Team Xtreme – Lab #2
Abstract.
Data was collected at four plots in Heiberg Forest to compare differences between two
plantations. The difference in quality of each site is apparent, as the productivity of Red
pine, (Pinus Resinosa) varies at each respective site. Diameters were recorded for all tree
species with our plot boundaries. From the data collected we were able to draw some
conclusions on the characteristics of each site. Site one has more Red pine and less under
story species. Just the opposite was found for site two.
Introduction
The characteristics of a forest largely influence whether a specific tree species can thrive.
In a plantation setting the environmental factors affecting the vegetation are altered as
there is a clear distinction between the dominate layer and the under story. The objectives
of this study are to compare two red pine plantations and discover which is better suited
for red pine. The quantification of current conditions in a plantation or any other forest
stand is referred to by foresters as an inventory, (D. Dickmann & M. Koelling, 2001). By
inventorying all tree species both in the upper and under story we can see which is better.
It is predicted that site one will have more Red pine and less under story species and that
site two will have a more diverse and numerous population of under story species.
Methods and Materials
The study areas in this experiment were two 50x50’ plots in two even-aged stands of Red
Pine (Pinus resinosa), and the land was previously used for agriculture. The trees’ diameters
were determined by using a logger’s tape, which were then recorded along with the tree’s
species onto a data chart (see appendix 1 & 2). After all the trees within the two plots were
measured, we moved on to stand two. The same procedure was performed.
Results
The trees growing in stand one had an overall larger diameter than the trees in stand two (fig.
1a, 1b).
Figure 1a
Diameter Distribution - Site 1
# of Trees
20
15
10
5
0
2.0-4.0
4.0-6.0
6.0-8.0
8.0-10.0
10.012.0
12.014.0
14.016.0
Diameter Class (in)
Figure 1b
# of Trees
Diameter Distribution - SIte 2
10
8
6
4
2
0
2.04.0
4.06.0
6.08.0
8.010.0
10.0- 12.0- 14.0- 16.012.0 14.0 16.0 18.0
Diameter Class (in)
Stand one consisted mostly of tall Red Pine (Pinus resinosa), more than tripling the
amount of the next most abundant tree. Stand two had a wide range of species, including
many saplings of White Ash (Fraxinus americanca), Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum), and
Beech (Fagus grandifolia). Figures 2a and 2b show this distribution.
Figure 2a
Species Distribution for Site 1
# trees
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
RP
BC
YB
StM
SM
Species
Figure 2b
# trees
Species Distribution for Site 2
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
RP
WA
BC
SM
Bch
WP
HH
Aspen
Species
As the graphs show, Site 2 had 3 more species than site one did, supporting our
hypothesis of Site 2 having more regeneration
Discussion
Our results proved our hypothesis true. We had hypothesized that site one would
exhibit better growth with larger diameter trees. Site two would have greater regeneration
with less in the way of large diameter trees. These trends were observed in our data. Site
one had mostly large, red pines with little diversity among species and little regeneration.
This was a successful even-aged red pine plantation, so regeneration was limited by
crown cover. This site likely survived well because conditions here favored red pine
growth. Site two showed a large number of smaller trees and a great diversity of species.
There are few Red Pines at site two. Likely some site condition, possibly soil drainage
class, limited the stands growth and survival rates. Many Red Pines died and the openings
have allowed for much regeneration and diversity of species, which are in the process of
out-competing the Red Pines for resources. This study would be greatly improved if
larger plots were studied. Also, there were too many variables. The stands histories, soil
conditions and other variables were not known. If these were known, it would be much
easier to determine an exact culprit for the difference in the stand’s compositions today.
Conclusion
Since the hypothesis was supported, it was concluded that site one’s Red
Pines have likely survived better due to a more favorable soil drainage class for
this species. However, of the regeneration present on both sites, there is little Red
Pine. This indicates that Red Pine can not compete reproductively and will
eventually fade out of both stands. We expect that Red Pine is not optimized to
compete in our climate. It is likely better suited for colder climates. These
conclusions could be verified by studying the survival rates of Red Pines in
various climates. The results of this study could also be used in determining
whether Red Pine would be a viable species, to plant in similar conditions.