HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Munson, A. D. Articles by Brand, D. G. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Munson, A. D. Articles by Brand, D. G. Agricola Articles by Munson, A. D. Articles by Brand, D. G.

Intensive Silvicultural Treatment: Impacts on Soil Fertility and Planted Conifer Response

Centre de Recherche en Biologie Forestière, Faculté de Foresterie et de Géomatique, Université Laval, Sainte-Foy, Québec, Canada, G1K 7P4

David G. Brand

Forestry Canada, Fuller Building, Third Floor, 75 Albert St., Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1A 1G5

*Corresponding author.

ABSTRACT

The impacts of intensive silvicultural treatment on soil processes and fertility, as well as nutrition and growth of planted eastern white pine (Pinus strobus L.) and white spruce [Picea glauca (Moench) Voss] were examined 4 yr after planting and initial treatment. The impacts of three treatments, applied singly and in factorial combinations, were evaluated: (i) soil surface modification by scarification, (ii) fertilization, and (iii) vegetation control using herbicide. The most significant effects resulted from vegetation control. Nitrification increased significantly, soil total C and N declined, with accompanying decreases in soil pH and cation availability (K). With this same treatment, pine and spruce growth increased markedly in response to increases in light, moisture, and N. Scarification removed the nutrient reservoir in forest humus, resulting in decreased nutrient availability in the mineral soil, while fertilization had inconsistent effects on soil nutrient availability. However, neither scarification nor fertilization alone significantly affected growth; only their interactions with other treatments were important after 4 yr. During the period since planting, the effects of scarification and fertilization on conifer growth have declined, while effects of vegetation control have become much more prominent. The impact of losses of N and other nutrients as a result of vegetation control or scarification should become more evident as nutrient demand increases with plantation development.

Received for publication June 6, 1991.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. E. Jimenez Esquilin, M. E. Stromberger, and W. D. Shepperd Soil Scarification and Wildfire Interactions and Effects on Microbial Communities and Carbon Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., January 11, 2008; 72(1): 111 - 118. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Perie, A. D. Munson, and J. Caron Use of Spectral Analysis to Detect Changes in Spatial Variability of Forest Floor Properties Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., February 2, 2006; 70(2): 439 - 447. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. E. Echeverria, D. Markewitz, L. A. Morris, and R. L. Hendrick Soil Organic Matter Fractions under Managed Pine Plantations of the Southeastern USA Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., May 1, 2004; 68(3): 950 - 958. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. D. Hangs, J. D. Knight, and K. C. J. Van Rees Nitrogen Accumulation by Conifer Seedlings and Competitor Species From 15Nitrogen-labeled Controlled-Release Fertilizer Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., January 1, 2003; 67(1): 300 - 308. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Périé and A. D. Munson Ten-Year Responses of Soil Quality and Conifer Growth to Silvicultural Treatments Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., September 1, 2000; 64(5): 1815 - 1826. [Abstract] [Full Text]