nena masthead
NENA Home Staff & Editors For Readers For Authors

White Pine Restoration in a Mesic Forest: 3-year Results
Stacie A. Holmes and Christopher R. Webster

Northeastern Naturalist, Volume 21, Issue 1 (2014): 23–30

Full-text pdf (Accessible only to subscribers. To subscribe click here.)

 

Access Journal Content

Open access browsing of table of contents and abstract pages. Full text pdfs available for download for subscribers.



Current Issue: Vol. 30 (3)
NENA 30(3)

Check out NENA's latest Monograph:

Monograph 22
NENA monograph 22

All Regular Issues

Monographs

Special Issues

 

submit

 

subscribe

 

JSTOR logoClarivate logoWeb of science logoBioOne logo EbscoHOST logoProQuest logo

Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 21, No. 1 S.A. Holmes and C.R. Webster 2014 23 2014 NORTHEASTERN NATURALIST 21(1):23–30 White Pine Restoration in a Mesic Forest: 3-year Results Stacie A. Holmes1,2 and Christopher R. Webster1,* Abstract - Pinus strobus (Eastern White Pine) was an important component of mesic and dry-mesic northern temperate forests prior to European settlement. We evaluated the efficacy of restoration on a degraded, mesic hardwood site with a low post-harvest residual basal area (11.5 m2 ha-1). Three-year survival of planted pines was 57% (n = 299), with 40% mortality occurring the first year. Additional losses, however, were minimal: 2% and 1% following years two and three, respectively. Survival was associated with presence of bare soil near the seedling (P < 0.05). High initial mortality was likely attributable to drought. Our results suggest that White Pine establishment on more mesic hardwood sites may be possible given sufficient soil and canopy disturbance, but that high initial mortality may be expected under dry climatic conditions. Introduction Prior to selective logging and widespread slash fires in the northern Lake States during the late 1800s, Pinus strobus L. (Eastern White Pine) was an important component (5–35%) of the region’s forests (Abrams 2001, Bolliger et al. 2004, Whitney 1987). While White Pine exhibited a strong association with dry-mesic, coarse textured soils (Whitney 1986), the species was also common in mesic habitats (Fahey et al. 2012). In the central Upper Peninsula of Michigan, for example, Zhang et al. (2000) found that the relative densities of White Pine decreased 66–75% from the mid-1880s to the early 1990s. The continued lack of recruitment of this species in present-day forests is often attributed to the absence of fire, lack of suitable microsites for establishment, competition with mesic hardwoods, high rates of Odocoileus virginianus Zimmermann (White-tailed Deer) browsing, and mortality resulting from Cronartium ribicola J.C. Fisher ex. Rabenh. (Blister Rust) (Abrams 2001, Frelich 2002). Recent surveys in the Great Lakes region suggest that incidences of Blister Rust-induced mortality have become less common (Dahir and Cummings 2001, Katovich et al. 2004) and that in many areas this disease is no longer controlling forest composition (Geils et al. 2010). White Pine is a restoration priority in the region and has been planted in conjunction with various silvicultural treatments in Populus spp. (aspen), Quercus spp. (oak), and Pinus resinosa Aiton (Red Pine) stands (e.g., Pitt et al. 2009, Powers et al. 2009, Smidt and Puettmann 1998, Wetzel and Burgess 2001). Less work has been done in northern hardwood stands dominated by shade-tolerant maples because of 1Ecosystem Science Center, School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science, Michigan Technological University, 1400 Townsend Drive, Houghton, MI, 49931. 2Current address - USDOI-Bureau of Indian Affairs, Branch of Forest Resources Planning, 13922 Denver West Parkway, Suite 350, Lakewood, CO, 80401. *Corresponding author - cwebster@mtu.edu. Manuscript Editor: Roland de Gouvenain Northeastern Naturalist 24 S.A. Holmes and C.R. Webster 2014 Vol. 21, No. 1 strong understory competition from Acer saccharum Marsh. (Sugar Maple) and Acer rubrum L. (Red Maple) (Krueger 2004). Additionally, these stands are often managed with selection and other partial harvest systems that typically leave high residual basal areas and create only small gaps in the canopy (Tubbs 1977). Nevertheless, some northern hardwood stands are cut more heavily in order to promote tree species diversity, salvage dieback, or maximize short-term revenue. These more open residual stands might provide an overlooked opportunity for White Pine restoration. In order to examine the restoration potential of low-residual basal area and/or degraded northern hardwood stands for White Pine, we monitored the survival and growth of 300 randomly selected seedlings from a large operational underplanting. The objectives of this study were: (1) to identify microsite characteristics that favor or hamper planted seedling establishment and growth and (2) to determine the extent to which neighborhood competition influences planted seedling success in a northern hardwood forest. Field-Site Description and Methods Study area In June of 2005, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) operationally under-planted 36,550 White Pine seedlings on a 97-ha parcel located near the tip of the Keweenaw Peninsula of Michigan (47°23'N, 87°54'W). This site was selected for planting because of the historic presence but contemporary dearth of mesic conifers and the low local White-tailed Deer densities due to high winter snowfall (Doepker et al. 1995). Seedlings were hand-planted, 3-year old, bare-root nursery stock (or “3-0” stock). In 2002, before the land was acquired by the current owner, the property was harvested to a residual basal area of 11.5 m2 ha-1. The harvest did not have a clearly defined silvicultural objective, but rather focused on removing highvalue species and products prior to divestment. Most trees ≥12.7 cm were harvested. No intentional site preparation or slash treatments were performed. Planting was conducted through the Landowner Incentive Program Mesic Conifer Restoration Initiative. Planters were instructed to distribute the seedlings uniformly across the tract, which provided a wide variety of competitive and topographic environments. Soils on the planting site ranged from moderately well-drained, cobbly very fine sandy loams to well-drained, gravelly and cobbly fine sandy loams (Tardy 2006). Lake Superior moderates the climate of the peninsula, and the average winter and summer temperatures are -8.2 °C and 17.4 ˚C, respectively (Tardy 2006). Mean annual precipitation is 85.6 liquid cm, which includes 555.0 cm of mean annual snowfall (Tardy 2006). Monitoring Three hundred seedlings were selected for monitoring and sampled in June 2005. We selected seedlings by following the paths made by the planting crew and choosing whether to sample seedlings as they were encountered based on a coin flip. We maintained a minimum distance of 5 m between individuals to reduce interdependence among individuals. This approach resulted in a sample population that was Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 21, No. 1 S.A. Holmes and C.R. Webster 2014 25 well distributed across the planting site. We uniquely identified seedlings using numbered metal tags secured to a 20-cm-diameter wire collar. We measured height as the total length of the outstretched stem from ground level to tip of the terminal bud, and diameter at 10 cm above ground level or at ground level for seedlings less than 10 cm tall. In summer 2006, we assessed microsite conditions, competition from woody species, and light environment for each study seedling (n = 299; Table 1). Microsite characteristics included: slope (%), aspect, and percent cover of bare soil, herbaceous plants, and coarse woody debris (CWD) within a 1-m-radius plot centered on the seedling (Table 1). To assess woody competition, we measured the four nearest neighbors for three strata: (1) understory: study seedling vertical height to 2 m tall, (2) midstory: 2 to less than 10 m tall, and (3) overstory: ≥ 10 m tall. We recorded the diameter and height of each competitor and measured the distance between each competitor and the study seedling (Frelich et al. 1998). We quantified the light environment (gap fraction = fraction of pixels classified as open sky) of each study seedling with a digital, hemispherical photograph taken directly above each seedling at a height of 71 cm and analyzed it with the software WinSCANOPY (WinScanopy 2005). We revisited each seedling in June of 2007 and 2008 to assess survival, and re-measured height and diameter in 2008. Statistical analysis A distance-dependent competition index (Hegyi 1974) was calculated for each study seedling using the following equation: n = 4 Hegy’s distance-weighted size ratio = Σ [Dj / Di(Distij + 1)], j = 1 where Dj = diameter of the competitor, Di = diameter of the subject, and Distij = distance between subject and competitor. We assessed competition by strata and collectively across all strata. Table 1. Mean (± 1 SD) initial dimensions and environmental attributes for planted White Pine seedlings (n = 299). Percent bare soil, herbaceous cover, and coarse woody debris (CWD) were measured for a 1-m-radius circle surrounding each study seedling. Gap fraction = fraction of hemispherical photograph pixels classified as sky (WinScanopy 2005). Category Variable Mean (± SD) Initial Dimensions Height (cm) 20.9 (6.1) Diameter (mm) 3.3 (1.3) Microsite conditions Aspect 259.4 (78.5) % slope 17.0 (7.6) % bare soil 12.6 (23.6) % herbaceous cover 24.7 (25.8) % coarse woody debris 2.0 (6.0) Light environment Gap fraction 23.4 (6.9) Northeastern Naturalist 26 S.A. Holmes and C.R. Webster 2014 Vol. 21, No. 1 We used binary logistic and multiple linear regressions to assess the influence of initial size and light and competitive environments (Table 1) on 3-yr survival and height growth, respectively. We reduced full models using a backwards stepwise procedure with a forward check (α = 0.05; Weisberg 2005), and used log-likelihood and Hosmer-Lemshow tests to assess statistical significance of the binary logistic regression models. We determined the proportion of variability in height growth explained by each multiple linear regression model by calculating adjusted R2. We included competition index variables (for each individual strata, the understory and midstory strata combined, and all three of the strata combined) in the final survival and growth models only if they were significant (α = 0.05) upon addition to the base models. We calculated Pearson correlation coefficients to assess linear dependence between environmental variables. We performed all statistical tests in the statistical environment R (R Development Core Team 2008). All means are presented ± 1 standard deviation. Results Fifty-seven percent of White Pine seedlings were alive in June 2008, three years after planting. The highest rate of mortality was observed following the first growing season. In June 2006, planted seedlings exhibited 40% mortality after experiencing one growing season and one winter, but additional losses were minimal: 2% in 2007 and 1% in 2008. While not specifically surveyed, Blister Rust, a potential issue on mesic sites in close proximity to Lake Superior, was not observed on monitored seedlings during the course of our study. Seedling competitive environments varied considerably. Mean Hegyi’s distance-weighted size ratios for understory, midstory, and overstory competitors were 8.4 ± 22.1, 39.8 ± 154.2, and 164.4 ± 443.6, respectively. Survival was positively associated with an increase in percent cover of bare soil (P < 0.001; Fig. 1). None of the other microsite or competition variables provided additional significant explanatory power (P ≥ 0.05). Mean (± SD) height growth over the study period was 8.13 (± 5.36) cm yr-1 for 3-year survivors (n = 169). For surviving individuals that exhibited positive height, the only environmental factor that was significantly associated with growth was gap fraction (Fig. 2). This variable, however, only explained about 8% of the variance in growth. As with mortality, competition with advance regeneration of mesic hardwoods was not significantly associated with observed growth rates (P > 0.05). Higher growth rates were associated with declining canopy cover. A Pearson correlation matrix revealed significant cross correlations between environmental variables describing light availability and disturbance: gap fraction vs. percent cover of bare soil (r = 0.361, P less than 0.001) and % slope (r = -0.281, P less than 0.001); percent cover of herbs vs. percent cover of bare soil (r = -0.236, P less than 0.001) and % slope (r = -0.263, P less than 0.001). Consequently, it is difficult to isolate the independent effects of light and disturbance on understory vegetation. Strata-specific competition index values were significantly cross-correlated (r ≥ 0.482, P less than 0.001) Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 21, No. 1 S.A. Holmes and C.R. Webster 2014 27 and the understory index was correlated with herbaceous percent cover (r = 0.184, P = 0.001). No other significant correlations were observed. Discussion Early growth and survival of planted White Pine on this mesic site appears to be linked to open, disturbed understory conditions. Survival was significantly associated with percent bare soil, and height growth was positively associated with decreased canopy cover. White Pine requires at least 20% full sunlight for seedling survival (Wendel and Smith 1990), and height and diameter growth are both linked to light availability and reduced understory competition (Saunders and Puettmann 1999, Smidt and Puettmann 1998). Our results suggest that suitable planting sites may be found in recently harvested northern hardwood stands with low residual basal areas. Survival rates observed in our study (≈60%) were lower than those generally observed in experimental studies. For example, Pitt et al. (2009) observed 91–99% Figure 1. Relationship between planted White Pine survival and bare soil (P(Survival) = 1/(1 + e-(-0.01 + 0.03x)), where x = % bare soil) after three growing seasons. Model fit: Hosmer-Lemeshow: χ2 =1.86, df = 3, P = 0.603; Log-Likelihood: χ2 = -195.25, df = 1, P less than 0.001. Figure 2. Relationship between light environment and height growth (ΔH) for 3-0 planted White Pine (ΔH = 10.47 + 0.60(gap fraction); df = 2, 83; F = 13.33, P less than 0.001; R2 = 0.08). Only surviving individuals with positive height growth (ΔH ≥ 0) were included in this analysis. Northeastern Naturalist 28 S.A. Holmes and C.R. Webster 2014 Vol. 21, No. 1 6-year survival across a range of treatments for 1-0 containerized White Pine in Ontario, Canada, and Noland et al. (2001) reported 77–91% 5-year survival for both bare root and containerized nursery stock. Our higher mortality rates are likely the result of inadequate soil moisture during the first growing season. During the summer of 2005, the western Upper Peninsula of Michigan experienced a drought. The Palmer drought severity index ranged from moderate (-2.05) in July to severe (-3.1) in September (National Climatic Data Center 2011). Coincidentally, drought may have reduced the competitive advantage of shade-tolerant hardwoods and other competing vegetation, as we found a surprising lack of association between the level of competition with the mostly shade-tolerant hardwood understory and survival and growth of planted White Pine. Longer-term survival rates for planted White Pine on mesic sites in the region, however, warrant caution (Fahey and Lorimer 2013, Kern et al. 2012). For example, across 12 sites examined by Fahey and Lorimer (2013), 7–15 years post-planting survival of planted White Pines averaged only 13.6%. Similarly, Kern et al. (2012) observed survival rates averaging less than 30% across a range of treatments following 12 growing seasons. In contrast to our findings, periodic inventories by Kern et al. (2012) suggested lower initial mortality but more consistent rates of annual mortality. Future monitoring at our study site should shed light on the periodicity of mortality and performance of survivors. In conclusion, post-harvest underplanting may hold promise for establishing White Pine in northern hardwood stands, especially those stands that lack a seed source. Targeted soil disturbance, release treatments, and protection from browsing may enhance survival and growth assuming favorable climatic conditions (Krueger 2004). Second-growth hardwood stands have traditionally been avoided for pine restoration due to the dominance of shade-tolerant hardwood species in the understory (Kelty and Entcheva 1993). Nevertheless, recently harvested and/or degraded mesic hardwood stands may provide an overlooked opportunity for White Pine restoration, especially under prevailing drought conditions in the region. Acknowledgments We would like to thank landowner Gina Nicholas and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, especially Terry McFadden and Robert Doepker, for making this study possible. We also thank Brandon Bal, Melissa Jarvi, Blair Tweedale, Jill Witt, Doug Holmes, Aaron Wuori, Steve Miceli, Andy Quinn, and Adam Komar for assisting with fieldwork and data entry, and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on the draft manuscript. Financial support for this research was provided by the McIntire–Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Program, the Keweenaw Community Forest Company, and the School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science, Michigan Technological University. Literature Cited Abrams, M.D. 2001. Eastern White Pine versatility in the presettlement forest. Bioscience 51:967–979. Bolliger, J., L.A. Schulte, S.N. Burrows, T.A. Sickley, and D.J. Mladenoff. 2004. Assessing ecological restoration potentials of Wisconsin (USA) using historical landscape reconstructions. Restoration Ecology 12:124–142. Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 21, No. 1 S.A. Holmes and C.R. Webster 2014 29 Dahir, S.E., and J.E.C. Cummings. 2001. Incidence of White Pine Blister Rust in a highhazard region of Wisconsin. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 18:81–86. Doepker, R.V., D.E. Beyer Jr., and M. Donovan. 1995. Deer population trends in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Pp. 99–108, In G. Mroz and J. Martin (Eds.). Hemlock Ecology and Management. University of Wisconsin - Madison, Iron Mountain, MI. 200 pp. Fahey, R.T., and C.G. Lorimer. 2013. Restoring a mid-tolerant pine species as a component of late-successional forests: Results of gap-based planting trials. Forest Ecology and Management 292:139–149. Fahey, R.T., C.G. Lorimer, and D.J. Mladenoff. 2012. Habitat heterogeneity and life-history traits influence presettlement distributions of early successional tree species in a latesuccessional, hemlock-hardwood landscape. Landscape Ecology 27: 999–1013. Frelich, L.E. 2002. Forest Dynamics and Disturbance Regimes: Studies from Temperate Evergreen-deciduous Forests. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 266 pp. Frelich, L.E., S. Sugita, P.B. Reich, M.B. Davis, and S.K. Friedman. 1998. Neighbourhood effects in forests: Implications for within-stand patch structure. Journal of Ecology 86:149–161. Geils, B.W., K.E. Hummer, and R.S. Hunt. 2010. White Pines, Ribes, and Blister Rust: A review and synthesis. Forest Pathology 40:147–185. Hegyi, F. 1974. A simulation model for managing Jack Pine stands. Pp. 74–90, In J. Fries (Ed.). Growth Models for Tree and Stand Simulation. Royal College of Forestry, Stockholm, Sweden. Katovich, S.A., J.G. O’Brien, M.E. Mielke, and M.E. Ostry. 2004. Restoration and management of Eastern White Pine within high Blister Rust hazard zones in the Lake States. Pp. 135–145, In W.D. Shepperd, and L.G. Eskew (Eds.). Silviculture in Special Places: Proceedings of the 2003 National Silviculture Workshop, Proceedings RMRS-P-34, USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO. 255 pp. Kelty, M.J., and P.K. Entcheva. 1993. Response of suppressed White Pine saplings to release during shelterwood cutting. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 11:166–169. Kern, C.C., P.B. Reich, R.A. Montgomery, and T.F. Strong. 2012. Do deer and shrubs override canopy gap-size effects on growth and survival of Yellow Birch, Northern Red Oak, Eastern White Pine, and Eastern Hemlock seedlings? Forest Ecology and Management 267:134–143. Krueger, J.A. 2004. Growth and injury patterns of Eastern White Pine (Pinus strobus L.) seedlings as affected by hardwood overstory density and weeding treatments. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 21:61–68. National Climatic Data Center. 2011. Michigan Palmer drought severity index. Available on-line at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/time-series/index.php. Accessed 22 August 2011. Noland, T.L., G.H. Mohammed, and R.G. Wagner. 2001. Morphological characteristics associated with tolerance to competition from herbaceous vegetation for seedlings of Jack Pine, Black Spruce, and White Pine. New Forests 21:199–215. Pitt, D.G., W.C. Parker, A. Stinson, and L. Lanteigne. 2009. The effects of herbaceous and woody competition on planted White Pine in a clearcut site. Forest Ecology and Management 257:1281–1291. Powers, M.D., K.S. Pregitzer, B.J. Palik, and C.R. Webster. 2009. Water relations of pine seedlings in contrasting overstory environments. Forest Ecology and Management 258:1442–1448. R Development Core Team. 2008. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available online at www.r-project.org. Accessed 1 December 2008. Northeastern Naturalist 30 S.A. Holmes and C.R. Webster 2014 Vol. 21, No. 1 Saunders, M.R., and K.J. Puettmann. 1999. Effects of overstory and understory competition and simulated herbivory on growth and survival of White Pine seedlings. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 29:536–546. Smidt, M., and K.J. Puettmann. 1998. Overstory and understory competition affect underplanted Eastern White Pine. Forest Ecology and Management 105:137–150. Tardy, S.W. 2006. Soil survey of Keweenaw County area, Michigan. USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, Washington, DC. 601 pp. Tubbs, C.H. 1977. Manager’s handbook for northern hardwoods in the North Central States. General Technical Report NC-GTR-39, USDA Forest Service, Saint Paul, MN. 29 pp. Weisberg, S. 2005. Applied Linear Regression Third Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ. 336 pp. Wendel, G.W., and H.C. Smith. 1990. Pinus strobus L., Eastern White Pine. Pp. 476–488, In R.M. Burns and B.H. Honkala (Eds.). Silvics of North America: 1. Conifers. 2. Hardwoods. Agriculture Handbook 654, USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. 877 pp. Wetzel, S., and D. Burgess. 2001. Understory environment and vegetation response after partial cutting and site preparation in Pinus strobus L. stands. Forest Ecology and Management 151:43–59. Whitney, G.G. 1986. Relation of Michigan’s presettlement pine forests to substrate and disturbance history. Ecology 67:1548–1559. Whitney, G.G. 1987. An ecological history of the Great Lakes forest of Michigan. Journal of Ecology 75:667–684. WinScanopy. 2005. WinSCANOPY 2005a for hemispherical image analysis. Regent Instruments Inc., Sinte-Foy, QC, Canada. Zhang, Q., K.S. Pregitzer, and D.R. Reed. 2000. Historical changes in the forests of the Luce District of the upper peninsula of Michigan. American Midland Naturalist 143:94–110.