Status Report to the Forestry Research Partnership

Status Report to the Forestry Research Partnership

Britt White Pine Study - Effect of Selected Intensities of Silviculture on

Growth and Yield of Overstory and Understory White Pine

Part 1. Residual overstory structure, composition and growth

Part 2. Growth of planted white pine

FRP Project Number: 130-209 (6329 00)

Project Leader: Andree Morneault, MNR

Project Co-leads: Murray Woods, Barry Davidson

Project Facilitator: Al Stinson, FRP

Project Start Date: April 1, 2005

Project Reporting Period: April 1, 2007 to March 31st 2008

Report Date: March 31st 2008

1. Project Background, Description and Activities:

The white pine industry in Ontario is undergoing significant change as competition from South America has displaced many traditional markets. However Pw remains one of the fastest growing tree species in the GLSL with MAI’s of 10m3/ha/yr possible, Pw also has desirable wood properties that make it suitable for many product types from pulp to high value added products. There is a biological requirement to regenerate Pw on the landscape as identified in FMP and forest certification objectives. With these productivity advantages and biological requirements Pw will remain a key part of any enhanced forest management strategy at the landscape level in the GLSL.

This project provides a unique opportunity to compare the effect of different site preparation treatments on the survival, growth and recruitment of white pine regeneration. It also provides data on the rate of residual stem and stand growth and the impacts of logging damage (abrasions and root damage) on long-term growth and quality development of white pine following the seeding cut of the shelterwood system. The operational nature of this study allows the direct transfer of the knowledge gained to silvicultural ground rules, yield response, post-harvest succession rules, and the cost-benefit analysis for alternative silvicultural treatments.

This project is part of a larger, comprehensive study looking at plant diversity and succession, salamander populations, natural regeneration ecology, competing vegetation, soil and plant nutrients, and environmental monitoring in response to shelterwood harvesting and site preparation in white pine stands. The study, initiated in 1994, is located in the Britt area of Parry Sound and has been supported by the OMNR, the Canadian Forest Service, various universities, and the local SFL since its inception.

The Forestry Research Partnership supported the 5th year re-measurement ($11,000) of the residual overstory and the planted white pine in 2002. This data was summarized and reported in various forums.

Specific objectives of this proposal include:

To quantify the effect of logging damage on the quality and growth and yield of residual white pine in stands managed under the shelterwood system.

To measure survival and growth of planted white pine following operational shelterwood harvesting and site preparation and to determine optimal treatment combinations for productive (i.e. competitive) sites.

To develop basal area and volume growth rates following uniform shelterwood activities in white pine dominated stands.

This study will provide much needed data to support the development of early managed stand growth and yield curves for white pine managed under the shelterwood system in Ontario. Specifically, it will provide data on the overstory and understory white pine response to the seeding cut of the shelterwood system and four site preparation treatments: no site preparation, mechanical site preparation (straight blade on small bulldozer), chemical site preparation (air blast sprayer using Vision herbicide), combined mechanical/chemical site preparation.

Detailed Project Description:

Part 1. Residual overstory structure, composition and growth (Lead: Murray Woods). In 1997, after all treatments were completed, each tree with a DBH greater than 10 cm within each 0.5 hectare treatment plot was numbered, mapped and measured generally following the methods described by Hayden et al. (1995). We recorded information on many variables including: species, status (live, dead, cut), diameter, logging damage, deformities, live crown ratio (ratio of live crown to total tree height), height (on a sub-sample) and decay class (if dead). In addition, a 400m2 permanent growth plot was randomly located within each treatment plot to assess smaller stem dynamics. Data was collected in 2002 to obtain 5th year growth response and recruitment and will be collected again in 2007 to assess 10th year growth response and recruitment.

Part 2. Growth of planted white pine (Lead: Andree Morneault). Each treatment plot was planted with 1-year-old Jiffy container stock in spring 1998 using operational standards (2.7 m x 2.7 m spacing). After planting, 40 seedlings were randomly chosen within each treatment plot (40 seedlings x 5 treatments x 3 replicate blocks = total of 600 seedlings). Each seedling was numbered, tagged and pinned for repeated growth and survival measurements. Total height, basal diameter and seedling condition were recorded annually beginning in fall 1998. Condition codes were assigned to each seedling describing damage (browse, broken leaders, necrosis and disease). Seedlings will be re-measured in 2007 (10th year growth response).

2.Project Results vs. Objectives:

The results so far have met the objectives of the proposal; the project is on schedule.

2007/2008 Deliverable / Date accomplished
Measure overstory trees / September 2007
Measure pine regeneration (planted and natural) / October 2007
Data entry, cleaning, and storing / March 2008
Planted white pine regeneration – data analysis and reporting / Updated fact sheet describing 10th year growth response of planted white pine to different site preparation treatments. November 2007. Journal paper in progress.
Overstory data - data analysis and reporting / Data will be analyzed and report written by December 2008.
Natural regeneration – data analysis and reporting / Data will be analyzed and report written by December 2008.
Presentations / February 2008 – presented project overview and planted pine results at the FRP-GLSL Forestry Science Seminar in Mattawa
March 2008 - presented project overview and planted pine results at the FRP-GLSL Forestry Science Seminar in Sault Ste. Marie
The project leader and key personnel from the project team will be available to provide presentations at workshops and meetings to promote the transfer of information and technology resulting from this project.

This project is specifically linked to FRP projects: 130-009, 130-011, 130-103a, and 160-005, and information from this project will be shared in an effort to ensure integration and a cohesive approach within the framework of the Forestry Research Partnership.

Long-term deliverables (March 2009):

Basal area and volume growth rates for managed and unmanaged white pine dominated stands;
Estimates of mortality following harvesting;
Rates of snag and coarse-woody debris recruitment in uniform shelterwood treated stands;
Impacts of logging damage on rates of mortality and stem quality following uniform shelterwood harvesting;
Successional pathway outcomes following harvesting operations;
Height-diameter growth curves for determining local volume estimates;
Site index confirmation/suitability through comparison of top-height development with published site index curves.
Height and diameter growth curves for 0-10 year old white pine managed under the shelterwood system under a range of understory competition. Results will be included in growth models.

Future efforts of calibrating a growth and yield model for Ontario (Forest Vegetation Simulator Ontario [FVSOntario]) will use this information to better predict the outcome of similar silvicultural treatments.

Page

3.Financial Report: Britt White Pine Study

Financial Report: 2007/2008 Planned and Actual Partner Expenditures - 130-506 (6329 00) – see spreadsheets attached

Expenditures

Tembec

MNR

Total FRP Only

Planned

Actual

Planned

Actual

Planned

Actual

Cash

In-kind

Cash

In-kind

Cash

In-kind

Cash

In-kind

Cash

In-kind

Cash

In-kind

Salaries

Travel

Equipment

Supplies

Support Services

Other

Total

Expenditures

FRP Partners

Westwind Forest Stewardship Inc.

Total All

Planned

Actual

Planned

Actual

Planned

Actual

Combined

Cash

In-kind

Cash

In-kind

Cash

In-kind

Cash

In-kind

Cash

In-kind

Cash

In-kind

Planned

Actual

Salaries

Travel

Equipment

Supplies

Support Services

Other

Sub Total

Holdback

Total

Page

5. Information and Publications:

Raw data and electronic data files are stored in project leader’s offices. One fact sheet was updated in November 2007 and is posted on the FRP website. The planted tree results were presented in February 2008 at the FRP-GLSL Forestry Science Seminar in Mattawa and in March 2008 at the FRP-GLSL Forestry Science Seminar in Sault Ste. Marie. The large long-term data sets for other aspects of the study were cleaned and organized during the winter 2007-2008 and will be analyzed and reported on in 2008.

6. Project Synopsis:

The study, initiated in 1994, is located in the Britt area of Parry Sound and has been supported by the OMNR, the Canadian Forest Service, various universities, and Westwind Forest Stewardship Inc. (the local SFL) since its inception. In 2002, Tembec, through the FRP, was invited to support the data collection and analysis of the growth and yield aspect of the study.

Site Description

The study is located 65 km north of Parry Sound, near Britt in central Ontario (50°80', 54°85'). In 1995, the study plots were located in 90- to 100-year-old stands dominated by white pine with minor components of red pine (Pinus resinosa Ait.), trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.), and white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss). These Site Class 2 (Forest Resources Inventory) white pine sites were classified as Ecosite 11 (white pine-red pine, fresh to moist) based on the Central Ontario Forest Ecosystem Classification System (Chambers et al. 1997). Soils vary over short distances but are most commonly medium sandy loams, less than 30 cm deep, dry to moderately fresh, and very rapid to well drained. Understory vegetation was dominated by balsam fir (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.), red maple (Acer rubrum L.), trembling aspen, low sweet blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium Ait.), beaked hazel (Corylus cornuta Marsh.), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn), and wild raisin (Viburnum cassinoides L.), with very little advance reproduction of white pine.

Study Design

The study was established using a randomised complete block design, with 5 treatments replicated in 3 blocks. The treatments are:

NC: no cut, no site preparation

C: cut (1997) and no site preparation

M: cut (1996) and mechanical site preparation (1997)

H: cut (1996) and chemical site preparation (1997)

MH: cut (1995) and both mechanical (1996) and chemical site preparation (1997)

Blocking was based on site characteristics. Blocks are separated by several km and differ in total pre-harvest basal area of pine and moisture regime. Treatment plots measure 100 m x 50 m and are surrounded by a 30-m buffer.

Treatments

Before harvest, plots were marked to retain 50% crown closure in dominant and codominant trees, following the OMNR tree marking guidelines (OMNR 1998). Marked trees measuring greater than 10-cm diameter at breast height (DBH) were removed and stand basal areas were reduced from an average of 37.5 m2/ha to an average of 20 m2/ha. Experienced operators manually felled and tree-length skidded the marked trees. Designated plots were mechanically site prepared in early fall using a 6-way blade mounted on a D4 bulldozer. This treatment mixed leaf litter, duff, and mineral soil, uprooted some woody competitors, and displaced woody debris into small piles. Mineral soil exposure and mixed duff and soil covered an average of 25% of treated plots, similar to operationally treated areas. Chemical site preparation was applied in late summer by broadcast spraying Vision® herbicide at 2.1 kg a.e. ha-1 using a mist blower mounted on a rubber-tired skidder. On the combined mechanical scarification and chemical treatment plots, the herbicide was applied 1year after the mechanical treatment.

Summary of results

Part 1. Residual overstory structure, composition and growth (Lead: Murray Woods) (2002 results summarized here – 2007 results will be available in December 2008).

In 1997, each tree with a DBH greater than 10 cm within each 0.5 hectare treatment plot was numbered, mapped and measured generally following the methods described by Hayden et al. (1995). We recorded information on many variables including: species, status (live, dead, cut), diameter, logging damage, deformities, live crown ratio (ratio of live crown to total tree height), height (on a sub-sample) and decay class (if dead). In 2002, data was collected to assess 5th year growth response and recruitment.

Data collection

In 1997, we numbered and measured a total of 2801 standing trees: 590 dead and 2212 live. Data collection was done after harvest, but before mechanical and chemical site preparation. In 2002, we re-numbered trees found in 1997, numbered new in-growth, and measured a total of 2961 standing trees: 604 dead and 2357 live trees.

Live trees

In 1997, the most common tree species was white pine (>1000 stems, 76% of total basal area). Balsam fir had the next highest stem density, but in terms of basal area, red pine (9% of total basal area), trembling aspen (5%) and white spruce (4%) were the next most common species. Proportions of each species remained the same in 2002. Other tree species that were present but in smaller numbers were white birch, black cherry, ironwood, sugar maple, red maple, jack pine, largetooth aspen, and larch.

Basal area growth

On average, the treatment plots added 2.13 m2/ha in basal area over the 5 year period, of which white pine accounted for 1.53 m2/ha. Plots with the largest basal area increased the most. Individual white pine trees, however, grew more on plots that were cut (average of 10% increase in basal area) compared to the uncut stands (average of 7.5% increase). Analysis of variance did not detect any significant block effects; however, there was a significant treatment effect on the relative growth of white pine basal area: plots that were harvested with no mechanical scarification (C and H) had significantly greater basal area growth of white pine than plots with no treatment (NC). In the first 5 years after harvesting, logging damage did not appear to have any effect on basal area growth.

Standing dead trees

In both years, dead trees made up about 20% of the standing tree density. In both measurement years (1997 and 2002), dead trees were mainly white pine (50%), white spruce (17%) and white birch (11%).

Standing trees become DWD

From 1997 to 2002, 178 dead trees and 141 live trees fell to the ground (mainly as a result of site preparation and some minor blow-down) and became downed woody debris. We were able to locate many of these trees (126 dead and 68 live) and we will continue to monitor them over time to assess their rate of decay.

Mortality

Overall, 159 trees died from 1997 to 2002, of which almost half were in the no cut, no site preparation (NC) treatment plots.

Recruitment

Several trees were recruited into the overstory from 1997 to 2002. These trees were smaller than 10 cm in DBH in 1997. Of the 469 new trees, over half were balsam fir (290). Recruitment occurred in all treatment plots, but mostly in the NC and H plots.

Part 2. Growth of planted white pine (Lead: Andree Morneault).

Each treatment plot was planted with 1-year-old Jiffy container stock in spring 1998 using operational standards (2.7 m x 2.7 m spacing). After planting, 40 seedlings were randomly chosen within each treatment plot (40 seedlings x 5 treatments x 3 replicate blocks = total of 600 seedlings). Each seedling was numbered, tagged and pinned for repeated growth and survival measurements. Total height, basal diameter and seedling condition were recorded in late autumn annually beginning in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. Condition codes were assigned to each seedling describing damage (browse, broken leaders, necrosis and disease). In 2007, seedlings were re-measured to assess 10th year response.

Survival:

Planted pine survival in the no cut treatment dropped rapidly over the first three years, and continued to drop all the way to year 10. In year 10, survival was only 27%. Of the seedlings that did survive, mean height was 33 cm and mean root collar diameter was 4 mm at year 10. As expected, survival and growth rates were poor overall. These results illustrate why you can sometimes find small white pine regeneration under a dense canopy, but you rarely see larger trees surviving under their own overstory.

Survival for the harvested treatments was better. Harvesting alone increased survival to 57% - doubling the survival rates by just performing a regeneration cut.

Survival in plots that had a harvesting treatment followed by some form of site preparation ranged from 70 to 74% - a 1.3 fold increase over harvesting with no site preparation.

In the first 5 years, site preparation resulted in significantly higher survival rates than harvesting with no site preparation; however, differences were no longer significant after 5 years. This probably reflects the temporal nature of site preparation treatments. Competing vegetation is controlled for several years, but eventually, it grows back and begins to overtop the pine regeneration and affect survival. Analysis of vegetation data supports this observation.

Height, diameter, and stem volume:

Height growth differences by treatment were not apparent until year 5 where seedlings planted in any of the site preparation treatments were taller than those planted without site preparation. In Year 6, seedlings planted into chemically site prepared plots, were significantly taller than those planted in the mechanically site prepared plots and those that received no site preparation. This growth trend was significant all the way to year 10.

For diameter growth, significant differences became apparent a little earlier. In years 3, 4 and 5, any form of site preparation increased diameter growth over harvest with no site preparation. From year 6 on, the chemically site prepared plots produced seedlings with significantly larger diameters. The addition of mechanical site preparation to chemical site preparation provided no additional advantage to the growth of planted seedlings.