Data from the "Tree Quality Outcomes of Silvicultural Treatments” study at the Penobscot Experimental Forest

Kenefic, Laura S.; Gerndt, Kathryn M.; Rogers, Nicole S.; Castle, Mark; Weiskittel, Aaron R.

doi:10.2737/rds-2018-0060

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Between 2012 and 2015, trees ≥ 11.4 cm diameter were recorded as Acceptable or Unacceptable Growing Stock (AGS or UGS, respectively; Nyland, 2016, p. 240) on at least one-third of plots in each MU. AGS had at least one sound 2.4-m log and were expected to increase in volume and value, while UGS did not have a sound log or were not expected to increase in volume or value due to risk factors such as damage, decay, structural weakness, or poor vigor (Kenefic et al, 2018).…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tree quality and value: results in northern conifer stands after 65 years of silviculture and harvest

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the importance of financial outcomes to stand-level forest management decision making, long-term assessments are rare. We compared quality and value of mixed, northern conifer (Picea – Abies – Tsuga) stands in Maine, USA, treated with a range of silvicultural systems and exploitive cuttings for 65 years. Ten replicated treatments – single-tree selection and uniform shelterwood systems, commercial clearcutting, fixed and guiding diameter-limit cutting, and no cutting – were assessed for quality and value of standing and harvested trees. Selection systems resulted in good tree quality and high stand value, particularly when applied on a short cutting cycle, but small harvest volumes were not always commercially operable. Shelterwood system resulted in good tree quality, but changes in species values over time influenced financial outcomes. In contrast, commercial clearcutting and fixed diameter-limit cutting resulted in poor tree quality and low residual stand value after multiple harvests. Guiding diameter-limit cutting resulted in high stand value, and is more appropriately characterized as a silvicultural system than exploitive harvesting when applied with harvest volume limits and seed tree retention. Overall, treatments focused on short-term financial gain led to degraded stand conditions, while those that sought to grow high-quality trees resulted in desirable outcomes over the long-term.

show abstract

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%