Does debarking intensity during the first cork extraction affect future cork thickness?
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.
KeywordsQuercus 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.
- 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
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.03.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-221X2012000200007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- McDonald JH (2014) Handbook of biological statistics, 3rd edn. Sparky House Publishing, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
- Myers RH (1990) Classical and modern regression with applications. Second edition. Duxbury Classic Series. 488 ppGoogle Scholar
- Natividade JV (1950) Subericultura. Direcção Geral dos Serviços Florestais e Aquicolas, Lisbon, p 387Google Scholar
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-9922-2
- Pereira H (2007) Cork biology, production and uses. Elsevier Science B.V, Amsterdam 346 ppGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-Plus. Stat. And comput. series. Springer, New York, p 528Google Scholar
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.05.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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. http://hdl.handle.net/10400.5/9280
- Zhou JY, Lin J, He JF, Zhang WH (2010) Review and perspective on Quercus variabilis research. J Northwest For Univ 25:43–49Google Scholar