Effects of retention harvests on structure of old-growth Pinus strobus L. stands in Ontario
-
Published source details
Bebber D., Cole W., Thomas S., Balsillie D. & Duinker P. (2005) Effects of retention harvests on structure of old-growth Pinus strobus L. stands in Ontario. Forest Ecology and Management, 205, 91-103.
Published source details Bebber D., Cole W., Thomas S., Balsillie D. & Duinker P. (2005) Effects of retention harvests on structure of old-growth Pinus strobus L. stands in Ontario. Forest Ecology and Management, 205, 91-103.
Actions
This study is summarised as evidence for the following.
| Action | Category | |
|---|---|---|
|
Log/remove trees within forests: effects on young trees Action Link |
 |
|
|
Log/remove trees within forests: effects on understory plants Action Link |
|
-
Log/remove trees within forests: effects on young trees
A replicated, controlled study in 1992-2001 in boreal forest in Ontario, Canada (Bebber et al. 2005) found that structural retention harvest increased tree sapling density. Average sapling density increased from 4,178 to 5,109 saplings/ha in harvested compared with unharvested plots. Harvesting was carried out in 1992. Remaining trees were healthy seed bearers and declining quality trees. Six unharvested control plots and 12 harvested plots, spread over an area of approximately 1,200 ha were monitored during August and September 2001. Plot areas varied from 3 to 104 ha (average 26 ha). Fifty five sample points were placed within control plots and 89 within harvested plots (3–20 points/plot). Tree saplings were recorded inside a 5 m radius ring around plot centre.
-
Log/remove trees within forests: effects on understory plants
A replicated, controlled study in 1992-2001 in boreal forest in Ontario, Canada (Bebber et al. 2005) found that structural retention harvest increased herbaceous vegetation cover. Average herbaceous vegetation cover was 40% in harvested compared to 26% in unharvested plots. Harvesting was carried out in 1992. Residual trees were healthy seed bearers and declining quality trees. Six unharvested control plots and 12 harvested plots, spread over an area of approximately 1,200 ha were monitored during August and September 2001. Plot areas varied from 3 to 104 ha (average 26 ha). Fifty five sample points were placed within control plots and 89 within harvested plots (3–20 points/plot). Herbaceous vegetation was recorded inside a 5 m radius ring around plot centre.
