– Increased black knots (-) – Modest individual tree growth (o)
• MODERATED stand-level wood production (o)
AND: - Little unplanned regeneration
(?) - Little problem with wind
firmness (+)
SEE: Leak (1985) for a direct discussion on this matter.
IDEA (*NEW): The “Nowak” variants
TREES PER ACRE
BA
SA
L A
RE
A P
ER
AC
RE
A
B C
18
14 12
10
8
16
350
0 0 700
Your own choices and variants ????
LQ
HQ
SILVICULTURAL SYSTEMS* – white pine
Regeneration of white pine
• Clearcutting, strip cutting, seed-tree cutting and shelterwood cutting
– Two-cut shelterwood is deemed most successful • 1st cut: immediately after an abundant seed year (a cardinal rule) • Remove 40 to 60 percent of overstory • Disturb accumulated litter and expose mineral soil • Remove advance hardwood regeneration • Remove other hardwoods (other interfering plants?) before the
overwood removal
• Direct seeding? Planting? • Site considerations ?
*NOTE: these are convention for high quality sawtimber production *NOTE: all being tested as part of current R&D program After Lancaster and Leak (1978)
SILVICULTURAL SYSTEMS* – white pine
Tending of white pine
• Area-wide thinning – B-line level residual
• Use of stocking chart
• Release ? • Pruning ?
*NOTE: these are convention for high quality sawtimber production *NOTE: not currently being tested as part of current R&D program After Lancaster and Leak (1978)
top related