Thirteen-year growth response of ponderosa pine plantations to dominant shrubs (Arctostaphylos and Ceanothus)

Abstract

Thirteen-year growth response of ponderosa pine to various manipulations of understory vegetation was studied to determine if a threshold of understory cover can be established for plantation productivity and whether nitrogen-fixing Ceanothus species benefit plantation growth compared to non N-fixing Arctostaphylos species, given their ability to improve site fertility. Results showed that completely controlling competing vegetation increased plantation growth, as was universally expected, but the effects of partial shrub control on plantation performance was inconsistent. We did not find a benefit of nitrogen-fixing shrubs on tree growth, as young plantation growth was slightly better in the non N-fixing plots compared to the N-fixing plots due to differences in shrub cover. An understory cover threshold for tree growth was not observed. Due to the overriding effect of shrub competition, controlling herbaceous species had little effect on plantation growth even though it benefited tree seedling survival. A long-term value of N-fixing shrubs at these sites, if there is one, must be balanced by successful plantation establishment and rapid early growth.

Keywords

Competing vegetation control / Manzanita / Nitrogen-fixing Ceanothus / Pinus ponderosa growth / Shrub cover

References

[1] Binkley D, Cromack K Jr, Fredriksen RL. Nitrogen accretion and availability in some snowbrush ecosystems. For Sci, 1982, 28: 720-724.

[2] Busse MD, Cochran PH, Barrett JW. Changes in ponderosa pine site productivity following removal of understory vegetation. Soil Sci Soc Am J, 1996, 60: 1614-1621.

[3] Fiske JN (1982) Evaluating the need for release from competition from woody plants to improve conifer growth rates. In: Proceedings, third annual forest vegetation management conference, 4–5 November 1981, Redding, CA, pp 25–44

[4] Johnson DW. Soil properties beneath Ceanothus and pine stand in the eastern Sierra Nevada. Soil Sci Soc Am J, 1995, 59: 918-924.

[5] McDonald PM, Fiddler GO (1990) Ponderosa pine seedlings and competing vegetation: ecology, growth, and cost. USDA Forest Service, Berkeley, CA, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Research Paper PSW-199

[6] McDonald PM, Fiddler GO (2011) Twenty-five years of managing vegetation in conifer plantations in northern and central California: results, application, principles, and challenges. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-231. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA

[7] McDonald PM, Powers RF (2003) Vegetation trends and carbon balance in a ponderosa pine plantation: long-term effects of different shrub densities. In: Proceedings, 24th annual forest vegetation management conference, 14–16 January 2003. Redding, CA, pp 25–43

[8] McNabb DH, Cromack K Jr. Dinitrogen fixation by a mature Ceanothus velutinus (Dougl.) stand in the western Oregon Cascades. Can J Microbiol, 1983, 29: 1014-1021.

[9] Oliver WW (1984) Brush reduces growth of thinned ponderosa pine in northern California. USDA Forest Service, Berkeley, CA, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Research Paper PSW-172

[10] Oliver WW. Spacing and shrub competition influence 20-year development of planted ponderosa pine. West J Appl For, 1990, 5: 79-82.

[11] Powers RF, Ferrell GT. Moisture, nutrient, and insect constraints on plantation growth: the “Garden of Eden” study. NZ J For Sci, 1996, 26: 126-144.

[12] Powers RF, Reynolds PE. Ten-year responses of ponderosa pine plantations to repeated vegetation and nutrient control along an environmental gradient. Can J For Res, 1999, 29: 1027-1038.

[13] Shainsky LJ, Radosevich SR. Growth and water relations of Pinus ponderosa seedlings in competitive regimes with Arctostaphylos patula seedlings. J Appl Ecol, 1986, 23: 957-966.

[14] White DE, Newton M. Competitive interactions of whiteleaf manzanita, herbs, Douglas-fir, and ponderosa pine in southwest Oregon. Can J For Res, 1989, 19: 232-238.

[15] Youngberg CT, Wollum AG. Nitrogen accretion in developing Ceanothus velutinus stands. Soil Sci Soc Am J, 1976, 40: 109-112.

[16] Zhang JW, Oliver WW, Busse MD. Growth and development of ponderosa pine on sites of contrasting productivities: relative importance of stand density and shrub competition effects. Can J For Res, 2006, 36: 2426-2438.

[17] Zhang JW, Oliver WW, Ritchie MW, Neal DL. Overstory and understory dynamics in a ponderosa pine plantation varying with stand density in the Sierra Nevada: 40-year results. For Sci, 2013, 59(6): 670-680.

[18] Zhang JW, Powers RF, Oliver WW, Young DH. Response of ponderosa pine plantations to competing vegetation control in Northern California, USA: a meta-analysis. Forestry, 2013, 86: 3-11.