Annals of Forest Science

, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp 349–362 | Cite as

Survival and growth of Nothofagus pumilio seedlings under several microenvironments after variable retention harvesting in southern Patagonian forests

  • Guillermo J. Martínez Pastur
  • Rosina Soler Esteban
  • Juan M. Cellini
  • María V. Lencinas
  • Pablo L. Peri
  • Mark G. Neyland
Original Paper

Abstract

Context

Variable retention prescriptions for Nothofagus pumilio forests provide for biodiversity conservation and natural regeneration by controlled opening of the canopy. Harvesting generates different microenvironments which present dissimilar conditions for seedling establishment, due to positive or negative influences over biotic and abiotic factors.

Aims

This study evaluated seedling survival and performance in different microenvironments within the harvested stands. Tested hypotheses stated that seedling stress and performance were influenced by harvesting due to changes in forest structure, microclimate, soil properties, and nutrient availability.

Methods

In the stands harvested by variable retention, five contrasting microenvironments were selected as treatments for the experiments and sampling. Environmental variables were related to ecophysiological, seedling survival, and performance.

Results

The modification of forest structure (crown cover and tree density) and the presence of coarse woody debris greatly affect the effective rainfall and global radiation reaching understorey level, influencing seedling stress and consequently survival and performance. Harvesting also modifies soil properties (e.g., soil bulk density) and coarse woody debris accumulation which in turn influences soil moisture and/or solar radiation levels. Analyses showed that seedlings received benefits of microenvironment variation after harvesting. Areas covered with middle or fine woody debris presented regeneration with better ecophysiological response and seedling performance, although dispersed retention areas (far away from remnant trees) and roads could also present suitable conditions for seedling survival and performance.

Conclusions

The proportion of different microenvironments in the harvested forests will determine the amount of natural recruitment of regeneration and consequently the success of proposed silvicultural management. Forest practices must be manipulated to increase the proportion of favorable microenvironments (e.g., woody debris), allowing greater natural regeneration success during the first years after harvesting.

Keywords

Aggregated retention Dispersed retention Microenvironments Light availability Soil moisture Soil properties 

References

  1. Ammer C, Stimm B, Mosandl R (2008) Ontogenetic variation in the relative influence of light and belowground resources on European beech seedling growth. Tree Physiol 28:721–728PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blood LE, Titus JH (2010) Microsite effects on forest regeneration in a bottomland swamp in western New York. J Torrey Bot Soc 137:88–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bray RH, Kurtz LT (1945) Determination of total, organic, and available forms of phosphorus in soils. Soil Sci 59:39–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buckley D, Crow T, Nauertz E, Schulz K (2003) Influence of skid trails and haul roads on understory plant richness and composition in managed forest landscapes in Upper Michigan, USA. For Ecol Manage 175:509–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caldentey J, Ibarra M, Hernández J (2001) Litter fluxes and decomposition in Nothofagus pumilio stands in the region of Magallanes, Chile. For Ecol Manage 148:145–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caldentey J, Mayer H, Ibarra M, Promis A (2009) The effects of a regeneration felling on photosynthetic photon flux density and regeneration growth in a Nothofagus pumilio forest. Eur J For Res 128:75–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen J, Franklin JF, Spies TA (1995) Growing-season microclimate gradients from clearcut edges into old-growth Douglas-fir forests. Ecol Appl 5:74–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen J, Saunders SC, Crow TR, Naiman RJ, Brosofske KD, Mroz GD, Brookshire BL, Franklin JF (1999) Microclimate in forest ecosystem and landscape ecology. Bioscience 49:288–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cordeiro Y, Pinheiro H, dos Santos FB, Correa S, Silva J, Dias-Filho M (2009) Physiological and morphological responses of young mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla King) plants to drought. For Ecol Manage 258:1449–1455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cuevas JG (2000) Tree recruitment at the Nothofagus pumilio alpine timberline in Tierra del Fuego, Chile. J Ecol 88:840–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fitter AH, Hay RK (2002) Environmental physiology of plants. Academic, London, p 397Google Scholar
  12. Frangi J, Richter L (1994) Balances hídricos de bosques de Nothofagus de Tierra del Fuego, Argentina. Rev Fac Agron de La Plata 70:65–79Google Scholar
  13. Frazer GW, Fournier RA, Trofymow JA, Gall RJ (2001) A comparison of digital and film fisheye photography for analysis of forest canopy structure and gap light transmission. Agric For Meteorol 109:249–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gustafsson L, Baker S, Bauhus J, Beese W, Brodie A, Kouki J, Lindenmayer D, Lõhmus A, Martínez Pastur G, Messier C, Neyland M, Palik B, Sverdrup-Thygeson A, Volney J, Wayne A, Franklin JF (2012) Retention forestry to maintain multifunctional forests: a world perspective. Bioscience 62:633–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gutiérrez E (1994) Els boscos de Nothofagus de la Terra del Foc com a paradigma de dinámica successional del no-equilibri. Treballs de la SCB 45:93–121Google Scholar
  16. Heinemann K, Kitzberger T (2006) Effects of position, understorey vegetation and coarse woody debris on tree regeneration in two environmentally contrasting forests of north-western Patagonia: a manipulative approach. J Biogeogr 33:1357–1367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heinemann K, Kitzberger T, Veblen T (2000) Influences of gap microheterogeneity on the regeneration of Nothofagus pumilio in a xeric old-growth forest of northwestern Patagonia, Argentina. Can J For Res 30:25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heithecker TD, Halpern CB (2007) Edge-related gradients in microclimate in forest aggregates following structural retention harvests in western Washington. For Ecol Manage 248:163–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Howard TM (1973) Studies in the ecology of Nothofagus cunninghamii Oerst. in natural regeneration on the Mt. Donna Buang Massif, Victoria. Aust J Bot 21:67–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kupferschmid AD, Bugmann H (2005) Effects of microsites, logs and ungulate browsing on Picea abies regeneration in a mountain forest. For Ecol Manage 205:251–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lencinas MV, Martínez Pastur G, Gallo E, Cellini JM (2011) Alternative silvicultural practices with variable retention to improve understory plant diversity conservation in southern Patagonian forests. For Ecol Manage 262:1236–1250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lindenmayer D, Franklin JF, Lõhmus A, Baker S, Bauhus J, Beese W, Brodie A, Kiehl B, Kouki J, Martínez Pastur G, Messier C, Neyland M, Palik B, Sverdrup-Thygeson A, Volney J, Wayne A, Gustafsson L (2012) A major shift to the retention approach for forestry can help resolve some global forest sustainability issues. Conserv Let 5:421–431Google Scholar
  23. Martínez Pastur G, Peri P, Vukasovic R, Vaccaro S, Piriz Carrillo V (1997) Site index equation for Nothofagus pumilio Patagonian forest. Phyton 6:55–60Google Scholar
  24. Martínez Pastur G, Lencinas MV, Peri P, Arena M (2007) Photosynthetic plasticity of Nothofagus pumilio seedlings to light intensity and soil moisture. For Ecol Manage 243:274–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martínez Pastur G, Peri P, Cellini JM, Lencinas MV, Barrera M, Ivancich H (2011a) Canopy structure analysis for estimating forest regeneration dynamics and growth in Nothofagus pumilio forests. Ann For Sci 68:587–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martínez Pastur G, Cellini JM, Lencinas MV, Barrera M, Peri P (2011b) Environmental variables influencing regeneration of Nothofagus pumilio in a system with combined aggregated and dispersed retention. For Ecol Manage 261:178–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Martínez Pastur G, Jordán C, Lencinas MV, Soler Esteban R, Ivancich H, Kreps G (2012) Landscape and microenvironmental conditions influence over regeneration dynamics in old-growth Nothofagus betuloides Southern Patagonian forests. Plant Biosyst 146:201–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McCarthy J (2001) Gap dynamics of forest trees: a review with particular attention to boreal forests. Environ Rev 9:1–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Modry M, Hubeny D (2003) Impact of skidder and high-lead system logging on forest soils and advanced regeneration. J For Sci 49:273–280Google Scholar
  30. Neyland M, Hickey J, Read SM (2012) A synthesis of outcomes from the Warra silvicultural systems trial, Tasmania, Australia: safety, timber production, economics, biodiversity, silviculture and social acceptability. Aust For 75:147–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Palik B, Mitchell RJ, Pecot S, Battaglia M, Pu M (2003) Spatial distribution of overstorey retention influences resources and growth of longleaf pine seedlings. Ecol Appl 13:674–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peri P, Martínez Pastur G, Lencinas MV (2009) Photosynthetic and stomatal conductance responses to different light intensities and water status of two main Nothofagus species of south Patagonian forest. For Sci 55:101–111Google Scholar
  33. Rosenfeld JM, Navarro Cerrillo RM, Guzmán Alvarez JR (2006) Regeneration of Nothofagus pumilio (Poepp. et Endl.) Krasser forests after five years of seed tree cutting. J Environ Manage 78:44–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schmidt MG, Ogden AE, Lertzman KP (1998) Seasonal comparison of soil temperature and moisture in pits and mounds under vine maple gaps and conifer canopy in a coastal western hemlock forest. Can J Soil Sci 78:291–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Soler Esteban R, Martínez Pastur G, Lencinas MV, Borrelli L (2012) Forage differential use between native and domestic herbivores in southern Patagonian Nothofagus forests. Agrofor Syst 85:397–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. ter Braak CJF, Šmilauer P (2002) CANOCO reference manual and CanoDraw for Windows. User’s guide: software for canonical community ordination. Version 4.5. Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  37. Wardle JA (1970) The ecology of Nothofagus solandri: 3. Regeneration. N Z J Bot 8:571–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer-Verlag France 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guillermo J. Martínez Pastur
    • 1
  • Rosina Soler Esteban
    • 1
  • Juan M. Cellini
    • 2
  • María V. Lencinas
    • 1
  • Pablo L. Peri
    • 3
  • Mark G. Neyland
    • 4
  1. 1.Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas (CONICET)UshuaiaArgentina
  2. 2.Laboratorio de Investigaciones de Sistemas Ecológicos y Ambientales (LISEA-UNLP)La PlataArgentina
  3. 3.Instituto Nacional de Tecnología AgropecuariaUniversidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral - CONICETRío GallegosArgentina
  4. 4.Forestry TasmaniaHobartAustralia

Personalised recommendations