J. For. Sci., 2013, 59(4):137-149 | DOI: 10.17221/2/2013-JFS

Birch (Betula papyrifera) × white spruce (Picea glauca) interactions in mixedwood stands: implications for managementOriginal Paper

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

Current British Columbia forest regulations drive the regeneration management towards pure conifer stands rather than remaining in a mixed-species condition. This approach may result in unnecessary vegetation control. The main objective of this investigation was to study the impact of variable paper birch densities on white spruce growth in 15-20 years old stands for management implications. Regression analysis was used to examine the effect of birch density and two competition indices to predict spruce growth. A mixed model ANOVA showed that spruce mean annual DBH and basal area increment differed significantly among sites and density. From the regression analysis it appears that birch density up to 4,000 stems.ha-1 had no significant influence on spruce growth which is much higher than the current BC reforestation guideline (1,000 stems.ha-1 broadleaves). Similarly, birch relative density index (RDI) had to exceed 3 to affect spruce DBH growth significantly on all sites except one. On most sites, spruce had a larger DBH than birch. Our results also suggest that rather than following the current broadcast approach to vegetation management, a targeted approach could enhance forest productivity and stand diversity.

Keywords: boreal forest; competition; mean annual DBH growth; productivity; relative density index (RDI); vegetation management

Published: April 30, 2013  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Hawkins CDB, Dhar A. Birch (Betula papyrifera) × white spruce (Picea glauca) interactions in mixedwood stands: implications for management. J. For. Sci.. 2013;59(4):137-149. doi: 10.17221/2/2013-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. Aitken K.E.H., Wiebe K.L., Martin, K. (2002): Nest-site reuses patterns for a cavity-nesting bird community in interior British Columbia. The Auk, 119: 391-402. Go to original source...
    2. Arii K., Turkington R. (2001): Assessing competition intensity along productivity gradients using a simple model. Canadian Journal of Botany, 79: 1486-1491. Go to original source...
    3. Bergqvist G. (1999): Wood volume and stand structure in Norway spruce understory depending on birch shelterwood density. Forest Ecology and Management, 122: 221-229. Go to original source...
    4. Binkley D. (2003): Seven decades of stand development in mixed and pure stands of conifers and nitrogen-fixing red alder. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 33: 2274-2279. Go to original source...
    5. Brand D.G. (1986): A competition index for predicting the vigour of planted Douglas-fir in southwestern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 16: 23-29. Go to original source...
    6. British Columbia Ministry of Forests (2002): Reference Guide for FDP Stocking Standards, Prince George Forest Region. Available at http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/pubdocs/bcdocs/358509/stocking_standards.htm (accessed October 24, 2012).
    7. British Columbia Ministry of Forests (2005): Guide to the Evaluation of FDP Stocking and Related Standards. Available at http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/legislation/index.htm (accessed December 12, 2012).
    8. Brown A.H.F. (1992): Functioning of mixed-species stands at Gisburn, N.W. England. In: Cannell M.G.R., Malcolm D.C., Robertson P.A. (eds): The Ecology of Mixed-Species Stands of Trees. Oxford, Blackwell: 125-150.
    9. 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...
    10. Clair J.B., Snieko R.A. (1999): Genetic variation in response to shade in coastal Douglas-fir. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 29: 1751-1763. Go to original source...
    11. Comeau P.G., Biring B.S., Harper G.J. (2000): Conifer Response to Brushing Treatment: Summary of British Columbia Data. Available at http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/en/en41.pdf (accessed November 17, 2012).
    12. Curtis R.O. (1970): Stand density measures: an interpretation. Forest Science, 16: 403-414.
    13. Curtis R.O (1982): A simple index of stand density for Douglas-fir. Forest Science, 28: 92-94.
    14. DeLong S.C. (1991): The light interception index: a potential tool for assisting in vegetation management decisions. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 21: 1037-42. Go to original source...
    15. DeLong C., Annas R.M., Stewart A.C. (1991): Boreal white and black spruce zones. In: Meidinger D., Pojar J. (eds): Ecosystem of British Columbia. Victoria, BC Ministry of Forests: 237-250.
    16. Ducey M.J., Knapp R.A. (2010): Rapid assessment of relative density in mixed-species stands of the north-eastern United States. International Journal of Forest Research. doi:10.1155/2010/212068 Go to original source...
    17. Ducey M.J., Larson B.C. (2003): Is there a correct stand density index? An alternate interpretation. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 18: 179-184. Go to original source...
    18. Fahlvik N., Agestam E., Nilsson U., Nyström K. (2005): Simulating the influence of initial stand structure on the development of young mixtures of Norway spruce and birch. Forest Ecology and Management, 213: 297-311. Go to original source...
    19. Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act (1996): RSBC, Chapter 159. Available at http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96159_01 (accessed February 19, 2013).
    20. Frivold L.H., Frank J. (2002): Growth of mixed birchconiferous 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...
    21. Haggar J.B., Ewell J.J. (1997): Primary productivity and resource partitioning in model tropical ecosystems. Ecology, 78: 1211-1221. Go to original source...
    22. Hawkins C.D.B., Dhar A., Rogers B.J. (2012a): How much birch (Betula papyrifera) is too much for maximizing spruce (Picea glauca) growth: a case study in boreal spruce plantation forests. Journal of Forest Science, 58: 314-327. Go to original source...
    23. Hawkins C.D.B., Dhar A., Lange J. (2012b): 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). doi: 10.1080/11263504.2012.736421. Go to original source...
    24. 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.
    25. Kelty M.J. (2006): The role of species mixtures in plantation forestry. Forest Ecology and Management, 233: 195-204. Go to original source...
    26. Kent M., Coker P. (1992): Vegetation Description and Analysis: A Practical Approach. Exeter, Short Run Press: 363.
    27. Knoke T., Ammer C., Stimm B., Mosandl R. (2008): Admixing broadleaved to conifer tree species: A review on yield, ecological stability and economics. European Journal of Forest Research, 127: 89-101 Go to original source...
    28. Kozlowski T.T. (2002): Physiological ecology of natural regeneration of harvested and disturbed forest stands: implications for forest management. Forest Ecology and Management, 158: 195-221. Go to original source...
    29. Lautenschlager R.A. (2000): Can intensive silviculture contribute to sustainable forest management in northern ecosystems? The Forestry Chronicle, 76: 283-295. Go to original source...
    30. 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...
    31. Légaré S., Paré D., Bergeron Y. (2004): The responses of black spruce growth to an increased proportion of aspen in mixed stands. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 34: 405-416. Go to original source...
    32. Leiffers V.J., Macmillan R.B., MacPherson D., Branter K., Stewart J.D. (1996): Semi-natural and intensive silvicultural systems for the boreal mixedwood forest. The Forestry Chronicle, 72: 286-292. Go to original source...
    33. Long J.N. (1985): A practical approach to density management. The Forestry Chronicle, 61: 23-27. Go to original source...
    34. Mårda 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...
    35. Matthews J.D. (1989): Silvicultural Systems. Oxford, Clarendon Press: 284.
    36. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (2011): Site Index Estimates by Site Series: Report by Region. Available at http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/sibec/reports/sisuByRegion.pdf
    37. 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...
    38. Mitchell S.J. (2003): Effects of mechanical stimulus, shade and nitrogen fertilization on morphology and bending resistance in Douglas-fir seedlings. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 33: 1602-1609. Go to original source...
    39. Newsome, T., Heineman, J.L., Nemec, A. (2008): Competitive interactions between juvenile trembling aspen and lodgepole pine: a comparison of two interior British Columbia ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management, 255: 2950-2962. Go to original source...
    40. 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...
    41. Newton M., Comeau P.G. (1990): Control of competing vegetation. In: Lavender D.P., Parish R., Johnson C.M., Montgomery G., Vyse A., Willis R.A., Winston D. (eds): Regenerating British Columbia's Forests. Vancouver, UBC Press: 256-265. Go to original source...
    42. Newton P.F., Jolliffe P.A. (1998): Assessing processes of intraspecific competition within spatially heterogeneous black spruce stands. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 28: 259-275. Go to original source...
    43. Oliver C.D., Larson B.C. (1996): Forest Stand Dynamics. New York, John Wiley and Sons: 540.
    44. Perry D.A. (1994): Forest Ecosystems. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press: 649.
    45. Paquette A., Messier C. (2011): The effect of biodiversity on tree productivity: from temperate to boreal forests. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 20: 170-180. Go to original source...
    46. Pretzsch H. (2005): Diversity and productivity in forests: evidence from long-term experimental plots. In: SchererLorenzen M., Körner C., Schulze E.D. (eds): Forest Diversity and Function: Temperate and Boreal Systems. Ecological Studies, Vol. 176. Berlin, Springer: 41-64. Go to original source...
    47. Pretzsch H., Schütze G. (2009): Transgressive over yielding in mixed compared with pure stands of Norway spruce and European beech in Central Europe: Evidence on stand level and tree level. European Journal of Forest Research, 128: 183-204. Go to original source...
    48. Reineke L.H. (1933): Perfecting a stand density index for even age forests. Journal of Agricultural Research, 46: 627-638.
    49. 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...
    50. Rothe A., Binkley, D. (2001): Nutritional interactions in mixed species forests: A synthesis. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 31: 1855-1870. Go to original source...
    51. Simard S.W. (1990) A Retrospective Study of Competition between Paper Birch and Planted Douglas-fir. Available at http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Frr/Frr147.pdf (accessed September 6, 2012).
    52. Simard S.W., Sachs D.L. (2004): Assessment of inter-specific competition using relative height and distance indices in an age sequence of seral interior cedar-hemlock forests in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 34: 1228-1240. Go to original source...
    53. 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...
    54. 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 and Management, 198: 55-74. Go to original source...
    55. 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. Available at http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/Lmh/Lmh48.pdf (accessed October 19, 2012).
    56. 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...
    57. Simard S.W., Perry D.A., Jones M.D., Myrold D.D., Durall D.M., Molina R. (1997): Net transfer of carbon between tree species with shared ectomycorrhizal fungi. Nature, 388: 579-582. Go to original source...
    58. Taylor S.P., Alfaro R.I., DeLong C., Rankin L. (1994): Effects of over-story shading on white pine weevil damage to interior white spruce. In: Alfaro R.I., Kiss G., Fraser R.G. (eds): Proceedings of the Symposium - The White Pine Weevil: Biology, Damage and Management. Richmond, 19.-21. January 1994, Victoria, BC Ministry of Forests: 254-261.
    59. Torres-Rojo J.M., Martínez A. (2000): Relative stand density index for mixed even-aged stands. Agrociencia, 4: 497-507.
    60. Valkonen S., Valsta L. (2001): Productivity and economics of mixed two-storied spruce and beech stands in Southern Finland simulated with empirical models. Forest Ecology and Management, 140: 133-149. Go to original source...
    61. Vandermeer J. (1989): The Ecology of Intercropping. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 237. Go to original source...
    62. Wagner R.G., Little K.M., Richardson B., McNabb K. 2005. The role of vegetation management for enhancing productivity of the world's forests. Forestry, 7: 57-79. Go to original source...
    63. Wagner R.G., Radosevich S.R. (1991): Interspecific competition and other factors influencing the performance of Douglas-fir saplings in the Oregon coast range. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 21: 829-835. 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