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

Direct Seeding

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.

Planting

“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)

Jiffy-Tubed Seedlings

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

Seymour et al. (2006)

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

Seymour et al. (2006)

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

White Pine Ecology and Silviculture

SUMMARY

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)

What’s New ? (or, what’s old is new all over again)

Thank you !

To the field … (after lunch)

Thank you !