New Forests

, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 213–225 | Cite as

Competition control in juvenile hybrid poplar plantations across a range of site productivities in central Saskatchewan, Canada

Article

Abstract

The response of hybrid poplar plantations established on former agricultural land in Saskatchewan to competition from weeds on a range of site productivities was studied. The short-term impact of competition control on the growth of juvenile trees and how tree responses to competition control differed across the productivity gradient was of particular interest, as was the determination of which resource was most highly competed for and was most important in determining tree growth. Eight sets of paired plots in juvenile hybrid poplar plantations were established in central Saskatchewan across a range of site productivities. In each pair, one plot had complete weed control (weed-free) while in the other plot weeds were allowed to grow. The best soil predictor of tree growth was soil texture, represented by a combination of the percentage silt and clay, with finer textures showing better growth. Competition control significantly increased tree growth on all sites with the benefit being greatest on the higher productivity sites. Soil water appeared to be highly competed for between trees and weeds and was a dominant resource controlling growth. For soil nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorous were highly competed for between trees and weeds. However, leaf phosphorous concentration of the weed-free plots had a strong positive relation to tree growth while nitrogen did not, indicating that when trees are free of competition they can access sufficient nitrogen from these soils.

Keywords

Agricultural soils Productivity Competition control Foliar nutrition Soil moisture Growth rates Leaf weights 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank M. Emigh, J. Jackson and N. Roberston for their hard work in the field and laboratory. This study was made possible by financial support from the AFIF Chair in Agroforestry and Afforestation, the University of Saskatchewan and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

References

  1. Armas C, Ordiales R, Pugnaire FI (2004) Measuring plant interactions: a new comparative index. Ecology 85:2682–2686. doi: 10.1890/03-0650 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Binkley D, Högberg P (1997) Does atmospheric deposition of nitrogen threaten Swedish forests? For Ecol Manag 92:119–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biring SB, Comeau PG, Fielder P (2003) Long-term effects of vegetation control treatments for release of Engelmann spruce from a mixed-shrub community in Southern British Columbia. Ann For Sci 60:681–690. doi: 10.1051/forest:2003062 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowersox TW, Ward WW (1977) Soil fertility, growth, and yield of young hybrid poplar plantations in central Pennsylvania. For Sci 23:463–469Google Scholar
  5. Cain MD (1999) Woody and herbaceous competition effects on stand dynamics and growth of 13-year-old natural, precommercially thinned loblolly and shortleaf pine. Can J For Res 29:947–959. doi: 10.1139/cjfr-29-7-947 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlyle JC (1986) Nitrogen cycling in forested ecosystems. For Abstr 47:306–336Google Scholar
  7. Carmean WH (1975) Forest site quality evaluation in the United States. Adv Agron 27:209–269. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2113(08)70011-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carmean WH (1996) Site-quality evaluation, site-quality maintenance, and site-specific management for forest land in northwest Ontario. Northwest Science and Technology Unit Technical Report TR-105. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Thunder Bay, Ontario, 121 ppGoogle Scholar
  9. Coleman M, Tolstad D, Nichols T, Johnson WD, Wene EG, Houghtaling T (2006) Post-establishment fertilizer of Minnesota hybrid poplar plantations. Biomass Bioenergy 30:740–749. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2006.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goldberg D, Novoplansky A (1997) On the relative importane of competition in unproductive environments. J Ecol 85:409–418. doi: 10.2307/2960565 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldberg DE, Rajaniemi T, Gurevitch J, Stewart-Oaten A (1999) Empirical approaches to quantifying interaction intensity: competition and facilitation along productivity gradients. Ecology 80:1118–1131Google Scholar
  12. Gomez GA, Singer MJ, Powers RF, Horwath WR (2002) Soil compaction effects on water status of ponderosa pine assessed through 13C/12C. Tree Physiol 22:459–467PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Grime JP (1973) Competitive exclusion in herbaceous vegetation. Nature 242:344–347. doi: 10.1038/242344a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guillemette T (2006) Effets de la fertilisation localisée sur la croissance et la nutrition de peupliers hybrides en Abitibi-Témiscamingue. M.Sc. Thesis, Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec, 70 ppGoogle Scholar
  15. Hansen EA (1994) A guide for determining when to fertilize hybrid poplar plantations. North Central Forest Experiment Station research paper NC-319, U.S. Department of Agriculture, St. Paul, Minnesota, 7 ppGoogle Scholar
  16. Hansen EA, McLaughlin RA, Pope PE (1988) Biomass and nitrogen dynamics of hybrid poplar on two different soils: implications for fertilization strategy. Can J For Res 18:223–230Google Scholar
  17. Havlin JL, Beaton JD, Tisdale SL, Nelson WL (2005) Soil fertility and fertilizers an introduction to nutrient management, 7th edn. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, p 528Google Scholar
  18. Hendershot WH, Lalande H, Duquette M (1993) Ion exchange and exchangeable cations. In: Carter MR (ed) Soil sampling and methods of analysis. Lewis Publisher, Boca Raton, pp 167–176Google Scholar
  19. Jylhä P, Hytönen J (2006) Effect of vegetation control on the survival and growth of Scots pine and Norway spruce planted on former agricultural land. Can J For Res 36:2400–2411. doi: 10.1139/X06-053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kabba BS, Knight JD, Van Rees KCJ (2007) Growth of hybrid poplar as affected by dandelion and quackgrass competition. Plant Soil 298:203–217. doi: 10.1007/s11104-007-9355-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Knecht MF, Göransson A (2004) Terrestrial plants require nutrients in similar proportions. Tree Physiol 24:447–460PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Ladd B, Facelli JM (2007) Effects of neighbouring vegetation on eucalypt seedlings at two sites subject to different levels of abiotic stress. Austral Ecol 32:145–154. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2006.01659.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Little RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD (1996) SAS system for mixed models. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, p 633Google Scholar
  24. Little KM, Rolando CA, Morris CD (2007) An integrated analysis of 33 Eucalyptus trials linking the onset of competition induced tree growth suppression with management, physiographic and climatic factors. Ann For Sci 64:585–592. doi: 10.1051/forest:2007036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Löf M, Welander NT (2004) Influence of herbaceous competitors on early growth in direct seeded Fagus sylvatica L. and Quercus robur L. Ann For Sci 61:781–788. doi: 10.1051/forest:2004075 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lu E-Y, Sucoff EI (2001) Responses of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) seedling to solution calcium. Can J For Res 31:123–131. doi: 10.1139/cjfr-31-1-123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mason EG, Milne PG (1999) Effects of weed control, fertilization, and soil cultivation on the growth of Pinus radiata at midrotationin Canterbury, New Zealand. Can J For Res 29:985–992. doi: 10.1139/cjfr-29-7-985 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McKenney DW, Yemshanov D, Fox G, Ramlal E (2004) Cost estimates for carbon sequestration from fast growing poplar plantations in Canada. For Policy Econ 6:345–358Google Scholar
  29. Nambiar EKS, Sands R (1993) Competition for water and nutrients in forests. Can J For Res 23:1955–1968. doi: 10.1139/x93-247 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Newman EI (1973) Competition and diversity in herbaceous vegetation. Nature 244:310. doi: 10.1038/244310a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Perry MA, Mitchell RJ, Zutter BR, Glover GR, Gjerstad DH (1993) Competitive responses of loblolly pine to gradients in loblolly pine, sweet gum and broom sedge densities. Can J For Res 23:2049–2058. doi: 10.1139/x93-256 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Powell GW, Bork EW (2004) Competition and facilitation in mixtures of aspen seedlings, alfalfa, and reedgrass. Can J For Res 34:1858–1869. doi: 10.1139/x04-065 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Powers RF, Reynolds PE (1999) Ten-year responses of ponderosa pine plantations to repeated vegetation and nutrient control along an environmental gradient. Can J For Res 29:1027–1038. doi: 10.1139/cjfr-29-7-1027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reich PB, Grigal DF, Aber JA, Gower ST (1997) Nitrogen mineralization and productivity in 50 hardwood and conifer stands on diverse soils. Ecology 78:335–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sage RB (1999) Weed competition in willow coppice crops: the cause and extent of yield losses. Weed Sci 39:399–411Google Scholar
  36. Schroeder W, Silim S, Patterson Fradette J, de Grooijer H (2003) Detailed site analysis and mapping of agroforestry potential in the northern agricultural zone of Saskatchewan. Forest Development Fund final report. Saskatchewan Forest Centre, Prince AlbertGoogle Scholar
  37. Shock CC, Feibert EBG, Seddigh M, Saunders LD (2002) Water requirements and growth of irrigated hybrid poplar in a semi-arid environment in eastern Oregon. West J Appl For 17:46–53Google Scholar
  38. Snowdon P (2002) Modeling Type 1 and Type 2 growth responses in plantations after application of fertilizer or other silvicultural treatments. For Ecol Manag 163:229–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Soil Classification Working Group (1998) The Canadian system of soil classification, 3rd edn. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Publication 1646 (Revised). NRC Research Press, Ottawa, p 187Google Scholar
  40. Stewart GR, Turnbull MH, Schmidt S, Erskine PD (1995) 13C natural abundance in plant communities along a rainfall gradient: a biological integrator of water availability. Aust J Plant Physiol 22:51–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tilman D (1988) Plant strategies and the dynamics and structure of plant communities. Princeton University Press, Princeton, p 376Google Scholar
  42. van Oosten C (2006) Hybrid poplar crop manual for the prairie provinces. Forest Development Fund final report, Saskatchewan Forest Centre, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, 232 ppGoogle Scholar
  43. Van Rees K, Lazorko H, Silim S (2006) Enhancing hybrid poplar growth by nitrogen fertilization. Forest Development Fund final report. Saskatchewan Forest Centre, Prince Albert, p 27Google Scholar
  44. Wagner RG, Little KM, Richardson B, McNabb K (2006) The role of vegetation management for enhancing productivity of the world’s forests. Forestry 79:57–79. doi: 10.1093/forestry/cpi057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wittwer RF, Immel MJ (1980) Chemical composition of five deciduous tree species in four-year-old, closely spaced plantations. Plant Soil 54:461–467. doi: 10.1007/BF02181838 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhang J, Oliver WW, Busse MD (2006) Growth and development of ponderosa pine on sites of contrasting productivities: relative importance of stand density and shrub competitive effects. Can J For Res 36:2426–2438. doi: 10.1139/X06-078 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Soil ScienceUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of ReginaReginaCanada
  3. 3.UER Sciences et Technologies, TéluqUniversité du Québec à MontréalQuébecCanada

Personalised recommendations