Chemical and Mechanical Site Preparation

  • Robert F. Lowery
  • Dean H. Gjerstad
Part of the Forestry Sciences book series (FOSC, volume 36)


Site-preparation operations before reforestation can (1) reduce woody competition in the following stand, (2) improve surficial drainage or adverse soil conditions, (3) clear harvest debris to facilitate planting, and (4) reduce future fire hazard. Planning is critical to meet financial and biological objectives of site preparation, particularly for preharvest treatments. Mechanical site preparation, often done in conjunction with burning, may employ a variety of equipment to reduce or rearrange the volume of standing live or downed debris to improve planting accessibility. Soil-manipulation treatments can have major impacts on soil physical and chemical properties that influence long-term site productivity; they also can correct problems created by earlier operations or improve drainage of naturally wet soils. Mechanical methods should be applied carefully on steep, highly erodible, or nutrient-poor soils. Chemical site preparation, on the increase with the recent availability of new herbicides, has little adverse impact on soils when used alone or with fire and effectively controls woody competition in the new plantation. As with mechanical techniques, considerable expertise is required for success. Site-preparation practices may differ by physiographic region and will vary according to management philosophy and expected product value.


Coastal Plain Crop Tree Site Preparation Physiographic Region Upland Site 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Beasley, R. S., A. B. Granillo, and V. Zillmer. 1986. Sediment losses from forest management: mechanical vs. chemical site preparation after clearcutting. J. Environ. Quality 15:413–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burger, J. A., and R. A. Kluender. 1983. Site preparation — Piedmont. Pages 58–74 In Proc. Symposium on The Loblolly Pine Ecosystem (East Region) (R.C. Kellison and S. Gingrich, eds). School of Forest Resources, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burkhart, H. E., and P. T. Sprinz. 1984. A model for assessing hardwood competition effects on yields of loblolly pine plantations. School of Forestry and Wildlife Resources, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., Blacksburg. FWS-3–84. 55 p.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cain, M. D. 1987. Site-preparation techniques for establishing natural pine regeneration on small forest properties. South. J. Appl. Forestry 11:41–45.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cantrell, R. L. (ed.). 1985. A guide to silvicultural herbicide use in the southern United States. School of Forestry, Auburn Univ., Auburn, Ala. 592 p.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Conde, L. F., B. F. Swindell, and J. E. Smith. 1983. Plant species cover, frequency, and biomass: early responses to clearcutting, chopping, and bedding in Pinus elliottii flatwoods. Forest Ecol. Manage. 6:307–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    DeWit, J. N., and T. A. Terry. 1983. Site preparation effects on early loblolly pine growth, hardwood competition, and soil physical properties. Pages 40–47 In U.S.D.A. Forest Serv., Southeast. Forest Exp. Sta., Asheville, N.C. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-24.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dougherty, P. M., and C. A. Gresham. 1988. Conceptual analysis of southern pine plantation establishment and early growth. South. J. Appl. Forestry 12:160–166.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fitzgerald, C. H., F. A. Peevy, and D. E. Fender. 1973. Rehabilitation of forest land-the southern region. J. Forestry 71:148–153.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gent, J. A., and R. Ballard. 1985. Impact of intensive forest management practices on the bulk density of Lower Coastal Plain and Piedmont soils. South. J. Appl. Forestry 9:44–48.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gent, J. A., and L. A. Morris. 1986. Soil compaction from harvesting and site preparation in the Upper Gulf Coastal Plain. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 50:443–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gjerstad, D. H. 1981. Chemical weed control in southern forest. Pages 116–120 In Proc. of the 1981 J. S. Wright Forestry Conference, Weed Control in Forest Management, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, Ind.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Glover, G. R., and D. F. Dickens. 1985. Impact of competing vegetation on yield of the southern pine. Georgia Forestry Commission, Macon. Georgia Forest Res. Pap. 59. 14 p.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Glover, G. R., S. A. Knowe, and D. H. Gjerstad. 1981. Fayette site preparation study - 22 year results. Department of Forestry, Auburn Univ., Auburn, Ala. Silvicultural Herbicide Cooperative Res. Note 1. 8 p.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guldin, R. W. 1983. Site preparation costs in the Southern Coastal Plain-an update. U.S.D.A. Forest Serv., South. Forest Exp. Sta., New Orleans, La. Res. Note SO-292. 3 p.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Korstian, C. F., and M. V. Bilan. 1957. Some further evidence of competition between pine and associated hardwoods. J. Forestry 55:821–822.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lull, H. W. 1959. Soil compaction on forest and range lands. U.S.D.A. Forest Serv., Washington, D.C. Misc. Publ. 768. 33 p.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Miller, E. L. 1984. Sediment yield and storm flow response to clearcut harvest and site preparation in the Ouachita Mountains. Water Resources Res. 20:471–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Miller, J. H., and R. J. Mitchell (eds.). 1988. A manual on ground applications of forestry herbicides. U.S.D.A. Forest Serv., Southern Region, Atlanta, Ga. Management Bull. R8- MB21.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morris, L. A., and R. F. Lowery. 1988. Influence of site preparation on soil conditions affecting seedling establishment and early growth. South. J. Appl. Forestry 12:170–178.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nelson, L. R., D. H. Gjerstad, and P. J. Minogue. 1984. Use of herbicides for industrial forest management in the southern United States. Chapter 2 In Chemical and Biological Controls in Forestry (W. Y. Garner and J. Harvey, Jr., eds.). American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C. ACS Symposium Series No. 238.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pienaar, L. V., J. W. Rheney, and B. D. Shiver. 1983. Response to control of competing vegetation in site-prepared slash pine plantation. South. J. Appl. Forestry 7:38–45.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pye, J. M., and P. M. Vitousek. 1985. Soil and nutrient removals by erosion and windrowing at a southeastern U. S. Piedmont site. Forest Ecol. Manage. 11:145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stransky, J. J., J. C. Huntley, and W. J. Risner. 1986. Net community production dynamics in the herb-shrub stratum of a loblolly pine-hardwood forest: effects of clearcutting and site preparation. U.S.D.A. Forest Serv., South. Forest Exp. Sta., New Orleans, La. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-61.11 p.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stransky, J. J., J. H. Roese, and K. G. Watterston. 1985. Soil properties and pine growth affected by site preparation after clearcutting. South. J. Appl. Forestry 9:40–43.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Swindel, B. F., L. F. Conde, and J. E. Smith. 1986. Successional changes in Pinus elliottii plantations following two regeneration treatments. Can. J. Forest Res. 16:630–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Swindel, B. F., W. R. Marion, L. D. Harris, L. A. Morris, W. L. Pritchett, L. F. Conde, H. Riekerk, and E. T. Sullivan. 1983. Multi-resource effects of harvest, site preparation, and planting in pine flatwoods. South. J. Appl. Forestry 7:6–15.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Switzer, G. L., D. M. Moehring, and T. A. Terry. 1978. Clearcutting vs. alternative timber harvesting-stand regeneration systems: effects on soils and environment of the South. Pages 447–585 In Proc. 5th North American Forest Soils Conference. Colorado State Univ., Ft. Collins.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tew, D. T., L. A. Morris, H. L. Allen, and C. B. Wells. 1986. Estimates of nutrient removal, displacement, and loss resulting from harvest and site preparation of Pinus taeda plantations in the Piedmont of North Carolina. Forest Ecol. Manage. 15:257–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vitousek, P. M., and P. A. Matson. 1985. Intensive harvesting and site preparation decrease soil nitrogen availability in young plantations. South. J. Appl. Forestry 9:120–125.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Walstad, J. D. 1976. Weed control for better southern pine management. Southern Forestry Research Center, Weyerhaeuser Co., Hot Springs, Ark. Weyerhaeuser Forestry Pap. No. 15. 44 p.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Walstad, J. D., and P. J. Kuch (eds.). 1987. Forest Vegetation Management for Conifer Production. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 523 p.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wilhite, L. P., and W. H. McKee. 1985. Site preparation and phosphorus application alter early growth of loblolly pine. South. J. Appl. Forestry 9:103–109.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert F. Lowery
  • Dean H. Gjerstad

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations