THIS SUMMARY IS BASED ON DATA FROM LESS THAN 30 SURVEYED POLYGONS. THE RESULTS PRESENTED ARE CONSIDERED PRELIMINARY.
This summary is from polygons surveyed in the Quesnel TSA in 2010 and 2011. This summary is an example of the variety and depth of information that can be extracted from SDM data.
Currently, SDM field survey data is entered into an EXCEL spreadsheet template. This template provides an individual polygon data summary for immediate use. These spreadsheets are then loaded into the SDM ACCESS database. The database can be queried to produce an aggregated data summary like this one that includes data from multiple polygons within a TSA. The queries can be adjusted to extract data in various combinations depending on the user’s needs.
This summary is not an analysis; it provides limited interpretation of the data. Reports examining specific questions regarding productivity or that seek to explain trends and other behaviours can be constructed based on this data along with the use of other supporting tools or evidence.
Provincial and regional Forest Health and Silviculture staff can be asked to help with the interpretation of the information presented in the summaries and in the creation of more detailed reports.
Your input as comments and suggestions are needed to further develop these summaries. Please contact and provide your suggestions for improvement.
.
STAND DEVELOPMENT MONITORING - Quesnel TSA Summary
Purpose and Audience – Data summaries can help statutory decision makers and operational foresters make informed decisions on stand development, TSR data package inputs, FSP renewals, and FFT activity priorities. They provide information on the growth and health of managed stands.
The Forest and Range Evaluation Program in conjunction with the provincial forest health program have designed an evaluation protocol (Stand Development Monitoring - SDM) that assesses the condition of post-free-growing managed stands by measuring stand attributes and the impact of biotic and abiotic damaging factors on stand health to determine whether these free-growing stands are meeting productivity expectations.
NOTE – This report provides summary information obtained from the surveyed polygons. Inferences from these summaries should be made cautiously.
This summary includes data on: Sample Summary Forest Health Stand Density Species Composition Site Index
SAMPLE SUMMARY
Polygon and polygon population attributes, and numbers and percentages of sampled live trees.
A1 – number of polygons sampled
Survey year: / 2010 / 2011DQU / 7 / 3
A3 - sampled polygon attributes
Attribute / na / Mean / SDb / RangePolygon net area (ha) / 3 / 47.4 / 27.9 / 16 to 70
Stand Age (yrs) / 6 / 28.8 / 5.9 / 22 to 37
Harvest to Declaration (yrs) / 4 / 19.5 / 5.6 / 12 to 25
Planting to Declaration (yrs) / 1 / 21.0 / 21 to 21
Declaration to SDM (yrs) / 4 / 11.0 / 1.8 / 9 to 13
a. Differing ‘n’ values indicate missing information for some polygons.
b. SD - Standard Deviation
A4 - sample population coverage
TSApolygon population
(n) / Total polygon population
area (ha) / Number Polygons
≥5 ha
(n) / Population polygon area
≥5 ha
(ha) / Number of polygons sampled
(n) / Sampling intensity by number of polygons / Area
sampled
(≥5 ha)
(ha) / Sampling intensity by area
1563 / 35080 / 1164 / 34011 / 3 / 0.3% / 142.1 / 0.4%
A5 - number and percentage of sampled total live trees
Tree species: / At / Bl / Ep / Fdi / Pli / Sb / Sx / TotalNumber / 135 / 50 / 12 / 39 / 1007 / 64 / 206 / 1513
Percent / 9 / 3 / 1 / 3 / 67 / 4 / 14 / 100
Quesnel TSA Summary April, 2013 4
FOREST HEALTH
Forest Health is assessed using the SDM damage criteria for mid-rotation stands (see Appendix 1). The damage criteria establish forest health threshold tolerances identifying unacceptable and damaged trees, which are labelled pest affected trees. In the Quesnel TSA the pathogen most recorded was Western Gall Rust (DSG); the insect damage was Cooley Spruce gall adelgid (IAG); the animal damage was Moose (AM); the abiotic damage was Tree competition (VT).
B1 – average stems per ha by forest health status
District / Live Acceptable Trees (sph) / Live Unacceptable Trees (sph) / Dead Unacceptable Trees (sph) / Total Stemsa (sph)DQU / 3000 / 912 / 382 / 3408
a For forest health purposes total stems equals all live trees plus all dead trees.
B3 - incidence of forest health factor by bec
BEC / Tree Layer / Total Stems / Acceptable Trees / Unacceptable Trees / Percent incidencec of Forest Health Factord for each tree layerLive / Dead
n / (%b) / n / (%b) / n / (%b) / DSG / DSC / DSS / DSA / IAG / IBM / ISP / IWW / AM / VT / NY / Other / U
MSxv / 1 / 6 / 3 / 1 / 0 / 16.7 / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / -
2 / 48 / 28 / 20 / 0 / 27.1 / - / - / - / 2.1 / - / - / - / 4.2 / - / - / 8.3 / -
3 / 69 / 40 / 27 / 2 / 4.3 / - / 7.2 / - / 18.8 / - / - / - / - / 8.7 / - / 2.9 / -
123 / 73 / (59.3) / 48 / (39.0) / 2 / (1.6) / 13.8 / 0.0 / 4.1 / 0.0 / 11.4 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 1.6 / 4.9 / 0.0 / 4.9 / 0.0
SBPSdc / 1 / 16 / 7 / 4 / 5 / 25.0 / - / - / - / - / 25.0 / - / - / - / - / - / 6.3 / -
2 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 0 / - / - / - / - / 50.0 / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / -
3 / 80 / 50 / 30 / 0 / 5.0 / - / - / - / 23.8 / - / - / - / 6.3 / - / - / 2.5 / -
98 / 58 / (59.2) / 35 / (35.7) / 5 / (5.1) / 8.2 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 20.4 / 4.1 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 5.1 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 3.1 / 0.0
SBPSmk / 1 / 50 / 25 / 6 / 19 / 8.0 / - / - / 4.0 / - / 36.0 / - / - / - / - / - / 2.0 / -
2 / 131 / 100 / 23 / 8 / 13.7 / 3.1 / 0.8 / 1.5 / - / 1.5 / - / - / 0.8 / - / - / 2.3 / -
3 / 720 / 524 / 160 / 36 / 5.6 / 0.3 / - / - / 0.3 / 0.1 / - / 0.8 / - / 18.1 / 0.3 / 1.8 / -
901 / 649 / (72.0) / 189 / (21.0) / 63 / (7.0) / 6.9 / 0.7 / 0.1 / 0.4 / 0.2 / 2.3 / 0.0 / 0.7 / 0.1 / 14.4 / 0.2 / 1.9 / 0.0
SBSdw2 / 1 / 48 / 18 / 9 / 21 / 8.3 / - / 4.2 / - / 2.1 / 31.3 / 2.1 / - / - / - / - / 14.6 / -
2 / 70 / 27 / 19 / 24 / 14.3 / - / 7.1 / - / 1.4 / 18.6 / 5.7 / - / 1.4 / - / 1.4 / 11.4 / -
3 / 163 / 54 / 54 / 55 / 8.0 / - / 0.6 / - / 15.3 / - / 1.2 / - / 0.6 / 31.9 / 1.8 / 6.7 / 0.6
281 / 99 / (55.2) / 82 / (29.2) / 100 / (35.6) / 9.6 / 0.0 / 2.8 / 0.0 / 9.6 / 10.0 / 2.5 / 0.0 / 0.7 / 18.5 / 1.4 / 9.3 / 0.4
SBSmc2 / 1 / 18 / 13 / 5 / 0 / 16.7 / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / 5.6 / - / - / 5.6 / -
2 / 41 / 29 / 12 / 0 / 9.8 / - / 7.3 / - / 2.4 / - / - / - / 7.3 / - / - / 2.4 / -
3 / 67 / 46 / 20 / 1 / 6.0 / - / 3.0 / - / 4.5 / - / - / - / 4.5 / 6.0 / - / 6.0 / 1.5
126 / 88 / (69.8) / 37 / (29.4) / 1 / (0.8) / 8.7 / 0.0 / 4.0 / 0.0 / 3.2 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 5.6 / 3.2 / 0.0 / 4.8 / 0.8
SBSmw / 1 / 15 / 7 / 7 / 1 / 13.3 / 40.0 / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / -
2 / 38 / 13 / 21 / 4 / 28.9 / 23.7 / - / - / - / - / - / - / 5.3 / - / 5.3 / 2.6 / -
3 / 121 / 70 / 37 / 14 / 5.0 / 3.3 / - / - / 3.3 / - / - / - / 22.3 / - / 8.3 / - / -
174 / 90 / (51.7) / 65 / (37.4) / 19 / (10.9) / 10.9 / 10.9 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 2.3 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 16.7 / 0.0 / 6.9 / 0.6 / 0.0
a. Averages on a per ha basis b. For forest health purposes total stems equals total live plus total dead c. Percent of the total stems d. Only the top 13 forest health factors are included in the table
B4 - incidence of forest health factor by tree species
Tree Species / Tree Layer / Total Stems / Acceptable Trees / Unacceptable Trees / Percent incidencec of Forest Health Factord for each tree layerLive / Dead
n / (%b) / n / (%b) / n / (%b) / DSG / DSC / DSS / DSA / IAG / IBM / ISP / IWW / AM / VT / NY / Other / U
At / 1 / 15 / 8 / 2 / 5 / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / 6.7 / - / - / 40.0 / -
2 / 33 / 22 / 4 / 7 / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / 9.1 / - / 3.0 / 21.2 / -
3 / 115 / 95 / 4 / 16 / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / 2.6 / 0.9 / - / 13.9 / -
163 / 125 / (76.7) / 10 / (6.1) / 28 / (17.2) / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 4.3 / 0.6 / 0.0 / 17.8 / 0.0
Bl / 2 / 10 / 6 / 4 / 0 / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / 40.0 / - / - / - / -
3 / 41 / 22 / 18 / 1 / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / 43.9 / - / - / - / 2.4
51 / 28 / (54.9) / 22 / (43.1) / 1 / (2.0) / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 43.1 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 2.0
Ep / 3 / 12 / 4 / 8 / 0 / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / 66.7 / - / - / - / -
12 / 4 / (33.3) / 8 / (66.7) / 0 / (0.0) / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 66.7 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0
Fdi / 1 / 4 / 4 / 0 / 0 / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / -
2 / 9 / 7 / 1 / 1 / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / 22.2 / - / -
3 / 29 / 26 / 1 / 2 / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / 10.3 / - / -
42 / 37 / (.1) / 2 / (4.8) / 3 / (7.1) / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 11.9 / 0.0 / 0.0
Pli / 1 / 114 / 45 / 28 / 41 / 15.8 / 5.3 / 1.8 / 1.8 / - / 32.5 / 0.9 / - / - / - / - / 4.4 / -
2 / 261 / 150 / 83 / 28 / 21.5 / 5.0 / 3.4 / 0.8 / - / 5.7 / 1.5 / - / 0.8 / - / - / 6.1 / -
3 / 790 / 477 / 224 / 89 / 8.9 / 0.8 / 1.0 / - / - / 0.1 / 0.3 / 0.8 / 0.8 / 24.2 / 1.1 / 2.5 / 0.1
1165 / 672 / (57.7) / 335 / (28.8) / 158 / (13.6) / 12.4 / 2.1 / 1.6 / 0.3 / 0.0 / 4.5 / 0.6 / 0.5 / 0.7 / 16.4 / 0.8 / 3.5 / 0.1
Sb / 1 / 3 / 3 / 0 / 0 / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / -
2 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 0 / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / -
3 / 60 / 56 / 4 / 0 / - / - / - / - / 1.7 / - / - / - / 1.7 / - / - / 3.3 / -
64 / 60 / (93.8) / 4 / (6.3) / 0 / (0.0) / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 1.6 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 1.6 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 3.1 / 0.0
Sx / 1 / 17 / 15 / 2 / 0 / - / - / - / - / 5.9 / - / - / - / - / - / - / 5.9 / -
2 / 16 / 12 / 4 / 0 / - / - / - / - / 25.0 / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / -
3 / 173 / 104 / 69 / 0 / - / - / - / - / 37.6 / - / - / - / - / - / 1.7 / 0.6 / -
206 / 131 / (63.6) / 75 / (36.4) / 0 / (0.0) / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 34.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 1.5 / 1.0 / 0.0
a Percent based on total stems (live and dead); b Percent incidence of the total stems of a layer for each FHF; c Only the top FHF are listed, the Other column contains the minor FHF not listed.
Quesnel TSA Summary April, 2013 4
STAND DENSITY
To produce a free-growing crop of trees a stand is managed to the target stocking level of well-spaced, preferred and acceptable species. Over time, changes in stand density may reflect tree competition, mortality due to pests, stand treatments, natural ingress or other influences.
C1 - number of polygons with changes to stand density
Change in Total Stand DensityTotal Trees (n=10) / Change in Stocking Density
Well-Spaced Trees (n= 10)
Decreasing / 3 / Decreasing / 5
Increasing / 3 / Increasing / 1
Data missing / 4 / Data missing / 4
C2 - stand density attributes by bec – pre-sdm and at sdm
MSxv / SBPSdc / SBPSmk / SBSdw2 / SBSmc2 / SBSmw / ALLN / Mean (sph) / N / Mean (sph) / N / Mean (sph) / N / Mean (sph) / N / Mean (sph) / N / Mean (sph) / N / Mean (sph)
Total Density pre-SDM / 1 / 2209 / 0 / 3 / 2642 / 1 / 2560 / 1 / 3440 / 1 / 4811 / 7 / 2992
Total Density at SDM / 1 / 2420 / 0 / 3 / 3160 / 0 / 1 / 2500 / 1 / 3080 / 6 / 2913
Change in Total Density / 1 / 211 / 0 / 3 / 518 / 0 / 1 / -940 / 1 / -1731 / 6 / -151
Change in Total Density (%) / 1 / 10 / 0 / 3 / 20 / 0 / 1 / -27 / 1 / -36 / 6 / -5
WS density pre-SDM) / 1 / 1684 / 0 / 3 / 1227 / 1 / 800 / 1 / 1080 / 1 / 1095 / 7 / 1191
WS density at SDM) / 1 / 1140 / 0 / 3 / 1013 / 0 / 1 / 780 / 1 / 1040 / 6 / 1000
Change in WS density) / 1 / -544 / 0 / 3 / -214 / 0 / 1 / -300 / 1 / -55 / 6 / -257
Change in WS density (%) / 1 / -32 / 0 / 3 / -17 / 1 / 1 / -28 / 1 / -5 / 7 / -22
FG density pre-SDM) / 1 / 1000 / 0 / 3 / 400 / 1 / 760 / 1 / 1000 / 1 / 968 / 7 / 704
FG density at SDM / 1 / 1100 / 0 / 3 / 967 / 1 / 800 / 1 / 720 / 1 / 780 / 7 / 900
Quesnel TSA Summary April, 2013 5