Early regeneration response to aggregated overstory and harvest residue retention in Populus tremuloides (Michx.)-dominated forests

Published Date
September 2017, Volume 48, Issue 5, pp 719–734

Author

• Miranda T. CurzonEmail author
• Anthony W. D’Amato
• Brian J. Palik

1. 1.
2. 2.
3. 3.

Short Communication

First Online: 

02 May 2017

Abstract

Recent emphasis on increasing structural complexity and species diversity reflective of natural ecosystems through the use of retention harvesting approaches is coinciding with increased demand for forest-derived bioenergy feedstocks, largely sourced through the removal of harvest residues associated with whole-tree harvest. Uncertainties about the consequences of such approaches prompted us to examine the combined impacts of aggregated overstory retention and harvest residue retention on the composition and density of regeneration following biomass harvests on four operational-scale (40 ha) study areas dominated by Populus tremuloides Michx. in northern Minnesota. Whole-tree harvest had no statistically significant effects on initial (2-year) regeneration densities, including root suckers, sprouts, and seedlings relative to conventional, stem-only harvest. The density of shrub stems was also unaffected by harvest residue retention. Despite having a lower mean leaf area index than intact forest controls, aggregates maintained comparable densities of the four most common tree species, individually, as well as all tree species combined. The composition of regeneration within aggregates differed from surrounding harvested areas as expected, but this increase in complexity at the stand scale was achieved without diminishing P. tremuloides densities in the edge area (0–5 m) surrounding aggregates 2 years after harvest. These initial findings suggest even small aggregates of overstory reserves may achieve basic objectives related to structural complexity and sustaining shade-tolerant tree species in harvested units without compromising regeneration objectives for less tolerant species.

References

1. Aubrey KB, Halpern CB, Peterson CE (2009) Variable-retention harvests in the Pacific Northwest: a review of short-term findings from the DEMO study. For Ecol Manag 25:398–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Baker SC, Spies TA, Wardlaw TJ, Balmer J, Franklin JF, Jordan GJ (2013) The harvested side of edges: effect of retained forests on the re-establishment of biodiversity in adjacent harvested areas. For Ecol Manag 302:107–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Bella IE (1986) Logging practices and subsequent development of aspen stands in east-central Saskatchewan. For Chron 62:81–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Berger AL, Palik BJ, D’Amato AW, Fraver S, Bradford JB, Nislow K, King D, Brooks RT (2013) Ecological impacts of energy-wood harvests: lessons from whole-tree harvesting and natural disturbance. J For 111:139–153Google Scholar
5. Börjesson P, Hansson J, Berndes G (2017) Future demand for forest-based biomass for energy purposes in Sweden. For Ecol Manag 383:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Bose AK, Harvey BD, Brais S (2014a) Sapling recruitment and mortality dynamics following partial harvesting in aspen-dominated mixedwoods in eastern Canada. For Ecol Manag 329:37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Bose AK, Harvey BD, Brais S, Beaudet M, Leduc A (2014b) Constraints to partial cutting in the boreal forest of Canada in the context of natural disturbance-based management: a review. Forestry 87:11–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Bradshaw FJ (1992) Quantifying edge effect and patch size for multiple-use silviculture—a discussion paper. For Ecol Manag 48:249–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Brais S, Harvey BD, Bergeron Y, Messier C, Greene D, Belleau A, Pare D (2004) Testing forest ecosystem management in boreal mixedwoods of northwestern Quebec: initial response of aspen stands to different levels of harvesting. Can J For Res 34:431–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Brown JK (1974) Handbook for inventorying downed woody material. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-16. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, OgdenGoogle Scholar
11. Burhnam KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
12. Burns RM, Honkala BH (eds) (1990) Silvics of North America: 2. Hardwoods. USDA Forest Service Agriculture Handbook 654, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
13. Coates KD (2002) Tree recruitment in gaps of various size, clearcuts, and undisturbed mixed forest of interior British Columbia, Canada. For Ecol Manag 155:387–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Comeau P, Heineman J, Newsome T (2006) Evaluation of relationships between understory light and aspen basal area in the British Columbia central interior. For Ecol Manag 226:80–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Curzon MT (2014) Productivity, recovery, diversity, and function of aspen-dominated forests vary in response to biomass harvest severity. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Minnesota, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
16. Curzon MT, D’Amato AW, Palik BJ (2014) Harvest residue removal and soil compaction impact forest productivity and recovery: potential implications for bioenergy harvests. For Ecol Manag 329:99–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Dodonov P, Harper KA, Silva-Matos DM (2013) The role of edge contrast and forest structure in edge influence: vegetation and microclimate at edges in the Brazilian cerrado. Plant Ecol 214:1345–1359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Duchesne LC, Wetzel S (2003) The bioeconomy and the forestry sector: changing markets and new opportunities. For Chron 79:860–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Dupuch A, Fortin D (2013) The extent of edge effects increases during post-harvesting forest succession. Biol Conserv 162:9–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Egnell G (2011) Is the productivity decline in Norway spruce following whole-tree harvesting in the final felling in boreal Sweden permanent or temporary. For Ecol Manag 261:148–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Evans AM, Perschel RT, Kittler BA (2010) Revised assessment of biomass harvesting and retention guidelines. Forest Guild, Sante Fe, p 36Google Scholar
22. Fedrowitz K, Koricheva J, Baker SC, Lindenmayer DB, Palik B, Rosenvald R, Beese W, Franklin JF, Kouki J, Macdonald E, Messier C, Sverdrup-Thygeson A, Gustafson L (2014) Can retention forestry help conserve biodiversity? A meta-analysis. J Appl Ecol 51:1669–1679CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
23. Franklin JF, Berg DR, Thornburgh DA, Tappeiner JC (1997) Alternative silvicultural approaches to timber harvesting: variable retention harvest systems. In: Kohm KA, Franklin JF (eds) Creating a forestry for the 21st Century. Island Press, Washington, pp 111–139Google Scholar
24. Franklin JF, Mitchell RJ, Palik BJ (2007) Natural disturbance and stand development principles for ecological forestry. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-19Google Scholar
25. Fraser EC, Lieffers VJ, Landhausser SM, Frey BR (2002) Soil nutrition and temperature as drivers of root suckering in trembling aspen. Can J For Res 32:1685–1691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Fraver S (1994) Vegetation responses along edge-to-interior gradients in the mixed hardwood forests of the Roanoke River Basin, North Carolina. Conserv Biol 8(3):822–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Frey BR, Lieffers VJ, Landhausser SM, Comeau PG, Greenway KJ (2003) An analysis of sucker regeneration of trembling aspen. Can J For Res 33:1169–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Gradowski T, Lieffers VJ, Landhausser SM, Sidders D, Volney J, Spence JR (2010) Regeneration of Populus 9 years after variable retention harvest in boreal mixedwood forests. For Ecol Manag 259:383–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29. Guay-Picard A, Auty D, Munson AD, Achim A (2015) Partial harvesting in boreal mixedwoods: a case for planned heterogeneity in industrial silvicultural prescriptions. For Ecol Manag 358:291–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Harmon ME (2001) Moving towards a new paradigm for woody detritus management. Ecol Bull 49:269–278Google Scholar
31. Harper KA, Macdonald SE (2011) Quantifying distance of edge influence: a comparison of methods and a new randomization method. Ecosphere 2(8):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Harper KA, Macdonald SE, Burton PJ, Chen J, Brosofske KD, Saunders SC, Euskirchen ES, Roberts D, Jaitteh MS, Esseen P (2005) Edge influence on forest structure and composition in fragmented landscapes. Conserv Biol 19:768–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33. Harper KA, Macdonald SE, Mayerhofer MS, Biswas SR, Esseen P, Hylander K, Stewart KJ, Mallik AU, Drapeau P, Jonsson B, Lesiur D, Kouki J, Bergeron Y (2015) Edge influence on vegetation at natural and anthropogenic edges of boreal forests in Canada and Fennoscandia. J Ecol 103:550–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34. Heithecker TD, Halpern CB (2006) Variation in microclimate associated with dispersed-retention harvests in coniferous forests of western Washington. For Ecol Manag 226:60–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35. Heithecker TD, Halpern CB (2007) Edge-related gradients in microclimate in forest aggregates following structural retention harvests in western Washington. For Ecol Manag 248:163–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36. Helmisaari H, Hanssen KH, Jacobson S, Kukkola M, Luiro J, Saaralmi A, Tamminen P, Tveite B (2011) Logging residue removal after thinning in Nordic boreal forests: long-term impact on tree growth. For Ecol Mang 261:1919–1927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37. Herrick SK, Kovach JA, Padley EA, Wagner CR, Zastrow DE (2009) Wisconsin’s forestland woody biomass harvesting guidelines. PUB-FR-435-2009. WI DNR Division of Forestry and Wisconsin Council on Forestry, Madison, p 51. http://wisconsinforestry.org/files/woodyBiomass/BHG-FieldManual-lowres090807.pdf
38. Janowiak MK, Webster CR (2010) Promoting ecological sustainability in woody biomass harvesting. J For 180(1):16–23Google Scholar
39. Klockow PA, D’Amato AW, Bradford JB (2013) Impacts of post-harvest slash and live-tree retention on biomass and nutrient stocks in Populus tremuloides Michx.-dominated forests, northern Minnesota, USA. For Ecol Manag 291:278–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40. Kurth VJ, Slesak RA, Bradford JB, D’Amato AW (2014) Initial soil respiration response to biomass harvesting and green-tree retention in aspen-dominated forests of the Great Lakes region. For Ecol Manag 328:342–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41. Landhausser SM, Lieffers VJ (1998) Growth of Populus tremuloides in association with Calamagrostis canadensis. Can J For Res 28:396–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42. Lieffers VJ (1995) Ecology and dynamics of boreal understory species and their role in partial-cut silviculture. In: Bamsey CR (ed) Innovative silviculture systems in boreal forests. Clear Lake Ltd., Edmonton, pp 33–39Google Scholar
43. Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF, Lohmus A, Baker SC, Bauhus J, Beese W, Brodie A, Kiehl B, Kouki J, Martinez Pastur G, Messier C, Neyland M, Palik B, Sverdrup-Thygeson A, Volney J, Wayne A, Gustafsson L (2012) A major shift to the retention approach for forestry can help resolve some global forest sustainability issues. Conserv Lett 5:421–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44. Maini JS, Horton KW (1966) Vegetative propagation of Populus spp. I. Influence of temperature on formation and initial growth of aspen suckers. Can J Bot 44:1183–1189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45. Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment Forest Management Division (MI DNRE) (2010) Michigan woody biomass harvesting guidance. Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment Forest Management Division, Lansing, p 18Google Scholar
46. Minnesota Forest Resources Council (MFRC) (2007) Biomass harvesting guidelines for forestlands, brushlands, and open lands. Minnesota Forest Resources Council, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
47. Mitchell AK, Koppenaal R, Goodmanson G, Benton R, Bown T (2007) Regenerating montane conifers with variable retention systems in a coastal British Columbia forest: 10-year results. For Ecol Manag 246:240–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48. Mladenoff DJ, Pastor J (1993) Sustainable forest ecosystems in the northern hardwood and conifer forest region: concepts in management. In: Aplet GH, Johnson N, Olson JT, Sample VA (eds) Defining sustainable forestry. Island Press, Washington, pp 145–180Google Scholar
49. Palik BJ, Kastendick D (2009) Woody plant regeneration after blowdown, salvage logging, and prescribed fire in a northern Minnesota forest. For Ecol Manag 258:1323–1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50. Palik BJ, Montgomery RA, Reich PB, Boyden SB (2014) Biomass growth response to spatial pattern of variable retention harvesting in a northern Minnesota pine ecosystem. Appl Ecol. doi:10.1890/13-1173.1Google Scholar
51. Rossman R (2012) Timber harvesting and forest management guidelines on public and private forest land in Minnesota: monitoring for implementation in 2011. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
52. Slesak RA (2013) Soil temperature following logging-debris manipulation and aspen regrowth in Minnesota: implications for sampling depth and alteration of soil processes. Soil Sci Soc Am J 77:1818–1824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53. Stone DM (2001) Sustaining aspen productivity in the Lake States. In: Shepperd WD, Binkley D, Bartos DL, Stohlgren TJ, Eskew LG (eds) Sustaining aspen in western landscapes: symposium proceedings. USDA For Serv Proc RMRSP-18, pp 47–59Google Scholar
54. Stupak I, Asikainen A, Jonsell M, Karltun E, Lunnan A, Mizaraite D, Pasanen K, Parn H, Raulund-Rasmussen K, Roser D, Schroeder M, Varnagiryte I, Vilkriste L, Callesen I, Clarke N, Gaitnieks T, Ingerslev M, Mandre M, Ozolincius R, Saarsalmi A, Armolaitis K, Helmisaari HS, Indriksons A, Kairiukstis L, Katzensteiner K, Kukkola M, Ots K, Ravn HP, Tamminen P (2007) Sustainable utilization of forest biomass for energy—Possibilities and problems: policy, legislation, certification, and recommendations and guidelines in the Nordic, Baltic, and other European countries. Biomass Bioenerg 31:666–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55. Tabor J, McElhinny C, Hickey J, Wood J (2007) Colonisation of clearfelled coupes by rainforest tree species from mature mixed forest edges, Tasmania, Australia. For Ecol Manag 240:13–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
56. Wall A (2012) Risk analysis of effects of whole-tree harvesting on site productivity. For Ecol Manag 282:175–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
57. Walmseley JD, Jones DL, Reynolds B, Price MH, Healey JR (2009) Whole tree harvesting can reduce second rotation forest productivity. For Ecol Manag 257:1104–1111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
58. Zabowski D, Java B, Scherer G, Everett RL, Ottmar R (2000) Timber harvesting residue treatment: part 1. Responses of conifer seedlings, soils and microclimate. For Ecol Manag 126:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar

For further details log on website :
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11056-017-9585-5