1 / 114

Soil Disturbance Workshop

Soil Disturbance Workshop. M.Curran, PhD,P.Ag. BCFS, Research. The path to “Pedo-righteousness”. Know your soil Know what you are doing to it Know the effects of this (on- and off-site) Adapt your practices (reliable process) over time as more knowledge becomes available

pandora-mcfarland
Télécharger la présentation

Soil Disturbance Workshop

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. Soil Disturbance Workshop • M.Curran, PhD,P.Ag. • BCFS, Research

  2. The path to “Pedo-righteousness” • Know your soil • Know what you are doing to it • Know the effects of this (on- and off-site) • Adapt your practices (reliable process) over time as more knowledge becomes available • “Science-based” management • None of this is new, but integration might be...

  3. Outline • Office for this afternoon: • Background • FRPA • (wildfire if you wish) • Field tommorrow (bring lunch) •     - TaTa/Airport?? cutblock field evaluation •     - may be time for another block?

  4. Outline • Background • Soil disturbance concerns • Local soils research and results • FRPA • Soil conservation provisions in FRPA  • identify and discuss opportunities/issues for C&E (eg, MPB) • FREP soil protocol if of interest (eg low level detailed photos) • Briefly discuss harvesting strategies to manage soil disturbance (influence inspection approach

  5. Background: Forest Sciences • Branch and Regional forest science teams • Applied research, problem solving, extension, consulting • Decentralized, close to the scene of the action • Unique service in BC & talent rich • Respected in MOF and externally • A continued MOF core function

  6. Six Core FSP Disciplines • Soil Conservation • Plant Ecology • Hydrology • Geomorphology • (Silvicultural Systems) • (Wildlife Ecology)

  7. F.S.P. Clients Public Licencee’s D.M.’s Field Services Primary Clients Industry Woodlot Public Public RMT BCTS Public

  8. Primary Focus (Earth Sciences) • Implementation and testing of policy related to soil and water conservation. • Done by: • Policy development support • Policy implementation support (Guidance documents, C&E) • Testing policy and developing tools • (Effectiveness, Validation)

  9. Recent Nelson soils work • Erosion control consultation/reviews of active fires • Work on Soil Conservation Framework and Surveys LMHs (guidance documents that include airphoto approach to monitoring) • FRPA Soils Leader during drafting and start of FREP • FREP Protocol development • Continued monitoring on LTSP • Promotion of a common approach to soil disturbance in North America (for FRPA)

  10. Sustainability/certification protocols (eg, MP, CCFM) • Soil Disturbance common element • FSC BC often more stringent than FPC/FRPA • However, protocols like the Montreal Process have a number of “b-type” indicators that require field validation (eg, compaction) • Therefore, compliance with standards is often used as a proxy (eg, CCFM C&I)

  11. “Continual Improvement”(“Science-based resource mgt.) Strategic Direction Data/results Guidelines R & D Monitoring (C&E) Training OPERATIONS Best Mgt.Practices

  12. Provincial Soil Conservation issues Soil “foundation” affects Other Resources • Site productivity • “Hydrologic function” • Erosion and sedimentation • Organic matter • Rooting medium • Soil moisture Timber, Habitat supply Water Global Carbon Aesthetics Operations

  13. Soil Disturbance (a Proxy) • Any physical, biological, or chemical disturbance to the soil caused by ground-based equipment (operations) • May be inconsequential, beneficial, or detrimental depending on the net effect on growth limiting factors and hydrologic properties

  14. Soil Disturbance as a proxyfor productivity/hydrologic effects • In many NA ecosystems, we need at least 10 to 20 years data to draw conclusions about the effects of various practices • Therefore, we use soil disturbance as a proxy that we can observe and regulate at the time of harvesting, site preparation, etc. • However, when we discuss or read about “Soil Disturbance” there are inconsistent approaches and methods a common approach is needed.

  15. @ 15 YRS @ 10 YRS @ 3 YRS Mean Douglas-fir volume - Gates Creek (Smith & Wass, 1991; Wass & Senyk, 1999) 150 125 100 R / R % of volume on undisturbed soil S / NR 75 T / NS T / R 50 T / NR 25 0

  16. Soil Disturbance – is it all Degradation?

  17. Net effect on tree growth • Resulting tree growth is sum of positive and negative effects • Common negative effects: • reduced aeration from compaction • loss of nutrients and organic matter • Common positive effects: • reduced competition • warmer soils

  18. Soil disturbance processes • what is soil disturbance • what is soil degradation • what processes lead to degradation • (strategies to manage disturbance)

  19. Soil Disturbance • Any physical, biological, or chemical disturbance to the soil • May be beneficial or detrimental, depending on net effect on growth limiting factors

  20. Beneficial Disturbance • Foresters often create disturbance on purpose as site preparation to ameliorate seedling growth-limiting factors • Net effect would have to be positive • Growth is limited by most limiting factor • Identify and manage for these • Don’t compromise long-term productivity

  21. Soil degradation • Any disturbance that negatively affects soil productivity • In B.C. Forestry, trees are the “bioassay” • FPC/FRPA targets potentially detrimental disturbance • some of concern for drainage as well (FRPA)

  22. Processes leading to degradation: • Compaction • Displacement (min. soil; forest floor) • Erosion • Mass Wasting (cut/fill failures) • (Part of management framework)

  23. Erosion • Surface soil eroded primarily by water (splash, sheet, rill erosion) • Loss of fertile topsoil layers • Loss of effective rooting volume • Exposure of unfavourable subsoils • Drainage diversion • Sedimentation of watercourses

  24. Erosion • Controlling factors: texture, coarse fragments, slope, climate • Manageable factors: machine traffic, degree of scalping, drainage control

  25. Mass Wasting • “Minor” cut and fill failures • Often result in drainage diversion • Can lead to larger landslides • Loss of productive growing site • Impacts on downslope values • Safety concerns • Also use slope stability indicators (LMH47)

  26. Mass Wasting • Controlling factors: parent material, climate, slope, topography • Manageable factors: amount and extent of excavation, drainage control, machine traffic, seasonal soil conditions (wetness, snow, frost)

  27. Compaction • Compaction and Puddling result in the alteration / loss of soil structure (architecture of pores) • Bulk Density increase (penetrability) • Infiltration decreases (more runoff) • Aeration decreases (less biological activity)

  28. Compaction • Controlling factors: texture, coarse fragments, forest floor depth/type, (soil depth, mineralogy) • Manageable factors: machine traffic, machine type/dynamic loading, seasonal soil conditions (wetness, snow, frost)

  29. Table 3. Bulk density (kg m-3) of 0-10 cm soil depth in 1981 and 1997 among three treatments and two disturbances at Gates Creek. Treatment Disturbance Year Prob>T 1981 1997 Non-stumpedUndisturbed 1231 1246 0.88 Track 1613 1405 0.001 Raked Rake 1469 1373 0.23 Track 1671 1469 0.03 Scalped Scalp 1119 1210 0.20 Track 1724 1420 0.000

  30. Aeration Porosity (Nakusp)

  31. Dispersed traffic = concern • Aeration porosity definitely affected • Literature suggests is could affect trees • Therefore, need to monitor and check • Institute BMP for now • Adjust guidelines as hard data available • Hard data needs a framework (plasticity)

  32. Mean Douglas-fir Volume • Both sites sandy-loam texture • BUT, Clay varies • Ratings need validation

  33. Soil Plasticity (Approx., CSSC) Very Plastic Plastic Slightly Plastic Non-Plastic

  34. Displacement • Displacement of fertile mineral topsoil and forest floor layers of concern • Loss of available nutrients • Loss of effective rooting volume • exposure of unfavourable subsoils • Loss of water holding capacity • Increased runoff, drainage diversion

  35. Displacement • Controlling factors: slope, topography, soil depth, subsoil type • Manageable factors: amount and extent of excavation, machine size/type, seasonal soil conditions (wetness, snow, frost)

  36. Marl Ck. Stumping trial

  37. Rehabilitated Skidroad Tree Growth

  38. Outline • Background • Soil disturbance concerns • Local soils research and results • FRPA • Soil conservation provisions in FRPA  • identify and discuss opportunities/issues for C&E (eg, MPB) • FREP soil protocol if of interest (eg low level detailed photos) • Harvesting strategies to manage soil disturbance (can influence inspection approach if a good strategy appears to have been used)

  39. BC Soil disturbance stds • 1988 start, FPC in 1995, now FRPA • Disturbance types of concern evolved from bladed trails to compacted trails, ruts • Limits set in Silviculture Prescription (Site Plan) based on soil dist.hazards • Monitoring based on transects • Disturbance at sample point categorized

  40. Historical Disturbance Levels • late 70’s / early 80’s • over 20 % common • Interim Harv. guidelines (1988) • 13 % without rehab. • 1993 Harv. guidelines • 13 % WITH rehab. • 1995 FPC Act, now FRPA • 10 % AFTER rehab. “10 + 3”(5)

More Related