Impacts of Mechanical Tree Felling on Development of Water Tupelo Regeneration in the Mobile Delta, Alabama

Abstract

Two water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica L.) stands in the Mobile Delta of Alabama were selected to test the hypothesis that mechanized felling does not reduce establishment and growth of natural water tupelo regeneration relative to traditional tree felling with chainsaws. To test the hypothesis, we established six, 2 ac treatment plots in each of two blocks on each of two sites, and randomly assigned plots to either mechanical tree felling with a tracked, swing feller or chainsaw felling. Each site was clearcut in Fall, 1992, and merchantable boles were removed by helicopter. Establishment and growth of regeneration was assessed prior to harvest and annually for 3 yr after harvest in five, 0.01 ac measurement plots located in each treatment plot. Stand harvesting promoted establishment of water tupelo seedlings such that 3 yr after treatment we recorded over 270/ac on each site regardless of felling method. Seedling height increased at a steady rate and averaged about 39 in. tall after three growing seasons. Woody competition also responded to the harvest, outnumbering water tupelo seedlings 3 yr after treatment by as much as seven to one on Site 2. Water tupelo stump sprouts developing from chainsaw felling grew well and averaged about 13.5 ft tall after three growing seasons. However, mechanical felling reduced water tupelo stump sprouting by 50% leading to a lower density of sprout clumps in mechanically felled plots (P = 0.0253). Our results indicated that mechanical felling techniques used in this study may adversely impact regeneration of water tupelo swamps where coppice is a desirable form of reproduction. South. J. Appl. For. 24(2):65-69.

Effects of Mechanical Site Preparation, Planting Stock, and Planting Aids on the Survival and Growth of American Sycamore in a Marginal Old Field Riparian Restoration

“…However, compensatory site planning often utilizes the most economical planting stock due to the anticipated need to replant to meet regulatory planting density requirements. Planting stock is used based on the immediate economics of purchasing planting stock, and often ignores the cost to replant or plant, which differs from commercial forest establishment because compensatory mitigation sites often have greater budgets for re-establishment as compared to commercial forestry, but compensatory sites still favor use of a more economical approach that will achieve the required survival [23,24].…”