Transcript Cut some of the aspen - MySARE Home

Sustainable Landowner
Options for Aspen Forests
Charly Ray, Northern Ecosystem Services
Jason Fischbach, UW-Extension
June 8, 2013
Project Collaborators
• USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research and
Education (SARE) Grant Program
• UW Extension
• USDA NRCS office Ashland
• Northland College and the Sigurd Olson
Environmental Institute (SOEI)
• Chequamegon Bay Area Partnership (CBAP)
• George Lulich
• The Nature Conservancy
Sustainable forestry
•
•
•
•
Historic forest cover and type
Representative range of disturbance
Watershed conserving management
Producing a range of forest products from
pulp to sawtimber from a range of natural
species
Large Dead Trees
Coarse Woody Debris
Forestry in our Region Must Recognize
Historic Disturbance and Succession
The Forest is Succeeding…Will We Let It?
Forested area in thousand acres
6000
Aspen/Birch
5000
4000
3000
2000
Maple/Basswood
1000
1936
1956
1968
1983
1996
Conifer migration
from drainages
Upland management
for aspen
Longer-lived species are
still present, but will
depend on humans to
recover.
What’s Wrong With Aspen
•
•
•
•
•
Nothing but….
Open vs. closed watershed function
Short life=limited market window
Limited products (pulp with limited sawlog)
Habitat limitations: lacks winter thermal cover,
mast, coarse woody debris, mid and lower
canopy
• Sustainability of continued rotations is suspect
The Aspen Management Box
• Aspen is short-lived, relatively easy to harvest,
and has a ready market
• Aspen regenerates vigorously in clearcuts
outcompeting other species – it’s easy to
manage
• Industry and government encourage aspen
• Plus deer are strongly limiting white pine and
red oak regeneration in places
Are There Other Options?
Alternatives to Clear-Cutting Aspen
• Do nothing (let nature run its course)
• Cut all aspen but leave everything else (slow
transition)
• Cut some of the aspen (hastened transition)
– Capture some value of aspen
– Limit suckering to encourage other species
– Lack of seed and deer are major challenges
– Risk of losing forest to brush or low-quality red
maple
Species Diversity
Project History
• Living Forest Cooperative – interested in value
added products from forests and conservation
management of forests – not just for timber
• Many landowners with aspen interested in
some harvest but not clearcuts
• Little in the research or field regarding
alternatives to clearcutting in aspen – focus on
production
Components of Forest Ecosystems that
Enhance Ecosystem Function
What We Know About the
Project Location
Glacial Advance and Retreat
Created Our Soils and
Topography
Land Type Associations
Pre-Settlement Vegetation
Circa 1860
Legend
origveg
Project Location
(White Pine-Red Pine)
<all other values>
DESC_
aspen, white birch, pine
brush
hemlock, sugar maple, yellow birch, white pine, red pine
jack pine, scrub oak forests and barrens
oak - white oak, black oak, bur oak
oak openings - bur oak, white oak, black oak
open water
sugar maple, yellow birch, white pine, red pine
swamp conifers - white cedar, black spruce, tamarack, hemlock
white pine, red pine
white spruce, balsam fir, tamarack, white cedar, white birch, aspen
Variability in the Clay Plain – Habitat Types
Habitat Typing Helps Us
Understand the Potential of a Site
Often What’s Growing Now Is Not
Maximizing the Potential of the Site
Quast Property
• 40-50 year old aspen dominated stands
• Minor component of white pine, spruce, red
maple, balsam, northern hardwoods
• Enrolled in MFL
• Conservation easement
• Fish Creek
Forest
Stands
• A 5-112/A 0-51
• MFL required
a harvest of
the aspen
MFL Alternative Mandatory Practice for the stands
“Complete a shelterwood type harvest reducing crown closure to around
60%. The goal is to discourage aspen regeneration but allow more light to
reach the understory to encourage natural and planted mixed
pine/hardwood seedlings. Leave conifers for a seed source. Complete by
2012. Then within 5 years of the shelterwood harvest, establish an
understory of seedlings of 900 seedlings per acre in conifer or
hardwood seedlings other than aspen. May need to plant in order to
do this. If understory meets stocking requirement, remove part or all of
the remaining overstory where it can be done without damage to the
understory. If understory stocking does not meet requirements, remove
entire overstory to regenerate aspen. Cut all trees down to 2 inches DBH.
Any healthy pine or spruce may be left. Snag and den trees may be left for
wildlife.”
Our Research Project
• What is the right amount of aspen to remove
via an “aspen shelterwood” on the clay plain?
• We set up a timber sale to remove varying
amounts of aspen
• Evaluate the response at 1, 7, and ? Years…
– Residual aspen (mortality and growth)
– Aspen suckering
– Non-aspen growth and regeneration
– Shrub growth and colonization
Methods
• Marked harvest in February 2005
• Plots established prior or immediately after
harvest
• White pine planted at 300 tpa in April 2005
• Data collected in fixed radius plots by FIA
technician
• 1/10th acre plots for overstory trees
• 1/300th acre plots for seedlings and saplings
The Data
What Happened to the Residual
Aspen?
West Side
Average: $70.39/acre revenue to landowner
West Side
Residual Aspen Summary
• There was some mortality, but no clear
relationship to residual basal area or removal
intensity
• Continued growth resulted in a net gain of
volume seven years after harvest
• Although value was left in the forest at the
initial harvest, that value has appreciated and
has provided aesthetic and other benefits
• Economic analysis is not yet complete
What Happened In the
Understory?
Understory Summary
• Aspen and non-aspen tree regeneration and
growth was sufficient to meet stocking levels,
but not clearly correlated with overstory basal
area
• The long-term competition between shrub
and trees remains unclear
• More analysis remains to be done
Take Home Message
• Let’s go to the woods and take a look