Stand Dynamics of Northern Hardwoods to Partial Harvesting ...hardwoodinitiative.fpinnovations.ca/files/events/2010.10-19_21... · Stand Dynamics of Northern Hardwoods to Partial

Stand Dynamics of Northern Hardwoods to Partial Harvesting in

the Acadian Forest Region

Ontario Hardwood Management TourForest Ecology Centre

19-21 October 2010

D. Edwin Swift, Chhun-Huor Ung, and Isabelle Duchesne

Contact Information

Mr. Edwin Swift, M.Sc.F., RPF, CF

Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Wood Fibre Centre, P.O. Box 4000, Fredericton, NB E3B 5P7 Canada e-mail: [email protected]: 506-452-3175

Presentation Outline

• Introduction• Problem Statement• Study Description• Stand Dynamics• Ingrowth Dynamics• Stem Quality Issues• Connections to Other Regions• Questions

- Northern hardwoods are a major forest type in eastern Canada. These stands represent ecologically and economically important tree species and associations in the region.

- The hardwood lumber industry in eastern Canada is currently in a vulnerable position due to reduced demand on the American market as well as the transfer of manufacturing facilities for furniture and other secondary products.

Introduction

- In New Brunswick, the allowable annual cut (AAC) forhardwood has been reduced by 39%.

Problem Statement: Short Version of Objectives

Project 17: Assess the impact of partial harvesting on stand dynamics, tree grade projections, accuracy of tree grade projections, wood fibre attributes, and product recovery for northern hardwoods of the Acadian Forest Region.

T1C2T2 C1

Paired Plots- Control and thinned PSPs of 1,600 m2; which consisted of four 400 m2

sub-plots or quadrats.

- History of stand and tree attributes.

- Included additional inventory and fibre attribute measurements in 2009.

- Buffer areas provided sample trees.

20 m

40 m

Study Description

Location of the “Paired”Hardwood Plot Study Sites

1 = Grand John # 2

2 = McLean’s Brook

3 = Grand John #1

4 = Dunbar #1

5 = Dunbar #2

6 = Wiggin’s Corner

Study Description

Treatments for Paired Plots:First entry removal of a 20 year harvest cycle for selection or uneven-aged management in northern hardwoods.

Harvest operation system was manual felling with chainsaws and cable skidder.

Tree removal priority was:

1) mature to over-mature spruce and balsam fir, 2) imminent mortality, 3) low quality American beech, 4) all trees over 40 cm at dbh, and 5) all trees of low quality less than 40 cm at dbh; to

acheive 16-18 m2 /ha of basal area.

1993 Species Composition

Sugar Maple

Yellow Birch

Red Maple

American Beech

Other Species

White Ash, Striped Maple, Iron wood,

Trembling Aspen, Eastern Hemlock,

Balsam Fir, and Red Spruce.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Study Site

0

20

40

60

80

100

Per

cent

ThinnedControl

TREATMENT

61

72

49 44

19

454951

6360

Sugar Maple


1 = Grand John 2

2 = McLeans Brook

3 = Grand John 1

4 = Dunbar 1

5 = Dunbar 2


Treatments


1 = Grand John 2

2 = McLeans Brook

3 = Grand John 1

4 = Dunbar 1

5 = Dunbar 2


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Study Site

0

20

40

60

80

100

Per

cent

ThinnedControl

TREATMENT

Yellow Birch

31

1

17

79

49

24

107

17

Treatments


1 = Grand John 2

2 = McLeans Brook

3 = Grand John 1

4 = Dunbar 1

5 = Dunbar 2


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Study Site

0

20

40

60

80

100

Per

cent

ThinnedControl

TREATMENT

Red Maple

1

11

27

14

24

13

38

Treatments


1 = Grand John 2

2 = McLeans Brook

3 = Grand John 1

4 = Dunbar 1

5 = Dunbar 2


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Study Site

0

20

40

60

80

100

Per

cent

ThinnedControl

TREATMENT

American Beech

1 1

34

49

25

34

4 715

2723

Treatments


1 = Grand John 2

2 = McLeans Brook

3 = Grand John 1

4 = Dunbar 1

5 = Dunbar 2


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Study Site

0

20

40

60

80

100

Per

cent

ThinnedControl

TREATMENT13

28

15

2 45 7

20

Other Species

Treatments

Stand Dynamics

Analysis Challenges

-1993, no control established for Dunbar 1, as the one at Dunbar 2 was used instead.

- 1998, no measurements for Wiggin’s Corner.

- Pre-2008, thinned plot at Dunbar 1 partially disturbed.

- 2008, thinned plot harvested at McLean’s Brook.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Study Site Number

0

10

20

30

40

Bas

al A

rea

(m2

/ha)

ControlThinned

TREATMENT$

Basal Area (m2/ha) in 1993 Before Harvest

22.9 to 35.2 m2 /ha

1 = Grand John 2

2 = McLeans Brook

3 = Grand John 1

4 = Dunbar 1

5 = Dunbar 2


Treatments

Harvest Intensity in 1993

23% to 56% removal

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Study Site

0

10

20

30

40

Basa

l Are

a (m

2 /h

a)

BeforeThinned

TREAT$

39%23%

30%

32%38%

56%1 = Grand John 2

2 = McLeans Brook

3 = Grand John 1

4 = Dunbar 1

5 = Dunbar 2


Treatments

Basal Area (m2 /ha) Response


0

10

20

30

40

Bas

al A

rea

(m2

/ha)

Thinned

*

* ****


0

10

20

30

40

Bas

al A

rea

(m2

/ha)

0515

YEAR

Control

1 = Grand John 2

2 = McLeans Brook

3 = Grand John 1

4 = Dunbar 1

5 = Dunbar 2


?

Average Diameter (cm):Excluding Ingrowth

0 4 8 12 16Year Since Treatment

0

10

20

30

Ave

rage

DBH

(cm

)

controlthinned

TREATMENT$

Grand John 1

32%

38%

56%

24%

0 4 8 12 16Years Since Treatment

0

10

20

30

DB

H (c

m)

ThinnedControl

TREATMENT

Dunbar 2


0

10

20

30

DB

H (c

m)

ThinnedControl

TREATMENT

Wiggin's Corner


0

10

20

30

DB

H (c

m)

ThinnedControl

TREATMENT

Grand John 2

Removal

Removal

Removal

Removal

Lessons Learned

1) Variable stand conditions.

2) Variable growth responses.

3) Thinned stands have not reached the original basal area values, but is this important ?

4) The greater the removal, the greater the diameter response, but not necessarily the greater the stand growth response.

The 2.4 m3 / Ha /Year Question

Did we achieve the predicted average volume growth of 2.4 m3 /ha /year ?

Annual Volume Increment (m3 /ha) for Last 15 Years

Average

control: 2.3 m3 /ha /year

thinned: 2.8 m3 /ha /year

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Study Site

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

Ann

ual V

olum

e In

crem

ent (

m3

/ha)

controlthinned

TREATMENT$1 = Grand John 2

2 = McLeans Brook

3 = Grand John 1

4 = Dunbar 1

5 = Dunbar 2


Treatments

Annual Volume Increment (m3 /ha) for First 5 Years

Average



0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Study Site

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

Ann

ual V

olum

e In

crem

ent (

m3

/ha)

controlthinned


2 = McLeans Brook

3 = Grand John 1

4 = Dunbar 1

5 = Dunbar 2


Treatments

Annual Volume Increment (m3 /ha) for Last 10 Years

Average



0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Study Site

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

Ann

ual V

olum

e In

crem

ent (

m3

/ha)

controlthinned


2 = McLeans Brook

3 = Grand John 1

4 = Dunbar 1

5 = Dunbar 2


Treatments

Why the Negative Volume Increment Growth and Variable Growth Among the Study Sites ?

1) Observed tree height decreases in the data between measurement periods.

2) Observe losses of large trees between measurement periods.

- Change in measurement instruments ?

- Dieback ?

Forest Tent Caterpillar

Photo Source: Thérėse Arcaud,Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service

Photo Source: Claude MonniciNatural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service

Climate Change and Associated Declines

Continuing Decline and Mortality of American Beech

And the interactions between these factors and other unknown factors.

Photo Source: UDSA Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 75

Lessons Learned

1) Like softwoods, hardwood stands may require some form of “protection” from pests such as the forest tent caterpillar if the desired growth and growth rates are to be achieved.

2) Hardwood stand dynamics are complex and a better understanding is required for the impacts on growth and development.

3) The impact of climate change is the “wild card” for the expected changes on stand dynamic relationships.

Stem Quality: ABCD Tree Grade

A B C DProducts

0

20

40

60

80

100Pe

rcen

t

controlthinned

TREATMENT$

Site 6: Wiggin's Corner

1944

469

56

650

A B C DProducts

0

20

40

60

80

100

Per

cent

controlthinned

TREATMENT$

Site 4: Dunbar 2

5613

313

38 44

188

44

A B C DProducts

0

20

40

60

80

100

Per

cent

controlthinned

TREATMENT$

Site 3: Grand John 1

638

100

256356

188

13

A B C DProducts

0

20

40

60

80

100

Per

cent

controlthinned

TREATMENT$

13 38 25

125

438

113

600

Study Site 1: Grand John 2

A = veneer B = sawlogsC = pulp D = biomass

Treatments

Treatments

Treatments

Treatments

Product

Lessons Learned

Stand restoration and stem quality improvement is a slow process that may not be achieved in the first harvest entry.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6Study Site

0

100

200

300

400

Den

sity

(ste

ms

/ha)

ControlThinned

TREAT$

5 Years After Treatment

Ingrowth Density (stems /ha)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Study Site

0

100

200

300

400

Den

sity

(ste

ms

/ha)

15 Years After Treatment

1 = Grand John 2

2 = McLeans Brook

3 = Grand John 1

4 = Dunbar 1

5 = Dunbar 2


Treatments

Ingrowth Diversity in 2009: 16th Year

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Study Site

0

20

40

60

80

100

Freq

uenc

y (%

)

BebFiWrMrSsMyB

SPECIES$

Control

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Study Site

0

20

40

60

80

100

Freq

uenc

y (%

)

Thinned

1 = Grand John 2

2 = McLeans Brook

3 = Grand John 1

4 = Dunbar 1

5 = Dunbar 2


Species

Lessons Learned

We have a “Wile E. Coyote” amongst the sheep, as Wiggin’s Corner shows a great diversity for ingrowthdensity and tree species diversity.

Softwoods

Mixedwoods

HardwoodsWiggin’s Corner

Second Canopy Layer of Dense Beech

Second Canopy Beech Layer Buster

How are results of this study on stand dynamics connected to northern shade tolerant hardwood forests of eastern North America ?

Drs. Ralph Nyland, Diane Kiernan, and Eddie Beviliacqua of SUNNY have developed three growth and yield models for sugar maple from this data set and compared the results of the first model to the one that they have developed for New York.

They have observed that the New York Model gave betterresults for trees less than 20 cm, but see little differencebetween the two models for trees 20 cm or greater in diameter.

More to come at a later date.

Acknowledgements to Our Collaborators

Provinces: New Brunswick (NB DNR), Nova Scotia (NS DNR), and Québec (MRNF).

Industry: AV Nackawic Ltd., J.D. Irving Ltd., Group Savoie Inc.,and Acadian Timber Inc.

Universities: University of New Brunswick, SUNNY-ESF, University of Sherbrooke, Laval University,and University of Québec at Montreal.

Stand Dynamics of Northern Hardwoods to Partial Harvesting ...hardwoodinitiative.fpinnovations.ca/files/events/2010.10-19_21... · Stand Dynamics of Northern Hardwoods to Partial

Documents