Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the effect of whole-tree harvesting (WTH) on the growth of Scots pine ( Pinus sylvestris L.) and Norway spruce ( Picea abies (L.) Karst.) as compared to conventional stem harvesting (CH) over 10 and 20 years. Compensatory (WTH + CoF) and normal nitrogen-based (CH + F or WTH + F) fertilisation were also studied. A series of 22 field experiments were established during 1977–1987, representing a range of site types and climatic conditions in Finland, Norway and Sweden. The treatments were performed at the time of establishment and were repeated after 10–13 years at 11 experimental sites. Seven experiments were followed for 25 years. Volume increment was on average significantly lower after WTH than after CH in both 10-year periods in the spruce stands. In the pine stands thinned only once, the WTH induced growth reduction was significant during the second 10-year period, indicating a long-term response. Volume increment of pine stands was 4 and 8% and that of spruce stands 5 and 13% lower on the WTH plots than on CH during the first and the second 10-year period, respectively. For the second 10-year period the relative volume increment of the whole-tree harvested plots tended to be negatively correlated with the amount of logging residue. Accordingly, the relative volume increment decreased more, the more logging residue was harvested, stressing the importance of developing methods for leaving the nutrient-rich needles on site. If nutrient (N, P, K) losses with the removed logging residues were compensated with fertiliser (WTH + CoF), the volume increment was equal to that in the CH plots. Nitrogen (150–180 kg ha −1) or N + P fertilisation increased tree growth in all experiments except in one very productive spruce stand. Pine stands fertilised only once had a normal positive growth response during the first 10-year period, on average 13 m 3 ha −1, followed by a negative response of 5 m 3 ha −1 during the second 10-year period. The fertilisation effect of WTH + F and WTH + CoF on basal area increment was both smaller and shorter than with CH + F.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.