•
l
Plantation Productivity in the
.
Douglas-Fir Region Under Intensive
Silvicultural. Practices: Results from
Research and Operations
About this file: This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
been corrected; however, some mistakes may remain.
Misscans identified by the software have
• Cheryl Talbert and David Marshall
bris, .significant animal damage, the .threat of
This article reviews major plantation silvicultural practices used in the westside Douglas-fir region of
wildfireS, and poorly developed reforesta­
Qregon and Washington: origin, growth and yield impacts, and the region's global competitive status
.
tion me ods, establishm nt of replacement
for productivity, tree-growing costs, and returns. Two main messages emerge: {1) there has been great
growing stock was slow and expensive. The
progress in the region to increase wood yield and shorten rotations; and .{2) opportunity remains strong
math was not at all favorable for. investment
for this region ·to become even more competitive, although it will require ·challenging current beliefs
returns.
and norms and an increased collective will and focused sense of urgency.
·
From Maximum-Yield Forestry to
. Maximum Return on Investmen-t. In -keep­
Keywords: Douglas-fir; fertilization; growth and yield; intensive management; investment returns;
ing with the European roots of the region's
Pacific Northwest; plantations; planting stock; productivity; thinning; tree growing costs; tree improve·
ment; vegetation control ·
forest management philosophy, many re:­
·
searchers and landowners in the PNW in the 1960s and into the 1970s were .focused on I
n the early 1900s, when Frederick
cion, so that haryest schedules and forest
Weyerhaeuser and others began their
the ideas of luminaries such as Schenck,
.
·
region were focused on conversion and were
pointed out in ·their excellent history of sil­
. driven by periods of economic boom and
viculture in the region, "The forests were
bust. In the 1960s and 1970s, interest grew
viewed as a static resource to be mined, and
in using the classic Austrian model to dis­
the usual objective was to harvest high-value
tribute the annual cut through time . and
timber at minimum· diiect cost." The "leap
across the standing forest volume such that
forestlands was to bank on the ongoing value
harvest in
appreciation of a standing forest as an asset,
ing of existing stand volume-the ."allow­
of faith" by these early investors in PNW
able yield by taking trees as merchantable
thinnings before they were lost to mortalit)r
(Worthington and Staebler 1961). Early
Graves, Fernow, and Hanzlik. Before the
.
1940s, most operations
in the Douglas-fir.
ests. Up to this tifi?,e, ·as Curtis et al. (1998)
thinning trials in natural stands were estab­
lished with the objective of c;apturing poten­
tial mortality and redistributing growth to
the residual stand to increase the total har­
vestable volunie through the rotation over
what would have been expected in the un­
new-stand volume would come ready for
making a significant investment in the rees­
an
um yield" strategy . aimed at high initial stocking, multiple thin­
ning removals, and maximizing th·e harvest­
management plans were strongly shap·ed by
great adventure in fores.t management
in the Pacific Northwest (PNW), they faced
a seerrungly ndless expanse of mature for­
the concept of a "m
thinned stand (i.e., "bonus wood"). During
.the same time, the supply of large logs ap­
peared endless, prices were increasing
.
steadily, and the cost and efficiency of log­
"even-flow" with the ha.rVest­
able cut" concept. -Early natural stand yield
wood flows and, with the expectation of
stock inventory .for ongoing wood produc-
fairly long rotatio s to grow the next forest, .
ging and milling improved steeply with in­
creasing log diameter. With this continued.
tion.
annual cut levels had to be modest. Fire con­
supply of high-value large logs, low prices for .
s.q1alllogs, and the high cost of harvesting
ta lishment of new stands as existing s.tands
wer harvested to maintain a steady growing
.
Frederick and other influential for-esters
of .the time came from the European tradi-
·
tables were the only tools available to plan
trol was difficult and large areas burned r g-
. ularly. With heavy old-growth logging de-
·
small logs, land managers focused on early
precommercial thinning to increase tree size
· Journal of Forestry
•
March 2005
65
·
in dense naturally regenerated stands (Reukema 1975) and commercial thinning
limited.
Trends in Plantation Establishment .
.
was
w, drawing on Faustmann's
work in the 1850s, began to inspire sweep­
ing changes in forest ma.nagement philoso-'
phy among industrial landowners in the re
·gion, in roducing financial investment and
·
financial maturity concepts to forest :man­
agement thinking. Managers began to shift
from thinking of the timber resource as a wood supply for mills to thinking of the for­
·
est as a financial investment in and of itself,
with annual stumpage sales providing the
revenues 'needed to produce acceptable re­
.
turns on the long-term cash flows requi ed
to produce that stumpage. This generated a
dramatic incentive and focus through· the
1960s and 1970s to increase establishment
success and
·
sess growth and yield, and
·
used organizations to commit themselves
·
to achieving plantation harvest ages in the
40s on good sites. .
The availabil..tty of Douglas-fir site
curves (
g 1966). led the way for the de­
velopment of modern growth-and-yield
models of managed natural stands,. provid­
ing managers :with encouraging yield· esti­
mates.that fed a sense qf optimism about the
potential productivi:ty of stands in the re­
gion. We
can
thank this convergence. of
events for the heavy invest.r:D.ent in. growth-
.
. and-yield research, much of which was 4one.
¢-rough regional cooperatives like the R ­
. gional Forest Nutrition Resear
Program
(RFNRP), the Cooperative Levels-of.:qrow­
u;,g Stock (LOGS) S
dies, Stand.Mariage­
mentCooperative (SMC), Coordinated Re­
search on Alternative Forestry Treatments
& Systems in Vegetation Management
(CRAFTS), Vegetation Management Re­
search Cooperative {VMRC), Northwest
Tree Improvement Cooperative (NWTIC),
and the Pacific Northwest Tree Impro e­
ment Research Cooperative (PNWTIRC), .
beginning in the late 1960s. The SMC has
.
surveyed its members in the Douglas-fir region about their management practices peri­
odically since 1986, quantifying many of the
resulting changes in management practices;
highlights of the 2000 survey (Briggs and
Trobaug 2001) are used in this article.
Curtis et al. (1998) describe many of the
silvicultural practices used in the D<;>Uglas-fir
region and their origins in much more de­
tail.
66
Journal of Forestry
_-
March 200 S
(Hartwell and Johnson 1983; Lo ·and Car­
rier 1991, Newton et al. 1993), particularly
tion and Burning. Old-growth harvesting
in the presence of heavy brush and browse
prevalent through the 1960s and 1970s in
competition. Three-year-old 2 -:t-1 stOck was
the PNW was associated with heavy logging
a solution for the heaviest browse and brush
debris, disturbed soils, .. and heavy woody
situations, but these were expensive to pro­
brush competition following planting. Un­
duce and to plant. Plug-transplant and 1 + 1
der these conditions, machine scarification
technology developed rapidly in the 1980s,
and broadcast burning were ·essential for
with more consistent large caliper, a fibrous
successful stand. establishment. As logging
"moppy" root, and better survival than the .
has moved to younger second-growth stands 2 +0 without the added costs of the 2 +1; as
and as h esting equipment. and methods these stock types came into broader use, use
have improved, soil disturbance· and slash of the 2.+0 and small plug began to decline
accumulation· from logging have decreased quickly. Seedling conditioning and protec­
dramatically. Good stocking can now be tion, lift timing, handling methods, and in­ .
achieved in many stands with little or no · frastructure were significantly refined
pili:Ug ·o r moving of slashi recognition of through the 1980s and 199
' 0s; key aspects
this, in combination with pressures to re­
were reported by several authors at a Target
duce early costs, have led to decline in scar­
Seedling conference in 1990 (Rose et al.
ification and piling [down to 12-18%. in 1990). By the 1980s, irlltial survival was typ2001, according to Briggs and Trobaugh
·
ically above 80%.
(2001)]. The acres still be ng treated likely
Demand for seedlings with ever-larger
reflect heavy ·roadside and landing slash ac­
caliper and root mass increased steadily
· cumulations and fire risk management, as
through the 1990s, fueled by increasing an­
well as the incremental benefits of scarifica­
imal browse pressure and statutory "green­
tion for woody competition and rodent con­
up" requirement introduced into Oregon
trol. Broadcast burning has largely. ·disap­
and Washington forest practice codes in the
peared due ·to increasingly restrictive air
early 1990s. These rules specify that the har­
quality· egulations Some studies have
vest of any stand must be deferre4 until ap­
shown survival and early growth benefits
proximately half of the trees in adjoining.
from
mechanical site preparation (Valentine
.
openings have reached 4ft in height or five
1975, McNabb et al. 1993, Beese and Sand­
growing seasons, whichever comes first .As
ford 1994, Piatek at al. 2003), attributed to
ma.tiy landowners near· a regulated forest
bsence of
woody brush control in th
condition (have little timber over rotation
chemical site . preparation or 'release treat­
age), . the green-up requirement can affect
ments in most cases, and in some cases to
' harvest considerably, increasing incentive to
more rapid soil warming and iJnproved
g t stands started quickly. Studies-were ini­
seedling root growth. Some of the same au­
tiated on early growth of seedlings groWn. at
thors also comment, however, that soil dis­
.reduced nursery-bed densities (OSU NTC
turbance and litter removal, increased inva­
2001) and with combinations of very large
sion of exotic weeds, and more extreme
transplant seedlings (8- to .1 0-mm caliper)
moisture and temperature fluxes after scari­
with intensive vegetation control and seed­
fication can, under some ·circumstances and
ling fertilization (Rose et al. 2000). Large­
on some site types, do more harm than good.
container outplant stock (typically container
The Evolution of Planting Stock. In
sizes including Styro15 and larger) has also
the early decades ofthe 20th century, natu­
come into increasing use since the late
ral and aerial seeding led to patchy and un­
1990s, particularly on more xeric sites in Or­
. predictable reforestation. Nursery· invest­
egon. Seedlings in large containers appear to
ments in the 1960s and 1970s fostered
grow roots more rapidly after planting and
widespread planting of 2+0 bareroot and
suffer little planting shock; this gives them a
some small plugs by the mid-1970s. Still,
real advantage in survival and early site-cap­
seedlings were ·rdatively small with sparse
ture over bareroot stock, particularly. on
roots, root disease and cold damage were
more xeric or difficult planting sites (Rose
common, vegetative competition and ani­
and Haase (in press), Kosderka (in press)).
mal browse took a heavy toll, so survival was
Reflecting these trends, respondents to
the SMC survey (Briggs and Trobaugh
often poor (50- 60%). Research soon began
2001) reported a decline in use of 2+0 stock
to demonstrate significant survival and
The Decline ofLarge-Scale Scarifica­
. By the inid-l960s, economists like Du­
err and Fe
growth advantages for larger caliper stock
With more abundant and fibrous roots
.
from more than 30% in 1991 to 5% by
200 1, while 1+ 1 and P+ 1 seedling use in­
creased significantly (from 10 to 25% in the
1 + 1 and from 45 to more
an 60% in the
P+ 1), and these have become the dominant
planting stock. Use of large-container stock
increased over the same period, from essen­
tially 0% through the mid-1990s to 15% of
the' Douglas-fir and 75% of the hemlock
planted by the survey respondents in 2001.
Measured survival and early growth
benefits from larger caliper and root mass
were very large in the studies mentioned
above for .2 + 0 stock in the presence of heavy
brush. and browse, and percentage increases
producing seed, and the most advanced pro­
grams are looking toward a third generation.
Long-term studies and landowner experi­
ence indicate that improved seedlots are gen­
erally broadly adapted and show little geno­
type-by-environment interaction, supporting .
use of the best materials across a wider geo­
graphic range (Ymg 1990, Stonecypher
al.
1996). Still, with the ception of a few orga­
nizations and breecJ,ing zones, the genetic
worth of seed being used across the region re­
mains fairly low, particularly when compared
with advanced-generation control-pollinated
and clonal varieties being deployed in other
regions of the world, and actions to bring such
technologies to the PNW are patchy.
Rapid Advancement in. Vegetation
Control with Herbicides. In the early
.
1960s, promotion of intensive chemical veg­
.etation control in the region began, and
many studies have shown compelling and
consistent survival and growth resultS fol­
lowing herbicide ·application (Brodie and
Walstad 1987). The early focus was on re­
leasing stands from overtopping woody
brush, but herbaceous weed control became
prevalent as studies and local trials showed a
·large benefit of this treatment as well (Peter­
son and Newton 1985)·. Treatment of both
components doubled young-tree stem .vol­
in early growth were large in the more recent
studies of larger bareroot and large-plug ,
stock. It is very important to note, however,
that the absolute magnitude of the benefit of
larger-caliper and l ge-plug stock compared
with conventional 1 + 1 and P+ 1 in· the
presence-of good vegetation and browse co.n-:­
trol amount to no more than a year of accel­
eration, and the long-term benefits remain a
matter of speculation. A year can be very
important in a situation where adjacent har­
v:ests are cons:trained by _green-up require­
. ments, but otherwise the lorig-:term differ­
ences may not be large enough to justify the
added cost.
Implementation of Genetic Improve­
ume in multiple studies, accelerating growth
ment. Large-scale plus-tree selection and or­
of stands by 2 years ·or more over untreated
. chard establi hment efforts began in the
stands. Studies and experience also bolstered
PNW in the 1960s. Divergent approaches
an increasing emphasis on herbaceous con­
were taken in the tWo largest initiatives. The .. trol treatme ts before planting as par1; <?f site
Industrial Forestry Association program or­
preparation.'
ganized many small geographic breeding
Studies also demonstrated the in:cre­
_zones, initl.ated selection f parent trees
mental benefit of multiple years of repeated
along roadsides, U:fidertook some testing;
vegetation co11trol, particularly beginning in
and often established seedling seed orchards
the first year (Preest 1977, Newton and Pre- .
(Silen and Wheat _1979, Johnson 2000).
.est .1988). The height gro.wth benefit in
The large Weyerhaeuser prograin (Stone- · these studies lasted at least 5 years, and the
cypher et al. 1996) was modelec;i after earlier
diameter· growth benefits even longer,
·
southern pine programs, with . fewer but
through age 10 and beyond. In fact, the di­
larger zones, intensive plus-tree screening
ameter and basal-area benefit appears to in­
and selection, very intensive. testing, and
crease 'through this time, amounting to 15­
gr ed seeq orcharc4. Breeding and testing
20% final J1eld benefit (up to 50% or more
advanced, with some programs moving into
if heavy woody competition would other­
their second generation by the early to mid­
wise occur). This pattern has also been re­
1990s. First-generation improved seed is
ported in other species arid growing areas.
now broadly . available, although some or­
Preemergent herbicide treatments, at­
chards remain untested and report fairly low
tractive because they enabled foresters to use
or uncertain gains In addition, many· or­
more effective cheniicals and dosages with­
chards_ are_ located where substantial pollen
out concern about
aging planted seed­
from unimproved neighboring stands could
lings, began to ·take over from dormant and
potentially dilute the gain delivered to the
spring sprays in the mid 1990s. The SMC
orchard s ed, although the amount of actual
s_urvey (Briggs and Trobaugh 2001) shows a
dilution or gain irppact is not reported.
steep ip.crease in the percent of ha.rVested
Some second-generation orchards are now · acres receiving chemical site preparation,
·
·
·
_
·
_
·
from 20% in 1991 to ov r 65% in 2001,
with the percentage of that treatment in
preemergent sprays increasing from less than
5% to over 90%. First- and second-year her­
baceous release treatments also increased
during the period; correspondingly, acres re­
ceiving hardwood control treatments de­
clines steeply (in part because effective
chemical site preparation can control hard­
wood invasion).
The .Evolution of Plfl.nting Density
T�trgets. Early plantations tended to he
planted at close spacings (Curtis et al. 1998),
in keeping with high-yield objectives and in
anticipation of poor seedling survival. By the
early 1980s, however, as organizations de­
veloped the models and computing power to
calculate the relative financial returns of dif­
ferent treatments, and changes in logging
methods and sawmill technology began to
reduce the perceived futu e value advantage ..
of larger diameter logs, initial spacing
trended quickly toward 0 X 10 ft and ev_e n
wider. Seedling survival had greatly im­
prov:ed by thls time, reducing the need' to
- plant at high densities. By _the 1990s, most
. organiz3.tions in the P:NW" had dropped
back to levels close to a nominal 10 X 1O-ft
. spacing (435 trees per acre), the average
planting density target reported in the SMC
survey (Briggs and Trobaugh 200 1) for most
species. Some landowners had even rational-.
ized dropping to initial planting spacings of
11 X 11 ft, or even lower (360 trees per acre­
or less) in Douglas-fir stands, assuming that
the combination of ·intensive s te prepara­
tion, control of competing vegetation, and
high-quality large planting stock would pro­
vide the consistent high urvival and early
rapid growth needed to meet their stocking
targets with less initial cost. By the turn of
the millennium, with the increasing demand
for and value of smaller logs, 'declining ex-­
pected premiums for large logs, and changes
in logging and milling practices adapted to
smaller logs, some organizations had begun
plan g at higher densities, again anticipat­
ing greater opportunities fo'! future com­
. mercial thiimings. Concerns over future log
quality and competitiveness, particularly for
a species like Douglas-fir that is marketed
primarily for its strength, have likely also
helped to maintain planting densities higher
than they might otherwi e have been.
·
Trends in Culture of Young
·
Stands
_
Changing Attitudes Toward Precom­
mercial and Co;,mercial Thinning. Di
Journal of Forestry
•
·March 2005
67
rect seeding and high early planting densities
through the 1960s and 1970s, coupled with
-
frequency of low-intensity thinning eco­
heavy ingrowth, led to a high frequency of
heavily stocked stands and an associated
high fr quency of stocking control or "pre­
regional response, not to test for differences
ume considerably, which may or may not be
or stand conditions. Investigators are still
late or heavy can actually reduce harvest vol­
within a site, or even to match to specific site
offset by the revenue from the thinnings and
trying, as yet unsuccessfully, to fully explain
the larger, thinned logs in the final harvest.
commercial" thinning (PCT) to control
mortality risk and improve tree size. In keep­
ing with the maximum yield philosophy,
The "rub" comes when trees . are thinned
that would have survived to be crop trees at
riod was done at a fairly young age, but with
profitable and foster greater subsequent di­
much of the stocking control during this pe­
aJilt" specieS, such as Douglas-fir,
control began to be delayed to later ages in
diameter to final harvest at 40-50 years,
small log markets in the 1990s, stocking
can
vors taking merchantable volume in the final
over
declining supply ·of large logs and advances
landowner's view of the positive impacts it
in .harvesting and milling technology have
will have on· postthin stem. diameter and
reduced .the cost and value advantages for
upgrade, gainst cost and likely negative im­
com
pacts on final harvest volume. In general, a
operational use of urea fertilization on Dou­
.
glas-fir began in the 1960s. Replicated trials
was widely understood that thiD:Illng would
1960s, and a large cooperative effort called
promote greater diameter. growth in the re­
the Regional Forest Nutrition Research
sidual stand and larger trees at final harvest,
·
and it was also believed that CT could· in-·
Project (
NRP) was launched soon after,
the results of which were described by Peter-·
c ease total volume production by enabling
son (1 84). He reported
at urea applica­
tion of 200-400 lbs N per acre increased
.
incremental st m volume growth 20.....,.70 ft3 harvest of volume that would otherwise be
lost to mortality; however, .the volume ben­
·
per acre annually across site types (an average
As long-term growth-and-yield studies
·of 168 ft3 per acre 6 year after treatment),
with the greatest response on poorer sites.
stands, such as the LOGS (Cooperative LeV­
els-of-Growing-Stock) studies, begin to ma­
· first 4 years after treatment, but was renewed
by retreatment. The 200- and 400-lbs N per
thinning entries.
Douglas-fir.
ture, the data have not supported early ex­
pectations of"bonus" volume from thinned
found it• difficult to practice the necessary '
2005
Competitive Position of Tree
Growing in the PNW
·
Detailed statistics on growth rates,
costs, and rate of return for PNW·Douglas­
fir compared with other tree-grqwing re­
gions of the world were taken from two mul­
ticlient survey reports (Neilson et al. 2001,
of urea fertilization were initiated in the late
plate its application (Curtis et al. 1998). It
March
Oregon Coast Range. bui High Uncertainty. The first small-scale
rope long before the PNW began to contem­
•
j
N eed.le Cast and soil nutrient balance in the
in loblolly and radiata pine.
·Urea Fertilization-High Promise
large body of experience
Journal of Forestry
haps reflecting" recent concerns about the ·
.
impacts of heavy N fertilization oil Swiss
mizing total rotation value in PNW Dou­
and research and were well-known in Eu­
68
decade to about half of its 2000 level, per­
any landown­
glas-fir and western hemlock stands that it is
c sh Row. The principles of commercial
·stands compared with unthinned (Curtis
and Marshalll997), and practitioners have
ized is forecast· to decline in the next half­
unlikely to be the powerful tool for maxi­
ter growth. Unlike PCT, CT also generates
well-stocked
SMC survey (Briggs and Trobaugh 2001)
·respondents, the percent.of ac es to be fertil­
ment or to achieve other objectives-CT is
(CT)
trees so that they will sustain greater diame-.
even-aged,
zation m many organiUtions. Among the
capture mid-rotation cash from their invest­
reduces competiclon faced by future <:;rop ·
in
cost, have likely limited the extent of fertili­
ers 'will continue to value CT as a way to
future growth reductions and delayed mer­
chantability is high.·.
efit depended on execution of frequent light-
sponse and steep recent increases in urea
·
ercial thinning as a means of increas­
duction oflarger logs-and
heavily overstocked so that the likelihood of
·
spending, coupled with variability of re­
appealing as a treatment to accelerate pro­
be expected only when the stand is
The greatest response occurred within the
acre dosages (440 and 880 lbs/ac urea) did .
not differ significantly in response.
of
. oped the infrastructure to get more acres
done. Still, constraints on annual capital
ing diameter. So, although CT is intuitively
favorable overall value impact from PCT
representing. 30:...50%
and more organizations got comfortable
with the financial justification and· devel­
larger logs, further reducing the l.ncentive for
value growth and opportunity for species
and
stands treated two or three times), as more
the cost of waiting until final harvest. The
vahie impact of PCT depends on the
(Briggs
ted acres treated per year by the 1ate
1990s .(likely
harvest, rather than in a thinning, even given
stands (Briggs and Trobaugh 2001). The
survey
tially zero in the early 1990s to over 100% of
pl
typical thinnings, total stand value often fa­
followed by a .steady decline to a forecast
steady-state level of approximately 20% of .
SMC
fenuized with urea increasing· from essen­
carry
cause costs are higher and log values lower in
ds,
The
Trobaugh 2001) shows the number of acres
stands well below 200 stefi1:s per acre. Be­
acres treated in the early 1990s, principally
a
ment.
while many thinning operations reduce
feasible. PCT reached a peak at 40-60% of
thinning rest on
efit and the financial merits of this treat­
300 or more stems per acre of merchantable
favor of early commercial thinnip.g when
Like PCT, commercial thinning
about the magnitude of N-fertilization ben­
ameter growth. Stands of relatively 'toler­
.capacity :ind the subsequent development of
can
this variability. As a result, different..organi­
zation,s have drawn different conclusions
final harvest, to make the thinning more
. the reduction in "large log supply and milling
in Douglas-fir and western heiDlock st
dex. The studies were designed to determine
nomically. In practice, thinnings that are
.
Neilson and Manners 2003). The survey in-
formation was taken from a sample of land­
owners thought to be representative of each
region, but was not intended to describe any
particular owner. ·By and large, the survey
describes harvest volumes and growth of ·
stands being harvested. today, which ln our
region represent a high component of sec­
ond- or third-growth natural stands and
early, le5s-intensive plantations.
Growth and YielJ. The mean annual
increment
(MAl) reported by Neilson et al.
(2001) and Neilson and Manners (2003) for
Douglas-fir-managed stands being harvested
today in the PNW is low relative to other
Overlaying all results of the RFNRP
major conifer tree-growing regions of the
between stands of rl?.e same nominal site in-
fr3 per acre) per year, compared with 18-20
studies is the variable level of response, even
world-slightly over 13 m3 per hectare (190
m3 pe hectare (25 0-290 ft3 per acre) per
local and regional wood products markets in
other major tree-growing regions. Neilson et
year for Douglas-fir in Argentina and New
the long-term.
al. (2001) and Neilson and Manners (2003)
Zealand or for pines in New Zealand and
In thePNW Douglas-fir region, we face
report well over two times greater spencling in
South Mrica. This likely reflects the signifi­
three key imperatives to be more competi­
thePNW than in geographies like Nevv Zea­
cant component of older naturally regener- . land, Argentina, and the southern United
tive in the long run:
ated stands and early plantations currently
States, even for the same species. By and large,
being harvested in thePNW, which are of­
1. Significantly increase value and/or sub­
this incremental cost reflects higher labor costs,
ten poorly stocked or heavily overstocked
stantially shorten the rotation length re­
more difficult topography and regula ory con­
and may have a high hardwood component,
quired to produce competitive yields and
straint$, as well as more demancling seedling
uncontrolled seed source, or limited vegeta
a· competitive log mix in stands b'eing
size and early care requirements for swvival, cion control. In the PNW, key intensive
managed for timb.er.
growth, and regulatory"green- p· in our prin­
treatments-advanced generation genetics, cipal species. In addition in some regions, in­
multi-year vegetation control, and regular
Key approaches applied by other re­
cluding parts of Europe, South America, and fertilization- have been broadly imple­
gions, and available but not yet fully cap­
Canada, establishment costs are either heavily mented only recently so growth benefits
tilled in the PNW, are advan d genetics, subsidized or can be expensed in the year in­
from such treatments have not yet been re­
intensive multi-year vegetation control and curred.
alized in harvests. The terrain also is very
aggressive management of stand nutrition Rate ofReturn. Acc;:ording to the Nell­
steep and road access is limited in Ill;any arand stocking, with greater focus of invest­
son et al. (2001) and Neilson and Manners eas, which make some intensive manage­
ment dollars overall on sites with the p ten­
(2003) reports, the combined impacts of
ment treatments impossible, or at least very
tial for accelerated merchantability. difficult and costly. Fitlally, past heavyPCT slower ·early growth and longer rotations in the PNW generate an overall tree-growing and CT- in some areas of the PNW likely
2. Significantly reduce the cost required to
return from currently harvested stands (with
have contributed to reduced MAI reflected
a unit of merchantable volume.
prod
land costs) on the order of So/o, compared to
in current harvests.
.
returns of about 9.5% for eucalyptus in Bra­
What can we expect from intensivdy
Accelerated volume growth in 'itself
zil or subsidized Douglas-fir in Argentina · will reduce carrying costs; Competing re­
managed Douglas-fir plantations be ng es­
and 7.8% for radiata pme in New Zealand. . gions around th world have also developed
tablished in our region today with modern
Howev r,· in weighing overall risk and future
management practices? Based on the treat­
methods to achieve plantation success with
improvement potential,· the authors con­
ment responses indicated earlier in this arti­
very low-cost planting stock, with equip­
cle, it is reasonable to expect 17-22 m3 per
nue to emphasize the strengths of the
ment and practices that enhance productiv­
hectare (240-310 ft3 per acre) per year) for
United States Douglas-fir region· for its abil­
ity and minllnize lah9r costs, and with better well-s ocked, unthinned Douglas-fir stands
ity to produce high ood volumes from pre- · and better targeting· of ·expensive treatmen in our region, planted with genetically im­
;Il1ium species in a stable politi<:al and eco-' (precision forestry) .. proved stock, intensive 'control of compet­
nomic system. Still, they strongly caution ing vegetation, and multiple urea fertiliza­
land managers in the region, howeve , that
3. Continue to earn and maintain the pub­
tions. Fenced progeny (genetic test) sites
growing osts and rotation ages must de­
. lie's trust and "license to operate." across the region provide examples of stands
crease and productivity must increase in or­
growing at this rate through their mid-20s. der for the region to be globally competitive
ThePNW has achieved some notable
In addition, many opportunities for inarena but they have also
and attract tree-growing investment dollars ·successes in
. cremental improvement remain: advanced
come
at
the
cost
of significant land out of
in ·the long-term.
generation genetics, steadily improving veg­
production and other land managed at less
etation control efficacy· and planti.ng stock
Prospects and Imperative for
than optimum density. Ati increasing collec­
survival, an,d more consistent responses
tive commitment and. sense of l1rgency
the Future
from fertilizer applications. Still, the inten­
across
our region for successful, globally
The PNW as a region clearly " as what
sively managed plantations being planted
competitive
intensive forest management is
it takes" to be a globally competitive tree­
today in the PNW are growing at rates on .
essential,
including
recommitment of public
growing region: highly productive sites, spe­
par with intensively managed conifer plan-.
resources
to
research
and edu tion on sus­
cies with very favorable properties and
tations being harvested today in other re­
tainable
intensive
management
methods
strong global market demand, strong uni­
gions of the world, ·where the competition
coupled with creative, cooperative, stable so­
versity and other research institutions,
has continued to move ahead. Douglas-fir
lutions to protecting wildlife, fish, soil, and
knowledgeable
professionals, and a strong
and pine plantations being planted now in
water quality that weigh the profitability of
tradition of excellence in forest manage­
parts of the world are expected to grow at
·managed forests as part of the goal.
25-30 m3 per hectare (350- 430 ft3 per ment. And it is clear that we need to be glo­
bally competitive, so that investment dollars
We don't have the luxury of time for acre) per year, and·these global competitors
will
continue to flow into managed forests,
continue to press for more improvement.
reflection or hesitation. The other horses keeping productive Cascade lowlands in for­
Silviculture Cost. In addition to the
have left the gate and are already. running
ests, rather than converting forestlan to
growth-rate disadvantage, spending per acre.
fast. The key competition is not from others
other, higher-returning uses; it also means a
and per cubic foot of wci'od volume for inten­
within the Douglas-fir region We. have a
sive silvicultUre in thePNW are high relative to
continuing vigorous regional in4 ustry and
shared stake in maintaining the health of the
·
•
·
_
•
·
·
•
·
·
..
Journal of Forestry
•
March 2005
69
PNW as an attractive place for tree-growing
investment. But we must also want it as badly as the ·other regions of the world do. This . means bUilding a collective will and focus­
not just by the landowners, but by universi­
tieS, regulators, and the public-to preserve and promote profitable active forest man­
agement in the region.
.
The solutions are doable and within om
grasp. The objective is essential, not only to
owners of timberland , but also to current
and future woods and mill workers, techni­
cal professionals, and anyone in the region
interest d in seeing large areas maintained in
healthy forests over the long-term. We hope·
that the discussion generated by this confer­
·ence.!Vill move
them a reality.
us
.quickly forward to make·
·
. .
Literature Cited.
B., AND J. SANDFORD.-1994. MechaniCal
site preparation on salal-dominated sites Five
year results. Silviculture Field Note 69.
FERIC, Vancouver, BC. 2 pp.
BRIGGs;D.,.AND J. T ROBAUGH. 2001. Manage­
ment practices on Pacific No.rthwest-side
industrial forest lan<;ls: 1991-2000: With pro­
jections to 2005. Stand Management Co­
operative Working Paper No. 2. College of
Forest Resources, University of Washington,
Seattle1 WA. 52 pp.
BRODIE, J.D., AND J.D. W.AJ.SrMJ. 1987. Dou­
glas-fir growth and yield response to vegetation
management. P. 273-294 inForest vegetation.
management for conifer production, Walstad,
J.D., ·and P.J. 'Ku-ch, eds. Wuey, New York. ·
CuR.ns, RO., AND D.O. MARsHALL. 1997.
LOGS: A pioneering example of silvicultuxal.
. research in coastal Douglas-fu..Journal ofFer­
estry 95(7):19-25.
.
.
CUR.ns, R.O., D.S. DEBEI.L, C.A. 'HARRINGTON,
D.P. LAVENDER, J.B. ST. ClAIR, J.C. TAP­
PEINER:, AND J.D.W.AJ.SrAD. 1998. Silviculture
.f or .·multiple objectives in the Douglas-fir re­
chnicil."'Report PNW-435.
gion. Gener
USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Re­
search Station, Portland, OR 123 pp. .
HARTWELL, H.D.;AND LE..]OHNSON. i983. Sur­
vival and eight of large and small Dougl -fir
seedlings in relation to anJ.mal damage six years
after planting. Note 38:·washingron Depart­
ment of Natural. Resources, Olympia,WA.
JoHNSON, R. 2000. Tree improvement in the Pa­
cific Northwest. P. 29-34 in Advances and
BEESE.
.
·
-
· . .
•
7.0
Journal ofForestry
•
March 2005
challenges in forest regeneration, Rose, R, and
D.L. Haase, eds. College ofForestry,_Oregon
State University, Corvallis, OR
KING, J .E. 1966. Site ind'ex curves for Douglas-fir
in the Pacific Northwest. Weyerhaeuser For­
estry P!tper No.8. WeyerhaeuserForestzy Re­
search Center, Centralia,WA. 49 pp.
KosDERKA, T. 2005. Soft plug vs. hard plug:
How they differ in post planting 'root develop­
ment and why. NewForests (in press).
LONG, A.L., AND B.D. CARruER. 1991. Effects of
Douglas-fir 2+0 seedling morphology on field
performance. NewF rests 7:19-32.
McNABB, D.H., K BAKER-KATZ, AND S.D TE.
SCH. 1993. Machi}le site preparation improves
seedling performance on a high-elevation site
in southwest Oregon.Western Journal of Ap­
pliedForestry8(3):95-98.
NEILSON, D., B.FLYNN, AND M. BELTON. 2001.
The giobal Douglas fu.industry-Oudook on
·changing resources and markets. Dana Pub­
lishing; Rotorua, NZ. 325 pp.
NEILSON, D., AND G. M/.NNERS. 2003. The
global tree farm and manag d forest induscry.
Dana Publishing,. Rotonia, NZ. 572 pp.
NEWTON, M., E.C. CoLE; AND D.E. WHITE.
1993. Tall pla.D.ting stock for enhanced growth
and domination of brush in the Douglas-fir
region. NewForests 7:107-121.
NEWrON, M., AND D.S. PREEST. 1988. Growth
and water relations ofDouglas-fir (Pseudotsuga
menziesit) seedlings under different weed con­
·trol regimes. Weed Scien 36:653-664.
PETERSON, C.E. 1984.Fertiliiation. of Douglas­
fir plantations in the Pacific Northwest
RFNRP Cooperative. P. 637- 645 in Proceed­
ings of IUFRO symposium on site and pro­
ductivity of fast growing plantations, Grey,
D.C., A.P.G. Schonau, and C.J. Schutz, eds.
S. Mrican-Forest Research Institute, Pretoria,
South Mrica.
.
PETERSON, T.D., AND M. NEWTON. 1985.
Growth of Douglas-fir following control of
snowbrush and herbaceous ·vegetation in Ore­
.gon. Down to Earth 41:21-25.
PIATEK, K.B., C.A. HARRINGTON, AND D. DEBELL. 2003. Site preparation effecrs on 20-year
survival and growth of Douglas-fir (P.seudot­
suga mmziesil), and on selected soils proper­
ties. Western Journal of Applied Forestry
18(1):44-51.
PREEST, D.S. 1977. Long-term growth response
of Douglas-fir to weed controL New Zealand
Journal ofForest Science 73:329 -332.
RE UKEMA,· D.L. 1975. Guidelines for precom­
,
mercial thinning of Douglas-fir. General
Technical Report PN?7-30. USDA Forest
·
·
Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station, Portland, 0R. 10 pp.
RosE, R., S.J. CAMPBELL, AND T.D . LANDIS. (eds.)
1990. Target seedling symposium: Proceed­
ings. General Technical Report RM-200.
USDAForest Service, Rocky Mountain Ex­
periment Station,Fort Collins, CO. 286 pp.
RosE, R., J.S. KETCHUM, AND .M. NEWToN. 2000. Optimizing seedlii:tg growth utilizing seedling target characteristics, fertilization and vegetation management (2 meters in 2 years). P. 9-19 in OSU Vegetation Management.
Research Cooperative, annual report 1999 ­
2000. Vegetation Management Research Co­
operative, Corvallis,. OR.
RosE, R. AND D. HAAsE. 2005. Root and shoot
allometry of bareroot and o tainer Douglas­
fir seedlings. NewFores (in pres§.}.
SILEN, RR., AND J.G. WHEAT. 1979. Progressive
tree improveme1;1t program in ast Douglas­
fir. Journal ofForestry 77:78 - 85.
STONECYPHER, R.W., R.:P. PmscH, G. HEu.AND,
AND J.G; CHAPMAN. l996. Results from ge­
netic tests of selected parents of Douglas-fir
[:P.seudotsuga· mmziesii (Mirb.) F:ranco] in an
applied tree improvement program. Forest
Science Monograph 32 (supplement to Forest ·
Science .42).
VALENTINE, J.M. 1975. Site preparation effects
on microclimate ·and Douglas-fir seedling
growth. Ph.D. thesis,. University ofWashing­
ton, Seattle, WA. 150 pp.
WORTHINGTON, N.P., AND G.R STAEBLER.
1961. Commercial thinning of Do glas-fir in
the. Pacific Northwest. Technical Bulletin
1230. USDA Forest Service, Washington,
DC.124 pp ..
YING, C.C. 1990. Adaptive variation in Douglas
fir, Sitka spruce, and true fir: A summary of
provenance research in coastal British Colum­
bia. In Unpublished proceedings of Joint
meeting ofWestem Forest Genetics Associa­
tion and IUFRO Working Parties S2.02- 05,
"06, 12 and 14; ,Aug. 20-::-24, 1990._0lympia,
.
WA.
.
·
.
·
Cheryl Talbert (cheryL talbert@weyerhaeuser.
com) ir director offorestry, Weyerhaeuser Com­
pany, ''CH2D25", PO Box 977 Federal
Way, WA . 98063-9777, David Marshall
(dmarshall@js.ftd.us) is re earch forester,
USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Re­
Olym­
search Station, 3625 93rdAvmue S
pia, WA 98512-9193.
Journal of March 2005 57 Volume 1031 Number 2
Commentary: Growing Better All the Time .
M T. Goergen Jr.
57 Letters
61 Intensively Managed Forest Plantations in the Pacific Northwest: Introduction
W.T.Adams, S. Hobbs, andN.johnson
63 Global Perspectives on Intensively Managed Plantations: Implications for the Pacific
N rthwest
C.S. Binkley,ME.4ronow, CL W hburn, andD. New.
.
. 67
Plantation Productivi1y in the Douglas-Fir Region Under Intensive Silvicultural
.
Practices: Results from Research and Ope ations
C. Talbert and D. Marshall
73 Wood Productivity of Pacinc Northwest Douglas-Fir: Estimates from Growth-and­
Yield Models
D.D. Marshall and E. C Turnblom
75 Uneven-Aged Management Panacea, Viable Alternative, or Component of a Grander Strategy? D. Maguire
n
Assessing Wood Characteristics and Wood Quality in Intensively Managed Plantations
...
B.L Gartner
80
Economics of Intensively Managed Forest Plantations in the Pacific:= Northwest
85 Environmental Consequences of Intensively Managed Forest Plantations in the G.E. Murphy, W.RJ Sutton, D.
Hill. C
Chambers, D. Creel C. Binkley, and D. New.
Pacific Northwest JP. Hayes, S.R Schoenholtz, MJ Hartley, G. Murphy, RF. Powers, D. Berg, and S.R Radosevich
90
Lessons From Intensive Agriculture
F.L
Kirschenmann
92
Public Influences on Plantation Forestry
97
A Conservation Advocate's Perspective on Intensively Managed Forest Plantations
99
(Over)Stories: EXamining the Philosophical Assumptions Behind Intensively
G. T. Howe, B. Shindler, B. Cashore, E. Hansen, D. Lach, and W. Armstrong
c. Willer
Managed Forest Plantations
KD.Moore
1 01
1 03
Intensively Managed Forest Plantations in the PaciBc Northwest: Conclusions
W T. Adt;zms, S.
Hobbs;· and N. johnson
Perspective: Telling Our "Story"
j Coufal
'