M.Sc. Candidate: Victor Nery Committee: Dr. Cindy E. Prescott Dr. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

M.Sc. Candidate: Victor Nery Committee: Dr. Cindy E. Prescott Dr. Peter L. Marshall Dr. Harry Nelson

“SCHIRP”

“SCHIRP” � Salal Cedar Hemlock Integrated Research Program � Established in the winter 1987/88 � Objectives: � to determine the underlying causes of poor growth of regenerating Western red cedar (Thuja plicata), Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Amabilis fir (Abies amabilis) and Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) on cedar-hemlock cutovers invaded by Salal (Gaultheria shallon) on the west coast of North America � to establish the best operational means for improving productivity on these sites Website: http://www.forestry.ubc.ca/schirp/homepage.html

Research sites � 128 plots - 64 CH and 64 HA � 8 blocks (4 CH and 4 HA) � 2 species (Western Hemlock and Western Red cedar) � 3 types of density (500, 1500, 2500 stems/ha) � Fertilized at the time of planting (17-10-10, slow release) � Re-fertilized in 1993 - broadcast application (225kg of N and 75Kg of P) � Re-fertilized in 2004 - broadcast application (225kg of N)

Latest reports CH HA � � “HA” sites showed a much Salal should be controlled greater growth rate � The conifer should be planted immediately after harvest and � In some cases, fertilized “HA” if possible at high densities had double increment of volume and Periodic annual � Fertilizing with N and P is strongly recommended at the increment compared to “CH” time of planting � “HA” sites should carry most � In case of no fertilization, of the investment in Western red cedar would be silvicultural treatments the species of choice because of its higher growth � Western hemlock is only rate feasible accompanied by multiple fertilizations Blevins and Niejenhuis (2003) Negrave et al. (2007)

Field Work

CH – Cedar not fertilized

CH – Cedar fertilized

CH – Hemlock not fertilized

HA – Hemlock fertilized

Statistical Analysis CH HA � � Significant interaction between Significant interaction between Species, Fertilization and Species and Fertilization for Density for height, basal area height, basal area and volume and volume � No significant difference in height between different densities � Significant interaction between Species and Fertilization � No significant interaction between species and fertilization � Significant interaction between fertilization and density Mixed-effects model (Proc Mixed in SAS) P < 0.05

Cumulative effect (21 years) CH - 1500 st/ha Height Volume 12 140 11 10 120 9 8 100 7 80 m³ m 6 5 60 4 40 3 2 20 1 0 0 CEDAR HEMLOCK CEDAR HEMLOCK Fertilized Control Fertilized Control

Annual Growth CH - 1500 st/ha

Comparison with Tipsy Projection Volume - CH - Cedar - 1500 st/ha 160 Site Indexes Non-fertilized (19.88) 140 Fertilized (27.95) Projected Gain = +72.00 120 Real Gain = +99.85 Volume (m3/ha) 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 AGE (yr) Cw-Control Projected Cw-Control Cw-Fert. Projected Cw-Fert.

Comparison with Tipsy Projection Volume - CH - Hemlock - 1500 st/ha 100 Site Indexes 90 Non-fertilized (17.12) Fertilized (28.83) 80 Projected Gain = +75.00 Real Gain = +69.47 70 Volume (m3/ha) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 AGE (yr) Hw-Control Projected Hw-Control Hw-Fert. Projected Hw-Fert.

Conclusions at 21 years (CH) � Fertilization significantly increased both height and total volume � Height increased 60% in Cedar and 118% in Hemlock � Volume increased 352% in Cedar and 810% in Hemlock � Cedar seems to be having better basal area growth than expected

Projected productivity CH - Cedar - 1500 st/ha Volume at 60 years 1000 Real Gain Projected 900 880 = 550.85 (+99.85) 800 Site Indexes Non-fertilized (19.88) 700 Continuous effect (27.95) Projected Volume (m3/ha) 635 600 585 523 500 451 400 300 200 100 0 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 AGE (yr) Non-fertilized 6 years after last treatment 11 years after last treatment 16 years after last treatment Continuous effect Real gain projected

Projected productivity CH - Hemlock - 1500 st/ha Volume at 60 years 1000 Real Gain Projected 895 900 = 364.47 (+69.47) 800 Site Indexes Non-fertilized (17.12) 700 Continuous effect (28.83) Projected Volume (m3/ha) 600 540 500 461 400 370 300 295 200 100 0 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 AGE (yr) Non-fertilized 6 years after last treatment 11 years after last treatment 16 years after last treatment Continuous effect Real gain projected

Cumulative effect (21 years) HA - 1500 st/ha Height Volume 18 350 17 16 15 300 14 13 250 12 11 10 200 m³ m 9 8 150 7 6 5 100 4 3 50 2 1 0 0 CEDAR HEMLOCK CEDAR HEMLOCK Fertilized Control Fertilized Control

Annual Growth (HA) HA - 1500 st/ha

Comparison with Tipsy Projection Volume - HA - Cedar - 1500 st/ha 250 Site Indexes Non-fertilized (23.03) Fertilized (30.02) 200 Projected Gain = +80.00 Real Gain = +136.00 Volume (m3/ha) 150 100 50 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 AGE (yr) Cw-Control Projected Cw-Control Cw-Fert. Projected Cw-Fert.

Comparison with Tipsy Projection Volume - HA - Hemlock - 1500 st/ha 400 Site Indexes Non-fertilized (30.26) 350 Fertilized (38.97) Projected Gain = +201.00 300 Real Gain = +230.37 Volume (m3/ha) 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 AGE (yr) Hw-Control Projected Hw-Control Hw-Fert. Projected Hw-Fert.

Conclusions at 21 years (HA) � Fertilization significantly increased both height and total volume � Height increased 56% in Cedar and 65% in Hemlock � Volume increased 309% in Cedar and 243% in Hemlock � Cedar seems to be having better basal area growth than expected

Projected productivity HA - Cedar - 1500 st/ha Volume at 60 years 1100 Real Gain Projected 1000 988 = 724.00 (+136.00) 900 Site Indexes Non-fertilized (23.03) 800 766 Continuous effect (30.02) 723 Projected Volume (m3/ha) 700 668 600 588 500 400 300 200 100 0 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 AGE (yr) Non-fertilized 6 years after last treatment 11 years after last treatment 16 years after last treatment Continuous effect Real gain projected

Projected productivity HA - Hemlock - 1500 st/ha Volume at 60 years 1700 1606 Real Gain Projected 1600 = 1214.37 (+230.37) 1500 1400 Site Indexes 1313 1300 Non-fertilized (30.26) 1240 1200 1185 Continuous effect (38.97) 1100 Projected Volume (m3/ha) 1000 984 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 AGE (yr) Non-fertilized 6 years after last treatment 11 years after last treatment 16 years after last treatment Continuous effect Real gain projected

Economic Analysis � Focus on planting costs ($/ha) � Includes: Seedlings, tree planters, fertilizer, fertilizer app helicopter broadcast, surveys and brushing (5%) � Compound interests used for planting costs were 2%, 4% and 8% � Total Average of treated plots = $3336.00 � Total Average of untreated plots = $1545.00 � Projected planting costs were calculated based on expected volume by Tipsy

Economic Analysis CH – Cedar - 1500 $80 Lowest PPC/PV $70 = $11.02 (60 yr) = $16.05 (57 yr) $60 = $17.48 (58 yr) = $19.60 (59 yr) $50 PPC/PV ($/m3) $40 $30 $20 $10 $- 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 AGE (yr) Non-fertilized 6 years after last treatment 11 years after last treatment 16 years after last treatment

Economic Analysis CH – Hemlock - 1500 $80 Lowest PPC/PV $70 = $16.85 (60 yr) = $18.70 (51 yr) $60 = $22.24 (59 yr) = $27.72 (60 yr) $50 PPC/PV ($/m3) $40 $30 $20 $10 $- 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 AGE (yr) Non-fertilized 6 years after last treatment 11 years after last treatment 16 years after last treatment

Conclusions (CH) � Even though Hemlock responds very well with fertilizer, the total growth is the lowest of all treatments. � Regardless of treatment, the costs of Hemlock in CH are quite prohibitive. � The results suggests that Cedar is the more suitable species for CH sites. � Cedar if fertilized should have extra fertilizations to maintain increasing annual growth and therefore mitigate compound interest.

Economic Analysis HA – Cedar - 1500 $50 Lowest PPC/PV $45 = $8.46 (60 yr) $40 = $13.20 (51 yr) = $14.10 (53 yr) $35 = $15.35 (60 yr) PPC/PV ($/m3) $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $- 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 AGE (yr) Non-fertilized 6 years after last treatment 11 years after last treatment 16 years after last treatment