跳至主要内容

Interaction of Trembling Aspen and Lodgepole Pine in a Young Sub-Boreal Mixedwood Stand in Central British Columbia

Read  full  paper  at:
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=53511#.VMcrXyzQrzE

ABSTRACT
Strategies for managing mixed broadleaf-conifer stands in British Columbia (BC) have been under review in recent years as the benefits of mixedwood management have been recognized. More has been learned about the role of broadleaves in forest ecosystems however ecosystem-specific knowledge about the competitive interactions between mixed broadleaf-conifer stands is still scarce. Therefore a competitive interactions study was conducted to facilitate ecosystem-specific management for lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. Ex Loud. Var. latifolia Engelm.) and trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) in the sub-boreal spruce (SBS) zone of central BC. The experiment was a completely randomized block design with six different aspen densities replicated three times. Each replicate was sampled three times between ages 14 to 19 years. Pine diameter and height growth were influenced by aspen density. Our current quantitative findings suggest that lodgepole pine growth was not impacted when growing with aspen densities up to 2500 stems ha-1. Considering free growing (FTG) and not free growing (NFTG) pine at the time of trial establishment, an insignificant difference was found for DBH, height and crown volume responses. Leaf area index (LAI) and diffuse non-interceptance (DIFN) radiation were also not significantly different between FTG or NFTG trees suggesting our results exceed the current BC’s free growing standard. Further work is recommended to determine whether or not the current free growing standards are appropriate for producing the desired crop outcome.
 
Cite this paper
Dhar, A. , Wang, J. and Hawkins, C. (2015) Interaction of Trembling Aspen and Lodgepole Pine in a Young Sub-Boreal Mixedwood Stand in Central British Columbia. Open Journal of Forestry, 5, 129-138. doi: 10.4236/ojf.2015.52013.
 
References
[1]British Columbia Ministry of Forests (2000). Establishment to Free Growing Guidebook—Kamloops Forest Region (Version 2.2). BC Ministry of Forests, Forest Practices Branch, Victoria, B.C., Canada.
 
[2]British Columbia Ministry of Forests (2005). Guide to the Evaluation of FSP Stocking and Related Standards. BC Ministry of Forests, Forest Practices Branch, Victoria, B.C., Canada.
 
[3]Burton, P. J. (1993). Some Limitations Inherent to Static Indices of Plant Competition. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 23, 2141-2152.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/x93-267
 
[4]Chen, H. Y. H., Klinka, K., & Kayahara, G. J. (1996). Effects of Light on Growth, Crown Architecture, and Specific Leaf Area for Naturally Established Pinus contorta var. latifolia and Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca saplings. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 26, 1149-1157.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/x26-128
 
[5]Chen, H. Y. H., Krestov, P. V., & Klinka, K. (2002). Trembling Aspen Site Index in Relation to Environmental Measures of Site Quality at Two Spatial Scales. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 32, 112-119.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/x01-179
 
[6]Comeau, P. G., Filipescu, N. C., Kabzems, R., & DeLong, C. (2004). Early Growth of White Spruce Underplanted Beneath Spaced and Unspaced Aspen Stands in North-Eastern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 34, 2277-2283.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/x04-105
 
[7]Comeau, P. G., Gendron, F., & Letchford, T. (1998). A Comparison of Several Methods of Estimating Light under a Paper Birch Mixedwood Stand. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 28, 1843-1850.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/x98-159
 
[8]Comeau, P. G., Heineman, J. L., & Newsome, T. (2006). Evaluation of Relationships between Understory Light and Aspen Basal Area in the British Columbia Central Interior. Forest Ecology and Management, 226, 80-87.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.12.060
 
[9]Comeau, P.G. (2001). Relationships between Stand Parameters and understory Light in Boreal Aspen Stands. Journal of Ecosystems and Management, 1, 103-110.
 
[10]Coopersmith, D., Sagar, B., & Thompson, D. (2000). Ten-Year Results of the Bear Mountain Mixedwood Trial (EP1077): The Effect of Overtopping Aspen Canopies on White Spruce Seedling Growth and Seedling Microclimate. BC Min. For., Prince George Forest Region, Forest Research Note PG-23, 12 pp.
 
[11]DeLong, C., & Tanner, D. (1996). Effect of Aspen Competition on Survival and Growth of Lodgepole Pine and White Spruce. In P. G. Comeau, G. J. Harper, M. E. Blache, J. O. Boateng, & K. D. Thomas (Eds.), Ecology and Management of B.C. Hardwoods (pp. 203-204). Victoria, BC: Canada Forest Service and the BC Ministry of Forests.
 
[12]Frivold, L. H. (1985). Mixed Broadleaved-Coniferous Stands: Some Silvicultural Considerations. In B. Hahhlund, & G. Peterson (Eds.), Broadleaves in Boreal Silviculture: An Obstacle or an Asset (pp. 207-221). Umea: Department of Silviculure, Swedish University of Agricultural Science.
 
[13]Gerlach, J. P., Reich, P. B., Puettmann, K., & Baker, T. (1997). Species, Diversity, and Density Affect Tree Seedling Mortality from Armillaria Root Rot. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 27, 1509-1512.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/x97-098
 
[14]Gower, S. T., McMurtrie, R. E., & Murty, D. (1996). Aboveground Net Primary Production Decline with Stand Age: Potential Causes. Tree, 11, 378-382.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(96)10042-2
 
[15]Hawkins, C. D. B., & Dhar, A. (2013). Birch (Betula papyrifera) White Spruce (Picea glauca) Interactions in Mixedwood Stands: Implications for Management. Journal of Forest Science, 59, 137-149.
 
[16]Hawkins, C. D. B., Dhar, A., & Lange, J. (2013). Vegetation Management with Glyphosate Has Little Impact on Understory Species Diversity or Tree Growth in a Sub Boreal Spruce Plantation: A Case Study. Plant Biosystems, 147, 105-114.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2012.736421
 
[17]Hawkins, C. D. B., Dhar, A., & Rogers, B. J. (2012). How Much Birch (Betula papyrifera) Is Too Much for Maximizing Spruce (Picea glauca) Growth: A Case Study in Boreal Spruce Plantation Forests. Journal of Forest Science, 58, 314-327.
 
[18]Heineman, J. L., Simard, S. W., Sachs, D. L., & Mather, W. J. (2008). Trembling Aspen Removal Effects on Lodgepole Pine in Southern Interior British Columbia: Ten Year Results. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 24, 17-23.
 
[19]Hibbs, D. E., Emmingham, W. H., & Bondi, M. C. (1989) Thinning Red Alder: Effects of Method and Spacing. Forest Science, 35, 16-29.
 
[20]Kabzems, R., & Garcia, O. (2004). Structure and Dynamics of Trembling Aspen-White Spruce Mixed Stands near Fort Nelson, BC. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 34, 384-395.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/x03-254
 
[21]Klinka, K., & Scagel, A. M. (1984). Selected Ecological Characteristics of Some Tree and Shrub Species in British Columbia: Genera Juniperus, Taxus, Populus, Alnus, Betula, Quercus, Prunus, Rhamnus, Acer, Cornus, and Arbutus. Coquitlam: Canadian Cartographics Ltd.
 
[22]Lanner, R. L. (1985). On the Sensitivity of Height Growth to Spacing. Forest Ecology and Management, 3, 143-148.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-1127(85)90030-1
 
[23]Lees, J. C. (1966). Release of White Spruce from Aspen Competition in Alberta’s Spruce-Aspen Forest. Publication 1163, Ottawa: Canada Department of Forest.
http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/pubwarehouse/pdfs/31444.pdf
 
[24]Lieffers, J. V., Pinno, D. B., & Stadt, J. K. (2002). Light Dynamics and Free-to-Grow Standards in Aspen Dominated Mixedwood Forests. The Forestry Chronicle, 78, 37-45.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5558/tfc78137-1
 
[25]Lieffers, V. J., Stadt, K. J., & Feng, Z. (2007). Free-to-Grow Regeneration Standards Are Poorly Linked to Growth of Spruce in Boreal Mixedwoods. The Forestry Chronicle, 83, 818-824.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5558/tfc83818-6
 
[26]Man, R., & Lieffers, V. J. (1999). Are Mixtures of Aspen and White Spruce More Productive than Single Species Stands? The Forestry Chronicle, 75, 505-513.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5558/tfc75505-3
 
[27]Meidinger, D., Pojar, J., & Harper, W. L. (1991). Sub-Boreal Spruce Zone. In D. Meidinger, & J. Pojar (Eds.), Ecosystems of British Columbia (pp. 195-207). Victoria: BC Ministry of Forests.
 
[28]Morrison, D. J., Merler, H., & Norris, D. (1991). Detection, Recognition and Management of Armillaria and Phellinus Root Diseases in the Southern Interior of British Columbia. Canada-British Columbia Partnership Agreement on Forest Resource Development: FRDA II, FRDA Report 179. Victoria: British Columbia Ministry of Forests.
 
[29]Newsome, T., Heineman, J. L., & Nemec, A. (2003). Competitive Effects of Trembling Aspen on Lodgepole Pine Performance in the SBS and IDF Zones of the Cariboo-Chilcotin Region of South-Central British Columbia. Research Branch, BC. Ministry of Forest, Victoria Technical Report 005.
www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Tr/Tr005.htm
 
[30]Newsome, T., Heineman, J. L., & Nemec, A. (2004). Early Effects of Manipulating Aspen Density on Lodgepole Pine Performance, Aspen Sucker Production, and Stand Development in the IDFxm Subzone near Williams Lake, B.C. Technical Report 015, Victoria: Research Branch, B.C. Ministry of Forests.
 
[31]Newsome, T., Heineman, J. L., & Nemec, A. (2006). Effects of Variable Aspen Retention on Stand Development, Aspen Sucker Production and Growth of Lodgepole Pine in the SBSdw1 Variant of South-Central British Columbia. Technical Report 032, Victoria: Research Branch, B.C. Ministry of Forests, 31 p.
 
[32]Newsome, T., Heineman, J. L., & Nemec, A. (2008). Competitive Interactions between Juvenile Trembling Aspen and Lodgepole Pine: A Comparison of Two Interior British Columbia Ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management, 255, 2950-2962.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.02.001
 
[33]Newsome, T., Heineman, J. L., & Nemec, A. (2010). A Comparison of Lodgepole Pine Responses to Varying Levels of Trembling Aspen Removal in Two Dry South-Central British Columbia Ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management, 259, 1170-1180.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.01.003
 
[34]Newton, M., & Comeau, P. G. (1990). Control of Competing Vegetation. In D. P. Lavender, R. Parish, C. M. Johnson, G. Montgomery, A. Vyse, R. A. Willis, & D. Winston (Eds.), Regenerating British Columbia’s Forests (pp. 256-265). Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
 
[35]Park, A., Puettmann, K., Edward Wilson, E., Messier, M., Kames, S., & Dhar, A. (2014). Can Boreal and Temperate Forest Management Be Adapted to the Uncertainties of 21st Century Climate Change? Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 33, 251-285.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07352689.2014.858956
 
[36]Peng, C., Liu, J., Dang, Q., Zhou, X., & Apps, M. (2002). Developing Carbon-Based Ecological Indicators to Monitor Sustainability of Ontario’s Forests. Ecological Indicators, 1, 235-246.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-160X(02)00010-9
 
[37]Prévost, M., & Pothier, D. (2003). Partial Cuts in a Trembling Aspen-Conifer Stand: Effects on Micro-Environmental Conditions and Regeneration Dynamics. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 33, 1-15.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/x02-147
 
[38]Simard, S. W., & Sachs, D. L. (2004). Assessment of Interspecific Competition Using Relative Height and Distance Indices in an Age Sequence of Seral Interior Cedar-Hemlock Forests in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 34, 1228-1240.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/x04-008
 
[39]Simard, S. W., Hagerman, S. W., Sachs, D. L., Heineman, J. L., & Mather, W. J. (2005). Conifer Growth, Root Disease, and Plant Community Responses to Mechanical and Chemical Control of Birch and Aspen in Southern British Columbia’s Temperate Mixed Forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 35, 843-859.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/x05-010
 
[40]Simard, S. W., Heineman, J. L., Mather, W. J., Sachs, D. L., & Vyse, A. (2001). Effects of Operational Brushing on Conifers and Plant Communities in the Southern Interior of British Columbia: Results from PROBE 1991-2000. B.C. Handbook No. 48, Victoria: B.C. Ministry of Forests Land Management, 398 p.
 
[41]Taylor, S. P., & Cozens, R. D. (1994). Limiting White Pine Weevil Attacks by Side and Overstory Shade in the Prince George Forest Region. Journal of Entomology Society BC, 91, 37-42.
 
[42]Wagner, R. G. (2000). Competition and Critical-Period Thresholds for Vegetation Management Decisions in Young Conifer Stands. The Forestry Chronicle, 76, 961-968.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5558/tfc76961-6
 
[43]Yang, R. C. (1989). Growth Response of White Spruce to Release from Trembling Aspen. Inf. Rep. NOR-X-302, Edmonton: For. Can.                                                                                                    eww150127lx
标签：

评论

发表评论

此博客中的热门博文

Does Immigration Promote the Investment of the Monopolistic Firm?

In the present paper, we examine the effect of increasing uncertainty of immigrants’ growth on the optimal timing of investment of a firm that has a monopolistic power over the labor market. It is revealed that when the uncertainty of immigrants’ growth is more than a threshold level, increasing uncertainty of immigrants’ growth accelerates the optimal timing of firms’ investment and enhances the economic growth, even if the uncertainty of immigrants’ growth is formulated by the geometric Brownian motion, which is in sharp contrast to the standard result that an increase in the uncertainty postpones the optimal timing. With an increase in the immigrants over the past ten years, workforces in the host countries have been growing significantly to the extent that the immigrants represent 70% of the increase in the workforce in Europe, and 47% in the United States as OECD indicates. In the present paper, we attempted to investigate the effect of increased uncertainty caused by the growi...
发表评论
阅读全文

Education Policy Implementation: A Mechanism for Enhancing Primary Education Development in Zanzibar

Education is one of the fundamental rights of individuals; therefore, the government of a country needs to develop and strengthen educational policy and quality as well as to ensure that everyone has equal access to basic education. The improvement of access and quality of education in the world is becoming as an essential factor in development, whereas the basic education (primary school), is acknowledged as a foundation of the higher educational development for every country. To fulfill this goal, governments introduce several policies and procedures; however, it requires some reforms and participation from the politician, policymakers, and other stakeholders to re-examine educational policy so that it can lead to multiplication and betterment of the reforms. Educational reforms actually focus on accountability. A positive educational development and reform is very challenging and needs more effort and strategy on how to use and utilize the resources effectively as such it can achie...
发表评论
阅读全文