J. For. Sci., 2012, 58(7):314-327 | DOI: 10.17221/8/2012-JFS

How much birch (Betula papyrifera) is too much for maximizing spruce (Picea glauca) growth: a case study in boreal spruce plantation forests

Ch.D.B. Hawkins1,2, A. Dhar1, B.J. Rogers1,3
1 Mixedwood Ecology and Management Program, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, Canada
2 Yukon College, Yukon Research Centre, Whitehorse, Canada
3 Ministry of Forests and Range of British Columbia, Prince George, Canada

Interest in conifer-broadleaf mixedwood forests has greatly increased due to continuous demand for hardwood products and a shift towards more biological or ecosystem-based management. In British Columbia, more than 30% of the productive forest land is a conifer-broadleaf mixture and current forest regulations are more conifer biased rather than maintaining a mixed-species condition. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of paper birch on white spruce growth. Spruce growth data from 10 to 18 years old complex stands indicate that radial, height, and stem volume was not impacted by retaining up to 3,000 stems.ha-1 of birch. Similarly, growth and yield model projections suggest spruce-birch stands would be more productive up to a threshold birch density (3,000 stems.ha-1) than pure spruce stands. At a 4% real interest rate, the removal of birch from these stands does not appear to be warranted as an investment. The results suggest that instead of encouraging uniform broadleaf removal across conifer plantations, mixed species management strategies could enhance the forest productivity, stand diversity and resilience.

Keywords: competition; future value; growth and yield model; forest management; productivity

Published: July 31, 2012  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Hawkins CDB, Dhar A, Rogers BJ. How much birch (Betula papyrifera) is too much for maximizing spruce (Picea glauca) growth: a case study in boreal spruce plantation forests. J. For. Sci. 2012;58(7):314-327. doi: 10.17221/8/2012-JFS.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Baleshta K.E., Simard S.W., Guy R.D., Chanway C.P. (2005): Reducing paper birch density increases Douglasfir growth rate and Armillaria root diseases incidence in southern interior British Columbia. Forest Ecology and Management, 208: 1-13. Go to original source...
    2. Bergeron Y., Harvey B., Leduc A., Gauthier S. (1999): Forest management guidelines based on natural disturbance dynamics: stand-and forest-level considerations. The Forestry Chronicle, 75: 49-94. Go to original source...
    3. British Columbia Ministry of Forests (2000): Establishment to Free Growing Guidebook, Prince George Forest Region. Victoria, British Columbia Ministry of Forests: 162. Available at http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/fpcguide/free/EFG-PG-print.pdf (accessed December 20, 2011)
    4. Burton P.J. (1993): Some limitations inherent to static indices of plant competition. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 23: 2141-2152. Go to original source...
    5. Comeau P.G., Biring B.S., Harper G.J. (2000): Conifer Response to Brushing Treatment: Summary of British Columbia Data. Extension Note 41. Victoria, British Columbia Ministry of Forests: 12. Available at http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/en/en41.pdf (accessed December, 2011).
    6. DeLong C., MacKinnon A., Jang L. (1990): A Field Guide for Identification and Interpretation of Ecosystems of the Northeast Portion of the Prince George Forest Region. Land Management Handbook 22. Victoria, British Columbia Ministry of Forests: 57. Available at http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/Lmh/Lmh22.pdf (accessed May, 2012).
    7. Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act (1996): RSBC, Chapter 159. Victoria, British Columbia Ministry of Forests: 26. Available at http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96159_01 (accessed May 4, 2012).
    8. Frivold L.H., Frank J. (2002): Growth of mixed mirchconiferous stands in relation to pure coniferous stands at similar sites in south-eastern Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 17: 139-149. Go to original source...
    9. Garber S.M., Maguire D.A. (2005): The response of vertical foliage distribution to spacing and species composition in mixed conifer stands in central Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management, 211: 341-355. Go to original source...
    10. Gayer K. (1886): Der gemischte Wald oseine Begründung und pflege insbesonder durch horst- und Gruppenwirtshaft. Berlin, Paul Parey Verlag: 168. Go to original source...
    11. Hawkins C.D.B., Dhar A. (2011): Mixtures of broadleaves and conifers are ecologically and economically desired in an uncertain future changing climate. In: Muys B. (ed.): Proceedings of the Conservation and Management of Forests for Sustainable Development: Where Science Meets Policy. Leuven, 23.-24. November 2011. Belgium, Katholieke University Leuven: 20.
    12. Hawkins C.D.B., Dhar A., Lange J. (2012): 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 (in press). Go to original source...
    13. Jobidon R. (2000): Density-dependent effects of northern hardwood competition on selected environmental resources and young white spruce (Picea glauca) plantation growth, mineral nutrition, and stand structure development a 5-year study. Forest Ecology and Management, 130: 77-97. Go to original source...
    14. Kelty M.J. (2006): The role of species mixtures in plantation forestry. Forest Ecology and Management, 233: 195-204. Go to original source...
    15. Kent M., Coker P. (1992): Vegetation Description and Analysis: A Practical Approach. Exeter, Short Run Press: 354.
    16. Knoke T., Ammer C., Stimm B., Mosandl R. (2008): Admixing broadleaved to coniferous tree species: a review on yield ecological stability and economics. European Journal of Forest Research, 127: 89-101. Go to original source...
    17. Lacerte V., Larocque G.R., Woods M., Parton W.J., Penner M. (2004): Testing the Lake States variant of FVS (Forest Vegetation Simulator) for the main forest types of northern Ontario. The Forestry Chronicle, 80: 495-506. Go to original source...
    18. Lavender D.P., Parish R., Johnson C.M., Montgomery G., Vyse A., Willis R.A., Winston D. (1990): Regenerating British Columbia's Forests. Vancouver, UBC Press: 385. Go to original source...
    19. Legare S., Pare D., Bergeron Y. (2004): The response of black spruce growth to an increased portion of aspen in mixed stands. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 34: 405-416. Go to original source...
    20. Lucca D.C.M. (1999): TASS/SYLVER/TIPSY: systems for predicting the impact of silvicultural practices on yield, lumber value, economic return and other benefits. In: Bamsey C.R. (ed.): Proceedings of the Stand Density Management Conference: Using the Planning Tools. Edmonton, 23.-24. November 1998. Edmonton, Clear Lake Ltd.: 7-16.
    21. 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. Go to original source...
    22. Mard H. (1996): The influence of a birch shelter (Betula spp.) on the growth of young stands of Picea abies. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 11: 343-350. Go to original source...
    23. Martin L.J., Gower T.S. (2006): Boreal mixedwood tree growth on contrasting soils and disturbance types. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 36: 986-995 Go to original source...
    24. Miner C.L., Walters N.R., Belli M.L. (1988): A guide to the TWIGS Program for the North Central United States. St. Paul, USDA Forest Service: 111. Go to original source...
    25. Misson L., Vincke C., Devillez F. (2003): Frequency responses of radial growth series after different thinning intensities in Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.) stand. Forest Ecology and Management, 177: 51-63. Go to original source...
    26. Mitchell K.J., Grout S.E., Macdonald R.N., Watmough C.A. (1992): User's guide for TIPSY: A Table Interpolation for Stand Yields. Victoria, British Columbia Ministry of Forests: 78.
    27. 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. Go to original source...
    28. Oliver C.D., Larson B.C. (1996): Forest Stand Dynamics. John Wiley and Sons, New York: 540.
    29. Opio C., Jacob N., Coopersmith D. (2000): Height to diameter ratio as a competition index for young conifer plantations in northern British Columbia, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management, 137: 245-252. Go to original source...
    30. Payandeh B., Huynh L.N. (1991): ONTWIGS: A Forest Growth and Yield Projection System Adapted for Ontario. Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario Great Lakes Forestry Centre: 19.
    31. Payandeh B., Papadopol P. (1994): Partial calibration of ONTWIGS: a forest growth and yield projection system adapted for Ontario. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 11: 41-46. Go to original source...
    32. Richards A.E., Forrester D.I., Bauhus J., SchererLorenzen M. (2010): The influence of mixed species tree plantations on the nutrition of individual species: a review. Tree Physiology, 30: 1192-1208. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    33. Simard S.W., Vyse A. (2006): Trade-offs between competition and facilitation: A case study of vegetation management in the interior cedar-hemlock forests of southern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 36: 2486-2496. Go to original source...
    34. Simard S.W., Hagerman S.M., Sachs D.L., Heineman J.L., Mather W.J. (2005): Conifer growth, Armillaria ostoyae root disease and plant diversity responses to broadleaf competition reduction in temperate mixed forests of southern interior British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 35: 843-859. Go to original source...
    35. Simard S.W., Sachs D.L., Vyse A., Blevins L.L. (2004): Paper birch competitive effects vary with conifer tree species and stand age in interior British Columbia forests: implications for reforestation policy and practice. Forest Ecology Management, 198: 55-74. Go to original source...
    36. 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 Protocol for Operational Brushing Evaluations. Land Management Handbook No. 48. Victoria, British Columbia Ministry of Forests: 422.
    37. Simard S.W., Hannam K.D. (2000): Effects of thinning overstory paper birch on survival and growth of interior spruce in British Columbia: implications for reforestation policy and biodiversity. Forest Ecology and Management, 129: 237-251. Go to original source...
    38. Simard S.W. (1990): A Retrospective Study of Competition between Paper Birch and Planted Douglas-fir. FRDA Report 147. Victoria, Forestry Canada and British Columbia Ministry of Forests: 19.
    39. Taylor S., Alfaro R.I., Delong C., Rankin L. (1996): The effects of overstory shading on white pine weevil damage to interior white spruce and its effects on growth rates. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 26: 306-312. Go to original source...
    40. Taylor K.C., Arnup, R.W., Merchant B.G., Parton W.J., Nieppola J. (2000): A Field Guide to Forest Ecosystems of North-Eastern Ontario. Field Guide FG-001. Timmins, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources: 325.
    41. Valkonen S., Ruuska J. (2003): Effect of Betula pendula admixture on tree growth and branch diameter in young Pinus sylvestris stands in Southern Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 18: 416-426. Go to original source...
    42. Wagner R.G., Little K.M., Richardson B., McNabb K. (2006): The role of vegetation management for enhancing productivity of the world's forests. Forestry, 79: 57-79. Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content