Center for Intensive

Planted-forest Silviculture

Intensive Silviculture of Planted

Douglas-fir Forests: Opportunities for
Increased Productivity

Growth, Yield, and Productivity:

Managing Site Resources
Through Key Intensive
Treatments
Doug Maguire
Center for Intensive Planted-forest Silviculture
College of Forestry, Oregon State University
 Growth, Yield, and Productivity

• Basic growth and yield concepts

– Concepts/principles
– Current work
– Current relevance
• Inherent site controls on productivity (soils/climate)
• The factory (species/genotype)
• Effects of silvicultural activities on growth and yield
patterns
– Genetic improvement
– Initial spacing
– Vegetation management
– Fertilization
– Thinning
• What does this mean for the practitioner?
 Growth, Yield, and Productivity

Do foresters have principles?

Do we have a science base?
Do we have a strong science base?
 Do foresters have principles?

• Definition and drivers of NPP/GPP

• Growth and yield as a fraction of NPP/GPP
• MAI/PAI
• Maximum size-density limit and recommended
density range for timber production (-3/2 law of self-
thinning)
• Eichhorn’s rule
• Langsaeter’s hypothesis
• Liebig’s law of the minimum
 Growth, Yield, and Productivity
Estimates of PNW
Douglas-fir productivity Potential MAI

Bulletin 201 (1930, 1961.

Normal yield tables for 210 ft3/ac/yr
(15 m3/ha/yr)
Douglas-fir)

Staebler (1955)
adjustment for capture of 270 ft3/ac/yr
(19 m3/ha/yr)
mortality (gross
increment)

Current field trials 300 ft3/ac/yr

(21 m3/ha/yr)
On 4.2 million ac of forestland owned
by private industry on the Westside:
Potential growth
160 ft3/ac/yr
Average growth
135 ft3/ac/yr

25 ft3/ac/yr
 Growth, Yield, and Productivity
Brazil: 4-fold increase in
Eucalyptus productivity (MAI) over
last 4 decades:
12
48 m3ha-1yr-1 (172
686 ft3/ac/yr)
Genetics (species-provenance-
hybrids-clones)
Silviculture (site prep, fertilization,
pest control, . . .)

Veracel average and target mean annual increment

m3ha-1yr-1 ft3ac-1yr-1 bf ac-1yr-1
2004 51 729 3,645
2008 56 800 4,000
target 63 900 4,500
 Growth, Yield, and Productivity

Potential MAI

Douglas-fir, PNW 300 ft3/ac/yr 21 m3/ha/yr

Douglas-fir, New Zealand 428 ft3/ac/yr 30 m3/ha/yr

Eucalypts, Brazil 800 ft3/ac/yr 56 m3/ha/yr

What controls productivity?

What limits Douglas-fir productivity in the PNW?
 Growth, Yield, and Productivity

Short answer:
• Length of growing season
• Seasonal availability of water
• Vapor pressure deficits
• Management intensity (factors influenced by
silviculture)
• Water availability
• Competing vegetation control
• Nutrient availability
• Fertilization
• Competing vegetation control
• Genetics (species, genotypes)
 Growth, Yield, and Productivity

Determinants of productivity
• Soil
• Nutrients
• Water holding capacity RESPIRATION
• Depth to water table
• Total soil depth
• Temperature
• Texture
• Climate FOREST
GPP
• Daytime temperature BIOMASS
• Nighttime temperature NPP
• Rainfall (amount and timing) TREE BIOMASS
• Humidity (vapor pressure deficit) STEM WOOD
• Solar radiation
• Length of growing season
• Extreme events (temperature, vapor pressure deficit, . . .)
• Soil micro-organisms, including bacteria and mycorrhizae
 Growth, Yield, and Productivity

Determinants of productivity

Ecophysiological growth models

RESPIRATION
(Process models)
(Mechanistic models)

FOREST
GPP
Hybrid models BIOMASS
(Empirical growth models NPP
+ ecophysiological components) TREE BIOMASS

• Required resolution on STEM WOOD

stems, logs, products
• Key resource-driven
mechanisms
 Growth, Yield, and Productivity

Estimates of
regional site
index from an
ecophysiological
growth model,
3PG

Swenson and Waring (2005)

 Growth, Yield, and Productivity
Climatic inputs, parent material, soil are “fixed”
parameters (beyond silvicultural control)
Annual precipitation

cm
250-500

65-250

12- 65
 Growth, Yield, and Productivity

What DO we have some silvicultural control over?

(within constraints of climatic drivers and inherited
parent materials)
• Soil
• Nutrient availability
• Water availability
• Water holding capacity
• Micro- and macro-organisms
• Climate
• Distribution of solar radiation (via stand structure)
 Growth, Yield, and Productivity
Two primary effects of silvicultural activities:

•Change in NPP (net primary production)

•Change in allocation of NPP
• trees vs. other vegetation
• crop trees vs. other trees
• aboveground vs. belowground
• stemwood vs. crown biomass
 Do foresters have principles?

• Definition and drivers of NPP/GPP

• Growth and yield as a fraction of NPP/GPP
• MAI/PAI
• Maximum size-density limit
RESPIRATION
• Eichhorn’s rule
• Langsaeter’s hypothesis
• Liebig’s law of the minimum
FOREST
BIOMASS

TREE BIOMASS
Trees STEM WOOD
 Working hypothesis Competing
Genetics vegetation
control
GPP + — (→+?)
NPP + — (→+?)
NPP / GPP 0 0
Tree / other vegetation 0 +
Crop tree / other trees 0 +
Shoot / root + 0
Stem / crown + 0
Merchantable / non-merch + 0
Stem form + 0
 Working hypothesis
Fertilization Thinning

GPP + —
NPP + —
NPP / GPP 0 0
Tree / other vegetation 0 —
Crop tree / other trees 0 +
Shoot / root + 0
Stem / crown 0 —
Merchantable / non-merch 0 +
Stem form — —
 Do foresters have principles?

• Definition and drivers of NPP/GPP

• Growth and yield as a fraction of NPP/GPP
• MAI/PAI
• Maximum size-density limit (-3/2 law of self-thinning)
• Eichhorn’s rule
• Langsaeter’s hypothesis
• Liebig’s law of the minimum
Growth, Yield, and Productivity
Growth, Yield, and Productivity
Growth, Yield, and Productivity

peak in
CAI
(PAI)

Inflection point =
point of most rapid
growth
Growth, Yield, and Productivity

MAI = volume accumulated to age A

A
Growth, Yield, and Productivity
Growth, Yield, and Productivity

a n d
A I
n M a t
rn i e th
a t te ngin i c
i s p ee n o m ted
Th is th eco f plan
A I t h e o
P es n c e al
i v
dr form der cultu a r
e r u n ilv i
p s t s es
or e t iv
f r a
n .
t e
al imes
reg
 Growth, Yield, and Productivity
Simulated site effect on MAI and PAI curves
(ORGANON simulations)
PAI
SI 140 ft
MAI
12-ft initial
PAI spacing
MAI (300 tpa)
SI 90 ft
Growth, Yield, and Productivity

SMC Lewisburg
spacing trial
 Growth, Yield, and Productivity
What do “real” MAI and PAI curves look like?
(Marshall and Curtis. 2002. Hoskins thinning plots)

• PAI variation

• net MAI peak

in controls

• delayed MAI
peak under
thinning

• mortality loss
under no
thinning
 Growth, Yield, and Productivity

Thinning & Growth-growing stock

 Trends in MERCHANTABLE CUBIC VOLUME PAI
Cubic volume increment (CV6/ac/yr) and MAI on Hoskins LOGS plots

Stand age (yr)

Douglas-fir Levels-of-Growing-Stock Study
(Curtis 2006)

CAIs well Lower growing stock

above MAIs
CAIs

MAIs
Treatment means of CAIs and MAIs
in gross CVT in relation to age.
 Do foresters have principles?

• Definition and drivers of NPP/GPP

• Growth and yield as a fraction of NPP/GPP
• MAI/PAI
• Maximum size-density limit
(-3/2 law of self-thinning)
• Eichhorn’s rule
• Langsaeter’s hypothesis
• Liebig’s law of the minimum
 Growth, Yield, and Productivity
Carrying capacity is difficult to predict
Maximum SDI for individual
permanent plots:

Douglas-fir
270-660

Western hemlock
470-780

Hann et al. 2004

 Maximum size-density limit
Density Management Diagram (Stand Density Index)

• Thinned stands
in DF LOGS Hoskins LOGS
studies tend to treatments
remain
between 30%
and 60%
maximum SDI

• Management
zone 35-55%,
for maximizing
production &
maintaining
tree vigor
Marshall and Curtis 2002
 Maximum size-density limit
Remaining challenge: maximum for specific site?
 Do foresters have principles?

• Definition and drivers of NPP/GPP

• Growth and yield as a fraction of NPP/GPP
• MAI/PAI
• Maximum size-density limit (-3/2 law of self-thinning)

• Eichhorn’s rule
• Langsaeter’s hypothesis
• Liebig’s law of the minimum
 Do foresters have principles?

Eichhorn’s rule
The total standing volume of a given tree species
at a given stand height should be identical for all
site classes.

Stands of the same mean height have the same

volume.

Stands of a given species take longer to attain a

specified height on sites of lower quality, but
whenever they attain the same top height they will
have accumulated the same total stem volume.
 Do foresters have principles?

Assmann’s
yield level Range in volume
theory capacity for given
top height
(in contrast to
Eichhorn’s rule)

Related to
“stockability” issue
in Pacific Northwest
(particularly
Eastside)
Douglas-fir Levels-of-Growing-Stock Study
(Curtis 2006)

Gross CVTS yield of controls in

relation to top
height, by installation.

Hoskins

Stampede
Creek
 Do foresters have principles?

• Definition and drivers of NPP/GPP

• Growth and yield as a fraction of NPP/GPP
• MAI/PAI
• Maximum size-density limit (-3/2 law of self-thinning)
• Eichhorn’s rule

• Langsaeter’s hypothesis
(manipulation of stand density)
• Liebig’s law of the minimum
Langsaeter hypothesis

Growing stock
range with equal
productivity

(not time!)
 Langsaeter hypothesis

?
ing
nn
thi
e
inc

Growing stock
es

range with equal

Tim

productivity

(not time!)
Growth – growing stock relationship on Douglas-fir
Hoskins LOGS plots over successive growth periods
Decreasing slope,
increasing conformity to
During Langsaeter hypothesis
specified
thinning
regime

After end of
thinning
regime
 Trends in MERCHANTABLE CUBIC VOLUME PAI
and MAI on Hoskins LOGS plots
Diminishing level of post-
Cubic volume increment (CV6/ac/yr)

thinning site occupancy

Stand age (yr)

 Closed stand, high tpa

Reduced leaf area

Reduced site occupancy

Thinning

Growth
Langsaeter: Variation
in basal area (or
cambial surface area ?)
for a given maximum
leaf area ?
 Leaf area X cambial surface area
X basal area

total age 35 yrs 55 yrs 55 yrs

crown surface 304 M ft2 319 M ft2 299 M ft2
bole surface 17.7 M ft2 47.8 M ft2 3.8 M ft2
basal area 112 ft2 203 ft2 142 ft2 1952
Briegleb
Stand density measure accounting for
crown size/surface area

Gross

Net

Briegleb 1952
Douglas-fir Levels-of-Growing-Stock Study
(Curtis 2006)

Treatment means of cumulative

gross CVTS yields in
relation to top height.

Average of
controls
Increasing thinning
across sites intensity
(cumulative loss of
site occupancy or
resources)
 Growth, Yield, and Productivity

Fertilization and nutrient availability

 Growth, Yield, and Productivity

Fertilization and nutrient availability

• Multi-nutrient trials (“Beyond N” trials)
• Rob Harrison
• Regional Forest Nutrition Research Cooperative
• Nutrition Project of Stand Management Cooperative
• Long-term Site Productivity
• Lots of others
 Growth, Yield, and Productivity

Liebig’s Law of the Minimum

Minimum

N
Ca
P
 Growth, Yield, and Productivity

Multi-nutrient trials (“Beyond N” trials)

• Possible predisposing effect of nutrition on
Swiss needle cast
• Known nitrogen limitations to Douglas-fir growth
• Possibility of local deficiencies in other nutrients
• Possibility of gradual depletion of other nutrients
with harvest of multiple rotations
 Growth, Yield, and Productivity
Treatments
Treatment Reason for inclusion

Control Statistical reference for treatments

N Standard operating procedure
Lime Add Ca, but also elevates pH, reduces Al
CaCl2 Add Ca without increasing pH
P Limiting in other regions; P-fixing soils
Kinsey Address multiple/successive limiting nutrients
Fenn Address multiple/successive limiting nutrients

16 installations with 10 reps/trt

 Growth, Yield, and Productivity
Three-year volume growth response
P-values
without covariates: 0.007 0.017 0.033
with covariates: 0.089 0.098 0.139
 Growth, Yield, and Productivity
Thinning + Fertilization
• Thinning causes at least a
temporary reduction in site
occupancy and resource capture
by crop trees
• Rate of recapture of growing
space and site resources
depends on growth rate of trees
 Growth, Yield, and Productivity

Thinning + Fertilization
• On many/most Douglas-fir sites, growth can be
accelerated by nitrogen fertilization
• Short-term increase in N foliar concentration and
photosynthetic efficiency
• Long-term increase in total foliage N and total
foliar biomass
Growth, Yield, and Productivity

Aboveground biomass increment

18

Control
16
Thin
Annual biomass increment (kg/tree)

Fertilize
14 Thin + Fertilize

12
Direct + indirect effect
10

2
1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978

Year from Brix (1983)

 Growth, Yield, and Productivity
Growth rate corrected for initial size at start of each growing
season (analogous to relative growth rate)
0.45
Biomass growth per unit initial mass (kg/kg)

0.40 Control
Thin
Fertilize
0.35 Thin + Fertilize
Direct
0.30
effect
0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05
1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978

Year from Brix (1983)

 Growth, Yield, and Productivity
Aboveground biomass increment per unit initial foliage mass
Growth efficiency

Direct effect
+ functional
insight

from Brix (1983)

 Growth, Yield, and Productivity

Treatment
effects on
total foliage Fertilized
biomass 10

(projected)
(leaf area 8
Thinned
+
index) Fertilized
6 Control
In d ex

4
Are a

2
L ea f

0
Thinned YES
NO NO
YES Fertilized?
Thinned?
From Brix (1981)
Growth, Yield, and Productivity

Competing vegetation control

 Growth, Yield, and Productivity

Vegetation Management Research Cooperative

Increasing aggressive
Concurrent competing vegetation control
monitoring of soil
moisture, seedling
water stress, and
growth over six
alternative regimes
for controlling
competing
vegetation

Dinger and Rose 2009

 Collaborations with VMRC
Sweet Home
100 Predictive 100
Sweet Home

80
models for 80

60 60

40
competing 40

vegetation
vegetation cover

cover
20 20

dynamics
00000 00000
0 0
T0000 T0000
TT000 TT000
Competing vegetation cover (%)

vegetation cover (%)

TTT00 TTT00
TTTT0 Seaside TTTT0 Seaside
100 TTTTT 100

vegetation
TTTTT
0TTTT 0TTTT
00TTT 00TTT
80

→ water and
80

60 60

40 other resource 40

Competing
20
use by 20
Competing

Competing
competing
0 0

Summit Summit
100

80
vegetation 100

80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Plantation age (years) Plantation age (years)

 Effects of competing vegetation control on tree growth

VMRC Herb 1 Study

Total vegetation
control
Tree volume (dm3)

NO vegetation
5 8 control 12
Years since planting
VMRC - Rose et al. 2006
 Effects of competing vegetation control on YIELD?

ift
Age sh
Fast
converge
nce
c on
v er ge nce
?
Tree volume (dm3)

w
Slo l o n g-
Red uc ed
po te n tial
term

5 8 12 20 40
Years since planting
 Growth, Yield, and Productivity

Time and yield gains from competing vegetation

control (Wagner et al. 2006)

Douglas-fir
Time since Yield gain
treatment (%) Sites Author
14 245 1, Oregon Hanson (1997)

12 200 1, Oregon Hanson (1997)

10 128 6, WA & OR Harrington et al. (1995)
10 272 4, Oregon Stein (1995)

10 119 1, Oregon Monleon et al. (1999)

 Growth, Yield, and Productivity

Age shift (time gain in VMRC Critical Period Threshold study)

Reduction in time to get same
yield as untreated check plots
 Growth, Yield, and Productivity

What does this mean for the practitioner?

• Resources for tree growth are largely determined

by the site’s climate and soils
• Silvicultural treatments manipulate the proportion
of resources captured by crop trees
• Genetic tree improvement achieves growth and
yield increases by increased resource use
efficiency and heritable differences in morphology
and allocation
• Some activities like fertilization increase the total
amount of available resources and NPP
 Growth, Yield, and Productivity
What does this mean for the practitioner? (cont’d)
• Continuous site occupancy by crop trees tends to
ensure fullest capture of site resources
• Thinning is a compromise among several
responses:
– Some reduction in stemwood productivity per unit area
– Recovery of volume that would be lost to mortality
– Increase in average tree diameter
– Enhancement of individual tree vigor
• Thinning + fertilization accelerates site occupancy
and fuller capture of site resources
 Growth, Yield, and Productivity
What does this mean for the practitioner? (cont’d)
• Competing vegetation control is very effective for
channeling resources to crop trees vs. other
plant species
• Longevity of growth response to competing
vegetation control is not well established
• Interactions among treatments implemented in
the full sequence constituting a silvicultural
regime are not well understood, but largely
presumed additive
Thanks for yo
u r kind attentio
n!