Annals of Forest Science

, 74:66 | Cite as

Does debarking intensity during the first cork extraction affect future cork thickness?

Original Paper


Key message

The use of increasing debarking during the first harvest of cork oak trees ( Quercus suber L.) had no effect on the secondary cork calliper (thickness) in one of the trials and had a small negative effect in a second trial. Little evidence was found that debarking coefficient is a useful index for the management of cork oak stands.


The Portuguese national legislation defines, without the support of scientific data or knowledge, maximum values of debarking coefficients (ratio of debarking height and perimeter at breast height measured over cork). For the first debarking, this value is limited to 2.0.


The aim of this study was to determine the impact of increasing cork debarking coefficient on the calliper of the secondary cork extraction.


Trees were located in two sites, in distinct regions characterized by low or high productivity classes. Three debarking coefficients were considered: 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5. The debarking coefficient for the first cork extraction was randomly selected for each tree. During the second debarking, a cork sample was taken from each tree. The samples were used for assessing secondary cork calliper. Differences in cork calliper were analysed using both correlation analysis and modelling approaches.


Debarking intensity increase had a small negative effect on secondary cork thickness in the most inland site, while no effect was detected in the more coastal site.


In our experiment, debarking intensity had a significant but small effect in one site and no effect in other sites. Debarking coefficients not only should be defined according to legal constraints but also instead should be adapted considering tree and site characteristics.


Quercus suber L. Montado Debarking coefficient Debarking height Secondary cork Cork thickness Cork calliper 



The authors acknowledge Cristina Gonçalves, Sónia Pacheco Faias, Susana Barreiro, Sofia Leal and Sofia Knapic for their collaboration during measurements and sample collection.

Supplementary material

13595_2017_662_MOESM1_ESM.jpg (59 kb)
ESM 1 (JPEG 59 kb).


  1. Coelho MB, Paulo JA, Palma JHN, Tomé M (2012) Contribution of cork oak plantations installed after 1990 in Portugal to the Kyoto commitments and to the landowners economy. For Policy Econ 17:59–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Corona P, Dettori S, Filigheddu MR, Scotti R (2005) Site quality evaluation by classification tree: an application to cork quality in Sardinia. Eur J Forest Res 124:37–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Correia OA, Oliveira GM, Martins-Loução MA, Catarino FM (1992) Effects of bark-stripping on the water relations of Quercus suber L. Scientia gerundensis 18:195–204Google Scholar
  4. Costa A, Pereira H, Oliveira A (2004) The effect of cork-stripping damage on diameter growth of Quercus suber L. Forestry 77:1–8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Costa A, Nunes LC, Spiecker H, Graça J (2015) Insights into the responsiveness of cork oak (Quercus suber L.) to bark harvesting. Econ Bot 69:171–184. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. den Herder M, Moreno G, Mosquera-Losada R, Palma JHN, Sidiropoulou A, Freijanes JJS, Crous-Duran J, Paulo JA, Tomé M, Pantera A, Papanastasis VP, Mantzanas K, Pachana P, Papadopoulos A, Plieninger T, Burgess PJ (2017) Current extent and stratification of agroforestry in the European Union. Agric Ecosyst Environ 241:121–132. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Du B, Kang H, Zhu Y, Zhou X, Yin S, Burgess PJ, Liu C (2015) Variation of oriental oak (Quercus variabilis) leaf δ13C across temperate and subtropical China: spatial patterns and sensitivity to precipitation. Forests 6:2296–2306. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fialho C, Lopes F, Pereira H (2001) The effect of cork removal on radial growth and phenology of young cork oak trees. For Ecol Manag 141:251–258. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hakam A, Magne Takam M, Chokairi M, Alami Chantoufi N, Hamoutahra Z, El Alami A, Famiri A, Ziani M, Gril J (2012) Effect of bark stripping on the electrical impedance of Quercus suber leaves. Maderas Ciencia y tecnología 14:195–208. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. IUSS Working Group WRB (2006) World reference base for soil resources 2006. 2nd edition. World Soil Resources reports no. 103, FAO, Rome, 133 ppGoogle Scholar
  11. Leal S, Nunes E, Pereira H (2008) Cork oak (Quercus suber L.) wood growth and vessel characteristics variations in relation to climate and cork harvesting. Eur J Forest Res 127:33–41. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Leite C, Pereira H (2017) Cork-containing barks—a review. Front Mater 3:63. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McDonald JH (2014) Handbook of biological statistics, 3rd edn. Sparky House Publishing, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  14. Myers RH (1990) Classical and modern regression with applications. Second edition. Duxbury Classic Series. 488 ppGoogle Scholar
  15. Natividade JV (1950) Subericultura. Direcção Geral dos Serviços Florestais e Aquicolas, Lisbon, p 387Google Scholar
  16. Oliveira G, Costa A (2012) How resilient is Quercus suber to cork harvesting? A review and identification of knowledge gaps. For Ecol Manag 270:257–272. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Oliveira G, Martins-Loução MA, Correia O (2002) The relative importance of cork harvesting and climate for stem radial growth of Quercus suber L. Ann For Sci 59:439–443. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Palma JHN, Paulo JA, Tomé M (2014) Carbon sequestration of modern Quercus suber L. silvoarable agroforestry systems in Portugal: a YieldSAFE-based estimation. Agrofor Syst 88:791–801. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Paulo JA, Tomé M (2017) Using the SUBER model for assessing the impact of cork debarking rotation on equivalent annual annuity in Portuguese stands. Forest Syst 26:e008, 11 pages. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Paulo JA, Palma JHN, Gomes AA, Faias SP, Tomé J, Tomé M (2015) Predicting site index from climate and soil variables for cork oak (Quercus suber L.) stands in Portugal. New For 46:293–307. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Paulo JA, Pereira H, Tomé M (2016) Analysis of variables influencing tree cork caliper in two consecutive cork extractions using cork growth index modelling. Agrofor Syst.
  22. Pereira H (2007) Cork biology, production and uses. Elsevier Science B.V, Amsterdam 346 ppGoogle Scholar
  23. Pinheiro JMG (1997) Estabelecimento de parcelas permanentes de Quercus suber L. no Perímetro Florestal da Contenda. Relatório do trabalho de fim de curso de Engenharia Florestal. Instituto Superior de Agronomia, LisboaGoogle Scholar
  24. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-Plus. Stat. And comput. series. Springer, New York, p 528Google Scholar
  25. Pizzurro GM, Maetzke F, Veca DSLM (2010) Differences of raw quality cork in productive cork oak woods in Sicily in relation to stand density. For Ecol Manag 260:923–929. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Plieninger T, Hartel T, Martín-López B, Beaufoy G, Bergmeier E, Kirby K, Montero MJ, Moreno G, Oteros-Rozas E, Van Uytvanck J (2015) Wood-pastures of Europe: geographic coverage, social–ecological values, conservation management, and policy implications. Biol Conserv 190:70–79. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sánchez-González M, Calama R, Cañellas I, Montero G (2007) Variables influencing cork thickness in Spanish cork oak forests: a modeling approach. Ann For Sci 64:301–312. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Silva JFC, Correia A, Pinto C, David TS, Hernandez V, Pereira JS (2015) Descortiçamento do sobreiro: um stress para a árvore? In: Paulo JA, Oliveira V, Pereira H (ed) Book of abstracts of the 2nd Centro de Estudos Florestais (CEF) conference from research to practice. Subject: Cork oak stands and cork oak. 25th September 2015. Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Lisboa, 27 pp.
  29. Werner C, Correia O (1996) Photoinhibition in cork-oak leaves under stress: influence of the bark-stripping on the chlorophyll fluorescence emission in Quercus suber L. Trees 10:288–292. Google Scholar
  30. Zhou JY, Lin J, He JF, Zhang WH (2010) Review and perspective on Quercus variabilis research. J Northwest For Univ 25:43–49Google Scholar

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer-Verlag France SAS 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Centro de Estudos Florestais, Forest Ecosystem Management under Global Change Research Group (ForChange)Universidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations