J. For. Sci., 2014, 60(5):190-197 | DOI: 10.17221/66/2013-JFS

Comparison of different forest regeneration methods after windthrowOriginal Paper

A. Martiník, L. Dobrovolný, V. Hurt
Department of Silviculture, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Brno, Czech Republic

The prosperity of various forest regeneration methods was evaluated on the prepared windthrow area established in 2010 in a previously allochthonous coniferous stand growing in mid-elevations of the Czech Republic. The forest regeneration variants were as follows: (1) "planting" of target species (Picea abies [L.] Karst.) and Fagus sylvatica (L.), (2) "seeding" of pioneer (non target) species (Betula pendula Roth) and (3) spontaneous "succession". Two years after windthrow the "planting" was evaluated in accordance with the Czech forestry law as regeneration method with sufficient attributes, density (6,000-9,000 indd.ha-1) and regular spatial distribution of target tree species. The "seeding" and "succession" variants showed a insufficient attributes of target tree species - total density ca 3,000 indd.ha-1 (being ca 1,000 indd.ha-1 higher than 20 cm) and irregular distribution across the plot. The non-target species birch on the "seeding" variant showed a high density of plants (131,000 indd.ha-1) being eight times higher than the succession variant. The cost of the regeneration treatment was different between the variants - planting: 5,000-6,000 EUR.ha-1, 1,300 EUR.ha-1, succession: 1,000 EUR.ha-1. Comparing to "planting" the higher diversity of tree species and higher density of non-target species (20,000-134,000 EUR.ha-1) in the "seeding" and "succession" variants promise success for the future, however the real potential of regeneration methods that were used will be clear after long-term observations.

Keywords: target tree species; pioneer tree species; planting; seeding; succession

Published: May 31, 2014  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Martiník A, Dobrovolný L, Hurt V. Comparison of different forest regeneration methods after windthrow. J. For. Sci. 2014;60(5):190-197. doi: 10.17221/66/2013-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. Albrecht A., Hanewinkel M., Bauhus J. (2012): How does silviculture affect storm damage in forests of southwestern Germany? Results from empirical modeling based on long-term observations. European Journal of Forest Research, 131: 229-247. Go to original source...
    2. Anderson M.L. (1930): A new system of planting. Scottish Forestry Journal, 44: 78-89.
    3. Anderson M.L. (1951): Spaced group-planting and irregularity of stand-structure. Empire Forestry Journal, 30: 328-341.
    4. Bolte A., Ammer C., Lof M., Madsen P., Nabuurs G.J., Schall P., Spathelf P., Rock J. (2009): Adaptive forest management in central Europe: Climate change impacts, strategies and integrative concept. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 24: 473-482. Go to original source...
    5. Bücking W. et al. (2001): 10 Jahre Waldentwicklung nach Sturm "Wiebke". Freiburg, Universität Freiburg: 205.
    6. Bücking W. et al. (2006): Sturmwurfbannwälder nach "Lothar", Baden-Württemberg. [Storm calamity in forests with a priorirty function of protection against avalanches.] Freiburg, Forstliche Versuchs- und Forschungsanstalt Baden-Württemberg: 214.
    7. Burschel P., Huss J. (2003): Grundriss des Waldbaus: ein Leitfaden für Studium und Praxis. Berlin, Ulmer Eugen Verlag: 487.
    8. Dobrovolný L., Hurt V., Martiník A. (2011): Založení experimentální plochy s různými způsoby obnovy lesa na ploše po větrné kalamitě. [Establishment of experimental plots with varioust of kinds of regeneration after a storm disaster.] In: Kacálek D. et al. (eds): Proceedings of Central European Silviculture. Sborník referátů. [Collection of Reviews.] Opočno, 28.-29. June 2011. Opočno, VULHM: 43-54.
    9. Ehring A., Keller O. (2006): Eichen-Trupp-Pflanzung in Baden-Württemberg. AFZ-DerWald, 61: 491-494.
    10. Fischer A., Fischer H.S. (2012): Individual-based analysis of tree establishment and forest stand development within 25 years after wind throw. European Journal of Forest Research, 131: 493-501. Go to original source...
    11. Gaul T., Stüber V. (1996): Der Eichen-Nelder-Verbandsversuch Göhrde. Forst und Holz, 51: 70-75.
    12. Gockel H. (1995): Die Trupp-pflanzung, Ein neues Pflanzschema zur Begründung von Eichenbeständen. Forst und Holz, 50: 570-575.
    13. Gockel H., Rock J., Schulte A. (2001): Aufforsten mit Eichen-Trupppflanzungen. Allgemeine Forst-Zeitschrift/ Der Wald, 5: 223-226.
    14. Gregor J., Tužinský L. (2011): Vetrná kalamita a smrkové ekosystemy. [Storm Calamity and Spruce Ecosystems.] Zvolen, TU Zvolen: 236.
    15. Heger A. (1957): Ochrana smrčin proti škodám větrem. [Protection of Norway Spruce Forests from Storm Damage.] Praha, SZN: 96.
    16. Jelínek P., Kantor P. (2006) Spontaneous infiltration of broadleaved species into a spruce monoculture left without tending. Journal of Forest Science, 52: 37- 43. Go to original source...
    17. Jonášová M., Vávrová E., Cudlín P. (2010): Western Carpathian mountain spruce forest after a windthrow: Natural regeneration in cleared and uncleared areas. Forest Ecology and Management, 259: 1127-1134. Go to original source...
    18. Kaňák K. (1988): Několik připomínek k rekonstrukci lesa v imisních oblastech. [A few remarks on reforestation in polluted areas.] Lesnická práce, 67: 409-415.
    19. Kantor P., Tesař V., Knott R. (2000): Ekologická stabilita a produkční potenciál alochtonního smrku (Picea abies [L.] Karst.) v chlumních oblastech České republiky. [Ecological stability and production potential of allochtonous Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.) in upland parts of the Czech republic.] Ekológia, 19, Supplement 1: 5-23.
    20. Košulič M. (2010): Cesta k přírodě blízkému hospodářskému lesu. [The Way to the Close-Nature Forests.] Brno, FSC: 449.
    21. Kulla L., Sitková Z. (2012): Rekonštrukcie nepōvodných smrekových lesov: poznatky, skúsenosti, odporúčania. [Reconstruction of Allochtonous Spruce Forests: Findings, Experience, Suggestions.] Zvolen, NLC: 207.
    22. Mauer O., Palátová E., Rychnovská A. (2004). Kořenový systém a chřadnutí smrku ztepilého. [Norway spruce root system and withering of spruce.] In: Mauer O. (ed.): Kořenový systém - základ stromu. Sborník referátů. Křtiny, 25. August 2004. Brno, Mendelova Univerzita v Brně: 64-74.
    23. Míchal I. (1994): Ekologická stabilita. [Ecological Stability.] Brno, Veronica, Ministerstvo životního prostředí České republiky: 275.
    24. MZE (2009): Zpráva o stavu lesa a lesního hospodářství České republiky v roce 2008. [Report on state of forests and silvicultural in the Czech Republic in year 2008.] Praha, Ministerstvo zemědělství České republiky: 128.
    25. MZE (2011): Zpráva o stavu lesa a lesního hospodářství České republiky v roce 2010. [Report on state of forests and silvicultural in the Czech Republic in year 2010.] Praha, Ministerstvo zemědělství České republiky: 130.
    26. Neuhäuslová Z., Blažková D., Grulich V., Husová M., Chytrý M., Jeník J., Jirásek J., Kolbek J., Kropáč Z., Ložek V., Moravec J., Prach K., Rybníček K., Rybníčková E., Sádlo J. (1998): Map of Potential Natural Vegetation of the Czech Republic. Praha, Academia: 341.
    27. Övergaard R., Gemmel P., Karlsson M. (2007): Effects of weather conditions on mast year frequency in beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in Sweden, Forestry, 80: 555-565. Go to original source...
    28. Pěnčík J. (1958): Zalesňování kalamitních holin. [Reforestation of Caused by Wind Calamity Areas.] Praha, SZN: 261.
    29. Poleno Z., Vacek S. (2009): Pěstování lesů III - Praktické postupy pěstování lesů. [Silviculture III - Practical Technique of Silviculture.] Kostelec nad Černými lesy, Lesnická práce: 951.
    30. Saniga M. (2007): Pestovanie lesa. [Silviculture.] Zvolen, TU Zvolen: 310.
    31. Saniga M., Kmeť J. (1994): Stabilität des Fichtenurwaldes unter dem Immisionsstres aus dem physiologisch waldbbaulichen Sicht. In: Managament of Forest Damaged by Air Pollution. Trutnov, IUFRO: 125-131.
    32. Somidh S., Kuehne Ch., Bauhus J. (2013): Tree species richness and stand productivity in low-density cluster plantings with oaks (Quercus robur L. and Q. petraea (Mattuschka) Liebl.). Forests, 4: 650-665. Go to original source...
    33. Souček J., Tesař V. (2008): Metodika přestavby smrkových monokultur na stanovištích přirozených smíšených porostů. [Methodology of Reconstruction of Monoculture Spruce Stands on Natural Mixed Forest Stands.] VÚLHM, Opočno: 37.
    34. Spiecker H. et al. (2004): Norway Spruce Conversion Options and Consequens. Boston, Brill-Leiden Boston: 269. Go to original source...
    35. Tesař V., Klimo E. (2004): Pěstování smrku u nás a v Evropě. [Silviculturae of Norway spruce in the Czech Republic and in Europe.] In: Smrk - dřevina budoucnosti. Sborník příspěvků ze semináře. Svoboda nad Úpou, 23.-24. April 2004. Svoboda nad Úpou, Česká lesnická společnost: 7-19.
    36. Tesař V., Tichý J. (1990): Results and new objectives in restoring the forests damages by air pollution in bohemian mountains. In: Staudt F.J. (ed.): Proceedings P3.03 Ergonomics. 19th World Congress IUFRO. Montreal, 6.-11. July 1990. Montreal, Agricultural University: 455-462.
    37. Tesař V., Tichý J. (2001): Search for a balance between changing requirements for benefits from the forest and its condition in the Moravian-Silesian Beskids (Czech Republic). Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwesen, 152: 145-151. Go to original source...
    38. Wagner S., Wälder K., Ribbens E., Zeibig A. (2004): Directionality in fruit dispersal models for anemochorous forest trees. Ecological Modelling, 179: 487-498. Go to original source...
    39. Willig J. et al. (2002): Natürliche Entwicklung von Wäldern nach Sturmwurf - 10 Jahre Forschung im Naturwaldreservat Weiherskopf. Mitteilungen der Hessischen Landesforstverwaltung: 185.

    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