The effects of overstory shading on white pine weevil damage to white spruce and its effects on spruce growth rates

Taylor, Steve; Alfaro, René I.; DeLong, Craig; Rankin, L.

doi:10.1139/x26-034

Cited by 57 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sunnier conditions may favour insects pests (e.g. Pissodes strobi, Taylor et al, 1996;bark beetles, Fettig et al, 2007) and higher temperatures may lead to a larger number of generations or sister broods in the warm season (voltinism), increasing the risk of damage (Amman, 1973; . For this reason, thinning during the winter is recommended, when no air-borne H. annosum basidiospores are present (Rönnberg et al, 2006).…”

Section: Thinning and Pruningmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influences of forest stand management on biotic and abiotic risks of damage

Jactel

Nicoll

Branco³

et al. 2009

Ann. For. Sci.

236

167

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract• This article synthesizes and reviews the available information on the effects of forestry practices on the occurrence of biotic and abiotic hazards, as well as on stand susceptibility to these damaging agents, concentrating on mammal herbivores, pest insects, pathogenic fungi, wind and fire.• The management operations examined are site selection, site preparation, stand composition, regeneration method, cleaning and weed control, thinning and pruning, and harvesting. For each of these operations we have examined how they influence the occurrence of biotic and abiotic damaging agents, the susceptibility of European forests, and describe the ecological processes that may explain these influences.• Overall, we find that the silvicultural operations that have the largest influence on both biotic and abiotic risks to European forest stands are closely related to species composition and the structure of the overstorey. Four main processes that drive the causal relationships between stand management and susceptibility have been identified: effect on local microclimate, provision of fuel and resources to biotic and abiotic hazards, enhancement of biological control by natural enemies and changes in individual tree physiology and development.• The review demonstrates an opportunity to develop silvicultural methods that achieve forest management objectives at the same time as minimising biotic and abiotic risks. Mots-clés :sylviculture / peuplement / occurrence / sensibilité / Résumé -Influences de la sylviculture sur le risque de dégâts biotiques et abiotiques dans les peuplements forestiers.• Cette revue bibliographique s'intéresse aux effets de la sylviculture sur la sensibilité des peuplements forestiers aux principaux agents de dégâts biotiques et abiotiques que sont les mammifères herbivores, les insectes ravageurs, les champignons pathogènes, le feu et les vents forts. * Corresponding author: herve.jactel@pierroton.inra.frArticle published by EDP Sciences Ann. For. Sci. 66 (2009) 701 H. Jactel et al.• Les pratiques forestières analysées sont la sélection et la préparation des sites de reboisement, la définition de la composition en essences et le choix du matériel génétique, les méthodes de régé-nération et d'entretien, les modalités d'éclaircie et d'élagage, le mode de récolte finale. L'influence de chacune de ces opérations sur l'occurrence des agents de dégâts biotiques et abiotiques et sur la sensibilité des peuplements est examinée ainsi que les processus écologiques sous-jacents.• Les opérations sylvicoles qui se révèlent les plus déterminantes pour la sensibilité des forêts en Europe sont celles qui affectent la composition et la structure de la strate arborée. Quatre principaux processus écologiques semblent expliquer la relation entre sylviculture et sensibilité des peuplements : la modification du micro-climat, l'apport de ressources ou de combustible aux agents de dégâts, l'amélioration du contrôle biologique par les ennemis naturels et l'altération de la physiologie et du développement des arb...

show abstract

Section: Thinning and Pruningmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influences of forest stand management on biotic and abiotic risks of damage

Jactel

Nicoll

Branco³

et al. 2009

Ann. For. Sci.

236

167

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In recent decades, the interest in managing broadleaf-conifer mixed tree species (hereafter, mixedwood) stands has grown with an improved understanding of their potential economic benefits (Kelty 1992, Sachs 1996, Comeau et al 1999, Steele et al 2001, Valkonen and Valsta 2001 and ecological benefits (Holbo et al 1985, Mielikainen 1985, Morrison et al 1988, Stathers 1989, Morrison et al 1991, Watt 1992, Enns et al 1993, McComb 1994, Taylor et al 1994, Wang et al 1995, Prescott et al 2000. However, uncertainty about best-management practices in mixedwood stands has often been expressed in a default strategy of minimizing the incidence and growth of competing broadleaf tree species through intensive and expensive practices (even though management guidelines permit the presence of broadleaf competitors, see Simard 1996).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Describing condition-specific determinants of competition in boreal and sub-boreal mixedwood stands

Green¹

2004

The Forestry Chronicle

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a growing economic and ecological incentive in developing best-management practices for broadleaf-conifer mixedwood stands in boreal and sub-boreal regions of Western Canada. Current free-growing guidelines employed in these areas appear to be poor predictors of interactions between primary growth determinants and environmental conditions in these complex stands. Density dependent relations between broadleaf and conifer components in mixedwood stands may vary across a range of conditions due to interactions discussed in this paper between primary growth determinants (i.e., light limitations, edaphic limitations and species specific traits) and local environment. Clarifying these interactions will promote the development of adaptable tools that can be used to develop context-specific mixedwood management strategies. Key words: mixedwood management, free-growing guidelines, boreal, sub-boreal, density-dependent competition

show abstract

“…Such a coarse filter approach conserves forest structure at the landscape level to help maintain diversity. In addition to maintaining biodiversity, mixedwood stands yield a greater wood volume than a single-species stand (Man, Lieffers 1999) and may enhance stand resistance to wind damage, disease (Baleshta et al 2005), insect outbreaks (Taylor et al 1996;Simard et al 2004), and site nutrient imbalance (Richards et al 2010). Moreover, a mixed forest condition (complex forest) is better able to deal with the uncertainty of future stand development and environmental (Gayer 1886, page 5) risk as well as having potential economic advantages and managerial flexibility (Knoke 2008;Newsome et al 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How much birch (Betula papyrifera) is too much for maximizing spruce (Picea glauca) growth: a case study in boreal spruce plantation forests

Hawkins¹,

Dhar²,

Rogers³

2012

J. For. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interest in conifer-broadleaf mixedwood forests has greatly increased due to continuous demand for hardwood products and a shift towards more biological or ecosystem-based management. In British Columbia, more than 30% of the productive forest land is a conifer-broadleaf mixture and current forest regulations are more conifer biased rather than maintaining a mixed-species condition. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of paper birch on white spruce growth. Spruce growth data from 10 to 18 years old complex stands indicate that radial, height, and stem volume was not impacted by retaining up to 3,000 stems·ha -1 of birch. Similarly, growth and yield model projections suggest spruce-birch stands would be more productive up to a threshold birch density (3,000 stems·ha -1 ) than pure spruce stands. At a 4% real interest rate, the removal of birch from these stands does not appear to be warranted as an investment. The results suggest that instead of encouraging uniform broadleaf removal across conifer plantations, mixed species management strategies could enhance the forest productivity, stand diversity and resilience.

show abstract

The effects of overstory shading on white pine weevil damage to white spruce and its effects on spruce growth rates

Cited by 57 publications

References 0 publications

The influences of forest stand management on biotic and abiotic risks of damage

The influences of forest stand management on biotic and abiotic risks of damage

Describing condition-specific determinants of competition in boreal and sub-boreal mixedwood stands

How much birch (Betula papyrifera) is too much for maximizing spruce (Picea glauca) growth: a case study in boreal spruce plantation forests

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About