Advertisement

New Forests

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 89–103 | Cite as

Predicting the productivity of a young hybrid poplar clone under intensive plantation management in northern Alberta, Canada using soil and site characteristics

  • Bradley D. Pinno
  • Barb R. Thomas
  • Nicolas Bélanger
Article

Abstract

Site productivity of the hybrid poplar clone Brooks6 was predicted using soil and site information from 6, 4-year-old plantations in north-east Alberta. Predictions were made at both the local and microsite scales. Percent sand (R 2 = 0.352, P = 0.001) was the best single predictor of hybrid poplar productivity, showing a curved relationship. Soil pH also showed a curved but weaker relationship with hybrid poplar productivity (R 2 = 0.133, P = 0.100). Maximum tree productivity occurred at sand contents between 55 and 70% and pH values near 6. Other variables, including foliar nutrient concentrations, foliar δ13C, electrical conductivity, depth of the A horizon and total chemistry of the soil, were also related to hybrid poplar productivity at the local and microsite scales. However, all of these variables were correlated to either soil texture (percent sand) or pH. At the microsite scale within plantations, percent sand was the most important predictor of tree productivity and explained more than 50% of the variability within plantations, although the relationship varied by plantation. In plantations with fine textures, sandier microsites were associated with increased growth while in sandy plantations, finer textured microsites were more productive. As a whole, the growth of the hybrid poplar clone Brooks6 appears to be mostly influenced by a combination of soil water and nutrient availability, the former being impacted by soil texture and the latter being governed by soil pH.

Keywords

Brooks6 Afforestation Soil water availability Soil nutrient availability Foliar nutrients Tree productivity Hybrid poplar Plantation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. A special thanks to M. Emigh for his valuable help in the field and laboratory. We also thank J. Ramsum from Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc. (Al-Pac) for providing site histories and helping us access the plantations and G. Keating of the McGill University Center for Trace Element Analysis Laboratory for conducting XRF analyses on our soil samples. This study was made possible by financial support from the Saskatchewan Forest Centre (now ForestFirst), Al-Pac and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

References

  1. Bowersox TW, Ward WW (1977) Soil fertility, growth, and yield of young hybrid poplar plantations in central Pennsylvania. For Sci 23:463–469Google Scholar
  2. Brady NC, Weil RR (1996) The nature and properties of soil, 11th edn. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, p 740Google Scholar
  3. Carmean WH (1975) Forest site quality evaluation in the United States. Adv Agronomy 27:209–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. DesRochers A, van den Driessche R, Thomas BR (2006) NPK fertilization at planting of three hybrid poplar clones in the boreal region of Alberta. For Ecol Manage 232:216–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DesRochers A, van den Driessche R, Thomas BR (2007) The interaction between nitrogen source, soil pH, and drought in the growth and physiology of three poplar clones. Can J Bot 85:1046–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ericsson T, Rytter L, Linder S (1992) Nutritional dynamics and requirements of short rotation forests. In: Mitchell CP, Ford-Robertson JB, Hinckley T, Sennerby-Forsse L (eds) Ecophysiology of short rotation forest crops. Elsevier Applied Science, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Hansen EA (1994) A guide for determining when to fertilize hybrid poplar plantations. North Central Forest Experiment Station Research Paper NC-319, US Dept. of Agriculture, St. Paul, Minnesota, 7 ppGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Hofmann-Schielle C, Jug A, Makeschin F, Rehfuess KE (1999) Short-rotation plantations of balsam poplars, aspen and willows on former arable land in the Federal Republic of Germany. I. Site-growth relationships. For Ecol Manage 121:41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hogg EH, Brandt JP, Kochtubajda B (2005) Factors affecting interannual variation in growth of western Canadian aspen forests during 1951–2000. Can J For Res 35:610–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Horsley SB, Long RP, Bailey SW, Hallett RA, Hall TJ (2000) Factors associated with the decline disease of sugar maple on the Allegheny Plateau. Can J For Res 30:1365–1378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Houle D, Tremblay S, Ouimet R (2007) Foliar and wood chemistry of sugar maple along a gradient of soil acidity and stand health. Plant Soil 300:173–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Joss BN, Hall RJ, Sidders DM, Keddy TJ (2007) Fuzzy-logic modeling of land suitability for hybrid poplar across the Prairie Provinces of Canada. Env Mon Assess 141:79–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Knecht MF, Göransson A (2004) Terrestrial plants require nutrients in similar proportions. Tree Phys 24:447–460Google Scholar
  17. Lu E-Y, Sucoff EI (2001) Responses of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) seedling to solution calcium. Can J For Res 31:123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Martin JL, Gower ST (2006) Boreal mixedwood tree growth on contrasting soils and disturbance types. Can J For Res 36:986–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. McNulty SG, Swank WT (1995) Wood δ13C as a measure of annual basal area growth and soil water stress in a Pinus strobus forest. Ecology 76:1581–1586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Messier C, Bigué B, Bernier L (2003) Using fast-growing plantations to promote forest ecosystem protection in Canada. Unasylva 54:59–63Google Scholar
  22. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (1991) A grower’s guide to hybrid poplar. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Queen’s Printer, Toronto, p 148Google Scholar
  23. Paré D, Bergeron Y, Longpré M-H (2001) Potential productivity of aspen cohorts originating from fire, harvesting, and tree-fall gaps on two deposit types in northwestern Quebec. Can J For Res 31:1067–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pinno BD, Bélanger N (2009) Competition control in juvenile hybrid poplar plantations across a range of site productivities in central Saskatchewan. New For 37:213–225Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Schroeder W, Silim S, Fradette J, Patterson J, de Gooijer 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
  27. Sedjo RA (1999) The potential of high-yield plantation forestry for meeting timber needs. New For 17:339–359Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. Ung CH, Bernier PY, Raulier F, Fournier RA, Lambert MC, Regniere J (2001) Biophysical site indices for shade tolerant and intolerant boreal species. For Sci 47:83–95Google Scholar
  31. van Oosten C (2006) Hybrid poplar crop manual for the Prairie Provinces. Forest Development Fund final report. Saskatchewan Forest Centre, Prince Albert, p 232Google Scholar
  32. Warren CR, McGrath JF, Adams MA (2001) Water availability and carbon isotope discrimination in conifers. Oecologia 127:476–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wittwer RF, Immel MJ (1980) Chemical composition of five deciduous tree species in four-year-old, closely spaced plantations. Plant Soil 54:461–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bradley D. Pinno
    • 1
  • Barb R. Thomas
    • 2
  • Nicolas Bélanger
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of ReginaReginaCanada
  2. 2.Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc.BoyleCanada
  3. 3.UER Sciences et technologies, TéluqUniversité du Québec à MontréalMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations