Production potential of Douglas fir in acid sites of Hůrky Training Forest District, Secondary Forestry School in Písek

Abstract

AbSTRAcT:The study is a follow-up of the production potential of Douglas fir in mesotrophic sites of the Křtiny Training Forest Enterprise (TFE) (Journal of Forest Science, No. 7, 2008). Production parameters (height, dbh, volume) of Douglas fir are also evaluated, but in acid sites of the Hůrky Training Forest District, Secondary Forestry School in Písek in mature stands. In total, 17 mixed stands with the proportion of Douglas fir aged 88 to 121 years were assessed. Comparing 10 Douglas fir trees with 10 Norway spruce, Scots pine or European larch trees of the largest volume, higher and generally markedly higher production potential of the introduced Douglas fir was always found in all assessed stands. Groups where the volume of Douglas fir trees was two to three times higher than the volume of spruce, pine or larch were not an exception. For example, in stand 22B10, the mean volume of the 10 largest Douglas fir trees was 6.30 m 3 but the volume of spruce trees was only 1.93 m 3 and the volume of larch trees 2.25 m 3 . Differences between the mensurational parameters of Douglas fir and spruce (or larch) assessed by the ANOVA test were statistically highly significant. At present (based on annual ring analyses), the volume increment of particular Douglas fir trees ranges at level of 0.06 to 0.10 m 3 /year (i.e. about 0.6 m 3 to 1.0 m 3 per 10 years) in mature stands.

Effects of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii [Mirb.] Franco) on understorey layer species diversity in managed forests

“…A different situation is in European countries where the environmental issues prevail (Augusto et al 2002, Schmid et al 2014, as well as the production in comparison with native species is studied. Also in the Czech Republic, this species was intensively studied from the production point of view, and its production potential was satisfactorily evaluated (Kantor et al 2001, Martiník 2003, Martiník, Kantor 2007, Kantor 2008, Kantor, Mareš 2009, Mareschal et al 2013, Cools et al 2014. Also the soil effects of this species were described to some extent, so it is possible to exclude its negative influences on the forest soil (Podrázský, Remeš 2008, Menšík et al 2009), its resistance against droughts was documented as well (Urban et al 2009(Urban et al , 2010Eilmann, Rigling 2010).…”

Soil-forming effect of Douglas fir at lower altitudes - a case study

“…Large introduction of Norway spruce is considered also as one cause of broad acidification of the forest environment (Borůvka et al 2005;Oulehle, Hruška 2005 (Ferron, Douglas 2010;Larson 2010) for its fast growth and technical characteristics of very valuable timber. Also in the Czech conditions, it was recognized as the most productive species (Kantor et al 2001a, b;Martiník 2003;Martiník, Kantor 2007;Kantor 2008;Kantor, Mareš 2009;Podrázský et al 2009;Remeš et al 2010) with relatively favourable effects on the forest soil -at least comparing to native conifers (Podrázský et al 2002(Podrázský et al , 2009Podrázský, Remeš 2008;Menšík et al 2009;Podrázský, Kupka 2011).…”

Potential of Douglas­‑fir as a partial substitute for Norway spruce – review of the newest Czech literature

“…Reason for these results is considerable lower density of Douglas -fir stands at the same stand heights comparing to other species. But, on the contrary, this approach fails for the simple fact, that on the same site, the Douglas -fir reaches highly bigger height and diameter growth comparing to other species (Kantor 2008, Kantor, Mareš 2009, Kantor et al 2001a, 2001b, Remeš et al 2010.…”