New Forests

, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp 283–290 | Cite as

Effect of soil preparation method on root development of P. sylvestris and P. abies saplings in commercial forest stands

  • Santa Celma
  • Katrīna Blate
  • Dagnija LazdiņaEmail author
  • Kārlis Dūmiņš
  • Santa Neimane
  • Toms A. Štāls
  • Kristīne Štikāne


Soil preparation is a common practice that precedes outplanting of Norway spruce (Picea abies) and Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris) in boreal forests. It has been proven to enhance the survival and early growth of seedlings. Containerized P. abies and P. sylvestris saplings were excavated 1–3 years after outplanting in clear cut forests across Latvia. The excavated saplings were grown in forests that had been prepared either using site mounding or disc trenching soil preparation method. The aim was to determine the effects of soil preparation method used on the root depth, dry mass and orientation. Saplings are forming deeper root system that expand evenly when planted on mounds, yet the root dry mass was not affected by soil preparation method or soil type. Seedlings planted in trenched sites formed two-sided root system, parallel to the furrow. No correlation between roots growing direction and cardinal points was found.


Mounding Disc trenching Root orientation Forest regeneration 



This study was a part of a research project Development of decision support tool for prognosis of storm damages in forest stands on peat soils (No funded by European Regional Development Fund. And we would also like to thank JSC “Latvian State Forests” for funding and access to the used study sites.


  1. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67(1):1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burton P, Bedford L, Goldstein M, Osberg M (2000) Effects of disk trench orientation and planting spot position on the ten-year performance of lodgepole pine. New For 20(1):23–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fox J, Weisberg S (2011) An R companion to applied regression, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  4. Gemmel P, Nilsson U, Welander T (1996) Development of oak and beech seedlings planted under varying shelterwood densities and with different site preparation methods in southern Sweden. New For 12(2):141–161Google Scholar
  5. Goulet F (1995) Frost heaving of forest tree seedlings: a review. New For 9(1):67–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Haeussler S (1989) Mounding for site preparation. Topic summary for the operational forest. Queen’s Printer for British Columbia, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  7. Heiskanen J, Saksa T, Luoranen J (2013) Soil preparation method affects outplanting success of Norway spruce container seedlings on till soils susceptible to frost heave. Silva Fenn 47(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Löf M, Dey DC, Navarro RM, Jacobs DF (2012) Mechanical site preparation for forest restoration. New For 43(5–6):825–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Luoranen J, Rikala R (2013) Field performance of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) seedlings planted in disc trenched or mounded sites over an extended planting season. New For 44(2):147–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Luoranen J, Viiri H (2012) Soil preparation reduces pine weevil (Hylobius abietis (L.)) damage on both peatland and mineral soil sites one year after planting. Silva Fenn 46(1):151–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mangalis I (1989) Meža kultūras. “Zvaigzne”. p 348Google Scholar
  12. Mjöfors K, Strömgren M, Nohrstedt H, Johansson M, Gärdenä AI (2017) Indications that site preparation increases forest ecosystem carbon stocks in the long term. Scand J For Res 32(8):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nieminen JK, Räisänen M, Haimi J (2012) Spot mounding and granulated wood ash increase inorganic N availability and alter key components of the soil food web in clearcut Norway spruce forests. For Ecol Manag 263:24–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Örlander G, Gemmel P, Hunt J (1990) Site preparation: a Swedish overview. FRDA Report 105Google Scholar
  15. Pearson M, Saarinen M, Minkkinen K, Silvan N, Laine J (2011) Mounding and scalping prior to reforestation of hydrologically sensitive deep-peated sites: factors behind Scots pine regeneration success. Silva Fenn 45(4):647–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pellikka P, Järvenpää E (2003) Forest stand characteristics and wind and snow induced forest damage in Boreal Forests. In: Proceedings of the international conference on wind effects on trees, University of Karlsruhe, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  17. Pennanen T, Heiskanen J, Korkama T (2005) Dynamics of ectomycorrhizal fungi and growth of Norway spruce seedlings after planting on a mounded forest clearcut. For Ecol Manag 213:243–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Petersson M, Örlander G, Nordlander G (2005) Soil features affecting damage to conifer seedlings by the pine weevil Hylobius abietis. Forestry 78:83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pontey W (1808) The profitable planter: a treatise on the theory and practice of planting forest trees, in every description of soil and situation; more particularly on elevated sites, barren heaths, rocky soils, &c., including directions for the planting and management of permanent screens; with useful hints on shelter and ornament, 2nd ed. Printed for the author by T. Smart, HuddersfieldGoogle Scholar
  20. R Core Team (2017) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  21. Saksa T, Heiskanen J, Miina J, Tuomola J, Kolstrom T (2005) Multilevel modelling of height growth in young Norway spruce plantations in southern Finland. Silva Fenn 39(1):143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sutton RF (1993) Mounding site preparation: a review of European and North American experience. New For 7:151–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Uotila K, Rantala J, Saksa T, Harstela P (2010) Effect of soil preparation method on economic result of Norway spruce regeneration chain. Silva Fenn 44:511–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zālītis P, Jansons J (2013) Latvijas meža tipoloģija un tāssākotne. Daugavpils Akadēmiskais apgāds “Saule”, p 168Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Latvian State Forest Research Institute “Silava”SalaspilsLatvia

Personalised recommendations