Next Article in Journal
Soil Preferences in Germination and Survival of Limber Pine in the Great Basin White Mountains
Previous Article in Journal
Differences in Human versus Lightning Fires between Urban and Rural Areas of the Boreal Forest in Interior Alaska
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 8
Issue 11
10.3390/f8110421
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Reforestation and Site Preparation Methods on Early Growth and Survival of Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) in South-Eastern Poland

by
Marta Aleksandrowicz-Trzcińska
1,*,
Stanisław Drozdowski
2,
Zbigniew Wołczyk
2,
Kamil Bielak
2 and
Henryk Żybura
2
1
Department of Forest Protection and Ecology, Faculty of Forestry, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, 159 Nowoursynowska St., 02-776 Warsaw, Poland
2
Department of Silviculture, Faculty of Forestry, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, 159 Nowoursynowska St., 02-776 Warsaw, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2017, 8(11), 421; https://doi.org/10.3390/f8110421
Submission received: 5 October 2017 / Revised: 26 October 2017 / Accepted: 31 October 2017 / Published: 4 November 2017
(This article belongs to the Section Forest Ecology and Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Successful tree regeneration is a key process in ensuring forest sustainability and one of the most crucial investments made in silviculture. This study compared the effects of three reforestation methods (planting, direct seeding, and natural regeneration) and three mechanical site preparation methods (double mould-board forest plough (FP); active plough (AP); and forest mill (FM)) on biometric parameters, survival, and density of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) seedlings in the first 4 years of growth in a clear-cut area in south-eastern Poland. Planted seedlings were higher, thicker in root collar, and had higher survival rates after the fourth growing season than trees from natural regeneration and direct seeding. Site preparation methods did not affect the density of planted seedlings. After natural regeneration and direct seeding, seedling density was lower and less homogeneous (plots with no seedlings) in FM soil preparation in comparison to other methods. The survival of pines in all reforestation methods was not affected significantly by site preparation methods. Our results indicate that the best mechanical site preparation method for planting is FM, as this is the one that least disturbs the soil environment. For direct seeding the best results were achieved after AP preparation. Natural regeneration of Scots pine was most effective after FP use, and in relatively wet years also after AP use.

1. Introduction

Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) is the most widely distributed conifer species in the northern hemisphere and is the most important forest forming species throughout East-Central Europe [1]. Scots pine forest stands can be regenerated in three ways: planting, direct seeding, and natural regeneration. In the Polish forestry model, planting is the most commonly used method. Usually 8000–10,000 one-year-old seedlings are planted per hectare [2]. In recent years, natural regeneration of forest stands, by self-sown seedlings, has been practiced more frequently. In 2014, natural regeneration of all tree species accounted for 16.3 per cent of the total reforested area. A further increase of the percentage contribution of natural regeneration in Poland is possible primarily thanks to introduction of natural regeneration of Scots pine, which is the major tree species in the country, constituting 58.1 per cent of its total forest area [3]. Natural regeneration of pine is facilitated by natural conditions (prevalence of coniferous forest sites, frequently high pine seed yields) and promotion of this reforestation method, given that it is more ecologically and economically favourable than the others [4,5].
Direct seeding is an old reforestation method, currently rarely used. In Poland in the 1960s and 1970s, 5.3–7.8 per cent of clear-cut areas were reforested in this way, compared to 2.6 per cent in the 1980s [6,7]. This method has many advantages. First, the costs of reforestation are lower than those of planting [8]. Second, direct seeding imitates natural regeneration. Third, forest stands formed in this way, growing in high densities are characterized by high timber quality [7]. The main reasons why direct seeding is now so rare is the risk of unsuccessful regeneration because of the greater influence of biotic and abiotic stress factors on germinating seeds than on planted seedlings [9,10,11]. Comparative studies show that, if regenerated by direct seeding or self-sowing, Scots pine and other tree species grow more slowly and are less likely to survive than planted seedlings [9,12,13].
To create optimum conditions for seed germination and seedling growth in a clear-cut area, mechanical site preparation (MSP) is recommended [2,14], primarily to limit competition with other plants for light, water and nutrients [15] and decreases damage caused by the pine weevil (Hylobius abietis L.) [16]. Allelopathic effects in the ground layer of vegetation also may limit seed germination and seedling growth [17,18]. MSP can modify the physical properties of soil, such as water content, aeration, temperature and bulk density, as well as its chemical properties, such as organic matter content, nutrient availability and pH [19,20,21,22]. Furthermore, most site preparation methods can cause soil erosion if not carefully implemented and adapted to the specific site characteristics and climate [23,24]. For example, in steep forest-lands in northern Spain, mechanized forest operations including down-slope ploughing significantly increased soil losses, with effects on site productivity [25].
The impact of MSP on seed germination and seedling growth and survival may vary depending on climatic conditions, site types and tree species [9,14,21,26,27]. Basic MSP methods involve one or more of the following: removing the forest floor to expose mineral soil, inverting forest floor and mineral soil, elevating the mineral soil and mixing forest floor with mineral soil [21,28]. Various tools and machines can be used for MSP that differ in the degree of soil disturbance, as measured by the area and depth of the disturbed soil [29,30]. According to many comparative studies, more intensive scarification methods usually result in a higher initial number of seedlings and better subsequent growth and survival [31,32,33,34]. Results of the studies conducted so far show that, on longer time scales, tree growth is poorest after removal of the forest floor to expose mineral soil, whereas it is best after mixing the forest floor with mineral soil [21,35].
In Polish forestry, for many years the most commonly used tool for MSP in clear-cut areas was the double mould-board forest plough (FP). FP severely disturbs the soil environment, affecting the entire clear-cut area. In recent years, two other methods have also been widely used: active plough (AP) and forest mill (FM). Their major advantage is that they affect the soil environment to a much smaller extent [30]. Plantations resulting from planting and self-sowing on soils prepared by FM are characterized by low density and survival rate but very good growth rate compared with other MSP methods [36,37,38].
This study aimed to compare the effects of three MSP methods (FP, AP, FM) and three reforestation methods (planting, direct seeding, natural regeneration) on growth, survival and density of Scots pine in the first four growing seasons in a clear-cut area.
We hypothesize that (i) Planted seedlings of Scots pine would growth faster and have a higher survival rate that ones regenerated by direct seeding or self-sowing methods; (ii) FP site preparation method would favour more natural regeneration in terms of density and survival rate than AP and FM; (iii) All seedlings in FM treatment would growth faster than in treatments with soil scarification made by FP and AP.
Our results are intended to assist in the choice of the best MSP method depending on the selected reforestation method.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Field research was conducted in Narol Forest District, located 300 km south-east of Warsaw, Poland (50°20′ N, 23°20′ E; WGS 84). The soil in the study area was classified as brown podzolic, formed on loose sands with typical mor humus. Before tree felling, the forest stand was composed of 87-year-old Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) (stand volume ca. 240 m3 ha−1; stand density ca. 430 stems ha−1; average tree height ca. 22 m). The herb layer was dominated by Calluna vulgaris (L.) Hull, Vaccinium myrtillus L., Pleurozium schreberi (Willd. ex Brid.) Mitt. and Festuca ovina L. The plant community was classified as Peucedano-Pinetum W.Mat. [39]. The trees were felled in November and December 2007, and the soil was prepared in February 2008. The study site (40 m × 135 m) was located in the clear-cut area. Its axis was oriented in the SE–NW direction. In the south-western part, the site borders an 88-year-old pine forest. On the other sides, the site borders clear-cut areas planted with 1-year-old Scots pine.

2.2. Weather Conditions

The source of data on monthly precipitation and mean air temperature during the experiment (2008–2011) was the weather station in Horyniec Zdrój, situated ca. 20 km from the study site. To illustrate the moisture conditions more clearly, we calculated the de Martonne aridity index (AI) [40] for each month of the growing season by using the formula:
AI = 12P/(T + 10)
where P is the monthly precipitation (mm) and T is the monthly mean air temperature (°C). According to the World Meteorological Organization [41] AI indicates the months when irrigation is necessary. Generally, irrigation is necessary when AI < 20 (Table 1).

2.3. Experimental Design and Treatments

The experiment followed a two-factor block design consisted of nine variants distinguished on the basis of MSP (FP, AP, FM) and reforestation (planting, direct seeding, natural regeneration) methods randomly assigned to each of the nine blocks. Each block was ca. 4.5 m wide and 135 m long and was divided into nine plots (4.5 m × 15 m). To take into account a spatial environmental variation, blocks were located parallel to the stand border (Figure 1).
MSP was performed with three tools: LPz OTL double mould-board forest plough (FP), P1T active single-disc plough (AP) and FL forest mill (FM) manufactured by Ośrodek Techniki Leśnej, Jarocin, Poland (http://www.otljarocin.lasy.gov.pl/preparation-of-soil-and-afforestation).
The furrows made by FP are rectangular, 70 cm wide and 5–10 cm deep. Leaf litter and the humus layer are cut and placed as ridges on both sides of the furrow, exposing mineral soil in the furrow. Furrows account for 50 per cent of the surface area, and the other 50 per cent is covered by ridges. In AP, the rotating disc makes the furrow parabolic, 40 cm wide and up to 10 cm deep. Leaf litter and a portion of the humus are partly mixed and placed on the ridge. The bottom of the furrow is scarified and covered with a mixture of humus and mineral soil. In this MSP method, furrows account for 40 per cent of the surface area, ridges for 40 per cent and undisturbed soil for the remaining 20 per cent. The working part of FM is a horizontal cylinder with cutting blades, revolving at a rate of 1000 rpm. FM grinds and mixes the forest vegetation, leaf litter, humus and mineral soil to a depth of 30 cm in belts 40 cm wide (27 per cent of surface area). The undisturbed belts between them are 110 cm wide (73 per cent of surface area). The distance between centres of neighbouring furrows or belts in all the MSP methods is 1.5 m [30].
In the directly seeded variants in spring (15 April 2008), pine seeds were sown manually (20 per metre of row, seeds spaced 5 cm apart) in the furrows made by FP and AP and on the belts made by FM. The seeds were next covered with a thin layer of sand (ca. 3 mm). At the same time, seeds were sown in a forest nursery located 10 km away from the study site to produce seedlings to be used for planting. The seeds were derived from the forest stand bordering on the study site, which was also the source of seeds for natural regeneration. The first self-sown seedlings in the plots for natural regeneration appeared at approximately 20 May 2008, ca. 10 days after the manually sown seedlings. Seedlings from the nursery were planted in the spring of 2009, in furrows and on belts, spaced 0.7 m × 1.5 m apart. Self-sown seedlings appearing on the plots used for direct seeding and planting were physically removed throughout the experiment. On the plots set aside for natural regeneration, the seedlings that germinated in the first year were marked. In the natural regeneration plots, seedlings that appeared in the second year were also included in the measurements, whereas the seedlings that germinated in the third and fourth years were removed. In the second year, sheep wool was used to protect apical buds of the seedlings against animal browsing and in addition experimental area was fenced in order to protect against herbivore damage. Weeds and natural regeneration of shrubs, as well as pioneer tree species were not abundant in the clear-cut area, so manual weeding and extraction of single seedlings of silver birch was sufficient, performed in July of the second and third years of the experiment.

2.4. Measurements

Individual seedlings were counted and measured four times, with seedling height and root collar diameter recorded in successive growing seasons. The first measurement was performed in spring (2009), before the growing season, after planting of the seedlings. Pine seedlings were then 1 year old in all the variants of the experiment, except of zero years old seedlings appeared in the second year. Successive measurements were taken in autumn (2009, 2010, 2011), after the growing season. In the plot with planted seedlings, all seedlings were measured. In the directly seeded and self-sown variants, sampling plots were established regularly. A single sampling plot in the directly seeded variant was a 1-m segment of a row, while in natural regeneration (self-sown), it comprised a 1-m segment of a furrow or belt across its whole width (0.7 m in FP, 0.4 m in AP and FM). For each plot, 5 sampling plots were established. In total, in the experiment focusing on natural regeneration and direct seeding and three MSP methods, 270(2 × 3 × 5 × 9) sampling plots were established (Figure 1). Seedlings density was calculated according to number of seedlings per measured area.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

The mean values for the different response variables for each block and treatment were calculated before the analyses were conducted. Before the further analyses, we tested the normality of data distribution in individual experimental variants (Shapiro–Wilk test) and homogeneity of their variance (Levene’s test). For the variables that met these assumptions (seedling height, root collar diameter and density), 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey honest significant difference (HSD) post hoc test were performed (α = 0.05). The general linear model (GLM) from R package ‘nlme’ [42] and the following Equation was applied:
Yijm = μ + αi + βj + γm + (βγ)jm + εijm
where, μ is the overall mean, αi is the block effect (i = 1–9), βj denotes the reforestation method effect (j = 1–3), γm is the MSP method effect (m = 1–3) and εijm is the experimental error.
For survival rate (per cent), the nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis test (α = 0.05) was used. Analysis of regression was performed to assess the relationships between root collar diameter and root collar diameter increment as well as between height and height increment. Finally, a logistic regression was applied to analyse the influence of biometric parameters, the MSP method and regeneration method on survival rate in the first years of growth. The statistical analyses were carried out using R 3.2.1 (R Core Team, 2016).
In the directly seeded and self-sown variants, for individual MSP methods (in per cent) we assessed evenness of seedling density in following classes: 0 = ‘zero plots’ (with no seedlings); 1 = 1–4 seedlings; 2 = 5–8 seedlings; 3 = 9–12 seedlings; 4 = 13–16 seedlings; 5 = 17–20 seedlings; 6 = 21–24 seedlings; and 7 = more than 25 seedlings.
In the natural regeneration plots, we calculated the relative abundance (per cent) of seedlings that emerged in 2008 and 2009 for individual MSP methods. We assumed that 100 per cent was the number of seedlings in FP plots, because this method is the oldest and the most common in practice.

3. Results

Throughout the experiment, seedling height depended on the reforestation method (p < 0.0001). In the first 3 years, 2-way ANOVA showed that this parameter is also affected by the MSP method (p = 0.0446, p = 0.0078 and p = 0.0061, respectively, Supplementary Materials Table S1). During the 4 years of the experiment, planted seedlings were significantly taller than those in the other variants: after the second year nearly 100 per cent higher, after the third year 58.1 per cent and after the fourth year 67 per cent. The heights of seedlings from natural regeneration and direct seeding were similar (Figure 2). In the first 3 study years, seedlings growing in FM plots were significantly taller than those in FP plots, but in the first year this is true for direct seeding only. Seedling height correlated positively with annual height increment (Table S2, Supplementary Materials).
Root collar diameter changed in a similar pattern to that of seedling height. In the first 2 years of growth, this parameter was affected both by reforestation (p < 0.0001) and MSP methods (p = 0.0006 and p = 0.0198, respectively), but only by reforestation method (p < 0.0001) in the following 2 years (Table S1, Supplementary Materials). Planted seedlings were thicker than those from natural regeneration and direct seeding plots, 30.7 per cent thicker after 2 years, 48.4 per cent after 3 years and 62.4 per cent after 4 years (Figure 3). After the first year of growth, seedlings in FP plots were significantly thinner than those in FM plots. After the second year of growth, seedlings growing in FM plots were slightly thicker than the others. Root collar diameter correlated positively with annual diameter increment (Table S2, Supplementary Materials).
Mean density of seedlings depended both on reforestation and MSP methods (Table S1, Supplementary Materials). Seedling density was highest after direct seeding. In this reforestation method, differences in density depending on MSP method were significant during the 4 study years. Density in AP plots was significantly higher than in FM and comparable with density in FP plots. In the planted and self-sown plots (excluding self-sown seedlings that germinated in the second year), MSP variants did not differ significantly in density (Table 2).
Seedling density in natural regeneration increased considerably in the second year as a result of germination of additional seedlings (Table 3). In 2008, the density of self-sown seedlings was highest in the AP plot, whereas in 2009, it was highest in the FP plot. Starting from the second year, density was significantly higher in FP plots (2009, 2010, 2011, p < 0.0001). After 4 years, the mean density (for all MSP methods collectively) in planted plots amounted to 9492 seedlings ha−1, in the directly seeded plots, 47,678 seedlings ha−1 and in the naturally reforested plots, 8795 seedlings ha−1 when self-sown seedlings that appeared in the second year were excluded and 25,840 seedlings ha−1 with the additional seedlings.
The evenness of seedling density depended on reforestation (natural regeneration vs. seeding) and MSP methods (Figures S1 and S2, Supplementary Materials). The percentage contribution of sampling plots with no seedlings (zero plots) after the first year was on average 36.3 per cent in natural regeneration but on average only 3.7 per cent after seeding. In the second year of natural regeneration, the percentage of zero plots declined to 7.4 per cent as a result of the appearance of new self-sown seedlings. In FP plots with natural regeneration, from the second year until the end of the experiments, there were no sampling plots without seedlings. By contrast, after direct seeding, there were no zero plots in the first 2 years in the AP variant. The most favourable evenness of seedling density after 4 years of natural regeneration was observed in the FP variant, and after direct seeding, in the AP variant.
In the first year after direct seeding in the FM variant, seedlings developed from 35.0 per cent of sown seeds, compared to 46.5 per cent in FP and 53.0 per cent in AP plots.
Scots pine survival rate in the first 4 years of growth was affected only by reforestation method (H = 27.91 after the second, H = 30.10 after the third and H = 33.22 after the fourth year; p < 0.0001 in the Kruskal–Wallis test). The MSP method did not affect this variable (H = 0.2186, p = 0.8965 after the second; H = 0.4500, p = 0.7985 after the third; H = 0.0461, p = 0.9772 after the fourth year in the Kruskal–Wallis test). Planted seedlings were characterized by the highest survival rates: 99.6 per cent after 2 years, 98.3 per cent after 3 years and 98.1 per cent after 4 years. Significantly lower survival rates were recorded after direct seeding (88.2 per cent after the second, 81.2 per cent after the third and 76.5 per cent after the fourth year) and natural regeneration (82.7 per cent after the second, 79.7 per cent after the third and 75.9 per cent after the fourth year) (Figure 4). Survival rate (per cent) of self-sown seedlings in the second year reached 79.2 per cent after the third year of growth (2010) and 44.9 per cent after the fourth year (2011), and did not differ based on MSP method (after 3 years H = 1.18, p = 0.5544; after 4 years H = 2.81, p = 0.2450; Table 3).
Seedling survival, analysed by logistic regression, is related to biometric parameters and reforestation method. In successive years the relationships were as follows: in the second year survival rate depended on root collar diameter and reforestation method (p < 0.0001; χ2 = 190.27); in the third year, on seedling height and root collar diameter (p < 0.0001; χ2 = 127.19); and in the fourth year, on height and reforestation method (p < 0.0001; χ2 = 125.30). Higher survival rates were recorded for taller and thicker seedlings as well as for planted ones, compared to directly seeded and self-sown variants. Seedling density did not have any significant effect on survival rate in the period analysed.

4. Discussion

Reforestation (planting, direct seeding, natural regeneration) and MSP (FP, AP, FM) methods both significantly affected the analysed characteristics of forest regrowth: biometric parameters, survival rate and density of pine seedlings.
Our data on seedling height, showing that planted trees were 100 per cent taller after the second growing season and nearly 70 per cent taller after the fourth year, compared to seedlings from natural regeneration and direct seeding, are consistent with reports of other authors [9,13]. Similar differences were detected in root collar diameter: self-sown and directly seeded pine seedlings were thinner than planted ones. We also found that larger pine seedlings (taller and thicker in root collar) grew faster than smaller ones, as reported also by Collet and Moguedec [43]. This result indicates that planted seedlings can compete better for nutrients and other resources. It also suggests that planted pine seedlings can utilize improved soil conditions slightly better than seedlings from natural regeneration and direct seeding plots [44]. It can be also supposed that the better-developed foliage and better nutrient status at the time of planting of seedlings produced in a forest nursery stimulate higher rates of photosynthesis [45]. Another advantage of planted seedlings is that they more quickly reach a height of about 1.5 m, which reduces the risk of animal browsing, late spring frost or competition with herbaceous plants [29].
MSP method affected pine growth in height and root collar diameter in the first 2–3 years, possibly because each of the MSP methods has a different effect on trophic conditions [21,34]. As a result of mineral soil exposure in farrows formed by FP, the concentrations of nitrogen and cations (Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, Na+) in the rooting zone of seedlings are two- to threefold lower than in belts created by FM [46]. Supposedly, nutrient content of the soil at the bottom of furrows formed by AP (in which a small amount of humus is mixed with mineral soil) is intermediate between FP and FM. That is probably why seedlings in FP plots were shorter and thinner than those in FM plots, whereas those in AP plots were of intermediate size. However, the influence of MSP method on seedling growth was significant in first three years and disappeared in the fourth year of the experiment.
The fast growth in the first years after reforestation is important because of competition with other plant species [24]. Planted pine seedlings grew taller than weeds in the third year of the experiment, whereas seedlings from natural regeneration and direct seeding attained this growth a year later. Individual MSP methods more or less limit the growth of herbaceous vegetation in the clear-cut area [33,47]. In FM plots, vegetation left in undisturbed belts shades the seedlings and may compete with them for nutrients to some extent [36,38]. Regeneration of vegetation after site preparation with FP and AP should not occur before the end of second or even third growing season [33,48]. Differences in the rate of soil colonization by weeds, depending on MSP method, are maintained in successive years. In older plantations, after 6–7 years of cultivation, dry biomass of herbaceous vegetation in a clear-cut area prepared by FM can be 5- to 10-fold higher than in FP plots [46]. Weed growth in a forest plantation reduces not only tree growth but also survival rate [15]. For this reason, in young forest plantations in Poland weeds are routinely mown once, twice or even three times a year, if necessary. Consequently, the costs of vegetation control after site preparation by FM are higher than in AP and FP plots. Similarly, vegetation control in plots with planted seedlings, which grow faster than seedlings from natural regeneration and direct seeding, will be less expensive, as they need weeding for a shorter time.
Most of the earlier studies showed that bare mineral soil is an optimum seedbed for forest tree germination [31,49,50]. In such conditions, seeds have better contact with the soil surface and hence better moisture conditions (because of capillary water transport to the soil surface), compared to the humus or organic horizon [51,52]. As a result, seedling density in natural regeneration in a clear-cut area is highest after site preparation with FP, lower after the use of AP and lowest on the belts made by FM [38]. Our results confirmed this relationship only in the second year, in relation to seedlings self-sown in the second year in natural regeneration. The number of seeds that germinated in FP plots exceeded by more than threefold those in FM plots and by more than twofold those in AP plots. In the first year of the experiment, conditions for seed germination, creating different types of seedbeds, were similar in FP and AP plots and better than those created in FM plots. Apparently, our results were markedly shaped by moisture conditions. Spring in 2008 was characterised by high precipitation in April (60 mm) and May (94 mm) as well as favourable AI: 38.1 and 49.3 respectively during seedling emergence [53,54]. This ensured a high moisture content of the furrow bottom in AP plots (with a mixture of mineral soil and humus) and lower in FM plots (with a mixture of crushed herbaceous plants, forest litter, humus and mineral soil). In the second year of the experiment (2009), the AI value in April (4.7), as well as in July (13.7), August (17.5) and September (15.9), indicated drought. Consequently, seedling density was highest in FP plots, where seed germination and seedling development took place in furrows with exposed mineral soil.
Seedling density in natural regeneration in the first year of our experiment, in spite of favourable weather conditions (temperature and precipitation), was very low: 11,265 seedlings ha−1 in FP, 6077 seedlings ha−1 in FM and 19,417 seedlings ha−1 in AP. Low seedling density was due mostly to low seed production. Seedling density increased remarkably during the second year, to 75,593 seedlings ha−1 in FP, 22,826 seedlings ha−1 in FM and 46,097 seedlings ha−1 in AP. Such densities seem satisfactory from the point of view of forest management [2], although they are lower than those reported in other Polish studies. In earlier research conducted by our team [38], seedling density reached 188,000 seedlings ha−1 in soil prepared by FP, 121,000 seedlings ha−1 in AP and 36,000 seedlings ha−1 in FM. In fact, the density can be even higher, up to 360,000 seedlings ha−1 [55].
In addition to seedling density, an important parameter of natural forest regeneration is a more or less even distribution of seedlings in the reforested area. An analysis of evenness of seedling density confirmed the existence of differences in conditions for seed germination and seedling growth between the first and second years of the experiment, dependence of seedling density on MSP method and low seed production in the first year. As a result, in the first year, zero plots (with no seedlings) were numerous in all variants (40.0 per cent in FP, 26.7 per cent in AP and 42.2 per cent in FM), but their number markedly declined in the second growing season as a result of germination of additional seedlings. The most favourable evenness of seedling density and a lack of zero plots from the second year until the end of the experiments were recorded in FP plots, so this MSP method is the most favourable for natural regeneration. Apart of the main tested factors (MSP methods), the high rate of zero plots could be also associated with microhabitats that differ in a soil moisture content and/or the random nature of self-sown reforestation method.
Our results confirm that the major factors affecting natural regeneration of pine forest stands are seed yields and favourable weather conditions during seed germination and initial seedling growth [56,57].
Although seedling density was highest after direct seeding, seed losses were high in all MSP variants. Seedling density after the first year indirectly shows the magnitude of the losses. In FM belts, seedlings developed from only 35 per cent of sown seeds and from 46.5 per cent of FP furrows. Conditions for seed germination and seedling survival in the first year were the best in AP plots (53 per cent). Seed losses after direct seeding are often very high [53,58], which is a disadvantage of this reforestation method. Seed germination depends on many different factors: seed quality, temperature and moisture conditions [51]. It is also affected by adverse factors such as seed predation and mortality due to pathogens [59]. Although pine seeds germinate better in light [53], covering seeds protects them from water losses caused by evaporation [60] and consumption by animals [59]. In our experiment, temperature and moisture conditions were favourable for seed germination. AI in April and May reached 38.1 and 49.3, respectively. Pine seeds can germinate at 5 °C, but the optimum temperature range is 20–25 °C [61]. After sowing (15 April), daily mean temperature did not fall below 6 °C; the monthly mean temperature was 9 °C in April and 12.9 °C in May. Seed losses in our experiment could have resulted from insufficient exposure to light or poor seed quality. In Polish conditions, the germination of seeds collected in the stand without pre-selection is ca. 60% [62].
A high contribution of zero plots usually reflects a high microhabitat variation of a clear-cut area [63]. After direct seeding, the percentage contribution of zero plots was relatively low but depended on MSP method. It was the highest (8.9 per cent) in the FP variant. The surface of mineral soil usually creates good moisture conditions for germination [51]. Covering of seeds in this case could cause oxygen deficits in more humid microhabitats [60]. The highest seedling density and most favourable evenness of seedling density during 4 years of growth were observed after soil preparation with AP. Thus it can be assumed that this MSP method is the most suitable for direct seeding.
Planted pine seedlings were characterized by a higher survival rate than directly seeded and self-sown seedlings. After 4 years the difference reached nearly 25 percentage points. MSP method did not have any significant effect on seedling survival rate. Mäkitalo [9] reported similar results on dry pine-dominated sites. Reforestation by direct seeding and natural regeneration, at early stages of development, is linked with high numbers of seedlings but also their high mortality [43]. Seedling mortality is affected by their high density and the resultant competition among them, small size of the seedlings, competition with neighbouring vegetation, extreme climatic events, diseases and insect infestation and browsing [11,43,54,64]. In our experiment, pine survival was influenced by seedling size. Like Wennström et al. [65] and Collet and Moguedec [43], we found that larger seedlings had a higher survival rate. It correlated with both seedling height and thickness, although this relationship changed depending on seedling age and the parameter analysed. Survival rate was significantly correlated in the second year only with root collar diameter, in the third year by both parameters and in the fourth by seedling height only. Similarly, in natural regeneration, the seedlings that germinated in the first year were larger and more likely to survive that those germinating in the second year of the experiment. Survival rate after 2 years from germination was close to 80 per cent for older pine seedlings and nearly 45 per cent for younger ones.
Many studies show that seedling mortality can be due to excessive density [43,64], but during the 4 years of our experiment seedling density did not significantly affect survival rate in any year. This result could be explained by the relatively low density of seedlings. Herbivore damage to the seedlings was prevented by protection with sheep wool and fencing the plots, and hence seedling survival rate was not affected by herbivore damage in these experiments.
Our results confirmed that, for natural regeneration under unfavourable moisture conditions, more intensive soil scarification methods usually result in a higher initial number of seedlings and better subsequent growth and survival [31,32,33,34]. Better results from less intensive MSP methods (AP, FM) in the directly seeded and planted variants, as well as in natural regeneration in the first year of our experiment, were probably a consequence of favourable weather conditions, especially of sufficient precipitation [54] and a lack of competition with the herb layer of vegetation [49].
MSP can significantly enhance the risk of soil erosion [23,24]. The three mechanical site preparation methods used in our study are characterised by different levels of soil scarification, from very intensive performed by FM, through medium in case of AP, up to low soil disturbance made by FM. Thus, for each of listed above MSP methods, different levels of soil erosion risk can be expected: the highest in case of FP, lower in case of AP and minimum one for FM. However, the soil erosion risk is highly associated with uplands and mountains regions. In our case, the study area was flat and not enough large to observe any results of water and wind erosion respectively. Also the soil type was not enough pure and sandy to trigger the wind erosion processes. The areas that are at risk of erosion and invasive species should be treated with due caution in terms of MSP and reforestation methods. Based on our results we would propose to use FM in case of sites with soil erosion risk, while the FP should be applied in case of risk from invasive species. Under such conditions the planting of older seedlings is recommended instead of direct seedling and natural regeneration.
Finally, the costs of establishment and tending operations of each new regenerated stands can varied a lot, depending on the applied site preparation method and reforestation method. The relationship of costs in the case of MSP is 1 (180 $/ha):2.2:2.4 in case of FP, AP and FM respectively (source: the labour of work, in hours per 1 hectare, given in the Polish Standards for works to be done in the forest practice (2004) combined with the present gross incomes of enterprises, in PLN per 1 h and recalculated for USD per 1 h, that are employed in Narol Forest District). The much higher costs of the latter two methods are associated with required much stronger tractors (at least 100–120 KM while in case of FP just 80 KM), slower work output (e.g., in case of FM max. 0.8 ha per 8 h and up to 2 ha at the same time for AP and FP) and higher amortisation costs due to the presence of active parts that need to be replaced after 2–3 years of work. The costs of reforestation methods also differ a lot. Those costs can be completely avoided when the natural regeneration is applied. In turn, the costs of one year old seedlings from nursery (650 $/ha) and their planting (850 $/ha) are much more higher than costs of seeds (300 $/ha) and sowing (50 $/ha)—respectively 1:0.23. Although the cost of planting is greater than the other reforestation methods, planted seedlings exhibited greater survival and growth rates, suggesting more uniform and predictable results (as opposed to the patchy distribution of the natural regeneration method, for example). Thus planting is also more successful at competing with weeds, representing potential reduction in weed control costs in comparison to smaller seedlings from direct seeding and natural regeneration at the same age. We would also expect the lower costs of respacing in case of stands originated from planting. Finally, seedlings could be very successfully planted in the FM system, with very low soil treatment and likely low erosion risk and subsequent environmental costs. However, we should keep in mind the fact that methods exanimated in our study that are more environmental friendly (AP and FM) are at least double the price of a traditional one (FP).

5. Conclusions

Reforestation by planting of pine seedlings results in faster growth and higher survival rate compared with natural regeneration and direct seeding. Although MSP did not significantly affect the growth parameters and survival rate of planted pine during the first 4 years of growth, some clear trends in variation of the analysed variables are noticeable. As a result of soil preparation by FM, planted seedlings grow only slightly faster than in AP and FP plots, and their survival rate is slightly lower than in FP plots. Thus FM can be recommended for coniferous forest sites with poor potential (low soil fertility), where competition with herbaceous vegetation is low. The major advantage of this method is that it affects the soil environment to a much smaller extent than FP and AP, as the belt disturbed by FM accounts for only 27 per cent of the surface area.
Natural regeneration and direct seeding should be promoted as more environmentally friendly than planting, although they are associated with a high risk of failure. In the first year, in spite of favourable weather conditions, in natural regeneration plots a level of seed production from mature trees (seed yield) resulted in very low seedling density, so the percentage contribution of zero plots was high in all MSP variants. In the second year, when moisture conditions were less favourable but seed yield was high, seedling density was highest and most homogeneous after soil preparation with FP. We conclude that the use of FP for soil preparation in plots set aside for natural regeneration is associated with the lowest risk of failure.
In directly seeded plots, seedling density differed significantly depending on the MSP method. It was highest (no plots without seedlings) and most homogeneous after the use of AP. The other variables (growth parameters and survival rate) were similar for all MSP methods. Thus AP can be recommended for directly seeded plots in southern Poland, where precipitation is high.
In the directly seeded and self-sown variants, seedling density was lowest (many plots with no seedlings) and least homogeneous after soil preparation with FM. This indicates that crushing and mixing of herbaceous plants, forest litter, humus and mineral soil on the belts made by FM, irrespective of weather conditions, does not create favourable conditions in terms of soil water availability for seed germination and seedling growth. Soil preparation with FM in clear-cut areas for direct seeding and natural regeneration is associated with a high risk of failure.
This is the first research to be carried out on Scots pine forests in Poland, and as far as we know also in Europe, to compare at once three methods of forest reforestation and three methods of site preparation, used experimental design. The results from this paper therefore contribute to the existing silvicultural knowledge on Scots pine forest reforestation in Europe. Furthermore, results obtained will be of value to forestry practitioners in making decisions concerning the optimal choice of the site preparation method and reforestation method, whilst taking into consideration the local climatic conditions. The findings have also implications for improving the cost-effectiveness of Scots pine reforestation in Poland, as well as in other European countries with similar site and comparable climatic conditions.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/8/11/421/s1: Figure S1: Evenness of seedling density (%) for Scots pine after natural regeneration in relation to MSP methods; Figure S2: Evenness of seedling density (%) for Scots pine after direct seeding in relation to MSP methods; Table S1: Results of 2-way ANOVAs describing the statistical significance of the effect of reforestation and of MSP methods on height, root collar diameter and density of Scots pine seedlings after four growing seasons; Table S2: Regression equations describing the relationships between height increments and height and between root collar diameter increments and root collar diameter of Scots pine seedlings.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Manager of Narol Forest District, Robert Stankiewicz, for allowing us to perform this experiment, and Forest District workers for help in preparation of the study area and in establishment of the experimental plots. The editorial help of Sylwia Ufnalska is gratefully acknowledged. This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, Warsaw, Poland (funds for maintenance of the research potential of Forestry Faculty, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, SGGW).

Author Contributions

M.A-T. and H.Ż. conceived and designed the experiment; Z.W. performed the experiment; S.D. and K.B. carried out statistical analysis; All authors analysed and discussed results obtained; M.A-T. wrote the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Krakau, U.K.; Liesebach, M.; Aronen, T.; Lelu-Walter, M.A.; Schneck, V. Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). In Forest Tree Breeding in Europe; Pâques, L., Ed.; Managing forest ecosystems, Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; Volumn 25, pp. 267–323. ISBN 978-94-007-6145-2. [Google Scholar]
  2. Principles of Silviculture in Poland; Information Center of Polish State Forests: Warsaw, Poland, 2012; p. 72. ISBN 978-83-61633-65-5. Available online: http://www.lasy.gov.pl/pl/pro/publikacje/copy_of_gospodarka-lesna/hodowla/zasady-hodowli-lasu-dokument-w-opracowaniu/view (accessed on 2 November 2017).
  3. Report on the State of Forest in Poland 2015. Available online: http://www.lasy.gov.pl/informacje/publikacje/informacje-statystyczne-i-raporty/raport-o-stanie-lasow/raport-o-stanie-lasow-2015/view (accessed on 2 September 2015).
  4. Mattsson, L.; Li, C.-Z. The non-timber value of northern Swedish Forest—An economic analysis. Scand. J. For. Res. 1993, 8, 426–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tomczyk, S. Odnowienie Naturalne. Sosna; Biblioteczka leśniczego, Wydawnictwo Świat: Warsaw, Poland, 1993; Volumn 29, p. 23. [Google Scholar]
  6. Sobczak, R. Siew pod przykryciem—nowy sposób zakładania upraw leśnych w Finlandii. Las Polski 1984, 2, 24–25. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bernadzki, E. Wybrane problemy uprawy. In Biologia Sosny Zwyczajnej; Białobok, S., Boratyński, A., Bugała, W., Eds.; Sorus: Poznań-Kórnik, Poland, 1993; pp. 409–441. ISBN 83-85599-21-5. [Google Scholar]
  8. Wennström, U.; Bergsten, U.; Nilsson, J.-E. Mechanized microsite preparation and direct seedlings of Pinus sylvestris in boreal forests—a way to create desired sparing at low cost. New For. 1999, 18, 179–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mäkitalo, K. Effect of site preparation and reforestation method on survival and height growth of Scots pine. Scand. J. For. Res. 1999, 14, 512–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. De Chantal, M.; Leinonen, K.; Ilvesniemi, H.; Westman, C.J. Combined effects of site preparation, soil properties, and sowing date on the establishment of Pinus silvestris and Picea abies from seeds. Can. J. For. Res. 2003, 33, 931–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Willoughby, I.; Jinks, R.L.; Kerr, G.; Gosling, P.G. Factors affecting the success of direct seeding for lowland afforestation in the UK. Forestry 2004, 77, 467–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Holgén, P.; Hånell, B. Performance of planted and naturally regenerated seedlings in Picea abies-dominated shelterwood stands and clearcuts in Sweden. For. Ecol. Manag. 2000, 127, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hyytiäinen, K.; Ilomäki, S.; Mäkelä, A.; Kinnunen, K. Economic analysis of stand establishment for Scots pine. Can. J. For. Res. 2006, 36, 1179–1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Löf, M.; Dey, D.C.; Navarro, R.M.; Jacobs, D.F. Mechanical site preparation for forest restoration. New For. 2012, 43, 825–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Nilsson, U.; Örlander, G. Vegetation management on grass-dominated clearcuts planted with Norway spruce in southern Sweden. Can. J. For. Res. 1999, 29, 1015–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Petersson, M.; Örlander, G. Effectiveness of combinations of shelterwood, scarification, and feeding barriers to reduce pine weevil damage. Can. J. For. Res. 2003, 33, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Steijlen, I.; Nilsson, M.-C.; Zackrisson, O. Seed regeneration of Scots pine in boreal forest stand dominated by lichen and feather moss. Can. J. For. Res. 1995, 25, 713–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jäderlund, A.; Norberg, G.; Zackrisson, O.; Dahlberg, A.; Teketay, D.; Dolling, A.; Nilsson, M.C. Control of bilberry vegetation by steam treatment—Effects on seeded Scots pine and associated mycorrhizal fungi. For. Ecol. Manag. 1998, 108, 275–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Archibold, O.W.; Acton, C.; Ripley, E.A. 2000 Effect of site preparation on soil properties and vegetation cover, and the growth and survival of white spruce (Picea glauca) seedlings, in Saskatchewan. For. Ecol. Manag. 2000, 131, 127–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Block, M.D.; Van Rees, K.C.J. Mechanical site preparation impacts on soil properties and vegetation communities in the Northwest Territories. Can. J. For. Res. 2002, 32, 1381–1392. [Google Scholar]
  21. MacKenzie, M.D.; Schmidt, M.G.; Bedford, L. Soil microclimate and nitrogen availability 10 years after mechanical site preparation in northern British Columbia. Can. J. For. Res. 2005, 35, 1854–1866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Heiskanen, J.; Mäkitalo, K.; Hyvönen, J. Long-term influence of site preparation on water-retention characteristics of forest soil in Finnish Lapland. For. Ecol. Manag. 2006, 241, 127–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Alcázar, J.; Rothwell, L.R.; Woodard, M.P. Soil disturbance and the potential for erosion after mechanical site preparation. North. J. Appl. For. 2002, 19, 5–13. [Google Scholar]
  24. Löf, M.; Gemmel, U.; Nilsson, U.; Welander, N.T. The influence of site preparation on growth in Quercus robur L. seedlings in a southern Sweden clear-cut and shelterwood. For. Ecol. Manag. 1998, 109, 241–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Edeso, J.M.; Merino, A.; González, M.J.; Marauri, P. Soil erosion under different harvesting managements in steep forestlands from northern Spain. Land Degrad. Dev. 1998, 10, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Munson, A.D.; Timmer, V.R. Soil nitrogen dynamics and nutrition of pine following silvicultural treatments in boreal and Great Lakes—St. Lawrence plantations. For. Ecol. Manag. 1995, 76, 169–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wallertz, K.; Malmqvist, C. The effect of mechanical site preparation methods on the establishment of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) in southern Sweden. Forestry 2013, 86, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sutton, R.F. Mounding site preparation: A review of European and North American experience. New For. 1993, 7, 151–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bedford, L.; Sutton, R.F. Site preparation for establishing lodgepole pine in the sub-boreal spruce zone of interior British Columbia: The Bednesti trial, 10-year results. For. Ecol. Manag. 2000, 126, 227–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Neugebauer, Z. Poradnik Dla Operatorów Maszyn Leśnych Agregowanych Na Ciągnikach; Dyrekcja Generalna Lasów Państwowych: Warsaw-Bedoń, Poland, 2008; p. 249.
  31. Prévost, M. Effects of scarification on seedbed coverage and natural regeneration after a group seed-tree cutting in a black spruce (Picea mariana) stand. For. Ecol. Manag. 1997, 94, 219–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mattsson, S.; Bergsten, U. Pinus contorta growth in northern Sweden as affected by soil scarification. New For. 2003, 26, 217–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Nordborg, F.; Nilsson, U. Growth, damage and net nitrogen uptake in Picea abies (L.) Karst. seedlings: Effects of site preparation and fertilization. Ann. For. Sci. 2003, 60, 657–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bilodeau-Gauthier, S.; Paré, D.; Messier, C.; Bélanger, N. Juvenile growth of hybrid poplars on acid boreal soil determined by environmental effects of soil preparation, vegetation control, and fertilization. For. Ecol. Manag. 2011, 261, 620–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Boateng, J.O.; Heineman, J.L.; McClarnon, J.; Bedford, L. Twenty year responses of white spruce to mechanical site preparation and early chemical release in the boreal region of northeastern British Columbia. Can. J. For. Res. 2006, 36, 2386–2399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Pigan, I. Wpływ sposobu przygotowania gleby na stan upraw sosnowych w warunkach siedlisk wilgotnych. Sylwan 2009, 153, 745–757. [Google Scholar]
  37. Pigan, I. Odnowienie naturalne sosny (Pinus sylvestris L.) na siedliskach wilgotnych przy zastosowaniu różnych metod przygotowania gleby. Sylwan 2010, 154, 524–534. [Google Scholar]
  38. Aleksandrowicz-Trzcińska, M.; Drozdowski, S.; Brzeziecki, B.; Rutkowska, P.; Jabłońska, B. Effect of different methods of site preparation on natural regeneration of Pinus sylvestris in eastern Poland. Dendrobiol. 2014, 71, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Managements Plans for Narol Forest District for years 2003–2012: Stands description data. An internal document for Narol Forest District elaborated by Bureau for Forest Management and Geodesy in Przemyśl, Poland. 2003.
  40. De Martonne, E. Une nouvelle fanction climatologique: L’indice d’aridité. La Météoroligie 1926, 2, 449–458. [Google Scholar]
  41. Hounam, C.E.; Burgos, J.J.; Kalik, M.S.; Palmer, W.C.; Rodda, J. Drought and Agriculture; Report of the Commission for Agricultural Meteorology Working Group on Assessment of Drought; Technical Note No. 138; WMO Publication No. 392; World Meteorological Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1975; p. 127. [Google Scholar]
  42. Pinheiro, J.; Bates, D.; DebRoy, S.; Sarkar, D.; R Development Core Team. Nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models, R Package Version 3.1-109; 2013. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme (accessed on 2 November 2017).
  43. Collet, C.; Moguedec, G. Individual seedling mortality as a function in naturally regenerated beech seedlings. Forestry 2007, 80, 359–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Heiskanen, J.; Rikala, R. Root growth and nutrient uptake of Norway spruce container seedlings planted in mounded boreal forest soil. For. Ecol. Manag. 2006, 222, 410–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Thiffault, N.; Jobidon, R.; Munson, A.D. Performance and physiology of large containerized and bare-root spruce seedlings in relation to scarification and competition in Québec (Canada). Ann. For. Sci. 2003, 60, 645–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sewerniak, P.; Gonet, S.S.; Quaium, M. Wpływ przygotowania gleby frezem leśnym na wzrost sadzonek sosny zwyczajnej w warunkach ubogich siedlisk Puszczy Bydgoskiej. Sylwan 2012, 156, 871–880. [Google Scholar]
  47. Nordborg, F.; Nilsson, U.; Gemmel, P.; Örlander, G. Carbon and nitrogen stocks in soil, trees and field vegetation in conifer plantations 10 years after deep soil cultivation and patch scarification. Scand. J. For. Res. 2006, 21, 356–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Löf, M.; Rydberg, D.; Bolte, A. Mounding site preparation for forest restoration: Survival and short term growth response in Quercus robur L. seedlings. For. Ecol. Manag. 2006, 232, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Béland, M.; Agestam, E.; Ekö, P.M.; Gemmel, P.; Nilsson, U. Scarification and seedfall affects natural regeneration of Scots pine under two shelterwood densities and clear-cut in southern Sweden. Scand. J. For. Res. 2000, 15, 247–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Agestam, E.; Ekö, P.M.; Nilsson, U.; Welander, N.T. The effects of shelterwood density and site preparation on natural regeneration of Fagus sylvatica in southern Sweden. For. Ecol. Manag. 2003, 176, 61–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Oleskog, G.; Sahlén, K. Effect of seedbed substrate on moisture conditions and germination of Pinus sylvestris (L.) seeds in clear-cut. Scan. J. For. Res. 2000, 15, 225–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. De Chantal, M.; Leinonen, K.; Ilvesniemi, H.; Westman, C.J. Effects of site preparation on soil properties and on morphology of Pinus silvestris and Picea abies seedlings sown at different dates. New For. 2004, 27, 159–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ruano, I.; Pando, V.; Bravo, F. How do Ligot and water influence Pinus pinaster Ait. germination and early seedling development? For. Ecol. Manag. 2009, 258, 2647–2653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Rodriguez-Garcia, E.; Grater, G.; Bravo, F. Climatic variability and Rother site factor influence on natural regeneration of Pinus pinaster Ait. in Mediterranean forests. Ann. For. Sci. 2011, 68, 811–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Andrzejczyk, T.; Drozdowski, S. Rozwój naturalnego odnowienia sosny zwyczajnej na powierzchni przygotowanej pługiem dwuodkładnicowym. Sylwan 2003, 5, 28–35. [Google Scholar]
  56. Pardos, M.; Montes, F.; Aranda, I.; Cañellas, I. Influence of environmental conditions on germinant survival and diversity of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) in central Spain. Eur. J. Forest. Res. 2007, 126, 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Puhlick, J.J.; Laughlin, D.C.; Moor, M.M. Factors influencing ponderosa pine regeneration in the southwestern USA. For. Ecol. Manag. 2012, 264, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Erefur, C.; Bergsten, U.; de Chantal, M. Establishment of direct seeded seedlings of Norway spruce and Scots pine: Effects of stand conditions, orientation and distance with respect to shelter tree, and fertilization. For. Ecol. Manag. 2008, 255, 1186–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Nilson, M.E.; Hjältén, J. Covering pine-seeds immediately after seeding: Effect on seedling emergence and on mortality through deed-predation. For. Ecol. Manag. 2003, 176, 449–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Oleskog, G.; Grip, H.; Bergsten, U.; Sahlén, K. Seedling emergence of Pinus sylvestris in characterized seedbed substrates under different moisture conditions. Can. J. For. Res. 2000, 30, 1766–1777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bergsten, U. Temperature tolerance of invigorated seeds of Pinus sylvestris L., and Picea abies (L.) Karst. using TTGP-test. For. Suppl. 1989, 62, 107–115. [Google Scholar]
  62. Drozdowski, S. Wpływ różnych sposobów odnowienia naturalnego na wyniki odnowienia naturalnego sosny zwyczajnej (Pinus sylvestris L.). Acta Sci. Pol. Silv. Col. Ratio Ind. Lign. 2002, 1, 27–34. [Google Scholar]
  63. Karlsson, M.; Nilsson, U. The effects of scarification and shelterwood treatments on naturally regenerated seedlings in southern Sweden. For. Ecol. Manag. 2005, 205, 183–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Akashi, N. Dispersion pattern and mortality of seeds and seedlings of Fagus crenata Blume in a cool temperate forest in western Japan. Ecol. Res. 1997, 12, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Wennström, U.; Bergsten, U.; Nilsson, J.-E. Seedling establishment and growth after direct seeding with Pinus sylvestris: Effects of seed type, seed origin, and seeding year. Silva Fennica 2007, 41, 299–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Forests 08 00421 g001 550
Figure 1. Study location and experimental design.
Figure 1. Study location and experimental design.
Forests 08 00421 g001
Forests 08 00421 g002 550
Figure 2. Mean height (cm) of Scots pine seedlings in 4 years for three reforestation methods (planting (P); direct seeding (DS); natural regeneration (NR)) and three mechanical site preparation methods (forest plough (FP); forest mill (FM); active plough (AP)). Different letters indicate significant differences in the Tukey HSD test, p ≤ 0.05.
Figure 2. Mean height (cm) of Scots pine seedlings in 4 years for three reforestation methods (planting (P); direct seeding (DS); natural regeneration (NR)) and three mechanical site preparation methods (forest plough (FP); forest mill (FM); active plough (AP)). Different letters indicate significant differences in the Tukey HSD test, p ≤ 0.05.
Forests 08 00421 g002
Forests 08 00421 g003 550
Figure 3. Mean root collar diameter (mm) of Scots pine seedlings in 4 years for three reforestation methods (planting (P); direct seeding (DS); natural regeneration (NR)) and three mechanical site preparation methods (forest plough (FP); forest mill (FM); active plough (AP)). Different letters indicate significant differences in the Tukey HSD test, p ≤ 0.05.
Figure 3. Mean root collar diameter (mm) of Scots pine seedlings in 4 years for three reforestation methods (planting (P); direct seeding (DS); natural regeneration (NR)) and three mechanical site preparation methods (forest plough (FP); forest mill (FM); active plough (AP)). Different letters indicate significant differences in the Tukey HSD test, p ≤ 0.05.
Forests 08 00421 g003
Forests 08 00421 g004 550
Figure 4. Mean survival (%) of Scots pine seedlings during 3 years for three reforestation methods (planting (P); direct seeding (DS); natural regeneration (NR)) and three mechanical site preparation methods (forest plough (FP); forest mill (FM); active plough (AP)). Different letters indicate significant differences in the Kruskal–Wallis test, p ≤ 0.05.
Figure 4. Mean survival (%) of Scots pine seedlings during 3 years for three reforestation methods (planting (P); direct seeding (DS); natural regeneration (NR)) and three mechanical site preparation methods (forest plough (FP); forest mill (FM); active plough (AP)). Different letters indicate significant differences in the Kruskal–Wallis test, p ≤ 0.05.
Forests 08 00421 g004
Table
Table 1. Monthly average air temperature (°C), monthly precipitation (mm) and de Martonne aridity index during the 2008–2011 growing seasons at the Horyniec Zdrój weather station.
Table 1. Monthly average air temperature (°C), monthly precipitation (mm) and de Martonne aridity index during the 2008–2011 growing seasons at the Horyniec Zdrój weather station.
MonthTemperature (°C)Precipitation (mm)Aridity Index
200820092010201120082009201020112008200920102011
April8.910.58.99.8608273838.14.717.123
May12.912.714.313.594941223449.349.760.217.4
June17.216.117.717.63982726217.237.731.227
July17.7192018.21043310914145.113.743.660
August18.317.419188240744934.817.530.221
September12.314.111149532962351.115.954.911.5
October9.77.64.56.64291132125.66210.825.2
Table
Table 2. Average density (seedlings ha−1, coefficient of variation in brackets) of Scots pine seedlings (excluding self-sown seedlings that germinated in the second year) in 4 years for three reforestation methods (planting, direct seeding, natural regeneration) and three mechanical site preparation methods (forest plough (FP); forest mill (FM); active plough (AP)).
Table 2. Average density (seedlings ha−1, coefficient of variation in brackets) of Scots pine seedlings (excluding self-sown seedlings that germinated in the second year) in 4 years for three reforestation methods (planting, direct seeding, natural regeneration) and three mechanical site preparation methods (forest plough (FP); forest mill (FM); active plough (AP)).
TreatmentAverage Density (Seedlings ha−1) in Year
2008200920102011
Planting FP9651 (1.8) c9602 (1.9) c9536 (1.7) c9536 (1.7) c
 FM9766 (0.9) c9717 (1.1) c9618 (1.6) c9569 (2.2) c
 AP9668 (1.3) c9634 (1.7) c9420 (3.1) c9371 (3.2) c
Direct seeding FP61,809 (46.4) a,b54,101 (54.9) a,b50,396 (56.6) a,b47,876 (59.6) a,b
 FM46,838 (26.8) b42,243 (27.8) b38,982 (28.2) b36,907 (30.9) b
 AP70,850 (29.1) a65,218 (31.2) a60,771 (34.2) a58,251 (39.9) a
Natural regeneration FP11,265 (77.9) c9783 (94.0) c9190 (86.8) c8449 (83.6) c
 FM6077 (58.2) c4743 (61.5) c4743 (61.5) c4447 (63.6) c
 AP19,417 (73.9) c16,008 (76.7) c14,526 (66.3) c13,488 (64.2) c
Different letters indicate significant differences in the Tukey HSD test, p ≤ 0.05.
Table
Table 3. Relative abundance of Scots pine seedlings that germinated in the first and second growing seasons, seedling density (including self-sown seedlings that germinated in the second year) and survival rate of self-sown seedlings that germinated in the second year (mean and coefficient of variation in brackets) in natural regeneration, depending on mechanical site preparation methods (forest plough (FP); forest mill (FM); active plough (AP)).
Table 3. Relative abundance of Scots pine seedlings that germinated in the first and second growing seasons, seedling density (including self-sown seedlings that germinated in the second year) and survival rate of self-sown seedlings that germinated in the second year (mean and coefficient of variation in brackets) in natural regeneration, depending on mechanical site preparation methods (forest plough (FP); forest mill (FM); active plough (AP)).
Mechanical Site Preparation MethodRelative Abundance (%) of Seedlings That Emerged in YearDensity Including Self-Sown Seedlings That Germinated in Second Year
(Seedlings ha−1) 1		Survival Rate (%) of Seedlings That Germinated in Second Year 2
2008200920092010201120102011
FP10010075,593 (58.2) a62,550 (58.6) a41,058 (60.8) a81.1 (15.3) a49.6 (37.8) a
FM532722,826 (68.7) c18,528 (81.5) c12,302 (93.2) c76.2 (26.1) a43.4 (34.8) a
AP1724546,097 (86.7) b37,648 (83.8) b24,160 (82.0) b76.9 (18.8) a35.5 (63.3) a
1 Different letters indicate significant differences in the Tukey HSD test, p ≤ 0.05; 2 The same letters indicate no significant difference in Kruskal–Wallis test, p ˃ 0.05.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Aleksandrowicz-Trzcińska, M.; Drozdowski, S.; Wołczyk, Z.; Bielak, K.; Żybura, H. Effects of Reforestation and Site Preparation Methods on Early Growth and Survival of Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) in South-Eastern Poland. Forests 2017, 8, 421. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8110421

AMA Style

Aleksandrowicz-Trzcińska M, Drozdowski S, Wołczyk Z, Bielak K, Żybura H. Effects of Reforestation and Site Preparation Methods on Early Growth and Survival of Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) in South-Eastern Poland. Forests. 2017; 8(11):421. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8110421

Chicago/Turabian Style

Aleksandrowicz-Trzcińska, Marta, Stanisław Drozdowski, Zbigniew Wołczyk, Kamil Bielak, and Henryk Żybura. 2017. "Effects of Reforestation and Site Preparation Methods on Early Growth and Survival of Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) in South-Eastern Poland" Forests 8, no. 11: 421. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8110421

APA Style

Aleksandrowicz-Trzcińska, M., Drozdowski, S., Wołczyk, Z., Bielak, K., & Żybura, H. (2017). Effects of Reforestation and Site Preparation Methods on Early Growth and Survival of Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) in South-Eastern Poland. Forests, 8(11), 421. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8110421

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