Canadian Forest Service - Ressources naturelles Canada

Transcription

Field performance of several tree species and stock types
planted in montane forests of coastal British Columbia
Pacific and Ynkon Region· Information Report BC-X-347
J.T. Arnott and F.T. Pendl
.+.
Natural Resources
Canada
Ressources naturelles
Canada
Canadian Forest
Service
Service canadien des
forets
Pacific and Yukon
Region
Region du Pacifique
et Yukon
Canada'
The Pacific Foreslr~ Centre i, one of 'i\ rc~i()nal and 1.... 0 national
e...labli\hmenl\ of lhe Canadian Fore"'l Sen i!.:e. Silu.lled in Vicloria .... ith a
d"trici office in Prince George, the Pacific Fore\lr) Centrc cooperale\
.... ilh olher governmenl agencie" Ihe fon.:'lr) indu ... Ir). and educalional
in...lilUlion... 10 promole the .... I ... e TllanagclllCnl 01 lhe lorc ...1 re,ource... of
Brili ... h ColumbIa and Ihe Yukon.
The Pacinc Fore'lry Cl'ntrc undertake... re ...carch in re... pon ...c 10 lhe
need ... of the \ariou... manager~ of the fore ... t re"'ource, The re ... ulh of thi ...
rc ..earch arc di.,lributed in the form of ..cicnlific ;md lechnic:ll report .. ,lIld
olher publication ...
Aboul the AUlhors
.Jim Arnoll (RPFj i.. ;l rc..can.:h ..cicnli..l at lhe Pacific
Forcslr) Centre. Iii .. re...("arch It.... focu\cd on cOIll:liner
...eedling refore"1ation ..) ..ICIl1... photopcriodi..m of tree
"lXcie.., and regcner'llion .. ilviculturc of Brili ..h
Columbia'.., CO;I..lal fore"",. Mr. ArnOIl camet! hi.. B.Se. in
forestf} from the Univcr-,it) of Edinburgh in 1963 and hi ...
M.Se. in sil\icullure froll1lhc Slale l·ni\eNt) College of
Fore"lf) in S)racu\C in 1965.
Frank Pendl (RPFj i\ a re\carch \ihiculluri"l .... 11h the
British Columbia Mmi ...lr) of I;ore'l... m the Vancouver
Fore... Region. During the la"'l :20 year. hi... re-.earch ha,
focu~ on triah of 'lX'Cie... and \lOd l)pe" \egelalion
management. and \ih icultur.ll 'y,lcm.., \Ir. Pendl earned
hi\ B.S.F. al lhc Lni\cf\ll) oj Brili..h Columhia (Sopron
Oi\i\ionl.
Field performance of several tree species
and stock types planted in montane forests
of coastal British Columbia
J.T. Arnott l and F.T. Pcndl 2
I Pacillc Forestry Centre
Canadian Forest Service
Natural Resources Canada
Victoria. S.c. V8Z 1M5
2 Vancouver Forest Region.
B.C. Ministry of Forests
Burnaby. S.c. V5G 4L9
Information Report
BC-X-347
1994
Pacific and Yukon Region
Pacific Forestry Centre
Pacific and Yukon Region
Pacific Forestry Centre
506 West Burnside Road
Victoria, British Columbia
V8Z IM5
Phone (604) 363-0600
o Minister of Supply and Services Canada. 1994
Primed in Canada
Additional copies of this publication
are a\ailable in limited quantities
at no charge from the Pacific Forcsuy Centre.
Microfiches of this publication may be purchased from:
MicroMcdia Inc.
Place du Portage
165. Hotcl-de· Ville
Hull. Qucbec
J3X 3X2
Canadian Cntaloguing in publication data
Arnoll. J.T.
Field performance of several tree species and stock types pl:mted in montane forests of
British Columbia
coa~tal
(Information report. ISSN 0830-0453; BC-X-347)
Includes un abstract in French.
ISBN 0-662-22394-2
Cal. no. F046-I 7/347E
I. Forest reproduction -- British Columbia.
2. Reforestmion -- British Columbia.
3. Tree planting -- British Columbia.
\. Pend!. F.T.
II. Pacific Forestry Centre.
111. Title.
IV. Series: Infonnation reIXJrl (Pacific Forestry Centre): BC-X-347.
SD403.A76 199...
634.9'56
C94-980254-9
This publication contains recycled paper.
Ii
@
CONTENTS
SUI\IMARY
,
RESUME
.
.
, .. VI
.
... VII
.... viii
ACKNOWLEbGE:o.1ENTS
INTRODUCTION
.
.
.
MATERIALS AND MElliO!).'; ..
Seedling Production and Handling
Test Locations
..... 1
.
.
Plot Layout and Experimental Design
2
. 3
... ,3
.
Data Collection and Analyses
RESULTS...
.
.
......................... .
.
.3
. ..3
Mountain Hemlock Zone ..
Survival
.
Heighl and Height Incremenl.
Diameter
Tree Injuries and Fonn.
Coaslal Western Hemlock Zone
Survival.......
.
Hcight and Height Increment
Diameter.......
Tree Injuric~ and Foml
.
.
..
.
.
6
. 6
. 6
.............6
.
6
.
14
... 15
..15
..
.
..
.
.
.
... 15
17
..17
.
.
19
19
... 19
. 19
.
.
20
20
20
.
. 21
.21
.
.22
RECOMMENDATIONS ..
LlTER,\TURE CITED
3
.
..
DISCUSSION
Species.
Amabi1is IiI'
Noble fir
Yelluwcedar
Mountain hcmlock
Western white pine
Western redcedar
Douglas-fir
Weslern hemlock
Stock Type
Planting Season
CONCLUSIONS
1
1
23
.
.
TABLES .......
ApPENDIX
I. SUl11mary of ecological conditions and logging history for each lest area
ApPENDIX
2a. Codes used in assessment of plantations 10 Jist injuries causing seedling
mortality and injuries to remaining 11\'e trees
.
24
.
27
...... .40
..
ApPENDIX
2b. Codes and descriplion used for tree form
ApPENDIX
3. Principal injuries causing mortality between years I to 3 and 4 to 13. in descending
order of frequency by species and test area within the Mountain Hcmlock LOne
.42
4. Principal injuries causing mortality between year.;; I to 3 and 4 to 13. in descending
order of frequency by species and test area within the Coastal Wcstern I-Icmlock ,",one
44
ApPENDIX
iii
.
..... .41
..41
TABLES
1.
Geographic origin of seed sources selected for plant! ng
2.
Morphological characteristics of stock planted. fall 1978 .. ,
3.
Morphological characteristics of slOck planted. spring 1979
4.
Morphological characteristics of stock planted. fall 1979 ..
.
30
5.
Morphological characteristics of stock planted. spring 1980
.
31
6.
Analysis of variance for crfects of an~a. species. planting season and stock lype on tree survival.
height. heighl increment, and stem diameter al year 13 in the Mountain Hemlock LOne
32
Percenl ofrcrn:lining live trees of each species injured by class by species at year I in the six
.
study areas in the Mountain Hemlock zone.....
.33
Percent of remaining live trees of each species injured by class by species at year 13 in the
six study area~ in the Mountain Hemlock lOne
34
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
27
...28
.
....29
.
Analysis of variance for effects of area. species. planting season lind stock type on tree survival.
height. height increment and stem diameter at year 13 in the Coastlll Western Hemlock zone
Percent of remaining live trees of each species injured by class hy species at year I in the six
study areas in the Coastal Western Hemlock zone
.
Percent of remaining live trees of each species injured by class by species at year 13 in the six
study areas in the Coastal Western Hemlock zone.
.
Ranking of species. stock type and planting season rclillbility and productivity within each
biogeoclimalic zone
.
.
35
.. .... 36
.37
..... 38
FIGURES
... 2
I.
Location of test areas
2.
Significant interactions of tree survival al year 13 bctwcl:n (a) area x species.
(b) area x planting season and (e) stock type x species in the Mountain Hemlock zone
.... .4
3.
Mean survival of four species over a 13-year period al six tcst arcas in the Mountain Hemlock LOne ... 5
4.
Significant interactions of trec height at year IJ Oct ween (a) area x species. (b) arca x stock type
and (e) stock type x species in the Mountain Hemlock 7One....
5.
...... 7
Significant interactions of tree height increment (years J 1 to 13) between (a) area x spcl,;ics and
"""
(b) stock type x species in the Mountain Hemlock lOne
8
6.
Mean height of four species over a 13-year period at six test areas in the Mountain Hemlock zone ....9
7.
Significant interactions of stern diameter at year 13 between (a) area x species. (h) area x stock
...... 10
type and (c) slOck type x species in the Mountain Hemlock zone....
8.
Percentage of trecs with form defects by species 13 years after planting at six test areas in the
,.
.
Mountain Hemlock zone
.
11
Significant intemctions of tree survival at year 13 between (a) area x species. (b) area x planting
season and (c) area x stock type. Cd) species x plaming season (e) stock type x species and
(I) slOck type x planting season in the Coastal Western Hemlock zone
.
12
Mean percent survival of six species over a 13-year l:leriod at six test areas in the
Coastal Western Hemlock zonc
.
.
\3
Significant interactions of trec height at year 13 betw<.;en (a) area x species and (b) stock type x
.
species in the Coastal Western Hemlock zone
14
Significant interactions of tree height increment (years I I to 13) hetween arca x species in the
.
Coastal Western Hemlock zone.............................
15
Mean hcight of six species over a 13-year period at six test areas in the Coastal Wcstcrn
.
, .. ..
Hemlock zone.
16
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
..
Significant interactions of stem diameter at year 13 between (a) area x species and
(b) stock type x species in the Coastal Western Hemlock mne
Percentage of trces with form defects by species 13 years after planting at six test areas in the
,
Coastal Western Hemlock lone
.
.
17
18
Summary
The need for tree species selection on a site specific
basis to regenerate the province's foreslS is now
recognized throughout British Columbia. However,
lillIe research has been done to assess the suitability of
species. stock types and planting seasons in coastal
high-elevation ecosystems. To address these issues.
planting trials were established at sites within the
Mountain Hemlock and montane Coastal Weslern
Hemlock biogcoclimatic zones. Six test areas were
chosen within each zone. Amabilis fir (Abies all/obi/is),
noble fir (A. procera). yellow cedar (Chomoecyparis
Iloorkatellsis) and mountain hemlock (Tsliga
lIIertel/simw) were the species selected for planting in
the Moulllain Hemlock zone. In addition to Abies
amabi/is and A. procera. western white pine (Pinlls
//Iol/tico/a). western redccdar (TllIIja plicata). Douglasfir (Pselldor.wga men:.iesii) and western hemlock
(TslIga helcrophylla) were planted in the Coastal
Weslern Hemlock zone. Plug (PSB 2 [[ l. plug
transplant and bareroot stock types were used for the
eight species across both lones. Seedlings were planted
during the fall (Septemhcr/OclOber) and spring (May)
in each of two successive years: 1978-[979 and 19791980. Survival. growth and tree form 13 years after
planting were used as indicators of the reliability (a
combination of tree survival and form) and productivity
of the planting treatment combinations.
Noble fir and amabilis fir were the Illost reliable
species in the Mounlain Hemlock zone: i.e. these
species have average survival rates higher than 80%
and few form defects. Yellow cedar crowns were badly
broken by snow, which reduced the reliability of this
species in Ihe eOlrly years of plantation establishment.
The growth, survival and form of mountain hemlock
ranked between that of the true firs and yellow cedar.
Noble fir was by far the most productive species in the
Mountain Hemlock zone. Within the Coastal Western
Hemlock zone no single species demonstrated a
superior combination of productivity or reliability.
Douglas-fir. western hemlock and western redcedar
were good species in the [ower elevations of the zone.
whereas noble fir and amabilis fir were better species at
the upper elevational limits of the zone. Western while
pine should he avoided until rust-resistant seed sources
arc available.
Lillle variation was found among the three planting
stock options and even less between the two planting
seasons. Plug transplant stock was more reliable than
bareroot or plug stock; productivity ranked from
greatest to least in the following order within both
zones: plug transplant, bareroot and plug stock. This
ranking alTlong stock types may well change as
different stock types are developed. However, the
relative size and design differences among stock types,
no matter when they become available, will always
have an effect on the ultimate reliability and
productivity of planted trees. Fall planting gave
significantly lower survival in the Coastal Western
Hemlock zone only.
The planting options recommended in this report
for each of the zones should be used as guidelines.
There were many significant interactions among all of
the main treatments tested, whieh emphasizes the
variability encountered in the montane forests and the
need to make regeneration prescriptions on a sitespecific basis. These results provide a unique database
on the growth and relalive field performance of eight
tree species for the first 13 yeats after planting in highelevation forests across a wide spectrum of site types.
These data provide a benchmark against which the
growth of regeneration from alternative silvicultural
syslems can be judged.
Resume
ParlOUI en Colombie-Britannique. on reconnait
mainlenant 13 neccssile de selcctionncr les essences
en fooetion des statiOnS pour assurer la regeneration
des fon~ls de la province. Toutefois. peu de
recherches ont pone sur Ics essences. Ies types de
materiel CI les saisons de plantation les micux
appropries aux ecos)'stemcs cOliers d"altitudc. C'C\1
pour rcmediCT h cetle lacune que des parcellcs
experimentales onl etC elablics dans la lOne
biogeoclimalique de la pruche subalpine el dans la
partie montagnardc de la l.onc cOliere a pruche
occidentale. 6 scclcurs d'ctudc ont ele choisis dans
chaquc LOne. Dans la premiere (pruche subalpine), Ie
sapin gracicux (Abies umabilis), Ie sapin noble (Abit'S
procera). Ie cyprcs jaune (Clwmaecypari,f
Iloorkatell.fis) ct ]a pruche subalpine (Tsll8(j
mertellsiana) anI clc choisis pour les essais de
plantation. Dans la seconde zone. Ie pin argentc
(Pimu momicola), Ie thuya gcant (Thllja plicllta). 1c
douglas taxifolie (Ps~lId()tsllga m~n:i~sii) et la proche
occidentale (Tsuga 1Ieluophylla) ont etc ajoutCs au
sapin gracieux et au s.apin noble. Des semis a racines
nues. des semis repiques en mottes et des semis en
minimoues (PSB 211) des 8 essences ont etc plantes
dans les deux zones a I'automne (septembre-octobre)
et au printemps (mai) pendant deux annees
consecuti\'es. soit 1978-1979 et 1979-1980. Lc taux
de sun'ie, la croissance et la forme des arbres 13 ans
aprcs la plantation onl servi d'indieatcurs de la
fiabiliu~ (une combinaison de la survie el de la fonlle
de I'arbre) el de la productivite des diffcrenls
traitements.
Dans Ie zone de la pruche subalpine, Ie sarin
noble et Ie sapin gracieux anI ctc les essences les plus
fiables, c'est-a-dire ayant un taux de survie moyen
superieur a 80 qr el present ant peu d·anomalies de
forme. Les houppicrs des cyprcs jaunes onl etc
gr:l\'ement endornrnagcs par la neige, ce qui reduisait
la fiabilite de celie essence pendant les premieres
annees d'ctablissement de la plantation. La pruche
subalpine se c1assail entre les sapins \eritables et Ie
cypres jaune pour ee qui esl de la croissance, du taux
de sun'ic el de la fonne. Le sapin noble emil de loin
I'essence la plus producti\'e de la zone a pruche
subalpine. Dans la LOne coliere II pruche occidenlale,
aucune essence ne s'est dcmarquee pour sa
producti\ilc ou sa fiabilile. Le douglas taxifolie. la
pruche occidentale et Ie thuya gcant se sont bien
de\"eloppCs aux faibles altitudes, tandis que Ie sapin
noble el Ie sapin gracieu1t ctaient des essences mieux
adaptees aux altitudes supcrieures de la LOne. II
faudra eviler de planter Ie pin argenle, a moins de
disposer de sources de graines resistanles a la rouille.
On a releve peu de differences entre les Irois
lypeS de materiels dispoOlbles el l:ncore mains entre
lcs deux saisons de plantation. Lcs semis repiques en
mOlle ont donne de lTleilieurs resultats que les semis a
racines nues el lcs plants CIl minimolles et avaient
cgalcrnent une producti\'ile <;upcrieure a celie dl:s
semis a racines nues et de~ plants en minimottcs
respccti\'emenL Ce c1;assclTlent pourrait bien changer
a lIlesure que des types diffcrenlS de materiel serant
oblenus. Toutefois, les diffcrences relatives de
dimensions et de forme d'un lype de materiel a
!'autre, pcu importe quand ils seront disponibles,
auront toujours un effet sur la fiabilile et la
producti\'ite ultimes des arbres plantes. Les
planlations automnales ont eu un laux de sur vie
beaucoup plus faibles, mais seulement dans 13 zone
cotiere a pruche occidenlale.
Les options recommandees pour chacune des
zones dans Ie present rapport peuvent servir de
guides. On a rclevc de nombreuses interactions
significatives entre taus les principaux lypes dc
trailemcnL experimentaL ce qui met en relief la
vnriabilitc inhcrentc au;.: forets montagllardes et la
necessilc d'claborcr des prescriptions de reboiscment
en fonclion de 1:1 stlltion. Ccs resultats fournissenl.
pour 8 essences, une base de donnees unique sur la
croissance ct la performance relati\'c sur Ie terrain
pendant Ics 13 premieres annces apres la plantation
dans des forets d'altitudc. dans une vaste gamme de
I)PCS dc stations. Ces donnees fournissent un point
de repere a\ec lequcl com parer la regcneration
procufl.~ par des regimes sylvicoles de rechange.
\Iii
Acknowledgements
Financial support of this project over the past three years has come from the Canada-British Columbia Partnership
Agreement on Foresi Resource Development (FRDA II). The authors thank: C.S. Simmons, fonncrly of Natural
Resources Canada, for statistical services and V. Sit, Research Branch. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, for
funher advice and guidance on statistical analyses; D. Beddows and G. Goodmanson. Natural Resources Canada.
for technical supervision of this project, graphics preparation and statistical analyses: C. Johnson. Geography Coop
studen!, University of Victoria, for litcrmure search. data compilation and whose B.Se. Honour's thesis was used, in
part, in preparing this repon: R. Hunt. J. Senyk and R. Smith. Natural Resources Canada lind B. Broznitsky, B.
D'Anjou, C. Hawkins. L. Sigurdson and V. Sit. British Columbia Ministry of Forests for constructive review of the
manuscript during preparation. Thanks also go to Natural Resources Canada staff Steve Glover for editorial
assistance, and Dan Dunaway for graphics and design.
Mentiall ofspecific commercial products or services in this report
does I/ot constitute endorsemellt ofsllch by the Canadian Forest Service
or the GOI'emment of Canada.
viii
INTRODUCTION
As ;1 resuh of the diminishing abundance of easily
accessible, coastal lowland forests, an incrc3sing
reliance has been placed on montane forest
ecosystems for timber resources. Montane siles (un
be classified as those located between 600 111 and
1200 Tn elevation in lhe Coastal Western Hemlock
(CWH) and the Mountain Hemlock (MH)
biogcoclimalic £ones on Vancouver Island and the
adjacent coastal mainland (Klinka
t't
01. 1984).
These montane sites. which occupy about 30% of
Vancouver Island. will be expected to provide a
significant proportion of the limber supply in the
coming years. They contain approximately 2<Xf of
the mature old-growth stands on Vancouver Island
(Smith 1992). Montane forests. occupying lhe
middle to upper slopes along thc Vancouvcr Island
and Coast Mountain ranges or southwestern British
Columbia, arc influenced by a humid to perhurnid.
cool IIlcsolherrnal climate with high annual
precipitation at windward locations. Summcr soil
water dcficits oceur in tne eastern Vancouver Island
rain shadow (Klinka el al. 1979). GrO\\ing seasons
are shorl and snow accumulations high. These
rorests arc typically dominated by amabilis fir
(A bit's amabitis Doug!. cx Forbes) and weslern
hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla (RaL) Sarg.») with a
characterislic component or yellow cedar
(Chamaecyparis noolkarensis (D. Don) Spach) and
mountain hemlock (TslIga merrensiatlll (Bong.)
~arr.) at higher elevations. Othcr specics present
melude western redcedar (T1l/1ja plicala Donn ex D.
Don), Douglas-rir (Psuedolmga //Iel/ziesii (Mirb.)
Franco). Sitka spruce (Picea silchensis (Bong.)
Carr.), westcrn white pine (PiIllIS momieola Doug!.
ex D. Don), and subalpine fir (Abies lasioCl/rpa
(Hook..) NUll. (Klinka et af, 1979). Conccrns have
been raised regarding lhe unacceptabl} low r:Hes or
growth and survival in planlations within these
subalpine sites (Klinka and Pendl 1976).
Hislorically. seleclion of tree species ror
planting high-elevation siles in British Columhia
was .inerrcctive and resulted in a loss of produclivity
or. In some extreme cases. railure of cntire
plantations (Klinka and Feller 1984; Scagel et al.
1989). Well into the 19605 and early 1970s bareroot
Douglas-fir was almost Ihc only species and stock
type phll1ted at high elevations in the Vancouver
Forest Region (Scagel et aI, 1989). Most or these
plantations had high rates or monality. stem and
ronn defccts. and decreased growth. The generdJly
poor results of regeneration in the montane rorests
was allributed to indiscriminate slashburning and
poor tree species seleclion (Klinka and Pendl 1976).
In response to Ihesc concerns, Klinka (1977)
produced the rirst sitc-spccirie guidelines for
selection or tree species and slashburning.
At about the same time. a task rorce.
commissioned oy the Coastal Reforestation Board
or British Columbia. recommended that species.
provenances and Slack types suitable ror high.
elcvalion reforestation be idenlified. In response, Ihe
Canadian Forest Service and the British Columbia
Minisll)' or Foresls initiated Ihis cooperati\'c study
10 compare Ihc performance or eight tree species
planted o\-er a two-year period in Ihe fall and spring
or 1978/1979 and 1979/1980 using three stock types
in two high-clevalion biogcoelimatic zoncs in the
Vancouver Forest Rcgion. Approximatcly 36 000
trees were planted; the tree species were selected ror
each LOnc rrom Klinka's (1977) guidelincs. In the
Mountain Hemlock zone, they were amabilis fir.
nohle fir (Abies procera Rehd.), yellow cedar and
mountain hemlock; ror the Coastal Western
Hemlock zone, amabilis fir. noble fir. western while
pinc. weSlern redcedar, Douglas-fir and wcslern
hemlock wcre planted. The three sloek types used
ror comparison were; one-year.ald container grown
(PSB 211; Beaver Plaslics Lid.. Edmonton, Albena)
seedlings (1+0 plug), PSB 21 I plug seedlings
transplanted ror one year (I +0 plug+ I). and harcroot
seedlings transplanted ror one year (1+1 barerOOI).
These will bc rererred to hereartcr as plug. plug
transplant and h.'lrerool stock types. respectively,
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Seedling Production and lI:mdling
As the trial was established on both Vancouver
Island and lower mainland sitcs. the secd sourcc or
each species was malched to location wherc\er
possible. Thus mountain and "cstern hemlock had
separate seed sources for these IWO general
locations. Lack of seed availability precluded such
separntion ror the remaining species, Noble fir seed
sources rrom the wesl side or Ihe Cascade Range
(near Randle and Red Mountain. Washington) were
selected ror the 197811979 and 1979/1980 pJanting~.
respectively (Table I). Only one scedlol per stock
type per species was planted at each tcst area.
Most plug stock was grown at the Pacine
Forcstry Centre, Victoria (Lat. 48 0 28'N. Long.
123 0 22'W). Bareroot stock and the second-year
tr.lnsplant phase of plug trnn~plant slock was grown
at the Cowichan Lake Research Station (Lal. 48 0
49'N, Long. 124 0 10'W). Due to plant quarantine
restrictions (Sutherland et al. 1989), all Abies spp.
were grown at Campbell River nursery (Lal. 50 0
03'N. Long. 125 0 19'W). Cultural protocols used
for producing the stock followed standard
guidelines at the time (van den Driessche 1969; Van
Berden 1974; Arnott and Matthews 1982).
For fall planting, all seedlings were 'hot-lifted'
from their respective container or transplant bed.
packaged in bundles of 25, placed in liner bags
within waxed cardboard cartons, and shipped to the
test areas where they were planted within 2 to 4
days. Stock was kept cool and moist during
transportation and interim field storage. Fall
planting started soon after the fall rains had begun
and was carried out from mid-September to lateOctober in 1978 and 1979. Plug stock was planted
with a dibble while bareroot and plug transplant
stock were planted with a mattock.
For spring planting, seedlings were lifted from
their containers or transplant beds usually in late
January, placed in sealed liner bags in waxed
cardboard cartons, and put into refrigerated cold
storage (2°C) until the planting sites were free of
snow. Spring planting was done in mid 10 late May
in 1979 and 1980.
Before each planting, four replications of 10
seedlings each per stock type and species were
randomly selected from each seedlot for measurement of seedling height, oven-dry weight of shoots
and roots and root collar diameter (fables 2, 3, 4, 5).
Very poor gennination of noble fir seed created
severe shortages of seedlings for the fall and spring
plantings in 1979/1980. As a result, many treatment
combinations of this species were missing from
several test areas in the second year.
Test Locations
The biogeoclimatic ecosystem classification in
British Columbia organizes ecosystems into a
hierarchical classification of zones, subzones and
variants based on an interpretive synthesis of
climate, vegetation and soil infonnation (Pojar et al.
1987). A total of six tesl arcas were selected within
each of the Mountain Hemlock (MH) and Coastal
Western Hemlock (CWH) biogeoclimatic zones of
southwestern British Columbia (Fig. I), Each test
area was classified by subzone and variant by noting
Iron A .
Cypress Ck.
"
I-~
QuatchkaL:k.
•
...
...
~t~
Arrowsmith •
Labour Day Lk ...
Meade Ck.
•
~
Garbage Ck.
Figure 1. Location of test areas, by name within the Mountain Hemlock. (-) and Coastal Western Hemlock. (4)
biogeoclimatic zones
2
the tree species composition of the adjacent forest
stand. and the designated indicator species from
among the understory ..'egetation of shrubs. herbs
and mosses (Klinka 1977). An ecological
description. together with logging history of each
test area is given in Appendix I. To account for the
annual \ariation in climate. the experiment was
established over two successive years. Meade
Creek. Mt. Arrowsmith. Garbage Creek. Quatchka
Cred and Guyline Road (areas I and 3) were
planted in the Fall and Spring of 1978/1979. Iron
River. MI. Cain. Labour Day Lake. Cypress Cree"
and Guyline Road (areas 2 and 4) were planted in
the fall and spring of 1979/1980. There were four
test areas at Guyline Road. two each in the ~IH
(areas I and 2) and CWH (areas 3 and 4)
biogeoclimatic zones.
Plot Layout and Experimental Design
A randomiLed complete bloc" design was used with
a total of four replicate bloc"s at each test area.
Within the blocks. each treatment combination of
tree species. stock typc and planting season was
randomly assigned to a row of 25 trees planted at a
spacing of 2m " 2m for :.I total of 600 and 9<X) trees
per block in the MH and CWH wnes. respectively.
Two of the blocks at QU:.ltchka Creek in the CWH
zone were inadvertently destroyed soon after
establishment by logging operations.
Data Collection and An;l1yses
Seedling survival :.Ind height were measured at the
end of each growing season in years I. 2. 3. 5. 7. 9.
11 and 13. C<luses of mortality. and injuries on
rcmaining live trees. if any. were noted using a
series of numerical codes outlined in Appendix 2.1.
For thc last asscssment at year 13. tree form was
also recorded using codes found in Appendix 2b
along with stern diameter measured 30 cm above
ground level. To simplify presentation of results.
injuries on remaining live trees. and tree form at
year 13 were reduced to summary classes
(Appendix 2).
The three most frequent types of injuries
causing seedling mortality were summarized in
tabular form (Appendices 3 and 4) for years I to 3
and 4 to 13. respecti\ely. The rationale for
summari/.ing these results for these two periods was
as follows: I) tree survival is mainly determined
within the first three years after planting (thereafter.
mort<llity occulTC<1 but usually at significantly lower
frequency and ratc): and 2) factors causing earl}
trcc mortality usually differ from those causing laler
tree mortality (Arnott 1975).
Within each of the biogeoclimatic .wnes.
analysis of variance (ANOVA) for 13th-year
survival. height. height increment between years II
and 13 and stem diameter was performed using
PROC GLM (SAS Institute Inc. 1992). Differences
among treatments and their interactions were
considered significant when p '5:0.01. ANOVAs
were based on the row means of 25 planted trees per
treatment combination Because of the high number
of miSSing noble fir treatment combinations in the
1979/1980 plantings (sec Seedling Production and
Handling). this species was not included in this
ANOVA. Statistical comparisons of noble fir with
the nati\'e species will he prc.sented elsewhere using
the results orthe first-year plantings only.
RESULTS
Mountain Hemlock Zone
Sun'ival
The interactions of 3rea. species and planting season
"..ere significanl (Table 6). With the eJO;ception of
Guyline Road (2) and Mt. Arrowsmith. yellow cedar
and mountain hemlock had the highest survival and
amabilis fir the lowest (Fig. 2.1). Survival
differences between planting seasons were
insignificant except at Guyline Road (2) where
spring planting yielded much better results.
principally because f<lll-planted yellow cedar
suffered high rates of mortality from winter
dessication on the exposed mountain ridge (Fig. 2b:
Appendix 3f). Although species and stock type
interactions were significant (Table 6), the actual
dil'ference in survival among stock types for each
species was less than 10 percent. and the larger plug
transplant stock usually gave better results (Fig. 2c).
Thirteen years after planting. survival for mosl
species in most ;Heas was over 80%. with the
exception of amabilis fir and noble fir at Meade
Creek and Iron River and amabilis fir at Mount Cain
(Figs. 3a. 3d and 3e). The greatest loss in seedlings
usually occurred in the first three years after
planting. due to drought. winter injuries from frost
or dessication. \egetation slllothering. and girdling
of the root col13r by weevils (SterenmiU5 carinalU5
(Doh.)). Thereafter. lllonalit) conllnued. but
general!} at a much slower rate. Exceptions to this
"'ere amabilis fir at Iron River and Mt. Cain "'here
dense fireweed conlinued to smother this slowgrowing species (Figs. 3d and 3e; Appendices 3d
3
(b)
(0)
100
100
, ,
~
'"
-
~
90 •, ,
<II
,.....'
I
._
,
.~
'.
.....
/
/
e
~
,
, , Hm
•\
-"
Ba
• Yo
0;
>
>
::l
en
,
""'">
80
::l
70
<II
•
0
Q)
\
80
-
90
'"
~
\
\
Q)
0
0
,\ '
>-
""-
Spring
>-
-
Fall
>
70
en
60 ME AR
G1
IR
CA
G2
Area
60 ME AR
Gl
IR
Area
CA G2
(c)
100
Yo
'"
>-'"
90
,
80
-
~
.-.- ---
--Hm
_ -.;e
D
'--~
Q)
~
Ba
0;
.,--~
>
>
-
cil
70
P
Stock Type
PT
Figure 2. SigOlficam imC:r.lClions of tree sun';'al at yC3f 13 between (a) area x species. (b) area x planting season and (e)
stock I)pe II species in the l\'1ountain Herniae" ZOIle. (Areas: l\lE::: l\leade Creek; AR::: 1\11. Arrowsmith: GI = Guylinc Rood
(I); IR = Iron Rl\Cr: CA = [\11. Cain; G2 = Guyhne Road (2). Species: HOI :: l\'Iountain hemlod.:; Bn = Amabilis fir. Yc =
Yellow cedar Srock tJpe: BR = barerool; P = plug; PT = plug lransplanl.)
4
~
i'-
'00 r ..
, j,
60\
70
5
7
Years
~
3
5
Years
7
(d) Iron River
6°1 3
70
Be
,
,
11 13
11 1 3
'i
..Bp
Hm
\''It-t-r-t+i-jvo
•
'"
~
>
,..
~
'"
>
~
,...
~
1
3
r
60!
70
Be
BO
100
5
1
:II
3
I
i
,
t- t
11 13
~
Vt
""'"
vo
B.
Years
7
,
six Ie)! areas
5
In
~
>
~
>
'"
"
".
..
'"
"
..
".
60
70
Be
BO
100
60
70
Be
90
'00
3
5
7
Years
• ··-+-~t
~
Hm
1
3
5
Years
7
,
11 13
'lNtm;,
(
13
t-,
B 11
(Il Guyline Road (2)
,
1tltl-8i~
(e) Guyline Road (1)
lhl: Mountain Hemlock ZOIlc. (Species: 11m'" MounWin hemlock;
11 13
HB.
q tlt:
f
.. f.-
... -
•
7
Years
- ..:+~
(e) Ml. Cain
BeL-.
70
Be
90
100~_
(b) Mt. Arrowsmith
Figure 3. Mc;m (:!: SE) survival of four species over a I)·year period
Ba IE AllIabili~ fir; IIp. Noble fir; Yc ::: Yellow cedar.)
'"
~
>
~
,..
'"
>
~
...,.
90
100 ...
(aj Meade Creek
and 3e). Smothering by competing vegetation, and
root diseases such as Armillaria oSlo.me (Romagn.)
Hcrink and Phel/ilHlJ lL'eirrii (Murr.) Gilbn. (ORR),
contributed to mortality of noble fir and mountain
hemlock at Meade Creek, MI. Arrowsmith, and Iron
River (Appendices 3a. 3b. and 3d).
Height liud Height Illcrement
Tree height was significantly affected by area.
species. stock type and their interactions 13 years
after planting (Table 6). Areas with high nutrients
and moisture. such as at Meade Creek (Appendix I),
produced the tallest trees; those with the lowest
nutrients and moisture, such as Iron River and Me
Cain had the smallest trees 13 years after planting.
particularly for amabilis fir (Fig. 4a). In many areas
within Ihis biogeoclimatic zone. yellow cedar was
the tallest species except at Guyline Road (2). where
stem and winter injuries (sec following section on
Tree Injuries and foml) reversed Ihis trend, and al
Iron River where moun lain hemlock was taller (Fig.
4a). The ranking of slock size al Ihe lime of planting
(plug transplant> barerool > plug) was still evident
13 years later, although the relative height
differencc among the stock types varied by area
(Fig, 4b). This ranking was also consistent by
species except for arnabilis fir where small bareroot
stock (Tables 2 to 5) yielded the smallest trees 13
years later (Fig. 4c)
Height increment between years II and 13 after
planting was significantly affected by areas. species.
and stock type, and most of their interactions (Table
6). Incremental height growth differences among
species wcre highly dependent on test area.
Although amabilis Ilr was the smallest species after
13 yenrs' growth at all locations. it was growing at
the faste~t rate at Meade Creek and Guyline Road (I
and 2) (Fig. Sa). On the other hand. yellow cedar
(which had becn heavily damaged by winter
dessication and stern injuries from snow at these
locations) had low height increments. There were no
consistent trends in height increment between
species and stock type (Fig, 5b).
Height growth over the 13-year study period is
summarized hy tree species and test area in Figure
6. While nohle fir could not be induded in the
above ANOVAs because of insuflil:icnt numbers of
seedlings being available for all treatments in
197911980. the growth curves indicate that it was
the tallest tree at all but two of the test areas (Iron
River and ML Cain).
6
Diameter
The response of trec diameter to the various
treatment l:ombinations by areas. spccies, and stock
type was very similar to that of tree height 13 years
after planting (Fig. 7). This indicated that tree height
was being accrued with concomitant increases in
stem diameter. This is an important clement on
these sites where heavy. wet snow loads can bend
and break weak. small-diameter ~tcms and where
snow crcep can severely damage small-diameter
stems on steep slopes. Significant interactions were
observed hetween area. species and stock type
(Table 6 and Fig. 7).
Tree Injuries and Form
There was a distinct difference in the types of nonlethal injuries affecting tree species one and 13
years after planting. respectively, After one growing
season, browsing. drought. and winter injury
(usually on fall-planted stock that was not
sufficiently hardy at the time of planting) were the
prcdominant causes of tree injury (Table 7). At 13
years, the principal damage to these larger trees
were stem injuries from heavy snows. ba~al sweep
l:aused by snow creep on steep slopes (e.g.. Meade
Creek and Ml. Cain) and winter injuries to tree
leaders not covered by snow and cxposed to cold,
desiccating winds e.g. Guyline Road (Table 8). The
tree species most susceptible to stem breakage was
yellow cedar. although the incidence of damage
varied considerably among the test areas. Injuries at
year 13 werc principally abiotic and reflect the
severity of the winter climate.
Although the annual injury rates were relatively
small (all injury classes were usually less than 30%
- sec Tables 7 and 8), the accumulated injuries
could affect tree fonll. Stem breakage by snow, and
tops killed by winter dessication, particularly if
tbese occurred to some degree every year, resulted
in plantations with significant form defects. At the
two Guyline Road tcst sites, approximately 80
percent of the yellow cedar trees had form defects.
Wilh a particularly high percentage of multiplestcmmed bushes. Yellow cedar was usually tbc most
susceptible and amahilis and noble firs the least
susccptible species to stem injury and resultant form
defect throughout all areas (Fig. 8),
C03stal Western Hemlock Zone
Survi~'al
All second-order interactions and most third-order
interactions with area were highly significant
(Table 9). The principal reason for the area
(b)
(a)
400
400
'"
~
300
0
~
•
>-''""
·w'"
E
,
~
,
,,
·0
,
,
,
~
-
Hm
..
-~~
w..-:;:"
U
.c:
I
/
0-
-.
,
,r
" Yc
, ° Sa
E
-'"
G1
IR
Area
CA
\
\
0
200
",
·0
,
/
0_.
-
0,
... Q
•
•
100
o ME
G2
/
° PT
SR
P
u
.c:
100
AR
•
U
I'"
o ME
300
~
5 _
200
'"
'"
>-'"
AR
G1
IR
CA
G2
Area
(c)
400
'"
'"
>-
300
E
200
~
~
Yc
<D
-'"
~
8--::"_---.-.
u
-. -.-
~
Hm
Sa
-~-
.c:
'"
I
100
P
Stock Type
PT
Figure 4. Significant interactions of tree height at year 13 between (a) nrca x species. (b) area x stock type and (c) stock type
x spcdcs in the Mountain Hemlock zone. (Areas: ME = Meade Creek: AR = Mt. Arrowsmilh; 01 = Guylinc Road (I): IR =
[ron River: CA '" Me Cain; G2 = Guylinc Road (2). Species: Hm = Mountain hemlock; Sa::: ArnJbilis fir: Yc = Yellow
cedar. Stock type: BR = barcroot: P = plug: PT = plug transplant)
7
interactions was the varialion in specics survival
among areas, pllrticularly the very high rate of
mortality for western white pine at the two lowest
elevation sites at Quatchka and Cypress Creeks on
lhe west coast of Vancouver Island and western
redeedar at Cypress Creek and Guylinc Road (4)
(Fig. 9a). Cause of white pine mortality was the
blister rust (Crollanilllll ribicola J.e. Fischer in
Rabh.) which began affecting these plantations by
lhe fifth year after planting (Figs. IDa and IDe).
Fall~planted western rcdcedar al Cypress Creek and
Guyline Road (4) suffered high rnonalily from
winler dessication (Appendices 4e and 41).
Fall planling gave consistently lower survival
by area, species <lnd stock lype (Figs. 9h, 9d and 9f,
respectively). consistent wilh olher reports for mid
to lower elevation cO<lstal sites (ArnOIl 1975;
Mitchell et al. 1990). The larger plug transplant
stock usually gave lhe best survival at all areas and
for most species (Figs. 9c and 9c. respectively); the
only exceplion 10 this was western while pine and
Douglas-fir where stock type differences had no
significant effecl on survival rate (Fig. ge).
Wilh the exception of weSlern white pine. the
greatest seedling losses occurred in the first three
years after plaming. and the predominant causes
were drought. winler dessication, frost. vegelation
smolhering. or girdling of the root collar by weevils
(Appendix 4). White pine blister rust was not
evident during the first three years after planting.
Thereafter its impact on tree survival was highly
dependent on area; the greatest mortality from
blister rust occurred on the west coast of Vancouver
Island at Quatchka and Cypress Creeks (Appendix
4; Figs. IDa and 10e). Although Figure 10 does not
show lhis because of truncation of the Y-axis. Ihere
were no surviving white pine at Quatchka Creek by
year 13 and only 20 percent of all white pine
seedlings at Cypress Creek were alive.
Allhough not included in the above ANOYAs
because of insufficient numbers or seedlings being
available for all treatments in 197911980. noble fir
usu<llly had a better survival rate than the native
amabilis lir al most lest areas (Fig. 10).
(b)
(a)
'"
60
0
~
E
'"
"c
0
~
I
0
I
•
I
, I
40
'""c
-
I ,
,~
,
•,
""
I
I
~
"'
>-''""
50
E
40
•
G1
'~
'"
~
"c
\
•
Area
.-
~.-.:-
-
-e -
--
_0
Hm
~
Yc
-
30
.c
\
IR
'"
"c
Ba
E
,i\ I
\
II
20 ME AR
I '
I
I
0 Hm
,, ,
,
•I
\
I I
I I
0>
'"
,
"
I
.c
I
,,
I
30
~
~
" • ,.
E
~
Ba
I
50
60
~
I I
~
"'
'"'"
>-
'"
r,
~
CA G2
Yc
.r;»
'"
I
20 SR
P
PT
Stock Type
Figure 5. Significant interactions of lree heighl increment (years 1I to 13) between (a) area x species and (b) stock type x
species in the Mountain Hemlock zone. (Areas: ME:: Meade Creek; AR = Ml. Arrowsmith; 010:: Ouylinc Road (I);
IR = Iron River; CA = Ml. Cain; 02 = Ouyline Road (2). Species: Hm = Mountain hemlock; Ba :: Amabilis fir;
Yc = Yellow cedar. Slock IJpe: BR = bareroot: P = plug: 1'1' = plug transplant)
8
~
3
5
7
Vears
,?
.
o'
50 I
1 00 ~
'50
200
'50
3
;:t~t
4
5
Years
7
'f<.f
9
11 13
Sa
••
I
~
E
0
50
100
'50
200
1
/
~ix
3
-'!
E
~p
0
Years
7
9
..... - I
.
11 13
././"
I
Hm
Sa
./"K"; Bp
•
•
I
~
E
"
" ....
,p"
""
~
3
5
Years
7
9
~,
.f
Years
, , , ,
~.
. /G
1';
(t) Guyllne Road (2)
1
'
;
t
"
A~
8a
"
c
~'
Hm
j Bp
• ::;l
",(:
,
11 13
...
tap
.-1)
/.. --,
(el Guyllne Road (1)
tcst areas in the Mountain Hemlock zone. (Species: Hrn = Moumain hemlock; Ba:
5
.... "Or"· .
. / ... '
,
•
/
,y,
11 13
'"
9
100
150
200
'50
'
Years
7
•
I
~
E
'50
,PO
-'!
E
-'!
'"
,.r·
Hm
5
(e) Mt. Cain
3
/
/' j-'/
/<
[.m
Hm
{lB'
; ,
Yc
300
E
,
....~:t'
.
/·t"
.J
300
0
50
100
'50
200
250
350~
"I Ii'p
11 13
••
I
~
E
-'!
E
350
r'"'
9
8a
300
300
I Bp
350
350
400
(d) Iron River
-.
...-;r.
#
t
JI/ ;f
I
/
:1//
Yc
Hm
Bp
400
400,
0
501
100 ~
'50
200
250
f .'
I
400,
(b) Mt. ArrowsmIth
Figure 6. Mean (:I:: SE) height of four species over a 13-year period at
Amabilis fir: Bp:= Noble fir: Yc := Yellow cedar.)
I
~
••
E
-'!
E
I
~
••
E
-'!
E
300
350l
400r
(a) Meade Creek
(b)
(a)
60
'"
60 •
\
Hm
,P
50
~
.•
~
>-'"
Q)
/
40
-'
' ,,
\
\
E
E
~
Q)
,,
, Ba
,, Yc
,,;
,
\
',
\
\
.•
30
'
~
~
~
,
~
Gl
40
'.
Q)
IR
I
\
.' ,
CA
Area
BR
P
I
\
I
\
30
,
I
I
•
,
20
lOME
G2
I
"
•
E
'"
I
, •\
Q)
0
AR
\
.
Q)
• PT
\
g
/
,
20
1 0 ME
50
E
'
E
0
'"
>-'"
I
Q)
.!!1
\
'0
AR
Gl
IR
CA
G2
Area
(c)
60
'"
50
Yc
~
~
>-'"
n
Q)
~
.-. -
,
40
/
/,
'
Ba
/
........... ,-
Hm
~/
•
E
E
Q)
.~
30
Q)
E
.!!1
0
20
P
PT
Stock Type
Figure 7. Signific:mt interactions of stem di;lmetcr at year 13 between (a) area" species, (b) area x siock type and (c) stock
type x species in the Mountain Hemlock zone. (Areas: ME = Meade Creek; AR = Ml. Arrowsmith: Gl = Guylinc Road (I);
IR = [rOn River; CA = Ml. Cain; 02 = GlIylinc Road (2), Species: I-Im = Mountain hemlock; Ba = Amabilis fir: Yc ==
YcHow cedar. Slock lype: BR == barefoot; P = plug: PT = plug transplant)
10
0
B.
Species
Bp
Yo
Species
Bp
(d) Iron River
B.
Yo
Hm
Hm
Q
Slam delects
~Bush
o
•
"-
""••
>15
~
'••"
~
"
:€
E
c
1;
•
U
"-
""••
15
:;
,.•
,..••~
E
0
c
.•
•
U
Bp
Yo
Hm
Yo
Hm
0
10
Species
20
"-
0
10
40
""••
20
~
30
40
50
60
'0
80
15
€
~
"
E
c
90
100
30
Bp
u
"•
1;
Ba
Yo
B.
Yo
Species
Bp
(I) Guyllne Road (2)
Species
Bp
(c) Guyllne Road (1)
:~lD
'•••"
B.
(e) MI. Cain
"-
""••
40
50
80
'0
80
90
100
50
60
'0
80
90
100
0
10
Species
15
20
~
30
:;
~
,."•
E
C
••
B.
•
1;
•
U
40
50
80
'0
80
90
100
(b) Mt. Arrowsmllh
Hm
Hm
Figure 8 Perccmage oflrees wIth form defects by species 13 years after rlanllllg 31 ~IX leSI :lre:lS in the Mount:lin Hemlock lone. (Species: 11m = Mounlain
hemlock: B,l" Am3bihs fir: Br" Noble fir: Yc .. Yellow cedar.)
"-
10
20
"••
u
30
40
50
60
'0
80
90
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
80
'0
80
90
100
15
~
,..
••
~
"
i
E
c
•
U
•
1;
"-
"•~
15
,..•~
:;
~
,."•
E
~
•
U
(a) Meade Creek
N
•
Fd
.
.
.
'
\
\
•
•
/':
;/ Cw
. 8a
'0
__ 0---.Spring
o B.
10
,0
30
Pw
Cw Fd
Species
Hw
"'
>
"
...,,
>;-•
40
Fall
-
~
#.
.
~
, i
~
"'
>
>•
"
~
...,,
~
-
50
60
70
80
90
100
(d)
Area
°OU GA G3 lA CY G4
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
_ -
-
~
__ --
~--
PT
-0
Pw
...,
-"',
"
>;-•
-
°BA
,0
,0
30
Stock type
>
P
_ _ 0_
~
40
-
....,cw
#.
"-
------ ......
- ___ .-... -----"
..
~"
~
50
60
70
80
90
100
(e)
°au
10
"'
-
20
>
,
.,
"
>;-•
-
~
30
Hw
Fall
CY G4
•
•
~
GA G3 lA
Area
•
40
•
.' .
SPfing
50
60
70
80
90
100
(0)
•
_
"
."
,
/'
"
-'
•
SA
•
Spring
lA CY G4
Area
GA G3
.\, ..
Slock type
P
PT
'---------:aJl
•
(I)
°BA
10
'0
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
.
·~P
•
/
°au
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
(e)
Garbage Creek; G3 = Guylinc Road (3); LA = Lalxlur Day Lake: CY = Cypress Creek; 04 = Guyline Road (4). Species: 8a = Amabilis fir; Pw = Western
while pine: Cw = Western re<lcedar; Fd = Douglas-fir; Hw = Western hemlock. Stock type: BR = bareroot; P = plug: PT = plug transplant)
Figure 9. Significant interactions of lrce survival al year 13 between (a) area x species. (b) ;lTCO x planting season and (c) area x stock type. (d) spcdcs II.
planting season (e) siock type x species and (I) siock type x planting season in the Coastal Western Hemlock zone. (Areas: QU '" Quatchka Creek; GA =
..
7
.,,>
"'
>•
"
~
-
>
~
...,
,"'
>;-•
--•
~
.
,
.
"
Hw
~pw
...---; .
80
:
90
100
(.)
w
-
50
60
70
80
\
- f-
I
I
\
I
I
'W
-
-
l'!~ I
Years
35791113
e,
Pw
Cw
Hw
IBp
r-+- f- f
t J-H+t\
'.11-+
f-.:::-
(d) Labour Day Lake
Years
Fd
1 BB,
Hw
1:
8p
Cw
Fd
-I ;
3579'1'3
• --.;
'"
r::-' -
\
100 I\;'!+;-
5;0
610
70
,
~H
(8) Quatchka Creek
w
.,T!,
~
<fJ
,
>
.."::
~
50
3
5
Years
7
9
j
I
\
\
I
lew
\
Years
,,5791113
1u
,,
f:,
11 13
'1'1-1\,- ,_ ._
...... _ t
(8) Cypress Creek
1
~~+~
(b) Garbage Creek
::: (j
80
100
50
60
70
80
100
Cw
Fd
8,
8p
Hw
8p
"'W
Fd
Cw
Hw
,
w
>
"...,,
W
.<
..,
l
50
60
70
80
1
3
7 9
Years
-- 5
-
,
,
"
H.
- -- ew
Bp
H.
Fd
Cw
"Bp
1 ew
3
5
Vears
7
9 11 13
ttH-t-t-H~~
,,
,
-
\
11 13
-.
+_ +
(f) Guyllna Road (4)
gol;
100
50
60
70
80
I,
90 ~~~
't-;_;_ t-
100,
Figure 10. Mean (j: SE) percenl survival of six species over a 13-year period at six lest areas in lhe Coastal Western Hemlock zone. (Species: Sa '" Amabilis
fir: Bp = Noble fir; Pw = Western white pine; Cw = Western rcdccdar: Fd = Douglas-fir: Hw = Weslcm hemlock.)
<fJ
,
>
".."::
w
T!
".,,
80
90
100
Height alld Heigh' Increme"t
The effects of area. species, stock type and their
interactions
011
tree height 13 years after planting
were signilicant (Tahle 9). Planting season. and alt
treatment interactions with it. were nol significant.
The higher elevation test arcas at Garbage Creek
and Guytinc Road (3 and 4), panicularly those with
a dominant ground cover of Vaccinilllll spp. such u!";
Garbage Creek and Guylinc Road (4). had the
smallest trees 13 years after planting (Fig. 11:1).
Douglas-fir and western hemlock were usually the
tallest trees and amahilis fir the smallest. The only
exceptions to this were found on the moist. rich sile
al Cypress Creek (Appendix I) where amabilis fir
had reached a mean height of 4 In and western
hemlock was taller than Douglas-fir (Fig. 11 a). This
site had little brush competition. The ranking of the
olher trec species depended on the tcst area. and
whethcr blister rust had eliminated the western
white pine (Fig. 11 a).
The interaction of species and stock type was
significant (Table 9). Although these differences in
height for each of the stock types among species
were less than 70 cm, they did represent a 40%
difference in height among stod types for some
species (Fig. lib). Thirteen years after planting,
stock type had little effect on tree height for
Douglas-fir, western white pine. or western
redcedar. However. plug transplant western
hemlock and 3mabilis fir stock types were
respectively 17% and 40% taller than either plug or
bareroot stock.
Current height increment of the various species
followed the trends shown for height (Fig. 12). The
treatment effects of area, species and their
interactions were significant (Table 9): significance
of the four-way interactions of area, species,
planting date. and stock type was primarily the
result of failure and near-failure of the western
white pine at Quatchka and Cypress Creeks.
respectively.
(al
0)
->-"
-"
-
(b)
800
800
700
700
600
0)
~
<II
~
<II
500
>-",
,
E
400
.c
300
Cl
-E
Fd
CW
Hw
Pw
"a;
I
600
~
200
-"
.c
"~
"
I
500
•~
• _ _- - Fd
Hw
400
::::::==~.__~~ Cw
Pw
300 I~
•-Ba
200
Ba
100
100
°OU GA G3
LA
Area
CY G4
°BR
P
PT
Stock type
Figure I!. Significant interactions of trec height ,tl year 13 ~twecn (a) arca;o; species and (b) stock type;o; species in the
Coastal Western Hemlock zone. (Areas: QU == Quatchka Creek: GA '" Garbage Creck: G3 '" Guyline Road (3); LA '"
Labour Day Lake; CY '" Cypress Creek; G4 '" Guyline Road (4). Species: Sa'" Amabilis fir; Pw '" Western white pine; Cw '"
Western rcdcedar; Fd == Douglas-fir: Hw "" Western hemlock. Stock type: BR "" bareroot: P", plug; PT '" plug transplant.)
14
Height growth over the 13-year study period is
summariled by tree species and test areas in Figure
13, As noted ahove, Douglas-fir and western
hemlock were usually the fastest-growing speties,
particularly on the low-elevation test areas within
the zone (Figs. 13a and 13e), Towards the zone's
upper elevation limits such as at Guyline Road (3
and 4), western hemlock grew at a much slower rate
and was surpassed hy species such as western white
pine and western redcedar, respectively (Figs. 13c
and 13f).
Diameter
Area. species and stock type, and some of their
interactions were significant (Table 9). Stem
diameter for tree species among test arcas (Fig. 14a)
and stock types (Fig. 14b) followed the trends for
tree height and height increment. respectively.
200
o
•
150
"'
~
>-'"
( ])
100
E
"c:
(])
Fd
Pw
Cw
Hw
8.
50
E
(])
~
"c:
.r;;;
a
•
0>
CD
I
-50 au GA G3
LA
CY
G4
Area
Figure 12. Significant interactions of tree height increment
(years I I to 13) between area x species in the Coastal
Western Hemlock .wne. (Areas: QU = Quatchka Creek; GA
:: Garbage Creek; G3 = Guylinc Road (3): LA :: Labour
Day Lake: CY = Cypress Creek: G4 = Guylinc Road (4).
Species: Ba = Amubilis fir: PI',' =Western white pine: Cw =
Western redeedar: Fd = Douglas-fir: HI',' = Western
hemlock.)
Tree Injuries and Form
There were differences in the types of injuries on
remaining live trees I. and 13 years after planting.
After one growing season. browsing, drought and
winter injury were the predominant causes of
injuries (Table 10). Winter injuries were
predomin:lntly found on trees planted in the fall; the
cause was likely stock that was not sufficiently
hardy to withstand early winter low temperatures.
Winter injuries continued up to 13 years hut
were only substantial on some of the higherelevation sites such as Guyline Road (3) and Labour
Day Lake. and even then not all species were
damaged to the same extent (Table II). With heavy
snow loads affecting the larger trees, stem injuries
became more common. particularly on the highestelevation sites at Garbage Creek and Guyline RO:Jd
(3) where western redced:Jf and Douglas-fir,
respectively were particularly prone to such injury.
Blister rust affected some of the western white pine
at all test areas.
As noted in the MH zone. stem injuries arc
cumulative and can result in plantations with some
amount of form defects either as broken main stems
or multi-Icadered bushes resulting from repeated
stem breakage over many winters (Fig. IS). While
Douglas-fir was growing well on many of these test
areas (Fig. 13). it had some form defects (Fig. 15).
Even on the lower-elevation West Vancouver Island
sites at Quatchka and Cypress Creeks, heavy wet
snows had caused at least 25% of Douglas-fir to
have stem defects. With the exception of Labour
Day Lake. where Douglas-fir is a preferred species
choice (Klinka et Qt. 1984), this species usually had
as many form defects as western hemlock. The
degree of form defect depended 10 a large extent on
location: for example. Cypress Creek had many
severely damaged western redcedar (Fig. 15e) while
at 3 similar nearby site. Quatchka Creek, there was
mu{.;h less damage to redcedar (Fig. 15a). As in the
MH zone. the least dam3ged species overall were
the true firs, with noble lir having no more defects
than the native amabilis fir.
DISCUSSION
In accordance with the tree species selection criteria
developed by Klinka and Feller (1984), a suitable
species. stock type or planting season should
produce maximum tree growth and survival and few
form defects. However, tradcoffs must be made
oct ween these variables. Acenain species or stock
15
~
.
,,:!:
/
~-
Years
7
b...
Ea
E
-"
1
3
- -.
/" I -
"
/~~:
9
/
'
I
Hw
.1 Pw
~.
~t¥.'
Years
B
Bp
/.~ Cw
f;-.
tf,.t/./r
j
I
0"'-=
35791113
1001
200f
300
400
500
••
'"
0
100
200
300
400
500
/
1
3
5
7
Years
~I ,t~
Pw
"
9 1t 13
~
... ,/ -+Cw
/I··~~
. ¥
,<;;••
,
/
/
i.'
,
+Bp
1 Fe
Ea
E
-"
••'"
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
600
f
600
700
0
700
, <.
11 13
100
200
300
700 1
Ea
Years
7
(e) Cypress Creek
5
Sa
~;{:-:.~
••'"
soo
0
100
200
300
400
Ea
400
SOO
E
-"
••'"
500
E0
500
800
!"
Pw
Sa
c.
j'P
9 11 1 3
.'\
t -,'-
~
(d) Labour Day Lake
5
.
j
I
"
,
y
d'
/
0"". 3
100 ~
200f-
300
400
500
3
Years
7
1
~
3
5
7
=::
9 11 13
Amabilis lir: Bp =
Years
-
•"
c.
6.
..0';'
Hw
Pw
Sa
A:f;:/
8p
.;; .'- _.--..1 Sa
..." , - _ .
...
9 11 13
.<1-_ -r""
5
""
jO.
. / / . ' Bp
//
(f) Guyllne Road (4)
1
~
Pw
IIJ"
Figure 13. Mean (:I: SE) height of si:o; species QV.era 13-year period at six test areas in the Coastal Western Hemlock zone. (Species: Sa
Noble fir; Pw = Western white pine: Cw '" Western rcdcedar; Fd = Douglas-fir; Hw = Western hemlock.)
••'"
Ea
E
-"
••
'"
Ea
E
-"
600
600
600i
700
700
I"
Ii <.
700
soo
800
f
(b) Garbage Creek
BOOr
(a) Quatchka Creek
Iype m:lY h:l.\e one desirable ch:lr.lcteristic. Souch as
good groMh. but m:lY h:lve m:lny form defecls. In
addition, a planting oplion may produce good
survival and growth, but these characteristics may
he quile variable across a large geographical range.
Thus, the mosl suitable planting oplion should h:l\'e
consistently good growth, form lmd survival.
Our results provide some guidance on selecting
species, stock types and planting seasons that will
maximize plantation produclivity and reliability
within the MH and CWH biogeodimatic /.Ones of
coastal Brilish Columbia. SeleClion of Ihe most
produclive and reliable planting option is based on
the main lreatment effects on tree survi\·al. growth
and form. This selection is developed from a
ranking of species' reliability (which combines
survival and form) and productivilY (hcight),
togelher with a ranking of Ihe best stock Iype and
planting season based on tree survival and growth
(Table 12). Our results indicate certain general
trends, hut general trends arc not applicable to e:lch
and every !Jile; even in the biogeodimalic JOncs
covered by Ihis sludy. decisions about speci~, SIOCK
Iype, and planting season must be lailored 10 the
particular !Jilc being plamcd. What follows is an
analysis of Ihe reliabilily and productivilY of the
individual species. slock types :lnd planting seasons
used within this experiment.
Species
Amabilisfir
Amabilis fir had relatively low and intermediate
survival in thc MH and CWII zones. respeelively.
Like Ihc majorily of Ihe Olher species tesled. the
principal C:lUSC of mOrlality during the firsl Ihree
years ""as drought. Thereafter. mortality was the
result of compeling vegelation smothering Ihe very
slow gro""ing amabilis fir seedlings. Amabilis fir
.... as the leasl produclivc <,peeics in the MH zone rand
usually the slowest growing species in lhe CWH
zone. This low produclivity has been noted in other
planting trials when compared to Douglas·fir.
mounlain hemlock. yellow cedar and noble fir
(Arnoll and Pendl 1984). Amabilis fir had few form
(a)
(b)
14
14
•,
12
'"
~
~
>-'"
10
Q)
E
E
E
Cw
--
is
'"
Hw
o
E
E
Fd
~
Q)
Pw
Q)
Ba
°ou
GA
G1
LA
Area
CY
G2
~
Q)
~~~
8 --------
Hw
:...: Pw
6 .:::,.-;.:....-~ -
.~.:-
-=-:;::;
-~
()
Q)
E
.!!!
-' Fd
4
------·.---l
- - 0
Cw
Ba
: "'8-'------=p-------:p=r
Stock type
Figurc 14. Significant intcraclions ofslem diameler al year 13 between (a) arca Jt specics and lb) stock type Jt species 1lI1he
Coasllll Western Hemlock zonc. (Areas: QU ::: Quatchka Creek; GA '" Garbage Creek; G3 '" Guyline Road (3): LA '"
Labour Day Lake; CY '" Cypress Creek: G4 '" Guyhne Road (4). Species: Sa '" Amabilis fir; Pw '" Western while pine: Cw '"
Western rcdcedar; Fd :: Douglas-fir; IIw '" Western hemlock. Stock t)pe: BR '" barcrool: p", plug. PT '" plug tran~plant)
17
I
.•- •
'"
I
~
I
~
U
0
oo
'<=
D
D
•
D
D
D
I
I
~
•••
"•
0
0
0
D
D
0
D
0
0
X
•
x
n
•
0
•
'r •
•
..-• ••
u
0
~
•
•
0
• •••
"••
•
••
~
0
"e
~
"...
'-
0
0
0
0
0
• • , •
D
0
~
0
•
0
M
0
•
0
••
0
F •
•
0
••
0
D
~
~
-,
oo'"
DllI
"•,
":g
D
0
••
••
• • , •
0
0
0
M
~o
0
•
0
0
juaOJ9d
•
x
.-
•
•
n
~
~
u
0
0
0
~
0
•
0
M
0
•
0
SI:l9'90 WJ0;;l 41!M S99Jl }O lua:u9d
D
..-
•u
•
•• oo
~
0
~
0
E~
~
~
•
•
• •
•• oo c,•
0
.-
"•
0
•
u
~
~
g g
x
-
~
0
0
0
• • ,
spa/ao WJO;j LlllM S99J!
Sloe/eO WJO;:jlll!M Sa9Jl}0 jU90J9d
n
U
•
•• oo
"' ••
••
Q
18
0
n
~
i
.
~
•<
,
"S
L
g
0
0
••
0
~
•
~
~
g
0
0
• • , • • •
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M
0
•
0
0
defects in both zones. primarily because its narrow
crown is very resist,mt to damage from heavy snow
loads (Scagel er at. 1989). With few fonn defects
and a mean survival greater than 80%. amabilis fir
is a reliable planting option for both LOnes.
However. although reliable, it is one of the least
productive of the tree species available for planting.
throughout the MH and CWH zones,
Noble fir
Like amabilis fir. noble fir had relatively low
survival in (he MH zone but it had some of the best
survival rates in the CWH lOne. The principal
causes of initial mortality were drought and frost.
As noted by Scagcl er al. (1989), noble fir was more
susceptible to frost damage on some siLes than
amabilis fir, e.g. Meade Creek. Guyline Road (I and
3) and Garhage Creek (Appendices 3 and 4). After
the first three years. most noble fir mortfllity was
from vegetation smothering and root rots.
Noble fir had excellent growth throughout the
MH l.one: it was the tallest species 13 years after
planting. However, initial growth was slow. which
is in agreement with the results of other studies
(Aldhouse and Low 1974: Harrington and Murray
1982). Noble lir also had slow early growth in the
CWH .lOne and by year 13. noble fir had a relatively
low ranking in height compared to most of the other
specics except amabilis fir.
Throughout both zones, noble fir had few fonn
defects making it one of the more reliable species
for planting. However. as suggested by Franklin
(1982), and until more data can be collected on its
long-term suitability for the MH and CWH wnes of
southwest British Columbia from thiS" and other
studies (Ying 1992). this species should be
restricted to warm. open sites with adequate soil
moisture supply.
Yellow cedar
Yellow cedar had the best survival and second best
height growth. This was to be expected as the
species has been noted for its good frost hardiness
and high timber yields (Klinka et al. 1990). Despite
this good survival and growth, a large proportion
(66%) had broken or bushy crowns which raises
questions about how reliable this species is in the
initial phases of plantation establishment on highelevation clcarcut sites. Although browsing after
planting was common, stem breakage from snow
caused most of the foml damage. Despite the many
stem defects, most yellow cedar had accumulated a
large biomass of multiple-leaders that resembled a
hush. We believe that once these trees emerge above
the average depth of winter snow. rapid height
growth will make this one of the better species
choices for the MH zone over the long term.
Moullrain hemlock
Mountain hemlock survival was equal to that of
yellow cedar. The most frequent cause of hemlock
mortality over the first three years was drought
indicating that the soil was not sufficiently moist for
seedling establishment of mountain hemlock
(Krajina 1969: Klinka el af. 1990). Armillaria
ostoyae root rot began to kill significant numbers of
mountain hemlock at Meade Creek, ML. Arrowsmith
and Iron River from five to seven years after
planting. Although this disease has been reported 10
have its maximum inlluence at age 10 to 15 and is
rarc after age 25 (Morrison 1981), it may remain
active in these slower-growing high-elevation stands
for a much longer period of time (D. Morrison.
Research Scientist. Canadian Forcst Service.
Victoria. B.C. Pers. Communication). thus lowering
the reliability of this species as a planting option
over the long term. Mountain hemlock ranked third
in height. agreeing with Krajina (1969) that this is
not a highly productive species within the MH zone.
As with yellow ccdar. a high proportion (389,,) of
mountain hemlock had poor form (stcm defect or
bush) from repeated breaking of branches and stems
by snow.
Based on mean surviv:tl and height. mountain
hemlock is an acceptable regeneration option.
However. it can hn'e a signilicant amount of form
dcfects in thc carly stages of plantation
dcvelopment. If prc-harvest survcys indicate a
significant presence of root disease, then some form
of site preparation (such as stumping) may have to
be considered to lower the risk of infection in stands
regencratcd with mountain hemlock (Morrison
1981). A eheapcr alternative would be to plam a
species such as yellow cedar that is more resistant to
Armillaria ostoyea (Appendix 3).
Westem white pille
This species had the highest mortality rates: survival
ranged from 0% at Quatchka Creek to 88% at
Guyline Road. The low mortality that did occur up
to year 3 was attributed to smothering and drought.
Frost was not a factor as western white pine is a
very frost resistant species (Krajina 1969). From
years 4 to 13. blister rust accounted for most of the
mortality. The highest-elevation sites at Guyline
Road (3 and 4) had the lowest incidence of blister
19
rust: the lowest-cle\'ation sites. at Quatchka and
Cypress Creeks. had lhe highest incidence of blister
ruSt (Appendix 4).
Western white pine had lhe second lo\.\est mean
height growth but this was the rC5ult of \'ery sc\ere
infections of the blister rust on se\eral of lhe test
areas. On areas lhat were relati\c1} free of rust. such
as Guyline Road. \.\estern \.\hile pine had a\erage
£rowth comp..1.red to the other specie,!; tested.
In summary. producllvity and reliability of
\\estern white pine was heavily influenced by lhe
incidence of hlisler rust. which confirms that this
species is a very poor planting option until rustresistant seed sources arc available. As some
success in Ihis direction has been achieved
(Goddard el (II. 1985) and since research continues
(Hunt and Meagher 1993). rust resistant families
may eventually become availahle.
WtSlem redcedor
Western redcedar had the !>econd lowest o\erall
lIlean survi\al (16':l-) of all .. h, species planted. The
main sources of mortality o\'er the first three years
of eSlablishment were drought. frost. winter
desiccation. and root collar wee\-ils. Winter
desiccation of fall-planted stock was particularly
se\ere at labour Day lal..e. Cypress Creek and
Guyline Road (4) (data nOI sho\.\n) indicating that
this species is at risl.. in the CWH zone. depending
on how severe Ihe winter is in the year of
establishment. Western redcedar had intenncdi:ue
height growth compared to the other species tested
on most sites. Only at Cypress Creek, where early
winter desiccation and subsequent snow breakage
was common. did lhe species grow poorly (Fig.
13e).
Western redced3r hlld II Illrge percenlage of
browse injuries immediately after planting (Table
10). However. as soon as the tree leaders grew
beyond the reach of deer. this injury became less
frequent. Only at Garbage and Cypress Creeks,
where grmqh was slower than at other test areas.
did some browsing occur at year 13 (Table II: Figs.
13h and l3e).
Western redcedar tended to ha\'e a fairly high
percentage (JO'k) of fonn defects. indicating that it
is 31 risk within the CWH lone. It ranks as a fairly
productive species with below-d\'erage reliability
'hhich should be restricted 10 the lower ele\alions of
the CWHmm2 and CW1-hm2 variants where less
snowfall and frost usually occur (Green and Klinka
1994). However. the high incidence (>70%) of form
20
defects found at our Cypress Creek location (Fig.
15e) indicates that the lo"er elevations within the
CWH\'m2 ,'arian! are nO{ v.ithout risk.
Oouglas-fir
Douglas-fir had one of the best o\erall survival rales
across the CWH Lone. Frost and winter dessication
were major causes of mortality during the first three
yeaf'>. which is characteriSlic of the species (Stathers
1989). As s......wn by other!> (Livingston and Black
1987. 1988). Douglas-fir did exhibit greater drought
resistance than most other species. From years 4 to
13 smothering and root rots were the main causes of
mortality.
Douglas-fir also had the besl height growth,
confirming other research thllt this is one of thc
mosl productive species on mesic sites in the CWH
lone (Krajina 1969: Omu[e 1987; Omule and
Krumlil.. 1987).
However. despite good growth and survival.
Douglas-fir had many stem and bush defects (25%).
exceeding the acceptable le\el of 20Ck defined by
Scagel l'l 01. (l989). Such poor form lowers the
reliability of Douglas-fir as a regeneration option
.... ithin the CWH Lone. Simply stated. "big may nOl
he heautiful" (Scagel et (II. 1988): the faster gro.....ing
mid- to lo.... -elevation species rna} nOl always be Ihe
best planting option for every site within the
montane \'ariants of the CWH zone. Douglas-fir has
\.\ ider. spreading branchC!> that bear more snow than
species such as amabilis or noble fir (Scagel et lIf.
1989). So, although Douglas-fir produces lots of
hiomass. it is suhject to considerable stem and
hranch hreak3ge from heavy, wei snows resulting in
significlll1l form defects whieh reduce the reliability
of this species in the CWH I,one. In the long ternl.
such stem breakage will seriously detracl from the
value of the wood produced at rotation age. Because
of the higher incidence of fonn defects, Douglas-fir
phlntings should generally be restricted to the lower
and mid elevalions of the CWHmm2 and CWHvm2
\ariants where less snow and frost occur. However.
our results at labour Day lake indicate that
Douglas-fir is an excellent choice for dry. wann
south-facing sites even at the higher elevational
limits of the zone.
Western hemlock
Western hemlock had the second highest overall
.. urvival (829i:) and the main initial causes of
<;cedling mortality were drought. winter dessication
:md frost. Drought inlolerance has been noted by
others as a major source of monality for this species
(Fonda 1967: Krajina 1969: Gashwiler 1971: Klinka
et at. 1990). Liule mona1il) occurred after the third
year. Western hemlock gre\l. \l.cll. ranking second in
height after 13 years. This differs from another
study which found that western hemlod was
unproducti\e on high-e!e\ation sites (Scage! et al.
1989). This dis.crcpancy could be anribulablc to our
study areas being located at a lower mean elevation
within the CWH Lone lhan those studied b) Scagel
and others.
Western hemlock had many form defects
(30%). This resull differs from observations by
Williams (1966) who found lhal weSlem hemlock
had less snow damage than weSlern white pine,
amabilis fir, and nohle fir. Williams hypothc:;iled
that the low incidenr.:e of hreabge in western
hemlock was because its flexible stems were able to
tolerate he,wy snow loads. Discrepanc ies het ween
Williams' study and our re'lulls could be due to
differences in snow load or height growth. All of
our study area:; recei\cd heav) snow fall and se\eral
were locmed at the uppermost elevational limit of
the zone (e.g, Garbage Creek, Gu)'line RO:ld.
Labour Day Lake) which \\ould increase the
probability of ph)'sical damage to the crown of thi:.
species. Once again it can be ~n that ProdUCli\ity
alone m:l)' not be a good indicator of the most
appropriate regeneration species.
Western hemlock is a very proouctive species
and can be planted on moist. medium sites.
However. based on the frequency of form defect')
found in our study, this species should be limited 10
the lower elevation ranges of the CWHmm2 :It\d
CWHvm2 variants which h:we less snowfall and a
lower incidence of frost (Stathers 1989).
Stock Typc
Survival and height of the three stock types differed
significantly within both the MH and CWH zones at
year 13. The differences in productivity :lnd
reliability among Siod t} pes were much smaller
than those between species. Although
morphological differences ,lmong stock types at the
time of planling .... ere substantial. such differences
had relatively little influence on the type and degree
of injuries developed over the life of thesc
plantations (Table 12). Other planting trials support
this conclusion - causes of injury and seedling
defects ha\'e been shown to \'ary lillIe across s(ock
type (Pendl and D'Anjou 1991).
Bareroot stock had the lo....esl sun,iml and plug
transplant or plug slock the highcsl survi\al within
both biogeoclimatic lanes. These results are
consistent with tho:iC of other sludies (Arnoll 1981:
Pendl and D'AnJOU 1991). In the MH zone. the 10....
suni\'al of hareroot stod was due to the poor
sun ivai of the true firs, particularly amabilis fir. In
Ihe CWH .wne, hareroOl stock of most species had
the lowest :;urvi\:ll. particularly .... hen planted
during the fall. probahly \l.hen this stock lype was
not sufficiently frost hardy. Bareroot stock
performance after f;..all planting can be unpredictable
in coastal British Columbia due to the variabililY of
latc summer and 1';111 ....eather p31lernS (Mitchell e/
al. 1990).
The initi:ll height of th..: seedlings did influence
height 13 years after planting. Across the MH and
CWH zones. trees planted :IS plug transplant stock
lended to be the tallest and those from plug stock
the smallest. This is the smnc rclalionship found for
mean seedling siLe among stock types at the time of
planting and is in agreemenl with other studies
(Krumlik and Bergcrud 1985). Should the same
percentage of difference alllong stock Iypes persist
to rotation age, thcn the usc of large seedlings of
ecologically suited species .... ould be the preferred
planting option. The henefits of seedling size must.
ho.... ner. be balanced agalllst the added costs of
producing. transporting and planting progressivcl)
larger stock types (Smith and Walters 1965: AmOIl
and White 1989).
Based on productivity, plug transplant stock
would be the most suitahle option for both the MH
and CWH zones. Furthermore. with the siLe of oncyear-old stock that can now he grown in PSB 4158
containers (Bcavcr Plastit:s Ltd .. Edmonton, Alia.).
results with plug stock should now equal Ihose of
the plug lransplants used in our experiment.
I'lanling Season
There were no significanl differences in seedling
sun i\·al or heighl hct.....een the t.... o planting seasons
v.ithin the MH zone. or in height in the CWH zone,
Within the CWH ?one, fall-planted stock had a
significantiy lower survival (72%) Ihan the springplanted seedlings (83%): this result is consiSlent
with resuils of other studies (Smith and Wallers
1965: Sinclair and Boyd 1973; Amoll 1975). This
difference in suniv;:al was consistent among species
and stock type for :111 test areas within the CWH
zone. and was most likely the result of fall-planted
species such as western redcedar. noble fir and
21
weslern hcmlock. not being sufficicntly frosl-hardy
to withstand the climatic extrcmes of the high
elevation sites in early will1er (Goodmanson. GJ.:
Arnott, LT.: Pend], F.T. 1982, High Elevation
Species and Siod. Type Trial: Series 11
ESlablishmeni and Progress Repon. (unpub.). Can.
For Serv.. Pac. For. Res. Cent., ViclOria. B.C.. File
Rep!. PC·-I8·257). Such increased risks of froM
damage from fall-planted stod.. has also been
reported by Schuch et aJ. (1989). Planting season
had no effeci on the incidence of fonn defect (Tahle
12). but lower survival rates made fall planting less
reliable in the CWH zone. Recenlly. Ihere has been
a move in this zone to plant in latc August and early
Seplember. Warmer soils should stimulate root
growth and provide bener seedling survival rate~
from these earlier plantings (Mitchell el al. 1990).
CONCLUSIONS
The results demonstrated significant difference:. in
species survival across both zones. The O\'erall
range in mean survi\'al from the poorest to the be<;t·
surviving species was 9<1 and 22'1'. in the MH and
CWH zones respecli\ely 13 years afler planling. In
the MH lone. all1abilis fir had the lowest survival
rate (81 %); in the CWI-I lOne. western white pine
had the lowest survival (63%) (Table 12). Aside
from western white pine, which is unsuitabile due to
high risk of infeclion from the blister rust. rno:.t
\pecies had a sun'ival rate higher Ihan 8O'f y.hich
Scagel et al. (1989) judged to he sihiculturally
acceptable. However. the form of these sun i\ing
Irees must he taken into account hefore they can be
considered reliable.
As recommended by Scagcl et al. (1989) and
illUSlrated by Krajina's biogeoclimalic classific;llion
sludies {l965, 1969. 1977).00 single tree spcrie" or
silvicultural option can be recommended for either
of the high-<:Ie"ation biogeoclim3lic lones studied.
This is confirmed by Ihe amounl and degree of
Interactions that were obsened among our
experimental trealments. Each plantlllg site mu"t I'll:
individually appraised and the ecological
requirements of the species. Ihe suitahility of qock
types. and the preferred pl:mling scason should be
matched 10 Ihe site. The operational logistics and
preferences of the forest manager for either a fall or
a spring planting arc also faclors thai muS( be
considered.
However. based on tbe latest planting
prescription guidelines (Green and Klinka 199-1)
22
many of the species tested arc ecologically suited
for most combinations of the two dimensional
edalopie grid currently used Ihroughout coastal
British Columbia. Within this contexl, our results
provide some general guidance in selccling the mOSI
prooucti,'c and reliable species. Funhemlore. Ihese
resuhs prmide a unique database on lhe growth and
relali\e field perfonnanee of eighl tree species over
a 13-year period from planting in high-elevation
forests on differenl site types, and data of this sort
arc in :.hort supply. As a result. these plantations
should be maintained and measured over as long a
period as possible. The plot design of the
experiment will ultimately limit the period of
measurement. bUI wilhin-tree and between-row
spacing in all plantations will allow Iree growlh to
continue withoul any competition for another 5
years in the CWH zone lind 15 years in the MH
lone. It is necessary 10 know what will happen 10
the growth and form of all species over the long
term. In particular. it is imporlanl 10 have
comparative data on Ihe long-tenn perfonnanee of
amabilis and noble fir and to monilor the growth of
yellow cedar once this species emerges above the
"now.
Sih'icultural practices arc changing in the high
elevations of coastal Brilish Columbia. the most
notable being the reduction in the site of clear-cut
opcnlllgs from Ihat which was generally considered
acceptable in the past. The experiment will provide
a hcm.:hmark against which Ihe growth of
regeneration from Ihe application of alternative
sihicullural systems in monlane foreslS can be
juJged.
Tree growth in our experiment was measured in
pure plantations - in-growth of natural regener;lIion was weeded-oul during this ex.periment.
Howe\er. single-species plamations will nOI be the
rule in unburned high-elevation foresls; a subslantial
amount of in-growlh did 3ppe3r in Ihis experiment.
The distrihution and growlh of this natural
regeneration in areas surrounding our test
plantations was measured concurrenlly with our
13th-year assessment and will be compared with our
plantation dala in another report (Arnott, J.T.:
Scagcl. R.K.: E,'ans. R.; Pendl. F.T 1994. High
elevation regeneration systems of subalpine and
montane foresls of coastal British Columbia. Nal.
ReSQulTes Can. 3nd B.C. Min. For., Vic loria, B.C.,
FRDA Rep. in preparation).
Our rc\u!ts suggest that noble tir could be more
widely used throughout the MH and CWH zones of
coastal British Columbia. Admittedl). such
introduction should be done on a consenati\e basis
until the long-term (20-)ear) results from
provenance-wide testing of this species (Yin!; 1992)
are available after the year 2001. Noble fir shows
cJL:cellent gro\\ th and few form defects throughout
both zones and gro\\S much faster than the nati\e
arnabilis fir in the MH l.one. Western \\hite pine on
the OIher hand should nm be planted until hlister·
rust resistant seed sources become availahle. If
blister rust can he avoided, the species is idcally
suited for the CWH lOne throughout the coast
where it showed the potential for excellent survival
and growth.
Our re~ults confirm most of the
recommendations within the latest species' ~cleclion
guidelines for the MH and CWH biogeoclim:lIic
Lones of south\\estern British Culumbia (Green and
Klinka 1994). However. it should he noted that
considerable variation in site types occur throughout
the high elevation forests with significant rele\ance
to productivity and reliability of species. stod. type
and planting season option"
RECOMMENDATIONS
I. In the MH zone, amabilis fir should be the fir\!
choice on fresh to mOist siles. On warm. open. moist
to fresh sites, noble fir should be considered as a
component of the stand. as it has excellent growth
potential and few form defects. Yellow cedar,
although a good survivor, has significant form
defects in the first 13 years after planting and cannot
be recommendcd for moist to wet sites within the
MH Lone. Howcver. this form problem m:lY
eventually disappear once the species grows ahovc
the winter snow that is causing Illost of the stem
breakage: if so. this species would be highly
recommended because of its excellent survhal and
growth. Mounlain hemlock is a modcratel)
produclhe species Ihroughoul all site Iypes .... ilhin
the MH zone.
2. In the lo\\er cle\ationallimils of the montane
CWH LOne. Douglas·flr, western hemlock and
\\c...lem reJecdar arc excellent choices. To\\aros the
upper elevational limits of Ihis zone, amahths fir
and noble fir arc IllOSt appropnate as they can
tolerate the greater 'mow deplhs and wider exlremes
of climate found there. Until seed sources of
\\e\tern white pine that arc re"istant to hlister rust
hecome availahle. this .<;pecies should be av·oided.
Much greater vari<ltioll in overall plantation
rx:rformance can be expecled within the CWH lOne
than in the MH zone,
J. Based on survival rates and trec height 13 years
after planting, plug lransplant stock would be most
suitable for outplanting in both zones, although it
may not always he the most reliable in the MH
lOne. (Stocl.. grown in loday's PSB 415B containers,
although not as large in height or diameter as our
plug transplant stock, should produce apprm:imately
the same results.)
4, Fall or spring plaming dates are equally suitahle
for good seedling sun·hal and growth in the MH
lone. However. fall pl:lnting in the CWH zone
should be avoided. p:micularly if bareroot Slack is
to he used. (Fall planting in this trial was generally
done from mid Seplemher to late October. The
current practice of planting 30 to 40 days earlier in
late Augusl to mid Seplcmber should produce better
results. as warmer soils :It that time will stimulate
root development and :dd in the establishment of the
pl,JIIted seedlin£ (Mitchell el (l!. 1990).)
23
LITERATURE CITED
i\ldhousc. J.: Low. A. 1974. The poteIltial of westem hemlock, wcs!cm rcdcedar. grand fir and noble flf in Britain. Forestry
Conunission Dull. No. 49.lIcr ~lajc,IY'S Stationery Office. London.
Anon 1978. '(be Can:aJian S}>tcm of Soil Classification. Canadian Soil Sur\'c) Cammitlcc. Subcommiucc on soil
Can Ocr A~ric.• Onawa Agrk. Publ No. 16-16.
da~~irlCation
l\roOll J T 1975. Fick! pcrfonnance of container-grown .llKIllarerool Irees in Coastal Bnush Columbia Can. J. for. Res.
5186·19~.
Arnott.1T. 19R1. Survival and growth of bullcL styroplug and barcroot seedlings on rnid-clcv.l1ion siles in coastal British
Columhia. For. Citron. 57: 65·70.
Arnoll. J T. Mattbews. ItG 1982. Nursery production of true fi~ in British Columbia In Proceedings Biology and
M.anagement of True Fir in thc Pacific NorthwC'st S}mIXlsium. Edit~d 1,.1' CD. Oliver and R. M Kenady, reI) 24-26. 1981.
Seattle. WA. College of
Rewurn":S. trni\' Wash Conlrih. No. 45:195-201.
"'If
ArnotL JT.: Pend!. r. 1984 Performance of noble fir in hi£,h--clevation species and
19!13·84. D,C Min, I'or.. Vi(toria. p. 31_l2.
~tock
type trials. In for. Res. Rev.
Arnott. J.T.: White. W, 19!1l), The influence of nursery sy,lellls on plantation establishment in British Culumbia. III
Proceedings of Efficienl:)' of Stand ESlahlishment Operations Sympo,ium Ediled {)y MI. Menlies. G.E. Parrott and LJ
Whitehouse. New Zealand Mm, For.. For Re,. Insl.. BulL No. 15656-66.
I'onda. R 1%7. Forest wgct:uion of mounlall1 and suoo.lpinc
IIhnOis. Urt>ana. Ilhnoh
fores~
Ol}mpic Mountains. W:bhington, Ph.D. Thesis. Uni\',
Iranklin. J 1982. Ecolo~} of nobll." fir, In Proceedings Biology and Management of True Iir III the Pacific; Northll..e,1
Symposium. Editrd by C,D, Oliver .:md R.M. Kenady. Feb, 24-26. 1l)1l1. Seattle. WA. College of For. Resources. Univ.
Wash. Contrih. No. 45:60·68.
Gashwilcr. J 1971 Emergence and mortality of Douglas·fir. wcstcrll hemlock. and westl'rn reJ«dar. For. Sci. 17; 230-237.
Goddard. RI:.: McDonald. G.I; Stl'lllhoff. RJ 1985. Measurement of field rnlSlance. rust hazard 3nd lh'ployml'nt of
t>hstcr·ru"t resislant western white pine. USDA For Serv. Intenntn. I'or and Range E,p. Sm.. Re". Pap. INT-:\58
Gn:en. R.N.; KILnka. K. 1994 A field g.uide to site identification and iutcqIetation for the V:lr'l<:O\Ivcr I'orest Reg.ion. D. C
MIll. For.. Vancou"cr. D,C . I.and Manage. Ilandbook No. 28.
IlalTillgLon. C,; MUITay. M. 1982, Patterns 'If height growth in westem true firs. /II Proceedings Biology :1I1d Management
of Truc I'ir in the Pacific Northwest Sympo,iUln. fdiJed by CD. Oliver and R.M Kenady. Feb. 24·26. 198 L Seallie. WA,
Colll'gc of ror Resources. llni" Wash. Contrib. No. 45:85-92,
lIunl. RS.; Mcaghl'r. M I) 199.~. Selection of t>1i"ler rust resIstant white pme Abstc. ln
Congrcss of Planl Pathoklg}. July 28.Aug 6. 1993. Montreal. Can:k1a p. ISO.
Proccedlll~S 6th
Intern:lIional
Klinka. K 1977 Guido:: for the trec "pecic.> selection and pre.>\Tlhed burning in the Vancouver I-'orcst District. B.C Min.
For.. Vancouver. Br, MiS\·. Pull,
Klinka. K.; Pendl. F. 1976. Prohlcm
For. Victoria. BC. Mis.:. R,'p.
analysi~
of rcl'orestation in hIgh elevatiun in the Vancouver Foresll)istrlcL B.C. Min,
KJinka. K.; Feller. M C 198.t I'riociples u,ed in selecting tree species for regelM:ration of forest sites in ,>outhwcstern
Brit"'h Columhia, For Chron 60:77-85,
Klinka. K.: NU'l.dorfer. 1 -C .• Skoda. I. 1979. Biog.eu<:limalic unilS of ccnlral and southern Vnncou\er Forest Dislricl, D,C.
f>lm For. Victoria. D.C. MISC. Pub.
KI inka. K.: Green. R.N.: Trowbridge. R.( '.: Lowe. I.,E. 1981. T:uollOmic classification of humus fonn in ccosystems of
flntish Colull1bia. First Jppro"imatiol1, B C' f>lin. For.. Victoria. B,C l.and Manage, Rep. 8.
24
Klinka. K.: Green. R.N .. CounlO. PJ,: Nus.zdorfer. F.e. 198" SIte diagnosIs. tree species selection. and slashbummg
gUidelines forthe Vancouver Forest Region. Be. Mm. For.. Vancouver. B.C. Land f\lJnage. Rep. 25.
Klinka. K.: Feller. M.C.: Green. R.N.: Meidmger. D.V.: Pojar. J.: WOlTa11. 1. 1990. Ecological principles: ApplicatIons. III
Regenerating British Columbia's Forests. Edited by D.P. L1vcnder. R. Parish. e.M. Johmon. G. Montgomery. A. Vy~c.
R.A. Willis and D. Winston. Uni\ British Columhia Press. Vancouver. B.C. pp. 55-73
Krajina. V.l 1965. Blog('QClimJllc loncs and
da~~llication of
Bnll\h Columbia. Ecol. of We\lcrn N Amer. I: 1-17.
Krajina. V J 1969. Ecology of foresttrces in BritIsh Columhia. Ecol. of Western N. Amer. 1: 1-1"6.
Krajina. VJ. 1977, On the nt'Cl..! for an ecosystcm approach to forest land managemenl. JII Ecological classificatIOn of forest
land in Canada and nonh"e<item L:SA Eili/cd h". J.P Kimmin~. Cemre for Continuing bJuc:uion. L:011 British ColumbIa.
Vancouv'er. Be. pp. 1-11.
Krumm,. G.: Bergerud. W. 1985. SUfvi\lll and gro\\lh of fOUf
For.. Victoria. B.C.. Res. NOle No. 96.
Dougl;l~-lif
stock l)pe, 11 )ean. ;Jfter planting, B.C MlIl
Livingston. N.: Black. T. 1987. Water stress and SUfll\al of lhree 'pl.'des of conifer seedlings planted on a high elevation
South-focing clear-cut. Can. J. For, Res. 17: 1115·1113.
Lhingston. N . Black. T. 1988. The gro"th and "Jler use of three "pecies of cOOl fer seedlings pl'lOted on a high elevation
routh-facing clear-cut, Can. J. For Re~. 18: 12~·11"1.
LUltmcrdmg. II-A.: Demarchi. D.A. Lea. E.e., Meidinger. D.V.: Void. T 1990. Describing ecosystems in the field
Serond edition. B,C Min. Environ.. Victoria. BC Manual 1\'0. II
Muchcll. W.K.: Dunswonh. G.: SImpson. D.G.: Vy~e. A. 1990 PI3nting and sceding. fll Regenerating Bmish Columbia's
Forests. t.ailed hI' D.P. La\ender. R. Parish. e.M. Johnson. G. Momgomery. A. Vy~e. R.A. Wallis and D. Winston. Univ.
Brilish Columbin Press. Vancouvcr B.C. pp. 235·253.
Morri~on, D. 1981. Armillaria Root DIsease: A guide to disca~e diagnosis. dClelopmem and m:magement in Brltlsh
Columbia. Canadian Forest Sen ICC. Pac. For. Res, Cem. Victoria. H.C..lnf. Rep. BC·X·20J.
Omule. S. 1987, Comparatlle heIght gro"th to age 28 for "'C\en
For.. Victoria, B,C.. FRDA Rep. 005.
~[I(.'Cit....
in the CWlld SuozOfle. For Can. and B C. Mm.
Ornule. S.: Krumlik. G. 1987. JUI'enile height gro\\>th of four specle\ on four sill'S m lhe CWHbl vanam. For. Can. and
B.C. Min. For.. Victoria. B.C.. FRDA Rep. 007.
Pendl. F.: D·Anjou. B. 1991, Survival and growlh of four amahilis fir Slock types on Varlcouver Island. For. Chron, 67:
147-154.
POJ3r. L Klinka. K.: Meidinger. D.V. [987. Blogcoclimatic eco.. y~tem classilicauon in BritIsh Columbia. FOf. &01.
Manage. 22:1 19-154.
SAS Institute loc. 1992. SAS/STATR user's goulde. Release 6.07 eduion, SAS Institute. Cary. N.C.
Seagel. R.K.: VonHahn. II.. Green. R.N. 1988, BIg may not be heautifur. Tree species performance in high cle\atlon
plantalions. Be. Mm. For.. Victoria. B,C. Mise. Pamphlel.
Scage!. R.K.: Von Hahn. H.: Green. R.N.: Evans. R, 1989. E'tplormory high elevation regeneratIon lrials in the VanCou\'er
Forest Region: IO-year species performance of plamed stock. For. Can. and B.C. Min, For.. Victoria. B.C. !--"RDA Rep. 098.
Schuch. U.: Duryea. M.: Fuchigami. L. 1989. Frost hardiness
Northwest nur...eries. Can. J. For. Res. 19: 192-197.
:I'
acquired by Douglas-fir seedlings in three Pacific
c..
Sll1clair.
Boyd. R. 1973. Survi\'al Comparisons of 'Inree Fall and Spring Plantings of Four Comferous Species in
Northern Idaho. USDA For. Serv. Intermtn. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Res. Pap. INT·139.
SRlIth, N.J. 1992. Evaluation of sih'icultural systems and ec~ystem fuocllon: assessing the problem and its extent. FRDA
Project File Rep, 723 I K. Pacilic Forestry Centre. For. Can.. Victoria. B.C.
25
Smilh. H.: Walters, J 1965. Influence of seedling sile on growlh. 'ur,ival ,md COS! of growing Douglas-fir. F:le. Por.. Univ.
Brilish ColumbIa. VanCOuver. B.C.. Res. Pal" 1'10.50.
Stalhers. R. 1989. Summer frost In young forcsl planlalions. For. Can. and B.C. Mm. For.. Vicloria. BC FRDA Rep. 073.
SUlherhmd. JR.; ShrimplOn. G.~I.: Slurrod.. R.N. 1989. Di~eascs and insl'\:t" in Brili\h Columbia forest
For. Can. and B.C. Min. For.. VielOnJ. B.C. FRDA Rep. 065.
van den Dril·sS{·he. R. 1969. Forest
nUr3Cf)
handlxxll R.C. For Sen .. Victoria. 11C . Res.
~dhng
nurseries.
"'ote No...It
Van Eerden. E, 1974 Gro"'ing season produ\'lion of "'c"t"m conifers. In Proceedings :\onh American Containcril.ed Tree
Seedling S)"mposium. Edll~d by R. W. Tinu,. W 1 Slcm :md \\ E. Balmer. Aug. 26-29. 1974. Ikn"cr. CO. Gre~lI Plains
Agric. Council Pub!. No. 68. p. 93-101
Williams. C. 1966. Snow d:llnagc In conifcrous !>CCdhngs and
~aplings.
USDA For Serv. Par. Northwesl For and Range
Exp SIn.. Res. !':ole PNW-4Q.
Ying. C. 1992. Effeel of ,iles and provenance:. on 6lh-ycar pcrft,nnaocc of ooble fir in ooa:)lal British Columbia. B.C. Mm.
For. Vicloria. B.C.. Res. Note No. 112.
26
Table I. Geographic origin of seed sources selected for planting.
Geographic Origin
Species
Secdlol
Lol. N
Long.
~W
Ele\. (m)
Numllcr l
Planting
Area
Year2
Planled
48' 54'
12-l° 10'
950
A1I 3
46 0 30'
-l6° 10'
122° 00'
1:!lo 50'
975
1220
All
All
2
2669
49 55'
I:!-l° 30'
1006
All
1&2
3146
49' 30'
49° 40'
49° 20'
125° Of),
11300'
122°12'
1050
[ ISo 00'
IIS o IS'
762
2353
49 0 50'
50" 50'
761.
All
All
2
465
-lS0 -l5'
IH' -l5'
762
All
1&2
Douglas-fir
2006
4S- 55'
123° 52'
975
All
1&2
Western hemlock
3056
3090
49° 48'
49° 20'
125° 13'
123° 40'
884
880
Amabilis fir
2969
Noble fir
Yellow cedar
Mountain hemlock
3010
3033
Western white pine
Western redcedar
2601
823
1060
Van. I.
Guyline Rd.
Guylinc Rd.
Van. I.
Guyline Rd.
1&2
I
1&2
I
2
I
1&2
1&2
I B.C, Min. Forests registered seedlol number (none for noble fir).
?
- Year 1 - 1978179; Year 2 - 1979180.
3 All test areas on Vancouver Island and at Guyline Rd.
27
Table 2. Morphological characteristics of stock planted. fall 1978 1.
Species
Seed lot
Number
Height
(mm)
Ovcn Dry Weigh! fmg}
Shoo,
ROO!
Total
Shoot/Root
Ratio
Root Collar
Diameter (mm)
Plug
Amabilis fir
Noble fir
Yellow cedar
Mountain hemlock
Western '" hite pine
Western rcdced:lr
Douglas-fir
Western hemlock
2969
64
2669
70
190
155
31462
2601
465
2006
3056
'40
339
860
843
JJ7
1197
363
282
1206
871
686
1007
560
102
589
188
541
674
413
133
134
475
789
335
450
145
333
147
2AO
1.33
2.55
2.32
2.09
3.72
2.03
2.82
1.8
2.5
2.7
2.5
2.5
2.2
2.4
2.0
B:lreroo!
Amahilis fir
Noble fir
Yellow cedar
~'Ioun!ain hemlock
Weslern while pine
Western redcedar
Douglas-fir
Western hemlock
2969
2669
3146
2601
465
2006
3056
97
149
324
278
119
360
319
261
1047
688
2757
8747
4568
1972
2120
2902
1259
1132
1810
1790
582
4415
2204
4806
1735
4729
10867
7317
3-163
5938
6378
2372
1.52
1.40
4.13
1.52
1.75
4.25
2.52
3.08
3.2
4.8
6.6
4.9
4.3
5.4
5.7
4.0
Plug transplant
Amabilis fir
Noble fir
Yellow cedar
Mountain hemlod
Wcstern white pine
Wcslern rcdcedar
Douglas-fir
Western hemlock
2969
177
214
2669
3146
2601
472
3092
3757
13284
29..l
135
5393
4441
465
2006
3056
556
369
444
12439
8961
7333
1625
2079
33-13
3504
2368
2866
3437
2808
4717
5836
16627
8897
6809
15305
12398
10l..ll
I Based on a sample sile of 40 seedlings/stod. !ypclspeci~.
2 Mounlain hemlock and western hemlock stod. for Guylioe Rd. was 001 sampled.
28
1.90
1.81
3.97
1.54
1.88
4.34
2.61
2.61
4.2
4.8
7.5
5.8
5.9
7.9
8.3
6.6
Table 3. Morphological characteristics of stock plamed. spring 1979 1.
Species
Seed lot
Number
Height
(mm)
Oven Dry Weight (mg)
Shoot
Root
Total
Shoot/Root
Ratio
Root Collar
Diameter (mm)
Plug
Amabilis fir
Noble fir
Yellow cedar
Mountain hemlock
Mountain hemlock
Western white pine
\Vestern redcedar
Douglas-fir
Western hemlock
Western hemlock
2969
2669
3146
3010
2601
465
2006
3056
3090
53
59
225
188
183
117
224
193
175
163
385
394
IORl
1104
1004
831
929
976
885
662
236
404
370
487
351
410
253
364
323
221
62l
798
1451
1591
1355
1241
1182
1340
1208
883
1.63
0.98
2.92
2.27
2.86
2.02
3.68
2.68
2.74
300
1.6
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.2
2.7
2.2
2.4
2.4
2.1
B;J/\.~
AllIabilis fir
Noble fir
Yellow cedar
Mountain hcmlock
Mountain hcmloek
\Vestcrn white pine
\Vestern redcedar
Douglas-fir
Western hemlock
Western hemlock
2969
2669
3146
3010
2601
465
2006
3056
3090
78
135
392
336
249
106
444
272
261
304
1131
2642
17113
7034
3546
2672
9557
4817
3171
3262
870
2984
3771
4576
2749
1900
2507
2788
1414
1534
2001
5626
20884
11610
6295
4572
12064
7605
4585
4796
1.30
3.0
0.89
4.53
1.54
1.29
1.41
3.81
2.24
2.13
4.6
6.4
5.4
4.5
4.5
6.4
5.6
4.4
4.3
1.47
1.47
4.22
1.48
1.56
1.72
4.72
2.42
2.23
2.41
4.0
4.6
7.5
5.1
4.4
5.6
7.9
7.9
6.1
6.6
1.73
Plug transplant
Amabilis fir
Noble fir
Yellow cedar
Mountain hemlock
Mountain hcmlock
Western white pine
Western redcedar
Douglas-fir
Western hemlock
Western hemlock
2969
2669
3146
3010
2601
405
2006
3056
3090
161
218
498
223
190
148
599
391
431
505
3680
5432
17736
4327
30·t2
5227
15930
13207
7710
10661
2510
3692
4200
2923
1956
3036
3372
5464
3453
4423
6190
9124
21936
7250
4998
8263
19302
1867l
11163
15084
1Based on a sample size of 40 seedlings/stock type/sl>ecies.
29
Table·1. Morphological charactcristics of stocl.. planted. fall 1979 1•
Species
Seed lot
Nurnhcr
Height
(mm)
Oven Dry Weight (Ole)
Shoot
Root
Total
Shoot/Root
Ratio
Root Collar
Diameter (mm)
Plug
Amabilis fir
Noble fir
Yellow cedar
Mountain hemlock
Mountain hemlock
Western white pine
Weslern rcdcedar
Douglas-fir
Western hemlock
Western hemlock
2969
2669
3146
3033
2353
.65
2006
3056
3090
78
III
219
In
173
238
326
269
~2~
~83
928
568
508
266
597
721
1254
837
2.46
2.03
2.85
2.11
1.91
1.6
2.0
2.3
2.\
2.0
IJ7
99
18.
1.7
1.0
~57
337
655
638
175
233
714
79.
830
871
.1.
1.8
562
154
567
203
770
2.73
2.80
2.80
1156
1.73
2.5
4.6
•.5
1.36
2.7
3.7~
2.0
2.3
1.9
2.1
B,,,,"""
Amabilis fir
Noble fir
Yellow cedar
Mountain hemlock
Mountain hemlock
Western white pine
We.'itern rcdeedar
Douglas·fir
Western hemlock
Western hernlocl...
2969
62
424
732
no s3mple -
1165
2437
2498
873
4655
3.00
5858
783
""'7
1.-10
1.-15
1.22
4.17
2.01
1.95
2.43
3146
191
200
3033
253
2353
8.
.65
2006
3056
3090
261
221
135
3246
1615
358
I..
329
18.
176
2669
3.90
insufficient stock
3421
3620
1066
3U>4
6118
1939
486\
5.2
605
...
3.3
3.9
5.1
1.8
1.9
Plug trJllspbnt
ATllabilis fir
Noble fir
Yellow cedar
Mountain hcmlocl...
Mountain hem locI...
We:.tern .... hile pine
Western redccdar
Douglas·fir
Western hemlock
Weslern hcmlock
2969
2669
31-16
3033
2353
.65
2006
3056
3090
176
260
.19
266
270
\55
57J
263
-120
-128
2795
6727
15028
-1962
-1820
-1291
17282
5797
8021
7517
t Bascd on a s31llple siLc of 40 seedlings/stock type/species.
30
1-198
3297
3928
3526
3~80
2831
3875
3-105
3967
3636
4293
10024
18956
8-188
8300
7122
2\157
9202
11988
11153
LIn
2.04
3.83
1.-11
1.39
1.52
4.-16
1.70
2.02
2,07
3.8
5.5
7.3
5.6
5.1
5.9
8.2
6.8
7.2
6.8
T.3ble 5. ~lorphological charaClerislics of MOC~ plantcd. spring 1980 1.
Specics
Seedlol
Number
Heighl
( 111 III )
Oven Dry Wejght (m!:)
ShOOI
ROOI
TOlal
Shoot/Root
Ratio
Root Collar
Diamcter (mm)
Plug
Amabilis rir
Noble rir
Yella.... cedar
Mountain hel11loc~
Mountain hemlock
Westcrn white pine
Western redcedar
Douglas-rir
WeSlern hemloc~
Western hemlock
2969
78
103
424
2669
3146
3033
234
1033
113
303
285
161
734
208
173
842
353
2353
443
171
485
2006
97
182
121
3056
137
556
705
703
603
3090
167
783
465
393
372
392
597
788
2,46
1.60
1318
942
1195
999
.l62
3.53
1.6
2.1
2.3
1.9
2.39
2.3
2.8
1.9
975
1175
1.26
4,12
1.79
1.62
2.00
2.3
2.0
2.2
1141
1.53
2.7
2.97
1.59
1.32
1.22
3.61
1.51
876
1096
Imnx<
Amabilis fir
Noble fir
Yellow ccdar
Mounlain hcmlock
Mounlain hemlock
Western white pine
Western rcdccdar
Douglas-fir
Western hemloc~
Weslern hemlock
2969
74
2669
3146
208
3033
173
2353
93
344
465
2006
3056
3090
690
451
no sample - jn~ufticicnl
262
6050
3475
2156
1381
6841
4290
153
144
593
467
206
2039
2185
1633
1135
1897
2850
310
268
SIOC~
903
1.92
5.4
4.2
3.5
3.0
5.8
6.0
2.1
735
1.74
2.0
5799
12916
23665
1.86
1.79
3.36
1.50
1.32
1.47
4.1
8089
5660
3789
2516
8739
7140
Plug TrJIl"f'lant
Amabilis fir
Noble fir
Yellow cedar
Mountain hemlock
Mountain hemlock
\Vestern .... hite pine
\Vestern redcedar
Douglas-fir
Western hemlock
WeSlern hemlock
465
2006
200
200
433
258
24O
145
565
288
3056
415
3090
479
2969
2669
3146
3033
2353
3774
8292
18240
5408
3771
2025
4624
5425
3601
5263
3580
5182
4312
-1753
22757
5850
8834
11455
2864
5650
9009
6635
8843
27939
10102
13587
17105
4.39
1.36
1.86
2.03
3.9
7.7
5.6
5.0
6.1
9.1
6.8
6.8
7.5
IBased on a sample size of 40 seedlings/sloc~ lype/species.
31
~
w
.1258
2
I
2
2
4
2
4
10
5
10
10
20
10
20
Species (5)
Planling sca,on (P)
Stock type (T)
S,P
S,T
P,T
5xPxT
A,S
A,P
AxSxP
A,T
AxSxT
AxPxT
Ax$xPxT
.0176
.0284
.0413
.0246
.0298
.1463
.0392
.0110
.0728
.0404
.2127
.0626
.8872
.0488
I Percent survival transformed to arcsine
Error b
305
.0829
"
Blocks within areas
(Error a)
SqU;lfC
1.61
2.35
1.40
1.70
7.17
4.72
8.33
2.23
0.62
4.15
230
.048
.011
.118
.080
.000
.000
.()()()
.066
.537
.003
.102
.000
.060
3.57
12.11
.000
.146
P
50.54
rOOt
1.89
.0923
5
Area (A)
Surviv<lll
F
MS
df
Source
Mounlain Hemlock zone.
474
490
445
887
!557
588
414
12938
594
1131
10765
83
56986
88
86353
6731
90945
MS
1.03
O.9~
1.87
3.29
1.24
0.87
27.29
1.25
2.39
22.71
0.18
120.22
0.19
182.18
13.51
F
!-Ieighl
.421
.497
.014
.000
.26-l
.500
.000
.28~
.094
.000
.839
.000
.667
.<XX)
.000
P
68
60
73
86
152
113
"
2576
145
150
594
39
434
I
761
459
5858
0.87
1.07
1.26
2.22
1.65
0.26
17.61
2.12
2.19
8.67
0.57
6.33
0.01
11.11
12.77
.620
.389
.205
.017
.091
.935
.(XlO
.078
.114
.000
.568
.002
.922
.000
.000
Height Increment
F
P
MS
26.2
40.5
28.4
38.0
54.6
17.6
7.0
406.0
47.4
53.3
570.8
14.6
3241.3
0.2
3[35.6
244.6
7662.4
1.55
1.08
1,45
2.08
0.67
0.27
I~A8
Ull
2.03
21.77
0.56
123.61
0.01
119.57
J 1.33
Stern Diameter
MS
I'
.065
.374
.099
.026
.750
.930
1lO0
.127
.133
.om
.574
.000
.l;l16
.000
.<XX)
I'
Table 6. Analysis of varitlllcc for effects of arell, species. planting season and stock type on tree survival, height. height increment ,l1ld stem diameter at year 13 in the
Table 7. Percent or remaining li\'c trees or each
Mountain Hemlocl.; zonc.
~pecies
injured b) class at )car I in six study areas in the
Injury Class
Area
Sp..--cics
Meade Creek
Amahilis fir
Noble fir
Yellow cedar
Mountain hcmlod.
Ml. Arrowsmith
Amabilis fir
Noble fir
Yellow cedar
Mountain hcmlock
Guylinc Rd. (I)
Al11ahilis fir
Noble fir
Yellow cedar
Mountain hemlock
Iron River
Amabilis fir
Noble fir
Yellow eedar
Mountain hemlock
MI. Cain
Amabilis fir
Noble fir
Ycllow ced:lr
Mountain hcmlock
Guylinc Rd. (2)
Amabilis fir
Noble fir
Yello.... cedar
Mountain hcmlock
Stem
Injur)
l.t
0.4
3.2
1.0
Winter
Injury
. t5
3.5
3.1
2.2
Drought
40
0.2
0.2
09
0.2
0.0
00
0.0
1.5
0.5
2.5
0.2
0.0
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.0
16.0
16.4
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
4.3
9.7
4,2
7.8
9.6
1.9
7.2
9.2
4.8
9.6
3.1
5.6
4.2
3.1
0.2
0.0
1.4
0.6
0.2
1.4
1704
lOA
6.0
7.6
0.0
06
2.5
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
5.8
5.0
15.7
0.2
7.2
0.7
004
0.4
0.2
l.t
5.9
0.4
Other
0.0
0.4
0.9
15.3
1.2
Smothering
3.5
3.2
0.7
0.9
11.2
Browse
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
17.5
0.2
0.2
22.2
0.2
0.0
1.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.4
0.0
0.5
1.9
0.0
4.3
IA
IA
3.6
2.8
0.8
25.7
1.2
1.3
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.0
1.7
1.7
0.6
0.7
0.4
1.7
0.6
38.0
4.4
12.2
1.7
1.7
OA
0.7
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
33
Table 8. Percent or remaining
Mountain Hemlock wnc.
Ii\C
trees or each l>f>Ccics injured hy class at year 13 in six study areas in the
Injury Class
Arca
Specics
Stcm
Injury
Winter
Injury
4.1
..1..3
2.1
2.3
2.2
57.8
2.4
Smolhering
Othcr
10.6
2.2
12.3
44.4
1.4
0.0
1.0
0.2
I.J
2.6
0.8
2.0
0.8
5.4
2.2
1.2
OA
IA
1.8
3.•
0.8
0.2
1.2
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.2
10.7
2004
18.6
0.0
2.7
8.0
2.1
•.2
0.2
0 .•
0.9
0.8
0.0
0.•
05
Meade Creek
Amabilis fir
Noblc fir
Yellow cedar
Mountain hemlock
17.8
3.6
MI. Arrowsmith
Amabilis fir
Noble fir
Yellow cedar
Moumain hemlock
0.8
0.8
6.2
1.6
Basal
Sweep
Guyline Rd. (I)
AmabiJis fir
Noble fir
Yellow cedar
Mountain hemlock
23.2
5.4
28.0
34.•
10.2
Iron River
Amabilis fir
Noblc fir
Yellow ccdar
Mountain hemlock
0.2
0.4
2A
0.2
5.5
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
1.1
2.9
2.6
0.2
0.6
1.2
0.•
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.0
0.2
0.7
3.7
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.•
0.9
12.5
•.5
9.6
3.7
0.4
2.6
4.6
3.4
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.6
3.7
3. I
7.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.2
0.2
ML Cain
Amabllis fir
Noble lir
Yellow cedar
Mountain hemlock
Guylinc Rd. (2)
Amabilis fir
Noblc fir
Yellow cedar
Mountain hemlock
34
2.3
0.2
D.•
~
w
0.1760
0.0325
2
g
P,<T
SxPxT
0.0·03
0.0706
0.0325
40
10
40
AxSxT
AxPxT
Ax$xPxT
1.39
2.97
1.82
3.17
5.59
11.03
45.68
1.37
7.41
5.61
25.62
2938
149.00
121.47
9.72
Survival I
F
I Percent survivnl lransformcd 10 arcsine square rOOI
0.0238
0.0753
10
AxT
463
0.1328
20
AxSxP
Error h
0.2620
5
AxP
1.0850
20
AxS
0.1332
R
0.6087
0.6979
3.5395
S,T
I
4
(P)
$xP
SlOck type (T)
~ea\on
4
Species (S)
Planling
0.1290
16
Block!. wilhin area"
(Error a)
2.8854
1.2536
5
Area (Al
MS
df
Source
.071
.001
.002
.001
.000
.000
.000
.208
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
P
1857
1747
2442
1592
2R05
3095
3386
248061
1398
3315
11241
3049
119531
501i0
1364051
29103
1112158
MS
0.9-1
1.32
0.86
1.51
.577
.219
719
132
.035
107
un
1.67
,000
,MS
169
000
163
.()()()
.099
.000
.()(k)
P
133.58
0.75
1.79
6.0:<;
1.64
6..1.17
2.72
734.56
31UI
Heighl
F
331
631
:<;50
4ilO
583
594
408
16798
282
264
426
451
1143
10
73034
2399
81079
MS
1.91
1.66
1,45
1.76
1.79
l.n
50.71
0,85
D.SO
1.29
1.36
145
0.03
.(JOI
,087
'()4{)
.066
.019
.293
.000
.558
,452
,:!4il
.247
.033
.RM
.000
(XJO
:nRO
220.49
I'
I·
Heigh I Incrcmcnt
0.91
I.().l
0,99
1.41
0.87
1.7-1
1.t)9
79.60
1.35
2.79
J.RH
2.38
67.02
3.76
422.07
R.24
.166.66
1.14
1.09
1.55
0.95
1.90
2.18
87.07
1....7
3.06
4.25
2.61
73.3[
4.12
461.66
44.49
Stem Diamclcr
MS
f
.259
,372
.120
.556
.011
,056
.000
.[65
.050
.000
.035
.000
.0<3
.000
.000
I'
Table 9. Analysis of variance for effects of area. species. planting season and stock type on lree \uni\al, heigh!. height Incremenl :llld stem diamcler at year 13 in thc
Coastal Western Hemlock zone.
Table 10. Percent of remaining li\e trees of each ~pecics injured hy class al lear I in six study areas in !.he
Coaslal Weslern Hemlock zone.
Injury Class
Area
Specie.<;
Qu:lIchka Creek
Amabilis fir
oble fir
Weslern \\ hitc pine
Weslern rcdccdar
Douglas-fir
Weslern hemlock
Stem
Injury
0.8
0.7
0.7
1.1
0.7
0.0
Wintcr
Injury
••
5.6
0.0
5.2
8.2
0.0
Garbage Creek
Amabilis fir
Noble fir
Western white pine
Western rcdccdar
Douglas-fir
Western hcmlock
o.
10.9
Guyline Rd. (3)
Amabilis fir
Noble fir
Western while pine
Weslern rcdcedar
Douglas-fir
Western hemlock
0.9
0.2
0.3
0.5
1.2
0.5
0.7
2.5
0.0
Labour Day Lake
Amabilis fir
Noble fir
Western while pine
Western rcdcedar
Douglas·fir
Western hcmlock
0.2
0.0
0.0
02
0.5
0.2
Cypress Creek
Amabilis fir
Noble fir
Western whitc pinc
Western redcedar
Douglas-fir
Wcslern hcmlock
0.2
0.8
0.0
0.5
0.6
0.7
Guylinc Rd. (4)
Amabilis fir
Noble fir
Westcrn whitc pinc
Western rcdccdar
Douglas-fir
Western hemlock
36
0.2
0.•
0.3
0.8
0.6
0.0
1.0
1.2
U
o.
1.1
13.2
8.5
•.6
6.3
1~,8
I~.O
1••
9.7
3.0
3.0
0.2
21.0
5.8
5.3
0.7
Browse
Smothering
Stcm
Rusl
..0
3.3
0.7
6.0
6.7
2.0
o.
0.0
0.0
1.5
1.1
0.4
1.6
0.7
1.0
0.0
0.7
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.5
5.0
1.0
28.5
3.5
6.
0.0
0.2
0.2
2.1
0.8
0.2
1.3
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
4.7
0.5
1.2
3.7
3.3
3.8
2.4
0.2
3.0
1.5
3.2
0.2
19.0
o.
2.5
2.3
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.9
3.8
0.7
6.7
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.7
1.3
1.4
08
0.7
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.6
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.8
0.0
:U
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.0
Drought
5.5
14.9
0.9
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.4
13.7
2.7
•.9
1.8
0.8
6.1
3,0
2.9
1.1
0.0
1.4
2U
90
76
2.0
0.0
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.0
0.4
2.6
0.7
13.9
8.1
0.6
1.3
0.7
28.0
1.3
0
2.6
2.0
0.2
13
1.9
Olhcr
Table II. Percell! of remaining live trees of each species injured by class at year 13 in six study arcas in the
Coastal Western Hemlock LOne.
Injury Class
Area
Species
Stem
Injury
Winter
Injury
Browse
Smothering
Stem
Rust
Quatchka Creek
Amabilis fir
Noble fir
Western white pine
Western redcedar
Douglas-fir
Western hemlock
0.0
7.1
0.0
3.9
1.9
3.0
4.3
4.2
0.0
0.8
0.0
6.2
0.8
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.2
0.4
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Garbage Creek
Amabilis fir
Nohle fir
Western white pine
Western redecdar
Douglas-fir
Western hemlock
1.2
1.6
2.1
23.1
5.8
3.1
0.4
0.2
0.2
7.7
2.7
0.0
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
09
0.0
0.0
2.7
1.9
4.7
Guylinc Rd. (3)
Amahilis fir
Noble fir
Western white pine
Western redcedar
Douglas-fir
Western hemlock
2.7
3.'
9.0
8.8
238
11.3
2.0
0.8
0.2
5.1
11.6
7.3
1.0
6.6
9.5
15.5
15.1
1.2
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.1
1.8
3.2
0.4
1.4
0.6
0.0
0.0
45.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.6
3.8
0.4
2.9
0.2
Labour Day Lake
Amabilis fir
Noble fir
Western white pine
Western redccdar
Douglas-fir
Western hemlock
0.0
0.0
3.1
9.0
3.3
0.6
1HA
0.2
0.0
0.4
1.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
4.1
0.4
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
8.4
0.2
0.0
0.6
0.4
1.1
0.0
0.0
65.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.5
0.6
Cypress Creek
Amabilis fir
Noble fir
Western white pine
Western redccdar
Douglas-fir
Western hemlock
1.2
0.6
6.4
6.2
7.1
1.5
9.4
23
0.0
0.9
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.9
3.1
0.4
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
78.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.3
0.0
0.0
2.1
0.0
Guyline Rd. (4)
Amabilis fir
Noble fir
Western white pine
Western redccdar
Douglas-fir
Western hemlock
0.0
0.6
1.0
05
0.6
0.2
1.3
0.6
0.0
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.6
7.2
lVl
6.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.5
2.4
1.6
0.2
0.9
0.0
0.0
17.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
4.7
0.6
204
Basal
Sweep
2.3
1.7
39.4
Other
37
Table J2. Rrmking of species. sloe" type and planling season reliability and producti \ity wilhin each
biogeoclimatic zone.
Planling option
Survival
Height
Form
(q)
(Clll)
Defecls (%)
Ranking
Reliability I
Productivity 2
Mountain Hemlock zone
Species
Amabilis fir
Noble fir
Ycllow cedar
Mountain hemlock
RI
82
9<1
90
Stock type
Plug transplant
Plug
Barefool
89
85
85
Planting season
Spring
Fall
88
86
2
"2
175
245
19.3
19.8
223
208
65.5
38.0
I
4
3
223
35.6
2
I
183
199
28.8
38.9
1
3
2
201
34.2
I
202
)·t9
2
3
I
3
Coastal Western Hemlock lOne
Species
Amabilis fir
Noble fir
Western white pine
Weslern red cedar
Douglas-fir
Western hemloc"
80
85
63
76
85
82
"58
386
2~.5
$Iock Iype
Plant transplant
Plug
Bareroot
82
76
7"
356
30t<
321
22.1
21.1
20.3
Illanling season
Spring
83
332
325
21.1
I
I
21.3
2
2
.-all
n
211
306
289
298
12.3
9.3
19.8
29.7
29.7
2
I
6
5
3
"
6
3
5
"2
I
I
I
2
3
3
2
I ReliabililY oblained by multiplying 5ufyi\"al (ll) by (IDO-'KFoml Defect) and ranking the qu()(ic.nt from besl
(I=highesl quolient) w worsl (=10\\.e51 quotienl).
2pnxJuclivity mnkings for all planting options arc based on height only.
38
ApPENDICES
.
0
(YIN)
leSt lIrea.
(B)·C
a.c
C
C-O
"'
Ah.5·IS
IJOyr515
25·45
N
N
SIt..
VulCbMb.
20·45
Ve;(Rh,)lRh ;(Xc I
Ah;~
1977
N
N
Sit..
Cb Mbl8~tGlBat G,G,
15-25
25-4~
IU;~lr4/6
I.
1976
IO·I~
OIlFP
2HO
20·6~
o IIFP/Mll
N (SOllie locah/.cd)
N ('OII)C locah/.ed)
SCL-CL
VolMo,
"
N
N
SaL
Sa Gd.lCb Mb
"
"
1973
1975
1974
,.
1976
Sh
15-20
N
N
SiCL
Ah;IO
l\rn;7_S)'r3l1
=xeromoder. Rh. '" rhizomull. Ve
.. ~ellotnoder, Mu... tnulltnoder. Mo.
=Monnodcr, Hu.,.. hutnimor,lly,. h)'dromull. 0" minorhurnus form (Klinka tt al. 1981)
Cn...:k
Cyprc..s
1968
'%9
"
N
N
SaL
VolCocr
SO
Xe JRh)
0.25
Ahj,6
Or:75yr4J4
ontl'
,,.
C
3-4
TS
ST
180
'"
,'"
1978
,.
SiL
FICo.Ca,
20·ID
N
N
Ae;2
Bhf;:'i)'r2 V2
Rh ;(Mo)
'".
o Fill'
CoD
,
ST
fl"
le,d
FT
\'1112
nun2
.... e'tem hcmlOl.:k/.OilC
Labour 03)'
Lakc
1975
1974
"
N
N
SCL (CL)
VolMo,
Ae;3
BO_5yr4/4
fl.
I.
,.
OIlFI'
,.
C
,
MS
ST
270
'SO
,.
\'m2
GUl'line Rood
(3 and 4)
6 Yo. = volcanic bedrock, ColBa... conglomcrate overlain b)' compacl basal till. Sa.Gd = saprohtic grnoodiornc. Cb,Mb "eolluvlated morainal blankct. BaLGG. :::: compacted ba.~1 till over arcenstollC: and Ilranile. Bat.G::::
compacted ba.<;.al till over gn:enSlOne. vQJCo,cr .. ~olcanie; coolcscing colluvial fans. CoGd .. coarse-gromed anmodionlc. flCo Ca:::: nU~lall)' a1tcred coars.e·gr:uned gl'llnlle cobbles. VoJMo... nuxlure or volcame bedrock
and morainal blanket. Sh .. shale (Luttmcrdina il (II 19901
s Xc.
O,HFP - Orthic Humo-Ferric 1'001.01. a.FIll' '" Ortl1le Fcrro-Humic Podzul, P.FHP = Placic Fero·Humic Podrol. MH .. Melanic Brurll~ol (Anon. (978)
-
1977
,.
N
N
SaL-SiL
Co.Gd,
"
Ae;2
Bf;7,5yr4/6
S
Rh;(Xc)
S
CoD
,
ST
TTF
Coo~lal
O.FHP
45-60
Xc,;(Rh .Mu)
MO
lS
toe or ~IO[ll;, 11"F - lot of IUrbld flow f:ln, FI '" Ou"al terrace
H)'grotope (soil moi~turc rCIlIllIC) and u'QphotQpc: (IlOtI nulnenl n:glllte) from Klinka if III (1984)_
co = convex. COC = eonelll'C, ST =smughl
1966
1967
"
Ae;3
Bm;7.5yrV2
Mo,;CRh)
N
N
SiL
Co_lBaL
"
Ae;0-6
Bf;5)r'V8
lIu,;(Xe .Rh)
,.
,.
,
,.
CoD
lie
O,HFI'
H
,
ST
300
C,
270
C,
CO
5-10
220
"'"
~-15
.m2
\'m2
830
Qoatchb
Cn:ek
1O.'lO
'0
Garbagc
Cn:ek
1I1Inl
Guylme Road
(Innd2)
5-15
AhJ:2
Bhf;7,:'\)'r4l6
fl.
"
PAll'
.J
,
3-4
4_.~
3.
CO<:
CO<:
CO<:
ST
O.FHP
MS
SO
MS
300-350
LSiMS
220
MS
'000
1~·25
mml
1100
20·55
270
MI Cllin
each
IO-l~
nun I
1075
LS '" lo....'er sloN. MS '" mid·~loIl\". US _ UllllCf _s.1ml!:.£!....'=--n~t.CR=_H~~t,:rS
Bumcd
'-"-
'* Hislory"
Iron RivIT
I'-lountain hemlock zone
Ml. Arrowsmith
for
mml
1070
5-12
mml
I'-'lcadc Creek
Glcying (YIN)
Soil Texture
Coorse Fragmen! LIthologY'
Cool>C Frngrnents (%1
S~"{:page
A Honzon (eml
B Horizon
ROOIing IXplh (ern)
U
Soil Feature,·.
Soil Clas~ifieahon'
Soil Depth (em)
Humus Foml\
HUll1u~ Thiekness (em)
Slope Gr:w:Iient (%)
ASpecl (degm:s)
Slope P05llion l
Surface Shape!
Hygrotope)
Trophowpc'
Subzone/V anantll'ha~
Etc.alion (mas,l)
Are'
Appendix 1. Summary of ecological conditions and logging history
Appendix 2a. Codes used in assessment of plantations to list
injuries causing seedling mortality and injuries to remaining live
trees; codes arc summariLed into eight clilsscs for some analyses.
Code
o
10
I
2
13
23
33
4
14
24
34
44
54
15
25
35
6
16
26
17
27
37
47
18
28
38
48
58
68
9
Description
Summary Class
Frost damage
No terminal bud flush
Erosion
Basal sweep
Submersion
Smothering
Burying
Branch snow breilk
Stem snow break
Other mechanical break
Poor planting
Snow bend
Root throw
Deer browse
Bird browse
Other browse
Drought
Winter desiccation
Sun scald
Root collar weevils
Shoot weevils
Adelges
Other insects
Armillaria root rot
Olher root rot
Stem rust
Snow blight
Olher needle disease
Olher diseases
Unknown
Winter injury
Winter injury
Othcr
Basal sweep
Othcr
Smothering
Other
Stem injury
Stem injury
Stem injury
Other
Stem injury
Other
Browse
Browse
Browse
Drought
Winter injury
Other
Othcr
Other
Other
Other
Other
Olher
Stem rust
Other
Olher
Olher
Other
Appendix 2b. Codes and dcscription used for trcc form: these arc
summarized into three classes.
Code
0
I
2
3
4
5
Description
Summary Class
No defect
Sinuous
Multi-lOpped
Forked
Crooked
Bush-form
No defect
No defect
Stem defect
Stem defect
Stem defect
Bush
41
Appendix 3. Principal injuries causing mortality belween years I 103 and" 10 13. in descending order of frequency
by species and test area within the Mountain Hemloc~ lone.
Injuries I by' SpeclC"<
(a) Meade: Crnl
'l,obk lir
An ....bihs fir
Ycal"S I.J
'.
Injury Type
Number
Orou
Years -4·13
Injury Typ<:
F_
2.
"
,
2
Smut
ORR
Drou
"
6
Number
Ib) .\11
ReW
Unkn
.w
F=
2.1
RCW
,
Drou
SrllOl
ORR
IV
A,"
Drou
16
Arro"'~mnh
~.mk
Amat>ilis fir
Years I.J
InjUry Type
Number
Oro,
Years 4·13
InjUry Type::
5,,, 5""'"
"
"
Number
(c) Guyline
R()~d
""'"
"
5m('(
D""
ARR
Droul
5ut>rn
7
10
9
Number
Years 4-13
InjUry Type
l"umbcr
6
"
,
fir
,
,
" """
5~.
9
,
F_
2
Oro,
"
3
Unkn.
NSI
ARR
0'"
SnlOl
29
!5
9
ReW
3
Yellow ccd::u
F""
,
Oro,
Cnl.n
ARR
,
"
5,,,
•
Oro'"
NSr'
Mountain hemlock
F_
SS8
"
7
2
l:nkn
SUIOI.
ARR
Oro,
Unln
2
32
N51
2
Subm.
4
FTO'iI
Oro,
,
,
(I)
Am.1bil" fir
Yellrs 1--'
InjUry Type
,
MOURI:un hemlock
Yellow cedar
Drou
"
5,,,
"
Nollie fir
I.
Smot.
""'"
l'nln
F""
,
7
6
F_
\}rou
"
19
S~
l'nln'
ORR
,
,
Yellow ced;lr
DB
,
"'00
,
l)ro,
WD
Mountain ocmlock
FroW
DB
!7
6
I.
""'"3
Lnln
3
2
Oro,
,
F""""1lI
DBI\\lD
,
!'iSI
Srnot
ORR
7
3
t:nknJ
A"
,
IdllTOn R.i'cr
Al1labih~ fir
Yurs I·J
Injury Type
Number
Years 4-13
Injury Type
J\umbcr
Drou
Rew
SnlOl
Drou
RCw
,
NSI
ORR
S~
ARR
9
7
"
"
3
"
SIlIlX-
ARR
D,"",
ORR
"
7
5
l\Iounl~rn hemlock
Yellow cedar
Noble tir
l)ro,
).
,
IV
,
NSI
Oro,
wl)!
,
NSI
ReW
"
Smell
Orou
ORR
ARR
ORR
SnllX-
6
3
2
"
19
6
lei Mr. e.,
"'~lc fir
Am:lblh.. fir
\'cars I-J
Injury Type
"
)
,
D,oo
"
2
S11lu!.
Drou
Bury,
5""
Droul
Subm
7
17
3
Dro'"
SnlOl
Number
Ye"rs 4.13
Injury Type
Number
42
"
RCW/
B,ry
"
EOS
SnlOll
Yetluv. ct'd:u
"\$1
l)ro,
NSI
Moonlalll hernlocl
",SI
2
NSI
5~
B"ry
7
2
NSI
Oro'"
IV
Srnol.
,
Smol.
ORR
,
"
,.
NSI
ARR
,
Appendix 3. (eonld.)
(f) Guyhl"ll: Rood (2)
Noble fir
Arnabih. fir
Years ,.)
Injury- Type
Numb<'r
Yran; 4·1J
lnjul') T)J'le
Numb<'r
Dmu
WD
II'
7
,
S"'"
l'n~n
'RR
"
•
,
,
WD
'"junes I by- Specil's
Yellow cedar
,
Drou.
)
,
S~
ORR
Ml
)
,
ReWI
IV
WD
Drou
Moun1ain hernlod
Un~nJ
,
NSI
WDI
L"n"n
N5I
N5I
IV
"
,
S"'"
)
I"~
)
,
S"",1
ORR
'RR
)
,
I Drou " Drought. AIl.Il. "Annillaria Root ROI. ORR", Other ROOI ROI. Smol '" SU\01heflng. Subm '" Submef'llon. sse", Stem Snow Oreal.:.
Bury. '" Burying. Un"n '" Unl.:no",n. RCW '" Root Collar Wee, it<.. pp '" Poor l'1all1mg. DB '" l:>t..e r Bro'" sc. WD '" Winter lkssica1ion
1"'0 or rno~ injuries "illl an equal occun:ncc
3NSI '" No Significanl Injury: not gremcr tllan one injUry,
,
43
t
,.)
Number
Years 4-13
Injury Type
Number
Years I·)
Injury Type
2
7
Oury.
3
7
31
4
Frost/
Bury.
Unkn.
,
Smol
Smol.
II
Unkn.
1
>sa
EOS!
Drou.
8
RCW
Amabilis fir
Drou.
II
2
1
1
Smol.
Amohl1i' hr
Smol.
40
Drou
8
,
Frost/EGS
ORR
2'
26
Unln.
RCW
Amabilis fir
D=.
te) Guyline Road (3)
Number
Yl'lIrs 4·13
Injury Type
Numhcr
Yeurs 1·3
Injury TyfIC
Cb) G.lth:llle Crl'el
Numhcr
Yfurs 4·lJ
Injury Type
Numhcr
Injury Type
Years
(a) Ouatchka CI"l.'Cl
IS
l-rOSI
Noble lir
NSf
23
Frnst
Nohle fir
2
23
J
Smol. Subrn.!
ORRI
Unkn.
21
Drou,
2
EOS
"
Drou
,
7
Drou.
Smull OMIJ/
ORR Drou
26
RCW
Nohle fir
2
Bury.
12
Sma!.
NSf
12
RCW
NSf
NSI 3
4
Smal.
NSI
NSI
NSI
NSf
NSf
44
SR
6
S mol.
NSI
22
5
Smot. Uoln.
2
EOS
Western white pine
59
SR
,
Smul. Drou. Fro~t/
SSBIRCW
4
2
Western white pme
28'
SR
NSI
Western white pine
IrIJurie~ I by Species
NSI
1
,
NSf
SSB
RCW
3
SOlO!.
,
RCW
2
Drou_
4
Fro,1
9
Bury.
16
Frost
7
Smat
II
Drou.
4
Unkn.
J
Smot.
Weslern rcdceduf
4
Unkn.
'9
Drou.
Western rcrJf\xl:lr
3
OMS
18
Drou.
Western redcedor
12
2
ARR/
Sma!.
44
Drou
7
ORR
7
Drou.
NSf
1
Drou.
6
Bury.
J
PI'
NSI
SmaLl
RCW
3
Douglas. fir
Sma!.
16
FrOSI
4
Unkn
53
Frml
2
,
Dougl:ls·ftr
ORR
,
Frost
Smol.
16
RCW
DouJ;ln~·fir
,
NSf
16
Drou.
NSI
5
ORR
61
Drou_
13
Drou.
10
5
Smol. Uokn.l
ORR
16
l'-rOsl
4
Drou_
9
S mOl,
4
SI1101.
,
EOS
Wcstern hel11locl
8
Drou.
68
FrO!o.t
,
FroMI
SSB
Western hemloel
ORR
OMIJI
17
RCW
Western hemlock
Appendix 4. Principal injuries causing mortality hctwccn years I lO 3 llnd 4 lO 13. in descending order of frcquency by species and tcst arca within the Coastal Western
Hemlock zonc.
~
~
Cyprc~s
Creek
9
"
Years!-3
~-13
56
Smot.
12
Smot.
6
Drou.
Drou.
II
,
2
Bury.
7
Unl.n
Amahih\ fir
6
Druu.
,
WI)
3
Unkn.
2
16
2
Unkn.
NSI
NSI
3
Noble fir
Smut.
Drou.
4
2
WI)
NSI
1\'SI
ORR!
,
ORR
Noble fir
2
Drou.
Smol.
9
S mol.
6
Suhm.
RCW
10
3
Smot.
4
WO/
Noble fir
NSI
,
2
Suhm
Droll. SSBI
NSI
14
5R
,
6
EOS
Smot. Drou!
Ullkn.
4
24
7
Smol. Drou.
Western while pUle
370
5R
6
Drou
N51
NSI
whl!e pme
2
Drou
3
WI)
We~lcrn
130
SR
7
Drou.
Injuries l by Species
Western while pine
6
Drou.
14
Drou.
,
ARR
2
Smut.
3
5SB
501
"
Drou.
NSf
NSI
5
N51
10
80
Unkn.l
Smot.
Drou.
IVI)
N51
PI'
6
Western rcdcedar
4
SmoLl
Drou,
188
IV"
Western rcdeedar
9
Smot.
67
WI)
Western rcdccdar
20
Smm
16
WI)
II
Suhm
37
"OJ
,
ARR
6
Drou
Unkn,
4
,
10
Drou.
ORR
PI'
14
,
12
Drou.
NSI
N51
ORR!
ARRISmol.
Douglas-fir
10
Drou.
15
RCW
Douglas-fir
3
ORR
3
WD/
RCW
Douglas-fir
8
:n
11
4
ORR
SmOI
WI)
Smn!
= No Significanl
Injury: not greater than one injury.
2 T\\.o or more injuries with an equal occurrence.
3 NSI
NSI
6
RCW
2
Unl.n
PI'
7
hemlock
ORR!
Suhm
4
7
Drou
We~lern
,
ARR
12
WD
4
ORR
4
Smo!.
hemlock
6
Smol
17
""
Wc~tcrn
12
ARR
21
Drou,
WcMern hemlock
I Drou. '" Drought. ARR '" Armillana Roo! ROI. ORR", Other Root ROI. Smol, '" SmOlhernll;. Suhrn. = Submersion. SSB ... Stem Snow Bre.ll.. EOS = Erosion of Seedling, O\IB .. Olhcr
Mechanical Break. Bury. = Burylllg. Unl.n." Unl.no\\.n. RCW = Root Collar Wcc... il~, pr '" Poor Planring. SR "" Stem Ru\1. WD .. Winter De\\icalion
Number
Injury Type
Years
Injury Type
NUllllx:r
7
Bllry.
21
Subm.
Drou.
RCW
17
Smol
4
ORR
Drou.
WO/
Drou
Amahilis fir
ARR
18
6
53
Smo!.
RCW
Amabilis fir
Drou.
(f) Guyhne Road (4)
Number
Yenrs ~-I]
Injury Type
Yl'llrs 1-3
hlJury Type
Numlx:r
(e)
YClIrs 4-13
Injury Type
Numlxr
Number
Injury Type
Years 1-3
(d) Labour Day Lake
Appendix 4. (conld.)

Canadian Forest Service - Ressources naturelles Canada

Transcription

Similar documents

Integrating Traditional Crop Genetic Diversity for Mountain Food

June 24th - Elstow

Plant This, Not That

MOUNTAIN POINT

"Enchanted Rock Fest" featuring Bret Michaels

Wild, Wet and Untamed - VirginiaLiving.com

Fredericksburg 27.indd

CNTEAEDITION2Newsletter - Colts Neck Township Education

Viewpoints June 2015 - Mountain View School

2016 Marching Band Performance Guidelines

Fifth Symposium on Hemlock Woolly Adelgid in the Eastern United