Harvest impacts to stand development and soil properties across soil textures: 25-year response of the aspen Lake States LTSP installations

2022 ◽  
Vol 504 ◽  
pp. 119809
Author(s):  
Miranda T. Curzon ◽  
Robert A. Slesak ◽  
Brian J. Palik ◽  
Julia K. Schwager
1998 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas M. Stone ◽  
John D. Elioff

Forest management activities that decrease soil porosity and remove organic matter have been associated with declines in site productivity. In the northern Lake States region, research is in progress in the aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx. and P. grandidentata Michx.) forest type to determine effects of soil compaction and organic matter removal on soil properties and growth of aspen suckers, associated woody species, herbaceous vegetation, and on stand development. Four treatments: (1) total tree harvest (TTH); (2) TTH plus soil compaction (CPT); (3) TTH plus forest floor removal (FFR); and (4) TTH plus CPT + FFR were applied after winter-harvest of a 70-yr-old aspen stand growing on a loamy sand with a site index(age50) of 20.7 m. The CPT treatment significantly increased bulk density and soil strength of the surface 30 cm of soil and neither have recovered during the 5 yr since treatment. The CPT plots had 19.6 thousand (k) suckers ha−1, less than half that of the TTH and FFR treatments; mean diameter (19.4 mm) and height (271 cm) were greatest on the TTH plots. The disturbance treatments (CPT, FFR, and CPT + FFR) each reduced biomass of foliage, stems, and total suckers compared with the TTH treatment. Total aboveground biomass (herbs + shrubs + suckers) was less than half that of TTH plots. There were 5.0 k saplings (suckers >2.5 cm DBH) ha−1 on the TTH plots, but fewer than 1.0 k ha−1 in the other treatments. The disturbance treatments decreased 5-yr growth of potential crop trees, delayed early stand development, and temporarily reduced stockability and site productivity of an aspen ecosystem. Key words: Soil compaction, organic matter removal, site productivity, stand development


1989 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 178-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter C. Bates ◽  
Charles R. Blinn ◽  
Alvin A. Alm ◽  
Donald A. Perala

Abstract This paper summarizes the literature that reports factors influencing the development of aspen stands following harvest. It is intended primarily for forest managers in the Lake States region, although some work done in the western United States is included. Aspen stands generally regenerate to dense sucker stands after harvest. Competition, disease, and other injurious agents aid natural thinning in maturing stands. Although competition among stems is the primary cause of mortality in many stands, in some stands mortality caused by disease and injury may reduce expected yield. Forest managers should be aware of the factors that can affect aspen stand development, particularly when evaluating regeneration densities and rotation length, and when planning thinning operations. North. J. Appl. For. 6:178-183, December 1989


2016 ◽  
Vol 378 ◽  
pp. 31-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Babs M. Stuiver ◽  
David A. Wardle ◽  
Michael J. Gundale ◽  
Marie-Charlotte Nilsson

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 15
Author(s):  
Set Foong Ng ◽  
Pei Eng Ch’ng ◽  
Yee Ming Chew ◽  
Kok Shien Ng

Soil properties are very crucial for civil engineers to differentiate one type of soil from another and to predict its mechanical behavior. However, it is not practical to measure soil properties at all the locations at a site. In this paper, an estimator is derived to estimate the unknown values for soil properties from locations where soil samples were not collected. The estimator is obtained by combining the concept of the ‘Inverse Distance Method’ into the technique of ‘Kriging’. The method of Lagrange Multipliers is applied in this paper. It is shown that the estimator derived in this paper is an unbiased estimator. The partiality of the estimator with respect to the true value is zero. Hence, the estimated value will be equal to the true value of the soil property. It is also shown that the variance between the estimator and the soil property is minimised. Hence, the distribution of this unbiased estimator with minimum variance spreads the least from the true value. With this characteristic of minimum variance unbiased estimator, a high accuracy estimation of soil property could be obtained.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 41-63
Author(s):  
V.L. Zakharov ◽  
◽  
G.N. Pugachev ◽  

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. 37
Author(s):  
Rajaram Majhi ◽  
Gouri Sankar Bhunia ◽  
Tapan Kumar Das ◽  
Pravat Kumar Shit ◽  
Rabindranath Chattopadhyay

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 37-42
Author(s):  
Inobat Ruzieva ◽  
◽  
Inobat Ruzieva ◽  
Islom Xaitov ◽  
Ulug`berdi Xursanov

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document