Pre-treating seedlings at the Nursery with Plantskydd Animal Repellent

Transcription

1 Pre-treating seedlings at the Nursery with Plantskydd Animal Repellent December 2009 September 2010 Nursery Pacific Reforestation Technologies Inc. Campbell River, British Columbia, Canada Planting Site Homesite Creek Sunshine Coast Forest District British Columbia Compiled and submitted by: Bill Lasuta & Associates Limited 4623 Whitaker Road Sechelt, British Columbia, Canada

2 Acknowledgements The assistance of the following participants made this project possible. Bob Merrill, Manager, Nursery Services Ministry of Forests and Range Surrey, British Columbia, Canada Lauchlan Glen, Seedling and Reforestation Specialist Ministry of Forests and Range Surrey, BC Russell Brewer, RPF Practices Forester, BC Timber Sales Powell River, BC Darryl Reynolds, Senior Wildlife Biologist Ministry of the Environment Sechelt, BC Jamie Farrer, Production Superintendent Pacific Reforestation Technologies Inc. Campbell River Nursery, BC Claude Boisvert, President Tree World Plant Care Products Inc. Sechelt, BC, Canada St. Joseph, Missouri, USA 2

3 Introduction Foresters, conservations agencies, and others responsible for replanting logged areas, mine reclamation sites, and streamside rehabilitation projects are often faced with the logistical challenge, and comparatively high labor cost, associated with applying animal repellent treatments in remote or difficult to reach areas. Plantskydd Animal Repellent has since 1994 been used by forest and land resource managers, in Europe and North America, to successfully mitigate damage to new forest plantations from animal browse by: deer, elk, moose and rabbits. If Plantskydd could be applied to seedlings at the nursery, and subsequently placed in cold storage until planting season without causing any adverse affects to the health and vigor of the seedlings, nor to the efficacy of the repellent significant reduction in field application costs could be achieved. And more extensive use of the product would likely follow. Tree World Plant Care Products Inc. in association with the British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range, BC Nursery Services, and BC Timber Sales in the fall of 2009 embarked on an operational field trial to test this hypothesis. Plantskydd was applied prior to seedling lifting at the Campbell River Nursery of Pacific Reforestation Technologies Inc. These seedlings were then placed in cold storage for a period of up to 5 months. They were subsequently planted over a 4 month period (February May 2010) and monitored for a period of up to 7 months to evaluate seedling and repellent performance. Results The combined application cost of Plantskydd product, and labor, was (1.5 ) $0.015/seedling when treating seedlings at the nursery approximately 1/10 th that of treating seedlings following planting (15 /seedling). Seedlings treated with Plantskydd at the nursery, and subsequently placed in cold storage prior to planting, exhibited no adverse affects when planted in the field even 7 months later. Although the seedlings were planted in a medium to high-risk browse area (see footnote 2), no seedlings, regardless of treatment type, were browsed in the field until 4+ months following the first series of plantings. Hence, the efficacy of the Plantskydd repellent following the protocol used in this trial could not be determined. 3

4 Trial area planting methodology Field trial location A forest area of 15.1 hectares (37.3 acres) some 25 kilometers (40 miles) north of Sechelt, British Columbia, Canada was selected. It is inhabited with a resident population of Roosevelt Elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti) and Coastal black-tail deer (Odocoileus columbianus). Homesite Creek watershed drainage BC Timber Sales designation A85073 Cut-block G061, C16P. At approximately 150 metres (492 ft.) in elevation, CWHdm subzone, the area was harvested in the fall 2009, southwest aspect, Sechelt Peninsula. Background In 1994 the British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Lands relocated Roosevelt Elk into Coastal areas around the Sunshine Coast. Herds of these ungulates have since thrived, with their numbers increasing dramatically. As a result, increased browsing pressure has been put on seedlings planted on harvested cut-blocks, leading to increased operational costs for forest companies trying to get their plantations to a free-growing status. Remedies have included: micro-site planting, planting of larger stock types, and the application of animal repellents and/or physical barriers. Remedial costs of $5 - $8 /seedling are not uncommon (see footnote 1). No single remedy has proven completely effective in eliminating seedling damage/mortality stemming from animal browse. From February 2010 to May 2010, four replicates of Coastal Douglas fir and Western redcedar seedlings were planted. Both species met government seed transfer guidelines and were from the same collected seed-sources. Three treatment types within each replicate unit were made to determine if the cold storage of Plantskydd pre-treated seedlings, and subsequent thawing prior to planting, would adversely affect the seedlings. Control seedlings were planted to ensure the seedling provenance was not a factor in seedling survival. 4

5 Replicate breakdown Seedlings Plantskydd treated at the nursery and cold stored Douglas fir 90 seedlings Western redcedar 90 seedlings Seedlings cold stored at the nursery and then Plantskydd treated at site Douglas fir 90 seedlings Western redcedar 90 seedlings Seedlings cold stored at the nursery, and planted with no Plantskydd treatment (control) Douglas fir 90 seedlings Western redcedar 90 seedlings Each of the 4 Replicate Location would comprise of 540 seedlings planted in separate locations with a spacing of approximately 0.5 meters (1.6 ft.). Each seedling was marked with a wire flag (red for cedar and blue for fir) and numbered by treatment type and seedling number. Following planting, seedlings were measured for height and evaluated for any physical damage resulting from nursery lifting and/or planting. Replicates were then surveyed on a monthly basis, up to the third week of September 2010, and examined for seedling mortality or browse damage. Project milestones Planting of Replicates 1,2,3 and 4 occurred on a monthly basis starting in February Replicate No. 1 = February 22, 2010 Replicate No. 2 = March 22, 2010 Replicate No. 3 = April 24, 2010 Replicate No. 4 = May 15, 2010 Surveying of each replicate occurred on the following dates: Replicate No. 1 March 22, April 24, May 25, June 18, July 18, August 23, September 18, 2010 Replicate No. 2 April 24, May 25, June 18, July 18, August 23, September 18, 2010 Replicate No. 3 May 25, June 18, July 18, August 23, September 18, 2010 Replicate No. 4 June 18, July 18, August 23, September 18,

6 Plantskydd nursery application On December 21, 2009, 720 seedlings 512-A stock type (360 Douglas fir and 360 Western redcedar) deemed ecologically suitable for the project area, were selected at Pacific Reforestation Technologies Nursery, Campbell River, BC. Plantskydd was mixed at a rate of 8 litres of water per one kilogram of soluble powder concentrate. This mixture was applied by hand sprayer to the seedlings while still in the Styroblocks, to a point of runoff. Seedlings were dry within one hour. Plantskydd treated and untreated (control) seedlings were inserted in suitably marked cartons at 90 seedlings per carton. The seedlings were all treated December 21, 2009; lifted by nursery staff within one week of application, then placed into cold storage. All Douglas fir were deemed frozen to -2 o C by January 5, 2010, and by January 13, 2010 for the Western redcedar. Styroblocks containing Plantskydd sprayed seedlings at the Campbell River PRT Nursery were labeled to identify treated seedlings prior to lifting. Transport and thawing of seedlings Each month, starting in February 2010, six cartons of frozen seedlings (540 seedlings total) were transported to Sechelt. These cartons were then opened, the seedling bundles stood up in the planting cartons thus allowing air to circulate. The seedlings were then slowly thawed for one week at an ambient temperature of 10 o C to 13 o C. Planting of seedlings Following a week of slow thawing, seedlings were transported to the Stephens Road, Homesite Creek site, segregated by species and treatment type, and planted at 0.5 metre (1.6 ft) spacing. Seedlings were marked with coloured wire flags, representing various treatment types, then evaluated and measured. Weather conditions were also noted. Some180 untreated seedlings (90 D-fir & 90 wrcedar) of each replicate were also planted and sprayed in the field with Plantskydd as part of the project. Data was entered into an Excel spreadsheet for future reference. 6

7 Monthly surveying of replicate sites Seedling replicates were surveyed on a monthly basis for: seedling survival cause of any mortality presence and severity of browse damage Seedling height growth Replicates were placed at the end of access roads within the cut-block to allow easy access by ungulates. Road surfaces along these temporary access roads were raked following each monthly survey to see which animals frequented the areas by noting hoof types. Ungulate presence and movement during the project On five different occasions during planting and surveying, fresh Roosevelt Elk hoof prints were noted for a distance of approximately 50 metres along the perimeter edge and into the cut-block. During the fourth and fifth months following planting, replicates 2 and 3 had light browsing of only the Western redcedar seedlings on both the nursery and field treated seedlings. No fir or cedar control seedlings were browsed during this time. During the months of July, August and September, raked road surfaces showed movement of Elk, with minor deer presence. Ungulate movement greatly increased over the access roads when alternative forage became scarce and attention was directed towards planted seedlings. Weather conditions Temperatures during February April 2010 ranged from 8 o C to 12 o C, with sporadic seasonal rainfall. Daytime temperatures in May ranged from 22 o C to 28 o C. Summer precipitation was sparse with long periods of dry weather. Replicate No. 4 planted in May showed some weather related mortality on the Douglas fir, evenly spread between treatment types. There was no Western redcedar seedling mortality from weather related causes throughout the field trial. 7

8 Total replicate seedlings by treatment unit Fewer seedlings than the proposed 2,160 seedlings were planted in total. The following table summarizes the total number of seedlings by replicate and treatment unit. Replicate No. PS + storage Storage + PS Control Totals By species By species By species By species 1 F 90 / C - 87 F 89 / C - 83 F 48 / C 54 F 227 / C F 84 / C 90 F 48 / C 48 F 48 / C 48 F 180 / C F 90 / C - 90 F 90 / C 90 F 90 / C 90 F 270 / C F 90 / C -74 F 90 / C - 74 F 90 / C - 90 F 270 / C Subtotals F 354 / C F 317 / C- 295 F 276 / C F 947 / C TOTAL 1,865 Legend PS + storage Plantskydd sprayed and then cold stored at nursery Storage + PS Cold stored at nursery and Plantskydd sprayed following planting Control Cold stored at nursery and not sprayed F Douglas fir C Western redcedar Legend replicate damage s 1 No browse 2 Light browse damage < 50% of seedling 3 Heavy browse damage > 50% of seedling 4 Dead from Repellent 5 Dead from Browse 6 Dead cause unknown Note: If during field surveying of the various replicates, wire identification flags were missing due to wind action, these unidentifiable seedlings were dropped from the survey sample results. Damage codes relating to browse damage were rated as light (browse damage was estimated at less than 50% of the height of the seedling and would likely recover to put on height the next growing season) or greater than 50% which could result in the death of the seedling or adversely affect growth or height increment in the next growing season. 8

9 Observations Seedlings treated with Plantskydd Animal Repellent at the nursery, cold stored for up to 5 months, and subsequently thawed and planted, did not exhibit any signs of mould or needle cast. This substantiated the treatment of seedlings with Plantskydd at the nursery, with subsequent cold storage, as a viable method of reducing application costs, while providing animal browse protection. Although all seedlings were planted in a medium to high-risk Roosevelt Elk and Coastal blacktail deer browse area (see footnotes #2), no seedlings were browsed in the field until 4+ months following planting. This period is outside of the Plantskydd manufacturer s product efficacy claims of 4+ months. Regardless of treatment type, starting in the fifth month after planting, in all replicates, Western redcedar experienced the most amount of browse. Browsing on most Western redcedar seedlings was estimated as light with seedlings seldom being browsed beyond 50% of the plant s overall height. From the time of planting the first replicate in February 2010, to the final survey September 22, 2010, a small number of Douglas fir were browsed during September in Replicate No. 4. Hot, dry weather accounted for any mortality noted in the replicate sites confirmed by the lack of root growth exhibited following excavation and by the absence of mould or needle cast. Conclusions Seedlings can be treated prior to lifting at the nursery with Plantskydd Animal Repellent, cold stored at -2C up to 5 months, then thawed and planted without adversely affecting the seedlings. Footnotes (1) Reference Evaluation of deer browse barrier products to minimize mortality and growth loss to Western redcedar, April 27, 2000, authored by John Henigman, RP Bio, RPF, BC Ministry of Forests. (2) Reference Russell Brewer, RPF, Practices Forester, BC Timber Sales, regarding historical browse pressure by Roosevelt Elk on forest plantations in the Homesite Creek watershed area. Replicate No. 1 Summary of survey results by month and treatment type Month: March

10 Species Douglas fir PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 0/ PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 0/ Month: April 2010 Species Douglas fir PS + storage 1/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 0/ PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 0/ Month: May

11 Species Douglas fir PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 0/ PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 0/ Month: June 2010 Species Douglas fir PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 2/ PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/79* Control 0/ * 4 flags missing sample size reduced by 4 seedlings. Month: July

12 Species Douglas fir PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 0/ PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 0/ Month: August 2010 Species Douglas fir PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 1/ PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/80* Control 0/ * 1 missing seedling found increasing sample size by 1 to 80. Month: September

13 Species Douglas fir PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 0/ PS + storage 3/ / /36-2 Storage + PS 0/ Control 0/

14 Replicate No. 2 Summary of survey results by month and treatment type Month: April 2010 Species Douglas fir PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 0/ PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 0/ Month: May 2010 Species Douglas fir PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 0/ PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 0/

15 Month: June 2010 Species Douglas fir PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 0/ PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 0/ Month: July 2010 Species Douglas fir PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 0/ PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 0/

16 Month: August 2010 Species Douglas fir PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 0/ PS + storage 2/ / Storage + PS 0/ Control 0/ Month: September 2010 Species Douglas fir PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 0/ PS + storage 1/ / Storage + PS 1/ / Control 0/

17 Replicate No. 3 Summary of survey results by month and treatment type Month: May 2010 Species Douglas fir PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 0/ PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 0/ Month: June 2010 Species Douglas fir PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 1/ PS + storage 4/90* Storage + PS 1/90** Control 1/ ** 4 seedling wire flags missing, sample reduced to 86 seedlings * 1 seedling wire flag missing, sample reduced to 89 seedlings 17

18 Month: July 2010 Species Douglas fir PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 0/ PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 0/ Month: August 2010 Species Douglas fir PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 0/ PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 0/

19 Month: September 2010 Species Douglas fir PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 0/ PS + storage 1/ / Storage + PS 5/ / Control 0/

20 Replicate No. 4 Summary of survey results by month and treatment type Month: June 2010 Species Douglas fir PS + storage 4/90* Storage + PS 0/ Control 0/ * Sample size reduced to 86 seedlings 2 died weather related; 2 wire flags missing. PS + storage 1/74* Storage + PS 0/ Control 1/90** * Sample size reduced to 73 seedlings 1 wire flag missing ** Sample size reduced to 89 seedlings 1 wire flag missing Month: July 2010 Species Douglas fir PS + storage 2/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 2/ PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 2/ Control 0/

21 Month: August 2010 Species Douglas fir PS + storage 1/ Storage + PS 5/ Control 0/ PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 0/ Month: September 2010 Species Douglas fir PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 0/ PS + storage 0/ Storage + PS 0/ Control 2/ /

22 Appendix Figure 1-1 Map of Plantskydd Animal Repellent replicate trial areas, Homesite Creek Sunshine Coast, British Columbia, Canada 22

23 Figure 1-2 Plantskydd treated Western redcedar seedlings Campbell River PRT Nursery, December 21,

24 Figure 1-3 Plantskydd treated Douglas fir seedlings Campbell River PRT Nursery, December 21,

25 Figure 1-4 Comparison of Plantskydd treated Douglas fir seedlings on the left, with untreated Douglas fir seedlings on the right. Campbell River PRT Nursery, December 21,

26 Figure 1-5 Close up photograph of Plantskydd treated seedling on the left, compared with untreated Douglas fir seedlings on the right. Campbell River PRT Nursery, December 21,

27 Figure 1-6 Thawed, untreated Western redcedar seedlings Sechelt, BC. 27

28 Figure 1-7 Photograph showing thawed, Plantskydd treated Douglas fir and Western redcedar seedlings in Sechelt, BC 28

29 Figure 1-8 Photograph showing the close proximity of established plot replicates to access roads at the Homesite Creek project site. 29

30 Figure 1-9 Photograph of replicate No. 1, planted February 22, Note close proximity of standing timber on cut-block perimeter. 30

31 Figure 1-10 Planting of Replicate No. 2 Note wire flags indicating seedling number and treatment type. 31

32 Figure 1-11 types: Red Flags indicate Western redcedar Blue flags indicate Douglas fir seedlings 32

33 Figure 1-12 Example of light browse on Western redcedar. 33

34 Figure 1-13 Example of light browse on Western redcedar. 34

35 Figure 1-14 Example of heavy browse damage on Western redcedar. 35

36 Figure 1-15 Example of heavy browse damage on Western redcedar. 36

37 Figure 1-16 Western redcedar seedling pulled out of ground by Roosevelt Elk. 37

38 Figure 1-17 Roosevelt Elk hoof mark in replicate area, Homesite Creek, BC 38