UBC Faculty Research and Publications

Influence of salal on height growth of coastal douglas-fir Klinka, Karel; Carter, R. E. (Reid E.); Wang, Qingli; Feller, M. C. (Michael Charles) 2001

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
SSES040.pdf [ 84.97kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0107264.json
JSON-LD: 1.0107264+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0107264.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0107264+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0107264+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0107264+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0107264 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0107264.txt
Citation
1.0107264.ris

Full Text

Influence of Salal on Height Growth of Coastal Douglas-firScientia Silvica Extension Series, Number  40, 2001IntroductionThe influence of salal on tree growth has attained considerable attention in coastal British Columbia. Field observations,surveys, and studies in the CWH zone have indicated poor growth performance of crop tree species in salal-dominatedplantations and natural immature and old-growth stands. Where sites have been burned and planted, tree growth hasimproved; similar effects have been observed for naturally regenerated stands. Immature stands that developed after winddisturbance or harvesting feature rapid growth and nearly complete absence of salal. As studies have shown that ericaceousplants negatively impact tree growth, the salal on potential harvest sites has been considered undesirable.This study examined (1) the possible influence of salal on the stand, soil nutrient status and site index, and (2) therelations between site index, salal, plant communities, and site in disturbed, immature, coastal Douglas-fir ecosystems.We compared vegetation and environmental characteristics of 101 ecosystems, and examined differences in foliar andsoil nutrient characteristics and site index between stands with high and low salal cover through analysis of variance(ANOVA) and regression analysis.Study Stands and MethodsAll study stands were located within the very dry and dry maritime subzones of the CWH zone on eastern VancouverIsland and the adjacent mainland across a wide range of elevations, aspects, and soil conditions. The stands were locatedin even-aged immature Douglas-fir stands with a relatively wide age range (18 to 69 yrs) and stocking (400 to 900 stemsha-1), and without a history of damage. All stands had similar management history: slashburning, planting to Douglas-fir,and pre-commercial thinning.In each stand, a 20 x 20 m plot was located to represent an individual ecosystem with relatively uniform vegetation andsoil. Vegetation and environment of each plot were described, and the relative soil moisture regime (SMR) and soilnutrient regime (SNR) were estimated in the field. The relative SMRs were converted to actual SMRs using actualevapotranspiration and water balance.In each plot, the five largest diameter trees of the study species were measured for age at 1.3 m and top height. Site indexwas taken from height growth tables.  On each plot the current year?s foliage from the upper crown of 15 dominant treeswas sampled and analyzed for total nitrogen. Samples of forest floor and the top 30 cm of mineral soil were taken at eachplot, air-dried, and analyzed for a number of nitrogen-related properties.Results and DiscussionIn order to examine the possible effects of salal on the stand, and soil nutrient status and site index, it was necessary toconsider only groups of plots with the same site conditions in order to eliminate variation due to external influences ontree growth. Based on a comparison of the site characteristics for each vegetation unit (Table 1), we used plots from theOregon grape unit (where salal had a 60% cover) and the Moss unit (where salal had 15% cover) as these two units hadsimilar soil properties. We selected from each unit 15 plots such that each plot had the same regional climate(biogeoclimatic subzone), moderately dry SMR, and poor SNR. All these plots are considered to have similar sitequality and vegetation potential.The major difference between the two sets of plots was salal cover.  Data from these 30 plots were then used to test twohypotheses: (1) salal competes successfully against Douglas-fir for both available soil water and nutrients, and (2) thereis a strong relationship between the salal cover and Douglas-fir site index on these moderately dry and poor sites.In the absence of significant differences in soil moisture and nutrient characteristics, it might be expected that there wereno significant differences between high- and low-cover salal sites in the foliar nutrient levels in the Douglas-fir trees. Thiswas actually found when the foliar nutrient levels were compared (p <0.05; Table 2). There were also no significantdifferences in Douglas-fir site index. When the results of these comparisons are taken into account, it appears that, onenvironmentally-equivalent sites, high salal cover did not adversely affect Douglas-fir height growth.Table 1. Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) of selected stand and soil characteristics of the studystands stratified according to vegetation units.  SMR categories:  VD ? very dry, SD ? slightly dry, F ? fresh, M ?moist; SNR categories:  VP ? very poor, P ? poor, M ? medium, R ? rich, VR ? very rich.Vegetation unit Characteristic  (1) Lichen n = 13 (2) Salal n = 26 (3) Oregon grape n = 26 (4) Sword fern n = 30 (5) Salmonberry n = 6 Douglas-fir site index (m)  21 (2.3)  28 (3.3)  28 (3.5)  33 (2.3)  34 (2.9) Mean cover of salal (%)  85  60  15  7.5  0.7 SMR   VD  MD ? SD  MD ? F  SD ? F  M SNR VP - P VP ? M  VP ? M  P ? R  R - VR  Table 2. Mean foliar nutrient concentrations (by dry weight) of the Douglas-fir trees in 15 environmentallyequivalent plots in each of the Salal and Oregon grape vegetation units. Standard deviations are in parentheses.Nutrient element  Salal plots  (n = 15)  Oregon grape plots (n = 15) Mass of 100 needles (mg)  472 (79)  492 (71) Nitrogen (%)  1.17 (0.078)  1.17 ((0.116) Phosphorus (%)  0.209 0.036)  0.199 (0.042) Calcium (%)  0.397 (0.067)  0.414 (0.047) Magnesium (%)  0.130 (0.022)  0.129 (0.014) Potassium (%)  0.689 (0.080)  0.687 (0.070) Sulphate-sulphur (ppm)  325 (135)  312 (133) Zinc (ppm)  19.4 (3.87)  20.5 (2.47) Manganese (ppm)  547 (327)  499 (257) Boron (ppm)  19.5 (8.82)  21.9 (5.87) Active iron (ppm)  42.0 (11.5)  39.0 (12.9)  Salal understory can account for a large fraction of stand water consumption, especially towards the latter part of the dryperiod in late July and August. Because Douglas-fir develops terminal buds approximately at the onset of this drought,subsequent soil water deficits, possibly exacerbated by salal water consumption, are not likely to have a significantinfluence on height growth, vis-?-vis site index. This could explain the failure of this study to find significant differencesin Douglas-fir site index between the high and low salal cover sites.The frequency and mean cover of salal decreased from up to 100% in the salal unit to as low as 0.6% in the Lichen andSalmonberry units.  If salal exerted a profound influence on forest productivity, then a significant relationship would beexpected between its cover and site index. To test this hypothesis, we examined the relationship between Douglas-fir siteindex and salal cover across all 101 study plots. A simple linear regression of site index on salal cover produced thefollowing equation:[1] SI = 32.44 - 0.71(mid-point percent salal cover) R2 = 0.23, SEE= 4.45 mwhere SI = site index (m @ 1.3m age 50) and SEE = standard error of the estimate.Although statistically significant (p <0.01), the equation explained only a small amount of the variation in Douglas-fir siteindex across a wide range of sites. This regression appears to reflect the relationship between salal and humus formquality, in that salal cover generally decreased as the humus from changed from Mor to Moder to Mull progressively fromLichen through Salmonberry units.Scientia Silvica  is published by the Forest Sciences Department,The University of British Columbia, ISSN 1209-952XEditor: Karel Klinka (klinka@interchange.ubc.ca)Research: R.E. Carter (ReidCarter@NBFinacial.com), Q. Wang (charlw@mail.sy.ln.cn), M.C. Feller(feller@interchange.ubc.ca), and K. KlinkaProduction and design: Christine Chourmouzis (chourmou@interchange.ubc.ca)Financial support: Canadian Forestry Services and BC Ministry of Forests under the Canada-British ColumbiaForest Resource Development Agreement, Extension, Demonstration, and Research, and Development Sub-program (1985-1990).For more information contact: R.E. CarterCopies available from: www.forestry.ubc.ca/klinka or K. Klinka,Forest Sciences Department, 3036-2424 Main Mall,University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4Multiple linear regression of site index on vegetation unit produced the following equation (where VU1 through VU4 aredummy variables):[2] SI = 34.3 - 13.2(VU1) - 5.8(VU2) - 6.45(VU3) - 0.87(VU4) R2 = 0.67, SEE = 2.94 mEquation [2] explained a greater amount of the variation in Douglas-fir site index than equation [1] as it quantified therelationships between site quality (as reflected by plant communities) and forest productivity. Climate, SMR, and SNRare used to differentiate among environmentally equivalent sites. In order to determine whether these variables havestronger relationships than plant communities, the relationship between site index, SMR and SNR was examined. Climatewas not included as study plots were distributed within the same regional climate. Multiple linear regression produced thefollowing equation:[3] SI = 35.5 - 7.5(VD) - 1.72(MD) + 3.33(F) - 9.10(VP) - 5.03(M) - 1.75(R) R2 = 0.86, SEE = 1.99  mwhere VD - very dry, MD - moderately dry, and F - fresh are dummy variables for SMRs; VP - very poor, M -medium, and R - rich are dummy variables for SNRs.Thus, variables representing the SMRs and SNRs were better predictors of site index than plant species or plant communityvariables. This suggests that SMR and SNR are site factors that directly affect plant growth and offer a simple means ofcharacterizing site quality and explaining forest productivity. Although understory vegetation may provide a good indicationof site quality and can influence forest floor formation and decomposition rate through above- and below-ground litterproduction, such vegetation is usually an expression, rather than a determinant, of site quality.ConclusionsThere were (i) few significant differences in soil and foliar chemical properties between the high and low salal-coverecosystems having similar climate, SMR, and SNR, and (ii) poor relationships between Douglas-fir site index and salalcover. Much stronger relationships were obtained using variables representing vegetation units or SMR and SNR. Ourresults imply that salal may not significantly affect height growth in immature Douglas-fir stands on moderately dry andnutrient poor sites in dry cool mesothermal climates of southern coastal BC.ReferenceKlinka, K., R.E. Carter, M.C. Feller, and Q. Wang. 1989. Relations between site index, salal, plant communities, and sitesin coastal Douglas-fir ecosystems. Northwest Science 63: 19-28.

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 6 1
United States 5 0
Germany 5 3
Japan 3 0
Canada 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 5 3
Ashburn 4 0
Beijing 3 0
Tokyo 3 0
Shenzhen 2 1
Jinan 1 0
University Park 1 0
Ottawa 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.594.1-0107264/manifest

Comment

Related Items