This is the publisher’s version of a work published in The Forestry Chronicle 87:2 (2011) the version on the publisher's website can be viewed at http://pubs.cif-ifc.org/doi/abs/10.5558/tfc2011-013.
Abstract:
This is the publisher’s version of a work published in The Forestry Chronicle 87:2 (2011) The version on the publisher's website can be viewed at http://pubs.cif-ifc.org/doi/abs/10.5558/tfc2011-013
Treatment descriptions: ASg – aerial application of Vision (glyphosate) from a Bell 206 helicopter; ASt – aerial application of Release (triclopyr) from a Bell 206 helicopter; BBt
– basal Bark application of Release (triclopyr) with backpack sprayer (Thin Line); BS – motor-manual brush saw cutting at 18 cm above ground without herbicide; BSg – brush
saw cutting with stump herbicide applicator attachment with Vision (glyphosate); CON – untreated control; CRb – continuous removal of vegetation by annual applications of
brush saws; CRg – continuous removal of vegetation by annual applications of Vision (glyphosate); EZg – EZ-Ject injection of Vision (glyphosate) into competing basal stem;
MBg – Backpack mist blower application of Vision (glyphosate); RHg – Reel and hose application of Vision (glyphosate); SGh – spot gun application of Velpar-L (hexazinone);
SIL – mechanical brush cutting at 33 cm above ground with Silvana Selective/Ford Versatile tractor
1
Hog fuel consists of mix of wood residues, shavings and off-cuts
that can be recovered during saw-log and pulp-log conversion.
The Forestry Chronicle Downloaded from pubs.cif-ifc.org by Lakehead University on 10/28/16
For personal use only.
262
mars/avril
2011, vol. 87, N
o
2 — The ForesTry ChroNiCle
(1986–1988), and planted (1988–1991) with bareroot or con-
tainer stock of jack pine (Pinus banksianaLamb.) (three sites),
black spruce (Picea mariana[Mill.] BSP) (two sites), or white
spruce (Picea glauca[Moench] Voss) (one site) at approxi-
mately 2 × 2 m spacing. In all, 12 vegetation management
(release) treatments
5
(plus untreated control) were applied to
97 experimental units (plots) varying from 2 ha to 12 ha,
using randomized complete block designs with single replica-
tions. One exception is the Leether Lake site, where treat-
ments were completely randomized in four replications. Each
site has three to four blocks and four to seven treatments, but
all treatments were not applied at all sites. The level of silvi-
culture implemented at all six sites would be classified as
“basic” based on the definitions provided by Bell et al. (2008).
Specific site and treatment descriptions are below.
The Bending Lake Project is located about 54 km north of
Atikokan, Ontario (Table 1). Jack pine is the crop species at
this site. The study includes four blocks and four treatments:
(i) aerial spray with glyphosate (ASg) in late August 1992,
(ii) brush saw (BS) between late June and early July 1993,
(iii) control (CON) with no release treatment, and (iv) con-
tinuous removal with ground applications of glyphosate
(CRg) in September 1993 and again in August 1994.
The Espanola Study is located approximately 90 km north-
west of Espanola, Ontario (Table 1). Jack pine is the crop
species at this site. The study includes three blocks and six treat-
ments: (i) aerial spray with glyphosate (ASg) in August 1993,
(ii) basal bark/triclopyr (BBt) in October 1993, (iii) brush saw
(BS) in October 1993, (iv) control (CON) with no release treat-
ment, (v) continuous removal with ground applications of
glyphosate (CRg) in June 1995 and again in June 1996, and (vi)
mist blower with glyphosate (MBg) in August 1993.
The Fallingsnow Ecosystem Project is located approxi-
mately 60 km southwest of Thunder Bay, Ontario (Table 1).
White spruce is the main crop species at this site. The study
includes three blocks and seven treatments: (i) aerial spray
with glyphosate (ASg) in mid-August 1993, (2) aerial spray
with triclopyr (ASt) in mid-August 1993, (iii) brush saw (BS)
in mid- to late October 1993, (iv) control (CON) with no
release treatment, (v) continuous removal with brush saws
(CRb) in 1994 through 1997, (vi) continuous removal with
ground applications of glyphosate (CRg) in 1994 through
1997, and (vii) Silvana Selective (SIL) brush cutting between
late October to early November 1993.
The Leether Lake Study is located about 56 km north of
Sioux Lookout, Ontario (Table 1). Jack pine is the crop species
at this site except in blocks treated with BS, where black
spruce was planted. The study includes four treatments repli-
cated three times: (i) aerial spray with glyphosate (ASg) in
August 1993, (ii) brush saw (BS) between early to mid-June
1994, (iii) control (CON) with no release treatment, and (iv)
continuous removal with ground applications of glyphosate
(CRg) in 1994 through 1996.
The Nipigon Hele Study is located in Hele Township,
about 19 km west of Nipigon, Ontario (Table 1). Black spruce
is the main crop species at this site. The study includes three
blocks and four treatments: (i) control (CON) with no release
treatments, (ii) continuous removal with ground applications
of glyphosate (CRg) from August 1990 through 1994; (iii) reel
and hose application of glyphosate (RHg) in August 1991; and
(iv) spot gun application of hexazinone (SGh) in October
1990. All treatments except continuous removal were applied
to a 1-m radius around each crop tree.
The Nipigon Corrigal Study is located in Corrigal Town-
ship, about 8 km east of Nipigon, Ontario (Table 1). Black
spruce is the main crop species at this site. The study includes
three blocks and six treatments: (i) basal bark application of
triclopyr (BBt) in October 1990, (ii) brush saw with
glyphosate (BSg) in September 1990, (iii) control (CON) with
no release treatment, (iv) continuous removal with ground
applied glyphosate (CRg) in August 1990 through 1994, (v)
EZ-Ject application of glyphosate (EZg) in November 1990,
and (vi) reel and hose application of glyphosate (RHg) in
August 1991. All treatments except continuous removal, EZ-
Ject, and basal bark were applied to a 1-m radius around each
crop tree.
Data collection
Crop tree plots of approximately 1200 m
2
(30 m × 40 m) were
established in each treatment plot, before applying the release
treatment. In each treatment plot, 20 crop trees (at approxi-
mately 10-m spacing) were selected for periodic remeasure-
ment. We used the 10
th
-year post-treatment crop tree meas-
urement data (height, diameter at breast height (DBH) and
stocking) presented in Bell et al. (2011a) and additional 16
th
-
year post-treatment data from the Fallingsnow Ecosystem
Project collected in 2009 summer for our analyses.
Simulation and optimization models
We used Forest Vegetation Simulator, FVS
Ontario
—a non-spa-
tial, individual-tree growth model (for details, see ESSA
2008)—to project expected crop tree volumes to an arbitrary
rotation age of 70 years. The model simulates changes in
diameter increment of individual trees using current size
(diameter and height) and calibrated values of previous
growth. A sub- model accumulates periodic increments over
successive time intervals (e.g., five or 10 years). For each site,
a common forest region (Ontario West), site quality (Site
quality II), crop species, and establishment year were used.
We simulated total volume assuming equal spacing between
existing trees and no additional silvicultural treatments. The
existing stand condition was defined using the 10
th
-year post-
treatment measurement data for all sites, except Fallingsnow,
for which 16
th
-year post-treatment data were used. Total tree
height, diameter at breast height, number of tree stems per
hectare (SPH), and stocking information were used as inputs
to the simulation model, combining the data from all blocks.
We projected SPH, gross total volume (GTV), gross mer-
chantable volume (GMV), basal area (BA), quadratic mean
diameter (QMD), and top height (TH) of each crop species
for each treatment combination.
BUCK-2 (Zakrzewski et al. 2010) was used to optimize the
possible product mix and estimate the future value of fibre
produced. Projected SPH and GTV, and mean diameter and
top height were used as inputs. In this optimization tool, the
desired size limits (length and minimum diameter) of round-
wood timber products and rankings of log categories (sawlogs,
veneer logs, and pulp wood) are user-defined. Though BUCK-
2 does not account for the price of the output lumber, its objec-
tive is to maximize the total monetary value of a sum of the
5
Vegetation management treatments are sometimes referred as
“release treatments”. These terms are interchangeably used
throughout this paper.
The Forestry Chronicle Downloaded from pubs.cif-ifc.org by Lakehead University on 10/28/16
For personal use only.
marCh/april 2011, vol. 87, No. 2 — The ForesTry ChroNiCle263
user-defined timber products at the tree level, where the proxy
for that value is a user-defined ranking of the product. In other
words, the optimum timber product mix is such that it maxi-
mizes volume proportion of the most profitable timber prod-
uct at the tree level. The constraints are user-defined timber
product sizes (constants): minimum top diameters and fixed
log lengths. We used 2.44 m (8 feet) minimum length and 30
cm minimum diameter for the first category of sawlog (Rank
I), 2.44 m (8 feet) minimum length and 20 cm minimum
diameter for the second category of sawlog (Rank II), 1.22 m
(4 feet) minimum length and 10 cm minimum diameter for
pulp logs (Rank III), and a kerf factor of 1.5 cm (assuming
wastage allowance for circular saw), as constraints to optimize
the proportion of wood products expected from the projected
Table 2. Treatment costs, projected gross total volume and merchantable volume of crop tree species at 70 years by study site
Treatment descriptions: ASg – aerial application of Vision (glyphosate) from a Bell 206 helicopter; ASt – aerial application of Release (triclopyr) from a Bell 206 helicopter; BBt –
basal Bark application of Release (triclopyr) with backpack sprayer (Thin Line); BS – motor-manual brush saw cutting at 18 cm above ground without herbicide; BSg – brush saw
cutting with stump herbicide applicator attachment with Vision (glyphosate); CON – untreated control; CRb – continuous removal of vegetation by annual applications of brush
saws; CRg – continuous removal of vegetation by annual applications of Vision (glyphosate); EZg – EZ-Ject injection of Vision (glyphosate) into competing basal stem; MBg – Back-
pack mist blower application of Vision (glyphosate); RHg – Reel and hose application of Vision (glyphosate); SGh – spot gun application of Velpar-L (hexazinone); SIL – mechanical
brush cutting at 33 cm above ground with Silvana Selective/Ford Versatile tractor
b
Costs are based on non-crop stocking level and distance of the site from the nearest major centre and are calculated on a 500-ha plot basis.
c
Volumes were projected using FVS
Ontario
.
d
Values in parentheses are the non-crop (hardwoods – mainly poplar) merchantable volumes.
The Forestry Chronicle Downloaded from pubs.cif-ifc.org by Lakehead University on 10/28/16
TL;DR: The results suggest that plant diversity and productivity in boreal jack pine forests are significantly influenced by vegetation management treatments, and forest managers are faced with trade-offs when choosing treatments.
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors identified the main species requiring vegetation control and estimated the forest area they cover at the national level using National Forest Inventory data and compared them to the outcome of a survey of forest manager practices.
TL;DR: The management of competing vegetation has evolved with forest management over the past half century and is now an integral part of modern forestry practice in many parts of the world as discussed by the authors, which has proven especially important in the establishment of high-yield forest plantations.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a study on the management of the vegetation forestiere in Canada and les pratiques operationnelles of the process of pratique de pointe.
TL;DR: In this paper, Miller et al. present an overview of the main concepts in finance, including the concept of capital budgeting, and a discussion of the relationship between finance and finance.
TL;DR: This article reviewed the historical context and the research conducted over the past 15 years that has led to the province's current vegetation management strategy and identified the major challenges of vegetation management being faced in Quebec in the context of intensive silviculture and ecosystem-based management.
Q1. What are the contributions mentioned in the paper "Benefit–cost analysis of vegetation management alternatives: an ontario case study" ?
In this paper, the authors report results of stand-level benefit–cost analyses of 12 vegetation management treatments applied at six study sites in northern Ontario. Forest Vegetation Simulator ( FVSOntario ) was used to project gross total and merchantable volumes to 70 years of age, and BUCK-2 was used to optimize potential products.
Q2. What are the commonly used measures for conducting benefit–cost analysis?
Net present value (NPV), benefit–cost ratio (BCR) and internal rate of return (IRR) are the most commonly used measures for conducting benefit–cost analysis.
Q3. What are the four strategies that are used to manage the forest?
These are: preventive silviculture and natural regeneration, mechanical site preparation, early planting of size-adapted stock, and use of mechanical release where and when needed (Thiffault and Roy 2010).
Q4. What is the discount rate for NPV and BCR?
Given current market competitive interest rates offered by commercial banks, the authors used a real discount rate ranging from 2% to 10% to assess the sensitivity of NPV and BCR.
Q5. What was the highest IRR for all species?
The aerial herbicide treatment group produced the highest IRR (4.32% for crop species and 4.49% for all species), whereas treatments that involved cutting plus herbicides had the lowest IRR (2.50%) for crop species, and cutting alone had the lowest IRR (3.02%) for all woody species combined.
Q6. What are the effects of herbicide reduction on the landscape?
the results of their studies are applicable to the VMAP study sites only, Dacosta et al. (2011) have modelled the landscape-level effects of reduced herbicide use in two forests in northern Ontario and found that herbicide reduction would negatively affect the overall wood supply of both softwoods and hardwoods, increase costs of wood transportation and silviculture, and increase the active road network.
Q7. What are the main challenges of herbicide-free forest vegetation management in Quebec?
herbicide-free forest vegetation management strategies, which have been implementing in Quebec since 2001 when the province banned the use of forest herbicides in commercial forestry, pose major challenges to intensive silviculture, especially where high volumes of lumber and fibre are expected.
Q8. What are the risks of brush saws?
Risks of gasolineand oil spillage, and inhalation of exhaust emissions from brush saws pose potential environmental and health risks (Dubeau et al. 2003).
Q9. What is the Crown Forest Sustainability Act?
which states that “large, healthy, diverse and productive Crown forests and their associated ecological processes and biological diversity should be conserved” (Statutes of Ontario 1995).
Q10. What was the average gain in GTV for all treatment groups?
All treatment groups exhibited a considerable gain (from 3% in cutting plus herbicide to 49.7% in aerial herbicide) in average GTV at age 70 compared to the controls.