Important Copyright Information

Transcription

1 NSC 2016 Winter Conference: Improving silviculture planning and practice from current standards to our future forests February 16-17, 2016 Important Copyright Information The following content is provided for educational purposes by the workshop presenter. This content may or may not have been peer reviewed. Information, opinions, and recommendations put forward are those of the presenter, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Northern Silviculture Committee, its members, or sponsors. Copyright for the following material is primarily held by the presenter. This source should be fully acknowledged in any citation. For permission to reproduce or redistribute this material, in whole or in part, please contact the presenter.

2 Research to Operations: Revised guidance for aspen competition in the Cariboo 2

3 What did we do? Defined the issue with the assistance of operational staff (1990) Developed research to address the issue ( ) Formed a Cariboo committee and kept Victoria staff up to date ( ) Evolved research findings to operational guidance ( ) Field tested the new guidance and procedures (2014) Wrote the new Cariboo guidance in Appendix 13 (2015) 3

4 Research takes time!! 4

5 Operational Concern Are we brushing to enhance tree growth? There was always a feeling that some brushing was being done to meet administrative objectives (i.e., FG) rather than because it was biologically necessary The old FG guidelines were developed with the best knowledge of the day. They were uniformly applied across a number of BEC units, with the intention that they be modified when ecosystem specific information was available. Current FG guidelines are used for both preand post brushing surveys. Some criteria that were developed to address rapid postbrushing sucker growth are over restrictive for pre brushing assessment. 5

6 Research installations were established to study aspen competition in young pine stands Over time we realized ecosystems played a large role so research installations were established across a range of ecosystems Ecological Classification Range of Stand Ages Studied Type of study SBPSxc Variable density IDFdk Retrospective 6 20 Variable density SBSdw1& Retrospective 8 14 Variable density 1 20 Variable radius SBPSmk 8 15 Variable density SBSmk1 (Pine Ridge) 22 Variable density PG trial 6

7 Summary of Research Results The effects of aspen competition on pine development increased between subzones (SBSdw1&2>IDFdk3>SBPSxc) SBPSxc: Aspen competition did not affect pine development after establishment Where aspen was an important competitor (SBSdw1&2 and IDFdk3) Density was a key factor that could be easily assessed Aspen could be 125% taller than the pine and not affect growth 7

8 SBPSxc Under story Pine 2001 (11 yrs) Pine now growing thru aspen (18 yrs) 8

9 Change in aspen density over a range of height ratio classes in the SBPSxc 4.0 Mean number of aspen stems in 2.52m subplot Clusko 2001 No Spacing Tall aspen height/target pine height 2.5 Mean number of aspen stems in 2.52m subplot Clusko 2008 No Spacing Tall aspen height/target pine height

10 IDFdk3 The vicious aspen was not as bad as it looked! 6 years old 20 years old ( not brushed) 10

11 SBSdw1 Pine and aspen: a different story 10 year old pine 11

12 Recommended changes from research trial results Subzone & site series AT/PL ht ratio Density (sph) FG min pine ht SBPSxc 01 None None 1.4 IDFdk % SBSdw1& % Notes: Only for pine at free growing height Only for zonal sites Looked at the ICH but decided the aspen was too aggressive to be considered in these studies. 12

13 Research suggests that current provincial guidance with regard to aspen competition in pine stands could use some tweaking Research is only on one site is this valid? We only studied pine and aspen what about the other species? Results we have developed are for pre brushing surveys. What about post brushing? And what about other similar ecosystems? What do you mean other values???? Could the changes affect something else? 13

14 So what did we do? The Cariboo Committee Process The Cariboo Super Committee: Government, industry, researchers, policy makers, management all working together There was a very definite interest in application of the research operationally which came with some financial support $$$ Needed to determine the effect of application of the research on timber supply, forest health, visuals, water, wildlife, etc. (Report by Rebecca Misener) Needed to verify if a broader application of the research was appropriate Consultation was critical from operations up to the administrative staff in Victoria it takes time to adjust to change. 14

15 Evolution of research to operational application: Verification for expansion of research within ecosystems and to similar ecosystems Why Verify? Too expensive and time consuming to research everything everywhere so best knowledge available is used. What needed verification? Application of results across the ecosystem from one site Appropriate application of results to similar ecosystems With operational assistance we sampled a range of operational sites across a variety of subzones. 15

16 Results from the IDFdk3 verification In all cases the operational sites at a variety of age ranges with 4000 tall aspen/ha were not different from our research sites mostly aspen is growing more slowly than pine We found that research sites always had the most vigorous aspen growth. 16

17 Expansion of results: Across ecosystems Other ecosystems in the Cariboo with aspen communities as defined d by the Expert System BEC Area (km 2 ) Site series ESSFxv1& X X AT (L) X X X X X X ICHdk 425 AT (H) EP AT AC (H) EP AT AC (H) EP AC AT AT (L) X AT (M) AT EP AC (H) AT EP AC (H) AT (H) AT (H) (H) X ICHmk AT (M/H) AC EP AT (H) X X EP AT AC (M/H) AC EP (H) AC EP (H) EP AC AT (H) X ICHmw3 b 32 ICHwk a: AT EP AC (M) 01b: AT EP AC (H) X X EP AT AC (L/M) X X AT EP AC (H) X ICHwk4 607 AT EP AC (M) X X X AT EP AC (L/M) X AT EP AC (H) X IDFdk1 b 20 IDFdk AT (M) AT (M) X AT (M) X X AT (L) AT (M) X IDFdk AT (M) AT (L) X AT (M) AT (H) X X AT (M) AT (M) IDFdw a 1009 IDFmw2 b 147 IDFxm a: AT (M) 01b: AT (M) X X X X X EP (H) X X SBPSdc 4227 AT (M) X X X X X X X SBPSmc a 1165 SBPSmk 5658 AT (M) X AT (M) X X X X X SBPSxc 10,898 AT (H) c X X AT (H) X AT (H) SBSdw AT (M) X X X X EP AT (M) AT EP (M/H) X X EP AT (M) AT (M/H) SBSdw AT (M) X X X X X X AT (M/H) EP (H) SBSmh 789 SBSmm b 87 SBSmw d 1374 AT EP AC (H) EP (M) X X EP (H) EP (H) EP AC (H) EP AC (H) AC (H) AT EP AC (M/H) AT (H) AT AC EP (M) X X X X X X X X 17

18 Comparison of Characterization Data and Adaptive Management Research Sites Aspen density is 1000 to 2000 at AT/PL height ratio of 1.0 Note we did not include the ICH in the current changes.

19 Expansion of results to other confer species We have developed changes for Pl but Sx and Fd grow with pine especially in the wetter zones like the SBS However, we had limited information on Fd and Sx Research studies provided some insight EP operational studies have early growth response EP (SBSdw2) has an example of Fd surviving extremely dense aspen stands where pine died EP1080 (SBSmk1) has provided us with data on SX growth under different levels of aspen competition Various models had been developed some validated in the ecosystems of interest (i.e. Phil Comeau) Applicable literature was reviewed 19

20 Douglas fir Spruce EP (SBSdw2): age 24 EP : SBSdw1&2 20

21 Development of the new system Using all available data, literature, expert knowledge combined with much consultation and extension we developed: Revisions to the FG guidance AND a new survey methodology 21

22 Conifer/brush ratio of 150% versus 80% Conifer/brush ratio =150% Conifer/brush ratio =80% 2.5 m 2 m 2 m 1.3 m

23 A countable aspen has conifer/brush ratio <80% 2.5 m 2 m

24 1 or 2 adjacent quadrants within a 1 m 1 m radius is okay 2 adjacent quadrants is okay 2 opposite quadrants is not

25 Used a neighbourhood approach instead of the Potentially FG method 1.8 m PL PL A 1.8 m radius circle covers ~10 m 2 6 well spaced 1.8 m neighborhoods ~ cover the 50 m 2 plot 3.99 m PL PL PL PL

26 New survey protocol for pine in the SBSdw1/dw2 NFG No Does the crop pine meet min height (2 m), and damage and WS criteria? Same Yes NFG Yes Is herb/shrub vegetation taller than the crop pine in > 1 quadrant? Same No NFG Yes Are 2 adjacent quadrants occupied within a 1 m cylinder? (An occupied quad has AT >1.25 times the pine height) No Revised NFG No Is the #of countable aspen stems within 1.8 m the maximum allowed? (A countable AT is >1.25 times the pine height and the allowable # is 1 per plot in the SBSdw1&2) New Yes FG 26

27 Changes to individual criteria for the SBSdw1/dw2 Sample plot size (3.99 m) Minimum ht, WS, health Old No change No change Revised Conifer/brush ratio 150% PL 80%; Sx & Fd 67% Definition of occupied quadrant AT taller than pine AT >1.25 times pine ht AT>1.5 times the Sx or Fd ht Allowable occupied quads 1 2 adjacent Definition of potential FG trees Definition of countable aspen How are countable aspen assessed? Allowable # countable aspen Overtopping AT in 1 quad Aspen that is > median height of all potential pine In the 3.99 m (50 m 2 ) plot 2 aspen per 3.99 m plot (400 sph) AT >1.25 times pine ht AT>1.5 times the Sx or Fd ht In 1.8 m (10 m 2 ) plots around individual conifers 1 aspen per 1.8 m plot (1000 sph) The number of countable aspen change in drier ecosystems

28 Then we tested the new system with real surveyors!

29 Dave developed: Appendix 13 A new Appendix 13 was developed using research data and expert knowledge Changes to individual FG assessment criteria, including conifer/brush ratio, allowable # occupied quads, definition of countable aspen, # countable aspen AND Changes to the FG survey protocol each pine assessed on the basis of a 1.8 m neighbourhood; no more potentially FG trees

30 Revised Cariboo Guidance

31 Aspen brushing or spacing Currently we only have made changes for stands that have not been brushed. Aspen love to be spaced guidance does not apply to spaced stands 31

32 In Summary Research results suggested changes to guidance for pine in the SBPSxc, IDFdk3, SBSdw1&2 Verification for broad application within the subzones was completed Expansion of results to allow for operational implementation (i.e. to other subzones and other species). New guidance and new survey procedures were tested operationally Appendix 13 was born 32

33 What difference will the proposed changes make? New conifer/brush ratio Easier protocol no potential trees Reduction for the need to brush sites where conifers can grow through the aspen A wait and see attitude may be applied to brushing No change where aspen is effectively competing with the conifers Does not apply to brushed areas or areas that have had any aspen density management.

34 Introduction to the new survey system

35 Model Creators! Scott and Janet Zimonick Lost in the Aspen 35

36 Here s Kris! Operations and application 36

37 IDFdk4 : TSL A51625 Block 2 No brushing required Pine health good 37

38 IDFdk3: TSL A71030 Block 11 Planted with Pli and Lw 2009 Pli ht ~1m with 16cm leaders At ht ~2 4 m Expected to be FG according to current standards but will require one more walk thru 38

39 IDFdk3: TSL A51793 Block 10 Planted with Pli in 2009 Pli ht ~1m with 20cm leaders At ht mode=1m with max at 4m Expected to be FG according to current standards but will require one more walk thru 39

40 How much will we save? Operational Remarks In 2015 we brushed only 153 hectares for $25,000 (165 per ha). We spent around $ 35,000 less in 2015 than in 2009 and brushed 111 less hectares. There is no longer a need to complete extensive brushing within the BEC s affected by the modified guidelines. Do we require training? Yes I believe a competent understanding on the new process or modified Free Growing standard is required. Unnecessary brushing can be expensive (ex. for a 100 ha block 350/ha plus pay plots at ~$2500 and other admin costs) Training opportunities: What new in Silviculture Surveys, I was there last year in Sorrento and we did briefly go over the new guidelines, not sure if new surveyors are tested on this or not? Some contractors have been involved in the previous test trials and they now have a great working knowledge of this new methodology. 40

41 41