Journal of Forestry Research

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 237–248 | Cite as

The coppice-with-standards silvicultural system as applied to Eucalyptus plantations — a review

  • Antonio Carlos Ferraz Filho
  • José Roberto Soares Scolforo
  • Blas Mola-Yudego
Review Article


We review the management of Eucalyptus species under a coppice-with-standards (CWS) silvicultural system. CWS management results in product diversification, permitting production of small and large scale timber from the same stand. Eucalyptus species are suitable candidates for CWS management because: there are large worldwide plantation areas, sprouting capacity is high, and eucalypts are multipurpose species. We discuss (1) short rotation Eucalyptus coppice management for energy and pulping and (2) Eucalyptus seedling management for solid wood products. We review the literature and discuss experiences with Eucalyptus managed under the CWS system. We also assess projects dealing with Eucalyptus coppice management, stand density regulation, pruning, and stand and wood quality. The growth environment of the standard trees (heavy competition up to the first harvest, free growth afterwards) coupled with long rotations (>20 years) results in high quality logs for solid wood products. Early pruning should be applied to enhance wood quality. We propose a system for the silvicultural management of Eucalyptus under the CWS system, elaborating on the consequences of initial planting density, site productivity, and standard tree densities as well as timing of basic silvicultural applications.


stand density regulation coppice management pruning silvicultural system stand production diversification CWS 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abbott I, Loneragan O. 1982. Growth rate of jarrah (Eucalyptus marginata) coppice. Australian Forest Research, 13: 67–73.Google Scholar
  2. ABRAF. 2012. Yearbook statistical ABRAF 2012, base year 2011. Brasília: Brazilian Association of Forest Plantation Producers, p.149.Google Scholar
  3. Aguiar IB, Valeri SV, Spinelli P, Sartori Filho AS, Pires CAM. 1995. Thinning density effects on height and diameter growth for Eucalyptus citriodora Hook. IPEF, 49: 1–7.Google Scholar
  4. Almeida G, Brito JO, Perré P. 2010. Alterations in energy properties of eucalyptus wood and bark subjected to torrefaction: The potential of mass loss as a synthetic indicator. Bioresource Technology, 101: 9778–9784.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andrade EN. 1961. The eucalypt, 2nd edn. Jundiaí: Cia Paulista de Estradas de Ferro, p.667.Google Scholar
  6. Azúa MR. 2003. Technology applied by Forestadora Tapebicuá S.A. in forest production. XVIII Jornadas Forestales de Entre Rios.Google Scholar
  7. Batish DR, Singh HP, Kohli RK, Kaur S. 2008. Eucalyptus essential oil as a natural pesticide. Forest Ecology and Management, 256: 2166–2174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bebarata KC. 2006. Teak: Ecology, Silviculture, Management and Profitability. Dehradun: International Book Distributors, p.380.Google Scholar
  9. Bellefontaine R, Gaston A, Petrucci Y. 2000. Management of natural forests of dry tropical zones. Rome: FAO conservation guide 32, p.310.Google Scholar
  10. Biechele T, Nutto L, Becker G. 2009. Growth strain in Eucalyptus nitens at different stages of development. Silva Fennica, 43: 669–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Camargo FRA, Silva CR, Stape JL. 1997. Experimental results from the initial growth phase of Eucalyptus coppice sprouts. Série Técnica IPEF, 11: 115–122.Google Scholar
  12. Campoe OC, Stape JL, Nouvellon Y, Laclau JP, Bauerle WL, Binkley D, Maire GL. 2013. Stem production, light absorption and light use efficiency between dominant and non-dominant trees of Eucalyptus grandis across a productivity gradient in Brazil. Forest Ecology and Management, 288: 14–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Connell MJ, Raison RJ, Jenkins P. 2004. Effects of thinning and coppice control on stand productivity and structure in a silvertop ash (Eucalyptus sieberi L. Johnson) forest. Australian Forestry, 67: 30–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DeBell DS, Keyes CR, Gartner BL. 2001. Wood density of Eucalyptus saligna grown in Hawaiian plantations: effects of silvicultural practices and relation to growth rate. Australian Forestry, 64: 106–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Decocq G, Aubert M, Dupont F, Alard D, Saguez R, Wattez-Franger A, Foucault B, Delelis-Dusollier A, Bardat J. 2004. Plant diversity in a managed temperate deciduous forest: understorey response to two silvicultural systems. Journal of Applied Ecology, 41: 1065–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Montigny LE. 2004. Silviculture treatments for ecosystem management in the Sayward (STEMS): Establishment report for STEMS 1, Snowden Demonstration Forest. B.C. Min. For., Res. Br., Victoria, B.C. Tech. Rep. 017.Google Scholar
  17. Department of Forest Research and Survey. 2009. Managing degraded Sal (Shorea robusta Gaertn. f.) forests in the Terai of Nepal. Kathmandu: Department of Forest Research and Survey.Google Scholar
  18. Dickson RL, Raymond CA, Joe W, Wilkinson CA. 2003. Segregation of Eucalyptus dunnii logs using acoustics. Forest Ecology and Management, 179: 243–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Espinoza ERN, Cárdenas XF, Barra PAN, Bancalari MAE. 2009. Effect of silvicultural management and type of crown on basic density of Eucalyptus nitens. Floresta, 39: 345–354.Google Scholar
  20. Eyles A, Mohammed C. 2003. Kino vein formation in Eucalyptus globulus and E. nitens. Australian Forestry, 66: 206–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fagg PC. 2006. Thinning of Ash Eucalypt Regrowth. Native Forest Silviculture Guideline No. 13, Land and Natural Resources Division, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria.Google Scholar
  22. Ferrari MP, Ferrari CA, Silva HD. 2004. Growing Eucalyptus plantations under the coppice system. Colombo: Embrapa, p.28.Google Scholar
  23. Forestry Commission. 2003. National Inventory of Woodland and Trees. Forestry Commission, Great Britain. Available at:$FILE/nigreatbritain.pdf. [Accessed on 10 July 2011].Google Scholar
  24. Forrester D, Bauhus J, Connell M. 2003. Competition in thinned Silvertop Ash (Eucalyptus sieberi L. Johnson) stands from early coppice growth. Forest Ecology and Management, 174: 459–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Forrester DI, Baker TG. 2012. Growth responses to thinning and pruning in Eucalyptus globulus, Eucalyptus nitens, and Eucalyptus grandis plantations in southeastern Australia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 42: 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Forrester DI, Bertram CA, Murphy S. 2012. Impact of competition from coppicing stumps on the growth of retained trees differs in thinned Eucalyptus globulus and Eucalyptus tricarpa plantations in southeastern Australia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 42: 841–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Forrester DI, Medhurst JL, Wood M, Beadle CL, Valencia JC. 2010. Growth and physiological responses to silviculture for producing solid-wood products from Eucalyptus plantations: An Australian perspective. Forest Ecology and Management, 259: 1819–1835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fuller RJ, Warren MS. 1993. Coppiced woodlands: their management for wildlife. 2nd edn. Peterborough: JNCC, p.29.Google Scholar
  29. Geldres E, Schlatter JE, Marcoleta A. 2004. Coppice options for three Eucalyptus species, a case in the Osorno Province, X Region. Bosque, 25: 57–62.Google Scholar
  30. Gonçalves JLM, Stape JL, Laclau JP, Bouillet JP, Ranger J. 2008. Assessing the effects of early silvicultural management on long-term site productivity of fast-growing eucalypt plantations: the Brazilian experience. Southern Forests, 70: 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Goulart M, Haselein CR, Hoppe JM, Farias JA, Pauleski DT. 2003. Basic density and dry mass of wood of Eucalyptus grandis as affected by tree spacing and trunk position. Ciência Florestal, 13: 167–175.Google Scholar
  32. Guedes ICL, Coelho Júnior LM, Oliveira AD, Mello JM, Rezende JLP, Silva CPC. 2011. Economic analysis of replacement regeneration and coppice regeneration in eucalyptus stands under risk conditions. Cerne, 17: 393–401.Google Scholar
  33. Higa RCV, Sturion JA. 1991. Sprouting evaluation of thirteen Eucalyptus species in Uberaba — MG. Boletim de Pesquisa Florestal, 23: 79–86.Google Scholar
  34. IBGE. 2011. Production from plant extraction and silviculture. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Available at: [Accessed 26 September 2012]Google Scholar
  35. Iglesias-Trabado G, Wilstermann D. 2008. Eucalyptus universalis. Global cultivated eucalypt forests map 2008. Version 1.0.1. In GIT Forestry Consulting’s EUCALYPTOLOGICS: information resources on Eucalyptus cultivation worldwide. Accessed 29 March 2009.Google Scholar
  36. Inoue MT, Stöhr GWD. 1991. Technical and economical feasibility of the use of coppice with standards method in Eucalyptus grandis plantations. In: R.A. Seitz, C.B. Reissmann, J.G.A. Carneiro, J.R. Malinovski and R.V. Soares (eds), The challenge of neotropical forests. Curitiba: UFPR, pp. 330–343.Google Scholar
  37. Kearney D, James R, Montagu K, Smith RGB. 2007. The effect of initial planting density on branching characteristics of Eucalyptus pilularis and E. grandis. Australian Forestry, 70: 262–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kojima M, Yamaji FM, Yamamoto H, Yoshida M, Saegusa K. 2009. Determining factor of xylem maturation in Eucalyptus grandis planted in different latitudes and climatic divisions of South America: a view based on fiber length. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 39: 1971–1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Larson PR. 1963. Stem form development of forest trees. Forest Science, Monograph 5.Google Scholar
  40. Larson PR, Kretschmann DE, Clark A, Isebrands JG. 2001. Formation and properties of juvenile wood in southern pines: a synopsis. Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL-GTR-129. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory.Google Scholar
  41. Lassauce A, Anselle P, Lieutier F, Bouget C. 2012. Coppice-with-standards with an overmature coppice component enhance saproxylic beetle biodiversity: A case study in French deciduous forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 266: 273–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lindenmayer DB, Hobbs RJ. 2004. Fauna conservation in Australian plantation forests — a review. Biological Conservation, 119: 151–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Little KM, Gardner RAW. 2003. Coppicing ability of 20 Eucalyptus species grown at two high-altitude sites in South Africa. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 33: 181–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Machado CC, Ignácio AS, Vale AB, Souza Júnior HSS. 1990. Effects of timber removal with a cable skidder on Eucalyptus alba sprouts. Revista Árvore, 14: 55–60.Google Scholar
  45. Machar I. 2009. Coppice-with-standards in floodplain forests — a new subject for nature protection. Journal of Forest Science, 55: 306–311.Google Scholar
  46. Maestri R. 2003. Forest management criteria for solid wood production: the Aracruz case. XVIII Jornadas Forestales de Entre Rios.Google Scholar
  47. Malan FS, Hoon M. 1992. Effect of initial spacing and thinning on some wood properties of Eucalyptus grandis. South African Forestry Journal, 163: 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Matthews JD. 1991. Silvicultural systems. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 296 pp.Google Scholar
  49. Montagu K, Kearney D, Smith RGB. 2003. The biology and silviculture of pruning planted eucalypts for clear wood production — a review. Forest Ecology and Management, 179: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Neilsen WA, Gerrand AM. 1999. Growth and branching habit of Eucalyptus nitens at different spacing and the effect on final crop selection. Forest Ecology and Management, 123: 217–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Néri AC, Gonçalves R, Hernandez RE. 2000. Orthogonal 90–90 cutting forces for three wood species of Eucalyptus. Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental, 4: 275–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nobre SR, Rodriguez LCE. 2001. A method for the creation and economic evaluation of coppice regimes. Scientia Forestalis, 60: 29–44.Google Scholar
  53. Nutto L, Touza Vázquez MC. 2004. High quality sawnwood production with Eucalyptus globulus. CIS-Madera, 12: 6–18.Google Scholar
  54. Nutto L, Spathelf P, Seling I. 2006. Management of individual tree diameter growth and implications for pruning for Brazilian Eucalyptus grandis Hill ex Maiden. Floresta, 36: 397–413.Google Scholar
  55. Pinkard EA, Beadle CL. 1998. Effects of green pruning on growth and stem shape of Eucalyptus nitens (Deane and Maiden) Maiden. New Forests, 15: 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pinkard EA, Neilsen WA. 2003. Crown and stand characteristics of Eucalyptus nitens in response to initial spacing: implications for thinning. Forest Ecology and Management, 172: 215–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pires VAV, Silva ML, Silva CM, Rezende AAP, Cordeiro SA, Jacovine LAG, Soares NS. 2008. Economic viability for implantation of an integrated unit of management of solid residuals in the furniture industry of Ubá, MG. Cerne, 14: 295–303.Google Scholar
  58. Poynton RJ. 1983. The silvicultural treatment of eucalypt plantations in Southern Africa. Silvicultura, 31: 603–605.Google Scholar
  59. Reis GG, Reis MGF. 1997. Eucalyptus sprouting physiology with emphasis in water relations. Série Técnica IPEF, 11: 9–22.Google Scholar
  60. Reynders M. 1984. A coppice with standards system adapted to Eucalyptus plantations for rural communities. Silva Gandavensis, 50: 19–37.Google Scholar
  61. Rezende JLP, Souza AN, Oliveira AD. 2005. The optimal time for substitution of Eucalyptus spp. plantations — the technological progress case. Cerne, 11: 1–15.Google Scholar
  62. Rocha PLB, Viana BF, Cardoso MZ, Melo AMC, Costa MGC, Vasconcelos RN, Dantas TB. 2013. What is the value of eucalyptus monocultures for the biodiversity of the Atlantic forest? A multitaxa study in southern Bahia, Brazil. Journal of Forestry Research, 24: 263–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rowan CA, Mitchell SJ, Temesgen H. 2003. Effectiveness of clearcut edge windfirming treatments in coastal British Columbia: short-term results. Forestry, 76: 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ryan MG, Binkley D, Fownes JH, Giardina CP, Senock RS. 2003. An experimental test of the causes of forest growth decline with stand age. Ecological Monographs, 74: 393–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Silveira RLVA, Takahashi EN, Sgarbi F, Camargo MAF, Moreira A. 2000. Development and nutrition of Eucalyptus citriodora tree sprouting under boron rates in nutrient solution. Scientia Forestalis, 57: 53–67.Google Scholar
  66. Sims REH, Senelwa K, Maiava T, Bullock BT. 1999. Eucalyptus species for biomass energy in New Zealand — Part II: Coppice performance. Biomass and Bioenergy, 17: 333–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Smith RGB, Brennan P. 2006. First thinning in sub-tropical eucalypt plantations grown for high-value solid-wood products: a review. Australian Forestry, 69: 305–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Smith RGB, Dingle J, Kearney D, Montagu K. 2006. Branch occlusion after pruning in four contrasting sub-tropical eucalypt species. Journal of Tropical Forest Science, 18: 117–123.Google Scholar
  69. Soares TS, Carvalho RMMA, Vale AB. 2003. Economic evaluation of Eucalyptus grandis stands for multiproduct use. Revista Árvore, 27: 689–694.Google Scholar
  70. Souza AN, Rezende JLP, Oliveira AD. 2001. Optimal time for substitution of Eucalyptus spp populations — the case of constant technology. Cerne, 7: 93–103.Google Scholar
  71. Souza FC, Reis GG, Reis MGF, Leite HG, Alves FF, Faria RS, Pereira MM. 2012. Survival, sprout number and diameter growth of coppice and intact plants of eucalypt clones. Floresta e Ambiente, 19: 44–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Spina-França F. 1989. The effect of the number of remaining trees on the wood production of Eucalyptus saligna Smith. in second rotation. Thesis, Universidade de São Paulo.Google Scholar
  73. Stape JL, Madachi JC, Bacacicci DD, Oliveira MS. 1993. Eucalyptus spp sprout management: technical and operational results. Circular Técnica IPEF, 183: 1–13.Google Scholar
  74. Stape JL. 1997. Global planning and standardization of operational procedures of simple coppice in Eucalyptus. Série Técnica IPEF, 11: 51–62.Google Scholar
  75. Stape JL, Binkley D, Ryan MG, Fonseca S, Loos RA, Takahashi EN, Silva CR, Silva SR, Hakamada RE, Ferreira JMA, Lima AMN, Gava JL, Leite FP, Andrade HB, Alves JM, Silva GGC, Azevedo MR. 2010. The Brazil Eucalyptus Potential Productivity Project: Influence of water, nutrients and stand uniformity on wood production. Forest Ecology and Management, 259: 1684–1694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stewart PJ. 1980. Coppice with standards: a system for the future. Commonwealth Forestry Review, 59: 149–154.Google Scholar
  77. Teixeira TOB, Silva ML, Jacovine LAG, Valverde SR, Silva JC, Pires VAV. 2009. The perception of manufacturers of the furniture center of Ubá-MG about the use of Eucalyptus wood. Revista Árvore, 33: 969–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Trevisan R, Haselein CR, Santini EJ, Schneider PR, Menezes LF. 2007. Effect of the thinning intensity in the dendrometric and technological characteristics of the wood of Eucalyptus grandis. Ciência Florestal, 17: 377–387.Google Scholar
  79. Troup RS. 1928. Silvicultural Systems. Oxford: Clarendon Press, p.199.Google Scholar
  80. Touza Vázquez MC. 2001. Investigation project about adequate sawing systems to process Eucalyptus globulus with growth strains. CIS-Madera, 6: 8–37.Google Scholar
  81. Valencia J, Harwood C, Washusen R, Morrow A, Wood M, Volker P. 2011. Longitudinal growth strain as a log and wood quality predictor for plantation-grown Eucalyptus nitens sawlogs. Wood Science and Technology, 45: 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wardlaw TJ, Neilsen WA. 1999. Decay and other defects associated with pruned branches of Eucalyptus nitens. Tasforests, 11: 49–57.Google Scholar
  83. Warren E, Smith RGB, Apiolaza LA, Walker JCF. 2009. Effect of stocking on juvenile wood stiffness for three Eucalyptus species. New Forests, 37: 241–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Webb DB, Wood PJ, Smith JP, Henman GS. 1984. A guide to species selection for tropical and sub-tropical plantations, 2nd edn. Oxford: Commonwealth Forestry Institute, p.256.Google Scholar
  85. Whittock SP, Greaves BL, Apiolaza LA. 2004. A cash flow model to compare coppice and genetically improved seedling options for Eucalyptus globulus pulpwood plantations. Forest Ecology and Management, 191: 267–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wohlgemuth T, Burgi M, Scheidegger C, Schutz M. 2002. Dominance reduction of species through disturbance — a proposed management principle for central European forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 166: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wood MJ, Scott R, Volker PW, Mannes DJ. 2008. Windthrow in Tasmania, Australia: monitoring, prediction and management. Forestry, 81: 415–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Northeast Forestry University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio Carlos Ferraz Filho
    • 1
  • José Roberto Soares Scolforo
    • 1
  • Blas Mola-Yudego
    • 2
  1. 1.Departamento de Ciências FlorestaisUniversidade Federal de Lavras (UFLA)LavrasBrasil
  2. 2.School of Forest SciencesUniversity of Eastern Finland (UEF)JoensuuFinland

Personalised recommendations