Sugar Maple

haliburtoncooperative.on.ca

Sugar Maple

Growth and yield of sugar maple and yellow

birch on demonstration plots of the Institute for

Forest Growth Haliburton Forest

Heinrich Spiecker, Andreas Siegel,

Dominik Stangler, Daniela Diaconu

Albert‐Ludwigs‐University Freiburg, Institute for Forest Growth


The research teams… 2000‐2012

2002

2000


Outline

• Project I: Demonstration plot “North road”

‐ Research design and research questions

‐ Volume and basal area growth

‐ Radial growth of future crop trees and filling stand

‐ Intra‐annual growth response to the leaf drop event 2010

• Project II: Sampling of increment cores and stem discs

‐ Modeling crown width as a function of dbh and tree age

‐ Modeling crown base as a function of dbh and radial growth


Demonstration plot “North Road”

Research design

Location of the demonstration plots near “North Road”

Thinning 2005

Thinning 2000

Zero‐plot


Demonstration plot “North Road”

–Research design

yellow birch in plot DF2000


Demonstration plot “North Road”

–Research design

Thinning 2000 (DF2000)

• 1.51 ha

• 30 future future crop trees (14 YB, 16 SM) were selected,

marked and released

• Dendrometers are installed on 5 YB and 5 SM

• Moderate thinning (removal of 3.2 competitive trees for one

future crop tree)

• Canopy closure was not expected to occur again before 10

years after the thinning


Demonstration plot “North Road”

–Research design

Control

• 0.6 ha

• Established in 2003

• 25 valuable future crop trees (13 YB, 12 SM) were

selected and marked

• Dendrometers are installed on 5 YB and 4 SM

• No trees have been released


Demonstration plot “North Road”

Research design

Thinning 2005 (DF2005)

• 1.10 ha

• 17 valuable future crop trees (10 YB, 7 SM) were selected,

marked and released

• Dendrometers are installed on 5 YB and 4 SM

• Strong thinning (removal of 4.5 competitive trees for one

future crop tree)

• Canopy closure was not expected to occur again before 20

years after the thinning


Demonstration plot “North Road”

Growth parameters

Forest stand parameters of the three plots before and after thinning

Treatment N N/ha G G/ha dg hg dg100 hg100 V V/ha

DF_2000 before 857 567 41,47 26,74 30,5 20,97 47,29 23,29 412,47 273,16

DF_2000 after 722 478 31,78 21,05 29,3 20,72 45,2 23,09 322,82 213,78

DF_2005 before 416 378 18,41 16,73 29,38 20,74 37,4 22,15 184,61 167,82

DF_2005 after 348 317 13,79 12,53 27,53 20,31 33,87 21,6 136,39 123,98

Control 172 287 9,21 15,34 32,77 21,4 31,32 21,13 93,17 155,29

Siegel (2012)


Height and crown base of sugar maple in year 2004


Demonstration plot “North Road”

Research questions

• Influence of the different treatments

‐ on volume and basal area growth per hectar

‐ on radial growth of the future crop trees

‐ on horizontal crown expansion of the future crop trees

‐ on quality of the future crop trees (e.g. formation of secondary

branches)

‐ on intra‐annual growth (growth onset, growth cessation, growth

duration, response to extrem events as e.g. drought, late‐frost)

• Influence of single tree parameters (e.g. social class, crown width,

crown base) on radial growth


Demonstration plot “North Road”

Volume and basal area growth

Current annual volume increment in m³/ha [V] of yellow birch and sugar maple for

all different treatments (for a fully stocked pure stand)

Tree species treatment iV [m 3 ,ha ‐1 ]

yellow birch DF2000 5.3

sugar maple DF2000 3.8

yellow birch DF2005 4.4

sugar maple DF2005 4.2

yellow birch Cotroll 4.4

sugar maple Controll 4.4

yellow birch mean 4.7

sugar maple mean 4.1

Siegel (2012)


Demonstration plot “North Road”

Volume and basal area growth

Conclusions

• No big differences in growth between tree species and

different treatments

• Annual growth of yellow birch in thinning 2000 is with 5.32

m³/a/ha the highest (not statistically significant)

• Growing stock, number of future crop trees and thinning

intensity influenced current annual volume increment

(m³/a/ha) only slightly


Demonstration plot “North Road”

Diameter Growth of Future Crop Trees (DF2000)

40

Yellow birch

40

Sugar maple

30

30

20

20

0

10

0

2000

2004 2008

0

2000

2004 2008


Demonstration plot “North Road”

Diameter Growth of Future Crop Trees (DF2005)

Yellow birch

Sugar maple

40

40

30

30

20

20

10

10

0

0

2004 2006 2008 2010 2004 2006 2008 2010


Demonstration plot “North Road”

Diameter Growth of Future Crop Trees (DF2000)

id 1.3 [cm]

sugar maple

12

8

4

0

d 1.3 [cm]

0 10 20 30 40


Demonstration plot “North Road”

Diameter Growth of Future Crop Trees (DF2000)

id 1.3 [cm]

yellow birch

12

8

4

0

d 1.3 [cm]

0 10 20 30 40


Demonstration plot “North Road”

Diameter Growth of Future Crop Trees (DF2000)

id 1.3 [cm]

12

yellow birch

sugar maple

8

4

0

d 1.3 [cm]

0 10 20 30 40


Demonstration plot “North Road”

Diameter Growth of Future Crop Trees (DF2005)

id 1.3 [cm]

sugar maple

12

8

4

0

d 1.3 [cm]

0 10 20 30 40


Demonstration plot “North Road”

Diameter Growth of Future Crop Trees (DF2005)

id 1.3 [cm]

yellow birch (DF2005)

12

8

4

0

d 1.3 [cm]

0 10 20 30 40


Demonstration plot “North Road”

Diameter Growth of Future Crop Trees (DF2005)

id 1.3 [cm]

12

yellow birch

sugar maple

8

4

0

d 1.3 [cm]

0 10 20 30 40


Demonstration plot “North Road” –

Radial growth of future crop trees and “filling” stand

Influence of thinning intensity and time period on radial growth

Yellow birch

Sugar maple

Siegel (2012)

Average annual radial increment of the different treatments (mm)

Control (Sept. 2003 – Sept 2008), 2000 (Sept. 2000 – Sept. 2008), 2005 (Sept. 2005 – Sept. 2008)


Demonstration plot “North Road” –

Radial growth of future crop trees and filling stand

Conclusions

•Radial growth of sugar maple depends on the extend of the

crown release. In treatment 2005 sugar maple responded quite

quickly to crown release with increased radial growth

•Radial growth of yellow birch is the highest in the treatment

2000 (moderate thinning). This shows that yellow birch might

need some time to physiologically adapt to the new conditions


Demonstration plot “North Road” –

Intra‐annual growth response to the leaf drop event 2010

Kahle (2006)


Impact of high late May temperatures on intra‐annual growth of the year 2010:

• According Impact of to high Sean late Thomas May (UofT) temperatures the high on temperature intra-annual spike growth on May of 25‐27 the year were 2010:

record • According May temperatures to Sean Thomas of all time (UofT) for much the high of the temperature region. These spike temperatures on May 25-27

corresponded were record to May the peak temperatures of leaf expansion. of all time for much of the region. These

•Most temperatures leaves shed corresponded were half expanded, to the and peak fell of right leaf after expansion. this event. Sugar maple

(and •Most other leaves species) shed are were adapted half to expanded, deal with late and frosts, fell right but (evidently) after this event. not with Sugar 30

degree maple plus (and temperatures other species) during are leaf adapted expansion to deal with late frosts, but (evidently)

not with 30 degree plus temperatures during leaf expansion

Algonquin E

Sudbury

North Bay

Petawawa

Sault Ste. Marie

Peterborough

Killarney

Thomas (2011)

Thomas (2010)

Collingwood

Toronto


Demonstration plot “North Road” –

Intra‐annual growth response to the leaf drop event 2010

sugar maple – on control plot

• Leaf drop event end of May

2010

• Cessation of cambial activity

of sugar maple already in

the beginning of June!


Demonstration plot “North Road” –

Intra‐annual growth response to the leaf drop event 2010

yellow birch – on control plot

• Less severe impact on intra-annual

growth pattern of yellow birch

• Relatively normal duration of

seasonal cambial activity


Demonstration plot “North Road” –

Intra‐annual growth response to the leaf drop event 2010

sugar maple – on DF2005 plot

Leaf drop event slows

down growth process

• The more vital and dominant sugar

maple future crop trees that have

been released in 2005 show the

ability to restart growth after a

period of slow growth or cambial

dormancy


Sampling of increment cores and stem discs

Project II: Sampling of increment cores and stem discs

• Data material consists of 97 yellow birch and 254 sugar maple

trees (dbh, height, crown base, clear bole length, crown projection area, crown

width, ir, age)

• Motivation:

‐ e.g. investigating the dynamics of diameter growth and

natural pruning of the two tree species


Relation between crown width and diameter at 1.3m

yellow birch


Measuring crown width

horicontal distance

crown projection

azimuth


Relation between crown width and diameter at 1.3m

yellow birch

cw [m]

d1.3 [cm]


Relation between crown width and diameter at 1.3m

sugar maple

cw [m]

d1.3 [cm]


Modeling crown width as a function of dbh

and tree age

Yellow birch

Sugar maple

Crown width (m)

Crown width (m)

Age (Years)

Age (Years)

Siegel (2012)

Developement of crown width and age at different radial growth intensities


Modeling crown width as a function of dbh

and tree age

Conclusions

•Trees of the same age need wider crowns for faster radial

growth

•At an age of 80 years and an annual radial growth of 2 mm,

yellow birch needs a crown width of 7.30 m, whereas sugar

maple needs only 6.64 m

•The light demanding yellow birch needs a wider crown to

produce the same radial growth as sugar maple


Modeling crown base as a function of dbh

and radial growth

Yellow birch

Sugar maple

Relative crown base (%)

Relative crown base (%)

dbh (cm)

Relative crown base as a function of dbh and radial growth

dbh (cm)

Siegel (2012)


Modeling crown base as a function of dbh

and radial growth

Conclusions

Sugar Maple

‐ For an average radial increment of 2 mm and a dbh of 50 cm within a

125 year production time the relative crown base can be expected at

52% of the tree height

•Yellow birch

‐ For an average radial increment of 2 mm and a dbh of 50 cm within a

125 year production time the relative crown base can be expected at

47% of the tree height

‐ Radial growth of yellow birch responds more sensitive to changes in

relative crown base than the shade tolerant sugar maple


Thank you for your attention!

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines