Next Article in Journal
Effects of Vegetation Restoration on the Distribution of Nutrients, Glomalin-Related Soil Protein, and Enzyme Activity in Soil Aggregates on the Loess Plateau, China
Next Article in Special Issue
Small-Scale Forest Structure Influences Spatial Variability of Belowground Carbon Fluxes in a Mature Mediterranean Beech Forest
Previous Article in Journal
How to Achieve Effective Participation of Communities in the Monitoring of REDD+ Projects: A Case Study in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Growth and Tree Water Deficit of Mixed Norway Spruce and European Beech at Different Heights in a Tree and under Heavy Drought
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Aboveground Biomass Response to Release Treatments in a Young Ponderosa Pine Plantation

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, CA 96002, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2019, 10(9), 795; https://doi.org/10.3390/f10090795
Submission received: 8 August 2019 / Revised: 5 September 2019 / Accepted: 10 September 2019 / Published: 12 September 2019

Abstract

Controlling competing vegetation is vital for early plantation establishment and growth. Aboveground biomass (AGB) response to manual grubbing release from shrub competition was compared with no release control in a twelve-year-old ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Lawson & C. Lawson) plantation established after a wildfire in northeastern California. In addition, response to chemical release followed by precommercial thinning in an adjacent plantation was also examined as a growth potential from a more intensively managed regime, where shrub competition was virtually eliminated. We measured AGB in both planted trees and competing woody shrubs to partition the biomass pools in the plantation. The results showed a significant grubbing treatment effect on basal diameter (BD) at 10 cm aboveground (p = 0.02), but not on tree height (p = 0.055). Height and BD were 2.0 m and 7.4 cm in the manual release, respectively, compared to 1.7 m and 5.6 cm in the control. However, chemical release produced much greater rates of tree growth with a height of 3.6 m and BD of 14.7 cm, respectively. Tree AGB was 60% higher with the manual release of shrubs (1.2 Mg ha−1) than with control (0.7 Mg ha−1) (p < 0.05). The planted area without shrub competition yielded a much higher green tree biomass (16.0 Mg ha−1). When woody shrub biomass was included, the total AGB (trees and woody shrubs) appeared slightly higher, but non-significant in the no release control (13.3 Mg ha−1) than in the manual release (11.9 Mg ha−1) (p = 0.66); the chemical release had 17.1 Mg ha−1. Clearly, shrub biomass dominated this young plantation when understory shrubs were not completely controlled. Although the manual release did increase targeted tree growth to some degree, the cost may limit this practice to a smaller scale and the remaining shrub dominance may create long-term reductions in growth and a persistent fuels problem in these fire-prone ecosystems.
Keywords: chemical release; manual release; shrub biomass chemical release; manual release; shrub biomass

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ritchie, M.; Zhang, J.; Hammett, E. Aboveground Biomass Response to Release Treatments in a Young Ponderosa Pine Plantation. Forests 2019, 10, 795. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10090795

AMA Style

Ritchie M, Zhang J, Hammett E. Aboveground Biomass Response to Release Treatments in a Young Ponderosa Pine Plantation. Forests. 2019; 10(9):795. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10090795

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ritchie, Martin, Jianwei Zhang, and Ethan Hammett. 2019. "Aboveground Biomass Response to Release Treatments in a Young Ponderosa Pine Plantation" Forests 10, no. 9: 795. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10090795

APA Style

Ritchie, M., Zhang, J., & Hammett, E. (2019). Aboveground Biomass Response to Release Treatments in a Young Ponderosa Pine Plantation. Forests, 10(9), 795. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10090795

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop