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 of 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 In the Faculty of Forestry We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA March, 1968 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and Study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department or by hits r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada i ABSTRACT A comprehensive l i t e r a t u r e review of 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 of planted D o u g l a s - f i r seedlings i s presented. O r i g i n a l data 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 analyzed to determine the e f f e c t of some s e e d l i n g , p l a n t -i n g and environmental f a c t o r s on s u r v i v a l . The use of 2+1 stock was found to r e s u l t i n i n -creased 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 , hut not of s p r i n g planted s e e d l i n g s . 1+0 stock showed comparatively good su r -v i v a l when sp 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 brush and/or s l a s h competition. The s i z e of p l a n t i n g stock, and a sub-j e c t i v e assessment of grade were not found to be r e l a t e d to 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 to December 2 were analyzed i n r e l a t i o n to s u r v i v a l u s i n g r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s . E a r l y - l i f t e d stock was found to 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 the s u r v i v a l of sp r i n g - p l a n t e d seed-l i n g s . P l a n t i n g dates from February 10 to June 10 i n the s p r i n g and from October 14 to December 2 i n the f a l l were analyzed i n r e l a t i o n to s u r v i v a l u s i n g r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s . S u r v i v a l was found to 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 dates. Length of storage had no detectable i n f l u e n c e on s u r v i v a l . The nursery o r i g i n of the seedlings was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y r elated to s u r v i v a l . Where ground cover competition was severe, slash-burning resulted i n increased s u r v i v a l ; where ground cover competition was l i g h t or non-existent, slashburning resulted i n reduced s u r v i v a l . Heavy ground cover competition reduced the s u r v i v a l of both spring and f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings, ex-cept on north to east aspects. E l e v a t i o n and aspect of the planting s i t e were both found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y r elated to s u r v i v a l . Planting i n thick duff reduced the s u r v i v a l of spring and f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings. The s u r v i v a l of f a l l -planted seedlings was also reduced by p l a n t i n g i n r o l l i n g topography, and on steep south to west aspects. Planting during sunny weather resulted i n reduced s u r v i v a l . Planting during snowy weather reduced the s u r v i v a l of f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings only. Some genetic factors*; such as o r i g i n of the seed, seed c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , and aspect and elevation of the seed c o l l e c t i o n areas compared to that of the plantation were an-alyzed i n r e l a t i o n to s u r v i v a l with inconclusive r e s u l t s . The author concludes that no one f a c t o r i s of ov 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 that a l l factors act and i n t e r a c t to varying degrees. Therefore i n most cases i t i s ;very d i f f i c u l t to assign a s p e c i f i c reason f o r mort-a l i t y . I t i s important that the r e l a t i v e importance of each f a c t o r under d i f f e r e n t sets of conditions be known. The key to better s u r v i v a l , therefore, i s planning and forethoiught, to ensure that as few f a c t o r s as possible i i i are l i m i t i n g to s u r v i v a l a t any one time. Based on the d a t a a n a l y z e d , some s p e c i f i c r e c -ommendations f o r improving the s u r v i v a l of p l a n t e d Douglas-f i r s e e d l i n g s are p r e s e n t e d . i v TABLE OP CONTENTS PAGE I. Introduction 1 I I . L i t e r a t u r e review 5 1. Introduction 5 2 . The influence of nursery pr a c t i c e s and grades on s u r v i v a l 6 a. General 6 b. Sowing 7 c. F e r t i l i z a t i o n 8 d. Root and top pruning 9 e. The influence of age and class of stock on s u r v i v a l 10 f. The influence of size of stock on s u r v i v a l 14 g. The influence of grade of stock on s u r v i v a l 16 h. The influence of l i f t i n g and storage on s u r v i v a l 2 0 3 . The influence of storage at the planting s i t e on s u r v i v a l 28 4 . S i t e preparation and s u r v i v a l 30 a. Mulching 30 b. Other techniques 31 5 . The planting operation and s u r v i v a l 3 2 a. Planting methods 3 2 b. Planting techniques 3 4 i . Mattock planting 3 4 i i . Container planting 3 6 6 . The influence of f e r t i l i z e r s and other chemicals on s u r v i v a l a f t e r outplanting 3 7 a. F e r t i l i z e r s 3 7 b. Other growth-inducing substances 3 8 c. Transpiration retardants 3 9 7 . The influence of time of planting on s u r v i v a l 3 9 8 . The influence of slashburning on s u r v i v a l 42 9 . The influence of s i t e f a c t o r s on s u r v i v a l 4 6 a. E l e v a t i o n of the planting s i t e 4 6 b. S o i l moisture 4 7 c. Slope and aspect 4 9 d. Animals and birds 50 e. Weather 53 f . Competing vegetation 53 g. Microsite 57 h. Insects and disease 59 V PAGE 10. 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 60 I I I . Materials and methods 62 1. Background of the study 62 2. F i e l d study 62 3. O r i g i n of the data 63 a. S u r v i v a l l i n e s 63 h. Pla n t a t i o n r e g i s t e r s 65 c. Planting s u r v i v a l summaries 65 d. Seedlot r e g i s t e r s 69 e. S u r v i v a l examinations 69 4.. Nature and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the data 70 5. The s t a t i s t i c a l analyses 72 a. General 72 h. Regression analyses 74 c. Analyses of variance 75 IV. Results and discussion 76 1. General 76 2. The influence of age and class of stock on s u r v i v a l 77 3. The influence of morphological grade on s u r v i v a l 79 4. The influence of l i f t i n g and planting -dates and length of storage on s u r v i v a l 81 a. Spring-planted seedlings 81 b. P a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings 84 c. Discussion 87 5. The influence of the nursery o r i g i n of the seedlings on s u r v i v a l 89 6. The influence of trees planted per man-day on s u r v i v a l 92 7. The influence of slashburning on s u r v i v a l 92 8. The influence of some environmental ( s i t e ) f a c t o r s on s u r v i v a l 96 a. E l e v a t i o n of the planting s i t e 96 b. Aspect of the planti n g s i t e 97 c. The combined influence of aspect and elevation 99 d. Ground cover competition 100 e. The e f f e c t of pl a n t i n g i n thick duff 104 f . The e f f e c t of topography 105 g. The e f f e c t of weather at the time of planting 106 9. The influence of some genetic f a c t o r s on s u r v i v a l 108 a. General 108 b. Seed o r i g i n 109 c. Seed c l a s s i f i c a t i o n 109 d. E l e v a t i o n and aspect of the seed c o l l e c t i o n areas and the plant-ations 110 v i PAGE V . Recommendat ions and c o n c l u s i o n s 111 V I . Summary 118 V I I . B i b l i o g r a p h y 122 V I I I . A p p e n d i x I. A n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e t a b l e s 13'4 v n LIST OP TABLES TABLE PAGE I . A chart showing the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of 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 anal y s e s . 71 I I . 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 three>; p l a n t i n g stock c l a s s e s . "78 I I I . 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 a sub-j e c t i v e assessment of s e e d l i n g c o n d i t i o n . 80 IV. 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 equations 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 s p r i n g - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s . 83 V. 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 equations of l i f t i n g and -planting dates on 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 . 84 VI . The r e g r e s s i o n equations of date of l i f t i n g and date of 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 per cent s u r v i v a l minus per cent "poors" a f t e r one growing 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 V I I . 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 nursery o r i g i n of the s e e d l i n g s . 90 V I I I . 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 nursery o r i g i n of the s e e d l i n g s and area of p l a n t i n g . 91 IX. 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 s l a s h b u r n . 93 X. 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 degree of slashburndand the amount of ground c o m p e t i t i o n . 94 X I . 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 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 . 97 v i i i PAGE XII. Per cent s u r v i v a l at the end of one growing season a f t e r planting of spring and f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings by the aspect of the p l a n t i n g s i t e . 98 XIII. Per cent s u r v i v a l at the end of one growing season a f t e r planting of spring and f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings by aspect and elevation class of the p l a n t i n g s i t e . 99 XIV. Per cent s u r v i v a l at the end of one growing season a f t e r planting of spring and f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings by the degree of ground cover competition. 101 XV. Per cent s u r v i v a l at the end of one growing season a f t e r planting by aspect and ground cover competition classes. 102 XVI. 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 stock class and ground cover competition c l a s s , f o r spring-planted seedlings. 103 XVII. Per cent s u r v i v a l at the end of one growing season a f t e r planting of spring and f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings by two duff-thickness classes. 104 XVIII. Per cent s u r v i v a l at the end of one growing season a f t e r planting of spring and f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings by topography classes 106 XIX. Per cent s u r v i v a l at the end of one growing season a f t e r planting of spring and f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings by weather classes at the time of planting 107 i x LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1 . The number of seedlings and acreage planted by private industry on the coast of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1956 to 1966. 2 2. Fluctuation i n carbohydrate reserves and growth of Douglas-fir seedlings at the Wind River Nursery - a gener-a l i z e d i l l u s t r a t i o n . 24 3. 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 p l a n t a t i o n . 64 4. A sample plantation r e g i s t e r . 66 5. A t y p i c a l map of a p l a n t a t i o n . 67 6. A sample planting s u r v i v a l summary. 68 7. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between per cent s u r v i v a l and spring and f a l l l i f t i n g and planting dates. 86 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author wishes to acknowledge the generosity of MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. i n making the data a v a i l a b l e to the Faculty of Forestry, and e s p e c i a l l y to Mr. John Marlow,,. B.S.F., and Mr. David Handley, B.C.R.F., f o r t h e i r assistance to the author i n organizing and c o l l e c t -ing the data. The author also wishes to acknowledge the help of: Dr. A. Kozak and Mrs. H. Froese f o r t h e i r help and guidance with the s t a t i s t i c a l analyses and programming; Dr. 0. S z i k l a i and Dr. P.G. Haddock f o r t h e i r assistance i n i n t e r p r e t i n g some of the r e s u l t s of the analyses; and f i n a l l y to my wife Bonnie, f o r her patience and encouragement during the w r i t i n g of the t h e s i s . x i The r e g e n e r a t i o n o f f o r e s t stands has pr e s e n t e d the 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 problems. Re-g a r d l e s s o f the method used, the f o r e s t e r o f t e n has found the e x p e r i e n c e to be a s u c c e s s i o n of f r u s t r a t i o n s i n t e r -upted o c c a s s i o n a l l y by an unexpected s u c c e s s . In the 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 economic l i m i t a t i o n s has depended as much on hope as on knowledge; as much on chance as on te c h n i q u e ; and as much on i n n o v a t i o n as 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 rapid trans-i t i o n from an exploitive to a managed use of i t s forest 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 increased emphasis placed on re f o r e s t a t i o n by the forest industry of the province, as i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 1. In 1 9 6 6 , private industry planted 12.3 m i l l -ion seedlings on 3 1 . 8 thousand acres; just ten years e a r l i e r , only 3.0 m i l l i o n seedlings were planted by p r i v -ate industry, on only 7.5 thousand acres (B.C. Forest Service, Annual Report 1 9 6 6 ) . One .company, MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., recently planted t h e i r f i f t y - m i l l i o n t h seedling. In order to reduce planting costs, the trend has been to plant fewer trees per acre. P r i o r to 1 9 5 7 , an average of 6 3 4 trees per. acre were planted by private industry; i n 1 9 6 6 , only 3 8 4 trees per acre were being planted (B.C. Forest Service, Annual Report 1 9 6 6 ) . Accompanying t h i s trend to wider spacing came the increasing danger that post-planting mortality would reduce the number of trees per acre to below an acceptable l e v e l , and necessitate costly replanting or f i l l - p l a n t i n g . Based on 9 3 Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii: : (Mirb.) Franco var. menziesii) plantations established by 3. the B.C. F o r e s t S e r v i c e between 1933 and 1956 , Smith e_t a l . ( 1 9 6 1 ) quoted an average s u r v i v a l f i g u r e of 67.2% three years a f t e r p l a n t i n g . Smith e_t a l . a l s o quote a p l a n t i n g cost of $ ' . 0 3 3 per s e e d l i n g , under average cond-i t i o n s . Assuming that t h e i r s u r v i v a l and cost f i g u r e s are accuratedand r e p r e s e n t a t i v e averages, then m o r t a l -i t y has claimed 16.4 m i l l i o n of the 50 m i l l i o n s e e d l i n g s 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 three years a f t e r p l a n t i n g . This represents a cost of over h a l f a m i l l i o n d o l l a r s , even assuming a zero 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 cost 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 estocked (N.S.R.) areas. In g e n e r a l , adequate s t o c k i n g through p l a n t i n g can be ensured by e i t h e r of two approaches: by p l a n t i n g such a l a r g e number of t r e e s per acre that even i f mort-a l i t y i s h i g h , adequate s t o c k i n g w i l l be ensured; or by ensuring 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 comparatively few t r e e s per acre are p l a n t e d . I t . i s extremely u n l i k e l y t h a t the f i r s t a l t e r n -a t i v e would be chosen unless present p l a n t i n g techniques undergo a d r a s t i c change. Even then, however, wide sp a c i n g may be d e s i r a b l e from a b i o l o g i c a l , i f not ec-onomic, v i e w p o i n t . Wide spacing combined w i t h h i g h s u r v i v a l g ives a c o n t r o l of stand 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 , although the q u a l i t y of such stands may be i n question. The mortality of planted seedlings i s therefore one of the most pressing s i l v i c u l t u r a l and management problems f a c i n g the forest industry to-day. The many p h y s i o l o g i c a l , genetic and environmental factors a f f e c t i n g s u r v i v a l are too l i t t l e known, and t h e i r e f f e c t s too l i t t l e understood. Even as t h i s knowledge and under-standing comes, there i s often l i t t l e that the f i e l d f o r e s t e r can do to u t i l i z e them. He cannot change or modify the weather, s o i l or topography, and he often has l i t t l e c o ntrol over the q u a l i t y of seedlings he receives. However, armed with a knowledge of how these f a c t o r s operate and combine to reduce s u r v i v a l , the f o r -e ster can modify t h e i r e f f e c t on the seedlings, even though he cannot modify the f a c t o r s themselves. The objectives of t h i s t h e s i s are threefold: f i r s t l y to point out and evaluate some facto r s a f f e c t i n g the s u r v i v a l of planted Douglas-fir seedlings by means of a comprehensive l i t e r a t u r e review and an analysis of o r i g i n a l data; secondly to suggest ways i n which these fact o r s might be considered i n order to benefit planning f o r higher s u r v i v a l ; and t h i r d l y to suggest •areas where furt h e r research might be done by a private company. Stoate (1955) suggested that "considerable technological research into the ways and means of est-ablishment, care and management of new growth must of necessity be c a r r i e d out by private enterprise i n i t s forward development of new f o r e s t s . " To t h i s end, Mac-M i l l a n Bloedel L t d . provided the Faculty of Forestry 5 . w i t h v a l u a b l e data and the o p p o r t u n i t y f o r the author to v i s i t ; many of t h e i r p l a n t a t i o n s . Although the data was not obtained from a plann-ed or designed experiment, a f a c t which o f t e n made the analyses d i f f i c u l t , i t i s of a comprehensive nature and covers a wide environmental and geographic range. I t i s hoped t h a t the trends shown w i l l be a p p l i c a b l e to a wide range of p l a n t i n g c o n d i t i o n s . D e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of i n d -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 precluded because of the qu a l i t a t i v e - . n a t u r e of most of the data. Even so, some obvious methods of improving the s.urvival of plante d Douglas-f i r s e e d l i n g s present themselves; other trends must be f u r t h e r evaluated i n p r o p e r l y designed experiments. I I . LITERATURE REVIEW 1. I n t r o d u c t i o n A l l e n ( 1 9 5 4 ) quoted H e i n r i c h C o t t a as saying of f o r e s t r y , "... many e n t i r e l y one-sided experiences are copied by the merely 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 they f i n a l l y stand as a r t i c l e s of f a i t h which nobody dares to gainsay, no matter how one-sided or i n e r r o r they may be." With t h i s danger i n mind, a comprehensive l i t e r a t u r e r e -view i s presented i n order to b r i n g to^gether some p e r t -i n a n t i n f o r m a t i o n on 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 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 . As e a r l y as 1 9 3 7 , Chapman and Wakely described a 6 . p l o t design 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 the 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 these f a c t o r s were: s p e c i e s , age stock c l a s s , grade, h e a l t h and s i z e of p l a n t i n g stock; the treatment of stock by c u l t i v -a t i o n , shading or watering i n the nursery; root pruning d u r i n g the growing season or at l i f t i n g ; mechanical i n j u r y or exposure d u r i n g l i f t i n g or p l a n t i n g ; p l a n t i n g t o o l used; s i t e p r e p a r a t i o n ; pest c o n t r o l ; and c o n t r o l of drought i n -j u r y by shading, mulching, c o a t i n g w i t h o i l or pruning the needles. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that many of these f a c t o r s are the.same ones being s t u d i e d t h i r t y years l a t e r . A l l e n ( 1 9 5 5 ) suggested t h a t mistakes i n r e f o r e s t -a t i o n p r a c t i c e could be minimized i f f o r e s t e r s would be exce 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 nature as c l o s e l y as p o s s i b l e . He emaphasized the need f o r f o r e s t e r s to>.ack-nowledge that they have a l o t to l e a r n about f o r e s t e s t -ablishment before they can be reasonably;; c e r t a i n t h a t what they do i s wise. 2 . The i n f l u e n c e of nursery p r a c t i c e s and grades on s u r v i v a l a. General Walters ( 1 9 6 6) s a i d "A prime and d i r e c t o b j e c t -i v e of nursery p r a c t i c e i s the p r o d u c t i o n of s e e d l i n g s able to s u r v i v e the t r a n s p l a n t i n g shock." According to Smith and A l l e n ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 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.C. F o r e s t S e r v i c e has improved the q u a l i t y of Douglas-7. f i r s e e d l i n g s by c a r e f u l c o n t r o l of the t r e e s from which cones are c o l l e c t e d , and of the methods by which seed i s e x t r a c t e d and s t o r e d . They p o i n t out that f e r t i l i z a t i o n and f a l l sowing have improved the s i z e and q u a l i t y of p l a n t -i n g s tock, and tha t improved c o l d storage, t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and b u n d l i n g methods have brought nursery 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 Krueger (1964) suggested that nursery p r a c t i c e s could be improved by the use of " s e e d l i n g b i o g -r a p h i e s " , which would enable the nurseryman to p r e d i c t how a p r a c t i c e may a f f e c t the growth and form (and s u r -v i v a l ) of 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 b a s i s f o r t i m i n g nursery o p e r a t i o n s , determine seasonal t r e n d s , and to observe the e f f e c t s of weather, f e r t i l i z e r s , chemicals and pru n i n g , e t c . Obviously these b i o g r a p h i e s should not end when the s e e d l i n g s leave the nu r s e r y , but should be continued f o r a few years a f t e r p l a n t i n g . Trappe and Krueger suggest that w e l l - d e s i g n e d 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 e v a l -u a t i o n of contemplated p r a c t i c e s . I n t h i s s e c t i o n , the e f f e c t s of some nursery p r a c t i c e s on the s u r v i v a l of pl 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 of sowing i n the nursery w i l l l a f f e c t the h e a l t h of the s e e d l i n g s and hence t h e i r s u r v i v a l pot-e n t i a l a f t e r o u t - p l a n t i n g . Too-dense sowing w i l l r e s u l t 8. i n smaller and s p i n d l i e r seedlings than seedlings r e s u l t -ing from sparslier-sowed seed. Two methods of sowing are i n general use: broad-cast and row. Row sowing gives a better control of seed-l i n g density than does broadcast sowing, and hence i s more l i k e l y to produce seedlings of higher, more uniform q u a l i t y . c. F e r t i l i z a t i o n F e r t i l i z a t i o n of seedlings i n the nursery i s done f o r one or both of two reasons: to increase the growth rate and f i n a l size of the seedlings; and/or to replenish the s o i l nutrients removed by the seedlings. A well-designed f e r t i l i z a t i o n programme produces l a r g e r and hardier seed-l i n g s which are better able to survive i n the f i e l d . How-ever Kramer and Kozlowski (1960) have warned of the dangers of over and u n d e r - f e r t i l i z a t i o n . They reported that too much nitrogen f e r t i l i z e r i s l i k e l y to r e s u l t i n seedlings with a low root/shoot r a t i o , and also low i n carbohydrate reserves. Too l i t t l e nitrogen may r e s u l t i n small seed-l i n g s which are also low i n carbohydrate reserves. They emphasized that research i s needed to determine what type of f e r t i l i z a t i o n programme w i l l produce seedlings most l i k e l y to survive when out-planted. This need i s further emphasized by the very v a r i a b l e e f f e c t s that nursery f e r t -i l i z a t i o n has shown on the s u r v i v a l of planted seedlings. Knight (1957) found no differences i n the sur-v i v a l of Douglas-fir seedlings treated with various f e r t i l i z e r s i n the nursery, 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 s e e d l i n g s . Meagher ( 1 9 6 1 ) found that Douglas-f i r s e e d lings t r e a t e d w i t h 3 2 0 pounds of n i t r o g e n per 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 that the i n c -idence of browsing by deer rose from 13 % to 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 the other hand, Smith et a l . ( 1 9 6 6 a ) reported that both chemical and organic f e r t i l i z a t i o n of 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 f i e l d s u r v i v a l . d. Root and top pruning Root pruning 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 . I t i s g e n e r a l l y done to promote branching and to a s s i s t i n preventing root deformation during p l a n t i n g . Huntley ( 1 9 6 0 ) reported that the per cent increase i n root volume was s i g n i f i c a n t l y increased by root pruning, but Smith and A l l e n ( 1 9 6 5 ) reported that root pruning had no e f f e c t on s u r v i v a l . Top pruning of seedlings has a l s o been p r a c t i c e d , but mainly on an experimental b a s i s . Top pruning i s done to reduce the t r a n s p i r i n g surface of the s e e d l i n g s , but g e n e r a l l y the p r a c t i c e has had a det r i m e n t a l e f f e c t on s u r v i v a l . Hermann ( 1 9 6 4 c ) reported that seedlings ten to 10. f i f t e e n inches t a l l pruned to 3/5, 2/5 and 1/5 of t h e i r tops r e s u l t e d i n 100 $ m o r t a l i t y f o r e a r l y - l i f t e d f a l l -p l a n t e d stock. Huntley (1960) found t h a t root pruning i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h top pruning decreased s u r v i v a l , but t h a t root pruning alone d i d not. Smith and A l l e n (1962) found that s u r v i v a l decreased w i t h the i n t e n s i t y of com-bined root and top pruning. A c c o r d i n g to Trappe and Krueger (1964) and Krueger ( 1 9 6 6 ) , i t seems reasonable to prune s e e d l i n g s when the carbohydrate reserves are low, to preventsthe expenditure of energy on root growth w h i l e the s e e d l i n g s are i n the n u r s e r y . Pruned s e e d l i n g s would then have time to b u i l d up carbohydrate reserves and a f l u s h of 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 . Obviously t h i s would apply a l s o to s e e d l i n g s scheduled f o r t r a n s p l a n t i n g . e. The i n f l u e n c e of age and c l a s s of stock on s u r v i v a l Walters and Kozak (1965) s a i d that the s u r v i v a l of a p a r t i c u l a r s p e cies has been found to depend more on age than on s i z e alone, and t h a t morphological grades must be e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h i n each age c l a s s . 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 than younger s e e d l i n g s , and t r a n s -p l a n t s to have b e t t e r s u r v i v a l than s e e d l i n g s . However the v a r i a b l e r e s u l t s of experiments reported i n the l i t -e r ature suggests t h a t the r e l a t i o n s h i p between age and s u r v i v a l i s not a simple one. 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 1 1 . p l a n t e d . As Tourney and K o r s t i a n ( 1 9 4 2 ) s t a t e d , the c h i e f advantage of t r a n s p l a n t stock over s e e d l i n g s i s a more compact and f i b r o u s root system. Adams _et a l . ( 1 9 6 6 ) found that the s u r v i v a l of 1+0 stock was lower than t h a t of 2+0, f o r both shaded and unshaded c o n d i t i o n s . C l a r k ( 1 9 6 6 ) r e p o r t e d that the su r -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.) Franco) was s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to the c l a s s of stock. He t e s t e d 2+1, -2+0 and 1+1 stock, and found t h a t the s u r v i v a l of stock c l a s s e s was more i n f l -uenced by the season of p l a n t i n g than by aspect. S u r v i v a l was best w i t h 2+1 stock and worst w i t h 1+1, on a dry s i t e . Smith and A l l e n ( 1 9 6 2 ) d e s c r i b e d a p l a n t i n g experiment i n which spring-sown 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 stock was p l a n t e d . S u r v i v a l was best f o r spring-sown 2+0 stock, and poorest f o r spring-sown 1+1 stock. Smith _et a l . ( 1 9 6 7 ) reported that s u r v i v a l i n c r e a s -ed w i t h the number of years the 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 other authors have reported the r e s u l t s of experiments where the age and c l a s s of stock has made l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e to the s u r v i v a l of planted D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s . Loewenstein ( 1 9 6 4 ) r e p o r t e d l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e between the s u r v i v a l of 2+0 and 2+1 I n t e r i o r D o u g l a s - f i r stock p l a n t e d i n Idaho. I l l i n g w o r t h ( 1 9 6 6 b ) found no important d i f f e r -ences i n the s u r v i v a l of 2+0, 2+1 and 1+2 D o u g l a s - f i r stock p l a n t e d i n twelve t y p i c a l salmonberry s i t e s on Van-couver I s l a n d . F i r s t year s u r v i v a l was high f o r a l l 12. classes, despite a warm dry spring. I l l i n g w o r t h ( 1 9 6 6 c ) reported no important differences i n s u r v i v a l between large and small 1 + 0 , 2 + 0 , 1 + 1 , 1 + 2 and 2 + 1 stock planted on a s a l a l s i t e on Vancouver Island. Revel ( 1 9 6 3 a ) founds, no important differences i n the s u r v i v a l of 1 + 0 (spring and fall-sown), 2 + 0 and 1 + 1 stock when planted on un-burned, f r e s h l y burned and old burns, or on south versus north aspects within each burn c l a s s . Some workers have reported on the best s i t e types for each stock c l a s s . One of the most exhaustive studies of t h i s nature was done by Stoeckeler ( 1 9 6 3 a ) with red pine seedlings. He c l a s s i f i e d an area into s i t e types and recommended d i f f e r e n t stock classes f o r each. On some s i t e s , transplants were required or preferred; on others, seedlings resulted i n acceptable s u r v i v a l . Revel ( 1 9 6 3 d ) pointed out that spring-sown 1 + 0 Douglas-fir stock does not u t i l i z e the f u l l growing season. He found that fall-sown seedlings had longer roots and shoots than did spring-sown stock, as well as lar g e r d i a -meters. He suggested that fall-sown 1 + 0 stock could be used to re f o r e s t areas with conditions favourable f o r s u r v i v a l . Bamford ( 1 9 6 3 ) suggested that fall-sown 1 + 0 stock could be economically planted on clean burns with good r e s u l t s . Jumbo 2 + 0 , and 2 + 1 transplants are best reserved f o r s i t e s which may have a serious brush prob-lem, according to Bamford. Smith et. a l . ( 1 9 6 1 ) reported good s u r v i v a l with 2 + 0 stock on s t r i p - c l e a r e d land and with 1 + 0 stock planted 13. immediately a f t e r broadcast burning. They emphasized the need fo r further planting studies of 1+0 stock, part-i c u l a r l y on well-planted and favourable s i t e s . Jaworsky (1958) recommended the use of large vigourous Douglas-fir seedlings f o r hazardous planting s i t e s such as exposed south slopes, rocky and stony ground, dense cover or where summer drought i s prevalent. He be-li e v e d that root pruning of large stock was advisable-..to prevent root deformation during planting. In an experiment conducted i n por c e l a i n crocks, Smith and A l l e n (1962) re-ported no differences i n s u r v i v a l of 1+0 Douglas-fir stock grown i n s o i l s from areas of s i t e index 80 , 130 and 150. Whether the humus was present or absent, or the degree of burn, did not a f f e c t s u r v i v a l . They suggested that f u r -ther experiments be directed towards producing plantable 1+0 stock. Robson (1966) reported on a r e f o r e s t a t i o n quest-ionnaire sent to fo r e s t e r s i n coastal B r i t i s h Columbia. A question asking what classes of Douglas-fir stock would be preferred on upper, middle and lower slopes resulted i n the following answers: upper - f a l l sown 1+0 (23%), 2+0 (77%); middle - 2+0 (85%), 1+0, 2+1 and 1+1 (15%); bottom -2+1, 2+2 ( 7 9 % ) , 2+0 (21%). Ackhurst (1966) quotes the cost of r a i s i n g 2+0 stock as $9 . 00 per 1000 seedlings and the cost of r a i s i n g 2+1 seedlings as $19 . 00 per 1000 seedlings. Ackhurst concludes that there must be a saving of $10.00 per 1000 seedlings i n increased s u r v i v a l and growth before i t i s H . p r e f e r a b l e to use 2+1 i n s t e a d of 2 + 0 s t o c k . This i n -creased use of 2+1 stock may. be p a r t i a l l y o f f s e t through the j u d i c i o u s use of 1+0 stock however. f. The i n f l u e n c e of s i z e of stock on s u r v i v a l Ackhurst ( 1 9 6 6 ) reviewed some of the l i t e r a t u r e on the i n f l u e n c e of s i z e of p l a n t i n g stock on s u r v i v a l , and suggested that the main advantage of u s i n g l a r g e stock i s 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 of severe c l i m a t i c con-d i t i o n s . The s m a l l e r stock, i f i t s u r v i v e s the i n i t i a l c r i t i c a l p e r i o d , seems to grow as w e l l as normal or l a r g e r stock, herconcluded. Tourney and K o r s t i a n ( 1 9 4 2 ) c i t e d the advantages of s m a l l stock as being: 1 ) l e s s expensive to grow; 2 ) the cost of h a n d l i n g and p l a n t i n g i s l e s s ; 3 ) l e s s i n t e r r u p t -i o n of growth because of l i f t i n g , t r a n s p o r t and p l a n t i n g ; and 4 ) the r o o t system i s l e s s l i a b l e to i n j u r y . The disadvantages of the use of sma l l stock, they say, a r e : 1) l e s s able to compete w i t h v e g e t a t i o n ; and 2 ) more sus-c e p t i b l e to summer drought. The 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 and 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 i s very c o n t r a d i c t -ory. Some authors suggest t h a t s u r v i v a l v a r i e s d i r e c t l y w i t h s i z e ; others suggest a negative r e l a t i o n s h i p ; s t i l l o t h ers suggest t h a t there i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between s i z e and s u r v i v a l . Bamford ( 1 9 6 3 ) 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 (85.6 %) , average (88.6 %) , and large (93.3 %) Douglas-fir seedlings. Smith and Walters (1965) suggested that 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 Douglas-fir plantations was seedling height. They reported on an experiment where av-erage and t a l l seedlings had the highest s u r v i v a l , then very t a l l and short seedlings, with very short seedlings having the lowest s u r v i v a l . They concluded that the extra cost of planting large seedlings was compensated by t h e i r improved s u r v i v a l , except i n the very t a l l c l a s s . Smith and A l l e n (1962) however found that small seedlings survived better than t a l l because of l e s s f r o s t -k i l l i n g and exposure during the winter of the small seedlings. They suggested, however, that the most desirable seedlings were the, t a l l e s t , except f o r t a l l spindly trees, which survived poorly. Hermann (1964p) found that the sur-v i v a l of Douglas-fir seedlings with 15 to 20 inch tops was s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than those with smaller tops. He found no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the s u r v i v a l of the two smaller height classes, 5 to 10 inches and 10 to 15 inches. Knight (1957) reported that there was no s i g n i f -i c a n t differences i n the s u r v i v a l of d i f f e r e n t s i z e s of Douglas-fir stock planted on Vancouver Island. Lavender (1958) also reported no differences i n s u r v i v a l between size classes of Douglas-fir seedlings. Walters and Kozak (1965) suggested that the size of nursery stock was not 16. a r e l i a b l e m e a s u r e o f t h e s e e d l i n g s ' c a p a c i t y t o r e c o v e r f r o m l i f t i n g a n d p l a n t i n g s - o p e r a t i o n s . T h e y f o u n d t h a t w h e r e a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n s i z e a n d s u r v i v a l w a s a p p a r e n t , t h e m e d i u m a n d s m a l l s e e d l i n g s w e r e f a v o u r e d . g . T h e i n f l u e n c e o f g r a d e o f s t o c k o n s u r v i v a l ! W a l t e r s a n d K o z a k ( 1 9 6 5 ) p r e s e n t e d a n e x t e n s i v e l i t e r a t u r e r e v i e w o n t h e i n f l u e n c e o f s e e d l i n g s i z e a n d g r a d e o n s u b s e q u e n t f i e l d s u r v i v a l a n d g r o w t h . T h e y p o i n t e d o u t t h a t g r a d e s a r e b a s e d o n a c o m b i n a t i o n o f s i z e a n d q u a l i t y a s s e s s m e n t s , b u t t h a t f i e l d t r i a l s a r e o f t e n c o m p l i c a t e d b e c a u s e s i z e i s e q u a t e d w i t h g r a d e . T h e y e m p h a s i z e t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n m o r p h o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a n d p h y s i o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f s e e d -l i n g s i s i m p e r f e c t l y u n d e r s t o o d . H u n t l e y ( 1 9 6 0 ) a s s e s s e d t h e s u r v i v a l o f f i v e g r a d e s o f D o u g l a s - f i r s t o c k , f r o m " v e r y p o o r " t o " v e r y g o o d " ; H e f o u n d t h a t s u r v i v a l i n c r e a s e d d i r e c t l y w i t h m o r p h o l o g i c a l g r a d e , r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e v a r i a t i o n i n s i t e q u a l i t y o f t h e p l a n t i n g s i t e . P r o m a f i e l d t r i a l o f f i v e s u b j e c t i v e g r a d e s o f D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s , S m i t h a n d A l l e n ( 1 9 6 2 ) r e p o r t e d t h a t o n l y " p o o r " a n d " v e r y p o o r " s e e d l i n g s s u f f e r e d a n y m o r t a l i t y . K n i g h t ( 1 9 5 7 ) f o u n d n o d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e s u r v i v a l o f " g o o d " a n d " p o o r " s e e d l i n g s p l a n t e d o n V a n c o u v e r I s l a n d . S u r v i v a l w a s h i g h f o r a l l m e a n s a n d y e a r s t e s t e d . S m i t h e t a l . ( 1 9 6 6 a ) f o u n d t h a t " v e r y g o o d " a n d " v e r y p o o r " s e e d l i n g s h a d s i m i l a r s u r v i v a l r a t e s . S u r v i v a l o f b o t h o f 1 7 . these classes was exceeded by "poor", "medium" and "good" seedlings. Because of the many anomalies present 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 of s u r v i v a l potent-i a l i n the f i e l d , many workers have proposed more s p e c i f i c i n d i c e s from which to estimate future performance i n the f i e l d . The Forestry Commission ( 1 9 5 9 ) reported that the diameter of the seedlings at the root c o l l a r i s a c r i t i c a l f a c t o r i n determining the success of seedlings 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, within c e r t a i n l i m i t s of height. They found the root c o l l a r diameter to be highly correlated with shoot weight, root weight and the number of roots. They believe that root c o l l a r diameter arid height are probably more important than age, and possibly more important than transplanting or undercutting (root pruning). Smith and A l l e n ( 1 9 6 2 ) also rep orted root c o l l a r diameter to be one of the best measures of seedling q u a l i t y . They found i t to be highly correlated with both shoot and root weight. Hermann (1 g64<4) suggested that seedlings with a high top/root r a t i o were undesirable, p a r t i c u l a r l y on poor s i t e s , since the absorbing capacity of the roots i s unable to counteract the t r a n s p i r a t i o n losses of the crown. He f e l t that the top/root r a t i o c r i t i c a l f o r s u r v i v a l would vary with species, p h y s i o l o g i c a l condition of the stock, and climate. However,he believed that seedlings with a i 18. well-developed root system and large tops were better than small seedlings with poor root systems. Tourney and Korstian ( 1 9 4 2 ) suggested that q u a l i t y inspection of seedlings should be directed to the root/shoot r a t i o . Walters and Kozak ( 1965) quote many studies which have found a high top/root r a t i o to be detrimental to s u r v i v a l . Smith ( 1962) pointed out that the i n i t i a l sur-v i v a l of a planted tree depends c h i e f l y on the a b i l i t y of i t s root system to r e - e s t a b l i s h contact with the s o i l . Stone ( 1955) found that the absence of root development was 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 p h y s i o l -o g i c a l condition of the seedlings, but that morphological f a c t o r s were not correlated with root regenerating pot-e n t i a l . 'Hermann (1964c) found the s u r v i v a l of Douglas-fir seedlings with poor roots to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than those with good roots, regardless of the s i z e of top, and concluded that root development was a good basis f o r judg-ing seedlings. Stone (1966) suggested that new top growth was undesirable because i t i s r e a d i l y subject to i n j u r y during pl a n t i n g , and cannot withstand a high moisture s t r e s s . Hermann ( 1 9 6 4 c ) found the s u r v i v a l of seedlings with succulent shoots to be generally lower than those without, but concluded that the succulence of the shoot was of questionable value as an index of grade. Revel ( 1963g) tested the v a l i d i t y of c u l l i n g seedlings with multiple or forked tops, torn l a t e r a l roots, 1 9 . and spindly stems. Revel (1965) concluded that seedlings with l i g h t root damage or forked tops (with one dominant) should not be c u l l e d unless they f a i l to meet other spec-i f i c a t i o n s . He recommended a minimum stem diameter of 3 m i l l i m e t e r s . Smith and A l l e n (1962) recommended that, f o r good s u r v i v a l and growth, seedlings should be not l e s s than 15 centimeters t a l l and preferably more than 25 centimeters, with a minimum root c o l l a r diameter of 2 m i l l i m e t e r s . As Walters and Kozak (1965) pointed out, the grading of p l a n t i n g stock i s u s e f u l only when i t provides a reasonable basis f o r p r e d i c t i n g performance in.the f i e l d . They suggest that the problem i s complicated by the i n t e r -actions between the p h y s i o l o g i c a l condition of the stock, the planting s i t e , weather and climate, and,planting method. Kramer and Kozlowski (1960) said that the e s s e n t i a l f a c t o r s i n seedling s u r v i v a l a f t e r outplanting have not been sat-i s f a c t o r i l y analyzed. Revel (1962) reported that a survey of f i e l d f o r e s t e r s indicated v a r i a b l e opinions as to what constituted an acceptable seedling, but there was l i t t l e evidence to support any of the opinions given. Because of the very v a r i a b l e r e s u l t s presented i n 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 a r r i v e at a conclusion as to the best indices of f i e l d s u r v i v a l . However, diameter at the root c o l l a r , the top/root r a t i o and the degree of branching of the roots may represent a good combination of c o r r e l a t i o n with p h y s i o l o g i c a l condition and ease of measurement. 20. h. The influence of l i f t i n g and storage on s u r v i v a l Many authors have reported on the adverse e f f e c t s of early f a l l and l a t e spring l i f t i n g on the s u r v i v a l of planted seedlings (Lavender and Wright, 1 9 6 0 ; Lavender, 1 9 6 4 ; Stone, 1 9 6 6; Todd, 1 9 6 4 ; Winjum, 1 9 6 3 ) . The e f f e c t of cold storage of Douglas-fir seed-l i n g s has been discussed by Dick ( 1 9 6 3 ) , Ruth ( 1 9 5 2 , 1 9 5 7 ) and Todd ( 1 9 6 4 ) . The e f f e c t of d i f f e r e n t combinations of l i f t i n g and storage times has been studied by Lavender ( 1 9 6 4 ) , Revel ( 1 9 6 3 f ) , and Winjum ( 1 9 6 3 ) . A b r i e f summary of t h e i r r e s u l t s follows. Dick ( 1 9 6 3 ) pointed out that experiments on storage technique and length of storage yielded c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s . Dick found that the s u r v i v a l of I n t e r i o r Douglas-f i r was much reduced by storage i n water, but that s u r v i v a l was not affected by up to 15 weeks of cold storage. Seed-l i n g s subjected to more than 10 weeks of cold storage had reduced growth however. Todd ( 1 9 6 4 ) found that f o r a l l l i f t i n g dates, f r e s h l y l i f t e d stock survived better than stored, i n the case of D o u g l a s - f i r seedlings. Ruth ( 1 9 5 2 ) reported that Douglas-fir planting stock stored f o r two months p r i o r to p l a n t i n g survived as well as freshly-dug stock. Ruth ( 1 9 5 7 ) reported that the early s u r v i v a l of Douglas-fir i n a coastal Oregon plantation was s l i g h t l y better with stored stock, but by ".ten years a f t e r planting there were no d i f f e r e n c e s . Lavender ( 1 9 6 4 ) found that the s u r v i v a l of Douglas-21 . f i r seedlings l i f t e d i n September, October and A p r i l was s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced by storage at 2 degrees Centigrade ( °C. ), but that storage had l i t t l e e f f e c t on seedlings l i f t e d during November, December, January, February or March. Revel ( 1 9 6 3 f ) reported that neither time of l i f t i n g , length of storage or type of storage ("wet" or "dry") had any e f f e c t on e i t h e r the s u r v i v a l or leader growth of Douglas-fir seedlings. He said that the ex-c e l l e n t s u r v i v a l of seedlings subjected to the severest storage conditions ( s i x months with wet muddy f o i l a g e , with the seedlings 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 excellent storage q u a l i t i e s of 2+0 Douglas-f i r stock. Winjum ( 1 9 6 3 ) l i f t e d 2+0 Douglas-fir seedlings from October to May, h a l f of which were stored at 2 °C. and h a l f of which were planted immediately. He found that the s u r v i v a l of unstored stock was 90 % orcbetter f o r most l i f t i n g dates, and stored seedlings had 98 % sur-v i v a l when l i f t e d i n November and March. Storage i n the spring reduced s u r v i v a l more than f a l l storage. Undoubtedly the e f f e c t s of l i f t i n g and storage manifest 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 condition of the seedlings. The most important e f f e c t of l i f t i n g and storage i s on the root regenerating p o t e n t i a l of the seedlings, which i s l a r g e l y dependent on the carbohydrate reserves. 22. Stone ( 1 9 6 6 ) d e s c r i b e d the p e r i o d i c i t y of root growth i n D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s . He pointed out th a t the c a p a c i t y of a s e e d l i n g to regenerate new ro o t s depends upon i t s a b i l i t y to a c t i v a t e the many short 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 the 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 the few l o n g shoots t h a t remain. Stone des-c r i b e s a simple technique f o r determining the root regen-e r a t i n g p o t e n t i a l of nursery stock. Lavender ( 1 9 6 4 ) found that the c a p a c i t y of Douglas-f i r s e e d l i n g s to produce a c t i v e r o o t s i s h i g h e r i f l i f t e d a f t e r December 1. The e f f e c t of c o l d storage was found to be most damaging to a se e d l i n g ' s root r e g e n e r a t i n g pot-e n t i a l i f s e e d l i n g s were l i f t e d before December 1 or a f e r the buds begin to s w e l l i n the s p r i n g . Lavender and Wright ( 1 9 6 0 ) found that the root a c t i v i t y 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 a f t e r the f i r s t of November was s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r than those l i f t e d i n September or October. Todd ( 1 9 6 4 ) found that a l l D o u g l a s - f i r stock l i f t e d a f t e r mid-December ( i n C a l i f o r n i a ) and before 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 developed new r o o t s . In terms of t o t a l number of new root s produced, he found K that f r e s h stock was s u p e r i o r to s t o r e d . Winjum ( 1 9 6 3 ) found that maximum and minimum 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 was g e n e r a l l y r e l a t e d to root 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 f o r s e e d l i n g establishment when roo t s are a c t i v e . I n a l a b o r a t o r y examination f o r root growth, Winjum found t h a t root development was low i n both e a r l y f a l l and l a t e s p r i n g . Stored 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 than unstored s t o c k , but at 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 analyses on the i n f l u e n c e of the carbohydrate reserves on the root r e g e n e r a t i n g pot-e n t i a l of s e e d l i n g s are those of Trappe and Krueger (1964), Krueger (1966), Krueger and Trappe (1967), Krueger (1967) and Winjum ( 1963). The r e s u l t s of Krueger (1966) are reproduced i n Figure 2. Winjum (1963) report e d t h a t , of the carbohydrates he s t u d i e d , only non-reducing sugar formed a s i g n i f i c a n t t r e n d : low i n the f a l l , peaking i n February, and f a l l i n g again i n l a t e s p r i n g . He suggested t h a t , t h e non-reducing sugar content of s e e d l i n g s might be a good index to f a v -ourable l i f t i n g dates, s i n c e he found that the non-reducing sugar content at the time of 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 root development and s u r v i v a l . On the b a s i s of h i s r e s u l t s , Krueger (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 to a l l o w diameter growth to stop and to a l l o w f o r the b u i l d -up of carbohydrate 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 . He poin t e d out tha t s e e d l i n g s l i f t e d when carbohydrate reserves are h i g h e s t would c o n t a i n maximum energy f o r use i n storage. Krueger a l s o recommended that s e e d l i n g s be l i f t e d before V) LU l _ u. S t J G A R S w u '•a 1 l \ T O P s r 1 u •J r r r - -> R O Oj rs - - .. i i -z (T ro>J — — T" C 5 / r>-*-X -00-Ix u 0 oxs fx - S T A 1 1 R C r t c k rf < o / -~"\ / Rate, of sho ot •- A -_/ ' / elongation _ / f \ 3- / V / \ / R a t e of d i a n te r 91" / \ i | T A \ i 1 / \ i i •rf /-f ~ - v / \ % 1/ i < / \ O ; \ il / \\ i / \ CC \ 7- 1-? \ -A R o o t a c t i v i t y \ o ^ x i / V \l \ v-A-A- \ i\ N / \ i" i All IV. /i V . - > / \ \ •4- I" - - i ' l - -Vt 4 - ••COST J>X 1 1 1 i i f 0 N n , i 1 F M /\ M !i >.i A. S- _ o fj h 'i F M A 1. 19 62 19 63 9 64 FIGI JRE 2 : uctuo tior in cc rbo ivdrate sentes ar d | | | | r i n 0 h. 4' Doual as-; _see« i d sLd t 1 1 e i r r i 1 1 I I I Wind R vec | .IN u r s ' erv '(.A_ aerierali7e'd _ i H ' u s t r fl-| | | T 1 i i i J tion r.< ike L f r o m Krueae -• .1.9.6.6. ) carbohydrate reserves decrease i n the spring, so that energy w i l l be conserved to support root growth a f t e r plant-ing rather than i n the nursery. Trappe and Krueger (1964) suggested that l i f t i n g be done i n mid-January and the seedlings stored u n t i l the best spring planting time, which they suggested was just before the spring burst of shoot growth. They suggest that seedlings l i f t e d and planted according to t h i s sched-ule w i l l contain the maximum l e v e l of stored energy f o r root growth a f t e r planting. They point out that i f the seedlings are l i f t e d when carbohydrate reserves are low, t h i s energy w i l l be further reduced during storage and l i t t l e w i l l be l e f t to i n i t i a t e new root growth a f t e r p l a n t i n g . Dick (1963) also pointed out that biochemical changes occur during storage whjc h w i l l be r e f l e c t e d i n the vigour of the seedling. This change may be subtle, he said, and be r e f l e c t e d i n growth but not 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 plantin g , and suggested ways i n which t h i s might be accom-plish e d . Dick also emphasized the need to keep the stock i n a dormant condition. (Rietveld (1964) has discussed some chemical methods of c o n t r o l l i n g the dormancy of Dougla f i r s eedlings). Wycoff (1960) also emphasized the need f o r stock to be dormant when .placed ;.in- storage. Tarrant (1964) has also discussed some p h y s i o l -o g i c a l changes which may occur i n Douglas-fir seedlings during storage. Under drying conditions, Tarrant found that root moisture decreased at a f a s t e r rate than top moisture, and that the top/root moisture r a t i o was higher f o r small seedlings than f o r large. He suggests that t h i s d i f f e r e n t i a l drying rate may explain some puzzling spring or early summer mortal i t y . Lavender and Wright ( 1 9 6 4 ) found that the per cent of mycorrhizae on the roots of Douglas-fir seedlings was correlated with both l i f t i n g date and s u r v i v a l . . For seedlings l i f t e d before 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 per cent of mycorr-hizae; f o r seedlings l i f t e d a f t e r December 1 , no such c o r r e l a t i o n appeared. I t i s obvious from a review of the l i t e r a t u r e that l i f t i n g date and storage length have an influence on the p h y s i o l o g i c a l condition of the seedlings. I t i s equally obvious however, that t h i s influence does not always manifest i t s e l f i n reduced s u r v i v a l . For instance Lavender ( 1 9 6 4 ) found an incon-s i s t e n t trend of higher s u r v i v a l with l a t e r l i f t i n g dates, although the trend was often s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . He a t t r i b u t e d the inconsistency to differinggweather con-d i t i o n s during planting. He also found that the trend was most noticable on "average or worse" s i t e s . Revel (I963f) a t t r i b u t e d the lack of difference i n s u r v i v a l of seedlings l i f t e d at d i f f e r e n t times, stored by d i f f e r e n t methods and f o r d i f f e r e n t lengths of time to a cool and wet summer. Winjum (1963) reported 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 mortality only moderately when the stock was c a r e f u l l y handled. Langdon (1954) reported that c a r e f u l hand l i f t i n g as opp-osed^to machine l i f t i n g increased the s u r v i v a l of some southern pine stock by 19 7°. Hermann (1964b) found that s u r v i v a l was decreased by exposures (at 90 degrees Faren-h e i t ( ° F . ) and 30 % r e l a t i v e humidity ( R.H. )) of greater than f i v e minutes f o r e a r l y - l i f t e d seedlings, but that f o r l a t e - l i f t e d stock s u r v i v a l was good even with 120-minute exposures. I f seedlings were stored f o r six. weeks instead of three (as above) any exposure was l e t h a l . The above examples support the thesis that a l -though l i f t i n g and storage influences the p h y s i o l o g i c a l condition of the seedlings, t h i s w i l l not ne c e s s a r i l y man-i f e s t i t s e l f i n reduced s u r v i v a l unless some other f a c t o r or factors are also adverse. It i s therefore important to ensure that e a r l y - l i f t e d f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings and l a t e - l i f t e d spring-planted seedlings are subjected to as few a d d i t i o n a l stresses as possible . Lavender (1964) rec-ommends that e a r l y - l i f t e d stock be planted on north ex-posures, and Stone (1966) suggests that when planting s i t e conditions require the rapid regeneration of new root systems, plan t i n g should be r e s t r i c t e d to the period when the root regenerating p o t e n t i a l i s high. Since seedlings l i f t e d early i n the f a l l or la t e 28. i n the s p r i n g have a reduced c a p a c i t y to absorb s o i l moisture because of t h e i r lowered root r e g e n e r a t i n g p o t e n t i a l , they should be p l a n t e d i n areas where s o i l moisture i s near f i e l d 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 are not h i g h . I f the e a r l y - l i f t e d f a l l - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s 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 holds f o r l a t e - l i f t e d s p r i n g - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s . A c c o r d i n g to Stone ( 1966) i t i s p o s s i b l e to con-t r o l the ro o t r e g e n e r a t i n g p o t e n t i a l of s e e d l i n g s i n the nursery. Stone says t h a t i f the t e r m i n a l bud breaks wh i l e the root r e g e n e r a t i n g p o t e n t i a l i s s t i l l h i g h , i t may be=. necessary to use a combination of 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 . Stone found t h a t the root r e g e n e r a t i n g 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 that a r e f r i g e r a t i o n system f o r some mjrsery beds may be d e s i r a b l e . 3. The i n f l u e n c e of storage at the p l a n t i n g s i t e on s u r v i v a l The importance of 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 from hig h temperatures and low r e l a t i v e humid-i t y has been i l l u s t r a t e d by Hermann ( 1 9 6 4 b ) . Hermann t e s t e d the e f f e c t of exposure of roo t s at 90 0 F. and 30 % R.H. He found that s m a l l s e e d l i n g s ( 5 to 10 grams ) were more ad v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d by exposures of up to 30 min-utes than were l a r g e ( 11 to 15 grams) s e e d l i n g s , but th a t the size of the seedling made l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e with ex-posure times of over 30 minutes. Hermann concluded that the c r i t i c a l l i m i t s of exposure varied considerably with the p h y s i o l o g i c a l condition of the seedlings, since the reaction of the seedlings to d i f f e r e n t exposure times depended on the l i f t i n g date and the time i n storage. Dick (1964a) found that the use of a hydrophilic compound to keep the seedlings moist at the planting s i t e did not r e s u l t i n increased s u r v i v a l of Ponderosa pine seedlings. Hermann (1962) found that seedlings w e l l -puddled at the p l a n t i n g s i t e had s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower s u r v i v a l than merely moistened seedlings. Bamford (1963) said that the use of multi-walled bags helps keep the seedlings i n good condition, and ob-viates the necessity of h e e l i n g - i n . This would depend on the timing of the planting operation and conditions at the planting s i t e however. M u l l i n (1962) reported on a test of eight storage methods f o r white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) seed-l i n g s . The methods tested were: 1) bales, watered and unwatered; 2) h e e l i n g - i n , with and without watering; 3) c i r c l e - p i l i n g , with and without watering; and 4) poly-ethylene and k r a f t bags. M u l l i n found that the best storage method depended on how long the seedlings were to be stored. For storage periods of one week or l e s s , poly-ethylene bags were best; f o r two weeks storage, h e e l i n g - i n with watering was best; f o r three weeks or longer, c i r c l e -p i l i n g with watering resulted i n the highest s u r v i v a l . 30 . M u l l i n pointed out that successful 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 heing enhanced by storage i n cold weather compared to hot. He emphasized that the weather and s i t e conditions of a p a r t i c u l a r plant-ing s i t e may exert influences f a r i n excess of those of storage. 4. Site preparation and s u r v i v a l a. Mulching The influence of mulching on the s u r v i v a l of planted seedlings has been described by many authors. The possible advantages of the technique are: 1) reduction of vegetative competition; 2) reduction of l o s s of s o i l moisture by evaporation or by t r a n s p i r a t i o n from competing vegetation; and 3) possible extension of the plant i n g season. Most of the l i t e r a t u r e reports favourably on the use of mulches to increase s u r v i v a l . However,Loewenstein and P i t k i n (1961) reported that neither mulching nor scalp-ing were e f f e c t i v e as s o i l moisture conserving agents i n a dry area i n Idaho, and Pruett (1959) reported that mulch-ing caused lower s u r v i v a l ( by 30 % ) as a r e s u l t of increased rabbit damage. Champagne (1954) reported that the s u r v i v a l of red pine was increased by 20 % a f t e r two growing seasons through the use of a wood-chip mulch. 3 1 . Hermann (1964a) reported on the usefulness of a paper mulch technique i n increasing the s u r v i v a l of 2+0 Douglas-fir seedlings on nine combinations of c l i m a t i c and topographic p o s i t i o n s . He found that the s u r v i v a l of the seedlings was s i g n i f i c a n t l y increased on a l l s i t e s tested when the mulch was used. He also found that where the climate was most favourable f o r su 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 effectiveness of the mulch was not r e l a t e d to the steepness of the slope. Hermann suggested that there was l i t t l e to be gained from the use of the mulch where s i t e s were very favourable to s u r v i v a l , or very adverse. He recommended the use of the mulch on moderately severe s i t e s where brush competition was a hazard. He found no i n d i c a t i o n that the mulch attracted rodents or deer to the seedlings. b. Other techniques . Rotty ( I958a,b) described two Spanish planting techniques applicable to planting i n dry areas. One tech-nique involved p l a c i n g three rocks around the seedling. The advantages of t h i s , according to Rotty are: 1) red-uction of loss of s o i l moisture by surface evaporation; 2) creation of a permanently c u l t i v a t e d area around the seedling; 3) reduction of f r o s t heaving; 4) shading the base of the seedling; and 5) takes only a few seconds i n rocky areas. The second technique described by Rotty i'nvolved pl a n t i n g the seedling i n a dish-shaped hole. He reported that t h i s technique e f f e c t i v e l y conserved moisture i n dry areas. Adams et a l . (1966) reported on the usefulness of shading Douglas-fir seedlings by means of shingles placed i n the ground to the south-west of the seedling. They tested t h i s practice 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 that the s u r v i v a l of shaded seedlings was two to three times that of unshaded, the greatest difference being on the most c r i t i c a l s i t e s . They reported the cost of shading to be 3 to 4 cents per seedling. However, Smith and A l l e n (1962) reported that the degree of shade had l i t t l e influence on the s u r v i v a l of planted Douglass f i r i n an experiment at Haney, B.C. 5. The p l a n t i n g operation and s u r v i v a l a. Planting methods According to Bamford;l( 1963) , plant i n g i s the "weakest l i n k of the whole process". Tree planting, he says, i s looked upon as an extremely monotonous, boring, and undesirable job, and the work of the p l a n t i n g crew "generally shows i t " . Bamford recommends the use of small, more or l e s s permanent f o r e s t r y crews. He c i t e s the ad-vantages of permanent crews as being: 1) the crew becomes p r o f i c i e n t ; 2) maintenance of high p r o d u c t i v i t y ; 3) the crew has a permanent i n t e r e s t i n t h e i r jobs; and 4) they w i l l form the nucleus of expanded crews and act as pace s e t t e r s . Bamford also suggests that some form of incentive 3 3 . system may be d e s i r a b l e . Robson ( 1 9 6 6 ) a l s o suggested a number of ways of reducing l a b o u r problems i n p l a n t i n g crews. He suggested: 1) the use of 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 ) mechanization; 4 ) added i n c e n t i v e ; and 5) the use of c o n t r a c t o r s . Smith et a l . ( 1 9 6 1 ) s a i d t h a t b e t t e r p l a n t i n g p r a c t i c e s could be developed by improving t r a i n i n g of p l a n t e r s , improving 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 ensu r i n g an adequate number of s e e d l i n g s per day. L i t t l e q u a n t i t a t i v e work has been done on det-ermining the best combination of p l a n t i n g p r o d u c t i o n and s u r v i v a l . Smith e_t a l . ( 1 9 6 1 ) 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 r a t e of 1 1 0 0 t r e e s per man day, immediately a f t e r a broadcast burn. However Smith and A l l e n ( 1 9 6 2 ) 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 per man day has. provided good q u a l i t y p l a n t i n g at an acceptable l e v e l of labour p r o d u c t i v i t y . Smith and Walters ( 1 9 6 5 ) reported lower p r o d u c t i o n f o r f a l l 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 p l a n t i n g p r o d u c t i o n . Smith and Walters ( 1 9 6 5 ) r e p o r t e d that the 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 a l l s i z e s of s e e d l i n g s they t e s t e d , except f o r "very t a l l " s e e d l i n g s , where the r a t i o was hi g h e r . They a l s o reported that the time to p l a n t root-pruned stock was not s i g n i f i c -a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the time r e q u i r e d to p l a n t unpruned stock. 3 4 . Walters ( 1 9 6 3 ) reported that u s i n g a p l a n t i n g "gun" and " b u l l e t s " , a p l a n t i n g r a t e of 1 5 0 0 s e e d l i n g s per hour was achieved, u s i n g 8 ' by 8 ' spacing. W i l l i a m s ( 1 9 4 9 ) reported t h a t the B.C. Forest S e r v i c e 'estimated that one-half 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 to the short d u r a t i o n of the p l a n t i n g p r o j e c t s , and s a i d that i t could only be o f f -set by cl o s e s u p e r v i s i o n . Cushman and Weidman ( 1 9 3 7 ) r e p o r t e d that the s u r v i v a l of Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Laws.) s e e d l i n g s was i n c r e a s e d by 11 $ through " c a r e f u l " p l a n t i n g over "normal" p l a n t i n g , but no mention was made of how much pr o d u c t i o n was decreased. C a r e f u l p l a n t i n g i n c l u d e d tamping to remove a i r pockets, p l a c i n g the ro o t s s t r a i g h t down i n hol e s of proper depth, p l a n t i n g f r e e from sod comp-e 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 . Smith e_t a l . ( 1 9 6 1 ) suggested t h a t , i n normal yea r s , the q u a l i t y of 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 , but t h a t 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 Schubert and Ray ( 1 9 5 9 ) t e s t e d a "sandwich" p l a n t -i n g method, whereby the r o o t s are encased between two pieces o f v a - s t i f f water-absorbent f i b r o u s m a t e r i a l which were s t a p l e d to-gether. However, the roots did not grow out of the sand-wiches into deeper s o i l where moisture was a v a i l a b l e , and su r v i v a l was not improved. Dick ( 1 9 6 4 b ) , experimenting with Ponderosa pine, and M u l l i n ( 1 9 6 4 ) with red pine, found that s u r v i v a l i n -creased with depth of plan t i n g . Koshi ( 1 9 6 0 ) however, found that deep planting of Ponderosa pine did not increase s u r v i v a l during wet years. Bamford ( 1 9 6 3 ) showed that plan t i n g Douglas-fir seedlings too shallow (root c o l l a r 1 -1 - § - inches above the s o i l surface) s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced s u r v i v a l , but that p l a n t i n g too deep did not. Bamford did not report any b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t s from deep planting, how-ever. Rudolf ( 1 9 3 9 ) described the detrimental e f f e c t s of p l a n t i n g red pine and jackvpine (Pinus banksiana Lamb.) roots into a single plane, regardless of whetherror not the roots were planted v e r t i c a l l y . Brace ( 1 9 6 4 ) reported no p r a c t i c a l differences i n the s u r v i v a l of white spruce seedlings planted by two planti n g methods, one which d i s -posed of the seedling roots i n a h o r i z o n t a l plane close to the s o i l surface, and another where the roots were placed i n the planting hole v e r t i c a l l y . Hetherington ( 1 9 6 3 b ) found no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f -erences i n the s u r v i v a l of seedlings planted at three d i f f e r e n t spacings, even though the wider spacing would permit a greater choice of planti n g s i t e s . i i . Container planting Walters (1961) reviewed the h i s t o r y of mechanized planting methods, and discussed the advantages of the planting "gun" and " b u l l e t " developed by him. He says that (based on f i e l d t e s ts c a r r i e d out between 1 9 5 7 and 1 9 6 0 ) the system i s superior to present p r a c t i aes i n terms of seedling s u r v i v a l , juvenile growth, and length of plant-ing period. Other advantages of the system are, according to Walters, reduced planting costs and a uniformly high standard of p l a n t i n g . Walters emphasized the damage to seedlings caused by mattock planting, and the subsequent reduction i n s u r v i v a l and growth. Crossley and Carmen ( 1 9 6 4 ) and Ackerman et a l . ( 1 9 6 5 ) described a f i e l d t r i a l of container planting of white spruce and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl*. var. l a t i f o l i a Engelm.) i n Alberta. E x c e l l e n t s u r v i v a l was achieved with seedlings eight weeks and older on a wide v a r i e t y of s i t e s . S u r vival was lowest i n low-elevation f r o s t pockets, but s t i l l superior to convent-i o n a l 2+0 stock. Il l i n g w o r t h ( 1 9 6 6 a ) described a preliminary t r i a l of container p l a n t i n g of Douglas-fir seedlings on Vancouver Island. Seedlings were planted on a wide var-i e t y of s i t e s , i n mid-July. I l l i n g w o r t h concluded that because of the d i s p a r i t y between lathe-house and f i e l d environments, mid-season plant i n g of very young bulleted seedlings i n t h i s region was more hazardous than desirable 37. f o r o p e r a t i o n a l p l a n t i n g . Further t e s t s are underway by the Canada Department of 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 of f e r t i l i z e r s and other chemicals 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. F e r t i l i z e r s The purpose of adding f e r t i l i z e r s to the s o i l s u r r -ounding the s e e d l i n g during p l a n t i n g i s to increase the i n i t i a l growth of the s e e d l i n g . A review of the l i t e r a t u r e r e v e a l s that 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 the s u r v i v a l of D o u g l a s - f i r seedlings planted i n Idaho. S i m i l a r r e s u l t s were obtained by Rothacher and F r a n k l i n ( 1 9 6 5 ) . Smith et a l . (1966b) reported that s e e d l i n g f e r t -i l i z a t i o n conducted at Gold R i v e r B.C. revealed that when the f e r t i l i z e r m a t e r i a l was placed i n the p l a n t i n g hole w i t h -out a p r o t e c t i v e l a y e r of 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 there was a b a r r i e r of s o i l between the f e r t i l i z e r and the D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g r o o t s . Smith and A l l e n (1962) reported increased s u r v i v a l when D o u g l a s - f i r seedlings were f e r t i l i z e d w i t h n i t r o g e n plus phosphorous plus potassium. However they a l s o reported that c l i p p i n g by hares was most severe on seedlings f e r t i l -i z e d w i t h n i t r o g e n , e s p e c i a l l y n i t r o g e n alone. 3 8 . Smith e_t a l . ( 1966b) found that the mortality of Douglas-fir seedlings was s i g n i f i c a n t l y increased through the use of f e r t i l i z e r s , but was s t i l l "acceptable". Walters _et a l . (1966) treated Douglas-fir seedlings with f i v e forms of slow-release f e r t i l i z e r s , a l l containing Urea. S u r v i v a l of the con t r o l group of seedlings was 100 %, and f o r the f e r t i l i z e d averaged 97.6 %. White (1965) concluded that f e r t i l i z e r s could be used to improve growth a f t e r p l a n t i n g without increasing m o r t a l i t y . However, White and E l l i s ( 1965) reported that f e r t i l i z e r s with slow-release c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s increased the mortality of red pine seedlings when the f e r t i l i z e r was placed i n the rooting zone. b. Other growth-inducing substances Loewenstein (1964) reported that some growth substances were apparently e f f e c t i v e i n promoting root production. I f so, these chemicals might be advantag-eously applied to the seedlings s h o r t l y before planting, thus inducing root growth and/or the production of new roots. Osburn ( 1 9 6 0 ) , Smith and A l l e n (1962) and Rediske (1960) reported that the a p p l i c a t i o n of gibb-e r e l l i n s had no e f f e c t on the growth of Douglas-fir seedlings. Rediske reported that concentrations of 100 parts per m i l l i o n (ppm) or greater had a l e t h a l e f f e c t on the seedlings. 39. However Osburn (1960) found that a commercial preparation c a l l e d "Transplantone" gave accelerated root i n i t i a t i o n and development. He found the treatment of the chemical to be simple and inexpensive, and adaptable to nursery or f i e l d conditions. In a f i e l d t e s t of the com-pound, Osburn found that seedlings treated with the chem-i c a l had twice as many roots and roots which were twice as long as the untreated seedlings s i x and fourteen weeks a f t e r p l a n t i n g . The treated seedlings also had higher s u r v i v a l . c. T ranspiration retardants Maguire (1952) tested the e f f e c t of a commercial preparation c a l l e d "Plantcote" as a t r a n s p i r a t i o n retardant. Although i t i s d i f f i c u l t to evaluate the worth of the chem-i c a l from h i s paper, he concluded that the chemical may give the nurseryman and planter more l a t i t u d e i n a l l of the ordinary operations from l i f t i n g to planting, where drying-out i s a f a c t o r . Loewenstein (1964) reported that the t r a n s p i r a t i o n retardants 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 of Douglas-fir seedlings planted i n Idaho. Mowat (1961) found that 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 variable e f f e c t on s u r v i v a l , and i n some cases increased mortality. 7. The influence of time of planting on s u r v i v a l Smith et a l . (1961) suggested that there was 40. l i t t l e evidence to support the t h e s i s that spring planting r e s u l t s i n higher s u r v i v a l than f a l l p l a n t i n g . However^ many workers have found that spring planting r e s u l t s i n higher s u r v i v a l than f a l l p l anting, and further evidence is presented l a t e r i n the text. Some possible reasons f o r the higher s u r v i v a l of spring-planted seedlings are, accord-ing to Tourney and Korstian (1942), that i n the case of spring p l a n t i n g : 1) the s o i l i s i n good condition; 2) plant-ers are not hindered by snow; 3) there i s l i t t l e danger of frost-heaving or winter k i l l i n g ; and 4) there i s time f o r the seedlings to become established before the .hot dry weather. In the case of f a l l p lanting, however: 1) f r o s t -heaving i s a hazard, e s p e c i a l l y on heavy clays; 2) there i s a danger from wind and winter k i l l i n g ; and 3) on heavy or wet s o i l s the roots are l i a b l e to decay. However, f a l l p l anting has the advantage of extending the planting season. Tourney and Korstian recommended that well-prot-ected s i t e s with porous open s o i l s should be selected f o r f a l l planting; exposed s i t e s and heavier s o i l s should be reserved f o r spring planting. I t can be seen from Figure 2 that the best times f o r spring and f a l l - p l a n t i n g are just before the f l u s h of root growth and while carbohydrate reserves are high. This corresponds with Tourney and Korstian's (1942) recommendat-ions that f a l l p lanting be done a f t e r growth ceases i n the f a l l , and a few weeks before i t s t a r t s i n the spring. Although these appear to be the best times f o r 4 1 . planting, p l a n t i n g on the coast of B r i t i s h Columbia ob-vio u s l y cannot be confined to these short periods. There-fore, some manipulation of root and shoot growth through l i f t i n g and s t o r i n g schedules i s de s i r a b l e . Walters and Soos ( 1 9 6 1 a ) planted 2+0 and 1 + 1 Douglas-fir seedlings monthly from mid-April to mid-May, and compared each month's s u r v i v a l to November's. They found that J u l y mortality was the highest i n both years tested ( 1 9 5 8 , 1 9 5 9 ) . Walters and Soos suggested that i t seems reasonable to advance the commencement date of f a l l -p l a n t i n g to September, p a r t i c u l a r l y a f t e r .above-average summer p r e c i p i t a t i o n . They emphasize however that high s u r v i v a l cannot be expected every year merely because a planting date i s chosen i n accord with t h e i r general recommendations. They also suggest that when p r e c i p i t -ation i s above-average i n A p r i l , May and June, mortality may be maintained at an acceptable rate i f planti n g i s to be done during these months. However, with the low prec-i p i t a t i o n and high temperatures common i n the spring, seedling 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 other 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 periods of average weather conditions, and s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s u l t s following a summer drought. Armit ( 1 9 6 1 ) reported that the s u r v i v a l of Int-e r i o r Douglas-fir was higher when planted i n l a t e A p r i l ( 80 % ) compared to l a t e May ( 2 5 % ) . 8 . The influence of slashburning on s u r v i v a l The e f f e c t s of slashburning on the p h y s i c a l , chemical and b i o l o g i c a l properties of the s o i l have been discussed by numerous authors. Austin and Baisinger ( 1 9 5 5 ) , Dyrness e_t a l . ( 1 9 5 7 ) , Isaac and Hopkins ( 1 9 3 7 ) , and Neal e_t a l . ( 1 9 6 5 ) reported reduced moisture-holding c a p a c i t i e s i n the upper inches of the s o i l on moderately to severely burned s o i l s . Tarrant ( 1 9 5 6 a ) found that severe burning lowers the rate of moist-ure movement, and Tarrant ( 1 9 5 6 b ) reported that l i g h t burning increased the p e r c o l a t i o n rate of water i n the s o i l . Isaac and Hopkins, Dyrness at a l . , Austin e_t a l . ( 1 9 5 8 ) reported reduced organic matter i n moderately or severely burned areas. Slashburning has often been reported to a f f e c t the nutrient status of the s o i l . Austin and Baisinger ( 1 9 5 5 ) , working i n western Washington and Oregon reported that mod-era t e l y and severely burned spots showed l e s s t o t a l nitrogen and more calcium than i n l i g h t l y burned or unburned areas, i n the top 2 inches of the s o i l . Isaac and Hopkins ( 1 9 3 7 ) reported reduced a v a i l a b l e nitrogen i n hotly burned areas, and Neal et a l . ( 1 9 6 5 ) reported a decline i n t o t a l nitrogen on burned areas compared to unburned, to-gether with an5 increase i n the amount of carbon on the burned areas. Tarrant ( 1 9 5 6 b ) reported that i n l i g h t l y burned areas the t o t a l exchangeable nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium exceeded that of unburned areas, but that the cation exchange capacity ( C.E.C. ) remained unchanged. Exchangeable n i t -rogen and the C.E.C. were s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced on severely burned areas, but the amount of a v a i l a b l e phosphorous and potassium greatly exceeded that of unburned areas. Slashburning has also been reported to severely a f f e c t s o i l r eaction. Wright and Tarrant ( 1 9 5 7 ) reported that the upper s o i l surface ( 0 - 1 ^ - i n . ) became les s acid with increasing i n t e n s i t y of the slashburn. At a lower l e v e l ( 1-g- - 3 i n . ) only severely burned s o i l s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s acid than unburned s o i l s . Madison ( 1 9 5 9 ) also reported that s o i l s changed from strongly acid to weakly a l k a l i n e a f e r burning, but that the s o i l returned to a c i d a f t e r four years. Neal e_t a l . ( 1 9 6 5 ) also reported that pH increased at a rate 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 i n t e n s i t y . Tarrant ( 1 9 5 6 b ) reported that burned s o i l s had a higher pH than unburned s o i l s . The e f f e c t of slashburning on the physical prop-e r t i e s of the s o i l has also been discussed by numerous authors. Dyrness at a l . ( 1 9 5 7 ) found that severe burning g r e a t l y reduced the per cent s i l t and clay i n the top 2 i n . of a s o i l i n the C o r v a l l i s watershed. Isaac and Hopkins ( 1 9 3 7 ) reported that the surface structure of the s o i l was al t e r e d by slashburning. Isaac ( 1 9 3 8 ) found that the temperature of s o i l blackened by f i r e greatly exceeded that of normal s o i l s , i n d i r e c t sunlight. Neal e_t a l . ( 1 9 6 5 ) also reported greater temperatures on burned than on unburned s o i l s . Hermann 44 . (1963) tested three types of burned s o i l surfaces f o r temp-erature d i f f e r e n c e s . He found: 1)that there was a greater d i u r n a l temperature range under unburned than burned s o i l surfaces; 2) a greater diurnal temperature range under charcoal than under unburned l i t t e r ; and 3) that the temp^ eratures beneath unburned and surfaces burned to bright red cinders reached greater seasonal maxima and minima than beneath charcoal and unburned l i t t e r . Temperatures were measured two inches below the s o i l surface, one inch into mineral s o i l . Tarrant (1956b) and Wright (1964) found that slashburning appeared to reduce the number of mycorrhizae associated with the roots of Douglas-fir seedlings. The undesirable e f f e c t s of slashburning are nat-u r a l l y most noticeable on severely burned s o i l s . Many authors report no differences i n the characters they measured between unburned and l i g h t l y burned s o i l s . Of the area examined by Dyrness e_t a l . ( 1957) i n the C o r v a l l i s watershed, only 8 % of the area could be classed as sev-er e l y burned. Tarrant (1956a) reported that severe burning occurred on l e s s than 5 % of the t o t a l logged and burned area of h i s study. The 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 be modified by slashburning are s o i l temperature, a i r temp-erature near the ground, s o i l moisture-holding capacity, nutrient a v a i l a b i l i t y , amount of mycorrhizae and s o i l pH. •In most cases these f a c t o r s are made detrimental to sur-v i v a l , to some degree, by moderate or hot burns. However 4 5 . slashburning has two desirable e f f e c t s on planting i n gen-e r a l and s u r v i v a l i n p a r t i c u l a r . F i r s t l y , slashburning enables the planter to plant with better q u a l i t y and at a fa s t e r rate than on unburned areas because of the removal of slash and vegetation. Secondly, slashburning, i n i t i a l l y at l e a s t , reduces the amount of brush competition to the seedlings. Morris (1958) reported that brush crowns cov-ered a greater part of unburned than burned areas f o r at l e a s t f i v e to seven years a f t e r burning. The e f f e c t of slashburning on the s u r v i v a l of planted Douglas-fir should be evaluated f o r eaeh area, and i t s b enefits ( i n c l u d i n g the reduction ojf? f i r e hazard) weighed against i t s detrimental e f f e c t s . It appears that whereverr brush invasion may be a problem, the benefits of slashburning outweigh i t s disadvantages. However, slash-burning may favour the growth of some 'species, such v ~ \ as Epilobium angustifolium. Many authors have discussed experiments dealing with the e f f e c t of slashburning on the s u r v i v a l of planted Do u g l a s - f i r seedlings. The r e s u l t s of these experiments are variable and often y i e l d c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s . Smith e_t a l . (1961) suggested that, i n a l l years, costs of planting are reduced and growth increased by the co n t r o l l e d burning of slash. This may not be true on a l l s i t e s however, or f o r a l l degrees of burn. Gockerell (1966) found l i t t l e d i fference i n the s u r v i v a l of planted Douglas-f i r between burned and unburned areas, and that there were fewer natural seedlings on unburned areas. Smith and A l l e n ( 1 9 6 2 ) found no difference i n the s u r v i v a l of 1+0 Douglas-fir seedlings planted on l i g h t l y and heavily-burned s o i l s . Isaac and Hopkins ( 1 9 3 7 ) reported reduced s u r v i v a l when Douglas-fir seedlings were transplanted to spots where f i r e had reduced the surface of the s o i l to red ash. Most authors, however, have found that s l a s h -burning has 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 . Hermann and Chilcote ( 1 9 6 5 ) reported that the germination and s u r v i v a l of natural Douglas-fir seedlings was best on charcoal and severely burned areas; they a t t r i b u t e d the higher s u r v i v a l to the prolonged preservation of moisture on these surfaces. I l l i n g w o r t h ( 1 9 6 6 ) found that the s u r v i v a l of container-planted seedlings planted during mid-summer was higher on burned than unburned areas, a f t e r assessment the following autumn. Madison ( 1 9 5 9 ) reported that the s u r v i v a l of 3+0 S i t k a spruce (Picea s i t c h e n s i s (Bong.) Carr.) seedlings planted i n coastal Oregon was higher on burned than on unburned p l o t s . 9 . The influence of 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 planting s i t e Very l i t t l e has been published on the influence of elevation on the s u r v i v a l of planted Douglas-fir. On the coast of B r i t i s h Columbia, some adverse e f f e c t s on s u r v i v a l at high elevations would be frost-heaving, snow-47. press, and death through early and l a t e f r o s t s . However high-elevation planting might be s u c c e s s f u l l y done l a t e i n the spring p l a n t i n g season. I t may be f e a s i b l e to move to higher elevations and north-facing aspects during the early summer and thus extend the planting season. Schmidt (1963) reported that high mortality of Dougla s - f i r seedlings occurred when they were planted 400 fee t above t h e i r a l t i t u d i n a l l i m i t (4600 feet) i n the Elk Va l l e y on Vancouver Island. Snow pressure accounted f o r most mor t a l i t y , with the rest being caused by the short growing season. Schmidt found that the extreme minimum temperature had l i t t l e e f f e c t on the seedlings. b. S o i l moisture The s o i l moisture a v a i l a b l e to the seedlings a f t e r p l a n t i n g i s one of the most important fac t o r s a f f e c t i n g the s u r v i v a l of planted seedlings. Many other f a c t o r s act at l e a s t part-i a l l y through t h e i r e f f e c t on s o i l moisture. Slope, aspect, vegetation and some s o i l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are a few of these. Very l i t t l e has been published 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 moisture and the s u r v i v a l of Douglas-fir seed-l i n g s , however. Lutz and Chandler (1946) reported that the water requirements of plants growing i n s o i l s of low f e r t -i l i t y i s higher than that of plants growing i n more f e r t i l e s o i l s . Childs (1960) suggested that the e f f e c t s of drought are most noticeable i n small trees growing on poor s i t e s . Lutz and Chandler pointed out that an excessive amount of 4 8 . water may be as unfavourable f o r tree growth as a d e f i c -iency, and the same could be said f o r s u r v i v a l . I f the l i m i t of the desirable amount of s o i l water i s exceeded, reduced aeration and "related phenomena" occur, which may reduce the s u r v i v a l of the planted seedlings. The statement by Lutz and Chandler ( 1 9 4 6 ) that "Continuity of water supply fo r f o r e s t trees i s f u l l y as important as the t o t a l amount." 3.S borne out by Loewenstein ( 1 9 6 4 ) . Loewenstein said that the key to the s u r v i v a l of Douglas-fir seedlings planted i n Idaho has most often been the s o i l moisture l e v e l during J u l y and August. Loewenstein and P i t k i n ( 1 9 6 1 ) found that a high, degree of c o r r e l a t i o n existed between s u r v i v a l at the end of the f i r s t growing season and s o i l moisture. Inad-equate s o i l moisture during the seven week period i n the middle of the summer, regardless of the moisture l e v e l at the beginning or the end of the growing season, accounted f o r a large amount of seedling m o r t a l i t y . Loewenstein ( 1 9 6 4 ) said that i f s o i l moisture was poor, no manipulation of any other f a c t o r would help. The drought problems of Idaho are much more severe than those of coastal B r i t i s h Columbia; however, t h e i r app-roaches to the problem may be of value. Loewenstein and P i t k i n ( 1 9 6 1 ) 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 of 3+0 Douglas-fir seedlings, as did i r r i g a t i o n combined with mulching. They found mulching and scalping to be i n e f f e c t i v e as s o i l moisture conserving agents. c. Slope and aspect The s u r v i v a l of Douglas-fir seedlings planted on south-facing aspects has been repeatedly shown to be lower than the s u r v i v a l of seedlings planted on l e s s exposed s i t e s (Berntsen 1 9 6 0 , Hetherington 1 9 6 3 b , I l l i n g w o r t h 1 9 6 6 , Hermann 1 9 6 4 , Armit 1 9 6 1 ) . South-facing aspects are normally hotter and d r i e r than north-facing slopes, which accounts f o r the reduced s u r v i v a l . Loewenstein ( 1 9 6 4 ) determined that the poor s u r v i v a l of Douglas-fir seedlings planted on steep south slopes and ridges i n Idaho was engendered by drought-i e r environments, as determined by s o i l moisture t e s t s . Hermann ( 1 9 6 3 ) suggested that exposure was one of the main fac t o r s a f f e c t i n g the temperature regime of the s o i l . He found that the removal of vegetation resulted i n a greater f l u c t u a t i o n of s o i l temperatures on south than on north aspects. Ruth ( 1 9 5 7 ) reported higher s u r v i v a l of Douglas-f i r seedlings planted on south-east than on north-east slopes. He a t t r i b u t e d t h i s to differences i n brush comp-e t i t i o n rather than exposure, however. Berntsen ( 1 9 6 0 ) found that aspect made l e s s difference to the s u r v i v a l of Sitka spruce seedlings than to D o u g l a s - f i r seedlings. Madison ( 1 9 5 9 ) found that the s u r v i v a l of 3+0 Sitka spruce seedlings planted i n coastal Oregon was better on northerly than southerly aspects, a l -though the difference was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . 50. Berntsen (1958) planted 2+0 and 3+0 Douglas-fir seedlings on a steep south slope i n western Oregon. He found some i n d i c a t i o n that s u r v i v a l was better i n heavy shade than i n l i g h t shade, e s p e c i a l l y with the 3+0 stock. The 3+0 stock had s i g n i f i c a n t l y better s u r v i v a l than the 2+0 stock. d. Animals and birds According to Walters and Soos (1961b) the l i t -erature bears witness to the f a c t that hares and rabbits have more capacity to cause damage than any other animal group. They report that c l i p p i n g may be f a t a l when done near the root c o l l a r . Moore (1940) reported that i n a Doug l a s - f i r plantation i n Oregon, 94.4 % of the seedlings were cropped within one year, 35 % of them f a t a l l y . Armit (1961) reported reduced s u r v i v a l caused by heavy rabbit c l i p p i n g , when conditions were otherwise favourable to s u r v i v a l . He reported that c l i p p i n g decreased d i r e c t l y with the age of the seedlings. Walters and Soos (1961b) found that attacks were most serious immediately following p l a n t i n g , but continued through-out the year. Worthington (1955) reported that rabbits preferred Douglas-fir seedlings over four other western c o n i f e r s . Cowan (1945) discussed the problem of deer brows-ing on Vancouver Island, and reported that serious damage i s done to the seedlings. Revel (1962a, 1963e) and M i t c h e l l (1964) also discussed deer browsing on Vancouver Island, 5 1 . and concluded that i t was important only i n small l o c a l i z e d areas. Revel ( 1 9 6 3 e ) believed that mortality r e s u l t i n g from deer browsing was unimportant. Generally, the l i t -erature supports the the s i s that although height growth losses due to browsing may lengthen the r o t a t i o n from one to f i v e years (Revel 1 9 6 3 e ) , mortality due to deer browsing i s i n s i g n i f i c a n t . Revel ( 1 9 6 3 e ) pointed out that blue grouse brows-ing was widespread on the eastern h a l f of Vancouver Island, but suggested that only very heavy browsing, where a l l the buds were removed, aff e c t e d s u r v i v a l . Robinson ( 1 9 5 8 ) reported that grouse usually w i l l eat the t i p s and buds of seedlings, but that they also w i l l often p u l l up the whole plant. Although t h i s may occur only with the poorly planted seedlings, some of these may have otherwise survived. Grouse damage i s confined mainly to the f i r s t and second year a f t e r p l a n t i n g and i s most serious i n the early spring, according to Robinson. He suggests that the establishment of a complete cover of vegetation s p e l l s the end of the grouse population. Mountain beaver have also been reported to reduce the s u r v i v a l of planted D o u g l a s - f i r seedlings (Krygier 1 9 5 8 , Ruth 1 9 5 7 ) . Ruth ( 1 9 5 7 ) and Madison ( 1 9 5 9 ) reported S i t k a spruce mortality caused by mountain beaver. de Vos ( 1 9 5 8 ) suggested that the v a r i a t i o n i n sur-v i v a l of browse species i s not a r e f l e c t i o n of 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 rather t h e i r a b i l i t y to withstand successive and repeated browsing. Lawrence ( 1 9 6 4 ) discussed the various chemicals used as contact and systemic animal r e p e l l e n t s . He sugg-ested that there are three criteria'-by which to judge a re p e l l e n t : repellency, lack of phy t o t o x i c i t y , and p e r s i s t -ency. He pointed out that one of the main advantages of systemic r e p e l l e n t s i s that new growth i s protected, even although the animal may have to sample a re p e l l e n t before r e j e c t i n g other trees. A wide v a r i e t y of animal r e p e l l e n t s have been tested by many workers. Burns (1961) found that an endrin-latex compound was an e f f e c t i v e rabbit r e p e l l e n t . A zinc-calcium compound was also found to be e f f e c t i v e , and he recommended i t s use where endrin and n i c o t i n e were banned because of t h e i r t o x i c i t y . Rediske and Lawrence (1964) found that 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 at 400 ppm. T o x i c i t y to Douglas-fir seedlings started at 1500 ppm, and the chemical had a h a l f - l i f e of 50 days. Walters and Soos (1961b) tested three hare rep-e l l e n t s and found them a l l to be e f f e c t i v e i n varying degrees. A tetramethylthiuriumdisulphide ( TMTD ) -asphalt emulsion was found to be the most e f f e c t i v e com-pound tested. They reported that the e f f e c t of TMTD decreased with time, but was s t i l l present a f t e r fourteen months. Complete protection was afforded only to the 5 3 . plant parts completely covered, and new growth was clipped with i n c r e a s i n g frequency as the rep e l l e n t weathered. No i l l e f f e c t s of the chemical on the seedlings were noted. e. Weather Smith e_t a l . ( 1 9 6 1 ) reported that most of the var-i a t i o n i n s u r v i v a l trends i n 9 3 Douglas-fir plantations est-ablished between 1 9 3 3 and 1956 could be traced to differences i n the weather at the time of, and shortly a f t e r , planting. The importance of weather on s u r v i v a l was also.emphasized by Smith and A l l e n ( 1 9 6 2 ) . Walters and Soos ( 1 9 6 1 a ) reported on a planting experiment wherein Douglas-fir seedlings were planted from mid-April to mid-November. They found that per cent sur-v i v a l was inv e r s e l y correlated with temperature and p o s i t -i v e l y correlated 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 could be extended i f the weather and s o i l moisture were favourable. Tourney and Korstian ( 1 9 4 2 ) suggested that damp, cloudy days are the best days to plant. This was borne out by Hermann ( 1 9 6 2 ) who found that the mortality of Douglas-fir seedlings was higher when seedlings were planted on warm as opposed to cool days. f . Competing vegetation Newton ( 1 9 6 4 ) e f f e c t i v e l y summarized the role of vegetation i n seedling s u r v i v a l . He said that the influences of vegetation involve moisture consumption, s o i l and a i r temperature near the surface, l i g h t i n t e r c e p t i o n , and phenology and growth habit . Newton found that decreasing the vegetative cover with herbicides reduces the moisture loss from the top 3 inches of the s o i l i n a l i n e a r manner. Complete removal of the vegetation resulted i n only an 8 % loss of a v a i l a b l e s o i l moisture, under r a p i d l y drying conditions, while a heavy cover of grass removed nearly the ent i r e supply of s o i l moisture. Newton pointed out that the influence of long c l e a r days and low a v a i l a b i l i t y of s o i l moisture com-bine to produce moisture stresses within seedlings f a r greater than e i t h e r condition could produce alone. Tarrant ( 1 9 5 8 ) found that s o i l moisture i n l a t e J u l y was greatly depleted beneath green manzanita brush i n c e n t r a l Oregon, compared to l a t e May. He found l i t t l e change i n s o i l moisture between the two dates under dead or cleared brush. Newton ( 1 9 6 4 ) reported that although vegetation causes very high temperatures at the l e v e l of l i g h t i n t e r -ception, seedlings beneath the canopy are protected. 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 conditions most often to a lack of sunlight or to animal damage than to too-rapid t r a n s p i r a t i o n . Dimock II ( 1 9 6 4 ) c i t e s evidence that bracken f e r n may act as a "nurse crop" to Douglas-fir seed-l i n g s . Ruth ( 1 9 5 6 ) found that Douglas-fir planted i n two brush-threat areas i n coastal Oregon were able to withstand three-quarter shading, hut he found an abrupt increase i n mortality when seedlings were overtopped by brush. Ruth ( 1 9 5 7 ) reported heavier shading of seedlings on a north-west than on a south-east slope i n coastal Oregon, and a t t r i b u t e d the higher s u r v i v a l on the south-east slope to t h i s f a c t o r . Hermann ( 1 9 6 3 ) found that the removal of veg-e t a t i o n r e s u l t s i n greater f l u c t u a t i o n s of temperature on a south than on a north-facing slope. Newton ( 1 9 6 4 ) said that mortality from short-term exposures to low l i g h t i n t e n s i t y i s rare, and that most damage under these conditions i s i n d i r e c t , through the low mechanical strength of the seedlings under these conditions and matting from deposits of l i t t e r and debris. He a t t r i b -utes the f a c t that few seedlings become dominant under heavy brush cover mostly to mechanical i n j u r y and animal damage sustained by the seedlings as weak understory plants Dimock II ( 1 9 6 4 ) has discussed the adverse e f f e c t s of bracken fe r n i n smothering the seedlings and as a habitat f o r w i l d l i f e . The main problem brush species i n coastal B r i t i s h Columbia, according to a questionnaire sent to many coastal f o r e s t e r s and discussed by Hetherington ( 1 9 6 2 ) are salmon-berry, alder, bracken fern, vine maple and s a l a l . Various techniques have been tested by many workers i n order to obtain acceptable s u r v i v a l i n brushed-i n areas. The most common techniques employed are k i l l i n g of the brush by chemical or physical means, modification of the planting technique, use of l a r g e r planting stock, and pla n t i n g species other than Douglas-fir. Dimock II ( 1 9 6 4 ) tested s i x combinations of f e r t -i l i z a t i o n , c u t t i n g and mulching i n a heavily brushed-in area, but found that no treatment resulted i n higher s u r v i v a l . Gratkowski ( 1 9 5 9 ) , Newton ( 1 9 6 3 ) and Hetherington ( 1 9 6 3 a ) have evaluated some chemical herbicides, and have found many e f f e c t i v e with no undesirable e f f e c t s on Douglas-f i r seedlings. MacArther - ( 1 9 6 4 ) tested mound, ridge, single and double-row planting, and scalping, i n an e f f o r t to increase s u r v i v a l i n a heavily brushed-in area. He found mound planting to be the only method that resulted i n acceptable s u r v i v a l a f t e r four growing seasons. Lowering the seedlings resulted i n reduced s u r v i v a l . Madison ( 1 9 5 9 ) examined the s u r v i v a l of Sitka spruce seedlings planted i n areas where the competition from thimbleberry, salmonberry, willow and red alder was serious. He concluded that the good s u r v i v a l and rapid growth of t h i s species made i t a desirable species f o r plantin g i n brush-threatened areas. Worthington ( 1 9 5 5 ) planted 1 + 0 , 2+0 and 2+0 jumbo Douglas-fir seedlings i n heavy bracken and brush-covered s i t e s i n the western Olympic Peninsula. He found, s u r p r i s i n g l y , that the 1+0 stock had the highest s u r v i v a l a f t e r the second growing season, with the 2+0 jumbo stock having the lowest s u r v i v a l . The 1+0 stock 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 also found that the surviving seedlings were growing f a s t enough to compete with the bracken and s a l a l . g. M i c r o s i t e The microsite i n which the seedlings are planted has been shown to have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on t h e i r sur-v i v a l by many authors. Hetherington (1964) discussed the s u r v i v a l of natural western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.) seedlings, and at the end of the t h i r d growing season con-cluded that the best-to-worst s u r v i v a l mediums were burned humus, burned mineral s o i l , unburned rotton wood, burned rotton wood, unburned mineral s o i l , unburned humus, un-burned l i t t e r and burned l i t t e r . 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 of Douglas-fir and Sitk a spruce seedlings planted on decayed wood and mineral s o i l , i n c oastal Oregon. He pointed out that rotton wood retains more moisture i n mid-summer, and i s an undesirable growth medium f o r competing vegetation. Wright (1964) found that D o u g l a s - f i r seedlings with t h e i r roots i n decayed wood had le s s mycorrhizae than those i n loamy s o i l , as did seedlings growing on very rocky or compacted s o i l . Smith and A l l e n (1962) found.that the s u r v i v a l of Douglas-fir seedlings was not reduced on s o i l s scraped free of humus. Il l i n g w o r t h (1966) however, found that the sur-v i v a l of container-planted Douglas-fir seedlings was lower 5 8 . on mineral s o i l than on other types of plan t i n g mediums. Hermann ( 1 9 6 3 ) found that the greatest loss of moisture and high temperatures went to-gether beneath mineral sur-faces, hut the reverse was true under organic seedbeds, and that desiccation was most rapid under mineral seedbeds. He also found that organic seedbeds were cooler by day and warmer by night and cooler i n the summer and warmer i n the winter than mineral seedbeds. Hermann concluded that org-anic seedbeds create a more severe climate above ground, and that the slow warming of a s o i l under a cover of org-anic matter i n the spring can pose problems i n e s t a b l i s h i n g a new crop by planting. Walters and Haddock ( 1 9 6 6 ) found that the s u r v i v a l of planted Douglas-fir seedlings was s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower on Gaultheria s i t e s than on Plagiothecium or Polystichum s i t e s . This i s probably accounted f o r by the d r i e r conditions on the Gaultheria s i t e s . In general, however, s u r v i v a l does not seem to de-pend on the s i t e index of the planting s i t e , unless moisture i s the f a c t o r causing the low s i t e index. This has been con-firmed by Huntley ( 1 9 6 0 ) , Smith et a l . ( 1 9 6 6 a ) , and Walters and Haddock ( 1 9 6 6 ) . However Smith and A l l e n ( 1 9 6 2 ) found that the s u r v i v a l of 1+0 Douglas-fir stock planted i n crocks was reduced i n s o i l s of s i t e index 80 compared to s i t e indices 130 and 1 5 0 . h. Insects and disease Tourney and Korstian ( 1 9 4 2 ) suggested that i n many cases the diseased condition of young stands could be d i r e c t l y traced to i n j u r i o u s fungi which gained access to the trees at the time of planting. The influence of nursery diseases on planting has been discussed by Smith ( 1 9 6 4 ) . He suggested that there are two ways i n which nursery diseases could by transported to the planting s i t e . These were: 1) through continued a c t i v i t y of i n -fections contracted by the seedlings i n the nursery; and 2) through new i n f e c t i o n s by organisms c a r r i e d on the seed l i n g to the planting s i t e . He said that soil-borne org-anisms i n p a r t i c u l a r may i n f e c t other seedlings a f t e r p l a n t i n g . Smith c i t e s a study by Roy and Dega ( r e f -erence not given) on the s u r v i v a l of fumigated vs. non-fumigated Douglas-fir stock. Fumigated seedlings had a 3 8 . 3 % higher s u r v i v a l than non-fumigated, one year a f t e r p l a n t i n g . Boyce ( 1 9 6 1 ) c i t e s a number of diseases which may attack Douglas-fir seedlings. He suggested that heavy wet s o i l s are conducive to root r o t s . Knight ( 1 9 5 7 ) re-ported that A r m i l l a r i a mellea appeared to account f o r some mortality of Douglas-fir p l a n t i n g stock i n t e s t plantation on Vancouver Island. However, Foster and Johnson ( 1 9 6 3 ) concluded that there i s no evidence to suggest that stand openings caused by root rot or f r o s t damage i n Douglas-f i r plantations would r e s u l t i n any appreciable reduction 60. i n future y i e l d , i n an area they examined on Vancouver Island. Graham ( 1 9 6 3 ) gives the symptoms of, and the con-t r o l measures f o r combatting, the various insects attacking seedlings. These insects include aphids, adelgids, root weevils (>larvae and a d u l t s ) , root maggots, cutworms, white grubs, earwigs and spider mites. Graham's suggested con-t r o l measures applicable to plantations include: a p p l i c a t i o n of contact or stomach poisons I to the seedlings; applying dressings 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 planting; confining planting to l e s s suscept-i b l e years i f an outbreak i s predicted; and poison b a i t s to reduce the population of weevil adults emerging from stumps i n newly-logged areas. 10. Genetic factors a f f e c t i n g s u r v i v a l As Schopmeyer ( 1 9 4 0 ) pointed out, there i s consid-erable evidence to show that the adaption of a parent tree to i t s s i t e may be passed on to i t s progeny. He said that such adaptions should be considered i n mountainous regions because of the wide v a r i e t y of s i t e conditions. Knight ( 1 9 5 7 ) , and Smith and A l l e n ( 1 9 6 2 ) reported that seed o r i g i n had l i t t l e e f f e c t on the s u r v i v a l of planted Douglas-fir seedlings. However Smith and A l l e n reported that they found s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n the rate of sur-v i v a l , growth and resistance to frost-heaving between h a l f -s i b l i n g groups, and Smith et a l . ( 1 9 6 6 a ) reported that sur-v i v a l between h a l f - s i b l i n g groups ranged from 6 6 . 7 % to 100 %. 61 . They also reported that a high elevation seedlot had 5 . 6 % better s u r v i v a l than a low elevation seedlot. The r e s u l t s c i t e d above have been obtained from experiments where the influence of seed o r i g i n on s u r v i v a l was not one of the main fact o r s tested, but rather i n c i d -ental to the main a n a l y s i s . An exception i s the work of S i l e n ( 1 9 6 4 ) who reported on the regeneration aspects of a 5 0 year-old heredity study conducted i n Washington and Oregon. S i l e n reported that, although there were s t r i k i n g s u r v i v a l differences between plantations, there was l i t t l e d i fference i n the s u r v i v a l of seedlings from d i f f e r e n t o r i g i n s within any one p l a n t a t i o n . However, he found that, within the l i m i t s of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s u r v i v a l of the p l a n t a t i o n , the progeny from the better-adapted seed sources survived best. S i l e n reported a strong c o r r e l a t i o n between good growth and good s u r v i v a l . Trees of low elevation o r i g i n grew and survived best when planted at low elevations. Undoubtedly the genetic complement of 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 a d i r e c t e f f e c t on s u r v i v a l . This e f f e c t i s manifested through such seedling c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as insect and disease r e s i s -tance, onset of f l u s h i n g , termination of yearly growth, and resistance to frost-heaving. Further work should be d i r e c t -ed towards c o r r e l a t i n g the s u r v i v a l of seedlings from d i f f -erent seed o r i g i n s with 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 of the study The data used i n these analyses was made a v a i l -able to the. F a c u l t y of F o r e s t r y by MacMilla n B l o e d e l L t d . The company f e l t t h a t an a n a l y s i s of t h i s type, r e q u i r i n g s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s of l a r g e amounts of data,.was beyond the immediate resources of the company. The raw data was made a v a i l a b l e to the author by the F a c u l t y of F o r e s t r y M a c M i l l a n B l o e d e l L t d . provided the author w i t h the opp-o r t u n i t y to v i s i t many of 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 p l a n t a t i o n s . This was done du r i n g August of 1966. 2. F i e l d study During the month of August, 1966, the author v i s i t e d 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 of D o u g l a s - f i r through-out Vancouver I s l a n d and the adjacent mainland. The p l a n t -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 MacMilla n B l o e d e l L t d . between 1960 and 1966. The purpose of the f i e l d work was to 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 the D i v i s i o n a l F o r e s t r y S u p e r v i s o r s and to observe these prob-lems i n the p l a n t a t i o n s . I n other words, to aquaint the author 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 of MacMilla n B l o e d e l L t d . i n p a r t i c u l a r . The author endeavoured to examine p l a n t a t i o n s from wide geographic and environmental ranges throughout the study area. Time d i d not permit v i s i t a t i o n of 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 of the company, but 63. enough were v i s i t e d to be representative of the general c l i m a t i c and physiographic regions of the area. Although no measurements were taken i n the f i e l d by the author, h i s observations 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 of the data a. Survival l i n e s Since the advent of large-scale operational plant-in g by MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., company f o r e s t e r s have been required to delineate 25 seedlings f o r each 25 acres planted f o r subsequent s u r v i v a l examinations. These seedlings are i d e n t i f i e d by painted cedar stakes placed i n the ground near the seedling at the time of planting. In order to eliminate the e f f e c t of the i n d i v i d u a l planter, f i v e planters are represented i n each sample of 25 trees. This i s accomplished by staggering a " l i n e " of seed-l i n g s among f i v e planting rows. Figure 3 i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s procedure. Normally every p l a n t a t i o n w i l l contain at l e a s t one s u r v i v a l l i n e , even i f the p l a n t a t i o n i s l e s s than 25 acres. 1746 s u r v i v a l l i n e s were available f o r analysis. At the time the s u r v i v a l l i n e i s staked, the p l a n t i n g supervisor s t r a t i f i e s the area as to aspect, slash-burn i n t e n s i t y and degree of brush and/or slash (ground cover). The s t r a t i f i c a t i o n i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table I, on page 7 1 . 6 4 . +25 . +24 . . . . . +23 . +22 . . . +20 +21 . . +19 . . . . . +18 . +17 . . . . +15 +16 . . +14 . . . . +13 . . . +12 + 1 0 + 1 1 +9 +8 . . ' . +7 + 5 + 6 +4 . +3 +2 +1 +9 = staked s e e d l i n g . = unstaked s e e d l i n g F i g u r e 3 . 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 p l a n t a t i o n . b. P l a n t a t i o n r e g i s t e r s For each pl 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. A sample r e g i s t e r i s shown i n Figure 4. A map of the plantation and the surr-ounding area accompanies each plantation r e g i s t e r . A typ-i c a l map i s shown i n Figure 5. The v a r i a b l e s obtained from the plantation reg-i s t e r s and used i n the analyses were: the l o c a t i o n of the plan t a t i o n ; the planting date; the season and year of planting; the number of trees planted per man/day; the year of slashburning; ground cover (vegetation type); topography type; elevation range of the plantation; weather conditions at the time of planting; and the planting stock d e s c r i p t i o n (seedlot number, age of stock, nursery o r i g i n of the stock, and general condition of the seedlings on a r r i v a l ) . In some cases the date of l i f t i n g was also re-corded, and i f known was used i n an a n a l y s i s . The t h i c k -ness of the duff (L-F-H) lay e r was often recorded as being "th i c k " or "not t h i c k " . c. Planting s u r v i v a l summaries At or near the end of the f i r s t growing season, the s u r v i v a l of the pla n t a t i o n i s assessed from the sur-v i v a l l i n e s , and summarized i n a "Planting Survival Summary an example of which i s shown i n Figure 6. This summary con tai n s no information not a v a i l a b l e from the plantation reg-i s t e r , with one exception: i f the cause of mortality i s P l a n t a t i o n No._ L o c a t i o n T r a c t Ownership P l a n t i n g dates Supervisor_ P l a n t a t i o n acreage P r i o r s t o c k i n g Species Tot. Dec. Acre s/man-day Tpppq/aprp nTantpd Age Spacing % s t o c k i n g Trees/man-day Trees/acre Area h i s t o r y : Logged Burned S l a s h c o n d i t i o n s Ground cover Topography E l e v a t i o n ranges S o i l 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 i z e and C o n d i t i o n Species Seed Lot Age Nursery No. of tr e e s Tops Roots General 1 2 3 Summary of s u r v i v a l examinations Date of exam. Stratum & Acres P l a n t e d (Tree Basis) 3 u r v . Trees /Ac. Av. Tot Height N a t u r a l /Ac. P H To t. T o t a l /Ac. # of t r e e s 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 YEAR PLANTED / 9 6 g SEASON 5p//*j P l t n . No. Acres S t r i p S t r a t . No. of Sample Trees Age Tot. Avg. Tree Ht. Cond. of Trees Tot. Surv. Surv. Exam. Date Sat. Poor Dead 31 I 2 CC0 CC 3 2 jr 2 * 2+0 7" 2 i 22 2 2 t *? 6 v% \177 1 s I 2 cc B Be 8 z S z s 2*o 6 " 1 f / 7 | 0 I 2 92 me /6 I ACS IS 2+o 2f 1 0 |60 127*5 2* I c SB 25 2+o 7" 12 13 o IOO XtHO 27 1 AC B 2 S 2*o 8 " 18 5 2 s z its i t sr- ( A A A 2 $ 2*o 8" 18 1 o IOO 12/ V S t r a t i f i c a t i o n ASPECT A - S - SW - W B - F l a t C - N - NE - E BURN A - Clean burn B - L i g h t or p a r t i a l C - Unburned GROUND COVER A - Clean B - Med. brush &/or s l a s h C - Heavy brush &/or s l a s h Figure 6. A sample p l a n t i n g s u r v i v a l summary 69 . evident, i t i s included i n the summary. Although some fore s t e r s made an attempt to assign reasons f o r mortality, most comments were too general to be of use. I t i s the op-i n i o n of the author, and many company f o r e s t e r s , that assign-ing reasons f o r mortality i s at best an educated guess, unless the reason i s very obvious. d. Seedlot r e g i s t e r s Since the seedlot number of the seedlings 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 aspect and elevation of 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 va r i a b l e s were used i n the analyses. e. S u r v i v a l examinations At the end of the f i r s t and t h i r d growing seasons, the seedlings i n the s u r v i v a l l i n e s are examined f o r mort-a l i t y . The second examination i s on a l e s s firm basis than the f i r s t , however. Often i t i s d i f f i c u l t to f i n d a l l of the seedlings i n a s u r v i v a l l i n e a f t e r three growing seasons because of heavy brush and missing stakes. Because of the f a c t that dead seedlings w i l l be more d i f f i c u l t to f i n d than l i v e ones, and the f a c t that s u r v i v a l i s calculated on the basis of l i v e and dead seedlings observable, the sur-v i v a l figure a r r i v e d at a f t e r three growing seasons i s higher than i s r e a l i s t i c . At both examinations the seedling's condition i s 70 . c l a s s i f i e d as " s a t i s f a c t o r y " , "poor" or "dead". No allow-ance was made f o r seedlings i n poor condition i n the analyses: seedlings i n poor and s a t i s f a c t o r y condition were both c l a s s -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 of the data The data analyzed was of two types: that which was of a continuous nature, and that which was di s c r e t e and had to be placed i n classes. Most of the discrete v a r i a b l e s were placed into classes by the author; other d i s c r e t e v a r i a b l e s , such as aspect, slashburn i n t e n s i t y and ground cover, were already c l a s s i f i e d . Often there were not enough observations within any one class to permit a n a l y s i s . For instance under "age of seedlings" the author delineated classes f o r 1+0, 2+0, 2+1, 1+1 and 3+0 seedlings. I t was necessary to r e s t r i c t comparison of seedling ages to 1+0, 2+0 and 2+1 seedlings however, because there were too few seedlings i n the 1+1 and. 3+0 classes to give meaningful r e s u l t s . Table I describes the classes of each discont-inuous v a r i a b l e analyzed. Only those classes with s u f f -i c i e n t observations to be analyzed are shown. The s u r v i v a l l i n e s where classes were missing, did not f i t into any of the classes, or were included i n a class with i n s u f f -i c i e n t observations were omitted from the analyses. The data from the plantation r e g i s t e r s and/or the planting s u r v i v a l summaries, seedlot r e g i s t e r s and i n 71 . Table I. A chart showing the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the discontinuous v a r i a b l e s used i n the analyses. CLASS VARIABLE " Weather at sunny sunny cloudy to showers, moderate snow planting & warm & mild overcast l i g h t to heavy r a i n r a i n Seedlot from from types better normal trees i n stands a normal stand from minus stands, or stands where there i s l i t t l e information Topography f l a t r o l l i n g s l i g h t to moderate steep Nursery o r i g i n Duncan Quinsam Green Timbers Age of seedlings 1+0 2+0 2+1 Season of Spring f a l l planting Slashburn clean l i g h t unburned severity (hot) or p a r t i a l Aspect south . f l a t north to to west east Ground l i t t l e medium heavy cover or none brush brush and/or and/or slash slash Duff thick not thickness thick Condition good f a i r poor on a r r i v a l D i v i s i o n Each d i v i s i o n of the company was given a number Seedlot Each seedlot was given a new number number some cases the plantation map (used to check such v a r i a b l e s as aspect and elevation of the plantation) were transferred to standard coding forms. The data was then transferred to In t e r n a t i o n a l Business Machine ( IBM ) computer cards. These cards were "read" into the IBM 7040 computer at the Univers-i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia f o r analysis. 5. The s t a t i s t i c a l analyses a. General Unfortunately, not a l l v a r i a b l e s were measured f o r a l l s u r v i v a l l i n e s . This necessitated s o r t i n g the cards each time an analysis was to be done, and removing those cards which did not contain a l l the variables necessary f o r a part-i c u l a r a n a l y s i s . The problem was further .complicated by the fact: that two cards were necessary to accomodate a l l of the data from one s u r v i v a l l i n e . Therefore, a f t e r the cards were sorted they had to be matched, the two cards representing one s u r v i v a l l i n e being placed one behind the other, i n a uniform order. The cards were also sorted by the d i v i s i o n (area) from which the data originated, to ensure that the r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s would not be unduly weighted by any one d i v i s i o n . Undue weighting occurred only i n the case of the analysis of l i f t i n g date on s u r v i v a l . The data used f o r t h i s a n a l y s i s originated e x c l u s i v e l y from three northV ern Vancouver Island d i v i s i o n s . This does not mean to imply that a l l d i v i s i o n s were represented i n every a n a l y s i s . 73. However, a l l major c l i m a t i c and physiographic regions were represented, with the exception noted above. It therefore follows that the means and trends r e s u l t i n g from the analyses represent an average of many d i v i s i o n s . In a l l l i k e l i h o o d however, the average trends calculated are s i m i l a r f o r a l l d i v i s i o n s , 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 set of v a r i a b l e s and s u r v i v a l i s not exactly the same f o r each d i v i s i o n . For instance the trend of increased s u r v i v a l with l a t e r f a l l l i f t i n g dates i s probably the same fo r each d i v i s i o n , even though a regression equation calculated f o r each div-i s i o n would show that l i f t i n g date i s more important i n some d i v i s i o n s than others. However, i t i s not impossible that any one d i v i s i o n may represent an exception to the general trend. Unfortunately time, and i n some cases i n -s u f f i c i e n t data, did not permit an independent study f o r each d i v i s i o n . A major d i f f i c u l t y i n the analyses arose from the f a c t that not a l l s u r v i v a l l i n e s contained a l l of the var-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 . T h e r e f o r e , a l l s u r v i v a l l i n e s which did not contain any one of the part-i c u l a r set of v a r i a b l e s being analyzed had to be removed. This often severely reduced the number of observations. Time did not permit the analysis of .each v a r i a b l e separ-a t e l y , and i t was usually desirable to analyze two or more fac t o r s at once so that t h e i r i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s to s u r v i v a l could be determined. However the more facto r s analyzed 74. to-gether, the fewer the observations ( s u r v i v a l l i n e s ) that could be used. The author attempted to f i n d an acceptable compromise between analyzing a number of factors and t h e i r inter-dependent e f f e c t on s u r v i v a l , and spreading the data too t h i n l y between means. For instance i f three f a c t o r s were being analyzed at once, and there were four classes ( l e v e l s ) i n each f a c t o r , then the analysis of variance 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 three fac t o r s present, then t h i s r e s u l t s i n the 704 observations being spread between 64 means. This r e s u l t s i n only 704 / 64 = 11 observations f o r each mean. The problem i s further complicated i f a l l l e v e l s of one f a c t o r are not represented i n a l l l e v e l s of another f a c t o r . b. Regression .analyses A l l continuous v a r i a b l e s were analyzed f o r t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to s u r v i v a l using regression a n a l y s i s . The object of regression analysis i s to quantify the r e l a t i o n -ship between a dependent v a r i a b l e ( s u r v i v a l ) and one or more independent v a r i a b l e s (e.g. pl a n t i n g date). When more than one independent v a r i a b l e i s used, the analysis i s c a l l e d multiple (as opposed to simple) regression; 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 involved, the analysis i s c a l l e d l i n e a r regression. The general form of a multiple l i n e a r regression equation i s as follows: Y = a + b-|X-] + b2X2 + .... + bnX n 75. where a = a constant (the Y-intercept on a graph) b n = the n"th regression c o e f f i c i e n t X n = the n^h independent v a r i a b l e Y = the dependent variable The FORTRAN IV programme used to c a l c u l a t e the regression equation has been described by Kozak and Smith ( 1965) . c. Analyses of variance A l l discontinuous v a r i a b l e s were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA). In some cases, some contin-uous v a r i a b l e s were also analyzed using ANOVA, by placing them into classes. For instance i n the case of elevation, mean s u r v i v a l per centages f o r each 1000 foot change i n e l e v a t i o n were analyzed. In an analysis of variance, the t o t a l v a r i a t i o n (sum of squares) i n a set of measurements i s separated i n t o components and assigned to possible sources or causes. A variance r a t i o (the r a t i o of the variance accounted f o r by a v a r i a b l e to the variance unaccounted f o r , or error var-iance) i s calculated f o r each va r i a b l e or i n t e r a c t i o n between v a r i a b l e s . From the variance r a t i o the p r o b a b i l i t y that the d i f f e r e n c e between two or more means did not occur by chance can be c a l c u l a t e d . I f there i s at l e a s t a 95 % or a 99 1° chance that the difference between two or more means did not occur by chance, then the difference i s said to be " s i g n i f i c a n t " or "highly s i g n i f i c a n t " r e s p e c t i v e l y . I f 76. there are more than two means being compared, a s i g n i f i c a n t variance r a t i o w i l l only mean that at l e a s t one of the means being compared i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from one or more of the remaining means. I t w i l l not determine which mean or means i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from one or more of the remaining means. This must be determined by a "Duncan's New Multi p l e Range Test". Unfortunately i t was not possible to do t h i s t e s t . The tes t requires that the number of observations which went to make up each mean be known. The ANOVA prog-ramme does not count the number of observations i n each mean, and the value would have been extremely time-consuming to determine. Although a weighted average i s automatically c a l c u l a t e d , the programme does not p r i n t out the number of observations used to determine each mean. IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 1 . General Since the r e s u l t s of the analyses are not from a designed experiment where a l l factors not being analyzed are kept as uniform as possible, the trends shown i n these analyses are often v a r i a b l e . In these analyses, keeping a l l f a c t o r s not being analyzed uniform would have severely reduced the number of observations, and l i m i t e d the a p p l i c -a b i l i t y of the r e s u l t s to a narrow set of conditions. The r e s u l t s of these analyses, therefore, are applicable 7 7 . only on the average, and there may be c e r t a i n sets of cond-i t i o n s where the average trend i s not app l i c a b l e . Where possible, the author accounted f o r some d i f f e r e n t sets of conditions through the use of mu l t i - f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . The generally large number of observations used in each analysis probably explains why, i n some cases, seemingly small differences 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 s i g n i f i c a n t . With many obs-ervations, differences between means do not have to be large to be s i g n i f i c a n t . I f the experiment were to be conducted holding a l l other v a r i a b l e s constant, then the differences between means would probably be much greater, depending on at what " l e v e l " the other factors were held constant. 2. The influence of age and class of stock on s u r v i v a l The s u r v i v a l of spring and f a l l - p l a n t e d 2+0 and 2+1 stock and spring-planted 1+0 stock was compared using analysis-of variance. The mean s u r v i v a l of each class of stock 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 stock class means than were used to determine the others; nevertheless the analysis of variance showed highly s i g n i f i c a n t differences between some of the means. The comparatively high s u r v i v a l of the spring-planted 1+0 stock can be explained by a c a r e f u l choice of planting s i t e s f o r t h i s c l a s s , and possibly there was a 78. Table I I . Per cent s u r v i v a l at the end of one growing season a f t e r planting of spring and f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings by/three planting stock classes. Based on 1268 observations. Appendix I i shows the analysis of variance table. Season of Class of stock Weighted planting average 1 + 0 2+0 2+J Spring 66.6$ 61.1$ 59.3$ 61.7$ P a l l * 47.0$ 58.1$ 47.4$ Weighted 6 6 6 f o 5 ^ 1 o average [ ' J l  * = No observations l a r g e r proportion of healthy roots l e f t a f t e r l i f t i n g . On the basis of these means, i t i s apparent that there i s no advantage to be gained from the use of 2+1 stock i n the spring, and every advantage to be gained from i t s use f o r f a l l p lanting. Naturally, there are exceptions to t h i s g e n e r a l i z a t i o n : 2+1 stock w i l l be desirable f o r plant-ing i n heavily brushed-in s i t e s i r r e s p e c t i v e of season. P a l l planting of 2+1 stock resulted i n 11.1 per cent better s u r v i v a l than 2+0 stock. There i s an i n s i g n i f -i c a n t difference between the'two stock classes i n the case of spring planting. The r e s u l t s of t h i s analysis suggest that 1+0 stock can be planted i n the spring with comparatively good r e s u l t s i f proper planting s i t e s are chosen. The r e s u l t s also suggest that the s u r v i v a l of f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings could be improved to an important degree through the increased 7 9 . use of 2+1 stock. The greater planting costs associated with the increased use of 2+1 stock 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 higher average s u r v i v a l , and by an increase i n the use of 1+0 stock f o r spring planting. The judicious use of 1+0 stock on suitable s i t e s would permit a greater use of 2+1 stock. 2+0 stock i s presently planted on s i t e s where 1+0 stock may survive just as well; however i t i s also planted on many s i t e s where 2+1 stock would survive much better. The s i t e s where 2+1 transplants should be planted, and where 1+0 stock may be planted, must be ident-i f i e d . As some authors have suggested, 1+0 stock might be planted with good r e s u l t s on clean burns where the danger of brush invasion i s low. Adequate s o i l moisture near the surface would also be a desirable feature of the planting s i t e . The author has attempted to assess the s u r v i v a l of stock classes planted under d i f f e r e n t s i t e conditions. The r e s u l t s of these analyses are presented i n the approp-r i a t e section. 3. The influence of morphological grade on s u r v i v a l The seedlings were assessed by the f i e l d f o r e s ters or by the planting crew foremen as to t h e i r general condition on a r r i v a l at the planting area. This grading i s done s t r i c t -l y on the basis of v i s u a l observation of batches of seedlings. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between the grades of stock and t h e i r sur-v i v a l a f t e r spring and f a l l p l anting i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table I I I . 80. Table I I I . 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 spring and f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings by a subjective assessment of seed-l i n g condition. Based on 1188 obs-ervations. Appendix I j shows the ana l y s i s of variance table. Season of Condition of Seedlings Weighted P l a n t i n S Go~od iaTr" P^oT Dry Average roots  Spring 61.7$ 68.6$ 58.5$ 65.1$ 62.3$ P a l l 47.4$ 41.9$ 75.5$ 56.6$ 47.6$ I v e r a g f 5 6'^° 5 8 ' ^ 6 0 ' 2 ^  Although none of the means presented i n Table I I I are 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 that subjective ratings based on general appear-ance are a poor i n d i c a t i o n of the p h y s i o l o g i c a l condition of the seedlings, or of the seedling's a b i l i t y to survive a f t e r p l a n t i n g . According to these r e s u l t s , s u r v i v a l i s inv e r s e l y r e l a t e d to morphological grade i f the average s u r v i v a l of spring and f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings i s considered, The seedlings assessed as being i n "good" condition did not have the highest s u r v i v a l either f o r spring or f o r f a l l p l anting. A knowledge of seedling condition i s desirable so that the s u r v i v a l p o t e n t i a l of the seedlings can be assessed. I f the s u r v i v a l p o t e n t i a l of the seedlings can be adequately assessed before planting, the seedlings can be a l l o c a t e d to s i t e s where the highest average s u r v i v a l would r e s u l t . Seedlings with a high s u r v i v a l p o t e n t i a l 8 1 . would be a l l o c a t e d to s i t e s w i t h c o n d i t i o n s adverse to s u r v i v a l , and v i c e v e r s a . In t h i s way the number of f a c t o r s combining to reduce s u r v i v a l can be kept to a minimum. I f there i s l i t t l e choice between p l a n t i n g s i t e s , the stock w i t h the lowest s u r v i v a l p o t e n t i a l should be a l l o c a t e d to s i t e s where there i s the best chance of mort-a l i t y being counteracted by the establishment of n a t u r a l s e e d l i n g s . Since the appearance of the s e e d l i n g does not seem to 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 of the h i s t o r y of the s e e d l i n g s from the time of l i f t i n g to t h e i r a r r i v a l at the p l a n t i n g s i t e i s d e s i r a b l e . I n l i e u of a d i r e c t p h y s i o l o g i c a l measurement of s e e d l i n g c o n d i t i o n , diameter at the root c o l l a r , the top/root r a t i o and the degree of branching of the r o o t s seem to be the best comb-i n a t i o n of 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 of measurement. 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 dates and l e n g t h of storage on s u r v i v a l . a. S p r i n g - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s The date of p l a n t i n g , date of l i f t i n g and the l e n g t h of time between l i f t i n g and p l a n t i n g (time i n storage plus time i n t r a n s i t ) were analyzed i n r e l a t i o n to the s u r v i v a l a f t e r one growing season of s p r i n g - p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s . S i x t y s u r v i v a l l i n e s , a l l from the n o r t h e r n end of Vancouver I s l a n d , form the b a s i s of the analyses. 82. Neither the l i f t i n g date nor the length of time between l i f t i n g and planting were s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to the s u r v i v a l of spring-planted seedlings. However the date of p l a n t i n g was r e l a t e d to s u r v i v a l at the 90 $ prob-a b i l i t y l e v e l . The equation i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 7. Table IV shows the mean planting date and the e a r l i e s t and l a t e s t dates of planting used i n the a n a l y s i s . A second analysis of planting date, l i f t i n g date and the time between l i f t i n g and planting was done using the. per cent s u r v i v a l a f t e r one growing season minus those seedlings s t i l l l i v i n g but i n poor condition. As with the previous equation, neither the date of l i f t i n g nor the time between l i f t i n g and planting were s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to s u r v i v a l . However,the r e l a t i o n s h i p between planting date and s u r v i v a l became s i g n i f i c a n t at the 95 $ p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l . Both equations had high standard errors of estimate and accounted f o r a low proportion of the v a r i a t i o n (sum of 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 decreased with l a t e r spring p l a n t i n g dates, the r e l a t i o n s h i p does not appear to be an important one. In the second a n a l y s i s , s u r v i v a l decreases only 1.2 $ f o r each 10 day planting period a f t e r day 42. This suggests that the spring planting season might be extended beyond these dates with l i t t l e reduction i n s u r v i v a l . Naturally, care should be exercised i n the choice of planting s i t e s f o r early and l a t e spring planting, and the r e s u l t s of t h i s analysis 83. Table IV. Some parameters of the independent va r i a b l e s used i n the regression equations of l i f t i n g and planting dates on the s u r v i v a l of spring-planted seedlings. 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 va r i a b l e Mean Standard deviation Minimum value Maximum value Date of l i f t i n g 60.2 20. 1 24.0 87.0 Date of planting 92.8 32.9 42.0 147.0 Planting date minus l i f t i n g date 32.5 33.2 0 123.0 should not be transposed to the d r i e r areas of Vancouver Island. As mentioned e a r l i e r , the data used i n this analysis originated from northern Vancouver Island, where the summer r a i n f a l l i s f a i r l y high. Even seedlings stored f o r long periods of time before planting had generally good s u r v i v a l . Periods be-tween l i f t i n g and planting of up to 123 days appear to have no important influence on s u r v i v a l i n t h i s area. This i l l u s t r a t e s both the excellent storage q u a l i t i e s of Douglas-f i r seedlings, and the fact that storage might be used as an e f f e c t i v e means of c o n t r o l l i n g the carbohydrate reserves i n the seedlings u n t i l planting. Most seedlings -used i n t h i s analysis were l i f t e d while carbohydrate reserves were s t i l l f a i r l y high, as indicated by Krueger (1966). 84. b. P a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings The date of l i f t i n g , date of planting, and the time between l i f t i n g and plant i n g were analyzed 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 seedlings. 5 5 s u r v i v a l l i n e s were used to derive the regression equations. As with the previous analyses, the s u r v i v a l l i n e s originated from northern Vancouver Island. Table V shows some s t a t -i s t i c s d escribing the data used i n the regression analyses. Table V. Some parameters of the independent var i a b l e s used i n the regression equations of l i f t i n g and planting 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 = Jan. 1. Based on 5 5 s u r v i v a l l i n e s . Independent Mean Standard Minimum Maximum variable deviation value value 15.3 286.0 337.0 14.9 288.0 342.0 5.9 1.0 24.0 It can be seen from Table V that the maximum period between l i f t i n g and planting was much l e s s f o r f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings than f o r spring-planted. There was 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 l i f t i n g and planting and the s u r v i v a l of f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings. However a 24-day difference between l i f t i n g and planting Date of . l i f t i n g Date of planting 308.8 316.8 Planting Q Q date minus l i f t i n g date 85. i s not an adequate test of the storage q u a l i t y of Douglas-f i r seedlings. Both the date of l i f t i n g and the date of planting were found to be highly s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to the sur-v i v a l of f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings. This was true 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 per cent of seedlings i n "poor" condition was subtracted from the per cent s u r v i v a l and the difference used as the dependent v a r i a b l e . As the regression equat-ions i n Table VI and Figure 7 i l l u s t r a t e , s u r v i v a l was found to increase with l a t e r l i f t i n g and planting dates. As was the case with spring-planted seedlings, both r e l a t -ionships were highly v a r i a b l e . Table VI. The regression equations of date of l i f t i n g and date of planti n g on sur-v i v a l a f t e r one growing season, and on per cent s u r v i v a l minus per cent "poors" a f t e r one growing season, fo r f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings. Dependent Constant Regression Independent Standard variable value c o e f f i c i e n t v a r i able e r r o r of estimate Survival per cent - 1 5 3 . 7 + 0 . 6 9 2 X Planting date 1 7 . 3 5 % S u r v i v a l per cent - 99 . 1 + 0 . 5 3 3 X L i f t i n g date 18.51 % Per cent s u r v i v a l minus per = cent -181 .8 + 0 .756 X Planting date 1 7 . 0 5 i "poors" Per cent s u r v i v a l minus per = cent - 1 2 7 . 9 + 0 .601 X L i f t i n g date 18 .30 i "poors" 87. A l l four of the regression equations presented i n Table VI are highly s i g n i f i c a n t . Using both independent v a r i a b l e s i n the same regression equation does not reduce the standard error of estimate or increase the per centage of v a r i a t i o n (sum of squares) i n s u r v i v a l accounted f o r to any meaningful- extent. The date of planting i s a better estimate of 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 seedlings than i s the date of l i f t i n g , i n terms of both a lower standard error of estimate and a higher per centage of the v a r i a t i o n i n s u r v i v a l accounted f o r . The v a r i a b i l i t y of the data makes a l l equations useless f o r p r e d i c t i o n purposes. However, a l l equations i l l u s t r a t e t h a t l t h e l a t e r - l i f t e d and l a t e r -planted seedlings w i l l , on the average, survive better than e a r l y - l i f t e d and planted seedlings, within the l i m i t s of the observations (see Table V). c. Discussion The lower s u r v i v a l of the l a t e r (compared to early) spring-planted stock may be accounted f o r by the warming and drying of the weather l a t e r i n the spring, the reduction i n carbohydrate reserves, and the reduced root a c t i v i t y . 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 planting l a t e i n the spring, the trend i s not important enough to j u s t i f y any major operations to counteract the trend. The trend may be more important than i s i l l u s t r a t e d 88 . by the analyses however, because of the f a i r l y high summer r a i n f a l l on the northern end of Vancouver Island where the data or i g i n a t e d . Where the weather or other s i t e condit-ions are more unfavourable f o r s u r v i v a l , the spring plant-ing date may assume more importance. I f so, the trend may be reduced by planting the l a t e r - l i f t e d stock on the 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 . L i f t i n g the stock i n December and early January while carbohydrate reserves are high and root a c t i v i t y low, and cold storage of the stock u n t i l needed, w i l l also help to reduce the trend. The s u r v i v a l of f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings i s even more c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to the date of planting, and i s also s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to the date of l i f t i n g . P l anting date seems to be a more important fa c t o r than l i f t i n g date, but both v a r i a b l e s describe much of, the same v a r i a t i o n i n the s u r v i v a l of f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings. The two v a r i a b l e s (planting date and l i f t i n g date) have a c o r r e l a t i o n coeff-i c i e n t of 0 . 9 2 4 . However planting date also 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 explained by i t s high corr-e l a t i o n with l i f t i n g date. Low carbohydrate reserves, lack of root growth and i n s u f f i c i e n t hardening-off probably accounts f o r most of the rest of the v a r i a t i o n not accounted f o r by the high c o r r e l a t i o n with l i f t i n g date. It i s u n l i k e l y that the date of l i f t i n g can always be scheduled so that carbohydrate reserves are high and root growth low at the time of l i f t i n g . As many authors have suggested, seedlings should be l i f t e d as l a t e as possible 89. f o r f a l l - p l a n t i n g . However, some seedlings must obviously be l i f t e d e arly. The most l o g i c a l way i n which to counter-act the trend of higher s u r v i v a l with l a t e r l i f t i n g dates i s to plant the e a r l y - l i f t e d seedlings on the s i t e s where the s u r v i v a l p o t e n t i a l i s high, and reserve the l a t e r - l i f t e d seedlings f o r the more severe s i t e s . The problem then becomes one of i d e n t i f y i n g the s i t e s with d i f f e r e n t s u r v i v a l p o t e n t i a l s . The author attempts to 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 influence of the nursery o r i g i n of the seedlings on s u r v i v a l The nursery o r i g i n of the seedlings was believed by many company fo 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 substantiated by the analysis, which showed that highly s i g n i f i c a n t differences ex i s t between the sur-v i v a l of seedlings o r i g i n a t i n g from d i f f e r e n t nurseries. The average s u r v i v a l of seedlings from the three nurseries was compared using analysis of variance. Two of these nurseries, Duncan and Quinsam, are located on Vancouver Island. The t h i r d , Green Timbers, i s located i n the lower Fraser V a l l e y , at Surrey, B.C. The average s u r v i v a l of seedlings o r i g i n a t i n g from these nurseries i s shown i n Table VII. There are a number of possible explanations f o r these d i f f e r e n c e s . The seedlings from the Green Timbers nursery must t r a v e l the longest distance to the planting s i t e , and the longer time i n t r a n s i t might explain 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 planting by the nursery o r i g i n of the seedlings. Based on 850 s u r v i v a l l i n e s . Nui"sery of o r i g i n Green Timbers Duncan Quinsam . 58.0 % 62.5 i> 65.5 % difference i n s u r v i v a l . Another possible explanation i s that the seedling are l i f t e d at d i f f e r e n t times at each nursery, although t h i p o s s i b i l i t y could not be checked. Nursery s o i l management may also be a factor i n reducing the s u r v i v a l of seedlings from the Green Timbers nursery. It i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that the s u r v i v a l of the seedlings i s i n v e r s e l y related to the production of the nursery. Perhaps the seedlings from the l a r g e r nurseries do not receive the care i n l i f t i n g and transplanting etc. that the seedlings from the smaller nurseries do. A f i n a l p o s s i b i l i t y i s that the seedlings from the d i f f e r e n t nurseries were planted i n d i f f e r e n t d i v i s i o n s and i t i s the condition at the d i v i s i o n , not the nursery, that determines the differences i n s u r v i v a l . The author attempted to determine i f there was a heavy weighting of the r e s u l t s by the seedlings from any one nursery being planted i n a few d i v i s i o n s . I t was found that although some d i v i s i o n s r e l y much more heavily on one nursery than on others, there was no systematic d i s t r i b u t i o n of the seedlings from the Green Timbers nursery to d i v i s i o n s which had c o n s i s t e n t l y low s u r v i v a l . Table VIII shows the s u r v i v a l of the seedlings from the three d i f f e r e n t nurseries by the d i v i s i o n i n which they were planted. Table VIII. Per cent s u r v i v a l at the end of one growing season a f t e r planting by nursery o r i g i n of the seedlings and area of planting. Based on 850 sur-v i v a l l i n e s . The analysis of var-iance table i s shown i n Appendix Ih. D i v i s i o n Nursery of o r i g i n Weighted average of plan t i n g Duncan Green Timbers Quinsam Port Hardy * 58.9 i° 67.4 i 63.9 i Menzies Bay 51 .7 * # 69.1 i 61 .3 i Kelsey Bay 58.6 * 48.2 io 60.3 i 56.6 i Sproat Lake 57.5 50.5 i * 55.8 i Kennedy Lake 64.9 1o 65.6 % * 66.2 i F r a n k l i n River 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 Shawnigah Lake * 65.4 % 64.7 io 65.1 i S t i l l w a t e r 64.3 1o 59.3 i * 60.6 i Weighted average 62.5 1o 58.0 io 65.5 i * = missing or too few observations 6. The influence of trees planted per man-day on s u r v i v a l I t was suspected that reducing the number of trees planted per man-day might r e s u l t i n better q u a l i t y pl a n t i n g and hence higher s u r v i v a l . This f a c t o r was anal-yzed using regression a n a l y s i s , keeping as many other f a c t -ors as possible constant. Even when t h i s was done, however, rates of planting between 420 and 1000 trees per man-day were found to have no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p to s u r v i v a l . This i s no doubt due to the many facto r s determining the number of trees that can be planted w e l l , and to the over-r i d i n g e f f e c t s of other f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g s u r v i v a l . In s p i t of t h i s a n a l y s i s , i t i s obvious that there i s an upper l i m i t to the rate at which a planter can plant w e l l . This rate depends on so many facto r s that no meaningful analysis was po s s i b l e . It i s important to d i s t i n g u i s h between the number of seedlings planted per man-day and the time required to plant one sur v i v i n g seedling. Naturally the l a t t e r figure i s the most important. Planting 100 seedlings per hour of which only 50 per cent w i l l survive i s no better than plant i n g 60 seedlings per hour with 85 per cent s u r v i v a l . 7. The influence of slashburning on s u r v i v a l The e f f e c t of severity and time of slashburning was analyzed i n r e l a t i o n to the s u r v i v a l of spring and f a l l -planted seedlings. Three classes of burn were analyzed: clean (hot); l i g h t and/or p a r t i a l ; and unburned. The r e s u l t 93. of t h i s analysis are presented i n Table IX. Table IX. 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 spring and f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings by the degree of slashburn. Based on 1081 s u r v i v a l l i n e s . Appendix l b shows the analysis of variance table. Season of Degree of slashburn pla n t i n g hot l i g h t and/ or p a r t i a l unburned Weighted average Spring 63.4 % 58.9 i 59.0 % 61.3 i P a l l 48.5 % 46.9 io 47.6 % 47.7 i Weighted average 58.4 i 53.3 i 54.3 i Survival was s i g n i f i c a n t l y increased by planting i n "hot" slashburned areas, but i n general there was l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e between the s u r v i v a l of seedlings planted on un-burned and l i g h t and/or p a r t i a l burns. It can be seen from table IX that the degree of slashburn has more e f f e c t on spring-planted than on f a l l -planted seedlings. In both cases there i s l i t t l e difference i n the s u r v i v a l of seedlings planted on l i g h t and/or p a r t i a l and unburned areas, but i n the case of f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings even a hot burn does not increase s u r v i v a l s i g n i f i c a n t l y . In the case of spring-planted seedlings, a hot burn has a d e f i n i t e e f f e c t on s u r v i v a l , increasing i t 4.5 per cent and 4.6 per cent over the other two classes of 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 author can o f f e r no explanation of the phenomena, other 94. than that the b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t of a hot burn on the sur-v i v a l of f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings i s masked by the many ad-verse fac t o r s a f f e c t i n g seedlings planted during t h i s season. The degree of slashburn would a f f e c t s u r v i v a l i n two general ways. A hot burn would tend to decrease sur-v i v a l through the adverse e f f e c t s of the burn on the phy s i c a l , chemical and b i o l o g i c a l properties of the s o i l , and a hot burn would tend to increase s u r v i v a l by removing competing vegetation and slash. In an attempt to analyze t h i s l a t t e r e f f e c t , s u r v i v a l was analyzed by the degree of slashburn and by the degree of brush and/or slash competition remain-ing a f t e r a f i r e . The r e s u l t s of t h i s analysis are summar-ized i n Table X. Table X. Per cent s u r v i v a l at the end of one growing season a f t e r planting by the degree of slashburn and the amount of ground competition. Based on 1081 s u r v i v a l l i n e s . Appendix l b shows the analysis of variance table. Degree of slashburn Ground cover competition l i g h t or none medium brush and/or slash heavy brush and/or slash Weighted average Hot 58.5 % 58.4 i 55*3 i* 58.4 i Light or p a r t i a l 57.2 % 52.9 io 50.4 i 53.3 i Unburned 63.8 % 54.8 io 49.7 i .54.3 i Weighted average 58.7 i 54.6 i 50.5 i * - few observations I t can be seen from Table X that s u r v i v a l i s red-uced by heavy brush and/or s l a s h on unburned areas. The h i g h e s t s u r v i v a l (63.8 a/o) occurs on unburned areas w i t h l i t t l e or no competing ground cover, and the lowest sur-v i v a l (49-7 io) occurs on unburned areas w i t h heavy ground cover c o m p e t i t i o n . Slashburning has the e f f e c t of equal-i z i n g s u r v i v a l under a l l ground cover c o n d i t i o n s . The adverse e f f e c t s of a hot slashburn on the phys-i c a l , 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 are evid e n t from Table X, i n the " l i g h t or none" ground cover c o m p e t i t i o n column. Here, the degree of ground cover comp-e t i t i o n i s u n i f o r m l y low. 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 achieved. I f the ground was l e f t c l e a n a f t e r l o g g i n g , the 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 here i s h i g h ; i f bur n i n g was necessary to achieve the " 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 evident that s l a s h b u r n i n g on s i t e s w i t h l i t t l e or no co m p e t i t i o n w i l l reduce s u r v i v a l . F o r t -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 s l a s h b u r n i n g . 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 cover competition, s l a s h b u r n i n g i s d e s i r a b l e both to reduce co m p e t i t i o n f o r the pl a n t e d s e e d l i n g s , and to. reduce the f i r e hazard. The number of years between s l a s h b u r n i n g and p l a n t i n g was analyzed i n r e l a t i o n to s u r v i v a l u s i n g r e g r e s -s i o n a n a l y s i s . The r e g r e s s i o n equation was not 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 the 9 6 . only independent v a r i a b l e , but was s i g n i f i c a n t when the year of p l a n t i n g was a l s o used as an independent 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 w i t h i n c r e a s i n g time between s l a s h b u r n i n g and p l a n t i n g . Although s i g n i f i c a n t , the equation accounted f o r a low p r o p o r t i o n of the v a r i a t i o n (sum of squares) i n s u r v i v a l ( 1 1 , 9 i°) , and had a high standard e r r o r of estimate (10.96 % ) . The r e l a t -i o n s h i p i s of l i t t l e importance because of i t s v a r i a b i l i t y and the f a c t t h a t i t i s not economically sound to wait too long a f t e r l o g g i n g before r e f o r e s t i n g . 8. The i n f l u e n c e of some environmental ( 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 s i t e R egression a n a l y s i s showed th a t there was no l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between the e l e v a t i o n of the p l a n t i n g s i t e and per cent s u r v i v a l . However, i t was suspected t h a t the r e l a t i o n s h i p may not have been l i n e a r , so the data was re-analyzed u s i n g a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e . 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 the 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 s e e d l i n g s 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 su r -v i v a l of s e e d l i n g s p l a n t e d above 3000 f e e t i n e l e v a t i o n . 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 were found between the av-erage 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 i n the e l e v a t i o n c l a s s e s . The r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s are summarized i n Table 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 of 97. Table XI. Per cent s u r v i v a l at the end of one growing season a f t e r planting of spring and f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings by the elevation class of the plant-ing 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 anal-y s i s of variance table. Season of planti n g E l e v a t i o n classes 0 - 1000 1001 2000 2001 - 3000 Weighted average Spring P a l l 62.2 io 46.8 % Weighted 5 6 i o average ' 60.4 % 50.1 % 55.9 io 60.1 io 61 .3 io 45.8 % 47.7 i 54.6 io planting was highly s i g n i f i c a n t . In other words, the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s u r v i v a l and elevation of planting was not the same f o r spring and f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings. As can be seen i n Table XI, the elevation of the planting s i t e made l i t t l e d i fference to the s u r v i v a l of spring-planted seedlings. However, the s u r v i v a l of f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings was improved when planted i n the 1001 to 2000-foot elevation class compared to the other two elevation classes. Possible explanations f o r the low s u r v i v a l of f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings planted i n the 0 - 1000-foot class may be l a t e f r o s t , and frost-heaving. The low s u r v i v a l of the high-elevation class may be due to early f r o s t s and heavy snow. b. Aspect of the planting s i t e Three classes of aspect were analyzed i n r e l a t i o n 98. to the per cent s u r v i v a l of spring and f a l l - p l a n t e d seed-l i n g s . The three aspect classes analyzed were: south to west, north to east, and f l a t . The mean s u r v i v a l of seed-l i n g s planted i n each of these classes was calculated, and tested f o r s i g n i f i c a n t differences using a n a l y s i s of variance, The mean s u r v i v a l of seedlings planted i n each aspect class i s shown i n Table XII. Table XII. 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 spring and f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings by the aspect of the planti n g s i t e . Based on 1081 s u r v i v a l l i n e s . App-endix l a shows the analysis of var-iance table. Season of Aspect Weighted P l a n t i n S ~ l ^ h ~ Hal n ^ h " ' a ^ r a g e to west to east  Spring 61.1 % 59.0 % 63.5 % 61.3 % P a l l 45.8 io 48.3 % 52.4 % 47.7 % Weighted ^ ^ ^ average / / J '  As can be seen from Table XII, s u r v i v a l was high-est f o r seedlings planted on north to east aspects f o r both spring and f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings. Aspect appears to make less d i f f e r e n c e to the s u r v i v a l of spring-planted than f a l l -planted seedlings. S u r v i v a l i s lowest f o r f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings on south to west slopes, and lowest f o r spring-planted seedlings on f l a t areas. In the case of spring-planted seedlings, however, the difference i n s u r v i v a l be-tween f l a t slopes and south to west aspects i s probably not 99. s i g n i f i c a n t . The s u r v i v a l of f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings varies d i r e c t l y with the se v e r i t y of exposure, s u r v i v a l being highest on north to east and lowest on south to west aspects. Since aspect exerts more of an influence on f a l l -planted seedlings than on spring-planted, i t seems advisable to reserve the north to east aspects f o r f a l l - p l a n t i n g . There are some exceptions to t h i s g e n e r a l i z a t i o n however. These are noted i n the.next section. c. The combined influence of aspect and elevation The combined e f f e c t of aspect and elevation on s u r v i v a l was analyzed using analysis of variance. The mean s u r v i v a l f o r each aspect by elevation class and season of pl a n t i n g i s shown i n Table XIII. Table XIII. Per cent s u r v i v a l at the end of one growing season a f t e r planting of spring and f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings by aspect and elevation class of the planti n g s i t e . Based on 1081 sur-v i v a l l i n e s . Appendix l a shows the analysis of variance table. E l e v a t i o n class and season Weighted Aspect of plant i n g average 0 - 1000 1001 - 2000 2001 - 3000 Spring P a l l Spring F a ' l l l Spring P a l l South to west 63.3% 47.2% 59.3% 47.8% 59.4% 42.6% 54. 3% Plat 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% Weight-ed avg. 62.2% 46.8% 60.4% 50.1% 60.1% 45.8% 100. S p r i n g p l a n t i n g r e s u l t s i n s u r v i v a l s u p e r i o r to f a l l p l a n t i n g on every aspect and e l e v a t i o n c l a s s combin-a t i o n . Since p l a n t i n g cannot be confined to the s p r i n g , the best combinations of aspect and e l e v a t i o n which r e s u l t i n the h i g h e s t f a l l s u r v i v a l should 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 these s i t e s do not a l s o represent g r e a t l y s u p e r i o r s p r i n g p l a n t i n g s i t e s . On the b a s i s of Table X I I I , comparatively good s u r v i v a l can be achieved 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 to east aspects 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 confined to these l i m i t s at a l l times; however, these s i t e s should be the f i r s t choice f o r f a l l p l a n t i n g , s i n c e none are b e t t e r than average choices f o r s p r i n g p l a n t i n g . Other a s p e c t - e l e v a t i o n combinations may be chosen f o r f a l l p l a n t i n g s i t e s , but some combinations, such as n o r t h to east aspects between 0 and 1000 f e e t , and south to west aspects between 2000 and 3000 f e e t , should be avoided f o r f a l l p l a n t i n g . d. Ground cover c o m p e t i t i o n The amount of brush and/or s l a s h on the ground at the time of p l a n t i n g was found to 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 to per cent s u r v i v a l a f t e r one growing season. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between the amount of ground cover c o m p e t i t i o n and s u r v i v a l i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table XIV. As can be seen from Table XIV, i n c r e a s i n g ground cover c o m p e t i t i o n r e s u l t e d i n decreased s u r v i v a l f o r both 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 . 101. Table XIV. Per cent s u r v i v a l at the end of one growing season a f t e r planting of spring and f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings by the degree of ground cover comp-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 anal-y s i s of variance t a b l e . Season of Degree of ground Weighted planting cover competition average none to Medium Heavy very l i g h t 61.3 % 47.7 % A regression analysis was done to determine i f l a r g e r seedlings had s i g n i f i c a n t l y better s u r v i v a l than small seedlings when planted i n heavy ground cover. This was not found to be the case. Although l a r g e r seedlings survived s l i g h t l y better than smaller seedlings when planted i n heavy ground cover, the r e l a t i o n s h i p was not s i g n i f i c a n t . A f urther analysis of variance was done to d e t e r -mine i f the e f f e c t of ground cover was more noticable on any p a r t i c u l a r aspect. Mean s u r v i v a l per cent by ground cover class and aspect, shown i n Table XV, i l l u s t r a t e s that heavy ground cover decreases s u r v i v a l on a l l aspects except north to east aspects. The d i f f e r i n g r eaction of the seedlings to the degree of ground cover competition depending on aspect i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the 95 per cent p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l . Spring 63.8 % P a l l 49.6 io Weighted 5 ? i o average ' 60.2 % 54.8 % 47.0 i 44.3 io 54.6 io 50.5 io 102. Table XV. Per cent s u r v i v a l at the end of one growing season a f t e r planting by aspect and ground cover competition classes. Based on 1081 observations. Appendix l b shows the analysis of variance table. Aspect Ground cover competition Weighted average l i g h t 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 east 60.5 i 59.2 % 60.0 % 59.8 i Weighted average 58.7 i 54.6 io 50.5 i The fact that heavy ground cover competition has v i r t u a l l y no influence on s u r v i v a l on north to east aspects, and severely reduces s u r v i v a l on f l a t and south to west aspects, i n d i c a t e s that the influence of ground cover i s mainly a competitive one. Any b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t of ground cover i n providing shade on south to west aspects i s masked by i t s adverse e f f e c t i n depleting s o i l moisture. On f l a t slopes, only heavy competition appears to reduce s u r v i v a l to any important extent. Where the f l a t areas coincide with bottomland,.this may be due as much to a competition f o r l i g h t and physical "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 Table XV that the degree of ground cover i s an important f a c t o r i n determining the e f f e c t of aspect on s u r v i v a l . Where there i s l i t t l e or no ground cover, aspect has l i t t l e influence on s u r v i v a l . A separate 103. analysis showed that s u r v i v a l was markedly reduced, esp-e c i a l l y f o r f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings, on unburned areas on south to west slopes compared to unburned areas on north to east or f l a t slopes. Therefore, there appears to be l i t t l e benefit i n brush control on north to east aspects i f per cent s u r v i v a l i s the c r i t e r i a of success. In order to determine what age and class of stock might be advantaged i n heavy brush and/or slash s i t e s , the mean s u r v i v a l per cent by age and class of stock and ground cover competition class was c a l c u l a t e d . The r e s u l t s of t h i s analysis are reproduced i n Table XVI, f o r spring-plant seedlings only. Table XVI. Per cent s u r v i v a l at the end of one growing season a f t e r planting by planting stock class and ground cover competition c l a s s , f o r spring-planted seedlings. Based on 799 s u r v i v a l l i n e s . Appendix Ig shows the an a l y s i of variance table. Age of Ground cover competition Weighted stock T~. 7T T! Z average l i g h t medium heavy & or none  1+ 0 86.0 $ 80.7 i * 82.6 $ 2 + 0 86.4 i 81.9 % 82.0 $ 83.5 $ 2 + 1 8 9 . 0 $ ' 89.3$ * 89.2$ Weighted 8 y 2 i o 83.9 i 82.0 $ average ' ' ' * = i n s u f f i c i e n t observations It can be seen from Table XVI that the s u r v i v a l of 1 + 0 and 2 + 0 stock was lower i n "medium" than i n the "none or l i g h t " ground cover competition c l a s s , while 2 + 1 104. stock was not so aff e c t e d . There i s l i t t l e difference i n the s u r v i v a l of 2 + 0 stock planted i n the medium or heavy ground cover classes f o r spring-planted seedlings. Unfort-unately, a s i m i l a r comparison was not possible f o r f a l l -planted seedlings. e. The e f f e c t of planting i n thick duff The average s u r v i v a l i n each of two duff thickness classes was calculated and compared using analysis of var-iance. These means are shown i n Table XVII. Table XVII. Per cent s u r v i v a l at the end of one growing season a f t e r planting of spring and f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings by two duff thickness classes. Based on 1426 s u r v i v a l l i n e s . App-endix I f shows the analysis of variance table . Season of planting Duff thickness class Weighted thick not thick average Spring 58.3 % 64.2 % 63.5 % P a l l 44.4 % 49.7 % 48.7 % Weighted 5 1 q • 5 9 0 i o average ' J '  The differences between a l l the means i n Table XVII are s i g n i f i c a n t at the 99 per cent p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l . The lower s u r v i v a l of both spring and f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings planted i n thick duff probably r e s u l t s from the fact that t h i s layer desiccates quickly during drying weather conditions. The author observed that a l l but the hottest of slashburns w i l l not reduce the thickness of the duff layer to any appreciable extent, but rather w i l l char i t f a i r l y uniformly. The basic structure of the duff layer (low 105. s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y , f i b r o u s , large amount of 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 f t e r a normal slashburn. S u r v i v a l on s i t e s with a heavy duff l a y e r could probably be s i g n i f i c a n t l y improved by planting large seed-l i n g s on these s i t e s , and ensuring that the root c o l l a r i s placed at the boundary between the duff l a y e r and' mineral s o i l . The author observed that some plantations were t o t a l f a i l u r e s due to planting small seedlings i n a thick duff layer. With the small size of seedlings used i t was nearly impossible f o r the planters to ensure that the roots were placed f i r m l y into mineral s o i l . f . The e f f e c t of topography-Topography was placed into four classes ( f l a t , r o l l i n g , s l i g h t to moderate and steep) and the mean sur-v i v a l per cent f o r each topography class calculated, f o r both Spring and f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings. Table X V I I I i l l u s -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 . The r e s u l t s are s i g n i f i c a n t at the 99 per 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 d ifference i n s u r v i v a l between seedlings planted on s l i g h t to moderate and steep slopes, f o r ei t h e r spring or f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings. P l a n t -ing on f l a t areas resulted i n the highest s u r v i v a l f o r both spring and f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings. In general, the. s u r v i v a l of spring-planted seedlings does not appear to be very much affected by topography. P a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings, however, 106. Table XVIII. Per cent s u r v i v a l at the end of one growing season a f t e r planting of spring and f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings by topography classes. Based on 1408 s u r v i v a l l i n e s . Appendix Id shows the analysis of variance table. Season of Topography class  planting f l a t r o l l i n g s l i g h t to steep moderate Spring P a l l Weighted average 65.8 io 54.6 i 62.4 i 63.2 i 44.9 i° 55.6 i 62.7 i 48.9 % 58.0 i 63.1 i 48.1 i 57.2 i Weighted average 63.4 i 49.2 i appear to be adversely affected by pl a n t i n g i n r o l l i n g topography. This low s u r v i v a l might be a t t r i b u t e d to a higher incidence of f r o s t pockets and wet microsites i n t h i s type of topography. Frost pockets may cause a higher incidence of frost-heaving, and t h i s would understandably a f f e c t f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings more than spring-planted. These r e s u l t s suggest that r o l l i n g topography should be avoided f o r f a l l p l anting. These areas should be planted i n the spring whenever possible. g. The e f f e c t of weather at the time of planting The mean s u r v i v a l of spring 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 of weather conditions was calculated, and the means compared using analysis of variance. These means are shown i n Table XIX. 107. Table XIX. Per cent s u r v i v a l at the end of one growing season a f t e r planting of spring and f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings by weather classes at the^time of planting. Based on 134-3 s u r v i v a l l i n e s . Appendix Ic shows the anal-y s i s of variance t a b l e . Weather class  Season of S u n ? v S u n * v C 1 ° u d v Showers Moderate Snow W e i h t e d . . and and to or to ° planting h o t m ± l d o y e r _ 1 ± h e a v y average cast r a i n r a i n Spring 62.5% 60 .7% 64 .8% 6 3 . 7 % 6 3 . 9 % 6 3.5% 6 3.2% P a l l 40'j-4% 4 7 . 1 % 4 9 . 3 % 51.4% 50.2% 46.4% 4 9.0% ™fa^! d 5 8 . 7 % 55.5% 59.2% 5 9.5% 5 6 . 3 % 56.2% I t can be seen from Table XIX that weather at the time of planting has l i t t l e e f f e c t on spring-planted seedlings. The s u r v i v a l of f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings, however, increases almost d i r e c t l y with decreasing moisture stress on the seedlings. P a l l planting on sunny and hot days i s to be e s p e c i a l l y avoided. Planting on snowy days i n the f a l l r e s u l t s i n reduced s u r v i v a l , but t h i s weather type has l i t t l e e f f e c t on the s u r v i v a l of spring-planted seedlings. Although no analysis was done on the i n t e r a c t i o n between weather and aspect or elevation, i t seems l o g i c a l to confine planting on hot days to higher elevations and northerly aspects whenever possible. This i s e s p e c i a l l y true i n the case of f a l l p lanting. The r e s u l t s of the analysis presented i n Table XIX do not r e f l e c t , i n the opinion of the author, the f u l l importance of weather on s u r v i v a l . There are two possible 1 0 8 . explanations for t h i s . F i r s t l y , there are too many var-i a b l e s not eliminated i n the analysis (e.g. elevation and aspect) which confound the r e s u l t s of weather alone; second-l y , no i n d i c a t i o n i s given of the weather before or a f t e r p lanting. Since the weather patterns of Vancouver Island and the adjacent mainland can be very v a r i a b l e , the second explanation i s probably the more important. 9. The influences of some genetic f a c t o r s on s u r v i v a l a. 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 unexplained variation;: i n the s u r v i v a l of planted seedlings. There are a number of ways i n which the population of trees from which the seed was selected may a f f e c t the s u r v i v a l of planted' seedlings. Among the most important seedling c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which may vary between groups of parent trees and a f f e c t s u r v i v a l are: rate of root growth; root branching; rate of height and diameter growth;, ecotypic adaption to moisture and temper-ature regimes; a b i l i t y to withstand/heavy snow; date of fl u s h i n g ; mycorrhizal associations; top/root r a t i o ; and the length of the growing season. The e f f e c t of some of these f a c t o r s may be l a r g e l y eliminated when proper prov-enances are used. Other fac t o r s may vary importantly between two populations within the same provenance. The r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the inheritance of eco-typi c adaptions and s u r v i v a l of planted seedlings have not 1 0 9 . been adequately investigated. I t i s not unreasonable to assume, f o r instance, that seedlings grown from seed taken from wet ecotypes may havehligh top/root r a t i o s and hence be disadvantaged on dry s i t e s . b. Seed o r i g i n The mean s u r v i v a l of seedlings o r i g i n a t i n g from a number of d i f f e r e n t seedlots was calculated and compared using analysis of variance. Although the differences i n s u r v i v a l between seedlots were highly s i g n i f i c a n t , no meaningful conclusions could be drawn from the a n a l y s i s . The seedlings from most seedlots were planted much more in one d i v i s i o n than i n others, and since the s u r v i v a l between d i v i s i o n s was also s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t , the e f f e c t s of the two v a r i a b l e s could not be separated. I t could not be determined whether differences i n s u r v i v a l were due to the seedlot o r i g i n of the seedlings or to c l i m a t i c differences between d i v i s i o n s . The influence of seed o r i g i n on s u r v i v a l should be evaluated i n a properly designed experiment. c. Seed c l a s s i f i c a t i o n S u r vival was also analyzed by the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the stand from which the 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 better trees i n a normal stand. No s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found 110. i n the s u r v i v a l of seedlings o r i g i n a t i n g from these types of stands. However, there i s no reason to assume that a stand selected f o r i t s superior growth and form'characteristics has any s p e c i a l genetic adaption 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 seedlings o r i g i n a t i n g from stands selected on the basis of, f o r instance, rooting habit, may y i e l d e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s . d. E l e v a t i o n and aspect of the seed c o l l e c t i o n areas and the plantations Mean s u r v i v a l was calculated by the elevation and aspect classes of both the seed c o l l e c t i o n area and the pla n t a t i o n . Neither the aspect nor the elevation of the seed 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 s u r v i v a l . Both of these fa c t o r s , however, may a f f e c t the growth of the planted seedlings. The i n t e r a c t i o n between the aspect of the plantation and the aspect of the seed c o l l e c t i o n area was not s i g n i f i c a n t . Therefore, on the basis of these observations, the aspect of the seed c o l l e c t i o n area does not influence s u r v i v a l no matter what the aspect of the plantation. For instance, seedlings o r i g i n a t i n g from seed c o l l e c t e d on south to west aspects w i l l not survive better when planted on t h i s aspect than seedlings whose parents originate from any other aspect. I t may be concluded, therefore, that seed production areas 1 1 1 . would be most advantageously placed on south to west aspects, since seed production i s usually greater on t h i s aspect than on others. A s i m i l a r analysis was done fo r elevation. There 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 eit h e r the elevation of the seed c o l l e c t i o n area or the plantation, or between s u r v i v a l and the i n t e r a c t i o n between the elevation of the seed c o l l e c t i o n area and the elevation of the plant-ation. In other words, based on these observations, i t app-eared to make no difference at what elevation the seedlings were planted at, i r r e s p e c t i v e of the elevation at which t h e i r parents were growing. However, there were no observations of seedlings whose parents originate from very low elevations and were planted at very high elevations. The e f f e c t of both elevation and aspect of the seed c o l l e c t i o n area on s u r v i v a l may have been e f f e c t i v e l y masked by the more important env-ironmental conditions at the p l a n t i n g s i t e . Also, aspect and elevation, may not be too meaningful when not correlated d i r e c t l y to c l i m a t i c s i m i l a r i t i e s . V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS It i s obvious that a multitude of f a c t o r s , not a l l apparent from the analyses reported here, a f f e c t the s u r v i v a l of planted Douglas-fir seedlings. These factors act not only by themselves, but t h e i r e f f e c t i s confounded, lessened or increased, 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 instance the aspect of the plantation was shown to s i g -n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t ' s u r v i v a l . However i f a second' f a c t o r , 1 1 2 . g r o u n d c o v e r , i s c o n s i d e r e d , t h e a d v e r s e e f f e c t o f s o u t h t o w e s t a s p e c t s o n s u r v i v a l i s i n c r e a s e d w h e n h e a v y g r o u n d c o v e r i s p r e s e n t . I f a t h i r d f a c t o r , t h e s e a s o n o f p l a n t i n g , i s a d d e d , i t i s a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e e f f e c t o f h e a v y g r o u n d c o v e r o n s o u t h t o w e s t a s p e c t s i s m o s t n o t i e a b l e f o r f a l l -p l a n t e d s e e d l i n g s . S l a s h b u r n i n g t h e s e s i t e s c o n f o u n d s it,he a f f e c t o f a s p e c t o n s u r v i v a l s t i l l f u r t h e r . I n m o s t c a s e s , t h e r e f o r e , i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o a s s i g n a s p e c i f i c r e a s o n f o r m o r t a l i t y . A n y o n e a g e n t c a n b e c h o s e n a s t h e f a c t o r c a u s i n g m o r t a l i t y w i t h a f a i r d e g r e e o f a s s u r a n c e t h a t i t h a d " s o m e t h i n g " t o d o w i t h i t . I t i s d e s i r a b l e t o k n o w t h e r e l a t i v e i m p o r t a n c e o f e a c h f a c t o r u n d e r d i f f e r e n t c o n d i t i o n s s o t h a t t i m e a n d e f f o r t w i l l n o t b e w a s t e d i n c o r r e c t i n g f o r a f a c t o r w h i c h i n g e n e r a l h a s t h e - e f f e c t o f r e d u c i n g s u r v i v a l , b u t n o t u n d e r t h e p a r t i c -u l a r c o n d i t i o n s e x i s t i n g a t t h e t i m e a n d p l a c e . I n g e n e r a l t h e f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g s u r v i v a l m a y b e b r o k e n d o w n ' i n t o t h r e e m a i n t y p e s : s e e d l i n g f a c t o r s , p l a n t -i n g f a c t o r s , a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l f a c t o r s ' . N o r m a l l y , t h e i m p -o r t a n c e o f e a c h t y p e i n c r e a s e s a s t h e o t h e r s b e c o m e m o r e l i m i t i n g . F o r e x a m p l e t h e q u a l i t y o f p l a n t i n g b e c o m e s i n -c r e a s i n g l y i m p o r t a n t a s o t h e r f a c t o r s , b y t h e m s e l v e s a n d i n c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h o t h e r f a c t o r s , b e c o m e m o r e a d v e r s e . T h i s i s o n l y t r u e t o a p o i n t h o w e v e r ; a f a c t o r m a y b e c o m e s o a d v e r s e o r l i m i t i n g t h a t t h e q u a l i t y o f p l a n t i n g m a k e s l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e t o s u r v i v a l . L i t t l e c a n b e d o n e t o h a l t p l a n t a t i o n f a i l u r e s 1 1 3 . r e s u l t i n g from extreme f a c t o r s such as prolonged drought. Much can be done to c o u n t e r a c t the e f f e c t of a f a c t o r or f a c t o r s b e i n g merely l e s s than optimum, however. T h i s can be a c h i e v e d through p l a n n i n g and f o r e t h o u g h t , e n s u r i n g t h a t as few f a c t o r s as p o s s i b l e are l i m i t i n g to s u r v i v a l at any one time. The author has p r e s e n t e d some r e s u l t s which i l l u s -t r a t e how s u r v i v a l might be improved through p l a n t i n g the proper s i t e s at the proper time. Some s p e c i f i c recommend-a t i o n s f o r improving s u r v i v a l a r e : 1) i n c r e a s e d use of 1 + 0 s t o c k on m o i s t , upland s i t e s which have a low brush i n v a s i o n h a z a r d , thereby per-m i t t i n g expanded use of 2 + 1 s t o c k on s i t e s w i t h a low s u r v i v a l p o t e n t i a l because of competing brush; 2) care i n the c h o i c e of p l a n t i n g s i t e s f o r e a r l y and l a t e s p r i n g p l a n t i n g and e a r l y f a l l p l a n t i n g , to ensure t h a t s e e d l i n g s l i f t e d and p l a n t e d at these times w i l l be p l a n t e d i n s i t e s conducive to s u r v i v a l ; 3) a t t e m p t i n g to ensure t h a t the r a t e of p l a n t i n g i s not f a s t e r or slower than the minimum 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 , under the p a r t i c u l a r set of c o n d i t i o n s e x i s t i n g ; 4) proper brush c o n t r o l , so t h a t s i t e s w i t h a h i g h brush and/or s l a s h content are s l a s h b u r n e d or o t h e r -wise p r e p a r e d f o r b e t t e r p l a n t i n g s u r v i v a l chances, espec-i a l l y f o r f a l l p l a n t i n g on south to west a s p e c t s ; 5) not p l a n t i n g s m a l l s e e d l i n g s i n areas w i t h a t h i c k d u f f l a y e r ; 114. 6) attempting to plant the cooler and moister s i t e s during hot and drying weather, and planting the s i t e s with lower a v a i l a b l e moisture and high p o t e n t i a l evapotrans-p i r a t i o n during cool and moist weather; and 7) avoiding r o l l i n g topography, north to east as-pects between 0 and 1000 feet i n elevation and south to west aspects between 2000 and 3000 feet 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 higher s u r v i v a l on the average, they w i l l not r e s u l t i n higher s u r v i v a l i n every s i t u a t i o n . In order to reduce the element of chance, further work and research i s neces-sary. Separate analysis by c l i m a t i c zones and physiographic s i t e s would be e s p e c i a l l y valuable. Further data f o r t h i s type of study can best be obtained within the framework of the e x i s t i n g s u r v i v a l studies c a r r i e d out by the company, and described i n Section I I I . However, modifications and improvements are needed, e s p e c i a l l y i n determining the e f f e c t of seedling fac t o r s on s u r v i v a l . In order to ach-ieve t h i s , the author recommends an integrated programme with the Reforestation D i v i s i o n of the B r i t i s h Columbia Forest Service. The f i r s t step i n the programme should be at the nursery l e v e l . The nurseryman should make availa 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 of the seedlings, or a "seed-l i n g biography" as described by Trappe and Krueger (1964). This biography should include such factors as: seedlot number, time of sowing, age and class of stock, date of l i f t i n g and root pruning, length of storage, date of 115. shipment, any unusual treatment of the seedlings, and a r a t i n g by a regeneration s p e c i a l i s t as to the " s u r v i v a l p o t e n t i a l " of the seedlings. Also at the nursery l e v e l , a planned research programme to improve nursery stock q u a l i t y should be undertaken. This programme should be e s p e c i a l l y aimed at "pre-conditioning"' seedlings f o r high food reserves and root regenerating p o t e n t i a l through stock s e l e c t i o n and nursery p r a c t i c e . The f i e l d t r i a l s of these seedlings might be done under the d i r e c t i o n of the company s i l v i c u l t u r i s t . The information about each group of seedlings should accompany the seedlings i n shipment. On the same standard form, the p l a n t i n g supervisor should record how long and under what conditions the seedlings were i n t r a n s i t , and under what conditions the seedlings were stored at the planting s i t e before planting. This biography would also serve to give the f o r e s t e r a good assessment of the s u r v i v a l p o t e n t i a l of the seedlings, and enable him to choose the best planting s i t e f o r each group of seedlings. L i t t l e more information than i s already being gathered would be necessary. However some changes i n the method of c o l l e c t i n g the data would be advisable. F i r s t l y , the information gathered should be placed on standard coding forms to f a c i l i t a t e future a n a l y s i s . Secondly, a standard set of classes f o r each variable should be used. This would f a c i l i t a t e any future analysis and the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the s u r v i v a l l i n e . T h i r d l y , the information should be applicable 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 plant-ation i n general. Environmental ( s i t e ) f a c t o r s recommended f o r obs-ervation and study i n future s u r v i v a l studies, and the c l a s s -i f i c a t i o n of these f a c t o r s , are: 1. Weather at plant i n g a. sunny and warm b. sunny and mild c. overcast d. cloudy e. showers or l i g h t r a i n f. moderate or heavy r a i n g. snow 2. S o i l conditions a. moisture r e l a t i o n s during the growing season i . normally wet i i . normally moist i i i . normally fresh i v . normally dry v. normally very dry b. texture i . g r a v e l l y or rocky i i . sandy i i i . loamy i v . s i l t y or a f a i r proportion of clay v. high clay content 3. Topography a. f l a t b. r o l l i n g c. s l i g h t slope d. moderate slope e. steep slope 4. P o s i t i o n on slope a. v a l l e y bottom b. lower slope c. middle slope d. upper slope e. bench 5. Aspect a. f l a t b. SE, S, SW c. NE, N, NW d. West e. East 117. 6. Slashburn i n t e n s i t y a. hot b. moderate c. l i g h t d. p a r t i a l e. unburned 7. Vegetative, competition a. l i g h t or none b. .^moderate c. severe 8. Dominant vegetation type ( each f o r e s t e r should determine the f i v e or s ix main vegetation types occurring i n h i s d i v i s i o n and use these) 9. Amount of slash a. l i t t l e b. moderate c. heavy---10. Depth to mineral s o i l a. 0 to 1/2 inches b. 1/2 to 3 inches c. 3 inches 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 (to the nearest 100 feet above sea l e v e l ) 12. Latitude and longitude of the plantation ( i n decimal units) A knowledge of the above fact o r s would provide a 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 reasonable to obtain within operational planting l i m i t s . A knowledge of these fac t o r s would also be desirable f o r any growth studies to be done on the planted seedlings. 1 18. VI. SUMMARY Prom data provided by MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. to the Faculty of Forestry, the author attempted to analyze some factors a f f e c t i n g the s u r v i v a l of planted Douglas-fir seedlings. Representative staked seedlings were examined by company f o r e s t e r s one and three growing seasons a f t e r plant-ing, and the per cent s u r v i v a l t a l l i e d . Information was a v a i l a b l e from company records on seedling and environmental f a c t o r s i n each pl a n t a t i o n . This information was analyzed i n r e l a t i o n to s u r v i v a l using s t a t i s t i c a l techniques. The author also spent four weeks of the summer of 1966 v i s i t i n g many representative plantations i n most of the d i v i s i o n s of the company. The class of planting stock (1+0, 2+0, 2+1) was analyzed by spring and f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings. Spring-planted 1+0 stock was shown to have good s u r v i v a l , probably because of the care taken i n the choice of planting s i t e s . Spring-planted 2+1 stock did not have any better s u r v i v a l than 2+0 stock planted i n the same season. However 2+1 stock planted i n the f a l l had much better s u r v i v a l than f a l l - p l a n t e d 2+0 stock. A subjective 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 planting crew foremen of the condition of the seedlings did not have any meaningful 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. Neither the l i f t i n g date nor the length of time 119-between l i f t i n g and planting were found to be rel a t e d to s u r v i v a l a f t e r outplanting of spring-planted seedlings. Planting date was related at the 9 5 per cent probability-l e v e l , s u r v i v a l decreasing with l a t e r spring p l a n t i n g dates. In the case of f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings, the i n t e r v a l between l i f t i n g and planting dates had no influence on sur-v i v a l a f t e r outplanting. However both the l i f t i n g and plant-ing dates influenced s u r v i v a l , at the 99 per cent p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l . S u r v i v a l was found to Increase with 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 were found to e x i s t i n the s u r v i v a l of seedlings o r i g i n a t i n g from three nurseries, Green Timbers, Duncan and Quinsam. The number of trees planted per man-day was not found to be related to s u r v i v a l , but t h i s i s f e l t by the author to be the r e s u l t of highly variable s i t e and planting f a c t o r s . The hotness of the slashburn was found to have a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p to the s u r v i v a l of spring-planted seedlings, but not to f a l l - p l a n t e d . A hot burn increased the s u r v i v a l of spring-planted seedlings. Subsequent anal-y s i s showed that ground cover competition 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 competition was l i g h t , unburned areas resulted i n the highest s u r v i v a l ; where ground comp-e t i t i o n was severe, a hot burn resulted i n the highest sur-v i v a l . 120. An analysis of aspect and elevation i n r e l a t i o n to s u r v i v a l showed that spring planting resulted i n higher s u r v i v a l on a l l aspect-elevation 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 seedlings was achieved on north to east aspects between 1000 and 3000 f e e t . P a l l planting seedlings on north to east aspects between 0 and 1000 feet and south to west aspects between 2000 and 3000 feet resulted 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 cover competition resulted i n lower s u r v i v a l f o r both spring and f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings. A •regression analysis showed that although l a r g e r seedlings survived s l i g h t l y better than smaller seedlings when planted i n heavy ground cover, the r e l a t i o n s h i p was note: s i g n i f i c a n t . Heavy ground cover reduced s u r v i v a l on a l l aspects except north to east aspects. Where there was l i t t l e or no ground cover, aspect had l i t t l e influence on s u r v i v a l . Planting seedlings i n thick duff 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 spring and f a l l - p l a n t e d seedlings. An analysis of s u r v i v a l by topographic classes showed that steep south to west slopes and r o l l i n g topog-raphy should be avoided as f a l l planting s i t e s . Planting on sunny and hot days resulted i n red-uced s u r v i v a l , as did f a l l - p l a n t i n g on snowy days. Some genetic f a c t o r s were analyzed i n r e l a t i o n to 1 2 1 . s u r v i v a l . The s e e d l o t o r i g i n o f the s e e d l i n g s was found to be 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 . However the seed c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and the as p e c t and e l e v a t i o n of the seed c o l l e c t i o n a r e a compared to the aspect and e l e v a t i o n o f the p l a n t a t i o n were not found to be r e l a t e d to s u r v i v a l . 122 . VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackerman, R.P., D.I. Crossley, L.L. Kennedy and J . Chedzay. 1 9 6 6 . Preliminary r e s u l t s of a f i e l d t est of b u l l e t planting i n Alberta. Canada Dept. of Forestry Pub. No. 1098. 20 pp. Ackhurst, P.W. 1 9 6 6 . An analysis of the facto r s governing the s u r v i v a l and i n i t i a l growth of forest tree p l a n t i n g stock. U n i v e r s i t y of B.C., Faculty of Forestry. B.S.F. t h e s i s . 6 8 pp. Adams, R.S., J.R. Ritchey and W.G. Todd. 1 9 6 6 . A r t i f i c i a l shade improves s u r v i v a l of planted Douglas-fir and white f i r seedlings. C a l i f o r n i a D i v i s i o n of For-e s t r y . State Forest Note No. 28. 11 pp. A l l e n , G.S. 1 9 5 4 . Facts, f i c t i o n and f o r e s t r y . Canadian Forestry Assoc., Forest Conservation Lecture Series. 7 pp. 1 9 5 5 . E s t a b l i s h i n g the crop. Forestry Chronicle. V o l . 3 1 : 3 1 - 3 4 . Armit, D. 1 9 6 1 . P l a n t a t i o n t r i a l s . B.C. Forest Service, Forest Research Review. E.P. 5 0 2 . p. 2 3 . ( 1 9 6 2 p. 18, 1 9 6 3 p. 2 0 , 1964 p. 26, 1 9 6 5 p. 2 9 , 1 9 6 6 p. 6 3 ) . Austin, R.C. and D.A. Baisinger. 1 9 5 5 . Some e f f e c t s of burning on forest s o i l s of western Oregon and Washington. Journal of Forestry. V o l . 5 3 : 275-280. Bamford, A.H. 1 9 6 3 . Planting. Forestry Chronicle. V o l . 3 9 : 1 4 9 - 1 5 3 . Berntsen, CM. 1 9 5 8 . A test planting of 2 - 0 and 3 - 0 Douglas-f i r trees on a steep south slope. U.S.D.A. P a c i f i c North West Forest and Range Experiment Station. Research Note No.. 1 6 5 . 4 pp. 1 9 6 0 . Planting S i t k a spruce and Douglas-fir on decayed wood i n coastal Oregon. U.S.D.A. P a c i f i c North West Forest and Range Experiment Station. Research Note No. 1 9 7 . 5 pp. Boyce, J.S. 1 9 6 1 . Forest Pathology. McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc. New York. 572 pp. Brace, L.G. 1 9 6 4 . . E a r l y development of white spruce as r e l -ated to planti n g method and planting stock height. Canada Dept. of Forestry. P u b l i c a t i o n No. 1049. 15 pp. B r i t i s h Columbia Forest Service. 1 9 6 7 . Annual report f o r 1 9 6 6 . B.C. Dept. of Lands, Forests and Water Res-ources. 122 pp. 1 2 3 . Burns, R.M. 1961. Rabbitt r e p e l l a n t s i n north M i s s i s s i p p i . Tree Planters' Notes. No. 4 5:19 - 2 2 . Cayford, 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 of planted spruce and pine i n Manitoba. Tree Planters' Notes. No. 4 8 : 1 3 - 1 4 . Champagne, E.G. 1 9 5 4 . Wood chip mulch improves red pine s u r v i v a l . Central States Forest Experiment Station. Station Note No. 8 6 . 2 pp. Childs, T.W. 1 9 6 0 . Drought e f f e c t s on co n i f e r s i n the p a c i f i c north west, 1 9 5 8 - 5 9 . U.S.D.A. P a c i f i c North West Forest and Range Experiment Stat i o n . Research Note No. 182. 5 pp. Ching, K.K. 1 9 6 5 . E a r l y growth of Douglas-fir 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 , Forest Research Laboratory, C o r v a l l i s , Oregon. Research Paper No. 3 . 2 P pp. Clark, M.B. 1 9 6 6 . Douglas-fir p l a n t i n g t r i a l s . B.C. Forest Service. Forest 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 of the food of the Columbia b l a c k - t a i l e d deer, Odocoileus bemionus  columbianus (Richardson), i n the coast forest region of southern Vancouver Island, 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 . Experiences i n container p l a n t i n g i n Alberta. Western Forestry and Conser-vat i o n Association, Western Reforestation 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 increased by carefulness i n f i e l d p l anting. U.S.D.A. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Stat 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 of environment on heat tolerance of Douglas-fir seedlings. Forest Science V o l . 1 2 : 2 1 1 . De Vos, A. 1 9 5 8 . The influence of browsing animals on fo r e s t regeneration. Forestry Chronicle V o l . 3 4 : Dick, J . 1 9 6 3 . First-season s u r v i v a l and grwoth of stored Douglas-fir, Noble f i r and ponderosa pine planting stock. Weyerhauser Co., Timberland D i v i s i o n . Forest Research Center, C e n t r a l i a , Washington. Forest Res-earch Note No. 5 1 . 5 pp. 1 9 6 4 a . Rutex treatment of Ponderosa pine planting stock. Tree Planters' Notes. No. 6 5 : 1 4 - 1 5 . 1 9 6 4 b . Depth for planting Ponderosa pine. Tree Planters' Notes. No. 6 6 : 1 0 - 1 2 , 124. Dimock I I , E.J. 1 9 6 4 . Supplemental treatments to aid planted Douglas-fir i n dense bracken fe r n . U.S.D.A. P a c i f i c North West Forest and Range Experiment Station. 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 of logging and slash burning on p h y s i c a l s o i l prop-e 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 North West Forest and Range Experiment Station. Res-earch Paper No. 1 9 . 15 pp. Forestry Commission, U.K. 1 9 5 9 . Report on fo r e s t research, 1 9 5 8 . Her Majesty's Stationery O f f i c e , London, England. Foster, R.E. and A.L.S. Johnson. 1 9 6 3 . The s i g n i f i c a n c e of root rot and f r o s t damage i n some Douglas-fir plantations. Forestry Chronicle, Vol. 3 9 : 266 - 2 7 2 . Gockerell, E.C. 1 9 6 6 . Plantations on burned versus unburned areas. Journal of Forestry. V o l . 6 4 : 3 9 2 - 3 9 4 . Graham, K. 1 9 6 3 . Concepts of fo r e s t entomology. Reinhold Pub. Co. New York. 3 8 8 pp. Gratk@wski, H. 1 9 5 9 . E f f e c t s of herbicides on some important brush species i n southwestern Oregon. U.S.D.A. P a c i f i c North West Forest and Range Experiment Stati o n . Research Paper No. 3 1 . 33 pp. Harvey, G.M. 1 9 6 1 . E f f e c t s of r e f r i g e r a t i o n and shipping on s'ugar pine f i e l d u s u r v i v a l . Tree Planters' Notes No. 4 5 : Hermann, R.K. 1 9 6 2 . The e f f e c t of short-term exposure of roots on s u r v i v a l of 2 - 0 Douglas-fir stocks Tree Planters' Notes. No. 5 2 : 28 - 3 0 . 1 9 6 3 . Temperatures beneath various seedbeds on a clearcut f o r e s t area i n the Oregon Coast Range. Northwest Science. Vol. 3 7 : 9 3 - 1 0 3 . 1 9 6 4 a . Paper mulch f o r r e f o r e s t a t i o n i n south-western Oregon. Journal of Forestry. V o l . 62: 9 8 - 1 0 1 . 1 9 6 4 b . E f f e c t s of prolonged exposure of roots on s u r v i v a l of 2 - 0 Douglas-fir seedlings. Journal of Forestry. V o l . 62: 4 0 1 - 4 0 3 . 1 9 6 4 c Importance of top-root r a t i o s f o r sur-v i v a l of Douglas-fir seedlings. Tree Planters' Notes. No. 6 4 : 7 - 1 1 . 1 9 6 5 . S u r v i v a l of planted ponderosa pine i n southern Oregon. Oregon State U n i v e r s i t y , Forest Research Laboratory. Research Paper No. 2 . 3 2 pp. • and W.F. Ch i l c o t e . 1 9 6 5 . E f f e c t of seedbeds on germination and s u r v i v a l of Douglas-fir. Oregon State U n i v e r s i t y , Forest Research Laboratory. Res-earch Paper No. 4 . 28 pp. 125. Hetherington, J.C. 1962. Brush control i n coastal B r i t i s h Columbia. B.C. Forest Service. Forest Research Review. E.P. 5 9 4 . p. 3 5 . 1 9 6 3 . T r i a l s of tree species and i n i t i a l spacing on the west coast of Vancouver Island. B.C. Forest Service. Forest Research Review. E.P. 5 7 1 . p. 1 3 . 1 9 6 4 . The germination and s u r v i v a l of western hemlock and associated species on the west coast of Vancouver Island. B.C. Forest Service. Forest Research Review. E.P. 5 5 5 . p. 6 3 . Huntly, J.H. 1 9 6 0 . Assessment of s u r v i v a l and growth prospects of seedlings of Douglas-fir. U n i v e r s i t y of 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. 1 9 6 6 a . B u l l e t planting with Douglas-fir, pre-liminary t r i a l s , 1 9 6 5 . B.C. Forest Service. Forest Research Review. E.P. 6 4 4 . p.6 7 . 1 9 6 6 b . A study of Douglas-fir planting stock on high s i t e lands subject to dense plant cover. B.C. Forest Service. Forest Research Review. E.P. 5 8 9 . p. 64. 1 9 6 6 c . The s u r v i v a l and i n i t i a l growth of various types of Douglas-fir planting stock. B.C. Forest Service. Forest Research Review. E.P. 6 2 5 . p. 6 6 . Isaac, L.A. 1 9 3 8 . Factors a f f e c t i n g establishment of Douglas-f i r seedlings. 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 for e s t s o i l of the Douglas-fir region, and changes wrought upon i t by logging and slash burning. Ecolo.gy. V o l . 18: 264 - 2 7 9 . Jaworsky, J.M. 1 9 5 8 . Some problems concerning Douglas-fir nursery stock r e f l e c t e d i n experimental plan t i n g at Sutton Creek, Spring 1954 and 1 9 5 5 . Association of B.C. Foresters Thesis. 118 pp. Jorgensen, E. and W.K.E. Stanek. 1 9 6 2 . Overwinter storage of coniferous seedlings as a means of preventing l a t e f r o s t damage. Forestry Chronicle V o l . 3 8 : Kahler, L.H. and A.R. Gilmore. 1 9 6 1 . F i e l d s u r v i v a l of cold stored l o b l o l l y pine seedlings. Tree Planters' Notes No. 4 1 : 1 5 - 1 6 . Knight, H. 1 9 5 7 . Growth and s u r v i v a l of experimental plant-ations of Douglas-fir. B.C. Forest Service. Res-earch Note No. 3 3 . 22 pp. Koshi, P.T. 1 9 6 0 . Deep planting has l i t t l e e f f e c t i n a wet year. Tree Planters' 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 multiple regression program f o r e l e c t r o n i c computing. Forestry Chronicle. V o l . 41: 438-443. Kramer, P.J. and T.T. Kozlowski. 1960. Physiology of trees. McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc. New York. 642 pp. Krueger, K.W. 1 9 6 6 . Hidden changes i n Douglas-fir seedlings suggest timing of nursery operations. 10th B i e n n i a l Western Forest Nursery Council Meeting. 4 pp. 1967. Nitrogen, phosphorous and carbohydrate i n expanding and year-old Douglas-fir shoots. Forest Science. Vol. 13:352-356. and J.M. Trappe. 1967. Food reserves and seas-onal growth of Douglas-fir seedlings. Forest Science. V o l . 13:192-202. Krygier, J.T. 1 9 5 8 . S u r v i v a l and growth of t h i r t e e n tree species i n coastal Oregon. U.S.D.A. P a c i f i c North West Forest and Range Experiment Station. Research Paper No. 26. 20 pp. Langdon, O.G. 1 9 5 4 . S k i l l f u l l i f t i n g technique increases seedling s u r v i v a l . Tree Planters' Notes. No. 18: Lavender, D.P. 1 9 5 8 . E f f e c t of seed size on Douglas-fir seedlings. Oregon Forest Lands Research Center, C o r v a l l i s , Oregon. Research Note No. 32. 32 pp. 1 9 6 4 . Date of l i f t i n g f o r s u r v i v a l of Douglas-f i r seedlings. Forest Research Laboratory. Oregon State 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. Wright. 1960. Don't l i f t D ouglas-fir seedlings too e a r l y . The Timberman, Aug. 1 9 6 0 . 2 pp. Lawrence, W.H. 1 9 6 0 . Evaluation of bone t a r - o i l as a deer re p e l l e n t f o r Douglas-fir seedlings. Wayerhauser Co. Timberland Div. Forest Research Center, C e n t r a l i a , Washington. Forest Research Note No. 32. 5 pp. 1 9 6 4 . Where do we stand with r e p e l l e n t s and systemics? Western Forestry and Conservation Assoc. Western Reforestation 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 seedlings as affected by nursery f e r t i l i z a t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota, School of Forestry. Minn-esota Forestry Note No. 7 5 . 2 pp. Leech, R.H. 1 9 6 4 . Reforestation of a sand p l a i n i n Ontario. Research Branch, Ontario Dept., of Lands and Forests. Research Reprint No. 5 1 . 81 pp. 127. Loewenstein, H. 1964. Planting studies at the University of Idaho. Western Forestry and Conservation Assoc. Western Reforestation Coord. Comm. Proc. 1964: 22-25. and F.H. P i t k i n . 1961. Some factors 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 Station, College of Forestry, University of Idaho. Research Note No. 18. 18 pp. Lutz, H.J. and R.F. Chandler, J r . 1946. Forest Soils'. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York. 514 pp. MacArther, J.D. 1964. Planting methods to overcome strong competition from dense herbacious vegetation. Canada Dept. of Forestry. Forest Research Branch. Contribution No. 6 3 8 . 4 pp. Madison, R.W. 1959. Growth and su r v i v a l of a Sitka spruce plantation i n coastal Oregon. U.S.D.A. P a c i f i c North West Forest and Range Experiment Station. Research Note No. 178. 6 pp. Maguire, W.P. 1952. Some observations on the use of the trans-p i r a t i o n i n h i b i t o r "Plantcote" on l i f t e d tree seedlings. Tree Planters' Notes. No. 12: 15-17. Meagher, M.D. 1961. F i e l d s u r v i v a l and growth of experimentally treated Douglas-fir nursery stock. B.C. Forest Service. Forest Research Review. E.P. 392. p. 20. Merz, R. 1951. Comparative survivals and costs of plantations by d i f f e r e n t methods of ground preparation and plant-ing. Central States Forest Experiment Station. Station Note No. 64. 2 pp. Mi t c h e l l ^ R.J I 1964. Height growth losses due to animal feeding i n Douglas-fir plantations, Vancouver Island, B.C. Forestry Chronicle. Vol. 40: 298-307. Moore, A.W. 1940. Wild animal damage to seed and seedlings on • cut-over Douglas-fir lands of Oregon and Washington. U.S.D.A. Technical B u l l e t i n No. 706. 28 pp. Morris;, W.G. 1958. Influence of slash burning on regeneration, other plant cover, and f i r e hazard i n the Douglas-fir region ( a progress report). U.S.D.A. P a c i f i c North West Forest and Range Experiment Station. Research Paper No. 2 9 . 49 pp. , 1966. Guidelines offered f o r slashburning. Forest Industries Magazine Reprin tt. 2 pp. Mowat, E.L. 1961. Ef f e c t of a tran s p i r a t i o n retardant on sur-v i v a l of planted Ponderosa pine. U.S.D.A. P a c i f i c North West Forest and Range Experiment Station. Res. Note No. 2 0 3 . 4 pp. Mulling R.E. 1962. The storage of planting stock i n the f i e l d . Forestry Chronicle. Vol. 3 8 : 1964. Influence of planting depth on su r v i v a l and growth of red pine. Forestry Chronicle Vol. 40: 384-391. 128. Muraro, S.J. 1963. Preliminary i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of cl 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 to the topography of mountain-ous t e r r a i n i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Canada Dept. of Forestry. Forest Research Branch. Project No. B.C.602. 21 pp. Neal, J.L., E. Wright and W.B. Bollen. 1 9 6 5 . Burning Douglas-f i r slash - p h y s i c a l , chemical and microbial e f f e c t s i n the s o i l . Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State 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 herbicide e f f e c t s on potted Douglas-f i r and ponderosa pine seedlings. Journal of Forestry, V o l . 61:674-676. 1964. Seedling s u r v i v a l and vegetative competition. Western Forestry and Conservation Assoc. Western Reforestation 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 reference to the P a c i f i c Northwest. U n i v e r s i t y of 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 of two commercial preparations on root i n i t i a t i o n of Douglas-fir stock. State of C a l i f o r n i a , Dept. of Natural Resources. D i v i s i o n of Forestry. State Forest Note No. 4 . 5 pp. Pruett, E. 1 9 5 9 - Mulch around newly planted trees can be detrimental. U.S.D.A. Central States Forest Exp-eriment Sta t i o n . Station Note No. 1 3 2 . 2 pp. Rediske, J.H. 1 9 6 0 . G i b b e r e l l i c acid tested on Douglas-fir seedlings. Weyerhaeuser Co. (Forestry Research Note No. 3 5 . 3 pp. and W.H. Lawrence. 1964. Octamethylpyrophos-phoramide ( OMPA ) as a systemic animal repellent for Douglas-fir seedlings. Forest Science. V ol. 1 0 : 9 3 . Revel, J . 1 9 6 2 a . Plantation assessment. B.C. Forest Service. Forest Research Review. E.P. 5 8 5 . p. 1 6 . 1 9 6 2 b . Planting-stock standards f o r coast Douglas-f i r i n B r i t i s h Columbia. B.C. Forest Service. Forest Research Review. E.P. 5 7 9 . p. 3 8 . 1963a. A plantation study of d i f f e r e n t types of Douglas-fir nursery stock. B.C. Forest Service. Forest Research Review. E.P. 5 8 6 . p. 1 7 . 1 9 6 3 b . The e f f e c t of seed-bed density on the f i e l d s u r v i v a l and i n i t i a l growth of 2 + 0 Douglas-fir seed-l i n g s . B.C. Forest Service. Forest Research Review. E.P. 6 1 7 . p. 1 7 . 1 9 6 3 d . Comparison of the morphology of autumn-sown and spring-sown 1 + 0 Douglas-fir seedlings. B.C. Forest Service. Forest Research Review, p. 3 7 . 129. Revel, J . 1 9 6 3 e . The e f f e c t of browsing by Columbia black-t a i l e d deer and Sooty blue grouse on the e s t a b l i s h -ment of conifers on Vancouver Island. B.C. Forest Service. Forest Research Review, p. 3 8 . 1 9 6 3 f . P l a n t a t i o n study of cold-storage of 2+0 D o u g l a s - f i r . B.C. Forest Service. Forest Research Review. E.P. 582. p. 1 6 . 1 9 6 3 g . Planting study of 2+0 Douglas-fir c u l l s . B.C. Forest Service. Forest Research Review. E.P. 581. p. 1 5 . R i e t v e l d , W. 1 9 6 4 . Chemical methods of c o n t r o l l i n g the dorm-ancy period of Douglas-fir planting stock. Society of American Foresters Proc. 1 9 6 4 : 21-25. Robinson, D.J. 1 9 5 8 . Forestry and w i l d l i f e r e l a t i o n s h i p s on Vancouver Island. 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 questionnaire. Reforestation workshop, U n i v e r s i t y of 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 of planted Douglas-fir on an unfavour-able s i t e . Tree Planters' Notes. No.67: 9 - 1 1 . Rotty, R. 1 9 5 8 a . Three rocks. Tree Planters' Notes No. 3 3 : 1 9 5 8 b . Better s u r v i v a l with oversize hole digging. Tree Planters' Notes. No. 3 3 : Rudolf, P.O. 1 9 3 9 . Why fo r e s t plantations f a i l . Journal of Forestry. Vol. 3 7 : 3 7 7 - 3 8 3 . Ruth, R.H. 1 9 5 3 . Survival and growth of fresh and stored planting stock. U.S.D.A. P a c i f i c North West Forest and Range Experiment Station. Research Note No. 9 3 . . -2 pp. 1 9 5 6 . P l a n t a t i o n s u r v i v a l and growth i n two brush-threat areas i n coastal Oregon. U.S.D.A. P a c i f i c North West Forest and Range Experiment Station. Res-earch Note No. 17. 14 pp. 1 9 5 7 . Ten-year h i s t o r y of an Oregon coastal plant-a t i o n . U.S.D.AV P a c i f i c North West Forest and Range Experiment Station. Research Paper No. 2 1 . 15 pp. Schmidt, R.L. 1963. Climate and a l t i t u d i n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of co n i f e r s . B.C. Forest Service. Forest Research Review. E.P. 482. p. 9 . Schopmeyer, C.S. 1 9 4 0 . Survival i n forest plantations i n the northern Rocky Mountain region. Journal of Forestry. V o l . 3 8 : 16-24. Schubert, G.H. and D.F. Ray. 1 9 5 9 . Tests of sandwich planting and the mechanical planting hole digger 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 Forest and Range Experi-ment Station. Research Note No. 1 5 1 . 10 pp. 130 Shoulders, E. 1 9 5 9 . Root pruning boosts longleaf s u r v i v a l . Tree Planters' Notes No. 3 6 : 1 5 - 1 9 -' 1 9 6 0 . Seedbed density influences production and s u r v i v a l of l o b l o l l y and slash pine nursery stock. Tree Planters' Notes. No. 42: 1 9 - 2 1 . S i l e n , R.R. 1964. Regeneration aspects of the 50-year old Douglas-fir heredity study. Western Forestry and Conservation Assoc. Western Reforestation Coord. Comm. Proc. 1 9 6 4 : ' 3 5 - 3 9 . S i l k e r , T.H. 1 9 6 0 . Economic considerations of growing and grading southern pine nursery stock. Tree Planters' Notes No. 4 2 : 13-16. Smith, D.M. 1 9 6 2 . The pr a c t i c e of s i l v i c u l t u r e . J . Wiley and Sons. New York. 7th. ed. 578 pp. Smith, J.H.G., J.W. Ker and J. Gzizmazia. 1961 Economics of re f o r e s t a t i o n of Douglas-fir, western hemlock and western red cedar i n the Vancouver forest d i s t r i c t . U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. Faculty of Forestry. B u l l e t i n No. 3 . 144 pp. and J . Walters. 1 9 6 5 . The influence of seedling s i z e on growth, s u r v i v a l and cost of growing Douglas-f i r . U n i v e r s i t y of 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 of Douglas-f i r nursery stock. U n i v e r s i t y of 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 . Walters. 1966a. Relative importance of seedbed f e r t i l i z a t i o n , morph-o l o g i c a l grade, s i t e , provenance and parentage to juvenile growth and s u r v i v a l of Douglas-fir. For-estry 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 planting check of Douglas-fir? Forestry Chronicle. V o l . 42: 87 - 8 9 . J . Walters and P.G. Haddock. 1 9 6 7 . Planting can be better than direct-seeding of Douglas-fir. Journal of Forestry. In Press.. Smith, R.S. J r . 1 9 6 4 . Implication of nursery diseases on plantin g p r a c t i c e s . Western Forestry and Conservat-ion Assoc. Western Reforestation Coord. Comm. Proc. 1 9 6 4 : 1 2 - 1 4 . Stoate, T.N. 1 9 5 5 . Some aspects of forest establishment and growth. H.R. MacMillan Lectureship i n Forestry. 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 Wisconsin by species, age classes, and s i t e f a c t o r s . U.S.D.A. Lake States Forest Experiment St a t i o n . Research Note No. LS - 2 7 . 4 pp. 1 3 1 . Stoeckeler, J.H. 1963b. Ground preparation costs and f i r s t -year s u r v i v a l of planted red pine i n southwestern Wisconsin. U.S.D.A. Lake States Forest Experiment St a t i o n . 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 cond-i t i o n of the p l a n t i n g stock. Forest 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 coniferous nursery stock 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 Mundial. Madrid, Spain. J.L. Jendinson and S.L. Krugman. 1962. Root regeneration p o t e n t i a l of Douglas-fir seedlings l i f t e d at d i f f e r e n t times of the year. Forest Science. V o l . 8: 2 8 8 - 2 9 7 . Tarrant, R.F. 1 9 5 6 a . E f f e c t s of slashburning on some physical s o i l properties. Forest Science Vol. 2 : 18 - 2 2 . 1 9 5 6 b . E f f e c t s of slashburning on some s o i l s of the Douglas-fir region. S o i l Science Society of America. Proc. V o l . 2 0:408 - 4 1 1 . 1 9 5 8 . S o i l moisture conditions a f t e r chemically k i l l i n g manzanita brush i n c e n t r a l Oregon. Tree Planters' Notes. No. 33: 1 2 - 1 4 . 1 9 6 4 . Top and root moisture content of stored Douglas-fir p l a n t i n g stock. U.S.D.A. P a c i f i c North West Forest and Range Experiment Station. Research Paper No. PNW-13. 8 pp. Todd, G. 1 9 6 4 . Douglas-fir seedlings have roots? Journal of Forestry. V o l . 6 2 : 5 6 1 - 5 6 3 . Tourney, J.W. and C.F. Korstain. 1 9 4 2 . Seeding and planting i n the p r a c t i c e of f o r e s t r y . J . Wiley 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 nursery p r a c t i c e . Western Forestry and Conservation Assoc. Western Reforestation Coord. Comm. Proc. 1 9 6 4 : 4 7 - 4 9 . Vaux, H.J. 1 9 5 4 . -An economic viewpoint on P a c i f i c coast forest p l a n t i n g . H.R. MacMillan Lectureship i n Forestry. 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 southern pine nurs-ery stock. Proc. Society of American Foresters, 1 9 4 8 : 3 1 1 - 3 2 2 . andY'R.A. Chapman. 1 9 3 7 . A method.of studying the f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g i n i t i a l s u r v i v a l i n f o r e s t plant-ations. U.S.D.A. Southern Forest Experiment Station. Occasional Paper No. 69. 1 9 pp. Walters, J . 1 9 6 1 . The planting gun and b u l l e t : a new tree-p l a n t i n g technique. Forestry Chronicle. V o l . 37: 94-95. 1 3 2 . Walters, J . 1 9 6 6 . An outline of a r t i f i c i a l regeneration methods i n f o r e s t r y with p a r t i c u l a r reference to container planting. A paper presented at the 1 9 6 6 Reforestation Workshop, U n i v e r s i t y of B.C. Research Forest. and J . Soos. 1 9 6 1 a . The e f f e c t of month of plant-ing upon s u r v i v a l and growth of Douglas-fir and Scots pine seedlings. U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Faculty of Forestry. Research Paper No. 38. 12 pp. 1 9 6 1 b . The r e l a t i v e e f f i c i e n c y of three hare r e p e l l e n t s i n protecting Douglas-fir seedlings. Forestry Chronicle. Vol. 37: 22-28. and A. Kozak. 1 9 6 5 . - E f f e c t of seedling size on s i r v i v a l and growth of plantations, with p a r t i c u l a r reference to Douglas-fir. U n i v e r s i t y of B.C. Fac-u l t y of Forestry. Research Paper No. 72. 26 pp. and P.G. Haddock. 1 9 6 6 . Juvenile height growth of eight coniferous species on f i v e Douglas-fir s i t e s . U n i v e r s i t y of 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 of f e r t i l i z e r p e l l e t s on the growth of Douglas-fir. U n i v e r s i t y of B.C. Faculty of Forestry. Research Note No. 5 6 . 3 pp. White, D.P. 1 9 6 5 . S u r v i v a l , growth and nutrient uptake by spruce and pine seedlings as affected by slow-release 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 North America. Oregon State U n i v e r s i t y Press, C o r v a l l i s , Oregon, pp. 47 - 6 3 . Williams, H.G. 1 9 4 9 . P r a c t i c a l problems of 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. 59 -60, 86. ' Winjum, J.K. 1 9 6 3 . E f f e c t s of l i f t i n g date and storage on 2+0 Douglas-fir and Noble f i r . Journal of Forestry. V o l . 6 1 : 6 4 8 - 6 5 4 . Worthington, N.P. 1 9 5 5 . A comparison of conifers planted on the Hemlock Experimental Forest. U.S.D.A. P a c i f i c North West Forest and Range Experiment Station. Res-earch Note No. 1 1 1 . 5 pp. Wright, E. 1 9 6 4 . Mycorrhizae and s u r v i v a l of Douglas-fir seedlings. Forest Research Laboratory. Oregon State U n i v e r s i t y . Research Note No. 50. 7 pp. and R.F. Tarrant. 1 9 5 7 . M i c r o b i a l s o i l - p r o p e r t i e s a f t e r logging and-slashburning. U.S.D.A. P a c i f i c North West Forest and Range Experiment Station. Res-earch Note No. 1 5 7 . 5 pp. . and K.K. Ching. 1 9 6 2 . E f f e c t of seed source on myc-o r r h i z a l formation on Douglas-fir seedlings. North-west Science. V o l . 3 6 : 1 - 6 . 133. W y c o f f , H. 1960. R e f r e i g e r a t e d s t o r a g e o f n u r s e r y s t o c k . T ree P l a n t e r s ' N o t e s . No. 42 : VIII. APPENDIX I ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE TABLES a. Source Degrees of Variance Si g n i f i c a n c e freedom r a t i o Aspect (1) 2 10.2 ** E l e v a t i o n (2) 4 2.2 N.S. 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 ** E r r o r 1061 T o t a l 1079 b. Source Degrees of Variance Si g n i f i c a n c e freedom r a t i o Aspect t ( 1) Burn se v e r i t y ( 2 ) Ground cover ( 3 ) Season 2 2 2 1 1 0 . 3 1 0 . 9 1 3 . 7 1 6 9 . 8 ** ** ** ** ( 1 ) X ( 2 ) 4 2 . 1 N.S. (D X ( 3 ) 4 , 3 . 7 * E r r o r 1056 T o t a l 1071 Source Degrees of freedom Variance r a t i o S i g n i f i c a n c e Season (1 ) 1 1 9 6 . 5 ** Weather ( 2 ) 5 2 . 7 * (D X ( 2 ) ' 5 0 . 1 N.S. E r r o r 1 3 3 2 T o t a l 1 3 4 3 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 % p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l * = s i g n i f i c a n t at the 95 5 p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l 135 Source Degrees freedom of Variance r a t i o S i g n i f i c a n c e Season 1 211.1 ** Topography- 3 6.2 ** E r r o r 1401 T o t a l 1405 Source Degrees freedom of Variance r a t i o S i g n i f i c a n c e Aspect (1) 2 9.9 ** Season (2) Duff thickness (3) (D X (3) 1 1 2 162.8 6.9 1.8 ** * N.S. (2) X (3) 1 5.6 -** E r r o r 1066 T o t a l 1073 Source Degrees freedom of Variance r a t i o S i g n i f i c a n c e Season (1) Duff thickness (2) (D X (2) 1 1 1 216.3 10.5 4.3 ** ** * E r r o r 1423 T o t a l 1426 Source Degrees freedom of Variance r a t i o S i g n i f i c a n c e Age of plant-i n g stock (1) Ground cover (2) 2 2 6.7 14.0 ** ** (1) X (2) 4 8.7 ** E r r o r 791 T o t a l 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 at the 99 $ p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l * = s i g n i f i c a n t at the 95 1° p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l h. Source Degrees freedom of Variance r a t i o S i g nificance D i v i s i o n (1) 12 8.1 *# Nursery (2) 2 11.8 *•* (D X (2) 17 3.0 ** E r r o r 819 T o t a l 850 i . Source Degrees freedom of Variance r a t i o S i g n i f i c a n c e Age of plant-ing stock Season 2 1 18.8 200.2 ** ** E r r o r 1265 To t a l 1268 j . Source Degrees freedom of Variance r a t i o S i g n i f i c a n c e Condition of stock (1) Season (2) 3 1 2 . 3 200.7 N.S. *•* (D X (2) 3 11.1 ** E r r o r 1 181 To t a l 1 188 k. Source Degrees freedom of Variance r a t i o S i g n i f i c a n c e D i v i s i o n (1) 6 215.1 ** Seedlot No. (2) Seed c l a s s i f -i c a t i o n (3) (D X (2) 1 1 1 18L 55.4 0 . 9 108.9 ** N.S. ** (D X ( 3 ) 5 1.1 N.S. E r r o r 756 T o t a l 797 • 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 $ p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l * = s i g n i f i c a n t at the 95 $ p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l 

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