Evaluation of 10-year temporal and spatial variability in structure and growth across contrasting commercial thinning treatments in spruce-fir forests of northern Maine, USA

  • Christian Kuehne
  • Aaron Weiskittel
  • Arne Pommerening
  • Robert G. Wagner
Article

Abstract

Key message

Detailed measures of growth pattern and structural heterogeneity applied in this study helped to quantify the immediate effects of various thinning regimes on forest structure and the resulting alterations in tree size as well as observed longer term stand dynamics.

Context

Forest management, stand structure, and tree growth are highly inter-correlated. Prior analyses, however, have resulted in mixed outcomes with limited success in revealing ecological mechanisms.

Aims

The study aimed at evaluating the relationship between forest structure and stand dynamics by applying several sophisticated measures of growth pattern and structural heterogeneity.

Methods

Data from a controlled and fully stem-mapped commercial thinning experiment with seven contrasting treatments including a non-thinned control at six locations across the Acadian Forest of Maine, USA, was used. Stand-level attributes examined included tree size and growth heterogeneity, spatial tree distribution, and growth dominance.

Results

Thinning generally reduced stand structural heterogeneity compared to the non-thinned control. In addition, the spatial arrangement of trees changed from fully random (non-thinned control) to a more clustered (removal of dominant and co-dominant individuals) or regular distribution (removal of intermediate and suppressed individuals). Overall, stand growth exhibited increasing (non-thinned control, removal of intermediate and suppressed individuals) or decreasing growth dominance of large trees (removal of co-dominant competitors). Forwarder trails increased basal area growth of individual trees up to a distance from the trail of approximately 5 m.

Conclusion

Findings of this study validate an earlier insight according to which interactions between management practices, forest structure, and tree growth form a permanent feedback loop.

Keywords

Stand structure Spatial tree pattern Growth dominance Balsam fir Red spruce 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank members of the Cooperative Forest Research Unit (CFRU) for providing the resources necessary to establish and maintain the Commercial Thinning Research Network. We are also grateful to current and past CFRU Associate Director Drs. Brian Roth and Spencer Meyer, as well as all technicians who have maintained the study and collected data over the years. We thank Barry Gardiner and two anonymous referees for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper.

Supplementary material

13595_2018_697_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (88 kb)
Online Resource 1 (PDF 88 kb)
13595_2018_697_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (150 kb)
Online Resource 2 (PDF 149 kb)
13595_2018_697_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (85 kb)
Online Resource 3 (PDF 84 kb)
13595_2018_697_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (92 kb)
Online Resource 4 (PDF 92 kb)
13595_2018_697_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (88 kb)
Online Resource 5 (PDF 87 kb)

References

  1. Arseneault JE, Saunders MR, Seymour RS, Wagner RG (2011) First decadal response to treatment in a disturbance-based silviculture experiment in Maine. For Ecol Manag 262(3):404–412.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.04.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Assmann E (1970) The principles of forest yield study. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Baddeley A, Turner R, Rubak E (2015) spatstat: spatial point pattern analysis, model-fitting, simulation, tests. R package version 1:42–42 https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/spatstat/index.html. Accessed 28 April 2017Google Scholar
  4. Barbeito I, Cañellas I, Montes F (2009) Evaluating the behaviour of vertical structure indices in scots pine forests. Ann For Sci 66:710–720Google Scholar
  5. Barnes BV, Zak DR, Denton SR, Spurr SH (1998) Forest ecology. John Wiley and SonsGoogle Scholar
  6. Bauhus J, Puettmann KJ, Messier C (2009) Silviculture for old-growth attributes. For Ecol Manag 258(4):525–537.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.01.053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bayer D, Seifert S, Pretzsch H (2013) Structural crown properties of Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica [L.]) in mixed versus pure stands revealed by terrestrial laser scanning. Trees 27(4):1035–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Binkley D, Kashian DM, Boyden S, Kaye MW, Bradford JB, Arthur MA, Fornwalt PJ, Ryan MG (2006) Patterns of growth dominance in forests of the Rocky Mountains, USA. For EcolManage 236(2):193–201Google Scholar
  9. Boivin-Dompierre S, Achim A, Pothier D (2017) Functional response of coniferous trees and stands to commercial thinning in eastern Canada. For Ecol Manag 384:6–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonnesoeur V, Constant T, Moulia B, Fournier M (2016) Forest trees filter chronic wind-signals to acclimate to high winds. New Phytol 210(3):850–860.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13836 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bowering MS (2004) Effects of forest roads on the growth of adjacent lodgepole pine trees in the Williams Lake area of BC. University of British Columbia, Doctoral dissertationGoogle Scholar
  12. Bradford JB, D’Amato AW, Palik BJ, Fraver S (2010) A new method for evaluating forest thinning: growth dominance in managed Pinus resinosa stands. Can J For Res 40(5):843–849.  https://doi.org/10.1139/X10-039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Claveau Y, Comeau PG, Messier C, Kelly CP (2006) Early above-and below-ground responses of subboreal conifer seedlings to various levels of deciduous canopy removal. Can J For Res 36(8):1891–1899.  https://doi.org/10.1139/x06-049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Core Team R (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna https://www.r-project.org. Accessed April 28 2017
  15. Crecente-Campo F, Pommerening A, Rodríguez-Soalleiro R (2009) Impacts of thinning on structure, growth and risk of crown fire in a Pinus sylvestris L. plantation in northern Spain. For Ecol Manag 257(9):1945–1954.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.02.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dănescu A, Albrecht AT, Bauhus J (2016) Structural diversity promotes productivity of mixed, uneven-aged forests in southwestern Germany. Oecologia 182(2):319–333CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gardiner BA, Stacey GR, Belcher RE, Wood CJ (1997) Field and wind tunnel assessments of the implications of respacing and thinning for tree stability. Forestry 70(3):233–252.  https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/70.3.233 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hui G, Pommerening A (2014) Analysing tree species and size diversity patterns in multi-species uneven-aged forests of Northern China. For Ecol Manag 316:125–138.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.07.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Keyser TL (2012) Patterns of growth dominance in thinned yellow-poplar stands in the southern Appalachian Mountains, USA. Can J For Res 42(2):406–412.  https://doi.org/10.1139/x11-196 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kint V, Van Meirvenne M, Nachtergale L, Geudens G, Lust N (2003) Spatial methods for quantifying forest stand structure development: a comparison between nearest-neighbor indices and variogram analysis. For Sci 49(1):36–49Google Scholar
  21. Kuehne C, Weiskittel AR, Fraver S, Puettman KJ (2015) Effects of thinning induced changes in structural heterogeneity on growth, ingrowth, and mortality in secondary coastal Douglas-fir forests. Can J For Res 45(11):1448–1461.  https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2015-0113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuehne C, Weiskittel AR, Wagner RG Roth BE (2016) Development and evaluation of individual tree-and stand-level approaches for predicting spruce-fir response to commercial thinning in Maine, USA. For Ecol Manag 376:84–95.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.06.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lei X, Wang W, Peng C (2009) Relationships between stand growth and structural diversity in spruce-dominated forests in New Brunswick, Canada. Can J For Res 39(10):1835–1847.  https://doi.org/10.1139/X09-089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Long JN (1985) A practical approach to density management. For Chron 61(1):23–27.  https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc61023-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mäkinen H, Isomäki A, Hongisto T (2006) Effect of half-systematic and systematic thinning on the increment of scots pine and Norway spruce in Finland. Forestry 79(1):103–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mainwaring DB, Maguire DA (2004) The effect of local stand structure on growth and growth efficiency in heterogeneous stands of ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine in central Oregon. Can J For Res 34(11):2217–2229.  https://doi.org/10.1139/x04-108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McCreary DD, Perry DA (1983) Strip thinning and selective thinning in Douglas-fir. J For 81(6):375–377Google Scholar
  28. Mitchell SJ (2000) Stem growth responses in Douglas-fir and Sitka spruce following thinning: implications for assessing wind-firmness. For Ecol Manag 135(1):105–114.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00302-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Montes F, Cañellas I, del Río M, Calama R, Montero G (2004) The effects of thinning on the structural diversity of coppice forests. Ann For Sci 61(8):771–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morrissey RC, Saunders MR, Jenkins MA (2015) Successional and structural responses to overstorey disturbance in managed and unmanaged forests. Forestry 88(3):376–389.  https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpv009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ngo Bieng MA, Perot T, de Coligny F, Goreaud F (2013) Spatial pattern of trees influences species productivity in a mature oak–pine mixed forest. Eur J For Res 132(5–6):841–850.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-013-0716-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nyland RD (2002) Silviculture: concepts and applications. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Pamerleau-Couture É, Krause C, Pothier D Weiskittel A (2015) Effect of three partial cutting practices on stand structure and growth of residual black spruce trees in north-eastern Quebec. Forestry 88(4):471–483.  https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpv017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Penttinen A, Stoyan D, Henttonen HM (1992) Marked point processes in forest statistics. For Sci 38(4):806–824Google Scholar
  35. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D (2016) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3:1–128 https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/nlme/index.html. Accessed 28 April 2017Google Scholar
  36. Pommerening A (2002) Approaches to quantifying forest structures. Forestry 75(3):305–324.  https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/75.3.305 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pommerening A, Särkkä A (2013) What mark variograms tell about spatial plant interactions. Ecol Model 251:64–72.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.12.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pretzsch H (1998) Structural diversity as a result of silvicultural operations. Lesnictvi-Forestry 44(10):429–439Google Scholar
  39. Pretzsch H (2009) Forest dynamics, growth and yield. Springer-Verlag, Berlin–HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pretzsch H, Forrester DI, Rötzer T (2015) Representation of species mixing in forest growth models. A review and perspective. Ecol Model 313:276–292.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.06.044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pukkala T, Kolström T (1991) Effect of spatial pattern of trees on the growth of a Norway spruce stand: a simulation model. Silva Fennica 25:117–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Renka RJ, Gebhardt A, Eglen S, Zuyev S, White D (2016) tripack: triangulation of irregularly spaced data. R package version 1:3–6 https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/tripack/index.html. Accessed April 28 2017 Google Scholar
  43. Rozas V, Zas R, Solla A (2009) Spatial structure of deciduous forest stands with contrasting human influence in northwest Spain. Eur J For Res 128(3):273–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ruiz-Mirazo J, Gonzalez-Rebollar JL (2013) Growth and structure of a young Aleppo pine planted forest after thinning for diversification and wildfire prevention. For Syst 22(1):47–57Google Scholar
  45. Saunders MR, Wagner RG (2008) Long-term spatial and structural dynamics in Acadian mixedwood stands managed under various silvicultural systems. Can J For Res 38(3):498–517.  https://doi.org/10.1139/X07-155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Seymour RS (1992) The red spruce-balsam fir forest of Maine: evolution of silvicultural practice in response to stand development patterns and disturbances. In: The Ecology and Silviculture of Mixed-Species Forests. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 217–244.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8052-6_12
  47. Smith DM, Larson BC, Kelty MJ, Ashton PMS (1997) The practice of silviculture: applied forest ecology. John Wiley and SonsGoogle Scholar
  48. Soares AA, Leite HG, Cruz JP, Forrester DI (2017) Development of stand structural heterogeneity and growth dominance in thinned eucalyptus stands in Brazil. For Ecol Manag 384:339–346.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.11.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stempski W, Jabłoński K (2014) Differentiation of tree diameters at strip roads in a young pine tree-stand. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum. Silvarum Colendarum Ratio et Industria Lignaria 13(1):37–46Google Scholar
  50. Stoyan D, Penttinen A (2000) Recent applications of point process methods in forestry statistics. Stat Sci 15:61–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Suzuki SN, Kachi N, Suzuki JI (2008) Development of a local size hierarchy causes regular spacing of trees in an even-aged Abies forest: analyses using spatial autocorrelation and the mark correlation function. Ann Bot 102(3):435–441.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcn113 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Szmyt J (2014) Spatial statistics in ecological analysis: from indices to functions. Silva Fennica 48(1):1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wallentin C, Nilsson U (2011) Initial effect of thinning on stand gross stem-volume production in a 33-year-old Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) stand in Southern Sweden. Scan J For Res 26(S11):21–35.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2011.564395 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Weiner J, Stoll P, Muller-Landau H, Jasentuliyana A (2001) The effects of density, spatial pattern, and competitive symmetry on size variation in simulated plant populations. Am Nat 158(4):438–450.  https://doi.org/10.1086/321988 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. West PW (2014) Calculation of a growth dominance statistic for forest stands. For Sci 60(6):1021–1023.  https://doi.org/10.5849/forsci.13-186 Google Scholar
  56. Zenner EK (2000) Do residual trees increase structural complexity in Pacific northwest coniferous forests? Ecol Appl 10(3):800–810. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[0800:DRTISC]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
  57. Zenner EK, Hibbs DE (2000) A new method for modeling the heterogeneity of forest structure. For Ecol Manag 129(1-3):75–87.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00140-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Kuehne
    • 1
  • Aaron Weiskittel
    • 1
  • Arne Pommerening
    • 2
  • Robert G. Wagner
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Forest ResourcesUniversity of MaineOronoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Forest Resource Management, Faculty of Forest SciencesSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences SLUUmeåSweden
  3. 3.Department of Forestry and Natural ResourcesPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations