Advertisement

New Forests

pp 1–16 | Cite as

Does the application of silvicultural management models drive the growth and stem quality of sweet chestnut coppices towards sustainability?

  • Maria Sameiro PatrícioEmail author
  • Luís Nunes
  • Maria Loreto Monteiro
Article
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

The coppice is a very flexible cultural system producing several calibers adapting to the demands of the market. Small-caliber roundwood from sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) coppices, formerly in great demand, is now less interesting for the market. Thus, the improvement of coppices management by applying alternative silvicultural models in order to obtain benefits and sustainability is essential. For this purpose, four permanent plots (P1–P4) were established in 1994 to monitor different coppice management systems. The plots were installed in a coppice which resulted from the final clear cut of a sweet chestnut high-forest stand in 1992, at 50 years old. Three silvicultural management models were tested in order to produce roundwood of small (P1), medium (P2), and large (P4) diameters. A control plot was established without any type of silviculture which corresponds to most of the existing chestnut coppices (P3 = without intervention). Thinnings were applied in the plots according to the respective management model. Twenty-four years after the sprouting of the coppice, the silvicultural models were evaluated according to their objectives in terms of growth, yield, and quality of the sawlogs. This assessment period corresponds to the end of the rotation period for P1, and the results are in accordance with expected values. In P2 and P4 the observed growth closely matches expectations for this growth stage of the coppice. The quality of the sawlogs is clearly superior to that of the plot without intervention. Comparing the mean dendrometric values, higher values were observed in plots where the models were applied. The results also show that when roundwood is used for saw-timber, silvicultural management is essential.

Keywords

Castanea sativa Mill. Silviculture Volume equations Chestnut coppice Timber production H–D equations 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Conception of the study, data analysis, drafting of the manuscript and critical revision: MSP and LN. Contributed materials: MSP and MLM. Data used in this study was collected with the financial support of the EU project AIR 2-CT94-0905—MEDCOP: Improvement of Coppice Forests in the Mediterranean Region, AGRO Program, Project 267: Sustainable Management of Chestnut Forested Areas in High-Forest and Coppice Systems, and Project PTDC/AGRCFL/68186/Mixed forests: Modeling, dynamics and geographical distribution of productivity and carbon storage in mixed forest ecosystems in Portugal, founded by the Portuguese Science Foundation (FCT) and FEDER—COMPETE Program. The authors wish to thank the availability and cooperation of Forest Services (ICNF) for this study.

References

  1. Amorini E, Manetti MC (2000) Le fustaie da legno di castagno del Monte Amiata. Ann Ist Sper Selv Arezzo 28:53–61Google Scholar
  2. Assmann E (1961) Waldertargskunde. Bayr. Landw, MüchenGoogle Scholar
  3. Assmann E (1970) The principles of forest yield study. English transl. S.H. Gardiner, Pergamon Press Ltd., OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Birdsey R, Duffy P, Smyth C, Akurz W, Dugan AJ, Houghton R (2018) Climate, economic, and environmental impacts of producing wood for bioenergy. Environ Res Lett 13:050201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourgeois C (1987) Améliorer les taillis de châtaignier. Forêt Entreprise 44:8–15Google Scholar
  6. Bourgeois C (1992) Le châtaignier un arbre, un bois. IDF, 1ère ed., ParisGoogle Scholar
  7. Bourgeois C, Sevrin E, Lemaire J (2004) Le châtaignier un arbre, un bois. IDF, 2eme ed., ParisGoogle Scholar
  8. Burkhart HE (1977) Cubic-foot volume of loblolly pine to any merchantable top limit. South J Appl For 1:7–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cao QV, Burkhart HE, Max TA (1980) Evaluation of two methods for cubic-volume prediction of loblolly pine to any merchantable limit. For Sci 26(1):71–80Google Scholar
  10. Cutini A (2001) New management options in chestnut coppices: an evaluation on ecological bases. For Ecol Manag 141:165–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deusen PCV, Sullivan AD, Matney TG (1981) A prediction system for cubic foot volume of loblolly pine applicable through much of its range. South J Appl For 5:186–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fortuna ERM (1969) Tabelas de volume para o castanheiro bravo. Estudos e Informação 245, Secretaria de Estado da Agricultura, DGSFA, Lisboa, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  13. Fuller RJ, Moreton BD (1987) Breeding bird population of Kentish sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa) coppice in relation to age and structure of the coppice. J Appl Ecol 24:13–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Geraldes SAA (2011) Avaliação de modelos silvícolas e validação de ferramentas de gestão para o castanheiro em Trás-os-Montes. Bragança: Instituto Politécnico de Bragança, Escola Superior Agrária. Dissertation, Mestrado em Gestão de Recursos FlorestaisGoogle Scholar
  15. Harrison W, Burk T, Beck D (1986) Individual tree basal area increment and total height equations for Appalachian mixed hardwoods after thinning. South J Appl For 10:99–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Honer TG (1965) A new total cubic-foot volume function. For Chron 41:476–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huber PJ (1964) Robust estimation of a location parameter. Ann Math Stat 35:73–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Iamshchikov V (2017) Evaluation of management models in a trial of Castanea sativa Mill. coppice in northern Portugal. Dissertation, Instituto Politécnico de Bragança, ESA, Bragança, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  19. Icnf IP (2013) IFN6—Áreas dos usos do solo e das espécies florestais de Portugal continental. Resultados preliminares. Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e das Florestas, LisboaGoogle Scholar
  20. INMG (1991) O clima de Portugal. Fascículo XLIX, vol. 3, 3a RegiãoGoogle Scholar
  21. Kraft G (1884) Beiträge zur Lehre von den Durchforstungen, Schlagstellungen und Lichtungshieben. Klindworth’s Verlag, HannoverGoogle Scholar
  22. Luís JFS, Monteiro ML (1998) Dynamics of a broadleaved (Castanea sativa) conifer (Pseudotsuga menziesii) mixed stands in Northern Portugal. For Ecol Manag 107:183–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Matney TG, Sullivan AD (1980) Estimation of merchantable volume and height of natural grown slash pine trees. Arid land resources inventories workshop, La Paz, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  24. Menéndez-Miguélez M, Álvarez-Álvarez P, Majada J, Canga E (2015) Effects of soil nutrients and environmental factors on site productivity in Castanea sativa Mill. coppice stands in NW Spain. New For 46:217–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Menéndez-Miguélez M, Álvarez-Álvarez P, Majada J, Canga E (2016) Management tools for Castanea sativa coppice stands in northwestern Spain. Bosque 37(1):119–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Monteiro ML, Patrício MS (1996) O castanheiro: modelos de gestão. Revista Florestal ix(4):51–56Google Scholar
  27. Myers RH (1986) Classical and modern regression with applications. Duxbury Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  28. Ogaya N (1968) Kubierungsformeln und Bestandesmassenformeln. Dissertation, Univ. Freiburg I. BrGoogle Scholar
  29. Parresol BR, Hotvedt JE, Cao QV (1987) A volume and taper prediction system for bald cypress. Can J For Res 17:250–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Patrício MS (1996) Análise do crescimento da fase juvenil de um ensaio de densidade de varas numa talhadia de castanheiro. Dissertation, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa, Instituto Superior de Agronomia, LisboaGoogle Scholar
  31. Patrício MS (2006) Análise da Potencialidade Produtiva do Castanheiro em Portugal. Dissertation, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa, Instituto Superior de Agronomia, LisboaGoogle Scholar
  32. Patrício MS, Nunes L (2017) Density management diagrams for sweet chestnut high-forest stands in Portugal. iForest 10:865–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Patrício MS, Monteiro ML, Nunes LF, Mesquita S, Beito S, Casado J, Guerra H (2005) Management models evaluation of a Castanea sativa coppice in the northeast of Portugal. Acta Hort 693:721–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Patrício MS, Geraldes S, Nunes LF, Monteiro ML (2009) Sustainable management models applied to chestnut coppice in the north-east of Portugal. FAO—XIII world forest congress, 16–23 October, Buenos AiresGoogle Scholar
  35. R Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  36. Reed DD, Green EJ (1984) Compatible stem taper and volume ratio equations. For Sci 30(4):977–990Google Scholar
  37. Romane F, Houssard C (1995) The sustainability of chestnut ecosystem. In: Romane F (ed) Sustainability of mediterranean ecosystems. Case study of the chestnut forest. European commission, Brussels, ecosystem research report no. 19, pp 173–176Google Scholar
  38. Schumacher FX, Hall F (1933) Logarithmic expression of timber-tree volume. J Agric Res 47:719–734Google Scholar
  39. Spurr SH (1952) Forest inventory. Ronald Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Tomé M (1988) Modelação do crescimento da árvore individual em povoamentos de Eucalyptus globulus Labill. (1a rotação) Região Centro de Portugal. Dissertation, UTL-ISA, LisboaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centro de Investigação de Montanha (CIMO), Instituto Politécnico de BragançaBragançaPortugal

Personalised recommendations