Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Some factors affecting the survival of planted Douglas-fir seedlings in the coastal forests of British… Addison, John Walker 1968

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1968_A6 A33.pdf [ 8.45MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0302248.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0302248-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0302248-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0302248-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0302248-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0302248-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0302248-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0302248-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0302248.ris

Full Text

SOME FACTORS AFFECTING THE SURVIVAL OF PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR SEEDLINGS IN THE COASTAL FORESTS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  by  JOHN WALKER ADDISON B.S.F., U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1966  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE  REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF FORESTRY I n the F a c u l t y of Forestry  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming required  THE  t o the  standard  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA March, 1968  In p r e s e n t i n g  for  this  thesis  in partial  an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y  that  the L i b r a r y  Study.  thesis  shall  I further  make i t f r e e l y  agree that  f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may  publication  of this  w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n  thesis  Department Columbia  Columbia,  I agree  for reference  f o r extensive  and  copying of  this  be g r a n t e d by t h e Head o f my  It i s understood  for financial  permission.  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h V a n c o u v e r 8, Canada  of B r i t i s h  available  permission  D e p a r t m e n t o r b y hits r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .  or  f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements  gain  shall  that  n o t be  copying  allowed  i  ABSTRACT  A comprehensive l i t e r a t u r e r e v i e w o f the f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g the s u r v i v a l o f planted D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s i s presented.  O r i g i n a l d a t a from o p e r a t i o n a l p l a n t i n g t r i a l s  was a n a l y z e d ing  t o determine t h e e f f e c t o f some s e e d l i n g , p l a n t -  and e n v i r o n m e n t a l  f a c t o r s on s u r v i v a l .  The use o f 2+1 s t o c k was found t o r e s u l t i n i n c r e a s e d s u r v i v a l o f f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s , hut n o t o f s p r i n g planted seedlings.  1+0 s t o c k showed c o m p a r a t i v e l y  good s u r -  v i v a l when s p r i n g - p l a n t e d on s i t e s w i t h l i t t l e b r u s h and/or slash competition.  The s i z e o f p l a n t i n g s t o c k , and a sub-  j e c t i v e assessment o f grade were n o t found t o be r e l a t e d t o s u r v i v a l a f t e r one growing season. F a l l l i f t i n g dates from October 15 t o December 2 were a n a l y z e d analysis.  i n r e l a t i o n to s u r v i v a l using regression  E a r l y - l i f t e d s t o c k was found t o r e s u l t i n lower  s u r v i v a l than the l a t e r - l i f t e d stock.  L i f t i n g date had no  s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on t h e s u r v i v a l o f s p r i n g - p l a n t e d s e e d lings.  P l a n t i n g dates from F e b r u a r y 10 t o June 10 i n t h e  s p r i n g and from October 14 t o December 2 i n the f a l l analyzed  were  i n r e l a t i o n to survival using regression analysis.  S u r v i v a l was found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y improved w i t h l a t e r f a l l p l a n t i n g dates and e a r l y s p r i n g p l a n t i n g d a t e s .  Length  o f s t o r a g e had no d e t e c t a b l e i n f l u e n c e on s u r v i v a l . The n u r s e r y o r i g i n o f t h e s e e d l i n g s was found  to  be  significantly  r e l a t e d to  Where ground cover burning  competition  was  severe,  r e s u l t e d i n i n c r e a s e d s u r v i v a l ; where ground  competition  was  light  or n o n - e x i s t e n t ,  i n reduced s u r v i v a l . the  survival.  cept on n o r t h  to east  competition  fall-planted  reduced  seedlings,  aspect  significantly  of the p l a n t i n g s i t e  r e l a t e d to  were  survival.  P l a n t i n g i n t h i c k d u f f reduced the s u r v i v a l s p r i n g and planted  fall-planted  s e e d l i n g s was  topography, and  on  ex-  aspects.  E l e v a t i o n and both found to be  cover  slashburning resulted  Heavy ground cover  s u r v i v a l of both s p r i n g and  slash-  seedlings.  The  s u r v i v a l of  of  fall-  a l s o reduced by p l a n t i n g i n r o l l i n g  steep  south  to west  aspects.  P l a n t i n g d u r i n g sunny weather r e s u l t e d i n reduced survival.  P l a n t i n g d u r i n g snowy weather reduced the  of f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s  survival  only.  Some g e n e t i c f a c t o r s * ; such as o r i g i n of the seed c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , and c o l l e c t i o n areas  aspect  and  e l e v a t i o n of the  seed,  seed  compared to t h a t o f the p l a n t a t i o n were  an-  a l y z e d i n r e l a t i o n to s u r v i v a l with i n c o n c l u s i v e r e s u l t s . The  a u t h o r concludes  t h a t no  one  f a c t o r i s of  o v e r r i d i n g importance i n a l l s i t u a t i o n s , but t h a t a l l f a c t o r s act it  and  interact  to v a r y i n g degrees.  i s ;very d i f f i c u l t  ality.  to a s s i g n a s p e c i f i c  I t i s important  f a c t o r under d i f f e r e n t The and  key  Therefore  t h a t the r e l a t i v e  reason  i n most  cases  f o r mort-  importance of each  s e t s of c o n d i t i o n s be known.  to b e t t e r s u r v i v a l ,  forethoiught, to ensure t h a t as few  therefore, i s planning f a c t o r s as p o s s i b l e  i i i  are  limiting  to survival  Based  a t any one  on t h e d a t a  ommendations f o r i m p r o v i n g fir  time.  analyzed,  some s p e c i f i c  the s u r v i v a l  seedlings are presented.  of planted  recDouglas-  iv  TABLE OP CONTENTS PAGE I. II.  Introduction  1  L i t e r a t u r e review 1. I n t r o d u c t i o n 2. The i n f l u e n c e o f n u r s e r y p r a c t i c e s and grades on s u r v i v a l a. General b. Sowing c. Fertilization d. Root and top p r u n i n g e. The i n f l u e n c e o f age and c l a s s of stock on s u r v i v a l f. The i n f l u e n c e o f s i z e o f stock on s u r v i v a l g. The i n f l u e n c e o f grade o f stock on s u r v i v a l h. The i n f l u e n c e o f l i f t i n g and s t o r a g e on s u r v i v a l  5 5  3.  6 6 7 8 9 10 14 16 20  The i n f l u e n c e o f storage a t the p l a n t i n g s i t e on s u r v i v a l S i t e p r e p a r a t i o n and s u r v i v a l a. Mulching b. Other t e c h n i q u e s  28 30 30 31  5.  The p l a n t i n g o p e r a t i o n and s u r v i v a l a. P l a n t i n g methods b. P l a n t i n g techniques i. Mattock p l a n t i n g ii. Container planting  32 32 34 34 36  6.  The i n f l u e n c e o f f e r t i l i z e r s and o t h e r c h e m i c a l s on s u r v i v a l a f t e r o u t p l a n t i n g a. Fertilizers b. Other g r o w t h - i n d u c i n g substances c. Transpiration retardants  37 37 38 39  7.  The i n f l u e n c e o f time o f p l a n t i n g on survival The i n f l u e n c e o f s l a s h b u r n i n g on survival The i n f l u e n c e o f s i t e f a c t o r s on survival a. E l e v a t i o n o f the p l a n t i n g s i t e b. S o i l moisture c. Slope and a s p e c t d. Animals and b i r d s e. Weather f. Competing v e g e t a t i o n g. Microsite h. I n s e c t s and d i s e a s e  4.  8. 9.  39 42 46 46 47 49 50 53 53 57 59  V  PAGE 10. III.  M a t e r i a l s and methods 1. Background o f the study 2. F i e l d study 3. O r i g i n o f the data a. Survival lines h. Plantation registers c. P l a n t i n g s u r v i v a l summaries d. Seedlot r e g i s t e r s e. S u r v i v a l examinations 4.. 5.  IV.  Genetic f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g s u r v i v a l  Nature and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f the d a t a The s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s a. General h. Regression analyses c. Analyses of variance  R e s u l t s and d i s c u s s i o n 1. General 2. The i n f l u e n c e o f age and c l a s s o f s t o c k on s u r v i v a l 3. The i n f l u e n c e o f m o r p h o l o g i c a l grade on s u r v i v a l 4. The i n f l u e n c e of l i f t i n g and p l a n t i n g d a t e s and l e n g t h o f s t o r a g e on s u r v i v a l a. Spring-planted seedlings b. Pall-planted seedlings c. Discussion 5. 6. 7. 8.  9.  The i n f l u e n c e o f the n u r s e r y o r i g i n of the s e e d l i n g s on s u r v i v a l The i n f l u e n c e o f t r e e s p l a n t e d p e r manday on s u r v i v a l The i n f l u e n c e of s l a s h b u r n i n g on s u r v i v a l The i n f l u e n c e o f some e n v i r o n m e n t a l ( s i t e ) f a c t o r s on s u r v i v a l a. E l e v a t i o n o f the p l a n t i n g s i t e b. Aspect o f the p l a n t i n g s i t e c. The combined i n f l u e n c e o f a s p e c t and e l e v a t i o n d. Ground c o v e r c o m p e t i t i o n e. The e f f e c t o f p l a n t i n g i n thick duff f. The e f f e c t o f topography g. The e f f e c t o f weather a t the time o f p l a n t i n g The i n f l u e n c e o f some g e n e t i c f a c t o r s on s u r v i v a l a. General b. Seed o r i g i n c. Seed c l a s s i f i c a t i o n d. E l e v a t i o n and a s p e c t o f the seed c o l l e c t i o n areas and the p l a n t ations  60 62 62 62 63 63 65 65 69 69 70 72 72 74 75 76 76 77 79 81 81 84 87 89 92 92 96 96 97 99 100 104 105 106 108 108 109 109 110  vi PAGE V. VI. VII. VIII.  Recommendations  and c o n c l u s i o n s  111  Summary  118  Bibliography  122  A p p e n d i x I.  Analyses  of v a r i a n c e t a b l e s  13'4  vn  L I S T OP TABLES TABLE I. II.  III.  IV.  V.  VI.  VII. VIII.  IX.  X.  XI.  PAGE A c h a r t showing t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f the d i s c o n t i n u o u s v a r i a b l e s used i n t h e analyses. P e r cent s u r v i v a l a t t h e end o f one g r o w i n g season a f t e r p l a n t i n g o f s p r i n g and f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s by three>; planting stock classes.  71  "78  P e r c e n t s u r v i v a l a t t h e end o f one g r o w i n g season a f t e r p l a n t i n g o f s p r i n g and f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s by a subj e c t i v e assessment o f s e e d l i n g c o n d i t i o n . Some p a r a m e t e r s o f t h e i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s used i n the r e g r e s s i o n equations of l i f t i n g and p l a n t i n g d a t e s on t h e s u r v i v a l of s p r i n g - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s .  83  Some p a r a m e t e r s o f t h e i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s used i n t h e r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n s o f l i f t i n g and - p l a n t i n g d a t e s on t h e s u r v i v a l of f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s .  84  The r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n s o f date o f l i f t i n g and date o f p l a n t i n g on s u r v i v a l a f t e r one g r o w i n g s e a s o n , and on p e r c e n t s u r v i v a l minus p e r cent " p o o r s " a f t e r one g r o w i n g season, f o r f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s .  85  P e r cent s u r v i v a l a t t h e end o f one g r o w i n g season a f t e r p l a n t i n g by t h e nursery o r i g i n o f the s e e d l i n g s .  90  P e r cent s u r v i v a l a t t h e end o f one g r o w i n g season a f t e r p l a n t i n g by n u r s e r y o r i g i n o f t h e s e e d l i n g s and a r e a o f planting. P e r c e n t s u r v i v a l a t t h e end o f one g r o w i n g season a f t e r p l a n t i n g o f s p r i n g and f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s by t h e degree of s l a s h b u r n . P e r c e n t s u r v i v a l a t t h e end o f one g r o w i n g season a f t e r p l a n t i n g by t h e degree o f s l a s h b u r n d a n d t h e amount o f ground competition. P e r c e n t s u r v i v a l a t t h e end o f one g r o w i n g season a f t e r p l a n t i n g o f s p r i n g and f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s by t h e e l e v a t i o n c l a s s of the p l a n t i n g s i t e .  80  91  93  94  97  viii PAGE XII.  XIII.  XIV.  XV.  XVI.  XVII.  XVIII.  XIX.  Per cent s u r v i v a l at the end of one growing season a f t e r p l a n t i n g of s p r i n g and f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s by the aspect of the p l a n t i n g s i t e .  98  Per cent s u r v i v a l at the end of one growing season a f t e r p l a n t i n g of s p r i n g and f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s by aspect and e l e v a t i o n c l a s s of the p l a n t i n g s i t e .  99  Per cent s u r v i v a l at the end o f one growing season a f t e r p l a n t i n g of s p r i n g and f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s by the degree o f ground cover c o m p e t i t i o n .  101  Per cent s u r v i v a l at the end of one growing season a f t e r p l a n t i n g by a s p e c t and ground c o v e r c o m p e t i t i o n c l a s s e s .  102  Per cent s u r v i v a l at the end of one growing season a f t e r p l a n t i n g by p l a n t i n g s t o c k c l a s s and ground cover c o m p e t i t i o n class, f o r spring-planted seedlings.  103  Per cent s u r v i v a l at the end of one growing season a f t e r p l a n t i n g of s p r i n g and f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s by two d u f f thickness classes.  104  Per cent s u r v i v a l at the end of one growing season a f t e r p l a n t i n g of s p r i n g and f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s by topography classes  106  Per cent s u r v i v a l at the end of one growing season a f t e r p l a n t i n g of s p r i n g and f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s by weather c l a s s e s at the time of p l a n t i n g  107  ix  LIST OF  FIGURES  FIGURE 1.  2.  PAGE The number of s e e d l i n g s and acreage p l a n t e d by p r i v a t e i n d u s t r y on the coast o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1956 to 1966.  2  F l u c t u a t i o n i n carbohydrate r e s e r v e s and growth of D o u g l a s - f i r seedlings at the Wind R i v e r Nursery - a generalized illustration.  24  An i l l u s t r a t i o n showing the t y p i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n of a s u r v i v a l l i n e i n a plantation.  64  4.  A sample p l a n t a t i o n r e g i s t e r .  66  5.  A t y p i c a l map  67  6.  A sample p l a n t i n g  7.  The r e l a t i o n s h i p between per s u r v i v a l and s p r i n g and f a l l and p l a n t i n g d a t e s .  3.  of a p l a n t a t i o n . s u r v i v a l summary. cent lifting  68  86  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  The author wishes to acknowledge the g e n e r o s i t y of M a c M i l l a n  B l o e d e l L t d . i n making the data a v a i l a b l e t o  the F a c u l t y o f F o r e s t r y , and e s p e c i a l l y t o Mr. John Marlow,,. B.S.F., and Mr. David Handley, B.C.R.F., f o r t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e t o the author ing  i n o r g a n i z i n g and c o l l e c t -  the d a t a . The author  a l s o wishes t o acknowledge the h e l p  of: Dr. and  A. Kozak and Mrs. H. Froese  guidance w i t h the s t a t i s t i c a l  analyses  f o r t h e i r help and programming;  Dr. 0. S z i k l a i and Dr. P.G. Haddock f o r t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e i n i n t e r p r e t i n g some o f the r e s u l t s o f the analyses; and and  finally  to my w i f e Bonnie, f o r h e r p a t i e n c e  encouragement d u r i n g the w r i t i n g o f the t h e s i s .  xi  The r e g e n e r a t i o n o f f o r e s t s t a n d s h a s p r e s e n t e d t h e s i l v i c u l t u r i s t w i t h h i s most d i f f i c u l t p r o b l e m s . Reg a r d l e s s o f t h e method u s e d , t h e f o r e s t e r o f t e n h a s f o u n d t h e e x p e r i e n c e t o be a s u c c e s s i o n o f f r u s t r a t i o n s i n t e r u p t e d o c c a s s i o n a l l y by a n u n e x p e c t e d s u c c e s s . I n t h e main, the s o l u t i o n o f r e g e n e r a t i o n problems w i t h i n contemporary e c o n o m i c l i m i t a t i o n s h a s d e p e n d e d as much on hope as o n k n o w l e d g e ; a s much on c h a n c e a s on t e c h n i q u e ; a n d a s much on i n n o v a t i o n a s e x p e r i e n c e ( W a l t e r s , 1966).  1  I.  INTRODUCTION  B r i t i s h Columbia i s undergoing a r a p i d t r a n s i t i o n from an e x p l o i t i v e to a managed use o f i t s f o r e s t resources.  The best  i n d i c a t i o n of t h i s t r a n s i t i o n i s  the s t e a d i l y i n c r e a s e d  emphasis  placed  on r e f o r e s t a t i o n  by the f o r e s t i n d u s t r y o f the p r o v i n c e , i n Figure  1.  ion seedlings  as i s i l l u s t r a t e d  In 1 9 6 6 , p r i v a t e i n d u s t r y p l a n t e d on 3 1 . 8 thousand a c r e s ;  12.3 mill-  j u s t t e n years  e a r l i e r , only 3 . 0 m i l l i o n s e e d l i n g s were p l a n t e d by p r i v ate i n d u s t r y , on only 7 . 5 thousand acres S e r v i c e , Annual Report  1966).  Bloedel L t d . , r e c e n t l y planted  (B.C. F o r e s t  One .company, M a c M i l l a n their  fifty-millionth  seedling. In order t o reduce p l a n t i n g c o s t s , the trend has been to p l a n t fewer t r e e s per a c r e .  P r i o r to 1 9 5 7 ,  an average o f 6 3 4 t r e e s per. acre were p l a n t e d by p r i v a t e i n d u s t r y ; i n 1 9 6 6 , only 3 8 4 t r e e s per acre were planted  (B.C. F o r e s t S e r v i c e , Annual Report  being  1966).  Accompanying t h i s t r e n d t o wider spacing came the  i n c r e a s i n g danger that p o s t - p l a n t i n g m o r t a l i t y  reduce the number o f t r e e s per acre t o below an  would  acceptable  l e v e l , and n e c e s s i t a t e c o s t l y r e p l a n t i n g o r f i l l - p l a n t i n g . Based on 9 3 D o u g l a s - f i r (Pseudotsuga menziesii: (Mirb.) Franco v a r . m e n z i e s i i )  p l a n t a t i o n s e s t a b l i s h e d by  :  3.  the B.C. al.  F o r e s t S e r v i c e between 1933  and  1956 , S m i t h e_t  quoted an average s u r v i v a l f i g u r e o f  (1961)  three years a f t e r p l a n t i n g .  67.2%  S m i t h e_t a l . a l s o quote a  p l a n t i n g c o s t o f $ ' . 0 3 3 p e r s e e d l i n g , under average conditions.  Assuming t h a t t h e i r s u r v i v a l and  cost f i g u r e s  are a c c u r a t e d a n d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a v e r a g e s , then m o r t a l i t y has  claimed  16.4  m i l l i o n o f the 50 m i l l i o n  seedlings  p l a n t e d by M a c M i l l a n B l o e d e l L t d . w i t h i n t h r e e after planting.  years  T h i s r e p r e s e n t s a c o s t of o v e r h a l f a  m i l l i o n d o l l a r s , even assuming a z e r o i n t e r e s t r a t e . To t h i s f i g u r e must be added the c o s t of r e p l a n t i n g or f i l l - p l a n t i n g the not s u f f i c i e n t l y r e s t o c k e d  (N.S.R.)  areas. I n g e n e r a l , adequate s t o c k i n g t h r o u g h p l a n t i n g can be e n s u r e d by e i t h e r o f two  a p p r o a c h e s : by p l a n t i n g  s u c h a l a r g e number of t r e e s p e r a c r e t h a t even i f morta l i t y i s h i g h , adequate s t o c k i n g w i l l be e n s u r e d ; o r  by  e n s u r i n g t h a t s u r v i v a l w i l l be so h i g h t h a t s t o c k i n g w i l l be adequate even though c o m p a r a t i v e l y are  few  t r e e s per  acre  planted. I t . i s extremely u n l i k e l y t h a t the f i r s t  a t i v e would be chosen u n l e s s p r e s e n t undergo a d r a s t i c change. s p a c i n g may  planting  altern-  techniques  Even t h e n , however, wide  be d e s i r a b l e f r o m a b i o l o g i c a l , i f not  onomic, v i e w p o i n t .  Wide s p a c i n g combined w i t h  ec-  high  s u r v i v a l g i v e s a c o n t r o l o f s t a n d d e n s i t y not p o s s i b l e w i t h the f i r s t a l t e r n a t i v e , a l t h o u g h such stands may  be i n q u e s t i o n .  the q u a l i t y  of  The one  m o r t a l i t y of p l a n t e d  of the most p r e s s i n g  problems f a c i n g the  little  standing  do  management The  to u t i l i z e  them.  He  under-  t h a t the  field  cannot change or  o r topography, and  he  q u a l i t y of s e e d l i n g s  often  he  However, armed w i t h a knowledge of how f a c t o r s operate and  firstly  o b j e c t i v e s of t h i s t h e s i s are  to p o i n t out  and  s u r v i v a l of planted  evaluate  for-  even though  o r i g i n a l data;  Stoate  by means o f  an a n a l y s i s of  a b l i s h m e n t , care  i n order  to b e n e f i t  done by a p r i v a t e  (1955) suggested t h a t  and  management of new  company.  "considerable  i n t o the ways and  c a r r i e d out  planning  t h i r d l y to suggest •areas where  might be  t e c h n o l o g i c a l research  be  review and  considered  s u r v i v a l ; and  further research  necessity  some f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g  s e c o n d l y to suggest ways i n which these  f a c t o r s might be higher  threefold:  Douglas-fir seedlings  a comprehensive l i t e r a t u r e  for  these  cannot modify the f a c t o r s themselves. The  the  seedlings,  has  receives.  combine to reduce s u r v i v a l , the  e s t e r can modify t h e i r e f f e c t on the he  many  t h e i r e f f e c t s too  i s often l i t t l e  c o n t r o l over the  therefore  environmental f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g  known, and  modify the weather, s o i l little  and  Even as t h i s knowledge and  comes, there  f o r e s t e r can  and  too l i t t l e  understood.  silvicultural  is  f o r e s t i n d u s t r y to-day.  p h y s i o l o g i c a l , genetic s u r v i v a l are  seedlings  means o f e s t -  growth must of  by p r i v a t e e n t e r p r i s e i n i t s  f o r w a r d development of new  forests."  M i l l a n Bloedel L t d . provided  the  To  t h i s end,  F a c u l t y of  Mac-  Forestry  5.  w i t h v a l u a b l e d a t a and t h e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r t h e a u t h o r t o v i s i t ; many o f t h e i r  plantations.  A l t h o u g h t h e d a t a was n o t o b t a i n e d from a p l a n n ed o r d e s i g n e d e x p e r i m e n t , a f a c t w h i c h o f t e n made t h e analyses d i f f i c u l t ,  i t i s o f a comprehensive  n a t u r e and  c o v e r s a wide e n v i r o n m e n t a l and g e o g r a p h i c range.  It is  hoped t h a t t h e t r e n d s shown w i l l be a p p l i c a b l e t o a wide range  of p l a n t i n g conditions.  Detailed analysis of ind-  i v i d u a l f a c t o r s was n e c e s s a r i l y p r e c l u d e d because o f t h e q u a l i t a t i v e - . n a t u r e o f most o f t h e d a t a .  Even s o , some  o b v i o u s methods o f i m p r o v i n g t h e s . u r v i v a l o f p l a n t e d D o u g l a s fir  s e e d l i n g s p r e s e n t t h e m s e l v e s ; o t h e r t r e n d s must be  f u r t h e r evaluated i n p r o p e r l y designed  II.  1.  experiments.  LITERATURE REVIEW  Introduction A l l e n (1954)  quoted H e i n r i c h C o t t a as s a y i n g o f  f o r e s t r y , "... many e n t i r e l y o n e - s i d e d e x p e r i e n c e s a r e c o p i e d by t h e m e r e l y l i t e r a r y f o r e s t e r so o f t e n t h a t t h e y finally  s t a n d as a r t i c l e s o f f a i t h w h i c h nobody d a r e s t o  g a i n s a y , no m a t t e r how o n e - s i d e d o r i n e r r o r t h e y may be." W i t h t h i s danger i n mind, a comprehensive  literature re-  view i s p r e s e n t e d i n o r d e r t o b r i n g t o ^ g e t h e r some p e r t i n a n t i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g t h e s u r v i v a l o f planted Douglas-fir seedlings. As e a r l y as 1 9 3 7 , Chapman and Wakely d e s c r i b e d a  6.  p l o t d e s i g n f o r s u r v i v a l s t u d i e s , and l i s t e d t h e f a c t o r s they considered important i n s u r v i v a l s t u d i e s .  Among t h e s e  f a c t o r s were: s p e c i e s , age s t o c k c l a s s , g r a d e , h e a l t h and s i z e o f p l a n t i n g s t o c k ; t h e t r e a t m e n t o f s t o c k by c u l t i v a t i o n , shading o r watering i n the nursery; root pruning d u r i n g the growing or  exposure  season o r a t l i f t i n g ;  during l i f t i n g  mechanical  injury  or planting; planting tool  used;  s i t e p r e p a r a t i o n ; p e s t c o n t r o l ; and c o n t r o l o f drought i n j u r y by s h a d i n g , m u l c h i n g , needles.  c o a t i n g w i t h o i l or pruning the  I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a t many o f t h e s e  f a c t o r s a r e the.same ones b e i n g s t u d i e d t h i r t y y e a r s A l l e n (1955)  suggested  a t i o n p r a c t i c e c o u l d be m i n i m i z e d  later.  that mistakes i n r e f o r e s t i f f o r e s t e r s would be  e x c e e d i n g l y c o n s e r v a t i v e and f o l l o w n a t u r e as c l o s e l y as possible.  He emaphasized t h e need f o r f o r e s t e r s to>.ack-  nowledge t h a t they have a l o t t o l e a r n about f o r e s t  est-  a b l i s h m e n t b e f o r e t h e y can be reasonably;; c e r t a i n t h a t what t h e y do i s w i s e . 2.  The i n f l u e n c e of n u r s e r y p r a c t i c e s and grades on s u r v i v a l  a.  General W a l t e r s ( 1 9 6 6 ) s a i d "A prime and d i r e c t o b j e c t -  ive  of nursery p r a c t i c e i s the production of seedlings  a b l e t o s u r v i v e t h e t r a n s p l a n t i n g shock."  According to  S m i t h and A l l e n ( 1 9 6 2 ) , t h e R e f o r e s t a t i o n D i v i s i o n o f t h e B.C.  F o r e s t S e r v i c e has improved  the q u a l i t y o f Douglas-  7.  fir  s e e d l i n g s by c a r e f u l c o n t r o l o f t h e t r e e s from w h i c h  cones a r e c o l l e c t e d , and o f t h e methods by w h i c h seed i s e x t r a c t e d and s t o r e d . and  They p o i n t out t h a t  fertilization  f a l l s o w i n g have improved t h e s i z e and q u a l i t y o f p l a n t -  i n g s t o c k , and t h a t improved c o l d s t o r a g e , and  bundling  methods have b r o u g h t n u r s e r y  transportation stock to the  p l a n t i n g s i t e i n much b e t t e r c o n d i t i o n . Trappe and K r u e g e r (1964) s u g g e s t e d t h a t p r a c t i c e s c o u l d be improved by t h e use o f " s e e d l i n g  nursery biog-  r a p h i e s " , w h i c h would e n a b l e t h e n u r s e r y m a n t o p r e d i c t how a p r a c t i c e may a f f e c t t h e growth and form (and s u r v i v a l ) o f the s e e d l i n g s , enable him to get a f i r m b i o l o g i c a l basis f o r timing nursery seasonal  determine  t r e n d s , and t o o b s e r v e t h e e f f e c t s o f w e a t h e r ,  fertilizers, biographies nursery,  operations,  c h e m i c a l s and p r u n i n g , e t c .  s h o u l d n o t end when t h e s e e d l i n g s  but should  planting.  Obviously  be c o n t i n u e d  these  leave the  f o r a few y e a r s a f t e r  Trappe and K r u e g e r s u g g e s t t h a t  well-designed  o u t - p l a n t i n g t e s t s may o f t e n be r e q u i r e d f o r f i n a l  eval-  u a t i o n o f contemplated p r a c t i c e s . I n t h i s s e c t i o n , t h e e f f e c t s o f some  nursery  p r a c t i c e s on t h e s u r v i v a l o f p l a n t e d D o u g l a s - f i r  seed-  l i n g s are reviewed from the l i t e r a t u r e . b.  Sowing The  d e n s i t y o f sowing i n t h e n u r s e r y  willlaffect  the h e a l t h o f t h e s e e d l i n g s  and hence t h e i r s u r v i v a l p o t -  ential after out-planting.  Too-dense sowing w i l l r e s u l t  8.  i n s m a l l e r and ing  s p i n d l i e r seedlings  from s p a r s l i e r - s o w e d Two  c a s t and ling  c.  result-  seed.  methods of sowing are i n g e n e r a l use:  row.  Row  broad-  sowing g i v e s a b e t t e r c o n t r o l of  d e n s i t y than does broadcast  likely  than s e e d l i n g s  seed-  sowing, and hence i s more  to produce s e e d l i n g s of h i g h e r , more u n i f o r m  quality.  Fertilization Fertilization  for  one  and  final  of s e e d l i n g s  or both of two  i n the n u r s e r y  r e a s o n s : to i n c r e a s e  the growth r a t e  s i z e o f the s e e d l i n g s ; and/or to r e p l e n i s h the  s o i l n u t r i e n t s removed by fertilization  the  seedlings.  A  programme produces l a r g e r and  well-designed hardier  l i n g s which are b e t t e r a b l e to s u r v i v e i n the ever Kramer and of over and  a low  reserves.  under-fertilization.  field.  They r e p o r t e d  root/shoot  ratio,  Too  n i t r o g e n may  little  seed-  ( 1 9 6 0 ) have warned o f the  Kozlowski  much n i t r o g e n f e r t i l i z e r i s l i k e l y with  i s done  and  Howdangers  that  too  to r e s u l t i n s e e d l i n g s  a l s o low  i n small  seed-  l i n g s which are a l s o low  i n carbohydrate r e s e r v e s .  They  emphasized t h a t r e s e a r c h  i s needed to determine what type  of f e r t i l i z a t i o n likely  result  i n carbohydrate  programme w i l l produce s e e d l i n g s most  to s u r v i v e when o u t - p l a n t e d .  T h i s need i s f u r t h e r  emphasized by the v e r y v a r i a b l e e f f e c t s t h a t n u r s e r y i l i z a t i o n has  shown on the  Knight vival  (1957)  of D o u g l a s - f i r  fertilizers  s u r v i v a l of p l a n t e d  found no  seedlings  i n the n u r s e r y ,  seedlings.  d i f f e r e n c e s i n the t r e a t e d with  fert-  sur-  various  or between f e r t i l i z e d  and  9.  u n f e r t i l i z e d seedlings.  Meagher ( 1 9 6 1 )  found t h a t D o u g l a s -  f i r s e e d l i n g s t r e a t e d w i t h 3 2 0 pounds o f n i t r o g e n p e r acre had reduced s u r v i v a l a f t e r o u t p l a n t i n g , and t h a t t h e i n c idence  o f b r o w s i n g by deer r o s e from 13 % t o 19 f° w i t h i n -  creased n i t r o g e n a p p l i c a t i o n . On t h e o t h e r hand, S m i t h e t a l . ( 1 9 6 6 a )  reported  t h a t b o t h c h e m i c a l and o r g a n i c f e r t i l i z a t i o n o f D o u g l a s - f i r seedlings i n the nursery s i g n i f i c a n t l y increased  field  survival. d.  Root and t o p p r u n i n g Root p r u n i n g i s a common p r a c t i c e i n B r i t i s h  Columbia n u r s e r i e s . branching  I t i s g e n e r a l l y done t o promote  and t o a s s i s t i n p r e v e n t i n g r o o t  during planting.  Huntley  deformation  ( 1 9 6 0 ) reported that the per  cent i n c r e a s e i n r o o t volume was s i g n i f i c a n t l y by r o o t p r u n i n g , b u t S m i t h and A l l e n ( 1 9 6 5 )  increased  reported  t h a t r o o t p r u n i n g had no e f f e c t on s u r v i v a l . Top p r u n i n g o f s e e d l i n g s has a l s o been p r a c t i c e d , but m a i n l y  on an e x p e r i m e n t a l b a s i s .  Top p r u n i n g i s done  to reduce t h e t r a n s p i r i n g s u r f a c e o f t h e s e e d l i n g s , b u t g e n e r a l l y t h e p r a c t i c e has had a d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t on survival.  Hermann ( 1 9 6 4 c ) r e p o r t e d t h a t s e e d l i n g s t e n t o  10.  f i f t e e n i n c h e s t a l l pruned t o 3/5, tops r e s u l t e d i n 100 planted stock.  2/5  1/5  of  their  $ mortality for early-lifted  fall-  Huntley  and  ( 1 9 6 0 ) found t h a t r o o t  pruning  i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h top p r u n i n g d e c r e a s e d s u r v i v a l , that root pruning alone d i d not.  but  S m i t h and A l l e n ( 1 9 6 2 )  found t h a t s u r v i v a l d e c r e a s e d w i t h the i n t e n s i t y o f comb i n e d r o o t and  top  pruning.  According  to Trappe and K r u e g e r ( 1 9 6 4 )  K r u e g e r ( 1 9 6 6 ) , i t seems r e a s o n a b l e when the c a r b o h y d r a t e expenditure  to prune s e e d l i n g s  r e s e r v e s are l o w ,  r e s e r v e s and  root i n i t i a t i o n s h o r t l y before l i f t i n g . would a p p l y a l s o t o s e e d l i n g s s c h e d u l e d The  preventsthe  i n f l u e n c e of age Walters  seedlings  Pruned s e e d l i n g s would t h e n have  time t o b u i l d up c a r b o h y d r a t e  e.  to  of energy on r o o t growth w h i l e the  are i n the n u r s e r y .  and  and  a flush  Obviously  of this  for transplanting.  c l a s s o f s t o c k on  survival  and Kozak ( 1 9 6 5 ) s a i d t h a t the  survival  of a p a r t i c u l a r s p e c i e s has  been found to depend more on  age  that morphological  t h a n on s i z e a l o n e , and  must be e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h i n each age  grades  class.  G e n e r a l l y , o l d e r s e e d l i n g s have been found to have h i g h e r s u r v i v a l t h a n younger s e e d l i n g s , and p l a n t s t o have b e t t e r s u r v i v a l t h a n s e e d l i n g s .  transHowever  the v a r i a b l e r e s u l t s o f e x p e r i m e n t s r e p o r t e d i n the e r a t u r e s u g g e s t s t h a t the r e l a t i o n s h i p between age s u r v i v a l i s not a s i m p l e one.  litand  Much o b v i o u s l y depends  on where and under what c o n d i t i o n s the s e e d l i n g s  are  11.  planted.  As Tourney and K o r s t i a n  (1942)  s t a t e d , the c h i e f  advantage o f t r a n s p l a n t s t o c k o v e r s e e d l i n g s compact and f i b r o u s r o o t Adams _et a l .  i s a more  system.  (1966)  found t h a t t h e s u r v i v a l o f  1+0 s t o c k was l o w e r than t h a t o f 2 + 0 , f o r b o t h shaded and unshaded c o n d i t i o n s .  Clark  (1966)  reported  that the sur-  v i v a l of I n t e r i o r D o u g l a s - f i r (Pseudotsuga m e n z i e s i i v a r . glauca  (Beissn.)  class of stock.  F r a n c o ) was s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o t h e He t e s t e d 2 + 1 , -2+0 and 1+1 s t o c k , and  f o u n d t h a t t h e s u r v i v a l o f s t o c k c l a s s e s was more  infl-  uenced by t h e season o f p l a n t i n g t h a n by a s p e c t .  Survival  was  b e s t w i t h 2+1 s t o c k and w o r s t w i t h  S m i t h and A l l e n  (1962)  described  1 + 1 , on a d r y s i t e .  a p l a n t i n g experiment i n  w h i c h s p r i n g - s o w n 1+1 and 2 + 0 , and f a l l - s o w n 1 + 0 , 1+1 and 2+0 D o u g l a s - f i r s t o c k was p l a n t e d .  S u r v i v a l was b e s t f o r  s p r i n g - s o w n 2 + 0 s t o c k , and p o o r e s t f o r s p r i n g - s o w n 1+1 stock.  S m i t h _et a l .  (1967)  reported  that s u r v i v a l increas-  ed w i t h t h e number o f y e a r s t h e s e e d l i n g s were grown i n the n u r s e r y ,  10 years a f t e r p l a n t i n g .  Many o t h e r a u t h o r s have r e p o r t e d  the r e s u l t s o f  e x p e r i m e n t s where t h e age and c l a s s o f s t o c k has made d i f f e r e n c e t o the s u r v i v a l of planted D o u g l a s - f i r Loewenstein  (1964)  reported  little  Idaho.  Illingworth  (1966b)  seedlings.  d i f f e r e n c e between t h e  s u r v i v a l o f 2 + 0 and 2+1 I n t e r i o r D o u g l a s - f i r s t o c k in  little  found no i m p o r t a n t  planted differ-  ences i n t h e s u r v i v a l o f 2 + 0 , 2+1 and 1+2 D o u g l a s - f i r stock planted couver I s l a n d .  i n t w e l v e t y p i c a l s a l m o n b e r r y s i t e s on VanF i r s t y e a r s u r v i v a l was h i g h f o r a l l  12.  c l a s s e s , d e s p i t e a warm d r y s p r i n g . r e p o r t e d no important l a r g e and s m a l l 1 + 0 , on a s a l a l  site  no important  (1966c)  d i f f e r e n c e s i n s u r v i v a l between 2+0,  1+1,  1+2  and 2 + 1  on Vancouver I s l a n d .  stock  Revel  planted  (1963a)  d i f f e r e n c e s i n the s u r v i v a l o f 1 + 0  fall-sown), 2 + 0  and  Illingworth  founds,  (spring  and 1 + 1 stock when p l a n t e d on un-  burned, f r e s h l y burned and o l d burns, o r on south n o r t h a s p e c t s w i t h i n each burn  versus  class.  Some workers have r e p o r t e d on the best s i t e for of  each s t o c k c l a s s . t h i s nature  pine  seedlings.  was done by S t o e c k e l e r ( 1 9 6 3 a ) He c l a s s i f i e d  recommended d i f f e r e n t sites,  One o f the most e x h a u s t i v e  an area i n t o  studies  with red site  s t o c k c l a s s e s f o r each.  types and  On some  t r a n s p l a n t s were r e q u i r e d o r p r e f e r r e d ; on o t h e r s ,  seedlings r e s u l t e d i n acceptable Revel  (1963d)  survival.  p o i n t e d out t h a t spring-sown  D o u g l a s - f i r s t o c k does not u t i l i z e He found shoots  the f u l l  growing season.  t h a t f a l l - s o w n s e e d l i n g s had l o n g e r r o o t s and  He suggested  that fall-sown 1 + 0  used t o r e f o r e s t areas w i t h survival.  Bamford  (1963)  good r e s u l t s .  Jumbo 2 + 0 ,  stock c o u l d be  conditions favourable f o r  suggested  stock c o u l d be e c o n o m i c a l l y  p l a n t e d on c l e a n burns  and 2 + 1  1+0  that fall-sown  with  t r a n s p l a n t s are best  r e s e r v e d f o r s i t e s which may have a s e r i o u s brush  prob-  a c c o r d i n g t o Bamford. Smith et. a l . ( 1 9 6 1 )  2+0  1+0  than d i d spring-sown s t o c k , as w e l l as l a r g e r d i a -  meters.  lem,  types  s t o c k on s t r i p - c l e a r e d  r e p o r t e d good s u r v i v a l  l a n d and w i t h  1+0  stock  with  planted  13.  immediately a f t e r broadcast  burning.  They emphasized the  need f o r f u r t h e r p l a n t i n g s t u d i e s of 1+0 s t o c k , icularly  on w e l l - p l a n t e d  and f a v o u r a b l e  Jaworsky (1958)  sites.  recommended the use of l a r g e  vigourous D o u g l a s - f i r seedlings sites  part-  f o r hazardous p l a n t i n g  such as exposed south s l o p e s , rocky  and stony  dense cover or where summer drought i s p r e v a l e n t . lieved  that root pruning  conducted i n p o r c e l a i n c r o c k s ,  I n an experiment  Smith and A l l e n (1962) r e -  no d i f f e r e n c e s i n s u r v i v a l o f 1+0 D o u g l a s - f i r  grown i n s o i l s from areas o f s i t e Whether the humus was p r e s e n t burn, d i d not a f f e c t  index 8 0 ,  stock  130 and 150.  o r absent, o r the degree o f  survival.  They suggested t h a t  t h e r experiments be d i r e c t e d towards p r o d u c i n g 1+0  He be-  o f l a r g e stock was advisable-..to  prevent r o o t d e f o r m a t i o n d u r i n g p l a n t i n g .  ported  ground,  fur-  plantable  stock. Robson (1966) r e p o r t e d  i o n n a i r e sent A question  on a r e f o r e s t a t i o n quest-  to f o r e s t e r s i n c o a s t a l B r i t i s h  Columbia.  a s k i n g what c l a s s e s o f D o u g l a s - f i r s t o c k would  be p r e f e r r e d on upper, middle and lower s l o p e s r e s u l t e d i n the f o l l o w i n g answers: upper - f a l l ( 7 7 % ) ; middle - 2+0 (85%),  2+1,  1+0,  sown 1+0 (23%),  2+1 and 1+1  2+0  (15%); bottom -  2+2 ( 7 9 % ) , 2+0 (21%). Ackhurst  (1966) quotes the c o s t o f r a i s i n g  2+0  stock as $ 9 . 0 0 p e r 1000 s e e d l i n g s and the cost o f r a i s i n g 2+1 s e e d l i n g s as $ 1 9 . 0 0 p e r 1000 s e e d l i n g s .  Ackhurst  concludes t h a t there must be a s a v i n g of $ 1 0 . 0 0 p e r 1000 seedlings  i n increased  s u r v i v a l and growth b e f o r e  i ti s  H .  preferable  2 + 1 i n s t e a d of 2 + 0  t o use  c r e a s e d use  of 2+1  the  j u d i c i o u s use  f.  The  stock.  This i n -  s t o c k may. be p a r t i a l l y o f f s e t t h r o u g h o f 1 + 0 s t o c k however.  i n f l u e n c e o f s i z e of s t o c k on s u r v i v a l Ackhurst  (1966)  r e v i e w e d some of the  literature  on the i n f l u e n c e of s i z e o f p l a n t i n g s t o c k on s u r v i v a l , and is  s u g g e s t e d t h a t the main advantage of u s i n g l a r g e i t s a b i l i t y to s u r v i v e p e r i o d s  ditions.  The  stock  of s e v e r e c l i m a t i c con-  s m a l l e r s t o c k , i f i t s u r v i v e s the  initial  c r i t i c a l p e r i o d , seems t o grow as w e l l as n o r m a l o r l a r g e r stock,  herconcluded. Tourney and K o r s t i a n  of s m a l l stock as being: cost of h a n d l i n g  and  (1942)  c i t e d the  advantages  1 ) l e s s e x p e n s i v e t o grow; 2 ) the  planting i s less; 3) less interrupt-  ion  of growth because o f l i f t i n g ,  and  4 ) the r o o t system i s l e s s l i a b l e t o i n j u r y . The  d i s a d v a n t a g e s o f the use 1)  t r a n s p o r t and  planting;  o f s m a l l s t o c k , t h e y say,  l e s s a b l e t o compete w i t h v e g e t a t i o n ;  and  are:  2 ) more s u s -  c e p t i b l e t o summer d r o u g h t . The and  l i t e r a t u r e on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s i z e  s u r v i v a l of D o u g l a s - f i r seedlings  ory.  contradict-  Some a u t h o r s s u g g e s t t h a t s u r v i v a l v a r i e s  with s i z e ; others others and  i s very  suggest a negative  directly  relationship; s t i l l  s u g g e s t t h a t t h e r e i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between s i z e  survival. Bamford  (1963)  found s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s  be-  15.  tween the  s u r v i v a l of small  and  (93.3  large  Walters  %)  (85.6 %) , average (88.6 %) ,  Douglas-fir seedlings.  Smith  and  (1965) suggested t h a t the most important v a r i a b l e  i n f l u e n c i n g s u r v i v a l i n some D o u g l a s - f i r p l a n t a t i o n s seedling height. erage and  tall  very  and  tall  h a v i n g the  They r e p o r t e d  seedlings short  had  on an experiment where  the h i g h e s t  short  killing  survived and  seedlings. seedlings  b e t t e r than t a l l  were the, t a l l e s t , poorly.  15  except f o r t a l l  two  small frost-  small  spindly  significant  seedlings  w i t h 15 to 20 i n c h  d i f f e r e n c e between the  smaller height  trees,  Hermann (1964p) found t h a t the  s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than those w i t h s m a l l e r  found no  class.  because of l e s s  the w i n t e r of the  by  They suggested, however, t h a t the most d e s i r a b l e  v i v a l of D o u g l a s - f i r  the  tall  A l l e n (1962) however found t h a t  exposure d u r i n g  which s u r v i v e d  was  the  compensated  t h e i r improved s u r v i v a l , except i n the v e r y  seedlings  seedlings  They concluded t h a t  e x t r a c o s t o f p l a n t i n g l a r g e s e e d l i n g s was  Smith and  av-  s u r v i v a l , then  s e e d l i n g s , w i t h very  lowest s u r v i v a l .  was  c l a s s e s , 5 to  sur-  tops  tops.  He  s u r v i v a l of  10 i n c h e s  and  10 to  inches. Knight  (1957) r e p o r t e d  i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the Douglas-fir  no  was  no  signif-  s u r v i v a l of d i f f e r e n t s i z e s o f  stock p l a n t e d  (1958) a l s o r e p o r t e d  t h a t there  on Vancouver I s l a n d .  Lavender  d i f f e r e n c e s i n s u r v i v a l between  s i z e c l a s s e s of D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s . (1965) suggested t h a t the  W a l t e r s and  s i z e of n u r s e r y  stock was  Kozak not  16.  a  r e l i a b l e  from a  measure  l i f t i n g  and  relationship  medium  g.  and  The  of  between  influence  on  pointed  of  and  subsequent that  quality  complicated emphasize  is  found  of  the  seedlings  Knight survival  of  Island.  Survival  Smith  et  seedlings  "good"  a l . had  and  similar  s i t e .  that  ( 1 9 5 7 )  ( 1 9 6 6 a )  apparent,  an  seedling  and  the  extensive size  growth.  a  and  They  combination t r i a l s  with  of  are  grade.  size  often They  morphological  characteristics  of  the  five  survival  "very  poor"  increased of  the  Prom  a  Douglas-fir  any  was  from  regardless  planting  suffered  where  s u r v i v a l !  between  assessed  survival  reported  ( 1 9 6 2 )  of  equated  stock,  that  of  that  seed-  understood.  ( 1 9 6 0 )  grades  was  f i e l d  physiological  grade,  on  on  that  relationship  and  recover  found  presented  based  is  the  stock  survival  are  size  Douglas-fir  subjective A l l e n  f i e l d  They  to  favoured.  influence  because  morphological quality  the  imperfectly  He  capacity  survival  ( 1 9 6 5 )  but  that  of  good";  Kozak  grades  Huntley grades  of  assessments,  characteristics lings  on  and were  grade  and  review  out  size  seedlings  Walters  grade  seedlings'  plantings-operations.  small  l i t e r a t u r e  the  only  of to  "very  d i r e c t l y  v a r i a t i o n  in  f i e l d  t r i a l  seedlings,  Smith  "poor"  and  with  "very  site  of  five  and poor"  mortality. found "poor" high  found  no  seedlings  for that  survival  differences  a l l  planted  means  "very rates.  between  and  good"  on  years and  Survival  the Vancouver  tested.  "very of  poor"  both  of  17.  these c l a s s e s was exceeded by "poor", "medium" and "good" seedlings. Because o f the many anomalies p r e s e n t  when sub-u  j e c t i v e grades are used as an i n d i c a t i o n o f s u r v i v a l p o t e n t ial  i n the f i e l d ,  many workers have proposed more  specific  i n d i c e s from which to e s t i m a t e f u t u r e performance i n the field. The  F o r e s t r y Commission ( 1 9 5 9 )  diameter o f the s e e d l i n g s  at the r o o t  reported  t h a t the  collar i s a critical  f a c t o r i n d e t e r m i n i n g the success o f s e e d l i n g s  i n the f i e l d ,  p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r s u r v i v a l and early, growth, w i t h i n c e r t a i n limits  of height.  They found the r o o t c o l l a r diameter to  be h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h shoot weight, r o o t weight and the number o f r o o t s . height  They b e l i e v e t h a t r o o t c o l l a r diameter arid  are p r o b a b l y more important than age, and p o s s i b l y  more important than t r a n s p l a n t i n g or u n d e r c u t t i n g pruning).  Smith and A l l e n ( 1 9 6 2 )  d i a m e t e r t o be one o f the best  a l s o rep o r t e d  (root  root  collar  measures of s e e d l i n g q u a l i t y .  They found i t to be h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h both shoot and root  weight. Hermann (1 g64<4) suggested t h a t s e e d l i n g s  high  top/root  sites,  s i n c e the a b s o r b i n g  to c o u n t e r a c t felt  r a t i o were u n d e s i r a b l e ,  with a  p a r t i c u l a r l y on poor  c a p a c i t y o f the r o o t s  i s unable  the t r a n s p i r a t i o n l o s s e s o f the crown.  t h a t the t o p / r o o t  ratio  critical  He  f o r s u r v i v a l would  v a r y w i t h s p e c i e s , p h y s i o l o g i c a l c o n d i t i o n o f the s t o c k , and  climate.  However,he b e l i e v e d  i  that s e e d l i n g s w i t h a  18.  w e l l - d e v e l o p e d r o o t system and than s m a l l  s e e d l i n g s w i t h poor r o o t (1942)  and K o r s t i a n seedlings  should  W a l t e r s and  be  d i r e c t e d to the  top/root  was  quote many s t u d i e s which have  pointed  out  t h a t the  to s u r v i v a l .  initial  soil.  physiol-  morphological  c o r r e l a t e d with root regenerating  e n t i a l . 'Hermann ( 1 9 6 4 c ) found the seedlings  that  w i t h poor r o o t s to be  of  development  a s a t i s f a c t o r y c r i t e r i o n f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g the s e e d l i n g s , but  sur-  ability  w i t h the  found t h a t the absence of r o o t  f a c t o r s were not  s u r v i v a l of  pot-  Douglas-fir  s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than  those w i t h good r o o t s , r e g a r d l e s s  of the  concluded t h a t r o o t development was  s i z e of top,  and  a good b a s i s f o r judg-  seedlings. Stone ( 1 9 6 6 )  undesirable  found the  shoots to be  concluded t h a t the  questionable  top growth to i n j u r y  was during  cannot w i t h s t a n d a h i g h m o i s t u r e s t r e s s .  Hermann ( 1 9 6 4 c ) succulent  suggested t h a t new  because i t i s r e a d i l y s u b j e c t  p l a n t i n g , and  but  ratio.  t r e e depends c h i e f l y on the  o g i c a l c o n d i t i o n o f the  ing  root/shoot  r o o t system to r e - e s t a b l i s h c o n t a c t  Stone ( 1 9 5 5 )  Tourney  r a t i o to be d e t r i m e n t a l  Smith ( 1 9 6 2 ) v i v a l of a p l a n t e d  systems.  suggested t h a t q u a l i t y i n s p e c t i o n of  Kozak ( 1 9 6 5 )  found a h i g h  its  l a r g e tops were b e t t e r  value  s u r v i v a l of seedlings  with  g e n e r a l l y lower than those w i t h o u t , s u c c u l e n c e of the  shoot was  of  as an index of grade.  Revel (1963g) seedlings with multiple  t e s t e d the v a l i d i t y or f o r k e d  tops,  of  culling  torn l a t e r a l  roots,  1 9 .  and  s p i n d l y stems.  with l i g h t  Revel  (1965) concluded  r o o t damage o r f o r k e d tops  s h o u l d not be ifications.  c u l l e d u n l e s s they f a i l He  millimeters.  ( w i t h one  dominant)  to meet o t h e r  spec-  recommended a minimum stem diameter  Smith and A l l e n  good s u r v i v a l and 15 c e n t i m e t e r s  that seedlings  of 3  (1962) recommended t h a t , f o r  growth, s e e d l i n g s should be not l e s s  tall  and  p r e f e r a b l y more than 25  w i t h a minimum r o o t c o l l a r diameter As W a l t e r s  than  centimeters,  of 2 m i l l i m e t e r s .  and Kozak (1965) p o i n t e d out,  the  g r a d i n g of p l a n t i n g s t o c k i s u s e f u l only when i t p r o v i d e s a reasonable  b a s i s f o r p r e d i c t i n g performance i n . t h e  They suggest  t h a t the problem i s c o m p l i c a t e d  by the  a c t i o n s between the p h y s i o l o g i c a l c o n d i t i o n of the the p l a n t i n g s i t e , weather and Kramer and K o z l o w s k i in  interstock,  climate, a n d , p l a n t i n g method.  (1960) s a i d t h a t the e s s e n t i a l  factors  s e e d l i n g s u r v i v a l a f t e r o u t p l a n t i n g have not been s a t -  i s f a c t o r i l y analyzed. of  field.  field  Revel  survey  f o r e s t e r s i n d i c a t e d v a r i a b l e o p i n i o n s as to what  c o n s t i t u t e d an a c c e p t a b l e evidence  (1962) r e p o r t e d t h a t a  to support  any  s e e d l i n g , but t h e r e was  little  of the o p i n i o n s g i v e n .  Because of the v e r y v a r i a b l e r e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d the l i t e r a t u r e i t i s d i f f i c u l t to  the b e s t i n d i c e s of f i e l d  the r o o t c o l l a r , branching  to a r r i v e a t a c o n c l u s i o n as  survival.  the t o p / r o o t r a t i o  of the r o o t s may  and  However, diameter  at  the degree of  r e p r e s e n t a good combination  c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h p h y s i o l o g i c a l c o n d i t i o n and measurement.  in  ease of  of  20.  h.  The  i n f l u e n c e of l i f t i n g  and  storage  Many a u t h o r s have r e p o r t e d of e a r l y f a l l planted 1964;  seedlings  late  l i n g s has  Todd, 1 9 6 4 ;  The  storage  on the  s u r v i v a l of Lavender,  1963).  Winjum,  of D o u g l a s - f i r  by D i c k ( 1 9 6 3 ) ,  been d i s c u s s e d  adverse e f f e c t s  Wright, 1 9 6 0 ;  e f f e c t o f c o l d storage  Todd ( 1 9 6 4 ) .  on the  spring l i f t i n g  (Lavender and  Stone, 1 9 6 6 ; The  and  and  on s u r v i v a l  seed-  Ruth ( 1 9 5 2 ,  1957)  e f f e c t of d i f f e r e n t combinations  lifting  and  times has  (1964),  Revel ( 1 9 6 3 f ) ,  and  been s t u d i e d by  Winjum ( 1 9 6 3 ) .  of  Lavender  A brief  summary  of t h e i r r e s u l t s f o l l o w s . Dick ( 1 9 6 3 ) storage results.  pointed  t e c h n i q u e and  length  much reduced by  was  a f f e c t e d by up  l i n g s subjected  yielded  on  conflicting  s u r v i v a l of I n t e r i o r Douglas-  storage to  t h a t experiments  of storage  D i c k found t h a t the  f i r was not  out  i n water, but  that s u r v i v a l  15 weeks of c o l d s t o r a g e .  Seed-  to more than 10 weeks of c o l d storage  had  reduced growth however. Todd ( 1 9 6 4 ) freshly l i f t e d  stock  survived  case of D o u g l a s - f i r  s t o r e d f o r two  w e l l as  freshly-dug  dates,  b e t t e r than s t o r e d ,  i n the  seedlings.  Ruth ( 1 9 5 2 ) stock  found t h a t f o r a l l l i f t i n g  reported  that D o u g l a s - f i r  planting  months p r i o r to p l a n t i n g s u r v i v e d Ruth ( 1 9 5 7 )  stock.  reported  that  as the  e a r l y s u r v i v a l of D o u g l a s - f i r i n a c o a s t a l Oregon p l a n t a t i o n was  s l i g h t l y b e t t e r with stored  a f t e r p l a n t i n g there were no Lavender ( 1 9 6 4 )  stock,  but  by  ".ten y e a r s  differences.  found t h a t the  s u r v i v a l of Douglas-  21 .  fir  seedlings l i f t e d  i n September, October and  s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced by ( °C.  ), but  lifted  storage  t h a t storage  had  April  a t 2 degrees  little  was  Centigrade  e f f e c t on  seedlings  d u r i n g November, December, January, February  or  March. Revel ( 1 9 6 3 f ) lifting,  reported  l e n g t h of storage  "dry") had  any  t h a t n e i t h e r time of  or type of storage  e f f e c t on e i t h e r the  growth of D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s .  ("wet" or  s u r v i v a l or  He  leader  s a i d t h a t the  ex-  cellent  s u r v i v a l of s e e d l i n g s s u b j e c t e d  to the  storage  conditions  muddy f o i l a g e ,  ( s i x months w i t h wet  severest  with  the  s e e d l i n g s l y i n g h o r i z o n t a l l y i n water) i n d i c -  ated  the  e x c e l l e n t storage  fir  q u a l i t i e s of 2+0  Douglas-  stock. Winjum ( 1 9 6 3 )  lifted  and  h a l f of which were p l a n t e d  the  s u r v i v a l of unstored  v i v a l when l i f t e d  Douglas-fir  and  immediately.  s t o c k was  s t o r e d s e e d l i n g s had  i n November and  Undoubtedly the  found t h a t  March.  98 %  sur-  Storage i n the  storage.  e f f e c t s of l i f t i n g and  storage  themselves through t h e i r e f f e c t s on the p h y s i o l -  o g i c a l c o n d i t i o n of the e f f e c t o f l i f t i n g and p o t e n t i a l of the on the  He  °C.  90 % o r c b e t t e r f o r  s p r i n g reduced s u r v i v a l more than f a l l  manifest  seedlings  h a l f of which were s t o r e d at 2  from October to May,  most l i f t i n g d a t e s ,  2+0  seedlings.  storage  The  i s on the  most important root  regenerating  s e e d l i n g s , which i s l a r g e l y dependent  carbohydrate  reserves.  22.  Stone  described  (1966)  growth i n D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s .  the p e r i o d i c i t y of root He p o i n t e d  out t h a t t h e  c a p a c i t y o f a s e e d l i n g t o r e g e n e r a t e new r o o t s depends upon i t s a b i l i t y t o a c t i v a t e t h e many s h o r t r o o t s s t i l l i n t a c t a f t e r l i f t i n g , and upon t h e s e e d l i n g ' s  a b i l i t y to i n i t i a t e  new r o o t s on t h e few l o n g s h o o t s t h a t r e m a i n . c r i b e s a simple  technique f o r determining  e r a t i n g p o t e n t i a l of nursery Lavender f i r seedlings a f t e r December  (1964)  Stone d e s -  the root  regen-  stock.  found t h a t t h e c a p a c i t y o f D o u g l a s -  t o produce a c t i v e r o o t s i s h i g h e r 1. The e f f e c t o f c o l d s t o r a g e  be most damaging t o a s e e d l i n g ' s  i f lifted  was found t o  root regenerating  e n t i a l i f s e e d l i n g s were l i f t e d b e f o r e  pot-  December 1 o r a f e r  t h e buds b e g i n t o s w e l l i n t h e s p r i n g . L a v e n d e r and W r i g h t  (1960)  a c t i v i t y of D o u g l a s - f i r seedlings  found t h a t t h e r o o t  l i f t e d a f t e r the f i r s t  o f November was s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r t h a n those l i f t e d i n September o r O c t o b e r . Todd lifted  (1964)  found t h a t a l l D o u g l a s - f i r  stock  a f t e r mid-December ( i n C a l i f o r n i a ) and b e f o r e  mid-  A p r i l t h a t s u r v i v e d i n a p l a n t i n g t e s t d e v e l o p e d new r o o t s . I n terms o f t o t a l number o f new r o o t s p r o d u c e d , he found t h a t f r e s h s t o c k was s u p e r i o r t o s t o r e d . Winjum  (1963)  f o u n d t h a t maximum and minimum  s u r v i v a l o f D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s was g e n e r a l l y r e l a t e d to r o o t development, i n d i c a t i n g a b e t t e r chance e x i s t s for  seedling establishment  when r o o t s a r e a c t i v e .  In a  K  l a b o r a t o r y e x a m i n a t i o n f o r r o o t growth, Winjum found  that  r o o t development was l o w i n b o t h e a r l y f a l l and l a t e spring.  S t o r e d s e e d l i n g s produced  fewer r o o t s i n the f a l l  and s p r i n g t h a n u n s t o r e d s t o c k , b u t a t l e a s t as many as unstored stock l i f t e d  i n the w i n t e r .  The most i n t e n s i v e a n a l y s e s on t h e i n f l u e n c e o f the c a r b o h y d r a t e r e s e r v e s on t h e r o o t r e g e n e r a t i n g p o t e n t i a l o f s e e d l i n g s a r e t h o s e o f Trappe and K r u e g e r Krueger  (1966), K r u e g e r and Trappe ( 1 9 6 7 ) , K r u e g e r  (1964), (1967)  and Winjum ( 1963). The  r e s u l t s of Krueger  (1966) a r e r e p r o d u c e d i n  F i g u r e 2. Winjum (1963) r e p o r t e d t h a t , o f t h e c a r b o h y d r a t e s he s t u d i e d , o n l y n o n - r e d u c i n g s u g a r formed a s i g n i f i c a n t t r e n d : low i n t h e f a l l , p e a k i n g i n F e b r u a r y , and f a l l i n g again i n l a t e spring.  He s u g g e s t e d t h a t , t h e n o n - r e d u c i n g  s u g a r c o n t e n t o f s e e d l i n g s might be a good i n d e x t o f a v o u r a b l e l i f t i n g d a t e s , s i n c e he found t h a t t h e n o n - r e d u c i n g s u g a r c o n t e n t a t t h e time o f l i f t i n g g e n e r a l l y p a r a l l e l l e d r o o t development and s u r v i v a l . On t h e b a s i s o f h i s r e s u l t s , K r u e g e r  (1966) r e c -  ommended t h a t f a l l l i f t i n g be done as l a t e as p o s s i b l e t o a l l o w d i a m e t e r growth t o s t o p and t o a l l o w f o r t h e b u i l d up o f c a r b o h y d r a t e r e s e r v e s o c c u r r i n g i n t h i s p e r i o d . p o i n t e d out that s e e d l i n g s l i f t e d are  h i g h e s t would  He  when c a r b o h y d r a t e r e s e r v e s  c o n t a i n maximum energy f o r use i n s t o r a g e .  K r u e g e r a l s o recommended t h a t s e e d l i n g s be l i f t e d  before  V) LU  u.l _  StJGARS  w u1  l \  '•a  ur  rr z (T T" C  TOP s  1 •J  ->  -  r  R O Ojrs  ro> 5 J  /  u r>*-  Ix  0oxs fx  -00cX rf < k  --  .. i  -  o  S T A RCrt  1  1  /  / Rate, of sho ot  / / /  3ii  —  —  -~"\ _/ '  i|  -  i  T  A  •rf % O CC  /f ~ -v  ;  \  1-  ^ x i i" i  \  0  19 62  N  n  •4-  -  I"  ,i  1 F  1.  1/  -i'lM  -Vt 4 !i  /\  M  /  R a t e of d i a n <  A.  Root  \  IV. /i All ••COST J>X fj _ o S-  i\  N  V  1  2 :  1 h  19 63  FIGIJ R E  0  h.  4' |  in cc rbo ivdrate  | || Doual as-; i rr i  r  Wind R vec .IN u r s ' e r v '(.A_  |  tion  _see«  sentes i n idsLdt  11 I I I aerierali7e'd  i ii | | T 1 | r.<ike L f r o m Krueae -• .1.9.6.6.)  /  \  \  .- >  1  / activity  ar  1  d e  _ i H '1u s t r fl-  J  \ \  \ \  V /  'i 964  uctuo tior  /  / -\  /  i  A-A-  v>.i  /  -A  \  te r 91"  1  \\  ? \  /  \l  V  \ i i  A  •- \  f  _/  il  \  7-  o  elongation  / F  \ \  i  i M  A  f  carbohydrate reserves  decrease i n the s p r i n g , so t h a t  energy w i l l be conserved to support ing  r o o t growth a f t e r plant-  r a t h e r than i n the n u r s e r y . Trappe and Krueger (1964) suggested t h a t l i f t i n g  be done i n mid-January and the s e e d l i n g s best  s p r i n g p l a n t i n g time, which they suggested was j u s t  before  the s p r i n g b u r s t of shoot growth.  that seedlings ule  s t o r e d u n t i l the  will  l i f t e d and p l a n t e d  They suggest  according  to t h i s  c o n t a i n the maximum l e v e l o f s t o r e d energy f o r  r o o t growth a f t e r p l a n t i n g .  They p o i n t out t h a t i f the  s e e d l i n g s a r e l i f t e d when carbohydrate r e s e r v e s t h i s energy w i l l be f u r t h e r reduced d u r i n g little  sched-  will  are low,  storage and  be l e f t to i n i t i a t e new r o o t growth a f t e r  planting. D i c k (1963) a l s o p o i n t e d changes occur vigour  during  storage  o f the s e e d l i n g .  s a i d , and be r e f l e c t e d  out t h a t  biochemical  whjc h w i l l be r e f l e c t e d  i n the  T h i s change may be s u b t l e , he i n growth but n o t i n s u r v i v a l .  He  emphasized the need to reduce the time between l i f t i n g and p l a n t i n g , and suggested ways i n which t h i s might be accomplished.  D i c k a l s o emphasized the need to keep the stock  i n a dormant c o n d i t i o n . some chemical fir  methods o f c o n t r o l l i n g the dormancy o f Dougla  seedlings).  stock  ( R i e t v e l d (1964) has d i s c u s s e d  Wycoff (1960) a l s o emphasized the need f o r  to be dormant when .placed ;.in- s t o r a g e . Tarrant  (1964) has a l s o d i s c u s s e d  o g i c a l changes which may occur  some p h y s i o l -  i n Douglas-fir  seedlings  during  storage.  Under d r y i n g  conditions, Tarrant  found  t h a t r o o t moisture decreased a t a f a s t e r r a t e than top m o i s t u r e , and t h a t the t o p / r o o t for  small  seedlings  d i f f e r e n t i a l drying  moisture r a t i o was  than f o r l a r g e .  higher  He suggests t h a t  r a t e may e x p l a i n some p u z z l i n g  this  spring  or e a r l y summer m o r t a l i t y . Lavender and Wright cent  (1964)  found t h a t the p e r  o f mycorrhizae on the r o o t s o f D o u g l a s - f i r  was c o r r e l a t e d w i t h both l i f t i n g seedlings  lifted  before  date and s u r v i v a l . . F o r  December they found a p o s i t i v e  c o r r e l a t i o n between s u r v i v a l and the p e r cent hizae;  f o r seedlings  correlation It that l i f t i n g  seedlings  lifted  o f mycorr-  a f t e r December 1 , no such  appeared. i s obvious from a review o f the l i t e r a t u r e date and storage  l e n g t h have an i n f l u e n c e on  the p h y s i o l o g i c a l c o n d i t i o n of the s e e d l i n g s .  It is  e q u a l l y obvious however, t h a t t h i s i n f l u e n c e does not always m a n i f e s t i t s e l f For i n s t a n c e sistent  i n reduced s u r v i v a l . Lavender ( 1 9 6 4 )  trend of higher  found an i n c o n -  s u r v i v a l with l a t e r l i f t i n g  a l t h o u g h the t r e n d was o f t e n s t a t i s t i c a l l y He a t t r i b u t e d the i n c o n s i s t e n c y d i t i o n s during  planting.  dates,  significant.  to d i f f e r i n g g w e a t h e r  con-  He a l s o found t h a t the t r e n d  was most n o t i c a b l e on "average o r worse" s i t e s .  Revel  (I963f) a t t r i b u t e d the l a c k o f d i f f e r e n c e i n s u r v i v a l o f seedlings  lifted  a t d i f f e r e n t times, s t o r e d by d i f f e r e n t  methods and f o r d i f f e r e n t l e n g t h s  of time to a c o o l and  wet  summer.  Winjum (1963) r e p o r t e d  that l i f t i n g  seedlings  between October and A p r i l appeared to a f f e c t m o r t a l i t y o n l y moderately when the stock was c a r e f u l l y  handled.  Langdon (1954) r e p o r t e d  t h a t c a r e f u l hand l i f t i n g  osed^to machine l i f t i n g  increased  southern pine  stock  by 19 7°.  as opp-  the s u r v i v a l o f some  Hermann (1964b) found  that  s u r v i v a l was decreased by exposures ( a t 90 degrees F a r e n heit  ( ° F . ) and 30 % r e l a t i v e h u m i d i t y ( R.H. )) o f  g r e a t e r than f i v e minutes f o r e a r l y - l i f t e d but  that f o r l a t e - l i f t e d  with  stock  120-minute exposures.  seedlings,  s u r v i v a l was good even  I f s e e d l i n g s were s t o r e d f o r  six. weeks i n s t e a d of three  (as above) any exposure was  lethal. The  above examples support the t h e s i s t h a t a l -  though l i f t i n g  and storage  i n f l u e n c e s the p h y s i o l o g i c a l  c o n d i t i o n o f the s e e d l i n g s , t h i s w i l l not n e c e s s a r i l y manifest  itself  i n reduced s u r v i v a l u n l e s s  or f a c t o r s a r e a l s o a d v e r s e . to ensure t h a t e a r l y - l i f t e d late-lifted few  spring-planted  I t i s therefore fall-planted  important  s e e d l i n g s and  seedlings are subjected  a d d i t i o n a l s t r e s s e s as p o s s i b l e .  ommends t h a t e a r l y - l i f t e d  some o t h e r f a c t o r  to as  Lavender (1964) r e c -  stock be p l a n t e d  on n o r t h ex-  posures, and Stone (1966) suggests t h a t when p l a n t i n g site  conditions  r e q u i r e the r a p i d r e g e n e r a t i o n  systems, p l a n t i n g should the  root regenerating Since  be r e s t r i c t e d  o f new r o o t  to the p e r i o d when  p o t e n t i a l i s high.  seedlings l i f t e d  e a r l y i n the f a l l  or late  28.  i n t h e s p r i n g have a reduced c a p a c i t y t o a b s o r b s o i l because o f t h e i r l o w e r e d r o o t r e g e n e r a t i n g should  be p l a n t e d  p o t e n t i a l , they  i n a r e a s where s o i l m o i s t u r e i s n e a r  c a p a c i t y , and t r a n s p i r a t i o n s t r e s s e s a r e n o t h i g h . e a r l y - l i f t e d f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings  holds f o r l a t e - l i f t e d According  field  I f the  a l s o have a h i g h t o p /  root r a t i o , t h i s i s doubly important.  The same p r i n c i p l e  spring-planted  seedlings.  t o Stone ( 1 9 6 6 ) i t i s p o s s i b l e t o con-  t r o l the r o o t r e g e n e r a t i n g nursery.  moisture  p o t e n t i a l of seedlings  i n the  Stone says t h a t i f the t e r m i n a l bud b r e a k s  the r o o t r e g e n e r a t i n g  while  p o t e n t i a l i s s t i l l h i g h , i t may be=.  n e c e s s a r y t o use a c o m b i n a t i o n o f e a r l y l i f t i n g and c o l d . storage  to o b t a i n s u i t a b l e s e e d l i n g s .  root regenerating  Stone f o u n d t h a t the  p o t e n t i a l can be l a r g e l y c o n t r o l l e d by  exposing the s e e d l i n g tops to c o l d weather.  He  suggests  t h a t a r e f r i g e r a t i o n system f o r some m j r s e r y  beds may be  desirable. 3.  The i n f l u e n c e o f s t o r a g e survival  a t t h e p l a n t i n g s i t e on  The i m p o r t a n c e o f p r o t e c t i n g D o u g l a s - f i r  seed-  l i n g r o o t s f r o m h i g h t e m p e r a t u r e s and low r e l a t i v e humidi t y has been i l l u s t r a t e d by Hermann  t e s t e d t h e e f f e c t o f exposure o f r o o t s a t 90 3 0 % R.H.  He f o u n d t h a t s m a l l s e e d l i n g s  were more a d v e r s e l y  Hermann  (1964b). 0  F. and  ( 5 t o 10 grams )  a f f e c t e d by e x p o s u r e s o f up t o 30 min-  u t e s t h a n were l a r g e ( 11 t o 15 grams) s e e d l i n g s , but t h a t  the  s i z e o f the s e e d l i n g made l i t t l e  posure times o f over 30 minutes. the  critical  d i f f e r e n c e with  Hermann concluded  that  l i m i t s of exposure v a r i e d c o n s i d e r a b l y  with  the p h y s i o l o g i c a l c o n d i t i o n of the  seedlings, since  r e a c t i o n of the s e e d l i n g s to d i f f e r e n t exposure depended on the l i f t i n g Dick  not  result  seedlings.  date and  the  times  the time i n s t o r a g e .  (1964a) found t h a t the use  compound to keep the did  ex-  of a h y d r o p h i l i c  s e e d l i n g s moist at the p l a n t i n g s i t e  i n i n c r e a s e d s u r v i v a l of Ponderosa  pine  Hermann (1962) found t h a t s e e d l i n g s w e l l -  puddled at the p l a n t i n g s i t e had s u r v i v a l than merely moistened  significantly  lower  seedlings.  Bamford (1963) s a i d t h a t the use  of  multi-walled  bags h e l p s keep the s e e d l i n g s i n good c o n d i t i o n , and v i a t e s the n e c e s s i t y of h e e l i n g - i n .  ob-  T h i s would depend  the t i m i n g o f the p l a n t i n g o p e r a t i o n and  on  c o n d i t i o n s at  the p l a n t i n g s i t e however. Mullin  (1962) r e p o r t e d  methods f o r white spruce lings.  The  on a t e s t of e i g h t  (Picea glauca  (Moench) Voss) seed-  methods t e s t e d were: 1) b a l e s , watered  and  unwatered; 2) h e e l i n g - i n , w i t h and without  watering;  circle-piling,  and  ethylene  and  w i t h and without  k r a f t bags.  be  stored.  ethylene  For storage  was  best;  p i l i n g with watering  4)  3)  poly-  best  l o n g the s e e d l i n g s were to  p e r i o d s of one  bags were b e s t ; f o r two  with watering  watering;  M u l l i n found t h a t the  storage method depended on how  storage  week or l e s s ,  poly-  weeks s t o r a g e , h e e l i n g - i n  f o r three weeks or l o n g e r ,  r e s u l t e d i n the h i g h e s t  circle-  survival.  30.  M u l l i n pointed  out t h a t s u c c e s s f u l f i e l d  storage  depends l a r g e l y on the weather, s u r v i v a l h e i n g enhanced by storage  i n c o l d weather compared t o h o t .  t h a t the weather and s i t e ing  He emphasized  conditions of a p a r t i c u l a r plant-  s i t e may e x e r t i n f l u e n c e s f a r i n excess of those o f  storage. 4.  S i t e p r e p a r a t i o n and s u r v i v a l  a.  Mulching The  planted The  i n f l u e n c e o f mulching on the s u r v i v a l of  s e e d l i n g s has been d e s c r i b e d by many  p o s s i b l e advantages o f the technique  of v e g e t a t i v e  competition;  m o i s t u r e by e v a p o r a t i o n  authors.  a r e : 1)  reduction  2) r e d u c t i o n of l o s s of s o i l  o r by t r a n s p i r a t i o n from competing  v e g e t a t i o n ; and 3) p o s s i b l e e x t e n s i o n  o f the p l a n t i n g  season. Most o f the l i t e r a t u r e  reports favourably  use  o f mulches t o i n c r e a s e s u r v i v a l .  and  Pitkin  ing  were e f f e c t i v e as s o i l m o i s t u r e c o n s e r v i n g  (1961)  reported  caused lower s u r v i v a l  However,Loewenstein  t h a t n e i t h e r mulching n o r s c a l p -  a d r y area i n Idaho, and P r u e t t ing  on the  (1959)  reported  agents i n t h a t mulch-  ( by 30 % ) as a r e s u l t of  i n c r e a s e d r a b b i t damage. Champagne ( 1 9 5 4 )  reported  t h a t the s u r v i v a l o f r e d  pine was i n c r e a s e d by 20 % a f t e r two growing seasons through the use o f a wood-chip mulch.  31.  Hermann ( 1 9 6 4 a ) r e p o r t e d on the u s e f u l n e s s o f a paper mulch t e c h n i q u e i n i n c r e a s i n g the s u r v i v a l o f 2+0 D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s on n i n e combinations and t o p o g r a p h i c p o s i t i o n s .  of c l i m a t i c  He found t h a t the s u r v i v a l o f  the s e e d l i n g s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n c r e a s e d on a l l s i t e s t e s t e d when the mulch was used.  He a l s o found t h a t where  the c l i m a t e was most f a v o u r a b l e f o r s u r v i v a l , ; the mulch made the l e a s t d i f f e r e n c e .  The e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the mulch  was not r e l a t e d to the steepness suggested  t h a t t h e r e was l i t t l e  o f the s l o p e .  Hermann  to be gained from the use  of the mulch where s i t e s were v e r y f a v o u r a b l e to s u r v i v a l , or v e r y a d v e r s e . moderately hazard.  He recommended  the use o f the mulch on  severe s i t e s where brush c o m p e t i t i o n was a  He found no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t the mulch a t t r a c t e d  r o d e n t s o r deer to the s e e d l i n g s . b.  Other  techniques  . R o t t y ( I 9 5 8 a , b ) d e s c r i b e d two S p a n i s h t e c h n i q u e s a p p l i c a b l e to p l a n t i n g i n dry a r e a s . nique i n v o l v e d p l a c i n g t h r e e r o c k s around The  planting One t e c h -  the s e e d l i n g .  advantages o f t h i s , a c c o r d i n g to R o t t y a r e : 1) r e d -  u c t i o n o f l o s s o f s o i l moisture by s u r f a c e e v a p o r a t i o n ; 2)  c r e a t i o n o f a permanently  c u l t i v a t e d area around the  s e e d l i n g ; 3) r e d u c t i o n o f f r o s t h e a v i n g ; 4)  shading the  base o f the s e e d l i n g ; and 5) takes o n l y a few seconds i n rocky a r e a s .  The second  technique d e s c r i b e d by R o t t y  i'nvolved p l a n t i n g the s e e d l i n g i n a dish-shaped h o l e .  He  reported i n dry  t h a t t h i s technique e f f e c t i v e l y conserved moisture areas. Adams et a l . ( 1 9 6 6 )  shading D o u g l a s - f i r seedlings i n the  ground to the  reported  on the u s e f u l n e s s  by means o f s h i n g l e s  south-west of the  seedling.  of  placed They  t e s t e d t h i s p r a c t i c e on a v a r i e t y of s i t e s i n C a l i f o r n i a . They found t h a t the to three being  s u r v i v a l of shaded s e e d l i n g s was  times t h a t of unshaded, the g r e a t e s t  on the most c r i t i c a l  cost of shading to be A l l e n (1962)  Smith and  sites.  3 to 4 cents reported  had  little  i n f l u e n c e on the  fir  i n an experiment at Haney,  5.  The  a.  P l a n t i n g methods  planting operation  According  and  i s looked  undesirable  B.C. survival  Tree p l a n t i n g ,  upon as an extremely monotonous, job, and  Bamford recommends the use  vantages of permanent crews as b e i n g :  crew has  He 1)  boring,  of  c i t e s the  the  small, ad-  crew becomes  maintenance of h i g h p r o d u c t i v i t y ; 3)  a permanent i n t e r e s t i n t h e i r jobs; and  w i l l form the n u c l e u s of expanded crews and setters.  he  the work of the p l a n t i n g crew  more or l e s s permanent f o r e s t r y crews.  2)  Douglass  to Bamford;l( 1963) , p l a n t i n g i s the  " g e n e r a l l y shows i t " .  proficient;  However,  degree of shade  s u r v i v a l of p l a n t e d  and  the  seedling.  that the  "weakest l i n k of the whole p r o c e s s " . says,  difference  They r e p o r t e d per  two  4)  the they  a c t as pace  Bamford a l s o suggests t h a t some form of i n c e n t i v e  33.  system may be d e s i r a b l e . Robson reducing  a l s o s u g g e s t e d a number o f ways o f  (1966)  l a b o u r problems i n p l a n t i n g crews.  He s u g g e s t e d :  1) t h e use o f permanent f o r e s t r y crews; 2 ) g l a m o r i z i n g t r e e p l a n t i n g ; 3 ) m e c h a n i z a t i o n ; 4 ) added i n c e n t i v e ; and 5)  t h e use o f c o n t r a c t o r s . Smith et a l .  (1961)  said that  better planting  p r a c t i c e s c o u l d be d e v e l o p e d by i m p r o v i n g t r a i n i n g o f p l a n t e r s , i m p r o v i n g crew o r g a n i z a t i o n , c a r e f u l p l a n t i n g , and ensuring  an adequate number o f s e e d l i n g s p e r day. L i t t l e q u a n t i t a t i v e work has been done on d e t -  e r m i n i n g t h e b e s t c o m b i n a t i o n o f p l a n t i n g p r o d u c t i o n and survival.  S m i t h e_t a l .  (1961)  reported  good s u r v i v a l w i t h  1+0 and 2 + 0 D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s p l a n t e d  at a rate of 1 1 0 0  t r e e s p e r man day, i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r a b r o a d c a s t b u r n . However S m i t h and A l l e n  (1962)  suggest that a p l a n t i n g r a t e  of 7 5 0 2 + 0 s e e d l i n g s p e r man day has. p r o v i d e d p l a n t i n g a t an a c c e p t a b l e S m i t h and W a l t e r s  (1965)  good q u a l i t y  l e v e l of labour p r o d u c t i v i t y . reported  lower production  for  fall  p l a n t i n g than f o r s p r i n g p l a n t i n g . The  s e e d l i n g i t s e l f a l s o has an i n f l u e n c e on  planting production.  S m i t h and W a l t e r s  (1965)  reported  t h a t t h e p l a n t i n g time / s u r v i v a l r a t i o was s i m i l a r f o r all  s i z e s of seedlings  they t e s t e d , except f o r "very  s e e d l i n g s , where t h e r a t i o was h i g h e r .  They a l s o  tall"  reported  t h a t t h e t i m e t o p l a n t r o o t - p r u n e d s t o c k was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from t h e time r e q u i r e d t o p l a n t unpruned stock.  34.  Walters  (1963)  reported  that using a p l a n t i n g  and " b u l l e t s " , a p l a n t i n g r a t e o f 1 5 0 0 s e e d l i n g s p e r  "gun"  h o u r was a c h i e v e d , u s i n g 8 ' by 8 ' Williams  (1949)  reported  spacing. t h a t t h e B.C.  Forest  S e r v i c e 'estimated that o n e - h a l f of the m o r t a l i t y i n i t s p l a n t i n g p r o j e c t s was caused by poor p l a n t i n g .  He a t t r i b -  uted the poor p l a n t i n g p r a c t i c e s t o the short d u r a t i o n o f the p l a n t i n g p r o j e c t s , and s a i d t h a t i t c o u l d o n l y be o f f s e t by c l o s e  supervision.  Cushman and Weidman s u r v i v a l o f Ponderosa pine was i n c r e a s e d  (1937)  (Pinus  reported  that the  ponderosa Laws.)  seedlings  by 11 $ t h r o u g h " c a r e f u l " p l a n t i n g o v e r  "normal" p l a n t i n g , b u t no m e n t i o n was made o f how much production  was d e c r e a s e d .  Careful planting  included  t a m p i n g t o remove a i r p o c k e t s , p l a c i n g t h e r o o t s  straight  down i n h o l e s o f p r o p e r d e p t h , p l a n t i n g f r e e f r o m sod compe t i t i o n and p l a n t i n g i n shade when a v a i l a b l e . S m i t h e_t a l . years, but  (1961)  suggested t h a t , i n normal  t h e q u a l i t y o f p l a n t i n g has l i t t l e  e f f e c t on s u r v i v a l ,  that i n drought years c a r e f u l l y p l a n t e d  s e e d l i n g s im-  prove s u r v i v a l chances. b.  P l a n t i n g techniques i.  Mattock p l a n t i n g S c h u b e r t and Ray  (1959)  t e s t e d a "sandwich" p l a n t -  i n g method, whereby t h e r o o t s a r e encased between two p i e c e s o f v a - s t i f f w a t e r - a b s o r b e n t f i b r o u s m a t e r i a l w h i c h were s t a p l e d  to-gether.  However, the r o o t s d i d n o t grow out o f the sand-  wiches i n t o deeper s o i l where moisture was a v a i l a b l e , and s u r v i v a l was n o t improved. Dick and  (1964b),  Mullin ( 1 9 6 4 )  creased  with  experimenting  w i t h Ponderosa p i n e ,  r e d p i n e , found t h a t s u r v i v a l i n -  w i t h depth o f p l a n t i n g .  Koshi  (1960)  however,  found t h a t deep p l a n t i n g o f Ponderosa pine d i d n o t i n c r e a s e s u r v i v a l d u r i n g wet y e a r s .  Bamford ( 1 9 6 3 )  p l a n t i n g D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s too shallow 1-§- i n c h e s above the s o i l  surface)  showed t h a t (root c o l l a r  significantly  s u r v i v a l , but t h a t p l a n t i n g too deep d i d n o t . not  1 -  reduced Bamford d i d  r e p o r t any b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t s from deep p l a n t i n g , how-  ever. Rudolf  (1939)  d e s c r i b e d the d e t r i m e n t a l  of p l a n t i n g r e d pine and j a c k v p i n e roots i n t o a s i n g l e plane,  effects  (Pinus banksiana Lamb.)  r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r r o r not  the r o o t s were p l a n t e d v e r t i c a l l y .  Brace ( 1 9 6 4 )  no p r a c t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n the s u r v i v a l o f white  reported spruce  s e e d l i n g s p l a n t e d by two p l a n t i n g methods, one which posed o f the s e e d l i n g r o o t s i n a h o r i z o n t a l plane to  the s o i l  dis-  close  s u r f a c e , and another where the r o o t s were  p l a c e d i n the p l a n t i n g h o l e Hetherington  vertically.  (1963b)  found no s i g n i f i c a n t  diff-  erences i n the s u r v i v a l o f s e e d l i n g s p l a n t e d a t three different permit  spacings,  even though the wider s p a c i n g would  a greater choice of p l a n t i n g s i t e s .  ii.  Container Walters  planting  (1961) reviewed the h i s t o r y of mechanized  p l a n t i n g methods, and p l a n t i n g "gun" that  and  the  t e s t s c a r r i e d out  period.  to W a l t e r s , standard seedlings  described  white spruce and  Carmen ( 1 9 6 4 )  a field  achieved  trial  lodgepole  with  (Pinus  c o n t o r t a Dougl*.  Excellent survival  S u r v i v a l was still  p l a n t i n g of  o l d e r on a  lowest i n  low-  s u p e r i o r to convent-  stock. Illingworth  trial  subsequent  Ackerman et a l .  e i g h t weeks and  e l e v a t i o n f r o s t p o c k e t s , but i o n a l 2+0  and  of container  pine  seedlings  wide v a r i e t y o f s i t e s .  the  growth.  v a r . l a t i f o l i a Engelm.) i n A l b e r t a . was  high  W a l t e r s emphasized the damage to  r e d u c t i o n i n s u r v i v a l and  (1965)  and  according  a uniformly  caused by mattock p l a n t i n g , and  C r o s s l e y and  says  l e n g t h of p l a n t -  system a r e ,  reduced p l a n t i n g c o s t s and  of p l a n t i n g .  He  p r a c t i aes i n terms  j u v e n i l e growth, and  Other advantages of the  the  between 1 9 5 7  system i s s u p e r i o r to p r e s e n t  of s e e d l i n g s u r v i v a l , ing  the advantages o f  " b u l l e t " developed by him.  (based on f i e l d  1960)  discussed  of c o n t a i n e r  Vancouver I s l a n d .  (1966a)  a preliminary  p l a n t i n g of D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s Seedlings  i e t y of s i t e s , i n m i d - J u l y . because of the  described  were p l a n t e d  on  on a wide v a r -  I l l i n g w o r t h concluded  d i s p a r i t y between l a t h e - h o u s e and  that  field  environments, mid-season p l a n t i n g of v e r y young b u l l e t e d seedlings  i n t h i s r e g i o n was  more hazardous than d e s i r a b l e  37. for  operational planting.  F u r t h e r t e s t s a r e underway by the  Canada Department o f F o r e s t r y which w i l l e l u c i d a t e t h i s problem. 6.  The i n f l u e n c e o f f e r t i l i z e r s survival after outplanting  a.  Fertilizers  and o t h e r c h e m i c a l s on  The purpose o f a d d i n g f e r t i l i z e r s  t o the s o i l s u r r -  ounding the s e e d l i n g d u r i n g p l a n t i n g i s t o i n c r e a s e the i n i t i a l growth o f the s e e d l i n g .  A r e v i e w o f the l i t e r a t u r e  reveals  t h a t t h i s p r a c t i c e has a v a r i a b l e e f f e c t on s u r v i v a l . Loewenstein (1964) reported  that p e l l e t e d f e r t i l -  i z e r s had no e f f e c t on t h e s u r v i v a l o f D o u g l a s - f i r p l a n t e d i n Idaho.  S i m i l a r r e s u l t s were o b t a i n e d  seedlings  by R o t h a c h e r  and F r a n k l i n ( 1 9 6 5 ) . Smith et a l . (1966b) reported ilization  conducted a t G o l d R i v e r  that seedling  B.C. r e v e a l e d  fert-  t h a t when  the f e r t i l i z e r m a t e r i a l was p l a c e d i n the p l a n t i n g h o l e w i t h out a p r o t e c t i v e l a y e r o f s o i l , m o r t a l i t y was  increased.  S u r v i v a l was not a f f e c t e d when t h e r e was a b a r r i e r o f s o i l between the f e r t i l i z e r and t h e D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g r o o t s . S m i t h and A l l e n ( 1 9 6 2 ) r e p o r t e d when D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s were f e r t i l i z e d p l u s phosphorous p l u s p o t a s s i u m .  increased s u r v i v a l with  nitrogen  However they a l s o  t h a t c l i p p i n g by h a r e s was most severe on s e e d l i n g s ized with nitrogen, e s p e c i a l l y nitrogen alone.  reported fertil-  38.  Smith e_t a l . ( 1966b) found t h a t the m o r t a l i t y of D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y through the use o f f e r t i l i z e r s ,  increased  but was s t i l l  "acceptable".  W a l t e r s _et a l . (1966) t r e a t e d D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s f i v e forms o f s l o w - r e l e a s e Urea.  fertilizers,  with  a l l containing  S u r v i v a l o f the c o n t r o l group o f s e e d l i n g s was  100 %, and f o r the f e r t i l i z e d  averaged 97.6 %.  White (1965) concluded t h a t f e r t i l i z e r s  c o u l d be  used to improve growth a f t e r p l a n t i n g without i n c r e a s i n g mortality.  However, White and E l l i s  fertilizers  with  slow-release  the m o r t a l i t y of r e d pine was p l a c e d b.  ( 1965)  characteristics  that  increased  s e e d l i n g s when the f e r t i l i z e r  i n the r o o t i n g zone.  Other g r o w t h - i n d u c i n g  substances  Loewenstein (1964) r e p o r t e d substances were a p p a r e n t l y production. eously  reported  t h a t some growth  e f f e c t i v e i n promoting r o o t  I f so, these c h e m i c a l s might be advantag-  a p p l i e d t o the s e e d l i n g s  s h o r t l y before  thus i n d u c i n g r o o t growth and/or the p r o d u c t i o n  planting, of new  roots. Osburn ( 1 9 6 0 ) , Rediske  (1960) r e p o r t e d  Smith and A l l e n (1962) and t h a t the a p p l i c a t i o n o f g i b b -  e r e l l i n s had no e f f e c t on the growth o f D o u g l a s - f i r seedlings. 100  Rediske r e p o r t e d  parts per m i l l i o n  that concentrations of  (ppm) o r g r e a t e r had a l e t h a l  e f f e c t on the s e e d l i n g s .  39.  However Osburn (1960) preparation  called  found t h a t a commercial  " T r a n s p l a n t o n e " gave a c c e l e r a t e d  i n i t i a t i o n and development.  He found the treatment of the  c h e m i c a l t o be simple and i n e x p e n s i v e , nursery  or f i e l d  root  conditions.  and adaptable t o  In a f i e l d  pound, Osburn found t h a t s e e d l i n g s  t e s t o f the com-  t r e a t e d w i t h t h e chem-  i c a l had twice as many r o o t s and r o o t s which were twice as l o n g as the u n t r e a t e d after planting.  seedlings  s i x and f o u r t e e n weeks  The t r e a t e d s e e d l i n g s  a l s o had h i g h e r  survival. c.  Transpiration  retardants  Maguire (1952) preparation  called  t e s t e d the e f f e c t o f a commercial  "Plantcote"  Although i t i s d i f f i c u l t  as a t r a n s p i r a t i o n r e t a r d a n t .  to evaluate  the worth o f the chem-  ical  from h i s paper, he concluded that the c h e m i c a l may  give  the nurseryman and p l a n t e r more l a t i t u d e i n a l l o f  the o r d i n a r y drying-out the  operations  i s a factor.  from l i f t i n g  to p l a n t i n g , where  Loewenstein (1964)  t r a n s p i r a t i o n retardants  (1961)  that  have no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t  on the s u r v i v a l o f D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s Mowat  reported  planted  i n Idaho.  found t h a t a commercial t r a n s p i r a t i o n r e t a r d -  ant named "Ceremul C" had a v a r i a b l e e f f e c t on s u r v i v a l , and  i n some cases i n c r e a s e d  mortality.  7.  The i n f l u e n c e o f time o f p l a n t i n g on s u r v i v a l Smith et a l . (1961)  suggested t h a t there was  40.  little  evidence to support the  r e s u l t s i n higher  t h e s i s that spring p l a n t i n g  s u r v i v a l than f a l l  planting.  However^  many workers have found t h a t s p r i n g p l a n t i n g r e s u l t s i n higher  s u r v i v a l than f a l l  i s p r e s e n t e d l a t e r i n the the h i g h e r ing  p l a n t i n g , and text.  Some p o s s i b l e reasons f o r  s u r v i v a l of s p r i n g - p l a n t e d  to Tourney and  spring planting: ers are not  Korstian 1) the  hindered  by  f u r t h e r evidence  seedlings  (1942), t h a t i n the  snow; 3)  there  the  to become e s t a b l i s h e d before  In the  case of  case of f a l l  and  is little  or w i n t e r k i l l i n g ;  weather.  accord-  s o i l i s i n good c o n d i t i o n ; 2)  frost-heaving seedlings  are,  4)  there  plant-  danger of  i s time f o r  the .hot  dry  p l a n t i n g , however: 1)  frost-  h e a v i n g i s a h a z a r d , e s p e c i a l l y on heavy c l a y s ; 2) t h e r e a danger from wind and wet  s o i l s the  p l a n t i n g has  r o o t s are l i a b l e  fall  can be  r o o t growth and  that f a l l and  should  heavier  seen from F i g u r e  f a l l - p l a n t i n g are  or  However, f a l l p l a n t i n g season.  be  well-prot-  selected  soils  should  a few  2 t h a t the best  j u s t before  while carbohydrate reserves  corresponds w i t h Tourney and  fall,  on heavy  for be  for spring planting.  s p r i n g and  ions  3)  K o r s t i a n recommended t h a t  p l a n t i n g ; exposed s i t e s and  It for  to decay.  s i t e s w i t h porous open s o i l s  reserved  and  the advantage o f e x t e n d i n g the  Tourney and ected  winter k i l l i n g ;  is  p l a n t i n g be  Korstian's  the  times  f l u s h of  are h i g h .  This  (1942) recommendat-  done a f t e r growth ceases i n the  weeks before  i t s t a r t s i n the  A l t h o u g h these appear to be  the best  spring. times f o r  41 .  p l a n t i n g , p l a n t i n g on the c o a s t o f B r i t i s h Columbia obv i o u s l y cannot be c o n f i n e d to these s h o r t p e r i o d s . fore, some m a n i p u l a t i o n o f r o o t and shoot growth lifting  There-  through  and s t o r i n g s c h e d u l e s i s d e s i r a b l e . W a l t e r s and Soos ( 1 9 6 1 a )  p l a n t e d 2+0 and 1 + 1  D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s monthly from m i d - A p r i l t o mid-May, and  compared each month's s u r v i v a l t o November's.  They  found t h a t J u l y m o r t a l i t y was the h i g h e s t i n both y e a r s tested  (1958,  1959).  W a l t e r s and Soos suggested  that i t  seems r e a s o n a b l e t o advance the commencement date of f a l l p l a n t i n g t o September, p a r t i c u l a r l y a f t e r summer p r e c i p i t a t i o n . s u r v i v a l cannot  .above-average  They emphasize however t h a t h i g h  be expected every year merely because  a  p l a n t i n g date i s chosen i n a c c o r d w i t h t h e i r g e n e r a l recommendations.  They a l s o suggest t h a t when p r e c i p i t -  a t i o n i s above-average  i n A p r i l , May and June,  mortality  may be m a i n t a i n e d a t an a c c e p t a b l e r a t e i f p l a n t i n g i s t o be done d u r i n g these months.  However, w i t h the low p r e c -  i p i t a t i o n and h i g h temperatures  common i n the s p r i n g ,  s e e d l i n g m o r t a l i t y may be i n t o l e r a b l e .  P a l l p l a n t i n g on  the o t h e r hand y i e l d s good r e s u l t s i n s u r v i v a l i n p e r i o d s of  average  weather c o n d i t i o n s , and s a t i s f a c t o r y  f o l l o w i n g a summer Armit  results  drought.  (1961)  r e p o r t e d t h a t the s u r v i v a l o f I n t -  e r i o r D o u g l a s - f i r was h i g h e r when p l a n t e d i n l a t e ( 80 % ) compared t o l a t e May ( 2 5 % ) .  April  8.  The  i n f l u e n c e of s l a s h b u r n i n g The  chemical  and  b i o l o g i c a l p r o p e r t i e s of the s o i l have been  A u s t i n and  authors. Baisinger (1955),  and Hopkins ( 1 9 3 7 ) ,  reduced m o i s t u r e - h o l d i n g the  survival  e f f e c t s of s l a s h b u r n i n g on the p h y s i c a l ,  d i s c u s s e d by numerous  Isaac  on  and  Dyrness e_t a l . ( 1 9 5 7 ) ,  Neal e_t a l . ( 1 9 6 5 )  reported  c a p a c i t i e s i n the upper i n c h e s  s o i l on moderately to s e v e r e l y burned s o i l s .  (1956a)  found t h a t severe  ure movement, and burning  Tarrant  of  Tarrant  burning  lowers the r a t e of  (1956b)  reported that  moist-  light  i n c r e a s e d the p e r c o l a t i o n r a t e o f water i n the  soil. Isaac (1958)  reported  s e v e r e l y burned  and Hopkins, Dyrness at a l . , A u s t i n e_t a l . reduced o r g a n i c matter i n moderately areas.  Slashburning nutrient  or  s t a t u s of the  has  o f t e n been r e p o r t e d  soil.  to a f f e c t  A u s t i n and B a i s i n g e r  the  (1955),  working i n western Washington and  Oregon r e p o r t e d t h a t mod-  e r a t e l y and  showed l e s s t o t a l  s e v e r e l y burned spots  and more c a l c i u m than i n l i g h t l y in  the top 2 i n c h e s of the s o i l .  reported and  burned or unburned  areas,  and Hopkins  (1937)  reduced a v a i l a b l e n i t r o g e n i n h o t l y burned  areas,  Neal et a l . ( 1 9 6 5 )  on burned areas  reported  Isaac  a decline i n total  (1956b)  nitrogen  compared to unburned, t o - g e t h e r w i t h  i n c r e a s e i n the amount o f carbon on the burned Tarrant  nitrogen  reported  an5  areas.  t h a t i n l i g h t l y burned areas  t o t a l exchangeable n i t r o g e n , phosphorous and  potassium  the  exceeded t h a t o f unburned a r e a s , capacity  but t h a t the c a t i o n exchange  ( C.E.C. ) remained unchanged.  Exchangeable  nit-  rogen and the C.E.C. were s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced on s e v e r e l y burned a r e a s ,  but the amount o f a v a i l a b l e phosphorous and  potassium g r e a t l y exceeded t h a t of unburned Slashburning affect  soil  reaction.  t h a t the upper s o i l acid with  has a l s o been r e p o r t e d to s e v e r e l y Wright and T a r r a n t  surface  ( 0 - 1 ^ -  (1957)  reported  i n . ) became l e s s  i n c r e a s i n g i n t e n s i t y o f the s l a s h b u r n .  lower l e v e l  ( 1-g- - 3 i n . )  were s i g n i f i c a n t l y (1959)  areas.  At a  only s e v e r e l y burned  soils  l e s s a c i d than unburned s o i l s .  also reported  that s o i l s  to  weakly a l k a l i n e a f e r b u r n i n g ,  to  a c i d a f t e r four years.  Madison  changed from s t r o n g l y a c i d but t h a t the s o i l  N e a l e_t a l . ( 1 9 6 5 )  also  returned reported  t h a t pH i n c r e a s e d at a r a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to i n creasing f i r e  intensity.  Tarrant  (1956b)  reported  burned s o i l s had a h i g h e r pH than unburned The  e f f e c t of slashburning  that  soils.  on the p h y s i c a l prop-  e r t i e s o f the s o i l has a l s o been d i s c u s s e d by numerous authors.  Dyrness at a l . ( 1 9 5 7 )  found t h a t severe  g r e a t l y reduced the p e r cent s i l t of a s o i l (1937)  a l t e r e d by  direct  Isaac  and Hopkins  t h a t the s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e o f the s o i l  was  slashburning. Isaac  blackened  and c l a y i n the top 2 i n .  i n the C o r v a l l i s watershed.  reported  burning  (1938)  by f i r e  sunlight.  found t h a t the temperature of s o i l  g r e a t l y exceeded t h a t o f normal s o i l s , i n Neal e_t a l . ( 1 9 6 5 )  also reported  temperatures on burned than on unburned s o i l s .  greater  Hermann  44.  (1963)  t e s t e d three  types  erature d i f f e r e n c e s .  He  of burned s o i l  s u r f a c e s f o r temp-  found: 1 ) t h a t t h e r e was  a greater  d i u r n a l temperature range under unburned than burned s u r f a c e s ; 2)  a g r e a t e r d i u r n a l temperature range under  c h a r c o a l than under unburned l i t t e r ; and e r a t u r e s beneath unburned and  beneath c h a r c o a l and measured two  3)  t h a t the  maxima and  unburned l i t t e r .  i n c h e s below the s o i l  minima than  Temperatures were  s u r f a c e , one  inch into  soil. Tarrant  slashburning  (1956b)  and Wright  (1964)  found t h a t  appeared to reduce the number o f mycorrhizae  associated with The  the r o o t s of D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s .  undesirable  e f f e c t s of s l a s h b u r n i n g are  u r a l l y most n o t i c e a b l e on s e v e r e l y burned s o i l s . authors  r e p o r t no  d i f f e r e n c e s i n the  measured between unburned and  lightly  watershed, o n l y 8 % of the a r e a e r e l y burned. occurred  (1956a)  i n the  r e p o r t e d t h a t severe  sevburning  burned  study.  The by  and  Of  Corvallis  c l a s s e d as  on l e s s than 5 % of the t o t a l logged  area of h i s  modified  Tarrant  they  burned s o i l s .  c o u l d be  nat-  Many  characters  the area examined by Dyrness e_t a l . ( 1957)  main f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g s u r v i v a l which may  s l a s h b u r n i n g are s o i l  nutrient a v a i l a b i l i t y , •In most cases  these  be  temperature, a i r temp-  e r a t u r e near the ground, s o i l m o i s t u r e - h o l d i n g  vival,  temp^  s u r f a c e s burned to b r i g h t red  c i n d e r s reached g r e a t e r s e a s o n a l  mineral  soil  capacity,  amount of mycorrhizae and  soil  f a c t o r s are made d e t r i m e n t a l to  to some degree, by moderate or hot burns.  pH.  sur-  However  45.  s l a s h b u r n i n g has two d e s i r a b l e e f f e c t s on p l a n t i n g i n gene r a l and s u r v i v a l i n p a r t i c u l a r . enables  Firstly,  slashburning  the p l a n t e r to p l a n t w i t h b e t t e r q u a l i t y and a t a  f a s t e r r a t e than on unburned areas of s l a s h and v e g e t a t i o n . at l e a s t ,  because o f the removal  Secondly, s l a s h b u r n i n g ,  initially  reduces the amount o f brush c o m p e t i t i o n  seedlings.  Morris  (1958)  reported  t h a t brush crowns cov-  ered a g r e a t e r p a r t of unburned than burned areas least  f i v e t o seven y e a r s The  effect  after  f o r at  burning.  of slashburning  p l a n t e d D o u g l a s - f i r should  to the  on the s u r v i v a l o f  be e v a l u a t e d  f o r eaeh a r e a , and  i t s b e n e f i t s ( i n c l u d i n g the r e d u c t i o n ojf? f i r e weighed a g a i n s t i t s d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t s .  hazard)  I t appears t h a t  whereverr brush i n v a s i o n may be a problem, the b e n e f i t s o f slashburning burning  outweigh i t s d i s a d v a n t a g e s .  However, s l a s h v~\  may f a v o u r the growth of some 'species, such  as E p i l o b i u m  angustifolium.  Many authors w i t h the e f f e c t  have d i s c u s s e d  of slashburning  Douglas-fir seedlings.  experiments d e a l i n g  on the s u r v i v a l o f p l a n t e d  The r e s u l t s o f these  are v a r i a b l e and o f t e n y i e l d Smith e_t a l . ( 1 9 6 1 )  conflicting  experiments  results.  suggested t h a t , i n a l l y e a r s ,  c o s t s o f p l a n t i n g a r e reduced and growth i n c r e a s e d by the c o n t r o l l e d burning  of slash.  T h i s may n o t be t r u e on a l l  s i t e s however, o r f o r a l l degrees of burn. found l i t t l e fir  Gockerell  d i f f e r e n c e i n the s u r v i v a l o f p l a n t e d  between burned and unburned a r e a s ,  (1966)  Douglas-  and t h a t there were  fewer n a t u r a l s e e d l i n g s on unburned a r e a s . (1962)  Allen  found no  d i f f e r e n c e i n the  Smith  and 1+0  s u r v i v a l of  D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s p l a n t e d on l i g h t l y and heavilyburned  soils. Isaac  and Hopkins ( 1 9 3 7 )  r e p o r t e d reduced  survival  when D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s were t r a n s p l a n t e d to spots where fire  had  reduced the  s u r f a c e of the s o i l to r e d  Most a u t h o r s , burning Chilcote  has  however, have found t h a t s l a s h -  a b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t on s u r v i v a l .  (1965)  r e p o r t e d t h a t the g e r m i n a t i o n  o f n a t u r a l D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s was s e v e r e l y burned areas; to  the prolonged  Illingworth planted  they  unburned  (1966)  found t h a t the  s u r v i v a l of  Madison ( 1 9 5 9 )  and  survival  best on c h a r c o a l  a t t r i b u t e d the h i g h e r  and  survival surfaces.  containerhigher  on  a f t e r assessment the f o l l o w i n g  r e p o r t e d t h a t the  s u r v i v a l of  ( P i c e a s i t c h e n s i s (Bong.) C a r r . )  i n c o a s t a l Oregon was  3+0  seedlings  h i g h e r on burned than  on  plots.  9.  The  a.  E l e v a t i o n of the p l a n t i n g s i t e  i n f l u e n c e of s i t e f a c t o r s on  Very l i t t l e has of e l e v a t i o n on the the  and  s e e d l i n g s p l a n t e d d u r i n g mid-summer was  S i t k a spruce planted  Hermann  p r e s e r v a t i o n of moisture on these  burned than unburned a r e a s , autumn.  ash.  survival  been p u b l i s h e d  on the i n f l u e n c e  s u r v i v a l of planted D o u g l a s - f i r .  coast of B r i t i s h Columbia, some adverse e f f e c t s  On on  s u r v i v a l a t h i g h e l e v a t i o n s would be f r o s t - h e a v i n g , snow-  47.  press,  and death through e a r l y and l a t e f r o s t s .  high-elevation the  p l a n t i n g might be s u c c e s s f u l l y done l a t e i n  s p r i n g p l a n t i n g season.  higher  I t may be f e a s i b l e t o move to  e l e v a t i o n s and n o r t h - f a c i n g  aspects during  summer and thus extend the p l a n t i n g Schmidt (1963) r e p o r t e d Douglas-fir seedlings  occurred  V a l l e y on Vancouver I s l a n d .  season.  when they were p l a n t e d  400  (4600 f e e t ) i n the E l k  Snow p r e s s u r e  most m o r t a l i t y , w i t h the r e s t b e i n g growing season.  the e a r l y  that high m o r t a l i t y of  f e e t above t h e i r a l t i t u d i n a l l i m i t  accounted f o r  caused by the s h o r t  Schmidt found t h a t the extreme minimum  temperature had l i t t l e  e f f e c t on the s e e d l i n g s .  b.  Soil  The  s o i l m o i s t u r e a v a i l a b l e to the s e e d l i n g s  is  However  moisture after planting  one o f the most important f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g the s u r v i v a l  of planted ially  seedlings.  Many o t h e r  factors act at least part-  through t h e i r e f f e c t on s o i l m o i s t u r e .  vegetation Very l i t t l e  and some s o i l  Slope,  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e a few o f these.  has been p u b l i s h e d  on the d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p  between s o i l m o i s t u r e and the s u r v i v a l o f D o u g l a s - f i r l i n g s , however.  aspect,  L u t z and C h a n d l e r (1946) r e p o r t e d  seed-  t h a t the  water requirements o f p l a n t s growing i n s o i l s o f low f e r t ility soils.  i s higher Childs  than t h a t o f p l a n t s growing i n more f e r t i l e (1960) suggested t h a t the e f f e c t s o f drought  are most n o t i c e a b l e i n s m a l l t r e e s growing on poor L u t z and Chandler p o i n t e d  out t h a t an e x c e s s i v e  sites.  amount of  48.  water may  be as u n f a v o u r a b l e f o r t r e e growth as a d e f i c -  i e n c y , and the same c o u l d be s a i d f o r s u r v i v a l . of  I f the l i m i t  the d e s i r a b l e amount of s o i l water i s exceeded,  a e r a t i o n and " r e l a t e d phenomena" o c c u r , which may the  s u r v i v a l o f the p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s .  L u t z and C h a n d l e r ( 1 9 4 6 ) for  reduce  statement by  t h a t " C o n t i n u i t y o f water s u p p l y  forest trees i s f u l l y  as important as the t o t a l amount."  3.S borne out by Loewenstein the  The  reduced  (1964).  Loewenstein s a i d  that  key to the s u r v i v a l of D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s p l a n t e d  i n Idaho has most o f t e n been the s o i l moisture l e v e l J u l y and August.  (1961)  Loewenstein and P i t k i n  during  found  that  a high, degree of c o r r e l a t i o n e x i s t e d between s u r v i v a l at the end o f the f i r s t equate  growing season and s o i l m o i s t u r e .  Inad-  s o i l m o i s t u r e d u r i n g the seven week p e r i o d i n the  middle o f the summer, r e g a r d l e s s o f the moisture l e v e l a t the  b e g i n n i n g o r the end o f the growing season, accounted  for  a l a r g e amount o f s e e d l i n g m o r t a l i t y .  (1964) of  s a i d t h a t i f s o i l m o i s t u r e was  any o t h e r f a c t o r would  Loewenstein  poor, no m a n i p u l a t i o n  help.  The drought problems  o f Idaho  are much more severe  than those o f c o a s t a l B r i t i s h Columbia; however, t h e i r approaches to the problem may Pitkin  (1961)  be o f v a l u e .  Loewenstein  and  reported that c u l t i v a t i o n resulted i n high  s u r v i v a l o f 3+0 D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s , as d i d i r r i g a t i o n combined to  w i t h mulching.  They found mulching and  scalping  be i n e f f e c t i v e as s o i l m o i s t u r e c o n s e r v i n g agents.  c.  Slope and a s p e c t The  s u r v i v a l o f D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s p l a n t e d on  s o u t h - f a c i n g a s p e c t s has been r e p e a t e d l y shown t o be lower than the s u r v i v a l o f s e e d l i n g s p l a n t e d on l e s s sites  (Berntsen 1 9 6 0 , Hetherington 1 9 6 3 b ,  Hermann 1 9 6 4 , Armit  exposed  Illingworth 1966,  1961).  S o u t h - f a c i n g a s p e c t s are n o r m a l l y h o t t e r and d r i e r than n o r t h - f a c i n g s l o p e s , which accounts f o r the reduced  survival.  Loewenstein  (1964)  determined  t h a t the  poor s u r v i v a l o f D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s p l a n t e d on steep south s l o p e s and r i d g e s i n Idaho was engendered ier  environments,  Hermann ( 1 9 6 3 )  as determined  suggested  by s o i l moisture  t h a t exposure  f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g the temperature found t h a t the removal f l u c t u a t i o n of s o i l  by droughttests.  was one o f the main  regime  o f the s o i l .  He  of vegetation resulted i n a greater  temperatures  on south than on n o r t h  aspects. Ruth ( 1 9 5 7 ) fir  r e p o r t e d h i g h e r s u r v i v a l o f Douglas-  s e e d l i n g s p l a n t e d on s o u t h - e a s t than on n o r t h - e a s t  slopes.  He a t t r i b u t e d t h i s to d i f f e r e n c e s i n brush comp-  e t i t i o n r a t h e r than exposure, however. Berntsen ( 1 9 6 0 )  found t h a t a s p e c t made l e s s  d i f f e r e n c e t o the s u r v i v a l o f S i t k a spruce s e e d l i n g s than to  Douglas-fir seedlings.  Madison ( 1 9 5 9 )  found t h a t the  s u r v i v a l o f 3+0 S i t k a spruce s e e d l i n g s p l a n t e d i n c o a s t a l Oregon was b e t t e r on n o r t h e r l y than s o u t h e r l y a s p e c t s , a l though  the d i f f e r e n c e was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y  significant.  50.  B e r n t s e n (1958) p l a n t e d seedlings  on a steep south s l o p e  2+0 and 3+0 D o u g l a s - f i r i n western Oregon.  He  found some i n d i c a t i o n t h a t s u r v i v a l was b e t t e r i n heavy shade than i n l i g h t  shade, e s p e c i a l l y w i t h  the 3+0  stock.  The  3+0 stock had s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r s u r v i v a l than the  2+0  stock.  d.  Animals and b i r d s According  erature  bears w i t n e s s to the f a c t t h a t h a r e s and r a b b i t s  have more c a p a c i t y group.  to W a l t e r s and Soos (1961b) the l i t -  to cause damage than any o t h e r  They r e p o r t t h a t  near the r o o t  collar.  animal  c l i p p i n g may be f a t a l when done  Moore (1940) r e p o r t e d  that i n a  D o u g l a s - f i r p l a n t a t i o n i n Oregon, 94.4 % o f the s e e d l i n g s were cropped w i t h i n one y e a r , 35 % o f them f a t a l l y . (1961) r e p o r t e d  Armit  reduced s u r v i v a l caused by heavy r a b b i t  c l i p p i n g , when c o n d i t i o n s were otherwise f a v o u r a b l e to survival.  He r e p o r t e d  that  c l i p p i n g decreased  w i t h the age o f the s e e d l i n g s .  directly  W a l t e r s and Soos (1961b)  found that a t t a c k s were most s e r i o u s immediately p l a n t i n g , but continued (1955) r e p o r t e d  through-out the y e a r .  following  Worthington  that r a b b i t s preferred D o u g l a s - f i r  over f o u r o t h e r western  conifers.  Cowan (1945) d i s c u s s e d  the problem o f deer brows-  i n g on Vancouver I s l a n d , and r e p o r t e d i s done to the s e e d l i n g s . (1964) a l s o d i s c u s s e d  seedlings  t h a t s e r i o u s damage  R e v e l (1962a, 1963e) and M i t c h e l l  deer browsing on Vancouver I s l a n d ,  51.  and  concluded t h a t i t was important o n l y i n s m a l l  areas.  Revel ( 1 9 6 3 e )  believed  that m o r t a l i t y r e s u l t i n g  from deer browsing was unimportant. erature  localized  Generally,  the l i t -  supports the t h e s i s t h a t a l t h o u g h h e i g h t  growth  l o s s e s due t o browsing may l e n g t h e n the r o t a t i o n from one to f i v e y e a r s ( R e v e l is  1963e),  m o r t a l i t y due t o deer browsing  insignificant. Revel ( 1 9 6 3 e )  pointed  out t h a t blue  grouse brows-  i n g was widespread on the e a s t e r n h a l f o f Vancouver I s l a n d , but  suggested t h a t o n l y v e r y heavy browsing, where a l l the  buds were removed, a f f e c t e d s u r v i v a l . reported  t h a t grouse u s u a l l y w i l l  Robinson  (1958)  eat the t i p s and buds  of s e e d l i n g s ,  but t h a t they a l s o w i l l  whole p l a n t .  A l t h o u g h t h i s may o c c u r o n l y w i t h the p o o r l y  planted  seedlings,  o f t e n p u l l up the  some o f these may have o t h e r w i s e  Grouse damage i s c o n f i n e d  mainly to the f i r s t  and second  y e a r a f t e r p l a n t i n g and i s most s e r i o u s i n the e a r l y according  to Robinson.  He suggests t h a t the  o f a complete c o v e r o f v e g e t a t i o n grouse  spring,  establishment  s p e l l s the end o f the  population. Mountain beaver have a l s o been r e p o r t e d  the  survived.  s u r v i v a l of planted  Ruth 1 9 5 7 ) .  Ruth ( 1 9 5 7 )  Douglas-fir seedlings and Madison ( 1 9 5 9 )  to reduce  (Krygier 1 9 5 8 ,  reported  Sitka  spruce m o r t a l i t y caused by mountain beaver. de Vos ( 1 9 5 8 ) v i v a l o f browse s p e c i e s  suggested t h a t the v a r i a t i o n i n s u r i s not a r e f l e c t i o n o f v a r i a t i o n s  i n t h e i r r e l a t i v e p a l a t a b i l i t y , but r a t h e r t h e i r a b i l i t y to  withstand  successive  and r e p e a t e d  Lawrence ( 1 9 6 4 ) used as c o n t a c t ested  browsing.  discussed  the v a r i o u s  chemicals  and systemic a n i m a l r e p e l l e n t s .  t h a t there  are three  He sugg-  c r i t e r i a ' - b y which t o judge a  r e p e l l e n t : r e p e l l e n c y , l a c k o f p h y t o t o x i c i t y , and p e r s i s t ency.  He p o i n t e d  out t h a t one o f the main advantages o f  systemic r e p e l l e n t s i s t h a t new growth i s p r o t e c t e d , a l t h o u g h the animal may have t o sample a r e p e l l e n t r e j e c t i n g other  trees.  even before  A wide v a r i e t y o f animal r e p e l l e n t s  have been t e s t e d by many workers. Burns (1961) found t h a t an e n d r i n - l a t e x was  an e f f e c t i v e r a b b i t r e p e l l e n t .  compound  A zinc-calcium  compound  was a l s o found t o be e f f e c t i v e , and he recommended i t s use where e n d r i n and n i c o t i n e were banned because o f t h e i r toxicity. Rediske and Lawrence (1964) found t h a t  octamethyl-  pyrophosphoramide ( OMPA ) was an e f f e c t i v e systemic r a b b i t r e p e l l e n t a t 400 ppm.  T o x i c i t y to D o u g l a s - f i r  seedlings  s t a r t e d a t 1500 ppm, and the c h e m i c a l had a h a l f - l i f e o f 50 days. W a l t e r s and Soos (1961b) t e s t e d three  hare  rep-  e l l e n t s and found them a l l t o be e f f e c t i v e i n v a r y i n g degrees. asphalt  A tetramethylthiuriumdisulphide  emulsion was found t o be the most e f f e c t i v e com-  pound t e s t e d .  They r e p o r t e d  t h a t the e f f e c t o f TMTD  decreased w i t h time, but was s t i l l months.  ( TMTD ) -  present  Complete p r o t e c t i o n was a f f o r d e d  after only  fourteen  t o the  53.  plant parts  c o m p l e t e l y covered, and new growth was c l i p p e d  w i t h i n c r e a s i n g f r e q u e n c y as the r e p e l l e n t weathered.  No  ill  e f f e c t s o f the c h e m i c a l on the s e e d l i n g s were noted.  e.  Weather Smith e_t a l . ( 1 9 6 1 )  reported  t h a t most o f the v a r -  i n 93 Douglas-fir plantations  i a t i o n i n s u r v i v a l trends  est-  a b l i s h e d between 1 9 3 3 and 1 9 5 6 c o u l d be t r a c e d to d i f f e r e n c e s i n the weather a t the time o f , and s h o r t l y a f t e r , p l a n t i n g . The  importance o f weather on s u r v i v a l was also.emphasized  by Smith and A l l e n  (1962).  W a l t e r s and Soos ( 1 9 6 1 a )  reported  on a p l a n t i n g  experiment wherein D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s were p l a n t e d mid-April  to mid-November.  They found t h a t p e r cent  from sur-  v i v a l was i n v e r s e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h temperature and p o s i t ively  c o r r e l a t e d with p r e c i p i t a t i o n .  They concluded  that  the p l a n t i n g season c o u l d be extended i f the weather and s o i l m o i s t u r e were  favourable.  Tourney and K o r s t i a n cloudy out  days a r e the best  by Hermann ( 1 9 6 2 )  Douglas-fir seedlings  (1942)  suggested t h a t damp,  days to p l a n t .  T h i s was borne  who found t h a t the m o r t a l i t y o f was h i g h e r  when s e e d l i n g s were  planted  on warm as opposed t o c o o l days. f.  Competing  vegetation  Newton ( 1 9 6 4 ) vegetation  e f f e c t i v e l y summarized the r o l e of  i n seedling s u r v i v a l .  He s a i d t h a t the i n f l u e n c e s  of  v e g e t a t i o n i n v o l v e moisture consumption,  temperature phenology  near the s u r f a c e , l i g h t  s o i l and a i r  interception,  and  and growth h a b i t . Newton found t h a t d e c r e a s i n g the v e g e t a t i v e cover  w i t h h e r b i c i d e s reduces the moisture l o s s from the top 3 i n c h e s o f the s o i l of  i n a l i n e a r manner.  Complete  removal  the v e g e t a t i o n r e s u l t e d i n o n l y an 8 % l o s s of a v a i l a b l e  s o i l m o i s t u r e , under r a p i d l y d r y i n g c o n d i t i o n s , w h i l e a heavy c o v e r of g r a s s removed n e a r l y the e n t i r e s o i l moisture.  Newton p o i n t e d out t h a t the i n f l u e n c e of  l o n g c l e a r days and low a v a i l a b i l i t y b i n e to produce  of s o i l m o i s t u r e com-  moisture s t r e s s e s w i t h i n s e e d l i n g s f a r  g r e a t e r than e i t h e r c o n d i t i o n c o u l d produce Tarrant J u l y was  (1958)  g r e a t l y d e p l e t e d beneath  green manzanita  change i n s o i l m o i s t u r e between the two cleared  alone.  found t h a t s o i l m o i s t u r e i n l a t e  c e n t r a l Oregon, compared to l a t e May.  or  supply of  He  found  brush i n little  dates under dead  brush. Newton ( 1 9 6 4 )  reported that although v e g e t a t i o n  causes v e r y h i g h temperatures c e p t i o n , s e e d l i n g s beneath  at the l e v e l of l i g h t  inter-  the canopy are p r o t e c t e d .  He  a t t r i b u t e s p l a n t a t i o n f a i l u r e s under these c o n d i t i o n s most o f t e n to a l a c k of s u n l i g h t or to animal damage than to t o o rapid  transpiration.  bracken f e r n may lings.  Dimock I I ( 1 9 6 4 )  c i t e s evidence  a c t as a "nurse crop" to D o u g l a s - f i r  Ruth ( 1 9 5 6 )  that seed-  found t h a t D o u g l a s - f i r p l a n t e d i n two  b r u s h - t h r e a t areas i n c o a s t a l Oregon were a b l e to w i t h s t a n d  t h r e e - q u a r t e r shading, hut he found an abrupt i n c r e a s e i n m o r t a l i t y when s e e d l i n g s were overtopped (1957)  by brush.  Ruth  r e p o r t e d h e a v i e r shading of s e e d l i n g s on a n o r t h -  west than on a s o u t h - e a s t s l o p e i n c o a s t a l Oregon, and a t t r i b u t e d the h i g h e r s u r v i v a l on the s o u t h - e a s t s l o p e to this factor.  Hermann ( 1 9 6 3 )  found t h a t the removal  of veg-  e t a t i o n r e s u l t s i n g r e a t e r f l u c t u a t i o n s of temperature  on  a south than on a n o r t h - f a c i n g s l o p e . Newton ( 1 9 6 4 ) exposures  to low l i g h t  s a i d t h a t m o r t a l i t y from s h o r t - t e r m i n t e n s i t y i s r a r e , and t h a t most  damage under these c o n d i t i o n s i s i n d i r e c t , through the mechanical  low  s t r e n g t h of the s e e d l i n g s under these c o n d i t i o n s  and m a t t i n g from d e p o s i t s of l i t t e r and d e b r i s . u t e s the f a c t  that few  He  attrib-  s e e d l i n g s become dominant under  heavy brush c o v e r mostly to mechanical i n j u r y and  animal  damage s u s t a i n e d by the s e e d l i n g s as weak u n d e r s t o r y p l a n t s Dimock I I ( 1 9 6 4 )  has d i s c u s s e d the adverse  e f f e c t s of  bracken f e r n i n smothering the s e e d l i n g s and as a h a b i t a t for  wildlife. The main problem  Columbia,  brush s p e c i e s i n c o a s t a l  British  a c c o r d i n g to a q u e s t i o n n a i r e sent to many c o a s t a l  f o r e s t e r s and d i s c u s s e d by H e t h e r i n g t o n ( 1 9 6 2 ) b e r r y , a l d e r , bracken f e r n , v i n e maple and  are salmon-  salal.  V a r i o u s t e c h n i q u e s have been t e s t e d by many workers i n o r d e r to o b t a i n a c c e p t a b l e s u r v i v a l i n brushedi n areas.  The most common t e c h n i q u e s employed are  killing  of the brush by c h e m i c a l o r p h y s i c a l means, m o d i f i c a t i o n of  the p l a n t i n g t e c h n i q u e , use of l a r g e r p l a n t i n g s t o c k , and p l a n t i n g s p e c i e s o t h e r than Dimock I I ( 1 9 6 4 ) ilization, but found  tested  c u t t i n g and mulching t h a t no treatment Gratkowski  (1963a)  Douglas-fir.  (1959),  s i x combinations  of f e r t -  i n a h e a v i l y brushed-in area,  resulted i n higher Newton ( 1 9 6 3 )  survival.  and H e t h e r i n g t o n  have e v a l u a t e d some chemical h e r b i c i d e s , and have  found many e f f e c t i v e w i t h no u n d e s i r a b l e e f f e c t s on Douglasf i r seedlings. MacArther - ( 1 9 6 4 )  t e s t e d mound, r i d g e , s i n g l e and  double-row p l a n t i n g , and s c a l p i n g , i n an e f f o r t t o i n c r e a s e s u r v i v a l i n a h e a v i l y brushed-in area.  He found mound  p l a n t i n g t o be the o n l y method t h a t r e s u l t e d i n a c c e p t a b l e s u r v i v a l a f t e r f o u r growing r e s u l t e d i n reduced  seasons.  Lowering  the s e e d l i n g s  survival.  Madison ( 1 9 5 9 )  examined the s u r v i v a l o f S i t k a  spruce s e e d l i n g s p l a n t e d i n areas where the c o m p e t i t i o n from t h i m b l e b e r r y , salmonberry, serious.  He concluded  w i l l o w and r e d a l d e r was  t h a t the good s u r v i v a l and r a p i d  growth o f t h i s s p e c i e s made i t a d e s i r a b l e s p e c i e s f o r p l a n t i n g i n brush-threatened Worthington  (1955)  areas. p l a n t e d 1 + 0 , 2+0 and 2+0  jumbo D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s i n heavy bracken and brushcovered  s i t e s i n the western  Olympic  Peninsula.  s u r p r i s i n g l y , t h a t the 1+0 s t o c k had the h i g h e s t a f t e r the second  growing  He  found,  survival  season, w i t h the 2+0 jumbo s t o c k  h a v i n g the lowest s u r v i v a l .  The 1+0 s t o c k s t i l l  had the  57.  highest  s u r v i v a l a f t e r the f i f t h growing season.  He a l s o  found t h a t the s u r v i v i n g s e e d l i n g s were growing f a s t  enough  to compete w i t h the bracken and s a l a l . g.  Microsite The  has  m i c r o s i t e i n which the s e e d l i n g s  been shown t o have a s i g n i f i c a n t  are planted  e f f e c t on t h e i r  sur-  v i v a l by many a u t h o r s . Hetherington (1964)  discussed  the s u r v i v a l o f  n a t u r a l western hemlock (Tsuga h e t e r o p h y l l a seedlings, cluded  (Raf.) Sarg.)  and a t the end o f the t h i r d growing season con-  t h a t the b e s t - t o - w o r s t s u r v i v a l mediums were burned  humus, burned m i n e r a l  soil,  unburned r o t t o n wood, burned  r o t t o n wood, unburned m i n e r a l burned l i t t e r  and burned  s o i l , unburned humus, un-  litter.  Berntsen (1960)  found no s i g n i f i c a n t  difference  between the f i r s t - y e a r s u r v i v a l o f D o u g l a s - f i r and S i t k a spruce s e e d l i n g s in  planted  c o a s t a l Oregon.  on decayed wood and m i n e r a l  He p o i n t e d  soil,  out t h a t r o t t o n wood r e t a i n s  more m o i s t u r e i n mid-summer, and i s an u n d e s i r a b l e medium f o r competing v e g e t a t i o n .  Wright  (1964)  growth  found  that  D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s w i t h t h e i r r o o t s i n decayed wood had l e s s mycorrhizae than those i n loamy s o i l , growing on v e r y  rocky o r compacted  Smith and A l l e n ( 1 9 6 2 )  as d i d s e e d l i n g s  soil.  f o u n d . t h a t the s u r v i v a l o f  D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s was not reduced on s o i l s of humus.  scraped  free  I l l i n g w o r t h ( 1 9 6 6 ) however, found t h a t the s u r -  v i v a l of container-planted  Douglas-fir  s e e d l i n g s was lower  58.  on m i n e r a l s o i l Hermann ( 1 9 6 3 )  than on o t h e r types of p l a n t i n g mediums. found  t h a t the g r e a t e s t l o s s of  and h i g h temperatures  went t o - g e t h e r beneath m i n e r a l s u r -  f a c e s , hut the r e v e r s e was and He  t h a t d e s i c c a t i o n was a l s o found  moisture  t r u e under o r g a n i c seedbeds,  most r a p i d under m i n e r a l  seedbeds.  t h a t o r g a n i c seedbeds were c o o l e r by day  warmer by n i g h t and  and  c o o l e r i n the summer and warmer i n the  w i n t e r than m i n e r a l seedbeds.  Hermann concluded  that org-  a n i c seedbeds c r e a t e a more severe c l i m a t e above ground, and  t h a t the slow warming of a s o i l under  a n i c matter a new  i n the s p r i n g can pose problems i n e s t a b l i s h i n g  crop by  planting.  W a l t e r s and Haddock ( 1 9 6 6 ) of  a cover of o r g -  p l a n t e d D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s was  Gaultheria sites  found  t h a t the  significantly  survival lower  than on P l a g i o t h e c i u m o r P o l y s t i c h u m  T h i s i s p r o b a b l y accounted  on  sites.  f o r by the d r i e r c o n d i t i o n s on  the G a u l t h e r i a s i t e s . In  g e n e r a l , however, s u r v i v a l does not seem to  pend on the s i t e  index of the p l a n t i n g s i t e , u n l e s s  i s the f a c t o r c a u s i n g the low f i r m e d by H u n t l e y  (1960),  and Haddock ( 1 9 6 6 ) .  site  index.  moisture  T h i s has been  Smith et a l . ( 1 9 6 6 a ) ,  However Smith and A l l e n  and  (1962)  site  reduced  indices  i n s o i l s of s i t e  1 3 0 and  150.  con-  Walters found  t h a t the s u r v i v a l of 1+0 D o u g l a s - f i r s t o c k p l a n t e d i n c r o c k s was  de-  index 80 compared to  h.  Insects  and  disease (1942)  Tourney and K o r s t i a n many cases the d i s e a s e d be d i r e c t l y to the nursery  site.  diseases He  could  t r a c e d to i n j u r i o u s f u n g i which gained  on p l a n t i n g has  diseases  c o u l d by  These were: 1)  through new  two  transported  by  the  access  i n f l u e n c e of by  Smith  ways i n which  to the  through continued  planting  a c t i v i t y of i n -  s e e d l i n g s i n the n u r s e r y ;  and  i n f e c t i o n s by organisms c a r r i e d on the  l i n g to the p l a n t i n g s i t e . anisms i n p a r t i c u l a r may  He  s a i d that s o i l - b o r n e  i n f e c t other  planting.  Smith c i t e s a study by Roy  erence not  g i v e n ) on the  seed  org-  seedlings a f t e r and  Dega  (ref-  s u r v i v a l of fumigated v s .  fumigated D o u g l a s - f i r s t o c k . 3 8 . 3 % higher  The  been d i s c u s s e d  suggested t h a t there are  fections contracted 2)  c o n d i t i o n of young stands  t r e e s a t the time of p l a n t i n g .  (1964). nursery  suggested t h a t i n  non-  Fumigated s e e d l i n g s had  s u r v i v a l than non-fumigated, one  a  year a f t e r  planting. Boyce ( 1 9 6 1 )  c i t e s a number of d i s e a s e s  may  attack Douglas-fir seedlings.  wet  s o i l s are  ported  He  suggested t h a t heavy  conducive to r o o t r o t s .  that A r m i l l a r i a mellea  Knight  concluded t h a t there  However, F o s t e r and i s no  (1957)  in test plantation Johnson  (1963)  evidence to suggest t h a t  openings caused by r o o t r o t or f r o s t f i r p l a n t a t i o n s would r e s u l t  re-  appeared to account f o r some  m o r t a l i t y of D o u g l a s - f i r p l a n t i n g stock on Vancouver I s l a n d .  which  i n any  stand  damage i n Douglasappreciable  reduction  60.  in future y i e l d ,  i n an a r e a  they examined on Vancouver  Island. Graham  gives  (1963)  the  symptoms o f , and  t r o l measures f o r combatting, the v a r i o u s seedlings. weevils  the  insects  attacking  These i n s e c t s i n c l u d e a p h i d s , a d e l g i d s ,  (>larvae and  grubs, earwigs and  con-  root  a d u l t s ) , r o o t maggots, cutworms, white spider mites.  Graham's suggested  con-  t r o l measures a p p l i c a b l e to p l a n t a t i o n s i n c l u d e : a p p l i c a t i o n o r stomach p o i s o n s I to the  of c o n t a c t dressings  seedlings;  of r e s i d u a l s o i l i n s e c t i c i d e s to newly-turned  s o i l during  p l a n t i n g ; c o n f i n i n g p l a n t i n g to l e s s  i b l e y e a r s i f an outbreak i s p r e d i c t e d ; to reduce the  population  stumps i n newly-logged 10.  Genetic As  erable  of w e e v i l  Schopmeyer ( 1 9 4 0 )  baits  emerging from  pointed  out,  adaption  there  be  considered  because of the wide v a r i e t y of s i t e Knight  (1957),  seed o r i g i n had  and  little  seedlings.  growth and  considtree  said that regions  conditions.  Smith and  Allen (1962)  e f f e c t on the  Allen  d i f f e r e n c e s i n the  Smith et a l . ( 1 9 6 6 a )  reported  s u r v i v a l of  r e s i s t a n c e to f r o s t - h e a v i n g  s i b l i n g groups, and  He  i n mountainous  However Smith and  t h a t they found s i g n i f i c a n t  is  of a p a r e n t  be passed on to i t s progeny.  such a d a p t i o n s should  vival,  adults  poison  areas.  evidence to show t h a t the  Douglas-fir  and  suscept-  factors affecting survival  to i t s s i t e may  that  applying  planted  reported r a t e of  sur-  between h a l f -  reported  v i v a l between h a l f - s i b l i n g groups ranged from 6 6 . 7  that % to  sur100  %.  61  They a l s o r e p o r t e d  that a high  b e t t e r s u r v i v a l than a low The  not  one  elevation  of the main f a c t o r s t e s t e d , but  (1964)  who  a 5 0 year-old Oregon.  from  i n f l u e n c e of seed o r i g i n on s u r v i v a l  e n t a l to the main a n a l y s i s . Silen  reported  heredity  An  exception  on the  rather  incid-  i s the work of  regeneration  a s p e c t s of  study conducted i n Washington  S i l e n reported  t h a t , a l t h o u g h there were  o r i g i n s w i t h i n any w i t h i n the  s u r v i v a l of s e e d l i n g s one  plantation.  l i m i t s of the  survived  best.  little  from d i f f e r e n t  However, he  found  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s u r v i v a l of  p l a n t a t i o n , the progeny from the S i l e n reported  better-adapted  a strong  good growth and  good s u r v i v a l .  o r i g i n grew and  survived  best when p l a n t e d  e f f e c t on s u r v i v a l .  This  a t low  elevations.  erent  seeda  e f f e c t i s manifested  tance, onset o f f l u s h i n g , t e r m i n a t i o n  ed towards c o r r e l a t i n g the  sources  elevation  complement of the  such s e e d l i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as i n s e c t and  r e s i s t a n c e to f r o s t - h e a v i n g .  the  seed  l i n g , which i s p a r t l y determined by i t s o r i g i n , has direct  that,  c o r r e l a t i o n between  Trees of low  Undoubtedly the g e n e t i c  and  striking  s u r v i v a l d i f f e r e n c e s between p l a n t a t i o n s , there was d i f f e r e n c e i n the  %  seedlot.  r e s u l t s c i t e d above have been o b t a i n e d  experiments where the was  5.6  e l e v a t i o n s e e d l o t had  .  disease  through  resis-  of y e a r l y growth,  F u r t h e r work should  s u r v i v a l of s e e d l i n g s  and  be d i r e c t from  diff-  seed o r i g i n s w i t h these d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  I I I . MATERIALS AND METHODS 1.  Background o f t h e s t u d y The  d a t a used i n t h e s e a n a l y s e s  was made a v a i l -  a b l e t o the. F a c u l t y o f F o r e s t r y by M a c M i l l a n The  Bloedel  company f e l t t h a t an a n a l y s i s o f t h i s t y p e ,  Ltd.  requiring  s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s o f l a r g e amounts o f data,.was beyond the immediate r e s o u r c e s was  o f t h e company.  The raw d a t a  made a v a i l a b l e t o t h e a u t h o r by t h e F a c u l t y o f F o r e s t r y  MacMillan  Bloedel Ltd. provided  t h e a u t h o r w i t h t h e opp-  o r t u n i t y t o v i s i t many o f t h e i r F o r e s t r y S u p e r v i s o r s and plantations. 2.  Field  T h i s was done d u r i n g August o f 1966.  study D u r i n g t h e month o f A u g u s t , 1966,  v i s i t e d representative  the author  plantations of Douglas-fir  out Vancouver I s l a n d and t h e a d j a c e n t m a i n l a n d . a t i o n s v i s i t e d were e s t a b l i s h e d by M a c M i l l a n between 1960 and 1966. was  throughThe p l a n t -  Bloedel  Ltd.  The purpose o f t h e f i e l d work  t o d i s c u s s D o u g l a s - f i r s u r v i v a l problems w i t h t h e  D i v i s i o n a l Forestry Supervisors lems i n t h e p l a n t a t i o n s .  and t o o b s e r v e t h e s e p r o b -  I n o t h e r words, t o a q u a i n t t h e  a u t h o r w i t h D o u g l a s - f i r s u r v i v a l problems i n g e n e r a l , and w i t h those o f MacMillan The  Bloedel Ltd. i n particular.  a u t h o r endeavoured t o examine p l a n t a t i o n s  from wide g e o g r a p h i c and e n v i r o n m e n t a l ranges t h r o u g h o u t the s t u d y a r e a .  Time d i d n o t p e r m i t v i s i t a t i o n o f p l a n t -  a t i o n s i n a l l F o r e s t r y D i v i s i o n s o f t h e company, b u t  63.  enough were v i s i t e d c l i m a t i c and  to be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the  general  p h y s i o g r a p h i c r e g i o n s of the a r e a .  no measurements were taken i n the f i e l d  by the  Although author,  h i s o b s e r v a t i o n s supplement the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the measured v a r i a b l e s . 3.  O r i g i n o f the  a.  Survival  data  lines  S i n c e the advent o f l a r g e - s c a l e o p e r a t i o n a l p l a n t i n g by M a c M i l l a n  B l o e d e l L t d . , company f o r e s t e r s have been  r e q u i r e d to d e l i n e a t e 25 s e e d l i n g s f o r each 25 a c r e s p l a n t e d f o r subsequent s u r v i v a l examinations. identified  by p a i n t e d cedar  the s e e d l i n g a t the time  These s e e d l i n g s are  stakes p l a c e d i n the ground near  of p l a n t i n g .  I n o r d e r to e l i m i n a t e the e f f e c t of the p l a n t e r , f i v e p l a n t e r s are r e p r e s e n t e d trees.  T h i s i s accomplished  one  Normally  survival line,  acres.  1746  71.  c o n t a i n at  25  seedthis least 25  s u r v i v a l l i n e s were a v a i l a b l e f o r a n a l y s i s .  burn i n t e n s i t y and  page  Figure 3 i l l u s t r a t e s  every p l a n t a t i o n w i l l  the s u r v i v a l l i n e i s s t a k e d ,  planting supervisor s t r a t i f i e s  The  of  even i f the p l a n t a t i o n i s l e s s than  At the time  cover).  i n each sample of  by s t a g g e r i n g a " l i n e "  l i n g s among f i v e p l a n t i n g rows. procedure.  individual  the  the a r e a as to a s p e c t ,  degree of brush and/or s l a s h  stratification is illustrated  slash-  (ground  i n Table I , on  64.  .  .  .  .  +25  .  +24  .  +23  .  +22  . . .  +20  +21  .  +19  .  .  +18  .  +17 +15 . .  .  .  .  .  . '  .  .  .  .  .  .  +16  .  .  +14  .  +13  . . .  +12 +10+11 +9  +8  .  +7 + 5 + 6 +4  .  +3 +2 +1 +9 = s t a k e d seedling . = unstaked seedling Figure  3.  An i l l u s t r a t i o n s h o w i n g t h e t y p i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n of a s u r v i v a l l i n e i n a plantation.  b.  Plantation For  registers each p l a n t a t i o n ,  a "Plantation Register" i s  completed by the f o r e s t e r i n charge. shown i n F i g u r e  4.  A sample r e g i s t e r i s  A map of the p l a n t a t i o n  ounding a r e a accompanies each p l a n t a t i o n i c a l map i s shown i n F i g u r e The  variables  and the s u r r -  register.  A  typ-  5.  o b t a i n e d from the p l a n t a t i o n  reg-  i s t e r s and used i n the a n a l y s e s were: the l o c a t i o n o f the plantation; planting;  the p l a n t i n g date; the season and y e a r o f  the number o f t r e e s p l a n t e d  year of slashburning;  ground cover ( v e g e t a t i o n  topography type; e l e v a t i o n conditions  weather  and the p l a n t i n g  ( s e e d l o t number, age o f s t o c k , n u r s e r y  of the s t o c k , and g e n e r a l c o n d i t i o n arrival).  type);  range o f the p l a n t a t i o n ;  a t the time o f p l a n t i n g ;  description  p e r man/day; the  o f the s e e d l i n g s  stock  origin on  I n some cases the date o f l i f t i n g was a l s o r e -  corded, and i f known was used i n an a n a l y s i s . ness o f the d u f f  The t h i c k -  (L-F-H) l a y e r was o f t e n r e c o r d e d as b e i n g  " t h i c k " o r "not t h i c k " . c.  Planting  s u r v i v a l summaries  At o r near the end o f the f i r s t the  s u r v i v a l o f the p l a n t a t i o n  growing season,  i s a s s e s s e d from the s u r -  v i v a l l i n e s , and summarized i n a " P l a n t i n g  S u r v i v a l Summary  an  This  example o f which i s shown i n F i g u r e  t a i n s no i n f o r m a t i o n  6.  summary con  not a v a i l a b l e from the p l a n t a t i o n  i s t e r , w i t h one e x c e p t i o n : i f the cause o f m o r t a l i t y i s  reg-  P l a n t a t i o n No._  Tract  Ownership  Location P l a n t i n g dates P l a n t a t i o n acreage A c r e s/man-day Tpppq/aprp  nTantpd  Spacing Trees/man-day  Supervisor_ Prior stocking Species T o t . Dec. Age % stocking Trees/acre  A r e a h i s t o r y : Logged  Burned  Slash conditions Ground c o v e r Topography E l e v a t i o n ranges  Soil  type  Weather c o n d i t i o n s Unusual treatment of stock P l a n t i n g stock d e s c r i p t i o n S p e c i e s Seed Age N u r s e r y No. o f Lot trees  S i z e and Tops  Roots  Condition  General  1 2 3  Summary o f s u r v i v a l e x a m i n a t i o n s P l a n t e d (Tree B a s i s ) Natural Total Date o f S t r a t u m exam. & A c r e s /Ac. /Ac. T r e e s Av. T o t /Ac. 3urv. Height P H To t. # o f trees  TOTAL  TOTAL Figure  4 . A sample p l a n t a t i o n r e g i s t e r  68. MacMILLAN BLOEDEL LTD. FORESTRY DIVISION PLANTING SURVIVAL SUMMARY  DIVISION N> W . g*.y  Pltn. No. A c r e s S t r i p  31 \177  1s  me  I 2 I  %  2*o  Be 8  z s  /6  I  ACS  IS  2+o  127*5 2 *  I  c SB  25  2+o  27  1  AC B  2  2*o  its i  t sr-  (  Stratification ASPECT A - S - SW - W B - Flat C - N - NE - E  F i g u r e 6.  SEASON 5p//*j  No. Tot. o f Avg. Cond. o f T r e e s T o t . S u r v . Strat. Age Sample Tree S a t . Poor Dead S u r v . Exam. Date Trees Ht. CC0 2 jr 2i 2 v 2+0 7" *? 6 22 CC 3 t 2 2* | 0 cc B z S 1f I  2  XtHO  /9 6 g  YEAR PLANTED  AAA  S  2 $  6"  /7  2  92  2f  1  0  |60  7"  12  13  o  IOO  8"  18  5  2  sz  1  o  IOO  2*o 8"  18  BURN A - C l e a n burn B - Light or p a r t i a l C - Unburned  A sample p l a n t i n g s u r v i v a l  V  12/  GROUND COVER A - Clean B - Med. b r u s h &/or s l a s h C - Heavy b r u s h &/or s l a s h  summary  69.  e v i d e n t , i t i s i n c l u d e d i n the summary. f o r e s t e r s made an attempt  A l t h o u g h some  to a s s i g n reasons f o r m o r t a l i t y ,  most comments were too g e n e r a l to be of use.  I t i s the  i n i o n of the a u t h o r , and many company f o r e s t e r s , t h a t ing  reasons f o r m o r t a l i t y i s at best an educated  op-  assign-  guess,  u n l e s s the reason i s v e r y obvious. d.  Seedlot r e g i s t e r s S i n c e the s e e d l o t number o f the s e e d l i n g s i n any  s u r v i v a l l i n e was  known, i t was  a simple matter to determine  the  a s p e c t and e l e v a t i o n o f the seed c o l l e c t i o n area from  the  seedlot r e g i s t e r s .  These v a r i a b l e s were used i n the  analyses. e.  Survival At  the  the end o f the f i r s t  and t h i r d growing  The  second examination i s on a l e s s f i r m b a s i s  f i r s t , however.  Often i t i s d i f f i c u l t  because  of heavy brush and m i s s i n g s t a k e s .  f a c t t h a t dead than l i v e  b a s i s of l i v e and dead  seasons  Because o f the  s e e d l i n g s w i l l be more d i f f i c u l t  ones, and the f a c t t h a t  than  to f i n d a l l of the  s e e d l i n g s i n a s u r v i v a l l i n e a f t e r t h r e e growing  the  seasons,  s e e d l i n g s i n the s u r v i v a l l i n e s are examined f o r mort-  ality. the  examinations  to f i n d  survival i s calculated  on  s e e d l i n g s o b s e r v a b l e , the s u r -  v i v a l f i g u r e a r r i v e d a t a f t e r t h r e e growing  seasons i s  h i g h e r than i s r e a l i s t i c . At  both examinations the s e e d l i n g ' s c o n d i t i o n i s  70.  classified  as " s a t i s f a c t o r y " ,  "poor" o r "dead".  No  allow-  ance was made f o r s e e d l i n g s i n poor c o n d i t i o n i n the a n a l y s e s : s e e d l i n g s i n poor and s a t i s f a c t o r y c o n d i t i o n were both  class-  ed as " l i v i n g " . 4.  Nature and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n The  data a n a l y z e d was o f two t y p e s : t h a t which was  of a continuous  nature,  and t h a t which was d i s c r e t e and had  to be p l a c e d i n c l a s s e s . placed into  Most o f the d i s c r e t e v a r i a b l e s were  c l a s s e s by the author;  such as a s p e c t , already  of the data  other d i s c r e t e v a r i a b l e s ,  s l a s h b u r n i n t e n s i t y and ground cover, were  classified. O f t e n t h e r e were n o t enough o b s e r v a t i o n s w i t h i n  any of  one c l a s s to permit  analysis.  s e e d l i n g s " the author  2+1,  1+1  and 3+0  F o r i n s t a n c e under "age  d e l i n e a t e d c l a s s e s f o r 1+0,  seedlings.  I t was n e c e s s a r y  comparison o f s e e d l i n g ages to 1+0,  2+0,  to r e s t r i c t  2+0 and 2+1  seedlings  however, because t h e r e were too few s e e d l i n g s i n the 1+1 and. 3+0  c l a s s e s to g i v e meaningful  results.  T a b l e I d e s c r i b e s the c l a s s e s o f each d i s c o n t inuous v a r i a b l e a n a l y z e d . icient  observations  Only those  to be a n a l y z e d  l i n e s where c l a s s e s were m i s s i n g , of  c l a s s e s with  are shown.  The  o b s e r v a t i o n s were omitted The  survival  d i d not f i t i n t o any  the c l a s s e s , o r were i n c l u d e d i n a c l a s s w i t h  icient  suff-  insuff-  from the a n a l y s e s .  data from the p l a n t a t i o n r e g i s t e r s  and/or  the p l a n t i n g s u r v i v a l summaries, s e e d l o t r e g i s t e r s and i n  71 .  Table I .  A c h a r t showing the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f the d i s c o n t i n u o u s v a r i a b l e s used i n the a n a l y s e s . CLASS  VARIABLE  "  Weather at planting  sunny & warm  sunny & mild  cloudy to overcast  showers, moderate snow light to heavy rain rain  Seedlot types  from from better normal t r e e s i n stands a normal stand  from minus stands, or stands where there is l i t t l e information  Topography  flat  rolling  s l i g h t to moderate  Nursery origin  Duncan  Quinsam  Green Timbers  Age of seedlings  1+0  2+0  2+1  Season o f planting  Spring  fall  Slashburn severity  clean (hot)  light or partial  Aspect  south . flat to west  Ground cover  little or none  medium brush and/or slash  Duff thickness  thick  not thick  Condition on a r r i v a l  good  fair  Division  Each d i v i s i o n of the company g i v e n a number  was  Seedlot number  Each s e e d l o t was  number  steep  unburned  n o r t h to east heavy brush and/or slash  poor  g i v e n a new  some cases the p l a n t a t i o n map as a s p e c t and  e l e v a t i o n of  to s t a n d a r d c o d i n g forms.  (used to check such  the p l a n t a t i o n ) were t r a n s f e r r e d The  data was  I n t e r n a t i o n a l B u s i n e s s Machine ( IBM c a r d s were " r e a d " i n t o the IBM  then t r a n s f e r r e d  ) computer c a r d s .  to These  7040 computer a t the U n i v e r s -  ity  of B r i t i s h Columbia f o r a n a l y s i s .  5.  The  a.  General  statistical  variables  analyses  U n f o r t u n a t e l y , not a l l v a r i a b l e s were measured f o r all  survival lines.  T h i s n e c e s s i t a t e d s o r t i n g the cards each  time an a n a l y s i s was  to be done, and  removing those  which d i d not c o n t a i n a l l the v a r i a b l e s n e c e s s a r y icular analysis.  The  the f a c t : t h a t two  cards were n e c e s s a r y  of the d a t a from one  problem was  r e p r e s e n t i n g one  The  Therefore, a f t e r  to be matched, the two  the  cards  behind  the  order.  cards were a l s o s o r t e d by the d i v i s i o n  from which the data o r i g i n a t e d , to ensure  t h a t the  of the a n a l y s i s would not be unduly weighted division.  by  to accomodate a l l  s u r v i v a l l i n e b e i n g p l a c e d one  other, i n a uniform  for a part-  f u r t h e r .complicated  survival line.  cards were s o r t e d they had  cards  by any  (area)  results one  Undue w e i g h t i n g o c c u r r e d o n l y i n the case o f  the a n a l y s i s o f l i f t i n g  date on s u r v i v a l .  The  f o r t h i s a n a l y s i s o r i g i n a t e d e x c l u s i v e l y from ern Vancouver I s l a n d d i v i s i o n s .  data  used  three northV  T h i s does not mean to  imply t h a t a l l d i v i s i o n s were r e p r e s e n t e d i n every  analysis.  73.  However, a l l major c l i m a t i c and  p h y s i o g r a p h i c r e g i o n s were  r e p r e s e n t e d , w i t h the e x c e p t i o n noted It  above.  t h e r e f o r e f o l l o w s t h a t the means and  trends  r e s u l t i n g from the a n a l y s e s r e p r e s e n t an average of many divisions.  In a l l l i k e l i h o o d however, the average  c a l c u l a t e d are s i m i l a r f o r a l l d i v i s i o n s ,  trends  even though the  exact r e l a t i o n s h i p between a p a r t i c u l a r s e t of v a r i a b l e s and  s u r v i v a l i s not e x a c t l y the same f o r each  division.  F o r i n s t a n c e the t r e n d of i n c r e a s e d s u r v i v a l w i t h fall  lifting  dates i s p r o b a b l y  the  same f o r each  later division,  even though a r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n c a l c u l a t e d f o r each d i v i s i o n would show t h a t l i f t i n g some d i v i s i o n s than o t h e r s . t h a t any  one  d i v i s i o n may  general trend. sufficient each  However, i t i s not  in  impossible  r e p r e s e n t an e x c e p t i o n to the  U n f o r t u n a t e l y time, and  d a t a , d i d not permit  i n some cases i n -  an independent study f o r  division. A major d i f f i c u l t y  fact  date i s more important  i n the a n a l y s e s arose from  the  t h a t not a l l s u r v i v a l l i n e s c o n t a i n e d a l l of the v a r -  i a b l e s analyzed  i n r e l a t i o n to s u r v i v a l .  s u r v i v a l l i n e s which d i d not c o n t a i n any  Therefore,all one  i c u l a r s e t o f v a r i a b l e s b e i n g a n a l y z e d had T h i s o f t e n s e v e r e l y reduced Time d i d not permit a t e l y , and  i t was  o f the p a r t -  to be  removed.  the number o f o b s e r v a t i o n s .  the a n a l y s i s of .each v a r i a b l e separ-  u s u a l l y d e s i r a b l e to a n a l y z e  two  f a c t o r s at once so t h a t t h e i r i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s to c o u l d be determined.  However the more f a c t o r s  or more survival  analyzed  74.  t o - g e t h e r , the fewer the o b s e r v a t i o n s c o u l d be used.  ( s u r v i v a l l i n e s ) that  The author attempted to f i n d an a c c e p t a b l e  compromise between a n a l y z i n g a number o f f a c t o r s and t h e i r inter-dependent  e f f e c t on s u r v i v a l , and s p r e a d i n g the data  too t h i n l y between means. were b e i n g a n a l y z e d  F o r i n s t a n c e i f three  factors  a t once, and there were f o u r c l a s s e s  ( l e v e l s ) i n each f a c t o r , then the a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e would r e s u l t i n 4 X 4 X 4 = 64 means.  I f only 704 s u r v i v a l  l i n e s have a l l t h r e e f a c t o r s p r e s e n t , then t h i s r e s u l t s i n the 704 o b s e r v a t i o n s b e i n g spread between 64 means.  This  r e s u l t s i n o n l y 704 / 64 = 11 o b s e r v a t i o n s f o r each mean. The  problem i s f u r t h e r c o m p l i c a t e d  f a c t o r are not r e p r e s e n t e d b.  i f a l l l e v e l s o f one  i n a l l l e v e l s o f another  factor.  R e g r e s s i o n .analyses All  continuous  v a r i a b l e s were a n a l y z e d  for their  r e l a t i o n s h i p to s u r v i v a l using r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s .  The  o b j e c t o f r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s i s to q u a n t i f y the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a dependent v a r i a b l e ( s u r v i v a l ) and one o r more independent v a r i a b l e s ( e . g . p l a n t i n g d a t e ) .  When  more than one independent v a r i a b l e i s used, the a n a l y s i s i s c a l l e d m u l t i p l e ( a s opposed to simple)  r e g r e s s i o n ; iff...  s t r a i g h t - l i n e r e l a t i o n s h i p s are i n v o l v e d , the a n a l y s i s i s called linear regression.  The g e n e r a l form o f a m u l t i p l e  l i n e a r r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n i s as f o l l o w s : Y = a + b-|X-] + b2X2 + .... + b n X  n  75.  where  a = a constant b  n  = the n"th r e g r e s s i o n  X  n  = the n^h  Y = the The regression  (the Y - i n t e r c e p t  independent  dependent  on a graph)  coefficient variable  variable  FORTRAN IV programme used to c a l c u l a t e  e q u a t i o n has  been d e s c r i b e d  the  by Kozak and  Smith  d i s c o n t i n u o u s v a r i a b l e s were a n a l y z e d  using  ( 1965) . c.  A n a l y s e s of All  variance  a n a l y s i s of variance  (ANOVA).  In some c a s e s , some c o n t i n -  uous v a r i a b l e s were a l s o a n a l y z e d u s i n g ANOVA, by them i n t o c l a s s e s . mean s u r v i v a l per  For  instance  i n the  case of  centages f o r each 1000  foot  placing  elevation,  change i n  e l e v a t i o n were a n a l y z e d . In an a n a l y s i s (sum  variance  a s s i g n e d to p o s s i b l e  r a t i o (the  a variable  to the  variables. difference be  r a t i o of the  variance  iance) i s calculated  total variation  the  o c c u r by  "significant"  sources or causes.  variance  A  accounted f o r  by  f o r each v a r i a b l e or i n t e r a c t i o n between  between two  calculated.  into  unaccounted f o r , or e r r o r v a r -  From the v a r i a n c e  chance t h a t not  the  of squares) i n a set of measurements i s s e p a r a t e d  components and  can  of v a r i a n c e ,  r a t i o the  p r o b a b i l i t y that  or more means d i d not  o c c u r by  chance  I f t h e r e i s at l e a s t a 95 % or a 99 1°  difference  between two  chance, then the or " h i g h l y  or more means d i d  difference  i s s a i d to  significant" respectively.  the  be If  76.  t h e r e a r e more than two means b e i n g compared, a s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a n c e r a t i o w i l l o n l y mean t h a t a t l e a s t one o f the means b e i n g compared i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y of  the r e m a i n i n g means.  or  means i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y  the r e m a i n i n g means.  d i f f e r e n t from one o r more  I t w i l l not determine which mean different  from one o r more o f  T h i s must be determined  by a "Duncan's  New M u l t i p l e Range T e s t " . U n f o r t u n a t e l y i t was not p o s s i b l e to do t h i s test.  The t e s t  r e q u i r e s t h a t the number o f o b s e r v a t i o n s  which went t o make up each mean be known.  The ANOVA prog-  ramme does not count the number of o b s e r v a t i o n s i n each mean, and the v a l u e would have been extremely to  determine.  A l t h o u g h a weighted  average  c a l c u l a t e d , the programme does not p r i n t o b s e r v a t i o n s used to determine  time-consuming  i s automatically  out the number of  each mean.  IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 1.  General S i n c e the r e s u l t s o f the a n a l y s e s are n o t from a  designed experiment are  where a l l f a c t o r s not b e i n g a n a l y z e d  kept as u n i f o r m as p o s s i b l e , the t r e n d s shown i n these  a n a l y s e s are o f t e n v a r i a b l e . all  I n these a n a l y s e s , k e e p i n g  f a c t o r s not b e i n g a n a l y z e d u n i f o r m would have s e v e r e l y  reduced the number o f o b s e r v a t i o n s , and l i m i t e d the a p p l i c ability The  o f the r e s u l t s to a narrow s e t o f c o n d i t i o n s .  r e s u l t s o f these a n a l y s e s , t h e r e f o r e , are a p p l i c a b l e  77.  only on the average, and t h e r e may be c e r t a i n s e t s o f condi t i o n s where the average t r e n d i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e . p o s s i b l e , the author  accounted f o r some d i f f e r e n t  Where sets of  c o n d i t i o n s through the use o f m u l t i - f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . The  g e n e r a l l y l a r g e number o f o b s e r v a t i o n s  i n each a n a l y s i s p r o b a b l y  e x p l a i n s why, i n some  used  cases,  seemingly s m a l l d i f f e r e n c e s i n per cent s u r v i v a l between "treatments"  are s t a t i s t i c a l l y  significant.  With many obs-  e r v a t i o n s , d i f f e r e n c e s between means do n o t have t o be l a r g e t o be s i g n i f i c a n t .  I f the experiment were to be  conducted h o l d i n g a l l o t h e r v a r i a b l e s c o n s t a n t , d i f f e r e n c e s between means would p r o b a b l y depending on a t what " l e v e l "  then the  be much g r e a t e r ,  the o t h e r f a c t o r s were h e l d  constant. 2.  The i n f l u e n c e o f age and c l a s s o f stock on s u r v i v a l The  2+1  s u r v i v a l o f s p r i n g and f a l l - p l a n t e d  2+0 and  s t o c k and s p r i n g - p l a n t e d 1+0 stock was compared u s i n g  a n a l y s i s - o f v a r i a n c e . The mean s u r v i v a l o f each c l a s s o f s t o c k i s shown i n Table I I .  There were many more s u r v i v a l  l i n e s used to determine the 2+0  s t o c k c l a s s means than were  used to determine the o t h e r s ; n e v e r t h e l e s s the a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e showed h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t  d i f f e r e n c e s between some  of the means. The planted  comparatively  h i g h s u r v i v a l o f the s p r i n g -  1+0 stock can be e x p l a i n e d by a c a r e f u l c h o i c e o f  planting sites  f o r t h i s c l a s s , and p o s s i b l y t h e r e was a  78.  Table I I .  Season o f planting  Per cent s u r v i v a l a t the end of one growing season a f t e r p l a n t i n g o f s p r i n g and f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s by/three p l a n t i n g stock c l a s s e s . Based on 1268 observations. Appendix I i shows the a n a l y s i s of variance t a b l e . Class  Spring  6  Weighted average  1+0  2+0  2+J  66.6$  61.1$  59.3$  61.7$  *  47.0$  58.1$  47.4$  Pall Weighted average  of stock  6  6 f o  ^  5  [  1o  ' * = No o b s e r v a t i o n s  larger proportion  of h e a l t h y r o o t s  On the b a s i s  J l  left  after  lifting.  o f these means, i t i s apparent  that  t h e r e i s no advantage to be gained from the use o f 2+1 in  the s p r i n g ,  use  for fall  stock  and every advantage t o be gained from i t s  planting.  this generalization:  Naturally,  t h e r e are e x c e p t i o n s to  2+1 s t o c k w i l l be d e s i r a b l e  f o r plant-  i n g i n h e a v i l y b r u s h e d - i n s i t e s i r r e s p e c t i v e o f season. P a l l p l a n t i n g o f 2+1 stock r e s u l t e d cent b e t t e r  s u r v i v a l than 2+0 s t o c k .  icant difference of s p r i n g  between the'two s t o c k c l a s s e s  r e s u l t s of t h i s a n a l y s i s  s t o c k can be p l a n t e d  i n the case  suggest t h a t  suggest t h a t  1+0  i n the s p r i n g w i t h c o m p a r a t i v e l y good  r e s u l t s i f proper p l a n t i n g  could  There i s an i n s i g n i f -  planting. The  also  i n 11.1 p e r  s i t e s are chosen.  The r e s u l t s  the s u r v i v a l o f f a l l - p l a n t e d  seedlings  be improved to an important degree through the i n c r e a s e d  79.  use  o f 2+1 s t o c k . The  g r e a t e r p l a n t i n g c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d with the  i n c r e a s e d use o f 2+1 s t o c k might l a r g e l y be o f f s e t by the r e s u l t i n g h i g h e r average s u r v i v a l , and by an i n c r e a s e i n the use o f 1 + 0 s t o c k f o r s p r i n g p l a n t i n g .  The j u d i c i o u s  use  o f 1 + 0 s t o c k on s u i t a b l e s i t e s would permit  use  o f 2+1 s t o c k .  a greater  2 + 0 s t o c k i s p r e s e n t l y p l a n t e d on s i t e s  where 1 + 0 s t o c k may s u r v i v e j u s t as w e l l ; however i t i s a l s o p l a n t e d on many s i t e s where 2+1 s t o c k would s u r v i v e much b e t t e r .  The s i t e s where 2+1 t r a n s p l a n t s should be  p l a n t e d , and where 1 + 0 s t o c k may be p l a n t e d , must be i d e n t ified.  As some authors have suggested,  1 + 0 s t o c k might be  p l a n t e d w i t h good r e s u l t s on c l e a n burns where the danger of brush  i n v a s i o n i s low.  Adequate s o i l moisture  near the  s u r f a c e would a l s o be a d e s i r a b l e f e a t u r e o f the p l a n t i n g site. The  author  has attempted t o assess  of stock c l a s s e s p l a n t e d under d i f f e r e n t The  r e s u l t s of these a n a l y s e s  the s u r v i v a l  site conditions.  are presented  i n the approp-  riate section. 3.  The i n f l u e n c e of m o r p h o l o g i c a l The  grade on s u r v i v a l  s e e d l i n g s were a s s e s s e d  by the f i e l d f o r e s t e r s  or by the p l a n t i n g crew foremen as to t h e i r g e n e r a l c o n d i t i o n on a r r i v a l a t the p l a n t i n g a r e a .  T h i s g r a d i n g i s done  strict-  l y on the b a s i s o f v i s u a l o b s e r v a t i o n o f batches o f s e e d l i n g s . The  r e l a t i o n s h i p between the grades o f s t o c k and t h e i r  v i v a l a f t e r s p r i n g and f a l l III.  planting i s illustrated  sur-  i n Table  80.  Table I I I .  Season o f  P e r cent s u r v i v a l a t the end o f one growing season a f t e r p l a n t i n g o f s p r i n g and f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s by a s u b j e c t i v e assessment o f seedl i n g c o n d i t i o n . Based on 1188 observations. Appendix I j shows the a n a l y s i s of variance table.  Condition  of Seedlings  Weighted  Go~od  iaTr"  P^oT  Dry roots  Average  Spring  61.7$  68.6$  58.5$  65.1$  62.3$  Pall  47.4$  41.9$  75.5$  56.6$  47.6$  P  l  a  n  t  i  n  S  Iveragf  5 6  '^°  5 8  '^  6 0  ' ^ 2  A l t h o u g h none of the means p r e s e n t e d i n Table III  a r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from one another, they  emphasize t h a t s u b j e c t i v e r a t i n g s based on g e n e r a l  appear-  ance are a poor i n d i c a t i o n o f the p h y s i o l o g i c a l c o n d i t i o n of the s e e d l i n g s , after planting.  o r o f the s e e d l i n g ' s According  a b i l i t y to s u r v i v e  to these r e s u l t s , s u r v i v a l i s  i n v e r s e l y r e l a t e d to m o r p h o l o g i c a l grade i f the average s u r v i v a l o f s p r i n g and f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s The  seedlings  not  have the h i g h e s t  fall  a s s e s s e d as b e i n g  i s considered,  i n "good" c o n d i t i o n d i d  s u r v i v a l e i t h e r f o r s p r i n g or f o r  planting. A knowledge o f s e e d l i n g c o n d i t i o n i s d e s i r a b l e  so t h a t the s u r v i v a l p o t e n t i a l o f the s e e d l i n g s assessed.  can be  I f the s u r v i v a l p o t e n t i a l o f the s e e d l i n g s can  be a d e q u a t e l y a s s e s s e d b e f o r e  p l a n t i n g , the s e e d l i n g s can  be a l l o c a t e d t o s i t e s where the h i g h e s t would r e s u l t .  Seedlings  with a high  average s u r v i v a l  survival potential  81  would be a l l o c a t e d t o s i t e s w i t h c o n d i t i o n s a d v e r s e s u r v i v a l , and v i c e v e r s a . f a c t o r s combining minimum.  I n t h i s way  .  to  the number o f  to reduce s u r v i v a l can be k e p t t o a  I f there i s l i t t l e  c h o i c e between p l a n t i n g s i t e s ,  the s t o c k w i t h the l o w e s t s u r v i v a l p o t e n t i a l s h o u l d  be  a l l o c a t e d t o s i t e s where t h e r e i s the b e s t chance o f morta l i t y b e i n g c o u n t e r a c t e d by the e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f n a t u r a l seedlings. S i n c e the appearance o f the s e e d l i n g does n o t seem t o r e f l e c t i t s s u r v i v a l p o t e n t i a l , a knowledge o f the h i s t o r y o f the s e e d l i n g s f r o m the time o f l i f t i n g t h e i r a r r i v a l a t the p l a n t i n g s i t e i s d e s i r a b l e .  to  In l i e u  o f a d i r e c t p h y s i o l o g i c a l measurement o f s e e d l i n g c o n d i t i o n , diameter  a t the r o o t c o l l a r , the t o p / r o o t r a t i o and  the  degree o f b r a n c h i n g o f the r o o t s seem to be the b e s t combi n a t i o n o f c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h p h y s i o l o g i c a l c o n d i t i o n and ease o f measurement. 4.  The i n f l u e n c e o f l i f t i n g and p l a n t i n g d a t e s and o f s t o r a g e on s u r v i v a l .  a.  Spring-planted seedlings The  date o f p l a n t i n g , date o f l i f t i n g and  length  the  l e n g t h o f time between l i f t i n g and p l a n t i n g ( t i m e i n s t o r a g e p l u s time i n t r a n s i t ) were a n a l y z e d i n r e l a t i o n t o the s u r v i v a l a f t e r one seedlings.  growing  season o f s p r i n g - p l a n t e d  S i x t y s u r v i v a l l i n e s , a l l from the  northern  end o f Vancouver I s l a n d , f o r m the b a s i s o f the a n a l y s e s .  82.  Neither between l i f t i n g the  the l i f t i n g  and  date nor  date of p l a n t i n g was  T a b l e IV latest  The  length  of time  p l a n t i n g were s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to  s u r v i v a l of s p r i n g - p l a n t e d  ability level.  the  seedlings.  However the  r e l a t e d to s u r v i v a l at the equation i s i l l u s t r a t e d  shows the mean p l a n t i n g date and  dates of p l a n t i n g used i n the  90 $ prob-  i n Figure  the  7.  earliest  analysis.  A second a n a l y s i s of p l a n t i n g date, l i f t i n g and  the  the. per  time between l i f t i n g  cent s u r v i v a l a f t e r one  seedlings  still  l i v i n g but  between l i f t i n g survival.  done  the  using  As w i t h  date of l i f t i n g nor  p l a n t i n g were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  the  accounted f o r a low  high  time  date  95 $ p r o b a b i l i t y  standard e r r o r s of  proportion  the  r e l a t e d to  However,the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p l a n t i n g  Both e q u a t i o n s had  date  growing season minus those  s u r v i v a l became s i g n i f i c a n t at the  level. and  and  p l a n t i n g was  i n poor c o n d i t i o n .  previous equation, n e i t h e r  and  and  and  estimate  of the v a r i a t i o n (sum  squares) i n s u r v i v a l . Although s u r v i v a l s i g n i f i c a n t l y l a t e r s p r i n g p l a n t i n g d a t e s , the appear to be an important one. s u r v i v a l decreases only period  a f t e r day  42.  1.2  This  p l a n t i n g season might be little  reduction  exercised late  i n the  r e l a t i o n s h i p does not In the  second a n a l y s i s ,  $ f o r each 10 day suggests t h a t the  planting spring  extended beyond these dates w i t h  in survival. choice  decreased w i t h  N a t u r a l l y , care should  of p l a n t i n g s i t e s f o r e a r l y  s p r i n g p l a n t i n g , and  the  be and  r e s u l t s of t h i s a n a l y s i s  of  83.  T a b l e IV.  Some parameters o f the independent v a r i a b l e s used i n the r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n s o f l i f t i n g and p l a n t i n g dates on the s u r v i v a l o f s p r i n g p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s . A l l parameters are measured i n days. Day 1 = Jan. 1 . Based on 60 s u r v i v a l l i n e s .  Independent variable  Mean  Date o f lifting  60.2  20. 1  24.0  87.0  Date o f planting  92.8  32.9  42.0  147.0  32.5  33.2  0  123.0  Planting date minus lifting date  Standard deviation  s h o u l d n o t be t r a n s p o s e d Island.  Minimum value  Maximum value  to the d r i e r areas o f Vancouver  As mentioned e a r l i e r ,  the data used i n t h i s  a n a l y s i s o r i g i n a t e d from n o r t h e r n Vancouver I s l a n d , where the summer r a i n f a l l i s f a i r l y  high.  Even s e e d l i n g s s t o r e d f o r l o n g p e r i o d s o f time b e f o r e p l a n t i n g had g e n e r a l l y good s u r v i v a l .  P e r i o d s be-  tween l i f t i n g and p l a n t i n g o f up to 123 days appear to have no  important  i n f l u e n c e on s u r v i v a l i n t h i s a r e a .  This  i l l u s t r a t e s both the e x c e l l e n t storage q u a l i t i e s o f Douglasfir  s e e d l i n g s , and the f a c t  t h a t storage might be used as  an e f f e c t i v e means o f c o n t r o l l i n g the carbohydrate in  the s e e d l i n g s u n t i l p l a n t i n g .  t h i s a n a l y s i s were l i f t e d w h i l e still  reserves  Most s e e d l i n g s -used i n  carbohydrate  f a i r l y h i g h , as i n d i c a t e d by Krueger  r e s e r v e s were  (1966).  84.  b.  Pall-planted  seedlings  The date o f l i f t i n g , time between l i f t i n g  date of p l a n t i n g , and the  and p l a n t i n g were a n a l y z e d i n r e l a t i o n  to the s u r v i v a l of f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s . l i n e s were used to d e r i v e  the r e g r e s s i o n  w i t h the p r e v i o u s a n a l y s e s ,  Mean  Date o f . lifting  308.8  Date o f planting  316.8 Q  It  Q  Standard deviation  Minimum value  Maximum value  15.3  286.0  337.0  14.9  288.0  342.0  1.0  24.0  5.9  can be seen from Table V t h a t the maximum  between l i f t i n g  fall-planted  seedlings  and p l a n t i n g was much l e s s f o r than f o r s p r i n g - p l a n t e d .  no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between time between and  analyses.  Some parameters of the independent v a r i a b l e s used i n the r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n s of l i f t i n g and p l a n t i n g dates on the s u r v i v a l of f a l l planted seedlings. A l l parameters measured i n days. Day 1 = J a n . 1. Based on 5 5 s u r v i v a l l i n e s .  Independent variable  Planting date minus lifting date  As  T a b l e V shows some s t a t -  d e s c r i b i n g the data used i n the r e g r e s s i o n Table V.  period  equations.  the s u r v i v a l l i n e s o r i g i n a t e d  from n o r t h e r n Vancouver I s l a n d . istics  55 survival  There  was  lifting  p l a n t i n g and the s u r v i v a l of f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s .  However a 24-day d i f f e r e n c e between l i f t i n g  and p l a n t i n g  85.  i s n o t an adequate t e s t of the storage q u a l i t y o f Douglasf i r seedlings. Both the date o f l i f t i n g were found  and the date o f p l a n t i n g  t o be h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d  v i v a l of f a l l - p l a n t e d  seedlings.  T h i s was t r u e both when  per cent s u r v i v a l alone was used  as the dependent v a r i a b l e ,  and when the p e r cent o f s e e d l i n g s i n "poor" s u b t r a c t e d from used  c o n d i t i o n was  the p e r cent s u r v i v a l and the d i f f e r e n c e  as the dependent v a r i a b l e .  As the r e g r e s s i o n equat-  i o n s i n T a b l e VI and F i g u r e 7 i l l u s t r a t e , found  to the s u r -  to i n c r e a s e w i t h l a t e r l i f t i n g  s u r v i v a l was  and p l a n t i n g  dates.  As was the case w i t h s p r i n g - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s , both  relat-  i o n s h i p s were h i g h l y v a r i a b l e . Table VI.  Dependent variable  The r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n s o f date o f l i f t i n g and date o f p l a n t i n g on s u r v i v a l a f t e r one growing season, and on p e r cent s u r v i v a l minus p e r cent "poors" a f t e r one growing season, for f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings.  Constant value  Regression coefficient  Independent variable Planting date  Standard error of estimate  Survival per cent  - 1 5 3 .7  +  0 .692  X  Survival per cent  -  99 . 1  +  0 .533  X  Per cent survival minus p e r = -181 .8 cent "poors"  +  0 .756  X  Planting date  17.05  i  Per cent survival minus p e r = - 1 2 7 . 9 cent "poors"  +  0 .601  X  Lifting date  18.30  i  Lifting date  17.35  %  18.51 %  87.  All  f o u r o f the r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n s p r e s e n t e d  i n Table VI are h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t .  U s i n g both  independent  v a r i a b l e s i n the same r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n does not reduce the s t a n d a r d e r r o r o f e s t i m a t e o r i n c r e a s e the per centage of v a r i a t i o n  (sum o f squares) i n s u r v i v a l accounted f o r to  any meaningful- e x t e n t . The  date o f p l a n t i n g i s a b e t t e r e s t i m a t e o f the  s u r v i v a l p o t e n t i a l of f a l l - p l a n t e d date o f l i f t i n g ,  s e e d l i n g s than i s the  i n terms of both a lower s t a n d a r d e r r o r  of e s t i m a t e and a h i g h e r p e r centage s u r v i v a l accounted  for.  o f the v a r i a t i o n i n  The v a r i a b i l i t y  o f the data makes  all  e q u a t i o n s u s e l e s s f o r p r e d i c t i o n purposes.  all  equations i l l u s t r a t e  planted seedlings w i l l , early-lifted  thatlthe l a t e r - l i f t e d on the average,  However, and l a t e r -  survive better  than  and p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s , w i t h i n the l i m i t s of  the o b s e r v a t i o n s (see Table V ) . c.  Discussion The  lower s u r v i v a l o f the l a t e r  (compared to  e a r l y ) s p r i n g - p l a n t e d s t o c k may be accounted  f o r by the  warming and d r y i n g o f the weather l a t e r i n the s p r i n g , the r e d u c t i o n i n carbohydrate r e s e r v e s , and the reduced  root  activity. Although s u r v i v a l i s reduced  s i g n i f i c a n t l y by  p l a n t i n g l a t e i n the s p r i n g , the t r e n d i s not important enough to j u s t i f y any major o p e r a t i o n s t o c o u n t e r a c t the trend.  The t r e n d may be more important than i s i l l u s t r a t e d  88.  by the a n a l y s e s however, because o f the f a i r l y h i g h summer rainfall  on the n o r t h e r n end of Vancouver I s l a n d where the  data o r i g i n a t e d .  Where the weather or o t h e r s i t e c o n d i t -  i o n s are more u n f a v o u r a b l e f o r s u r v i v a l , ing  date may  assume more importance.  may  be reduced  by p l a n t i n g the l a t e r - l i f t e d  i n December and  s t o c k on the  L i f t i n g the s t o c k  e a r l y January w h i l e carbohydrate  r o o t a c t i v i t y low,  reserves  and c o l d s t o r a g e o f the  stock u n t i l needed, w i l l a l s o h e l p to reduce The  plant-  I f so, the t r e n d  s i t e s with a high s u r v i v a l p o t e n t i a l .  are h i g h and  the s p r i n g  s u r v i v a l of f a l l - p l a n t e d  the t r e n d .  s e e d l i n g s i s even  more c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o the date o f p l a n t i n g , and i s a l s o significantly  r e l a t e d to the date of l i f t i n g .  date seems t o be a more important  Planting  f a c t o r than l i f t i n g  date,  but both v a r i a b l e s d e s c r i b e much of, the same v a r i a t i o n i n the s u r v i v a l o f f a l l - p l a n t e d ( p l a n t i n g date and l i f t i n g icient  of 0 . 9 2 4 .  seedlings.  The  two  variables  date) have a c o r r e l a t i o n  coeff-  However p l a n t i n g date a l s o accounts f o r  some v a r i a t i o n i n s u r v i v a l not e x p l a i n e d by i t s h i g h e l a t i o n with l i f t i n g  date.  l a c k of r o o t growth and  Low  carbohydrate r e s e r v e s ,  i n s u f f i c i e n t hardening-off probably  accounts f o r most of the r e s t of the v a r i a t i o n not for  by the h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h l i f t i n g It  be  growth low a t the time of l i f t i n g .  accounted  date.  i s u n l i k e l y t h a t the date of l i f t i n g  scheduled so t h a t c a r b o h y d r a t e  suggested,  corr-  can always  r e s e r v e s are h i g h and r o o t As many a u t h o r s have  s e e d l i n g s s h o u l d be l i f t e d  as l a t e as p o s s i b l e  89.  for fall-planting. be l i f t e d  early.  However, some s e e d l i n g s must  The most l o g i c a l way i n which to  a c t the t r e n d of h i g h e r  s u r v i v a l with  i s t o p l a n t the e a r l y - l i f t e d the  s i t e s with  dates  s e e d l i n g s on the s i t e s where  f o r the more severe The  counter-  later l i f t i n g  s u r v i v a l p o t e n t i a l i s h i g h , and r e s e r v e  seedlings  obviously  the l a t e r - l i f t e d  sites.  problem then becomes one of i d e n t i f y i n g the  different  survival potentials.  The a u t h o r  attempts t o i d e n t i f y these s i t e s l a t e r i n the t h e s i s . 5.  The i n f l u e n c e o f the n u r s e r y on s u r v i v a l The  nursery  o r i g i n of the s e e d l i n g s  o r i g i n o f the s e e d l i n g s was  believed  by many company f o r e s t e r s to be r e l a t e d to s u r v i v a l .  This  b e l i e f was s u b s t a n t i a t e d by the a n a l y s i s , which showed that h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t between the s u r v i v a l of s e e d l i n g s o r i g i n a t i n g from d i f f e r e n t The  nurseries.  average s u r v i v a l of s e e d l i n g s from the three  n u r s e r i e s was compared u s i n g a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e .  Two of  these n u r s e r i e s , Duncan and Quinsam, are l o c a t e d on Vancouver Island.  The t h i r d , Green Timbers, i s l o c a t e d i n the lower  F r a s e r V a l l e y , a t Surrey, The  B.C.  average s u r v i v a l o f s e e d l i n g s o r i g i n a t i n g from  these n u r s e r i e s i s shown i n Table V I I . There are a number o f p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r these d i f f e r e n c e s . nursery site,  The s e e d l i n g s from the Green Timbers  must t r a v e l the l o n g e s t  and the l o n g e r  distance  to the p l a n t i n g  time i n t r a n s i t might e x p l a i n sone of  90.  Table VII.  Per cent s u r v i v a l at the end of one growing season a f t e r p l a n t i n g by the n u r s e r y o r i g i n of the s e e d l i n g s . Based on 850 s u r v i v a l l i n e s . Nui"sery of  Green Timbers . 58.0  %  origin  Duncan  Quinsam  62.5  65.5  i>  %  difference i n survival. Another p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n i s t h a t the s e e d l i n g are l i f t e d  at d i f f e r e n t  p o s s i b i l i t y c o u l d not be Nursery  times at each n u r s e r y , a l t h o u g h t h i checked.  s o i l management may  a l s o be a f a c t o r i n  r e d u c i n g the s u r v i v a l of s e e d l i n g s from the Green Timbers nursery. It  i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note  t h a t the s u r v i v a l of  the s e e d l i n g s i s i n v e r s e l y r e l a t e d to the p r o d u c t i o n of the nursery.  Perhaps the s e e d l i n g s from the l a r g e r n u r s e r i e s  do not r e c e i v e the care i n l i f t i n g and  transplanting etc.  t h a t the s e e d l i n g s from the s m a l l e r n u r s e r i e s do. A final  possibility  i s t h a t the s e e d l i n g s from  the d i f f e r e n t n u r s e r i e s were p l a n t e d i n d i f f e r e n t and  i t i s the c o n d i t i o n at the d i v i s i o n , not  t h a t determines  the d i f f e r e n c e s i n s u r v i v a l .  attempted to determine i f t h e r e was  divisions.  I t was  The  nursery, author  a heavy w e i g h t i n g  the r e s u l t s by the s e e d l i n g s from any p l a n t e d i n a few  the  divisions  one  found  nursery that  being  although  some d i v i s i o n s r e l y much more h e a v i l y on one n u r s e r y on o t h e r s , t h e r e was  no  of  than  s y s t e m a t i c d i s t r i b u t i o n of the  s e e d l i n g s from the Green Timbers n u r s e r y had c o n s i s t e n t l y low s u r v i v a l .  to d i v i s i o n s which  T a b l e V I I I shows the s u r v i v a l  of the s e e d l i n g s from the t h r e e d i f f e r e n t n u r s e r i e s by the d i v i s i o n i n which they were p l a n t e d . Table V I I I .  Division of planting Port Hardy  Per cent s u r v i v a l a t the end o f one growing season a f t e r p l a n t i n g by n u r s e r y o r i g i n of the s e e d l i n g s and a r e a of p l a n t i n g . Based on 850 s u r vival lines. The a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e t a b l e i s shown i n Appendix I h .  Nursery Duncan  *  of o r i g i n  Green Timbers 58.9  Menzies Bay  51 .7  *  Kelsey Bay  58.6  *  Sproat Lake  57.5  Kennedy Lake  64.9  Franklin River  i°  #  Quinsam  Weighted average  67.4  i  63.9  i  69.1  i  61 .3  i  60.3  i  56.6  i  48.2  io  50.5  i  *  55.8  i  1o  65.6  %  *  66.2  i  68.6  1o  65.0  io  66.2  io  66.6  i  Northwest Bay  52.1  1o  59.1  i  65.6  i  57.6  %  Nanaimo River  55.4  1o  56.2  i  65.1  i  60.6  i  Shawnigah Lake  *  *  *  65.4  %  Stillwater  64.3  1o  59.3  i  Weighted average  62.5  1o  58.0  io  * = m i s s i n g or too few  64.7  io  * 65.5  observations  i  6.  The i n f l u e n c e of t r e e s p l a n t e d on s u r v i v a l  p e r man-day  I t was suspected t h a t r e d u c i n g trees planted  p e r man-day might r e s u l t i n b e t t e r q u a l i t y  p l a n t i n g and hence h i g h e r yzed u s i n g  the number of  survival.  T h i s f a c t o r was a n a l -  r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s , k e e p i n g as many other  o r s as p o s s i b l e c o n s t a n t .  fact-  Even when t h i s was done, however,  r a t e s o f p l a n t i n g between 4 2 0 and 1000 t r e e s p e r man-day were found to have no s i g n i f i c a n t  relationship to s u r v i v a l .  T h i s i s no doubt due t o the many f a c t o r s d e t e r m i n i n g the number o f t r e e s t h a t can be p l a n t e d r i d i n g e f f e c t s of other  w e l l , and to the o v e r -  factors affecting survival.  o f t h i s a n a l y s i s , i t i s obvious t h a t t h e r e  In spit  i s an upper  to the r a t e at which a p l a n t e r can p l a n t w e l l .  This  limit  rate  depends on so many f a c t o r s t h a t no m e a n i n g f u l a n a l y s i s was possible. I t i s important to d i s t i n g u i s h between the number of seedlings  planted  p e r man-day and the time r e q u i r e d t o  p l a n t one s u r v i v i n g s e e d l i n g . is  the most i m p o r t a n t .  which o n l y  7.  Planting  50 p e r cent w i l l  p l a n t i n g 60 s e e d l i n g s  N a t u r a l l y the l a t t e r f i g u r e 100 s e e d l i n g s  survive  was a n a l y z e d planted clean  i s no b e t t e r  than  p e r hour w i t h 85 p e r cent s u r v i v a l .  The i n f l u e n c e of s l a s h b u r n i n g The  p e r hour o f  on s u r v i v a l  e f f e c t o f s e v e r i t y and time of  slashburning  i n r e l a t i o n to the s u r v i v a l o f s p r i n g and f a l l -  seedlings.  (hot); l i g h t  Three c l a s s e s o f burn were a n a l y z e d : and/or p a r t i a l ;  and unburned.  The r e s u l t  93.  of t h i s a n a l y s i s are p r e s e n t e d Table  Season o f planting  IX.  i n Table IX.  Per cent s u r v i v a l a t the end of one growing season a f t e r p l a n t i n g o f s p r i n g and f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s by the degree of s l a s h b u r n . Based on 1081 survival lines. Appendix l b shows the a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e t a b l e .  Degree o f s l a s h b u r n hot  Spring  l i g h t and/ or p a r t i a l  unburned  Weighted average  63.4 %  58.9  i  59.0 %  61.3  i  Pall  48.5 %  46.9  io  47.6 %  47.7  i  Weighted average  58.4  53.3  i  54.3  i  i  S u r v i v a l was s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n c r e a s e d by p l a n t i n g in  "hot" slashburned  but i n g e n e r a l there was  little  d i f f e r e n c e between the s u r v i v a l o f s e e d l i n g s p l a n t e d  on un-  burned and l i g h t It  areas,  and/or p a r t i a l  burns.  can be seen from t a b l e IX t h a t the degree o f  s l a s h b u r n has more e f f e c t on s p r i n g - p l a n t e d than on f a l l planted in  seedlings.  I n both cases  there i s l i t t l e  the s u r v i v a l o f s e e d l i n g s p l a n t e d on l i g h t  difference  and/or p a r t i a l  and unburned a r e a s , but i n the case o f f a l l - p l a n t e d even a hot burn does not i n c r e a s e s u r v i v a l In the case o f s p r i n g - p l a n t e d d e f i n i t e e f f e c t on s u r v i v a l , and  seedlings  significantly.  s e e d l i n g s , a hot burn has a i n c r e a s i n g i t 4.5 p e r cent  4.6 p e r cent over the o t h e r two c l a s s e s o f burn. A l -  though the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y  s i g n i f i c a n t , the  a u t h o r can o f f e r no e x p l a n a t i o n o f the phenomena, o t h e r  94.  than t h a t the b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t o f a hot burn on the s u r v i v a l o f f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s i s masked by the many adverse factors  affecting  seedlings planted during t h i s  season. The  degree o f s l a s h b u r n would a f f e c t  two g e n e r a l ways. v i v a l through  A h o t burn would tend t o decrease  the adverse  and  I n an attempt t o a n a l y z e  this latter  s u r v i v a l was a n a l y z e d by the degree o f s l a s h b u r n  by the degree o f brush and/or s l a s h  ing a f t e r a f i r e . ized  and a hot  to i n c r e a s e s u r v i v a l by removing competing  v e g e t a t i o n and s l a s h . effect,  sur-  e f f e c t s o f the burn on the p h y s i c a l ,  c h e m i c a l and b i o l o g i c a l p r o p e r t i e s o f the s o i l , burn would tend  survival i n  The r e s u l t s  competition  of t h i s analysis  remain-  a r e summar-  i n T a b l e X. Table X.  Degree o f slashburn  Per cent s u r v i v a l a t the end o f one growing season a f t e r p l a n t i n g by the degree o f s l a s h b u r n and the amount o f ground c o m p e t i t i o n . Based on 1081 s u r v i v a l l i n e s . Appendix l b shows the a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t a b l e . Ground cover  l i g h t or none  medium and/or  competition brush slash  Hot  58.5 %  58.4  i  Light or partial  57.2 %  52.9  Unburned  63.8 %  Weighted average  58.7  i  heavy brush Weighted and/or s l a s h average  55*3 i*  58.4  i  io  50.4  i  53.3  i  54.8  io  49.7  i  .54.3  i  54.6  i  50.5  i  * - few o b s e r v a t i o n s  I t can be seen f r o m T a b l e X t h a t s u r v i v a l i s r e d uced by heavy b r u s h and/or s l a s h on unburned a r e a s . h i g h e s t s u r v i v a l (63.8 /o) o c c u r s a  little vival  on unburned a r e a s w i t h  o r no competing ground c o v e r , and t h e l o w e s t (49-7 io) o c c u r s  cover competition.  The  sur-  on unburned a r e a s w i t h heavy ground  S l a s h b u r n i n g has t h e e f f e c t o f e q u a l -  i z i n g s u r v i v a l under a l l ground c o v e r c o n d i t i o n s . The ical,  a d v e r s e e f f e c t s o f a h o t s l a s h b u r n on t h e phys-  chemical  and b i o l o g i c a l p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e s o i l a r e  e v i d e n t from T a b l e X, i n t h e " l i g h t o r none" ground c o m p e t i t i o n column.  cover  H e r e , t h e degree o f ground c o v e r  comp-  e t i t i o n i s u n i f o r m l y l o w . The d i f f e r e n c e l i e s i n how t h i s c o n d i t i o n was a c h i e v e d .  I f t h e ground was l e f t c l e a n  after  l o g g i n g , t h e s u r v i v a l o f s e e d l i n g s p l a n t e d here i s h i g h ; i f b u r n i n g was n e c e s s a r y  to achieve  t h e " c l e a n " ground  cover  c o n d i t i o n , s u r v i v a l i s reduced. I t i s t h e r e f o r e e v i d e n t t h a t s l a s h b u r n i n g on s i t e s with l i t t l e  o r no c o m p e t i t i o n w i l l reduce s u r v i v a l .  Fort-  u n a t e l y , these are the s i t e s which should l e a s t r e q u i r e slashburning.  U n f o r t u n a t e l y , however, these  s i t e s are  o f t e n burned.  On s i t e s w i t h heavy ground c o v e r  competition,  s l a s h b u r n i n g i s d e s i r a b l e b o t h t o reduce c o m p e t i t i o n f o r t h e p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s , and to. reduce t h e f i r e The  hazard.  number o f y e a r s between s l a s h b u r n i n g and  p l a n t i n g was a n a l y z e d sion analysis.  i n r e l a t i o n to s u r v i v a l using  regres-  The r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t  when time between  s l a s h b u r n i n g and p l a n t i n g was used as t h e  96.  o n l y i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e , b u t was s i g n i f i c a n t when t h e y e a r o f p l a n t i n g was a l s o used as an i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e . The r e g r e s s i o n  a n a l y s i s showed t h a t s u r v i v a l i n c r e a s e d  i n c r e a s i n g t i m e between s l a s h b u r n i n g  and p l a n t i n g .  with  Although  s i g n i f i c a n t , t h e e q u a t i o n a c c o u n t e d f o r a low p r o p o r t i o n o f the v a r i a t i o n (sum o f s q u a r e s ) i n s u r v i v a l ( 1 1 , 9 i°) , and had  a high  s t a n d a r d e r r o r o f e s t i m a t e (10.96 % ) .  ionship i s of l i t t l e and  The r e l a t -  i m p o r t a n c e because o f i t s v a r i a b i l i t y  t h e f a c t t h a t i t i s n o t e c o n o m i c a l l y sound t o w a i t t o o  long a f t e r logging before r e f o r e s t i n g . 8.  The i n f l u e n c e o f some e n v i r o n m e n t a l ( s i t e ) f a c t o r s on s u r v i v a l  a.  E l e v a t i o n of the p l a n t i n g  site  R e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s showed t h a t t h e r e was no l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e e l e v a t i o n o f t h e p l a n t i n g s i t e and p e r c e n t s u r v i v a l .  However, i t was s u s p e c t e d  that  the r e l a t i o n s h i p may n o t have been l i n e a r , so t h e d a t a was re-analyzed  using analysis of variance.  E l e v a t i o n was  placed  i n t o 1000-foot c l a s s e s , and t h e mean s u r v i v a l o f s p r i n g and f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings  i n each c l a s s compared.  Unfortun-  a t e l y , a l a c k of data d i d not permit comparison of the surv i v a l of seedlings Highly  planted  above 3000 f e e t i n e l e v a t i o n .  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found between t h e av-  erage s u r v i v a l o f s e e d l i n g s  planted  i n the e l e v a t i o n  classes.  The r e s u l t s o f t h e a n a l y s i s a r e summarized i n T a b l e X I . The i n t e r a c t i o n between season and e l e v a t i o n o f  97.  Table XI.  Season o f planting  Per cent s u r v i v a l a t the end of one growing season a f t e r p l a n t i n g o f s p r i n g and f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s by the e l e v a t i o n c l a s s o f the p l a n t ing s i t e . Based on 1081 s u r v i v a l lines. Appendix l a shows the a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e t a b l e .  Elevation 0 - 1000  1001  classes 2000  2001 - 3000  Weighted average  Spring  62.2 io  60.4 %  60.1 io  61 .3 io  Pall  46.8 %  50.1 %  45.8 %  47.7 i  55.9 io  54.6 io  Weighted average  5  6  io  '  p l a n t i n g was h i g h l y  significant.  I n o t h e r words, the  r e l a t i o n s h i p between s u r v i v a l and e l e v a t i o n o f p l a n t i n g was n o t the same f o r s p r i n g and f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s . As  can be seen i n T a b l e XI, the e l e v a t i o n o f the p l a n t i n g  s i t e made l i t t l e planted  d i f f e r e n c e t o the s u r v i v a l o f s p r i n g -  seedlings.  seedlings  However, the s u r v i v a l of f a l l - p l a n t e d  was improved when p l a n t e d  i n the 1001 t o 2000-  f o o t e l e v a t i o n c l a s s compared to the o t h e r two e l e v a t i o n classes. Possible fall-planted  explanations  seedlings  planted  f o r the low s u r v i v a l o f i n the 0 - 1000-foot  may be l a t e f r o s t , and f r o s t - h e a v i n g . the h i g h - e l e v a t i o n  class  The low s u r v i v a l o f  c l a s s may be due t o e a r l y f r o s t s and  heavy snow. b.  Aspect o f the p l a n t i n g  site  Three c l a s s e s of a s p e c t were a n a l y z e d i n r e l a t i o n  98.  to  the p e r cent  lings.  s u r v i v a l o f s p r i n g and f a l l - p l a n t e d  The t h r e e aspect  c l a s s e s analyzed  west, n o r t h to e a s t , and f l a t . l i n g s planted  i n each o f these  seed-  were: south to  The mean s u r v i v a l o f seedc l a s s e s was c a l c u l a t e d , and  t e s t e d f o r s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s u s i n g a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e , The is  mean s u r v i v a l of s e e d l i n g s p l a n t e d  Per cent s u r v i v a l a t the end o f one growing season a f t e r p l a n t i n g o f s p r i n g and f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s by the aspect of the p l a n t i n g s i t e . Based on 1081 s u r v i v a l l i n e s . Appendix l a shows the a n a l y s i s of v a r iance t a b l e .  Season o f  Aspect  S  Weighted  ~ l ^ h ~ to west  Hal  n^h" to e a s t  Spring  61.1 %  59.0 %  63.5 %  61.3 %  Pall  45.8 io  48.3 %  52.4 %  47.7 %  l a n t i n  Weighted average  ^  ^  /  As est  class  shown i n Table X I I . Table X I I .  P  i n each aspect  /  ^ J  '  can be seen from Table X I I ,  f o r seedlings planted  s p r i n g and f a l l - p l a n t e d  ' a^rage  s u r v i v a l was h i g h -  on n o r t h t o east a s p e c t s  seedlings.  f o r both  Aspect appears to make  l e s s d i f f e r e n c e to the s u r v i v a l o f s p r i n g - p l a n t e d than planted  seedlings.  s e e d l i n g s on south  S u r v i v a l i s lowest  f o r fall-planted  t o west s l o p e s , and lowest  f o r spring-  planted  s e e d l i n g s on f l a t  planted  s e e d l i n g s , however, the d i f f e r e n c e i n s u r v i v a l be-  tween f l a t  areas.  fall-  s l o p e s and south  I n the case o f s p r i n g -  to west a s p e c t s  i s probably n o t  99.  significant.  The s u r v i v a l o f f a l l - p l a n t e d  seedlings  v a r i e s d i r e c t l y w i t h the s e v e r i t y of exposure, b e i n g h i g h e s t on n o r t h t o east and lowest west  on south t o  aspects. S i n c e aspect  planted to  survival  e x e r t s more o f an i n f l u e n c e on f a l l -  s e e d l i n g s than on s p r i n g - p l a n t e d , i t seems a d v i s a b l e  r e s e r v e the n o r t h t o east a s p e c t s f o r f a l l - p l a n t i n g .  There a r e some e x c e p t i o n s These are noted c.  to t h i s g e n e r a l i z a t i o n however.  i n the.next  section.  The combined i n f l u e n c e o f aspect The  and e l e v a t i o n  combined e f f e c t of aspect  and e l e v a t i o n on  s u r v i v a l was a n a l y z e d u s i n g a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e . s u r v i v a l f o r each aspect  by e l e v a t i o n c l a s s and season o f  p l a n t i n g i s shown i n T a b l e Table X I I I .  XIII.  Per cent s u r v i v a l a t the end of one growing season a f t e r p l a n t i n g of s p r i n g and f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s by a s p e c t and e l e v a t i o n c l a s s of the planting site. Based on 1081 s u r vival lines. Appendix l a shows the a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e t a b l e .  E l e v a t i o n c l a s s and season of p l a n t i n g  Aspect  0 - 1000 Spring  Pall  The mean  Weighted average  1001 - 2000  2001 - 3000  Spring  Spring  Fa'lll  Pall  South to west 63.3%  47.2%  59.3%  47.8%  59.4%  42.6%  54. 3%  57.6%  49.0%  62.4%  48.1%  57.9%  46.6%  55. 5%  North to east 65.7%  43.7%  61.4%  56.1%  62.9%  57.5%  59. 8%  Weighted avg. 62.2%  46.8%  60.4%  50.1%  60.1%  45.8%  Plat  100.  Spring planting results i n survival superior to f a l l p l a n t i n g on e v e r y a s p e c t and e l e v a t i o n c l a s s combination.  S i n c e p l a n t i n g cannot be c o n f i n e d t o t h e s p r i n g ,  the b e s t c o m b i n a t i o n s o f a s p e c t and e l e v a t i o n w h i c h in  thehighest f a l l  result  s u r v i v a l s h o u l d be chosen f o r f a l l  p l a n t i n g , p r o v i d i n g t h a t t h e s e s i t e s do n o t a l s o r e p r e s e n t greatly superior spring planting sites.  On t h e b a s i s o f  T a b l e X I I I , c o m p a r a t i v e l y good s u r v i v a l c a n be a c h i e v e d by c o n c e n t r a t i n g f a l l p l a n t i n g on n o r t h t o e a s t a s p e c t s between 1000 and 3000 f e e t i n e l e v a t i o n .  P a l l p l a n t i n g cannot be  c o n f i n e d t o t h e s e l i m i t s a t a l l t i m e s ; however, t h e s e  sites  s h o u l d be t h e f i r s t  c h o i c e f o r f a l l p l a n t i n g , s i n c e none a r e  b e t t e r t h a n average  choices f o r spring planting.  Other  a s p e c t - e l e v a t i o n c o m b i n a t i o n s may be chosen f o r f a l l  planting  s i t e s , b u t some c o m b i n a t i o n s , such a s n o r t h t o e a s t a s p e c t s between 0 and 1000 f e e t , and s o u t h t o west a s p e c t s between 2000 and 3000 f e e t , s h o u l d be a v o i d e d f o r f a l l d.  planting.  Ground c o v e r c o m p e t i t i o n The  amount o f b r u s h and/or s l a s h on t h e ground a t  t h e t i m e o f p l a n t i n g was found t o be h i g h l y  significantly  r e l a t e d t o p e r c e n t s u r v i v a l a f t e r one g r o w i n g season. r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e amount o f ground  The  cover competition  and s u r v i v a l i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n T a b l e X I V . As c a n be seen from T a b l e XIV, i n c r e a s i n g cover c o m p e t i t i o n r e s u l t e d i n decreased s p r i n g and f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s .  ground  s u r v i v a l f o r both  101.  T a b l e XIV.  Season o f planting  Per cent s u r v i v a l at the end of one growing season a f t e r p l a n t i n g of s p r i n g and f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s by the degree of ground cover competition. Based on 1081 s u r v i v a l lines. Appendix l b shows the a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e t a b l e .  Degree of ground cover c o m p e t i t i o n none to very l i g h t  Weighted average  Medium  Heavy  Spring  63.8  %  60.2 %  54.8 %  61.3 %  Pall  49.6 io  47.0 i  44.3 io  47.7 %  54.6 io  50.5 io  Weighted average  5  ?  io  '  A r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s was l a r g e r s e e d l i n g s had  significantly better survival  s m a l l s e e d l i n g s when p l a n t e d was  not  done to determine i f  found to be the  than  i n heavy ground c o v e r .  case.  This  Although l a r g e r seedlings  s u r v i v e d s l i g h t l y b e t t e r than s m a l l e r s e e d l i n g s when planted  i n heavy ground cover,  the r e l a t i o n s h i p was  not  significant. A f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e was mine i f the e f f e c t particular  of ground cover was  done to  more n o t i c a b l e on  cover  shown i n Table XV,  except n o r t h  to  d i f f e r i n g r e a c t i o n o f the s e e d l i n g s to  the degree of ground cover significant  c l a s s and  i l l u s t r a t e s t h a t heavy ground  d e c r e a s e s s u r v i v a l on a l l a s p e c t s  east a s p e c t s . The  is  any  aspect. Mean s u r v i v a l per cent by ground cover  aspect,  deter-  competition  depending on  at the 95 per cent p r o b a b i l i t y  level.  aspect  102.  T a b l e XV.  Per cent s u r v i v a l a t the end of one growing season a f t e r p l a n t i n g by a s p e c t and ground cover c o m p e t i t i o n classes. Based on 1081 o b s e r v a t i o n s . Appendix l b shows the a n a l y s i s of variance table.  Ground cover  Aspect  competition  Weighted average  light or none  medium  heavy  South to west  58.5 lo  51.6 io  46.8  %  54.3  %  Plat  57.1 io  56.3  i  47.3  i  55.5  %  North to e a s t  60.5  i  59.2  %  60.0  %  59.8  i  Weighted average  58.7  i  54.6 io  50.5  i  The  f a c t t h a t heavy ground cover c o m p e t i t i o n  has  v i r t u a l l y no i n f l u e n c e on s u r v i v a l on n o r t h to east a s p e c t s , and  s e v e r e l y reduces  s u r v i v a l on f l a t  and  south to west  a s p e c t s , i n d i c a t e s t h a t the i n f l u e n c e of ground cover i s mainly  a c o m p e t i t i v e one.  Any  b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t o f ground  cover i n p r o v i d i n g shade on south to west a s p e c t s i s masked by i t s adverse  effect  i n d e p l e t i n g s o i l moisture.  s l o p e s , o n l y heavy c o m p e t i t i o n appears to reduce to  any  important  bottomland,.this light  and  extent. may  Where the f l a t  be due  areas  On  flat  survival  coincide with  as much to a c o m p e t i t i o n f o r  p h y s i c a l " s t r a n g l i n g " as i t i s to s o i l  moisture  competition. It  appears from T a b l e XV  cover i s an important aspect on s u r v i v a l . cover, a s p e c t has  t h a t the degree o f ground  f a c t o r i n determining Where t h e r e i s l i t t l e  little  the e f f e c t or no  i n f l u e n c e on s u r v i v a l .  of  ground A  separate  103.  a n a l y s i s showed t h a t s u r v i v a l was ecially for fall-planted  markedly reduced,  esp-  s e e d l i n g s , on unburned areas  on  south to west s l o p e s compared to unburned areas on n o r t h to e a s t or f l a t little  slopes.  b e n e f i t i n brush  i f per cent  T h e r e f o r e , there appears to be c o n t r o l on n o r t h to east  s u r v i v a l i s the c r i t e r i a of  aspects  success.  In o r d e r to determine what age  and  c l a s s of  stock  might be advantaged i n heavy brush and/or s l a s h s i t e s , mean s u r v i v a l per cent by age cover c o m p e t i t i o n c l a s s was  i n Table XVI,  80.7  i  *  2+0  86.4  i  81.9  %  82.0  2+1  89.0$'  89.3$  *  Weighted average  of  for spring-plant  Ground cover c o m p e t i t i o n T~. 7 T T! Z light medium heavy or none $  0  results  Per cent s u r v i v a l a t the end o f one growing season a f t e r p l a n t i n g by p l a n t i n g s t o c k c l a s s and ground cover competition c l a s s , f o r spring-planted s e e d l i n g s . Based on 799 s u r v i v a l lines. Appendix Ig shows the a n a l y s i of v a r i a n c e t a b l e .  86.0  1+  The  ground  only. T a b l e XVI.  Age of stock  c l a s s of stock and  calculated.  t h i s a n a l y s i s are reproduced seedlings  and  the  8 y  2  83.9  i o  i  82.0  Weighted average &  $  82.6  $  83.5  $  89.2$ $  ' ' ' * = i n s u f f i c i e n t observations I t can be  of 1 + 0 and  2+0  "none or l i g h t "  seen from Table XVI s t o c k was  lower  t h a t the  survival  i n "medium" than i n the  ground cover c o m p e t i t i o n c l a s s , w h i l e 2 + 1  104.  stock was n o t so a f f e c t e d . the  There i s l i t t l e  s u r v i v a l o f 2 + 0 stock p l a n t e d  i n the medium o r heavy  ground c o v e r c l a s s e s f o r s p r i n g - p l a n t e d unately, planted e.  seedlings.  Unfort-  a s i m i l a r comparison was not p o s s i b l e f o r f a l l seedlings.  The e f f e c t o f p l a n t i n g i n t h i c k The  duff  average s u r v i v a l i n each o f two d u f f  c l a s s e s was c a l c u l a t e d and compared u s i n g iance.  difference i n  thickness  analysis of var-  These means are shown i n Table XVII. T a b l e XVII.  Season o f planting  P e r cent s u r v i v a l a t the end o f one growing season a f t e r p l a n t i n g o f s p r i n g and f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s by two d u f f t h i c k n e s s c l a s s e s . Based on 1426 s u r v i v a l l i n e s . Appendix I f shows the a n a l y s i s o f variance table .  Spring  Duff thickness c l a s s thick not t h i c k 58.3 % 64.2 %  Pall  44.4 %  Weighted average The  5  1q  49.7 %  • '  5  9  0 J  seedlings  '  d i f f e r e n c e s between a l l the means i n T a b l e  i n t h i c k d u f f p r o b a b l y r e s u l t s from the  fact that t h i s l a y e r desiccates  slashburns  quickly during  drying  weather  The author observed t h a t a l l but the h o t t e s t of w i l l not reduce the t h i c k n e s s  to any a p p r e c i a b l e uniformly.  probability level.  lower s u r v i v a l o f both s p r i n g and f a l l - p l a n t e d  planted  conditions.  48.7 %  io  XVII a r e s i g n i f i c a n t a t the 99 p e r cent The  Weighted average 63.5 %  extent,  The b a s i c  o f the d u f f  but r a t h e r w i l l  layer  char i t f a i r l y  s t r u c t u r e of the d u f f l a y e r (low  105.  s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y , f i b r o u s , l a r g e amount o f pore space, r e l a t i v e l y undecomposed) remains b a s i c a l l y unchanged a normal  after  slashburn. S u r v i v a l on s i t e s w i t h a heavy d u f f l a y e r c o u l d  probably  be s i g n i f i c a n t l y improved by p l a n t i n g l a r g e  l i n g s on these  s i t e s , and e n s u r i n g  seed-  t h a t the r o o t c o l l a r i s  p l a c e d a t the boundary between the d u f f l a y e r and' m i n e r a l soil.  The author observed t h a t some p l a n t a t i o n s were  total  f a i l u r e s due t o p l a n t i n g s m a l l s e e d l i n g s i n a t h i c k d u f f layer.  W i t h the s m a l l s i z e of s e e d l i n g s used i t was n e a r l y  impossible  f o r the p l a n t e r s to ensure t h a t the r o o t s were  placed f i r m l y f.  into mineral  soil.  The e f f e c t o f topographyTopography was p l a c e d i n t o f o u r c l a s s e s  rolling,  (flat,  s l i g h t to moderate and steep) and the mean s u r -  v i v a l p e r cent f o r each topography c l a s s c a l c u l a t e d , f o r both S p r i n g and f a l l - p l a n t e d  seedlings.  Table X V I I I  t r a t e s the mean s u r v i v a l f o r each topography c l a s s .  illusThe  r e s u l t s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t at the 99 p e r cent p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l . There appears to be l i t t l e between s e e d l i n g s p l a n t e d  difference i n survival  on s l i g h t to moderate and steep  slopes, f o r e i t h e r spring or f a l l - p l a n t e d  seedlings.  ing  s u r v i v a l f o r both  on f l a t  areas  r e s u l t e d i n the h i g h e s t  s p r i n g and f a l l - p l a n t e d of s p r i n g - p l a n t e d  seedlings.  Plant-  I n g e n e r a l , the. s u r v i v a l  s e e d l i n g s does not appear to be very much  a f f e c t e d by topography.  Pall-planted  s e e d l i n g s , however,  106.  Table  Season o f planting  f  l  a  XVIII.  Topography c l a s s rolling s l i g h t to moderate  t  Spring  65.8 io  Pall  54.6  Weighted average  62.4  higher  i  63.1  i  63.4  i  i  44.9 i°  48.9  %  48.1  i  49.2  i  i  55.6  i  58.0  i  57.2  i  a f f e c t e d by p l a n t i n g i n r o l l i n g  T h i s low s u r v i v a l might be a t t r i b u t e d t o a o f f r o s t pockets and wet m i c r o s i t e s i n  t h i s type o f topography.  affect  steep  62.7  incidence  incidence  F r o s t pockets may cause a h i g h e r  o f f r o s t - h e a v i n g , and t h i s would u n d e r s t a n d a b l y  fall-planted  s e e d l i n g s more than  spring-planted.  These r e s u l t s suggest t h a t r o l l i n g should  be avoided  be p l a n t e d g.  Weighted average  i  63.2  appear t o be a d v e r s e l y topography.  Per cent s u r v i v a l at the end o f one growing season a f t e r p l a n t i n g o f s p r i n g and f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s by topography c l a s s e s . Based on 1408 s u r v i v a l l i n e s . Appendix I d shows the a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e table.  forfall  planting.  topography  These a r e a s  i n the s p r i n g whenever p o s s i b l e .  The e f f e c t The  o f weather at the time o f p l a n t i n g mean s u r v i v a l of s p r i n g and f a l l - p l a n t e d  seedlings planted  during  s i x d i f f e r e n t types o f weather  c o n d i t i o n s was c a l c u l a t e d , and the means compared analysis of variance. XIX.  should  using  These means a r e shown i n Table  107.  T a b l e XIX.  Per cent s u r v i v a l at the end of one growing season a f t e r p l a n t i n g of s p r i n g and f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s by weather c l a s s e s a t the^time o f planting. Based on 134-3 s u r v i v a l lines. Appendix I c shows the a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e t a b l e . Weather c l a s s  Season of .. planting  S  u  h  ? and  S  o  m  n  v  t  u  n  ±  * and v  l  C  d  1  °  u  o y e r  d  Showers Moderate Snow or to  v  to _  1 ±  h  cast  rain  e  a  v  W  e  i  h  t  e  ° average  y  d  rain  Spring  62.5%  60.7%  64.8%  63.7%  63.9%  63.5%  63.2%  Pall  40'j-4%  47.1%  49.3%  51.4%  50.2%  46.4%  49.0%  ™fa^!  5 8 . 7 % 55.5%  d  It the  be  seen from T a b l e XIX  time o f p l a n t i n g has  seedlings. increases on the to be fall  can  5 9 . 2 % 5 9 . 5 % 5 6 . 3 % 56.2%  The  little  e f f e c t on  almost d i r e c t l y w i t h d e c r e a s i n g m o i s t u r e  seedlings.  P a l l p l a n t i n g on  sunny and  Planting  on  r e s u l t s i n reduced s u r v i v a l , but e f f e c t on the  a n a l y s i s was  done on the  to c o n f i n e  on hot  case of f a l l  The XIX  do not  i n the  importance of weather on  the has  seedlings. interaction  i t seems l o g i c a l  This  and  i s especially  planting.  r e s u l t s of the  reflect,  days i s  days to h i g h e r e l e v a t i o n s  a s p e c t s whenever p o s s i b l e .  i n the  stress  t h i s weather type  aspect or e l e v a t i o n ,  true  however,  snowy days i n  between weather and planting  hot  s u r v i v a l of s p r i n g - p l a n t e d  Although no  northerly  spring-planted  s u r v i v a l of f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s ,  e s p e c i a l l y avoided.  little  t h a t weather at  a n a l y s i s presented i n Table  opinion  survival.  of the  author, the  There are  two  full  possible  108.  explanations  for this.  Firstly,  t h e r e are too many v a r -  i a b l e s n o t e l i m i n a t e d i n the a n a l y s i s (e.g. e l e v a t i o n and a s p e c t ) which confound the r e s u l t s o f weather a l o n e ; l y , no i n d i c a t i o n i s g i v e n planting. and  a.  of the weather b e f o r e o r a f t e r  S i n c e the weather p a t t e r n s o f Vancouver I s l a n d  the a d j a c e n t mainland can be v e r y v a r i a b l e , the second  explanation i s probably 9.  second-  the more  important.  The i n f l u e n c e s of some g e n e t i c f a c t o r s on s u r v i v a l General Genetic v a r i a t i o n i n seedling c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  undoubtedly accounts  f o r some u n e x p l a i n e d  s u r v i v a l of planted seedlings.  v a r i a t i o n ; : i n the  There a r e a number o f ways  i n which the p o p u l a t i o n o f t r e e s from which the seed was s e l e c t e d may a f f e c t the s u r v i v a l o f planted' s e e d l i n g s . Among the most important  s e e d l i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which  may vary between groups o f parent  t r e e s and a f f e c t  a r e : r a t e o f r o o t growth; r o o t b r a n c h i n g ; diameter growth;, e c o t y p i c a d a p t i o n  survival  r a t e o f h e i g h t and  to moisture  and temper-  a t u r e regimes; a b i l i t y t o withstand/heavy snow; date o f f l u s h i n g ; m y c o r r h i z a l a s s o c i a t i o n s ; t o p / r o o t r a t i o ; and the l e n g t h o f the growing season. these  The e f f e c t o f some of  f a c t o r s may be l a r g e l y e l i m i n a t e d when proper  enances a r e used.  Other f a c t o r s may v a r y  prov-  importantly  between two p o p u l a t i o n s w i t h i n the same provenance. The  r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the i n h e r i t a n c e of eco-  t y p i c adaptions  and s u r v i v a l o f p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s have not  109.  been a d e q u a t e l y i n v e s t i g a t e d .  I t i s not u n r e a s o n a b l e to  assume, f o r i n s t a n c e , t h a t s e e d l i n g s grown from seed taken from wet  ecotypes may  havehligh t o p / r o o t  be d i s a d v a n t a g e d on dry b.  Seed  r a t i o s and  hence  sites.  origin The  mean s u r v i v a l of s e e d l i n g s o r i g i n a t i n g from a  number o f d i f f e r e n t  s e e d l o t s was  u s i n g a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e .  c a l c u l a t e d and  compared  Although the d i f f e r e n c e s i n  s u r v i v a l between s e e d l o t s were h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t , meaningful conclusions The  no  c o u l d be drawn from the a n a l y s i s .  s e e d l i n g s from most s e e d l o t s were p l a n t e d much more  i n one  d i v i s i o n than i n o t h e r s ,  between d i v i s i o n s was e f f e c t s of the two c o u l d not were due  be  and  s i n c e the s u r v i v a l  also s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t ,  v a r i a b l e s c o u l d not be  to the  s e e d l o t o r i g i n o f the  seed o r i g i n on s u r v i v a l should designed  experiment.  c.  classification S u r v i v a l was  of the  separated.  It  determined whether d i f f e r e n c e s i n s u r v i v a l s e e d l i n g s or to  c l i m a t i c d i f f e r e n c e s between d i v i s i o n s .  Seed  the  stand  be  evaluated  a l s o analyzed  from which the  The  by the  i n f l u e n c e of i n a properly  classification  seeds were c o l l e c t e d .  Two  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s were compared: seeds c o l l e c t e d from normal stands;  and  seeds c o l l e c t e d from the b e t t e r t r e e s i n a  normal s t a n d .  No  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found  110.  i n the s u r v i v a l of s e e d l i n g s o r i g i n a t i n g from these of  types  stands. However, t h e r e i s no reason to assume t h a t a stand  s e l e c t e d f o r i t s s u p e r i o r growth and f o r m ' c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s has any  s p e c i a l g e n e t i c a d a p t i o n to s u r v i v a l a f t e r  planting.  A comparison of the s u r v i v a l of s e e d l i n g s o r i g i n a t i n g  from  stands s e l e c t e d on the b a s i s o f , f o r i n s t a n c e , r o o t i n g h a b i t , may  yield  entirely different  d.  E l e v a t i o n and a s p e c t of the seed c o l l e c t i o n areas the p l a n t a t i o n s Mean s u r v i v a l was  results. and  c a l c u l a t e d by the e l e v a t i o n  aspect c l a s s e s of both the seed c o l l e c t i o n a r e a and  and  the  plantation. N e i t h e r the aspect nor the e l e v a t i o n of the c o l l e c t i o n areas were s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g Both of these f a c t o r s , however, may  seed  survival.  a f f e c t the growth of  the p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s . The and  i n t e r a c t i o n between the aspect of the  the aspect o f the seed c o l l e c t i o n a r e a was  not  plantation significant.  T h e r e f o r e , on the b a s i s of these o b s e r v a t i o n s , the aspect of the seed c o l l e c t i o n a r e a does not i n f l u e n c e s u r v i v a l matter what the aspect of the p l a n t a t i o n . s e e d l i n g s o r i g i n a t i n g from aspects  seed  For i n s t a n c e ,  c o l l e c t e d on south to west  w i l l not s u r v i v e b e t t e r when p l a n t e d on t h i s  than s e e d l i n g s whose p a r e n t s o r i g i n a t e from any I t may  be  concluded,  no  aspect  other aspect.  t h e r e f o r e , t h a t seed p r o d u c t i o n areas  1 1 1 .  would be most advantageously  p l a c e d on south t o west a s p e c t s ,  s i n c e seed p r o d u c t i o n i s u s u a l l y g r e a t e r on t h i s a s p e c t  than  on o t h e r s . A s i m i l a r a n a l y s i s was appeared  to be no  r e l a t i o n s h i p between s u r v i v a l and  the e l e v a t i o n of the seed or between s u r v i v a l and of the seed ation.  done f o r e l e v a t i o n .  c o l l e c t i o n a r e a or the  In o t h e r words, based  the e l e v a t i o n  either  plantation,  the i n t e r a c t i o n between the  c o l l e c t i o n a r e a and  There  elevation  of the p l a n t -  on these o b s e r v a t i o n s , i t app-  eared to make no d i f f e r e n c e at what e l e v a t i o n the s e e d l i n g s were p l a n t e d a t , i r r e s p e c t i v e of the e l e v a t i o n a t which p a r e n t s were growing.  However, t h e r e were no  their  observations  of s e e d l i n g s whose p a r e n t s o r i g i n a t e from v e r y low e l e v a t i o n s and were p l a n t e d a t v e r y h i g h e l e v a t i o n s . e l e v a t i o n and may  The  aspect of the seed c o l l e c t i o n a r e a on  survival  have been e f f e c t i v e l y masked by the more important  i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s at the p l a n t i n g s i t e . and  e f f e c t of both  e l e v a t i o n , may  not be too meaningful  d i r e c t l y to c l i m a t i c  I t i s obvious from  when not  CONCLUSIONS  the a n a l y s e s r e p o r t e d here, a f f e c t  the  survival  These f a c t o r s a c t not  only  but t h e i r e f f e c t i s confounded, l e s s e n e d or  i n c r e a s e d , through  t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n with other f a c t o r s .  For i n s t a n c e the a s p e c t of the p l a n t a t i o n was nificantly  correlated  t h a t a m u l t i t u d e of f a c t o r s , not a l l  of p l a n t e d D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s . by themselves,  A l s o , aspect  similarities.  V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND  apparent  env-  affect'survival.  shown to  sig-  However i f a second' f a c t o r ,  1 12.  ground west  aspects  cover is  cover,  is  on  planted affect  i t  a  as  to  i n  factor i t  know  the  most  reducing  of  and  each  type  For  creasingly  important  only  adverse  or  with  true  to  the  as  a  l i m i t i n g  difference  to can  point that  of  which  it,he  in  by  a  quality  w i l l  the  not has  p a r t i c -  survival  more  imp-  more  becomes  themselves  be  plant-  the  become  factor of  may  factors,  Normally,  become  however;  is  factor  general  planting  factors,  It  place.  others  of  can degree  i t .  effort  seedling  the  to  f a i r  each  under  factors'.  the  f a l l -  agent  a  with  affecting  factors,  for  one  with  and  and  quality  other  other  time  time  as  ground  d i f f i c u l t  do  not  types:  planting,  confounds  Any  but  factors  increases  example  L i t t l e  the  main  is  to  factor  environmental  l i m i t i n g .  combination  at  the  three  i t  importance  survival,  existing  general  a  to  further.  "something"  for  of  heavy  sites  south  ground  season  mortality  that  heavy  of  mortality.  so  of  notieable  these  s t i l l  r e l a t i v e  correcting  down' i n t o  factors,  had  the  effect  is  causing  conditions  conditions  l i t t l e  survival  that  of  In  so  aspects  Slashburning on  the  d i f f e r e n t  i s  the  for  wasted  This  that  effect  when  factor,  reason  the-effect  in  t h i r d  s p e c i f i c  desirable  ortance  increased  therefore,  assurance  broken  west  adverse  cases,  of  ing  to  the  most  chosen  ular  a  is  apparent  aspect  be  be  If  seedlings.  In  under  survival  is  south  of  assign  on  considered,  present.  added,  cover  is  i n and  adverse. may  planting  become makes  survival. be  done  to  halt  plantation  failures  113.  resulting Much c a n factors  from be  achieved  as  few  factors  through  factors  as  less  than  effect  drought.  of a f a c t o r  optimum, h o w e v e r .  p l a n n i n g and  possible  as p r o l o n g e d  are  forethought,  limiting  or  This  can  ensuring  to s u r v i v a l  that  at  any  time. The  trate  how  author  has  sites  ations  f o r improving 1)  at the  potential 2)  and  late  that  spring  not  one  or  0  to  early  seedling,  upland  thereby  sites with  competing  a  per-  low  brush;  fall  sites  planting,  for to  early ensure  times w i l l  be  survival;  to ensure than  recommend-  s t o c k on m o i s t ,  planted at these  conducive  proper  high  brush  wise  prepared  and/or  5)  brush  slash  that  the  rate  of  planting  t h e minimum t i m e r e q u i r e d : t o under the  planting  not layer;  control,  content  for better  for fall  duff  1 +  1 s t o c k on  and  the  are:  invasion hazard,  of  illus-  planting  Some s p e c i f i c  choice of p l a n t i n g  and  slower  through  which  particular  set  of  existing; 4)  thick  i n the  surviving  conditions  ially  because  attempting  faster  2 +  planting  in sites 3)  plant  care  of  brush  of  seedlings l i f t e d  planted  time.  i n c r e a s e d use  some r e s u l t s  improved  survival  expanded use  survival  be  proper  s i t e s w h i c h h a v e a low mitting  presented  s u r v i v a l might  proper  is  such  done t o c o u n t e r a c t t h e  being merely  be  one  extreme  are  planting on  planting  south  so  that  sites with  slashburned  survival to west  or  chances,  a  otherespec-  aspects;  small seedlings i n areas with  a  114.  6) a t t e m p t i n g  to p l a n t the c o o l e r and m o i s t e r  s i t e s d u r i n g hot and d r y i n g weather, and p l a n t i n g the s i t e s w i t h lower  a v a i l a b l e moisture  and h i g h p o t e n t i a l  evapotrans-  p i r a t i o n d u r i n g c o o l and moist weather; and 7) a v o i d i n g r o l l i n g topography, n o r t h to east a s p e c t s between 0 and 1000 f e e t  i n e l e v a t i o n and south t o west  a s p e c t s between 2000 and 3000 f e e t as f a l l p l a n t i n g s i t e s . Although  these recommendations w i l l r e s u l t i n  h i g h e r s u r v i v a l on the average, h i g h e r s u r v i v a l i n every  they w i l l not r e s u l t i n  situation.  I n o r d e r to reduce  the element o f chance, f u r t h e r work and r e s e a r c h i s necessary.  Separate  a n a l y s i s by c l i m a t i c  s i t e s would be e s p e c i a l l y v a l u a b l e . type o f study  zones and p h y s i o g r a p h i c F u r t h e r data f o r t h i s  can best be o b t a i n e d w i t h i n the framework o f  the e x i s t i n g s u r v i v a l s t u d i e s c a r r i e d out by the company, and  described i n Section I I I .  However, m o d i f i c a t i o n s and  improvements are needed, e s p e c i a l l y i n d e t e r m i n i n g the e f f e c t o f s e e d l i n g f a c t o r s on s u r v i v a l . ieve t h i s ,  the author  I n o r d e r to ach-  recommends an i n t e g r a t e d programme  w i t h the R e f o r e s t a t i o n D i v i s i o n of the B r i t i s h  Columbia  Forest Service. The  first  nursery l e v e l .  step i n the programme should be a t the  The nurseryman should make a v a i l a b l e to  the f o r e s t r y s t a f f a h i s t o r y o f the s e e d l i n g s , o r a l i n g biography" T h i s biography number, time lifting  as d e s c r i b e d by Trappe and Krueger  "seed(1964).  should i n c l u d e such f a c t o r s a s : s e e d l o t  o f sowing, age and c l a s s o f s t o c k , date o f  and r o o t p r u n i n g , l e n g t h o f s t o r a g e , date of  115.  shipment, any  u n u s u a l treatment of the  r a t i n g by a r e g e n e r a t i o n p o t e n t i a l " o f the  s e e d l i n g s , and  s p e c i a l i s t as to the  seedlings.  "survival  A l s o at the n u r s e r y  a planned r e s e a r c h programme to improve n u r s e r y quality  should  be undertaken.  a  level,  stock  T h i s programme should  be  e s p e c i a l l y aimed a t "pre-conditioning"' s e e d l i n g s f o r h i g h food  r e s e r v e s and  s e l e c t i o n and  r o o t r e g e n e r a t i n g p o t e n t i a l through  nursery  practice.  The  field  t r i a l s of  stock these  s e e d l i n g s might be done under the d i r e c t i o n of the company silviculturist. The should  i n f o r m a t i o n about each group of  accompany the  s e e d l i n g s i n shipment.  On  standard  form, the p l a n t i n g s u p e r v i s o r should  l o n g and  under what c o n d i t i o n s the  and  under what c o n d i t i o n s the  p l a n t i n g s i t e before  seedlings the same  record  s e e d l i n g s were i n t r a n s i t ,  s e e d l i n g s were s t o r e d at  planting.  the  T h i s biography would a l s o  serve to g i v e the f o r e s t e r a good assessment of the p o t e n t i a l of the  how  s e e d l i n g s , and  enable him  survival  to choose  the  best p l a n t i n g s i t e f o r each group of s e e d l i n g s . L i t t l e more i n f o r m a t i o n than i s a l r e a d y gathered  would be n e c e s s a r y .  However some changes i n the  method o f c o l l e c t i n g the data would be a d v i s a b l e . the i n f o r m a t i o n gathered forms to f a c i l i t a t e  should  any  survival line.  Firstly,  be p l a c e d on standard  future analysis.  Secondly, a  set of c l a s s e s f o r each v a r i a b l e should facilitate  being  f u t u r e a n a l y s i s and  be used.  coding  standard T h i s would  the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of  T h i r d l y , the i n f o r m a t i o n should  the  be a p p l i c a b l e  1 16.  to the s u r v i v a l l i n e i n p a r t i c u l a r , and not to the p l a n t ation i n general. Environmental ervation  ( s i t e ) f a c t o r s recommended f o r obs-  and study i n f u t u r e s u r v i v a l s t u d i e s ,  i f i c a t i o n of these 1.  and the c l a s s -  f a c t o r s , are:  Weather a t p l a n t i n g a. b. c. d. e. f. g.  2.  sunny and warm sunny and m i l d overcast cloudy showers or l i g h t r a i n moderate o r heavy r a i n snow Soil  a.  conditions  moisture season i. ii. iii. iv. v.  b.  n o r m a l l y wet n o r m a l l y moist normally f r e s h n o r m a l l y dry n o r m a l l y v e r y dry  texture i. ii. iii. iv. v.  3.  r e l a t i o n s d u r i n g the growing  g r a v e l l y o r rocky sandy loamy s i l t y or a f a i r p r o p o r t i o n of c l a y h i g h c l a y content  Topography a. b. c. d. e.  4.  flat rolling s l i g h t slope moderate s l o p e steep s l o p e P o s i t i o n on s l o p e  a. b. c. d. e. 5.  v a l l e y bottom lower s l o p e middle slope upper s l o p e bench Aspect  a. b. c. d. e.  flat SE, S, NE, N, West East  SW NW  117.  6.  Slashburn i n t e n s i t y a. b. c. d. e.  7.  hot moderate light partial unburned Vegetative,  competition  a. l i g h t or none b. .^moderate c. severe 8.  Dominant v e g e t a t i o n type ( each f o r e s t e r should determine the f i v e o r s i x main v e g e t a t i o n types o c c u r r i n g i n h i s d i v i s i o n and use these)  9.  Amount o f s l a s h a. b. c.  10.  little moderate heavy--Depth to m i n e r a l  soil  a. 0 to 1/2 i n c h e s b. 1/2 to 3 i n c h e s c. 3 i n c h e s or more 11.  E l e v a t i o n of the s u r v i v a l l i n e ( t o the n e a r e s t 100 f e e t above sea l e v e l )  12.  L a t i t u d e and l o n g i t u d e decimal units)  o f the p l a n t a t i o n ( i n  A knowledge of the above f a c t o r s would p r o v i d e good c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of the s i t e and s t i l l  be r e a s o n a b l e  to o b t a i n w i t h i n o p e r a t i o n a l p l a n t i n g l i m i t s .  A knowledge  of these f a c t o r s would a l s o be d e s i r a b l e f o r any growth s t u d i e s to be done on the p l a n t e d  seedlings.  a  1 18.  VI.  SUMMARY  Prom data p r o v i d e d by M a c M i l l a n the F a c u l t y of F o r e s t r y , the author  B l o e d e l L t d . to  attempted to  analyze  some f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g the s u r v i v a l of p l a n t e d D o u g l a s - f i r seedlings. Representative company f o r e s t e r s one ing,  and  and  staked  s e e d l i n g s were examined by  t h r e e growing seasons a f t e r p l a n t -  the per cent s u r v i v a l t a l l i e d .  Information  a v a i l a b l e from company r e c o r d s on s e e d l i n g and f a c t o r s i n each p l a n t a t i o n .  author  a l s o spent  environmental  T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was  i n r e l a t i o n to s u r v i v a l u s i n g s t a t i s t i c a l  was  analyzed  techniques.  f o u r weeks of the summer of 1966  The  visiting  many r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p l a n t a t i o n s i n most of the d i v i s i o n s the  company. The  analyzed planted  by 1+0  c l a s s of p l a n t i n g stock (1+0,  s p r i n g and s t o c k was  fall-planted  Spring-planted 2+0  2+1  2+0,  seedlings.  2+1)  probably  i n the c h o i c e of p l a n t i n g s i t e s .  stock d i d not have any b e t t e r s u r v i v a l  s t o c k p l a n t e d i n the same season.  However  s t o c k p l a n t e d i n the f a l l had much b e t t e r s u r v i v a l f a l l - p l a n t e d 2+0  was  Spring-  shown to have good s u r v i v a l ,  because of the care taken  than  of  2+1 than  stock.  A s u b j e c t i v e a p p r a i s a l by f i e l d f o r e s t e r s and p l a n t i n g crew foremen of the c o n d i t i o n of the s e e d l i n g s d i d not have any  m e a n i n g f u l r e l a t i o n s h i p to s u r v i v a l a f t e r  out-  planting. N e i t h e r the l i f t i n g date nor the l e n g t h of time  119-  between l i f t i n g  and p l a n t i n g  survival a f t e r outplanting Planting level,  date was r e l a t e d  were found to be r e l a t e d to  of s p r i n g - p l a n t e d a t the 9 5 per cent  s u r v i v a l decreasing with l a t e r spring  seedlings. probabilityplanting  In the case of f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s , between l i f t i n g  and p l a n t i n g  v i v a l a f t e r outplanting. i n g dates i n f l u e n c e d level.  the i n t e r v a l  dates had no i n f l u e n c e  on s u r -  However both the l i f t i n g  s u r v i v a l , a t the 9 9 p e r cent  and  plant-  probability  S u r v i v a l was found to I n c r e a s e w i t h l a t e r l i f t i n g and  planting  dates. Highly s i g n i f i c a n t differences  in  dates.  were found to e x i s t  the s u r v i v a l o f s e e d l i n g s o r i g i n a t i n g  from t h r e e  nurseries,  Green Timbers, Duncan and Quinsam. The  number o f t r e e s  found to be r e l a t e d  p l a n t e d per man-day was not  to s u r v i v a l , but t h i s i s f e l t  author t o be the r e s u l t of h i g h l y  variable  site  by the  and  planting  factors. The  h o t n e s s of the s l a s h b u r n was found to have  a significant relationship seedlings, the  t o the s u r v i v a l o f s p r i n g - p l a n t e d  but not to f a l l - p l a n t e d .  A hot burn i n c r e a s e d  s u r v i v a l of spring-planted seedlings.  y s i s showed t h a t  Subsequent  anal-  ground cover c o m p e t i t i o n was an important  f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p  between s u r v i v a l and  slashburning.  Where ground c o m p e t i t i o n was l i g h t ,  areas r e s u l t e d  i n the h i g h e s t s u r v i v a l ; where ground comp-  e t i t i o n was s e v e r e , a hot burn r e s u l t e d vival.  unburned  i n the h i g h e s t  sur-  120.  An  a n a l y s i s of aspect  to s u r v i v a l showed t h a t  and  elevation in relation  spring planting resulted i n  s u r v i v a l on a l l a s p e c t - e l e v a t i o n  classes.  However comp-  a r a t i v e l y good s u r v i v a l of f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s achieved feet.  on n o r t h  to east a s p e c t s between 1000  P a l l planting seedlings  between 0 and 2000 and  1000  f e e t and  on n o r t h  higher  was 3000  and  to east  aspects  south to west a s p e c t s between  3 0 0 0 f e e t r e s u l t e d i n low  s u r v i v a l of f a l l - p l a n t e d  seedlings. Severe ground c o v e r c o m p e t i t i o n s u r v i v a l f o r both s p r i n g and  r e s u l t e d i n lower  f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings.  •regression a n a l y s i s showed t h a t a l t h o u g h l a r g e r survived planted  s l i g h t l y b e t t e r than s m a l l e r i n heavy ground cover, the  significant.  o r no  seedlings  s e e d l i n g s when  r e l a t i o n s h i p was  note:  Heavy ground cover reduced s u r v i v a l on a l l  a s p e c t s except n o r t h little  A  to east a s p e c t s .  ground cover, aspect  had  Where t h e r e little  was  influence  on  survival. Planting seedlings  i n t h i c k d u f f was  found to  r e s u l t i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower s u r v i v a l f o r both s p r i n g fall-planted An  seedlings. a n a l y s i s of s u r v i v a l by t o p o g r a p h i c  showed t h a t steep south to west s l o p e s and raphy should  and  be avoided as f a l l  P l a n t i n g on  sunny and  planting hot  classes  rolling  topog-  sites.  days r e s u l t e d i n r e d -  uced s u r v i v a l , as d i d f a l l - p l a n t i n g on snowy days. Some g e n e t i c  f a c t o r s were analyzed  in relation  to  121 .  survival. be  The s e e d l o t  origin  significantly related  classification  o f t h e s e e d l i n g s was  to s u r v i v a l .  However  and t h e a s p e c t a n d e l e v a t i o n  collection  area  plantation  were n o t f o u n d  found  the seed  o f the seed  compared t o t h e a s p e c t and e l e v a t i o n t o be r e l a t e d  to  to  survival.  o f the  122 .  VII.  BIBLIOGRAPHY  Ackerman, R.P., D.I. C r o s s l e y , L.L. Kennedy and J . Chedzay. 1966. P r e l i m i n a r y r e s u l t s o f a f i e l d t e s t of bullet planting i n Alberta. Canada Dept. o f F o r e s t r y Pub. No. 1098. 20 pp. A c k h u r s t , P.W. 1 9 6 6 . An a n a l y s i s o f the f a c t o r s g o v e r n i n g the s u r v i v a l and i n i t i a l growth o f f o r e s t t r e e p l a n t i n g stock. U n i v e r s i t y o f B.C., F a c u l t y o f F o r e s t r y . B.S.F. t h e s i s . 6 8 pp. Adams, R.S., J.R. R i t c h e y and W.G. Todd. 1966. Artificial shade improves s u r v i v a l o f p l a n t e d D o u g l a s - f i r and white f i r s e e d l i n g s . C a l i f o r n i a D i v i s i o n o f Forestry. S t a t e F o r e s t Note No. 28. 11 pp. A l l e n , G.S. 1 9 5 4 . F a c t s , f i c t i o n and f o r e s t r y . Canadian F o r e s t r y Assoc., F o r e s t C o n s e r v a t i o n L e c t u r e S e r i e s . 7 pp. 1955. Vol.  E s t a b l i s h i n g the c r o p . F o r e s t r y  Chronicle.  31:31-34.  A r m i t , D. 1 9 6 1 . P l a n t a t i o n t r i a l s . B.C. F o r e s t S e r v i c e , F o r e s t Research Review. E.P. 5 0 2 . p. 2 3 . ( 1 9 6 2 p. 18, 1 9 6 3 p. 2 0 , 1 9 6 4 p. 26, 1 9 6 5 p. 2 9 , 1 9 6 6 p. 6 3 ) . A u s t i n , R.C. and D.A. B a i s i n g e r . 1 9 5 5 . Some e f f e c t s o f b u r n i n g on f o r e s t s o i l s o f western Oregon and Washington. Journal of Forestry. V o l . 5 3 : 275-280. Bamford, A.H. 1 9 6 3 . P l a n t i n g .  Forestry  Chronicle.  Vol. 3 9 :  149-153.  B e r n t s e n , C M . 1 9 5 8 . A t e s t p l a n t i n g o f 2 - 0 and 3 - 0 Douglasf i r t r e e s on a steep south s l o p e . U.S.D.A. P a c i f i c N o r t h West F o r e s t and Range Experiment S t a t i o n . R e s e a r c h Note No.. 1 6 5 . 4 pp. 1960. P l a n t i n g S i t k a spruce and D o u g l a s - f i r on decayed wood i n c o a s t a l Oregon. U.S.D.A. P a c i f i c N o r t h West F o r e s t and Range Experiment S t a t i o n . R e s e a r c h Note No. 1 9 7 . 5 pp. Boyce, J . S . 1 9 6 1 . F o r e s t P a t h o l o g y . I n c . New York. 572 pp.  McGraw-Hill Book Co.  B r a c e , L.G. 1 9 6 4 . . E a r l y development o f white spruce as r e l a t e d t o p l a n t i n g method and p l a n t i n g stock h e i g h t . Canada Dept. o f F o r e s t r y . P u b l i c a t i o n No. 1049. 15 pp. British  Columbia F o r e s t S e r v i c e . 1 9 6 7 . Annual r e p o r t f o r 1966. B.C. Dept. o f Lands, F o r e s t s and Water Reso u r c e s . 1 2 2 pp.  123.  Burns, R.M. 1961. R a b b i t t r e p e l l a n t s i n n o r t h M i s s i s s i p p i . Tree P l a n t e r s ' Notes. No. 4 5 : 1 9 - 2 2 . C a y f o r d , J.H. 1 9 6 1 . Furrowing improves f i r s t - y e a r s u r v i v a l o f p l a n t e d spruce and p i n e i n Manitoba. Tree P l a n t e r s ' Notes. No. 4 8 : 1 3 - 1 4 . Champagne, E.G. 1 9 5 4 . Wood c h i p mulch improves r e d pine survival. C e n t r a l S t a t e s F o r e s t Experiment S t a t i o n . S t a t i o n Note No. 8 6 . 2 pp. C h i l d s , T.W. 1 9 6 0 . Drought e f f e c t s on c o n i f e r s i n the p a c i f i c n o r t h west, 1 9 5 8 - 5 9 . U.S.D.A. P a c i f i c N o r t h West F o r e s t and Range Experiment S t a t i o n . Research Note No. 182. 5 pp. Ching, K.K. 1 9 6 5 . E a r l y growth o f D o u g l a s - f i r i n a r e c i p r o c a l planting. Oregon State U n i v e r s i t y , F o r e s t Research L a b o r a t o r y , C o r v a l l i s , Oregon. Research Paper No. 3 . P pp. 2  C l a r k , M.B. 1 9 6 6 . D o u g l a s - f i r p l a n t i n g t r i a l s . B.C. F o r e s t Service. F o r e s t Research Review. E.P. 6 3 1 . p. 67. Cowan, I.M. 1 9 4 5 . The e c o l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f the food o f the Columbia b l a c k - t a i l e d deer, O d o c o i l e u s bemionus columbianus ( R i c h a r d s o n ) , i n the coast f o r e s t r e g i o n o f s o u t h e r n Vancouver I s l a n d , B r i t i s h Columbia. E c o l o g i c a l Monograph 1 5 : 1 0 9 - 1 3 9 . Crossley,  D.I. and R.D. Carmen. 1 9 6 4 . E x p e r i e n c e s i n c o n t a i n e r planting i n Alberta. Western F o r e s t r y and Conserv a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n , Western R e f o r e s t a t i o n Coord. Comm. P r o c , 1 9 6 4 : 25-28.  Cushman, W.H. and R.H. Weidman. 1 9 3 7 . S u r v i v a l i n c r e a s e d by c a r e f u l n e s s i n f i e l d p l a n t i n g . U.S.D.A. Rocky Mountain F o r e s t and Range Experiment S t a t i o n . Applied Forestry Note No. 81 3 pp. de K e i j z e r . S. and R.K. Hermann. 1 9 6 6 . E f f e c t o f environment on heat t o l e r a n c e o f D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s . Forest Science V o l . 1 2 : 2 1 1 . De  Vos, A. 1 9 5 8 . The i n f l u e n c e o f browsing animals on f o r e s t regeneration. Forestry Chronicle Vol. 3 4 :  D i c k , J . 1 9 6 3 . F i r s t - s e a s o n s u r v i v a l and grwoth o f s t o r e d D o u g l a s - f i r , Noble f i r and ponderosa pine p l a n t i n g stock. Weyerhauser Co., Timberland D i v i s i o n . Forest Research C e n t e r , C e n t r a l i a , Washington. F o r e s t Rese a r c h Note No. 5 1 . 5 pp. 1964a. stock.  Rutex treatment o f Ponderosa pine p l a n t i n g Tree P l a n t e r s ' Notes. No. 6 5 : 1 4 - 1 5 .  1964b. Depth f o r p l a n t i n g Ponderosa p i n e . P l a n t e r s ' Notes. No. 6 6 : 1 0 - 1 2 ,  Tree  124.  Dimock I I , E . J . 1 9 6 4 . Supplemental treatments t o a i d p l a n t e d D o u g l a s - f i r i n dense bracken f e r n . U.S.D.A. P a c i f i c N o r t h West F o r e s t and Range Experiment S t a t i o n . Research Note PNW-11. 10 pp. Dyrness, C.T., C.T. Youngberg and R.H. Ruth. 1 9 5 7 . Some e f f e c t s o f l o g g i n g and s l a s h b u r n i n g on p h y s i c a l s o i l prope r t i e s i n the C o r v a l l i s watershed. U.S.D.A. P a c i f i c N o r t h West F o r e s t and Range Experiment S t a t i o n . Research Paper No. 1 9 . 15 pp. F o r e s t r y Commission, U.K. 1 9 5 9 . Report on f o r e s t r e s e a r c h , 1958. Her M a j e s t y ' s S t a t i o n e r y O f f i c e , London, England. F o s t e r , R.E. and A.L.S. Johnson. 1 9 6 3 . The s i g n i f i c a n c e o f r o o t r o t and f r o s t damage i n some D o u g l a s - f i r plantations. Forestry Chronicle, Vol. 3 9 : 266-272. G o c k e r e l l , E.C. 1 9 6 6 . P l a n t a t i o n s on burned v e r s u s unburned areas. Journal of Forestry. V o l . 6 4 : 3 9 2 - 3 9 4 . Graham, K. 1 9 6 3 . Concepts o f f o r e s t entomology. Pub. Co. New York. 3 8 8 pp.  Reinhold  Gratk@wski, H. 1 9 5 9 . E f f e c t s o f h e r b i c i d e s on some important b r u s h s p e c i e s i n southwestern Oregon. U.S.D.A. P a c i f i c N o r t h West F o r e s t and Range Experiment Station. Research Paper No. 3 1 . 3 3 pp. Harvey, G.M. 1 9 6 1 . E f f e c t s o f r e f r i g e r a t i o n and s h i p p i n g on s'ugar pine f i e l d u s u r v i v a l . Tree P l a n t e r s ' Notes No. 45:  Hermann, R.K. 1 9 6 2 . The e f f e c t of s h o r t - t e r m exposure o f r o o t s on s u r v i v a l o f 2 - 0 D o u g l a s - f i r stocks Tree P l a n t e r s ' Notes. No. 5 2 : 2 8 - 3 0 . 1963. Temperatures beneath v a r i o u s seedbeds on a c l e a r c u t f o r e s t a r e a i n the Oregon Coast Range. Northwest S c i e n c e . V o l . 3 7 : 9 3 - 1 0 3 . 1964a. Paper mulch f o r r e f o r e s t a t i o n i n s o u t h western Oregon. J o u r n a l o f F o r e s t r y . V o l . 62: 9 8 - 1 0 1 . 1964b. E f f e c t s o f p r o l o n g e d exposure o f r o o t s on s u r v i v a l o f 2 - 0 D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s . Journal of F o r e s t r y . V o l . 62: 4 0 1 - 4 0 3 . 1964c Importance o f t o p - r o o t r a t i o s f o r s u r v i v a l of Douglas-fir seedlings. Tree P l a n t e r s ' Notes. No. 6 4 : 7 - 1 1 . 1965. S u r v i v a l of p l a n t e d ponderosa pine i n s o u t h e r n Oregon. Oregon S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , F o r e s t Research L a b o r a t o r y . Research Paper No. 2 . 3 2 pp. • and W.F. C h i l c o t e . 1 9 6 5 . E f f e c t o f seedbeds on g e r m i n a t i o n and s u r v i v a l o f D o u g l a s - f i r . Oregon S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , F o r e s t Research L a b o r a t o r y . Rese a r c h Paper No. 4 . 28 pp.  125.  H e t h e r i n g t o n , J.C. 1962. Brush c o n t r o l i n c o a s t a l B r i t i s h Columbia. B.C. F o r e s t S e r v i c e . F o r e s t Research Review. E.P. 5 9 4 . p. 3 5 . 1963. T r i a l s o f t r e e s p e c i e s and i n i t i a l s p a c i n g on the west coast o f Vancouver I s l a n d . B.C. Forest Service. F o r e s t Research Review. E.P. 5 7 1 . p. 1 3 . 1964. The g e r m i n a t i o n and s u r v i v a l o f western hemlock and a s s o c i a t e d s p e c i e s on the west c o a s t o f Vancouver I s l a n d . B.C. F o r e s t S e r v i c e . F o r e s t Research Review. E.P. 5 5 5 . p. 6 3 . H u n t l y , J.H. 1 9 6 0 . Assessment o f s u r v i v a l and growth p r o s p e c t s of seedlings of D o u g l a s - f i r . U n i v e r s i t y o f B.C. Faculty of Forestry. M.F. t h e s i s . I l l i n g w o r t h , K. 1966a. B u l l e t p l a n t i n g with Douglas-fir, prel i m i n a r y t r i a l s , 1965. B.C. F o r e s t S e r v i c e . Forest Research Review. E.P. 6 4 4 . p . 6 7 . 1966b. A study o f D o u g l a s - f i r p l a n t i n g stock on h i g h s i t e l a n d s s u b j e c t t o dense p l a n t c o v e r . B.C. F o r e s t S e r v i c e . F o r e s t Research Review. E.P. 5 8 9 . p. 6 4 . 1966c. The s u r v i v a l and i n i t i a l growth o f v a r i o u s types o f D o u g l a s - f i r p l a n t i n g s t o c k . B.C. Forest Service. F o r e s t Research Review. E.P. 6 2 5 . p. 6 6 . Isaac,  L.A. 1 9 3 8 . F a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f Douglasf i r s e e d l i n g s . U.S.D.A. C i r c u l a r No. 486. 46 pp. and H.G.* Hopkins. 1 9 3 7 . The f o r e s t s o i l o f the D o u g l a s - f i r r e g i o n , and changes wrought upon i t by l o g g i n g and s l a s h b u r n i n g . Ecolo.gy. V o l . 18: 2 6 4 - 2 7 9 .  Jaworsky, J.M. 1 9 5 8 . Some problems c o n c e r n i n g D o u g l a s - f i r n u r s e r y stock r e f l e c t e d i n e x p e r i m e n t a l p l a n t i n g a t S u t t o n Creek, S p r i n g 1 9 5 4 and 1 9 5 5 . A s s o c i a t i o n o f B.C. F o r e s t e r s T h e s i s . 118 pp. Jorgensen, E . and W.K.E. Stanek. 1 9 6 2 . Overwinter s t o r a g e o f c o n i f e r o u s s e e d l i n g s as a means o f p r e v e n t i n g l a t e f r o s t damage. F o r e s t r y C h r o n i c l e V o l . 3 8 : Kahler,  L.H. and A.R. G i l m o r e . 1 9 6 1 . F i e l d s u r v i v a l o f c o l d s t o r e d l o b l o l l y pine s e e d l i n g s . Tree P l a n t e r s ' Notes No. 4 1 : 1 5 - 1 6 .  K n i g h t , H. 1 9 5 7 . Growth and s u r v i v a l o f e x p e r i m e n t a l ations of D o u g l a s - f i r . B.C. F o r e s t S e r v i c e . e a r c h Note No. 3 3 . 2 2 pp. Koshi,  plantRes-  P.T. 1 9 6 0 . Deep p l a n t i n g has l i t t l e e f f e c t i n a wet year. Tree P l a n t e r s ' Notes. No. 40: p. 7 .  126.  Kozak, A.  and J.H.G. Smith. 1965. A comprehensive and f l e x i b l e m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n program f o r e l e c t r o n i c computing. F o r e s t r y C h r o n i c l e . V o l . 41: 438-443.  Kramer, P.J. and T.T. K o z l o w s k i . 1960. M c G r a w - H i l l Book Co. Inc. New  Physiology of York. 642 pp.  trees.  Krueger, K.W. 1966. Hidden changes i n D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s suggest t i m i n g of n u r s e r y o p e r a t i o n s . 10th B i e n n i a l Western F o r e s t Nursery C o u n c i l Meeting. 4 pp. 1967. N i t r o g e n , phosphorous and c a r b o h y d r a t e i n expanding and y e a r - o l d D o u g l a s - f i r s h o o t s . Forest S c i e n c e . V o l . 13:352-356. and J.M. Trappe. 1967. Food r e s e r v e s and seaso n a l growth o f D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s . Forest Science. V o l . 13:192-202. K r y g i e r , J.T. 1 9 5 8 . S u r v i v a l and growth o f t h i r t e e n t r e e s p e c i e s i n c o a s t a l Oregon. U.S.D.A. P a c i f i c N o r t h West F o r e s t and Range Experiment S t a t i o n . Research Paper No. 26. 20 pp. Langdon, O.G. 1954. S k i l l f u l l i f t i n g technique increases seedling survival. Tree P l a n t e r s ' Notes. No. 18: Lavender, D.P. 1958. E f f e c t o f seed s i z e on D o u g l a s - f i r seedlings. Oregon F o r e s t Lands Research Center, C o r v a l l i s , Oregon. Research Note No. 32. 32 pp. 1964. Date o f l i f t i n g f o r s u r v i v a l of Douglasf i r seedlings. F o r e s t Research L a b o r a t o r y . Oregon S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , C o r v a l l i s , Oregon. Research Note No. 49. 20 pp. and E. W r i g h t . 1960. Don't l i f t D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s too e a r l y . The Timberman, Aug. 1 9 6 0 . 2 pp. Lawrence, W.H. 1960. E v a l u a t i o n of bone t a r - o i l as a deer repellent for Douglas-fir seedlings. Wayerhauser Co. Timberland D i v . F o r e s t Research C e n t e r , C e n t r a l i a , Washington. F o r e s t Research Note No. 32. 5 pp. 1964. Where do we stand w i t h r e p e l l e n t s and s y s t e m i c s ? Western F o r e s t r y and C o n s e r v a t i o n Assoc. Western R e f o r e s t a t i o n Coord. Comm. Proc. 1 9 6 4 : 5 1 - 5 4 . Lease, A.E. and D.P. Duncan. 1 9 5 9 . F i e l d s u r v i v a l of red pine s e e d l i n g s as a f f e c t e d by n u r s e r y f e r t i l i z a t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y of M i n n e s o t a , School of F o r e s t r y . Minne s o t a F o r e s t r y Note No. 7 5 . 2 pp. Leech, R.H. 1964. R e f o r e s t a t i o n of a sand p l a i n i n O n t a r i o . R e s e a r c h Branch, O n t a r i o Dept., of Lands and F o r e s t s . R e s e a r c h R e p r i n t No. 5 1 . 81 pp.  127.  Loewenstein, H. 1964. P l a n t i n g s t u d i e s a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f Idaho. Western F o r e s t r y and C o n s e r v a t i o n Assoc. Western R e f o r e s t a t i o n Coord. Comm. Proc. 1964: 22-25. and F.H. P i t k i n . 1961. Some f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g s u r v i v a l of planted Douglas-fir seedlings. Forest, W i l d l i f e and Range Experiment S t a t i o n , C o l l e g e of F o r e s t r y , U n i v e r s i t y o f Idaho. Research Note No. 18. 18 pp. L u t z , H.J. and R.F. Chandler, J r . 1946. F o r e s t Soils'. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York. 514 pp. MacArther, J.D. 1964. P l a n t i n g methods to overcome s t r o n g competition from dense herbacious v e g e t a t i o n . Canada Dept. o f F o r e s t r y . F o r e s t Research Branch. C o n t r i b u t i o n No. 6 3 8 . 4 pp. Madison, R.W. 1 9 5 9 . Growth and s u r v i v a l o f a S i t k a spruce p l a n t a t i o n i n c o a s t a l Oregon. U.S.D.A. P a c i f i c North West F o r e s t and Range Experiment S t a t i o n . Research Note No. 178. 6 pp. Maguire, W.P. 1952. Some o b s e r v a t i o n s on the use o f the t r a n s p i r a t i o n i n h i b i t o r " P l a n t c o t e " on l i f t e d t r e e s e e d l i n g s . Tree P l a n t e r s ' Notes. No. 12: 15-17. Meagher, M.D. 1961. F i e l d s u r v i v a l and growth o f e x p e r i m e n t a l l y t r e a t e d D o u g l a s - f i r nursery s t o c k . B.C. F o r e s t S e r v i c e . F o r e s t Research Review. E.P. 392. p. 20. Merz, R. 1951. Comparative s u r v i v a l s and c o s t s o f p l a n t a t i o n s by d i f f e r e n t methods o f ground p r e p a r a t i o n and p l a n t ing. C e n t r a l S t a t e s F o r e s t Experiment S t a t i o n . S t a t i o n Note No. 64. 2 pp. M i t c h e l l ^ R.J I 1964. Height growth l o s s e s due to animal f e e d i n g i n D o u g l a s - f i r p l a n t a t i o n s , Vancouver I s l a n d , B.C. F o r e s t r y C h r o n i c l e . V o l . 40: 298-307. Moore, A.W. 1940. Wild animal damage to seed and s e e d l i n g s on • cut-over D o u g l a s - f i r lands o f Oregon and Washington. U.S.D.A. T e c h n i c a l B u l l e t i n No. 706. 28 pp. Morris;, W.G. 1958. I n f l u e n c e o f s l a s h burning on r e g e n e r a t i o n , other p l a n t cover, and f i r e hazard i n the D o u g l a s - f i r r e g i o n ( a progress r e p o r t ) . U.S.D.A. P a c i f i c North West F o r e s t and Range Experiment S t a t i o n . Research Paper No. 2 9 . 49 pp. ,  1966. Guidelines offered f o r slashburning. I n d u s t r i e s Magazine Reprin t. 2 pp.  Forest  t  Mowat, E.L. 1961. E f f e c t o f a t r a n s p i r a t i o n r e t a r d a n t on s u r v i v a l o f p l a n t e d Ponderosa p i n e . U.S.D.A. P a c i f i c North West F o r e s t and Range Experiment S t a t i o n . Res. Note No. 2 0 3 . 4 pp. M u l l i n g R.E. 1962. The storage o f p l a n t i n g stock i n the f i e l d . Forestry Chronicle. Vol. 3 8 : 964. I n f l u e n c e o f p l a n t i n g depth on s u r v i v a l and growth o f r e d p i n e . F o r e s t r y C h r o n i c l e V o l . 40: 384-391. 1  128.  Muraro, S . J . 1963. P r e l i m i n a r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f c l i m a t i c v a r i a t i o n i n r e l a t i o n t o the topography o f mountainous t e r r a i n i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Canada Dept. o f Forestry. F o r e s t Research Branch. P r o j e c t No. B.C.602. 21 pp. Neal,  J.L., E . Wright and W.B. B o l l e n . 1 9 6 5 . B u r n i n g Douglasfir s l a s h - p h y s i c a l , c h e m i c a l and m i c r o b i a l e f f e c t s i n the s o i l . F o r e s t Research L a b o r a t o r y , Oregon S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , C o r v a l l i s , Oregon. 32 pp.  Newton, M. 1963. Some h e r b i c i d e e f f e c t s on p o t t e d Douglasfir and ponderosa pine s e e d l i n g s . Journal of Forestry, V o l . 61:674-676. 1964. S e e d l i n g s u r v i v a l and v e g e t a t i v e competition. Western F o r e s t r y and C o n s e r v a t i o n A s s o c . Western R e f o r e s t a t i o n Coord. Comm. P r o c . 1 9 6 4 : 3 9 - 4 2 . Osborn, J . E . 1 9 6 6 . Planting of conifers with p a r t i c u l a r r e f e r e n c e t o the P a c i f i c Northwest. U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia. Directed Studies i n Forestry 5 5 5 . Osburn, V.R. 1 9 6 0 . E f f e c t o f two commercial p r e p a r a t i o n s on root i n i t i a t i o n of D o u g l a s - f i r stock. S t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a , Dept. o f N a t u r a l Resources. D i v i s i o n of Forestry. S t a t e F o r e s t Note No. 4 . 5 pp. Pruett, E. 1 9 5 9 Mulch around newly p l a n t e d t r e e s can be detrimental. U.S.D.A. C e n t r a l S t a t e s F o r e s t Experiment S t a t i o n . S t a t i o n Note No. 1 3 2 . 2 pp. R e d i s k e , J.H. 1 9 6 0 . G i b b e r e l l i c a c i d t e s t e d on D o u g l a s - f i r seedlings. Weyerhaeuser Co. ( F o r e s t r y Research Note No. 3 5 . 3 pp. and W.H. Lawrence. 1964. Octamethylpyrophosphoramide ( OMPA ) as a s y s t e m i c animal r e p e l l e n t for Douglas-fir seedlings. Forest Science. V o l . 10: 9 3 .  Revel,  J. 1 9 6 2 a . P l a n t a t i o n assessment. B.C. F o r e s t F o r e s t Research Review. E.P. 5 8 5 . p. 1 6 .  Service.  1962b. P l a n t i n g - s t o c k s t a n d a r d s f o r coast Douglasfir i n B r i t i s h Columbia. B.C. F o r e s t S e r v i c e . F o r e s t Research Review. E.P. 5 7 9 . p. 3 8 . 1963a. A p l a n t a t i o n study o f d i f f e r e n t types o f D o u g l a s - f i r nursery stock. B.C. F o r e s t S e r v i c e . F o r e s t Research Review. E.P. 5 8 6 . p. 1 7 . 1963b. The s u r v i v a l and lings. B.C. E.P. 6 1 7 . p. 1963 sown B.C. p. 3 7  e f f e c t o f seed-bed d e n s i t y on the f i e l d i n i t i a l growth o f 2 + 0 D o u g l a s - f i r seedForest Service. F o r e s t Research Review.  1 7 .  d. Comparison o f the morphology o f autumnand spring-sown 1 + 0 D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s . Forest Service. F o r e s t Research Review, .  129.  Revel,  J . 1963e. The e f f e c t o f browsing by Columbia b l a c k t a i l e d deer and Sooty blue grouse on the e s t a b l i s h ment o f c o n i f e r s on Vancouver I s l a n d . B.C. F o r e s t Service. F o r e s t Research Review, p. 3 8 . 1963f. P l a n t a t i o n study o f c o l d - s t o r a g e o f 2 + 0 Douglas-fir. B.C. F o r e s t S e r v i c e . F o r e s t Research Review. E.P. 582. p. 1 6 . 1963g. P l a n t i n g study o f 2+0 D o u g l a s - f i r c u l l s . B.C. F o r e s t S e r v i c e . F o r e s t Research Review. E.P. 581. p. 1 5 .  R i e t v e l d , W. 1 9 6 4 . Chemical methods o f c o n t r o l l i n g the dormancy p e r i o d o f D o u g l a s - f i r p l a n t i n g s t o c k . Society o f American F o r e s t e r s P r o c . 1 9 6 4 : 21-25. Robinson, D.J. 1 9 5 8 . F o r e s t r y and w i l d l i f e r e l a t i o n s h i p s on Vancouver I s l a n d . Forestry Chronicle. V o l . 34-: Robson, P. 1 9 6 6 . Report on r e f o r e s t a t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e . R e f o r e s t a t i o n workshop, U n i v e r s i t y o f B.C. Research Forest. Rothacher, J . S . and J.F. F r a n k l i n . 1 9 6 5 . F e r t i l i z e r p e l l e t s improve growth o f p l a n t e d D o u g l a s - f i r on an u n f a v o u r able s i t e . Tree P l a n t e r s ' Notes. N o . 6 7 : 9 - 1 1 . Rotty,  R. 1 9 5 8 a .  Three r o c k s .  Tree P l a n t e r s ' Notes No. 3 3 :  1958b. Better s u r v i v a l with oversize hole Tree P l a n t e r s ' Notes. No. 3 3 : R u d o l f , P.O. 1 9 3 9 . Why f o r e s t p l a n t a t i o n s f a i l . Forestry. Vol. 3 7 : 377-383.  digging.  Journal of  Ruth, R.H. 1 9 5 3 . S u r v i v a l and growth o f f r e s h and s t o r e d p l a n t i n g stock. U.S.D.A. P a c i f i c North West F o r e s t and Range Experiment S t a t i o n . Research Note No. 9 3 . . 2 pp. 1956. P l a n t a t i o n s u r v i v a l and growth i n two b r u s h t h r e a t areas i n c o a s t a l Oregon. U.S.D.A. Pacific N o r t h West F o r e s t and Range Experiment S t a t i o n . Rese a r c h Note No. 17. 14 pp. 1957. Ten-year h i s t o r y o f an Oregon c o a s t a l p l a n t ation. U.S.D.AV P a c i f i c North West F o r e s t and Range Experiment S t a t i o n . Research Paper No. 2 1 . 15 pp. Schmidt, R.L. 1963. C l i m a t e and a l t i t u d i n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n o f conifers. B.C. F o r e s t S e r v i c e . F o r e s t Research Review. E.P. 482. p. 9 . Schopmeyer, C.S. 1 9 4 0 . S u r v i v a l i n f o r e s t p l a n t a t i o n s i n the n o r t h e r n Rocky Mountain r e g i o n . Journal of Forestry. V o l . 3 8 : 16-24. S c h u b e r t , G.H. and D.F. Ray. 1 9 5 9 . T e s t s o f sandwich p l a n t i n g and the m e c h a n i c a l p l a n t i n g h o l e d i g g e r i n C a l i f o r n i a . U.S.D.A. P a c i f i c South West F o r e s t and Range E x p e r i ment S t a t i o n . Research Note No. 1 5 1 . 10 pp.  130  S h o u l d e r s , E . 1 9 5 9 . Root p r u n i n g boosts l o n g l e a f T r e e P l a n t e r s ' Notes No. 3 6 : 1 5 - 1 9 '  survival.  1 9 6 0 . Seedbed d e n s i t y i n f l u e n c e s p r o d u c t i o n and s u r v i v a l o f l o b l o l l y and s l a s h pine n u r s e r y stock. Tree P l a n t e r s ' Notes. No. 42: 1 9 - 2 1 .  S i l e n , R.R. 1964. R e g e n e r a t i o n a s p e c t s o f the 50-year o l d D o u g l a s - f i r h e r e d i t y study. Western F o r e s t r y and C o n s e r v a t i o n Assoc. Western R e f o r e s t a t i o n Coord. Comm. P r o c . 1 9 6 4 : ' 3 5 - 3 9 . S i l k e r , T.H. 1 9 6 0 . Economic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f growing and g r a d i n g s o u t h e r n pine n u r s e r y s t o c k . Tree P l a n t e r s ' Notes No. 4 2 : 13-16. Smith, D.M. 1 9 6 2 . The p r a c t i c e o f s i l v i c u l t u r e . Sons. New York. 7 t h . ed. 578 pp.  J . W i l e y and  Smith, J.H.G., J.W. K e r and J . Gzizmazia. 1 9 6 1 Economics o f r e f o r e s t a t i o n o f D o u g l a s - f i r , western hemlock and w e s t e r n r e d cedar i n the Vancouver f o r e s t d i s t r i c t . U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia. Faculty of Forestry. B u l l e t i n No. 3 . 1 4 4 pp. and J . W a l t e r s . 1 9 6 5 . The i n f l u e n c e o f s e e d l i n g s i z e on growth, s u r v i v a l and c o s t o f growing Douglasfir. U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia. Faculty of Forestry. Research Note No. 50. 7 pp. and G.S. A l l e n . 1 9 6 2 . Improvement o f Douglasf i r nursery stock. U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, Faculty of Forestry. Research Note No. 55. 16 pp. A. Kozak, v O . S z i k l a i and J . W a l t e r s . 1966a. R e l a t i v e importance o f seedbed f e r t i l i z a t i o n , morpho l o g i c a l grade, s i t e , provenance and parentage t o j u v e n i l e growth and s u r v i v a l o f D o u g l a s - f i r . Forestry Chronicle. V o l . 42: 8 3 - 8 6 . 0. S z i k l a i and J.D. Beaton. 1 9 6 6 b . Can f e r t i l i z a t i o n reduce p l a n t i n g check o f D o u g l a s - f i r ? Forestry Chronicle. V o l . 42: 8 7 - 8 9 . J . W a l t e r s and P.G. Haddock. 1 9 6 7 . P l a n t i n g can be b e t t e r than d i r e c t - s e e d i n g o f D o u g l a s - f i r . J o u r n a l o f F o r e s t r y . I n Press.. Smith, R.S. J r . 1 9 6 4 . I m p l i c a t i o n o f n u r s e r y d i s e a s e s on p l a n t i n g p r a c t i c e s . Western F o r e s t r y and C o n s e r v a t i o n Assoc. Western R e f o r e s t a t i o n Coord. Comm. P r o c . 1964:  12-14.  T.N. 1 9 5 5 . Some a s p e c t s o f f o r e s t e s t a b l i s h m e n t and growth. H.R. M a c M i l l a n L e c t u r e s h i p i n F o r e s t r y . 13 PP. St.oeckeler, J.H. 1 9 6 3 a . E a r l y s u r v i v a l of planted trees i n southwestern W i s c o n s i n by s p e c i e s , age c l a s s e s , and s i t e f a c t o r s . U.S.D.A. Lake S t a t e s F o r e s t Experiment Station. Research Note No. LS - 2 7 . 4 pp.  Stoate,  1 3 1  .  S t o e c k e l e r , J.H. 1963b. Ground p r e p a r a t i o n c o s t s and f i r s t y e a r s u r v i v a l o f p l a n t e d red pine i n southwestern W i s c o n s i n . U.S.D.A. Lake S t a t e s F o r e s t Experiment Station. Research Note No. LS - 28. 4 pp. Stone, E.C. 1 9 5 5 . Poor s u r v i v a l and the p h y s i o l o g i c a l condition of the p l a n t i n g s t o c k . F o r e s t Science V o l . 1: 90-94. 1966. Root growth c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of c o n i f e r o u s n u r s e r y s t o c k r e l a t e d to f i e l d s u r v i v a l p o t e n t i a l . Sexto Congresso F o r e s t a l M u n d i a l . Madrid, Spain. J.L. J e n d i n s o n and S.L. Krugman. 1962. Root r e g e n e r a t i o n p o t e n t i a l of D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s l i f t e d at d i f f e r e n t times of the y e a r . Forest Science. V o l . 8: 2 8 8 - 2 9 7 . T a r r a n t , R.F. soil  1956a. E f f e c t s of s l a s h b u r n i n g on some p h y s i c a l p r o p e r t i e s . Forest Science V o l . 2 : 1 8 - 2 2 .  1956b. E f f e c t s of s l a s h b u r n i n g on some s o i l s o f the D o u g l a s - f i r r e g i o n . S o i l S c i e n c e S o c i e t y of America. P r o c . V o l . 2 0 : 4 0 8 - 4 1 1 . 1958. S o i l moisture c o n d i t i o n s a f t e r k i l l i n g manzanita b r u s h i n c e n t r a l Oregon. P l a n t e r s ' Notes. No. 33: 1 2 - 1 4 .  chemically Tree  1964. Top and r o o t moisture content of s t o r e d D o u g l a s - f i r p l a n t i n g stock. U.S.D.A. P a c i f i c N o r t h West F o r e s t and Range Experiment S t a t i o n . Research Paper No. PNW-13. 8 pp. Todd, G.  1964. D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s have r o o t s ? Forestry. Vol. 62:561-563.  Journal  of  Tourney, J.W. and C.F. K o r s t a i n . 1 9 4 2 . Seeding and p l a n t i n g i n the p r a c t i c e of f o r e s t r y . J . W i l e y and Sons. New York. 520 pp. Trappe, J.M. and K.W. Krueger. 1 9 6 4 . Seedling biographies keys to r a t i o n a l n u r s e r y p r a c t i c e . Western F o r e s t r y and C o n s e r v a t i o n Assoc. Western R e f o r e s t a t i o n Coord. Comm. Proc. 1 9 6 4 : 4 7 - 4 9 . Vaux, H.J. 1 9 5 4 . -An economic v i e w p o i n t on P a c i f i c coast f o r e s t planting. H.R. M a c M i l l a n L e c t u r e s h i p i n F o r e s t r y . 17 pp. V/akely,  P.C. 1 9 4 8 . P h y s i o l o g i c a l grade of s o u t h e r n pine n u r s ery stock. Proc. S o c i e t y of American F o r e s t e r s , 1 9 4 8 : 311-322.  andY'R.A. Chapman. 1 9 3 7 . A method.of s t u d y i n g the factors affecting i n i t i a l survival i n forest plantations. U.S.D.A. Southern F o r e s t Experiment S t a t i o n . O c c a s i o n a l Paper No. 69. 1 9 pp. Walters,  J. 1961. The p l a n t i n g gun and b u l l e t : a new t r e e p l a n t i n g technique. Forestry Chronicle. V o l . 37: 94-95.  132.  W a l t e r s , J . 1 9 6 6 . An o u t l i n e o f a r t i f i c i a l r e g e n e r a t i o n methods i n f o r e s t r y w i t h p a r t i c u l a r r e f e r e n c e t o container planting. A paper p r e s e n t e d a t the 1 9 6 6 R e f o r e s t a t i o n Workshop, U n i v e r s i t y o f B.C. Research Forest. and J . Soos. 1 9 6 1 a . The e f f e c t o f month o f p l a n t i n g upon s u r v i v a l and growth of D o u g l a s - f i r and Scots pine seedlings. U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, Faculty of Forestry. Research Paper No. 38. 12 pp. 1961b. The r e l a t i v e e f f i c i e n c y o f t h r e e hare r e p e l l e n t s i n p r o t e c t i n g D o u g l a s - f i r seedlings. Forestry Chronicle. V o l . 37: 22-28. and A. Kozak. 1 9 6 5 . - E f f e c t o f s e e d l i n g s i z e on s i r v i v a l and growth o f p l a n t a t i o n s , w i t h p a r t i c u l a r reference to Douglas-fir. U n i v e r s i t y o f B.C. Facu l t y of F o r e s t r y . Research Paper No. 72. 26 pp. and P.G. Haddock. 1 9 6 6 . J u v e n i l e h e i g h t growth o f e i g h t c o n i f e r o u s s p e c i e s on f i v e D o u g l a s - f i r sites. U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia. Faculty of Forestry. Research Note No. 7 5 . 16 pp. A. Kozak and P.G. Haddock. 1 9 6 6 . The e f f e c t o f f e r t i l i z e r p e l l e t s on the growth of D o u g l a s - f i r . U n i v e r s i t y o f B.C. F a c u l t y o f F o r e s t r y . Research Note No. 5 6 . 3 pp. White, D.P. 1 9 6 5 . S u r v i v a l , growth and n u t r i e n t uptake by spruce and pine s e e d l i n g s as a f f e c t e d by s l o w - r e l e a s e f e r t i l i z e r materials. In F o r e s t - S o i l r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n N o r t h America. Oregon S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , C o r v a l l i s , Oregon, pp. 4 7 - 6 3 . Williams,  H.G. 1 9 4 9 . P r a c t i c a l problems o f r e f o r e s t a t i o n . B r i t i s h Columbia Lumberman. March, 1 9 4 9 . pp. 5 9 60, 86. '  Winjum, J.K. 1 9 6 3 . E f f e c t s o f l i f t i n g date and storage on 2+0 D o u g l a s - f i r and Noble f i r . J o u r n a l o f F o r e s t r y . Vol.  61:  648-654.  Worthington, N.P. 1 9 5 5 . A comparison o f c o n i f e r s p l a n t e d on the Hemlock E x p e r i m e n t a l F o r e s t . U.S.D.A. Pacific N o r t h West F o r e s t and Range Experiment S t a t i o n . Rese a r c h Note No. 1 1 1 . 5 pp. Wright, E . 1 9 6 4 . M y c o r r h i z a e and s u r v i v a l o f D o u g l a s - f i r seedlings. F o r e s t Research L a b o r a t o r y . Oregon S t a t e University. Research Note No. 50. 7 pp. and after North earch  R.F. T a r r a n t . 1957. Microbial soil-properties l o g g i n g a n d - s l a s h b u r n i n g . U.S.D.A. P a c i f i c West F o r e s t and Range Experiment S t a t i o n . ResNote No. 1 5 7 . 5 pp.  . and K.K. Ching. 1 9 6 2 . E f f e c t o f seed source on myco r r h i z a l f o r m a t i o n on D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s . Northwest S c i e n c e . Vol. 3 6 : 1-6.  133.  W y c o f f , H. 1 9 6 0 . Refreigerated storage P l a n t e r s ' N o t e s . No. 42:  of nursery  stock.  Tree  VIII.  APPENDIX I  ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE TABLES  a.  Source  Degrees o f freedom  Variance ratio  Significance  **  Aspect (1)  2  10.2  E l e v a t i o n (2)  4  2.2  Season (3)  1  167.6  (D  X (2)  4  0.1  N.S.  (2) X (3)  3  9.8  (1) X (2) X (3)  4  3.7  ** **  Error  1061  Total  1079  b.  Source A s p e c t t ( 1) Burn severity (2) Ground cover ( 3 ) Season (1)  X (2)  (D  Degrees o f freedom  **  Significance  ** **  2  10.3  2  10.9  2  13.7  1  169.8  4  2.1  N.S.  4,  3.7  *  Variance ratio  Significance  X (3) Error  1056  Total  1071  Source  Variance ratio  N.S.  Degrees o f freedom  ** **  Season ( 1 )  1  196.5  Weather ( 2 )  5  2.7  ** *  (D  5  0.1  N.S.  X (2)'  Error  1332  Total  1343  N.S. = not s i g n i f i c a n t ** = s i g n i f i c a n t a t the 9 9 % probability level * = s i g n i f i c a n t a t the 9 5 5 probability level  135  Source  Degrees o f freedom  Variance ratio  Significance  Season  1  211.1  **  Topography-  3  6.2  **  Error  1401  Total  1405  Source Aspect  (1)  Degrees o f freedom  Variance ratio  2  9.9  1  162.8  Significance  **  Season (2) Duff t h i c k n e s s (3) ( D X (3)  1  6.9  ** *  2  1.8  N.S.  (2) X (3)  1  5.6  -**  Error  1066  Total  1073  Source Season (1) Duff t h i c k n e s s (2) ( D X (2)  Degrees o f freedom 1  216.3  1  10.5  1  4.3  Error  1423  Total  1426  Source Age of p l a n t i n g s t o c k (1) Ground c o v e r (2) (1) X (2)  Variance ratio  Degrees o f freedom  Variance ratio  Significance  ** ** *  Significance  2  6.7  2  14.0  ** **  4  8.7  **  Error  791  Total  799 N.S. ** *  = not s i g n i f i c a n t = s i g n i f i c a n t a t the 99 $ probability level = s i g n i f i c a n t a t the 95 1° probability level  h.  Source D i v i s i o n (1)  Degrees of freedom  X (2)  8.1  *#  2  11.8  *•*  17  3.0  **  Variance ratio  Significance  Error  819  Total  850  i.  Source Age o f p l a n t i n g stock Season  Degrees o f freedom 2  18.8  1  200.2  Error  1265  Total  1268  j.  Source  Significance  12  N u r s e r y (2)  (D  Variance ratio  Degrees o f freedom  Variance ratio  ** **  Significance  C o n d i t i o n of s t o c k (1) Season (2)  3  2.3  1  200.7  *•*  (D  3  11.1  **  X (2)  Error  1 181  Total  1 188  k.  Source D i v i s i o n (1) S e e d l o t No. (2) Seed c l a s s i f i c a t i o n (3) ( D X (2)  (D  Degrees o f freedom  Variance ratio  N.S.  Significance  215.1  **  1 1  55.4  **  1  0.9  6  18L  X (3) Error  756  Total  797  108.9 1.1  5  N.S.  ** N.S.  • N.S. = not s i g n i f i c a n t ** = s i g n i f i c a n t at the 99 $ probability level * = s i g n i f i c a n t at the 95 $ probability level  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

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.831.1-0302248/manifest

Comment

Related Items