SMC Quar ter ly News
www.standmgt.org
Stand Management Cooperative
College of Forest Resources, University of Washington
2nd Quarter 2006
From the Director
Since the last Newsletter, we held a joint meeting of the Nutrition and
Silviculture TACs on January 23rd. The Silviculture TAC was mainly
focused on finalizing plans for planting the final three Genetic Gain
Trial – Type IV Installations in the Grays Harbor breeding zone. An
article in this issue summarizes progress to date on this study. In
addition, we will visit the installations later this Spring to geo-reference
all plot boundaries in anticipation of future coverage and comparison of
Dave Briggs, SMC Director
growth metrics with remotely sensed data obtained from lidar. The
Nutrition TAC reviewed past fertilization trials by RFNRP, the small
fertilization trial within a subset of the Type I Installations, and fertilization component of the Fall River, Matlock and Molalla long term
site productivity studies. A more general discussion followed that
indicated a very strong desire for new studies related to nutrition and
fertilization but it was also clear that there was no consensus on specific
issues to be addressed, appropriate designs that would be required, or
how such studies would be funded. Another article in this issue summarizes the discussions.We would appreciate your comments and participation in future meetings as we try to more clearly define the critical
issues, prioritize them, and develop detailed plans to conduct and fund
inside:
the research.We anticipate that this would involve multiple institutions
Wood QualityTAC Meeting
1
Further Notes on the Genetic
Gains / Type IV (GGTIV) Trial
3
and could be funded through external grant sources if we can develop
proposals with strong stakeholder support.
SMC Nutrition and Silviculture Joint
Technical Advisory Committee
Meeting
5
The Wood Quality TAC met on March 14, to review progress (see the
Grad Student Bio
5
last issue of the Newsletter) and future plans for the Agenda 2020
Abstracts and Publications
7
Project “Non-destructive evaluation of wood quality in standing
Upcoming Meetings
and Events
8
Douglas-fir trees and logs”. The main focus of this meeting was the
tree to log to product recovery study that will be based on harvesting
trees from a subset of the Type II Installations.We reached consensus on
tree, log, and product sampling and measurement procedures. A detailed
“field manual” for the study will be prepared for review. We also discussed the
schedule for completing the study by the end of summer 2006 and we are now
initiating contacts with proposed veneer and lumber mills and landowners to
schedule logging and processing logistics. We also reviewed progress on a
study that is examining recovery and value of lumber from bear damaged
trees and had a discussion of input from the wood quality perspective for the
Strategic Planning Committee meeting.
The Strategic Planning Committee met on March 16. Previously, the Committee reviewed the existing suite of Installations and made recommendations
regarding criteria as to when these might be dropped in the future. The
Committee also reviewed the SMC Mission Statement and organizational
structure and recommended that these should not be changed. These were
discussed and approved by the Policy Committee. This meeting focused on
the question of “what would members like to see the SMC accomplish over the
next 5-10 years?” This was broken down into three general categories, 1) work
that could be accomplished using information already being collected from
existing installations and stored in the database, 2) additional information that
we could collect from the existing installations that would be either immediately beneficial to members or which would accumulate important new data
that could help attract future external grants, assist in developing better
models and tools, etc., and 3) new initiatives that address important questions
of members. We first listed a number of items within each category, went back
through these to clarify their definition, discussed potential collaborations that
might serve to develop detailed plans and proposals for each of them, and
potential funding sources. This will be summarized for review and discussion
at the Spring Meeting.
In This Issue
In addition to the articles noted above, this issue introduces a new PhD
graduate student, Rapeepan Kantavichai, who is working with Dave Briggs
on the Agenda 2020 Project “Non-destructive evaluation of wood quality in
standing Douglas-fir trees and logs.”
2
Also in this issue note that the Western Forest Mensurationists meeting will be
held on June 18-20 in Fortuna, California. Also we have included the itinerary
for the 2006 Levels of Growing Stock (LOGS) Annual Meeting and Field Trip
on July 11-13 in British Columbia. Finally, we hope to see you at the SMC Spring
Meeting on April 26-27. We will be sending a detailed agenda in the near future.
Fur
ther Notes on the Genetic Gains / Type IV
Further
(GGTIV) Tr ial
Eric C. Turnblom, SMC Silviculture Team Leader and Associate Professor UW
David G. Briggs, SMC Director, Precision Forestry Co-op Director, and Professor, UW
Introduction
The genesis of these joint trials began with discussions between the Northwest Tree Improvement Cooperative (NWTIC), the Stand Management Cooperative (SMC), and other interested
parties on how best to study the interactions between genetic improvements and silvicultural
treatments. The SMC Type IV trials began to emerge as one possible way to accomplish this.
The original Type IV design tackled four experimental factors: genetic gain level, spacing, vegetation control, and fertilization regime. That original design also covered 3 Douglas-fir and 3
western hemlock breeding zones west of the Cascades placing six installations within each
breeding zone. Due to space limitations, logistical constraints, and further discussions with
NWTIC, fertilization was dropped from the design and a single breeding zone was identified
(Grays Harbor) to get things started. The resultant study essentially is one replication of the
original six planned.
The objectives of the GGTIV trials are twofold from the perspective of the SMC: 1) to provide
information to guide managers currently applying combinations of genetics, spacing and vegetation control; and 2) to provide linkages with other studies (such as Genetic Gains Trials, intensive
vegetation management trials, and spacing trials like the SMC Type III), that will assist modeling
efforts. The NWTIC has recognized also the following objectives: 3) compare realized gains (per
unit area basis) with predicted gains (individual tree basis), and 4) compare estimates of growth
and yield parameters for populations with different expected growth potentials.
The genetic gain factor has three levels: Unimproved, Intermediate gain (the SMC Type IV Trial
portion does not use this intermediate level), and Elite gain. The spacing factor also has three
levels: 15 x 15’, nominally 200 Stems Per Acre (SPA), 10 x 10’, nominally 440 SPA (Genetic Gain
Trial portion uses this intermediate density only), and 7 x 7’, nominally 900 SPA. Finally, the
vegetation control factor has two levels: Current Practice (defined as a single site prep; used only
in SMC Type IV Trial portion and is consistent with SMC Type III practices), and Complete
(defined as 80% or greater bare ground until crown closure; standard on all Genetic Gain Trial
plots and on Type IV). These treatment combinations result in 22 plots total at a given site, with
seven plots satisfying SMC objectives mainly, 13 plots mainly satisfying NWTIC objectives, and
two plot types have shared objectives.
3
Progress to Date
2005 Installations (601, 602, 603)
603).. In mid-March 2005, installations 601 – Donkey Creek
2 (Ranonier), 602 – Donaldson Creek (Weyerhaeuser), and 603 – Crane Creek 2 (Quinalt)
were all planted. In late June of last year, these installations were examined for survival.
Survival rates were excellent, installation average being more than 99%. The worst survival
at a single plot within an installation was 96%.
At the fall 2005 Silviculture TAC meeting, further details were discussed and developed for
tree measurement and vegetation monitoring protocols. Discussion led to the consensus
that for those plots with full vegetation control prescribed, a pre-emergent herbicide should
be applied to control competing vegetation even before it gets started. A tank mix has
been prescribed in consultation with vegetation managers and contract foresters in the
region and is ready to be applied to these installations within the next month.
The first growing season survival survey was completed fall 2005. The fall survey results
are as follows (installation average; five worst plots; five best plots):
601 – Donkey Creek 2
: 99; five worst: 95, 96, 97, 97, 97; five best: 99, 99, 99, 100, 100
602 – Donaldson Creek
: 97; five worst: 90, 93, 93, 94, 95; five best: all 100%
603 – Crane Creek 2
: 99; five worst: 95, 96, 96, 98, 98; five best: all 100%
As can be seen from these figures, survival is very high, and rather uniformly high at that.
Of all 66 plots across all installations, 62, or 94% of the plots have a survival of 95% or
better. Certainly, all the plots meet the minimum survival standard for Type III installations
(90% or better). At the joint Siliviculture / Nutrition TAC meeting held at OSU, Corvallis,
OR on 23 Jan 2006, the consensus reached previously at numerous TAC meetings that filler
trees should not be planted was upheld. Adding filler trees, even if the same age, and even
if the same genetic make-up, would produce an experimental unit that is treated unlike the
rest, i.e., would have no true replicate in the study. This is particularly so in this case where
we seek “per acre” yields as affected by silviculture and genetics.
Full measurements will begin after the 2006 growing season. The measurement protocol,
which found consensus at the autumn 2005 Silviculture TAC, is similar to the Type III
protocol:
On all trees:
•
•
•
4
Measure height to nearest 0.1 foot using height pole until the average height is 15
feet; use laser instrument until average height is 30 ft. After 30 ft, measure height
only on “intensive crown” trees.
Measure diameter on each tree. Initially this will be basal caliper at a permanently
marked 30cm point. After the tree reaches BH, dbh will be measured, as well,
thereafter. Continue to measure basal caliper on each tree until 95% of trees on the
plot reach breast height.
Obtain BH age using whorl count and year of measurement
STUDENT BIO
On 42 “intensive crown” trees (sample chosen same as in Type IIIs):
•
•
•
Measure crown width in NS and EW directions
Measure crown length, i.e., height to full crown base defined at that height at which
¾ of bole circumference contains live branches
Total height to nearest 0.1 ft after average height is 30 ft.
Rapeepan Kantavichai, Ph.D.
candidate in Quantitative
Resource Management,
University of Washington,
College of Forest Resources
Vegetation monitoring protocol on SMC Type IV plots that received “standard” vegetation
control is nearing completion.
2006 Installations (604, 605, 606)
606).. Five sites were proposed for planting this year by
cooperators: two from Green Diamond Resource Co., two from WA DNR, and one from
Port Blakely Tree Farms. A site tour was conducted on June 20, 2005, which led to the
consensus that the three sites for planting in 2006 shall be 604 – Boxcar (WA DNR), 605 –
Left Court (Port Blakely), and 606 – Wynoochee (Green Diamond).
These installations have all been harvested, surveyed, prepped (peripheral piles scattered,
moved and/or burned), sprayed, pinned and planted as of this writing. The pre-season
survival bud break surveys are scheduled to be conducted in May/June 2006 at which point
seedling cross numbers will be mapped by row and column designators. The first growing
season survival survey will be conducted over the course of the regular SMC 2006 – 2007
measurement season and full measurement will commence after the 2007 growing season.
Jan
uar
ition and Silviculture
Januar
uaryy 23: SMC Nutr
Nutrition
Joint Technical Advisor
Advisoryy Committee Meeting
Summary from Corvallis TAC meeting, January 23
1) RFNRP completed measurements of last phase in 1998
2) Fertilization is part of auxiliary plots on Type I Installations
3) extends RFNRP phase 4 (300 tpa) to variable density
4) Eric Sucre thesis (copies available) brings up questions
5) No fertilization done in Type II & III installations
6) No fertilization in Type IV installations
7) Type IV design became too complex & large, and lack of agreement on definition and
focus if fertilization was included
8) Fall River, Matlock and Molalla LTSP studies include fertilization
9) Need for more studies
I joined SMC in fall 2005, working
under advice of Professor David
Briggs. My interest is focused on
biometric modeling and harvest
system decision support concerned
with productivity and economic
efficiency. Currently I am working
on effect of pre-commercial
thinning, fertilization and initial stem
density in Branch Diameter of
Coastal US Douglas-fir plantations.
I am also working on non-destructive evaluation of wood quality in
standing Douglas-fir trees and logs
project.
I received undergraduate degree
from Kasetsart University (Thailand)
and master’s degree from University of Florida, both in Industrial
Engineering. Prior joining SMC, I
worked briefly as a project analyst
in Thailand for 2 years. In my spare
time, I enjoy skiing, running and
cooking.
The answer to #9 was “YES”, but no agreement on a specific design or where to find
funding.
The desire to start new fertilization studies is strong among many SMC members, and
consensus has been pursued for a number of years, but not found. The SMC hasn’t started
any significant new studies for two reasons. First, studies as done in the past on a scale able
to answer regional questions would be very expensive…in the millions of dollars. For
instance, between 1997 to the end of 2005, an estimated $3,004,000 was spent on
characterization, treatments and research at Fall River, a complex study, but at a single site.
5
Currently, the desire of any new studies is not so much to know an average regional
response, but to determine site specific responses. The ability to predict a more accurate
response from the wide range of responses currently observed is critical to industry
practicing fertilization on a larger scale.
The proposal to combine LIDAR stand measurements and GIS and GPS for defining plots
and aerial fertilization is still in development, but this has a great deal of promise for greatly
reducing the cost of plot layout, fertilization and stand measurements. The SMC and PFC
(Precision Forestry Cooperative) is currently pursuing “ground-truthing” LIDAR measurements of SMC studies to prove the ability or inability of LIDAR to substitute for most of the
necessity for site visits for measurement. If this works out, then a proposal for a trial will be
very quick.
Several members have expressed desire to go ahead with some smaller-scale field fertilization trials. A lot of thinking and work went into designing the original RFNRP trials, and a lot
of their design should be incorporated into a current design. For instance, Eric Sucre’s thesis
research showed that current stand conditions are strong predictors of potential response
to fertilization, as well as site variables. In the Southeast, LAI (leaf area index) has been
shown to be a strong predictor of potential for response, and is currently being utilized.
Unfortunately, LAI is not as easy to predict from remote sensing data in the PNW. Widespread application of LIDAR could change this, as LIDAR predicts LAI very well. As with the
RFNRP, measuring a wide range of site variables that could be used to predict site and
response to fertilization is also desired. This would include 1) Site index, age, slope, elevation, precipitation, C, N, P and K (%, weight and quality), exchangeable cations, CEC, pH, soil
series type and horizon including depth, change relationships (i.e. nitrate adsorption),
nutrient mineralization rates, and some other variables that might predict productivity and
response.
Based on previous research, nutrients applied must include N, preferably at several levels.
SMC and other work has shown that both application rate at a given time and total
application rate over time affect response. There is strong interest in additional nutrients,
including P, S, Ca, K, Mg and B. Often, this has been approached by applying a “blend” of
nutrients as a treatment (i.e. “George Fenn” prescriptions). It would be particularly important to understand non-response to N or any other nutrient in terms of a second or more
nutrients. For instance, Figures 1 and 2 show applications of N only at 100, 200 and 300 lb
N per acre, and P, S and K mixtures with 52 and 200 lbs N/acre. In the study at SheltonCarson Lake (Figure 1) it appears that the response was only to N, but at the SheltonMatlock site (Figure 2) additional P or S was required to achieve the maximum response
measured.
In order to understand what happens at each study site, it is also preferable to have
replications. Replication at a single installation was generally not done on RFNRP studies. A
minimum of four replications gives the possibility that one replication can be lost and the
study will still have enough replications to allow means to be compared. Plot size should be
adequate to allow the growth of the stand through a rotation without major “edge” effects
of the plots. Therein lies the problem. For instance, a single study that included 4 reps,
treatments of a control, two levels of N alone, P alone and with one level of N, and a
complete blend with both N levels with a plot size of a half acre (smaller than Fall River
0.63 acres), would require 28 plots and 14 acres of land. If any major findings are coming
out of Fall River so far, it is the major impact of vegetation control on early seedling growth.
6
Abstr
acts and
Abstracts
Pub
lications
Publications
If vegetation control were combined on all treatments, the study would require 56 plots
and 28 acres minimum of land area. If nutrients are applied over time vs. a single large
application, additional plots would also be required.
The desire for a core study onto which additional work can be added as required by
individual cooperators is probably desirable. It is suggested for discussion that the following
treatments be utilized:
1) control
2) 200 lb N every 4 years
3) 400 lb N every 4 years
4) 400 lb N + Complete Fenn prescription every 4 years
#1 and #4 with and without vegetation control, and #2 and #3 with complete veg
control.
This would give 6 different treatments, with 4 replications or 24 total plots/installation. For
0.2 acre plots, that would give 4.8 treated acres per installation.
Figure 1. Shelton-Carson Lake RFNRP study showing response only to N level.
Figure 2. Shelton-Matlock RFNRP study showing response to N+P.
Alexander Clark III, Daniels, Richard F. and
Miller, James H. Effect of controlling
herbaceous and woody competing
vegetation on wood quality of planted
loblolly pine. Forest Products Journal
February 2006, Vol. 56, No. 2, 40-46.
Abstract
Southern pine plantations are increasingly
established using herbicides to control
herbaceous and/or woody competing
vegetation to enhance growth, but little is
known about the effect on wood quality. A
study was established at 13 southern
locations in 1984 to examine the effects of
complete control of woody, herbaceous, and
woody plus herbaceous competition for the
first 3 to 5 years on the growth and stand
dynamics of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L)
plantations. After 15 years, herbaceous plus
woody control increased pine merchantable
volume per acre by an average of 23 to 121
percent compared to no competition
control. Increment cores, 12 mm in diameter,
were collected from 36 trees in each of the 4
treatments from each of the 13 locations. Xray densitometry was used to determine
annual growth, proportion of latewood, and
specific gravity (SG) of earlywood, latewood,
and annual rings. Woody plus herbaceous
competition control significantly increased
growth at all locations, did not significantly
reduce ring SG of earlywood or latewood,
and did not significantly affect proportion of
latewood in the annual ring. Woody plus
herbaceous competition control did
significantly increase growth during juvenile
wood formation in years 1to 5 and thus
increased the diameter of the juvenile wood
core by an average of 19 percent. Crosssectional weighted proportion of latewood
decreased 10 percent and cross-sectional
weighted SG decreased 3 percent as a result
of increased growth during the juvenility
period in trees receiving the woody plus
herbaceous control treatment. However,
growth gains substantially offset the slight
reduction in percent latewood and SG.
7
Upcoming Meetings and Ev
ents
Events
Apr
ts
Aprilil 25-26, 2006 Agenda 2020 PI Repor
Reports
ts, Hood River Inn, Hood River OR. http://
www.hoodriverinn.com/. For more information visit the SMC web site: http://www.cfr.washington.edu/
research.smc/main/events.htm or contact Charlie Peterson at cepeterson@fs.fed.us. The meeting will end
at noon on the 26th with the SMC Annual Spring Meeting following at 1:00 PM.
ual Spr
Apr
Annual
Spring
Aprilil 26-27, 2006 SMC Ann
ing Meeting, Hood River Inn, Hood River OR. http://
www.hoodriverinn.com/. For more information visit the SMC web site: http://www.cfr.washington.edu/
research.smc/main/events.htm or contact Megan O’Shea at moshea@u.washington.edu.
June 18-20, 2006 Wester
n Mensur
ationsist Meeting
estern
Mensurationsist
Meeting, Fortuna CA. For more information visit: http://
westernforestry.org/wmens/m2006/call4papers.htm.
Jul
els of Gro
wing Stock) Ann
ual Meeting and Field Tr ip
Julyy 10-12, 2006 LOGS (Lev
(Levels
Growing
Annual
ip, Days Inn - Victoria
Waterway Hotel & Conference Centre, Vancouver Island, BC. For more information visit the SMC web
site: http://www.cfr.washington.edu/research.smc/main/events.htm or contact Norm Andersen at
a2atlow8@comcast.net.
September 11-13, 2006 SMC Ann
ual Fall Meeting
Annual
Meeting, Loon Lake Camp, University of British Columbia
Research Forest, Hanley, BC. For more information visit: http://www.standmgt.org.
College of Forest Resources
University of Washington
Box 352100
Seattle, WA 98195
9