1 / 27

SPRUCING UP EASTERN CANADIAN MIXEDWOODS:

SPRUCING UP EASTERN CANADIAN MIXEDWOODS:. Do white spruce ( Picea glauca ). Jessica Smith , candidate M.Sc. Biology. B.Harvey PhD , A.Koubaa PhD , S.Brais PhD. trees respond to partial cutting?.

kenaz
Télécharger la présentation

SPRUCING UP EASTERN CANADIAN MIXEDWOODS:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SPRUCING UP EASTERN CANADIAN MIXEDWOODS: Do white spruce (Picea glauca) Jessica Smith, candidate M.Sc. Biology B.HarveyPhD, A.KoubaaPhD, S.BraisPhD trees respond to partial cutting? jessica.smith@uqat.ca, Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Rouyn-Noranda, Québec Canada

  2. INTRODUCTION Canadian Boreal Forest • 90% of forested land in Canada Canadian Boreal Forest British Columbia Quebec Newfoundland (Baldwin et al., 2012) 1

  3. INTRODUCTION Canadian Boreal Forest • 90% of forested land in Canada Canadian Boreal Forest Province of Québec Region: Abitibi–Témiscamingue 48°14'55.0"N 79°20'11.7"W Boreal Mixedwood Forest 2

  4. INTRODUCTION Boreal Mixedwood Forest • Transitional phase of succession • Shade intolerant broadleaf and shade tolerant conifers (Bergeron and Harvey, 1997) Maine Forest Service Licher Fewless Stone Lane Gardens Tigner balsam fir (Abiesbalsamea) white spruce (Piceaglauca) black spruce (Piceamariana) trembling aspen (Populustremuloides) white birch (Betulapapyrifera) shade intolerant shade tolerant 3

  5. INTRODUCTION Boreal Mixedwood Forest • Mature aspen: suitable for harvest • Pre-mature white spruce: has not reached maximum growth potential Maine Forest Service Licher Fewless Stone Lane Gardens Tigner balsam fir (Abiesbalsamea) white spruce (Piceaglauca) black spruce (Piceamariana) trembling aspen (Populustremuloides) white birch (Betulapapyrifera) shade intolerant shade tolerant 4

  6. INTRODUCTION Boreal Mixedwood Forest • Mature aspen: suitable for harvest • Pre-mature white spruce: has not reached maximum growth potential Maine Forest Service Licher Fewless Stone Lane Gardens Tigner balsam fir (Abiesbalsamea) white spruce (Piceaglauca) black spruce (Piceamariana) trembling aspen (Populustremuloides) white birch (Betulapapyrifera) shade intolerant shade tolerant 4

  7. INTRODUCTION Why partial cutting? • Ecosystem based management • Diversify silvicultural strategies • Emulate natural succession dynamics • Maintain residual stand with complex structure and attributes • Industry • Residual trees show accelerated radial and volume growth rates following “release” • Larger stems (Youngblood, 1991; Yang, 1991; Man and Greenway, 2004; Grover et al. 2014) 5

  8. STUDY SITE Boreal Mixedwood Forest Rouyn-Noranda, Abitibi–Témiscamingue, Québec, Canada Partial Cutting Treatments: 2002 Pre-treatment species distribution by basal area 3% balsam fir 1% black spruce 1% white birch 6 Control 0%harvested 50% aspen BA harvested 65%aspen BA harvested 100% aspen BA harvested 75% aspen 20% white spruce

  9. STUDY SITE Experimental Units Control 100% 50% 65% 51.08 (m2·ha-1) 44.19 Initial BA 37.50 Aspen removed 93% 64% 53% 1 42.65 14.12 (m2·ha-1) 25.69 Residual BA 26.20 31.65 34.40 37.88 74% 100% 52% 2 40.32 11.44 16.82 25.92 58.04 41.30 38.79 52% 61% 99% 3 46.91 22.32 10.03 23.49 7

  10. OBJECTIVE Evaluate radial and volume growth responses of residual white spruce trees, 10 years after the implementation of the partial cutting treatments HYPOTHESES 1. Post-treatment radial and volume growth rates will be higher in intermediate treatments (50% and 65%) than in the extreme treatment (100%) 2. Tree social status will influence post-treatment radial and volume growth rates, with dominant and co-dominant trees having superior growth rates to suppressed trees 8

  11. METHODS Experimental Design 2002 4 treatments 3 replications 12 Experimental Units 2012 2 trees 3 social status 6 Trees/ Experimental Unit 0% 50% 65% 72 Trees 100% 9 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 3 Scale 1:10,000

  12. METHODS Sampling and Data Collection (Chhinet al., 2010) 10 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2(130 cm) 1(30 cm)

  13. METHODS Stem Analysis Annual Ring Width Measurements • Win Dendro (Regent Instruments) • annual radial growth rate (mm·year-1) • 3 radii per disk • 5years pre-treatment • 10 years post-treatment • Win Stem (Regent Instruments) • annual volume growth rate (dm3·year-1) 11

  14. METHODS Statistical Analysis Linear mixed effect model 12

  15. RESULTS Annual Radial Growth 1.3 m C) Dominant A) Suppressed B) Co-dominant 13

  16. RESULTS Annual Radial Growth 1.3 m C) Dominant A) Suppressed B) Co-dominant In the 100% aspen removal treatment, average annual radial growth rates at 1.3m were: 23.5% higher for dominant trees 67.7% higher for co-dominant trees 154.3% higher for suppressed trees as compared to the control treatment over the 10 year post-treatment period 13

  17. RESULTS Annual Radial Growth 1.3 m A) Control B) 50% Aspen BA removal C) 65% Aspen BA removal D) 100% Aspen BA removal 14

  18. RESULTS Annual Volume Growth A) Suppressed C) Dominant B) Co-dominant 15

  19. RESULTS Annual Volume Growth A) Suppressed C) Dominant B) Co-dominant In the 100% aspen removal treatment, average annual volumegrowth rates were: 7.2%higher for dominant trees 24.1%higher for co-dominant trees 65.6%higher for suppressed trees as compared to the control treatment over the 10 year post-treatment period 15

  20. RESULTS Annual Volume Growth A) Control B) 50% Aspen BA removal C) 65% Aspen BA removal D) 100% Aspen BA removal 16

  21. RESULTS Validating Hypotheses 1. Post-treatment radial and volume growth rates will be higher in intermediate treatments (50% and 65%) than in the extreme treatment (100%) 2. Tree social status will influence post-treatment radial and volume growth rates, with dominant and co-dominant trees having superior growth rates to suppressed trees 17

  22. RESULTS Validating Hypotheses 1. Post-treatment radial and volume growth rates will be higher in intermediate treatments (50% and 65%) than in the extreme treatment (100%) 2. Tree social status will influence post-treatment radial and volume growth rates, with dominant and co-dominant trees having superior growth rates to suppressed trees 17

  23. RESULTS Validating Hypotheses 1. Post-treatment radial and volume growth rates were higher in 100% aspen removal treatment 2. Tree social status will influence post-treatment radial and volume growth rates, with dominant and co-dominant trees having superior growth rates to suppressed trees 17

  24. RESULTS Validating Hypotheses 1. Post-treatment radial and volume growth rates were higher in 100% aspen removal treatment 2. Tree social status will influence post-treatment radial and volume growth rates, with dominant and co-dominant trees having superior growth rates to suppressed trees √ 17

  25. CONCLUSIONS Annual Radial and Volume Growth 1. Effect of partial cutting in 100% aspen removal treatment 2. Treatment effect changes through time following a quadratic form • Radial Growth: peaking 6 years post-treatment • Volume Growth: plateau for suppressed and co-dominant trees, continuing linearly for dominant trees 3. Treatment effect across time is the same for all social statuses 4. Dominant and co-dominant trees superior to suppressed trees 5. Relative growth increases greatest for suppressed trees, least for dominant trees, and intermediary for co-dominant trees 18

  26. RECOMMENDATIONS Remove high proportion of dominant, shade intolerant broadleaf species 2. Monitor regeneration and mortality Savioja 19 Schreiber

  27. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Arun Bose, Marc Mazerolle, ManuellaStrukelj, Igor Drobyshev, Suzie Rollin, Fred Coulombe, Field Crew Photos Fewless, Gary. http://www.uwgb.edu/biodiversity/herbarium/gymnosperms/picmar01.htm Licher, Max. http://swbiodiversity.org/seinet/taxa/index.php?taxon=3892 Maine Forest Service. https://www.maine.gov/dacf/mfs/archive/balsamfirtipblight.htm Savioja,Jouko.http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/appearance-of-dry-dead-trees-alarms-residents-1.1253376 Stone Lane Gardens. http://stonelanegardens.com/shop/betula-papyrifera-paper-birch-or-canoe-birch/ Tigner, Daniel. Canadian Forest Tree Essences. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/ClimateChange/2 ColumnSubPage/267351.html References Baldwin et al. Canadian Regional Team of the Circumboreal Vegetation Map Project. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Great Lakes Forestry Centre (2012). Bergeron Y, Harvey B. Basing silviculture on natural ecosystem dynamics: an approach applied to the southern boreal mixedwood forest of Quebec. Forest Ecology and Management (1997) 92:235-242 Chhin S et al. Growth–climate relationships vary with height along the stem in lodgepole pine. Tree physiology (2010) 30:335-345 Grover et al. White spruce understory protection: From planning to growth and yield. The Forestry Chronicle (2014) 90:38-43. Man R, Greenway KJ. Meta-analysis of understory white spruce response to release from overstory aspen. The Forestry Chronicle (2004) 80:694-704. Yang R. Growth of white spruce following release from aspen competition: 35 year results. The Forestry Chronicle (1991) 67:706-711. Youngblood AP. Radial growth after a shelterwood seed cut in a mature stand of white spruce in interior Alaska. Canadian Journal of Forest Research (1991) 21:410-413

More Related