Concern regarding reforestation program

[EWilson99]

My parents own a farm here in Eastern Ontario, and they've decided to reforest a small 0.7 hectare (1.7 acres) piece of their property. The trees are being planted by the local Raisin River Conservation Authority, and the amount of trees goes along like this, for a total of 1400 trees:
800 White Pine
300 White Cedar
100 Red Maple
100 Bur Oak
50 Bitternut Hickory
50 Black Cherry
The composition of the trees, and their amount, were solely decided by the RRCA, and my parents had no control over the decision. What worries me is the lack of space that there will be in-between the trees once they're planted, and what effect it'll have in 4-5 years time. My parents calculated that there should be about 4-6 feet between each seedling, but I've heard that some of these trees actually require more space. Does this mean that there's a chance of most of the trees (50%) not reaching maturity? If some of the seedlings die, would it help other nearby trees when it comes to space?

Any help is very much appreciated

[mike_belben]

^{Natures way is to overseed.  It would jam them every 8 inches and then the winners prune out the losers over time by shading them to death.}  

[VTDonn]

I'm not familiar with how that organization operates, but from a planting perspective, that's fairly conventional. Young trees need to be crowded for a bit in order to promote vertical growth. If they were spaced 30 feet apart, they'd grow horizontally like trees in a city park. In 15-20 years or so, the stems will be thinned to open up the best crowns. Then again a couple decades after that. So ultimately you won't be growing 2,000 trees per HA- there might be a couple hundred after intentional thinning and natural mortality, including early survival rates a few years after planting..

However, all of that only applies to a conventional softwood plantation, but less to the hardwood component, which I normally don't see in a plantation context. You'd really need to know the ultimate management objective in order to form a hard opinion. I.e. is the goal to grow an even aged forest where trees are grown to a certain target, then clearcut and replanted? Or are they intending to recreate an uneven/multi-aged forest, where some trees will grow in perpetuity, and you'll foster new generations to maintain a multi-level forest structure indefinitely?

At a scale of a hectare, it's all a bit academic, but the bottom line? No, that's not an unusually crowded start to a plantation! Enjoy watching your trees grow.

[EWilson99]

I'm not familiar with how that organization operates, but from a planting perspective, that's fairly conventional. Young trees need to be crowded for a bit in order to promote vertical growth. If they were spaced 30 feet apart, they'd grow horizontally like trees in a city park. In 15-20 years or so, the stems will be thinned to open up the best crowns. Then again a couple decades after that. So ultimately you won't be growing 2,000 trees per HA- there might be a couple hundred after intentional thinning and natural mortality, including early survival rates a few years after planting..

However, all of that only applies to a conventional softwood plantation, but less to the hardwood component, which I normally don't see in a plantation context. You'd really need to know the ultimate management objective in order to form a hard opinion. I.e. is the goal to grow an even aged forest where trees are grown to a certain target, then clearcut and replanted? Or are they intending to recreate an uneven/multi-aged forest, where some trees will grow in perpetuity, and you'll foster new generations to maintain a multi-level forest structure indefinitely?

At a scale of a hectare, it's all a bit academic, but the bottom line? No, that's not an unusually crowded start to a plantation! Enjoy watching your trees grow.

Thanks for the note. And yes, I am very excited to see them grow! The land all around my parent's property has been clearcut by a local wealthy farmer who's bought it recently, so it'll be nice to have some greenery around, even if it's a rather small forest. It's going to be great to walk around in the woods without having to drive more than an hour away to some provincial or national park.
The ultimate goal is to have a multi-aged forest, where trees will grow in perpetuity. Are you saying that with the "natural selection" side of things, we should expect less than half of the seedlings to grow into maturity?

[WDH]

There will be natural mortality and like Mike said, the trees will sort themselves out.  After four or five years, if they are too thick, you can thin them out.  Likely, nature and natural mortality will do this for you. 

[SwampDonkey]

The ultimate goal is to have a multi-aged forest, where trees will grow in perpetuity.

Not with a plantation alone. You would have to have multiple entries , say beginning in 20 years with the goal at first to thin to keep a healthy crown until trees mature. Once seed production begins, small openings need to be created for light to hit the ground to establish new trees. Multiple entries will be required  to make some holes to promote new trees from the surrounding mature trees. What your beginning with is an even aged stand, multi-aged is going to require a bunch of work. Trees have to grow and mature some before you get seed. Then, since the site is small, there is a lot of ingress from the neighborhood, including birds and mammals bringing stuff and making deposits. ;D

Your spacing works out to almost 6 ft between trees, which is the predominant spacing in eastern Canada for reforestation.

Yellow birch planted around black cherry on an old orchard.



same site



A few years back. Now these trees are producing seed. Planted in 2000 (date stamp is incorrect), thinned in 2012.  Need new photo update, the understory is mostly bare except wild herbs like trout lily, purple trilium, false Solomon's seal, false lily of the valley, star flower. Even a couple butternuts in there I poked into the soil. Typical wild plants here under hardwoods in New Brunswick.

[Ianab]

The multi-aged forest is going to happen eventually, providing it's not clear cut in ~50 years time. 

But it's your Grandkids that are going to see that. A mixed age forest will have trees that are 50-100 years old, AND new saplings coming up to replace the older trees as they die. But it takes 100 years to grow a 100 year old tree. After maybe 10 years it might start to look like a "new" forest, but you have to start someplace, and it's interesting to see how things develop over time.

A planting plan like that is about the best option to get a mixed species forest started. Like other have said, not all the trees will survive, but you get "canopy closure" much sooner with the closer spacing. That both suppresses the weeds, and forces the trees to grow taller to reach the light. Over time some of the weaker ones will get suppressed and die off, or be removed by management. 

If you look at how a forest naturally regenerates after a large tree falls (or is removed) there will be hundreds of seedlings sprouting in the new open space. Eventually only one or 2 are going to reach maturity. 

[EWilson99]

The ultimate goal is to have a multi-aged forest, where trees will grow in perpetuity.

Not with a plantation alone. You would have to have multiple entries , say beginning in 20 years with the goal at first to thin to keep a healthy crown until trees mature. Once seed production begins, small openings need to be created for light to hit the ground to establish new trees. Multiple entries will be required  to make some holes to promote new trees from the surrounding mature trees. What your beginning with is an even aged stand, multi-aged is going to require a bunch of work. Trees have to grow and mature some before you get seed. Then, since the site is small, there is a lot of ingress from the neighborhood, including birds and mammals bringing stuff and making deposits. ;D

Thank you for reminding me of that- I was a bit worried that at the rate that White Pines grow, they'd quickly overshadow the White Cedars and other trees, and I'd be stuck with a White Pine-only forest in 20-30 years time. Is it better to trim the White Pine branches early on (around 5-10 year time frame), or should I wait for the 20 year mark?

As long as none of the small animals eat any of the seedlings, I'm happy ;) There's a couple of animals on the property already (raccoons, squirrels, fox and skunks), and I hope that as the forest starts to grow there's a lot more wildlife that can find refuge in our backyard.

[Otis1]

Without knowing what your planting layout will be... Often times, the hardwoods are planted in rows between the faster growing pine rows. The competition will force them to go up instead of out. You'll probably end up thinning out the white pine before the others. Some additional competition control such as mowing any grass/ brush will aid in reducing mortality. If you have a lot of deer, you may want to consider some protection for the hardwoods and cedar at least. It's easy picking for them to just walk down a row and nip buds.

[WDH]

When pruning the pine, maintain at least a 50% crown ratio.  That is the height of the live crown with needles divided by the total height of the tree.  You can begin pruning them when they get about 10' to 15' tall. 

[SwampDonkey]

Pruning the w. pine will also help deter rust disease. Up here we have severe rust and also severe weevil damage. So for me I have to grow white pine in a little shade to keep them from being dominant for awhile or the weevils will just hammer it. Your area may not be so difficult to grow w. pine. Pruning is most effective against the rust. The rust finds the right habitat in humid understory conditions, they inoculate needles and then grow to the stem and girdle it. They need a host plant to spread, that is any currant or gooseberry (ribies).

20 years is just a number I tossed out there. We often thin forest at 12-15 years here in NB. The lower limbs are dead and you can see under the canopy.

[Sod saw]

And then,    there was the old forester who was asked "when is the best time to plant trees?"


reply:     about 50 years ago

[KEC]

Deer can be hard on the White Cedar and Red Maple.

[EWilson99]

And then,    there was the old forester who was asked "when is the best time to plant trees?"


reply:     about 50 years ago

Good point, although at the end of the day I'm happy to have the trees planted now, rather than wait a couple of more years. Unfortunately, the provincial government doesn't do a good job at advertising reforestation projects and subsidies; otherwise, the trees would have been planted years ago. 

Deer can be hard on the White Cedar and Red Maple.

Thanks for the heads up!

[SwampDonkey]

Unfortunately, the provincial government doesn't do a good job at advertising reforestation projects and subsidies; otherwise, the trees would have been planted years ago.

One of the benefits of having woodlot owner organizations. DNR staff work with industry only these days. It's been up to woodlot owner organizations to carry the torch or no one will know about the silviculture programs. There's not single add on the television by anyone out there talking about silviculture. Sad state of affairs. Adds are even rare in local papers, except notifying everyone one of an annual meeting. Those meetings have value, but hardy anyone shows up unless you serve dinner to. :D

[Boreal et al]

As temperatures rise and drought intensifies, fires grow larger and burn more severely. What happens to the landscape next is unknown.  It's about Arizona and the millions of homeless and deceased animals who have lost their Trees of Life and their Forests of Life.  That's todays headline.   I realize most people on this forum are selling equipment to turn trees into something else. but with the thousands of members who log on.  couldn't the moderators lead a team of volunteers to help accelerate the reforesting. Not for plantations.  But for life.  Arizona and California, could really use the help. It's heart breaking and deviating here.  Hello Ontario?!  And please indict the people who  have decimated the monarch butterfly habitats!

[Old Greenhorn]

 

[Clark]

And please indict the people who  have decimated the monarch butterfly habitats!

This does seem like the most appropriate place to bring up such a topic!

Clark

[btulloh]

Modern forest management practices result in good regeneration and these management practices also create habitat for wildlife as well as homes for families and the many other products that we all need and depend on.  The forest is a renewable resource. 

California in particular as well as other western states constrain and limit good forest management practices.  There are millions of acres of dead standing, overgrown forests full of beetle killed pine. These areas are highly susceptible to fire. They are like dry gunpowder waiting to go off.

A lot of this is the result of well-intentioned, but mis-guided and under informed people and the politicians who pander to them. The forest product industry is very capable of managing these issues but the bad decisions regarding harvest, access, and regeneration are coming from the state legislatures, etc.  

There are quite a few members here involved in fighting these fires and many more that care about good management of a renewable resource. 

You're right.  There are people people here "selling equipment to turn trees into something else".  The "something else" is properly managed renewable forest that benefit all creatures - including humans. If only there were enough people who understood facts rather than feelings. 

[SwampDonkey]

Bernstein, who is on youtube not on the forum, he is a woodlot owner as well. He cuts firewood and logs for lumber he uses for himself. He was just talking the other day about spraying leafy spurge (invasive from Europe), it's a menace to pasture ground in ND. He has to spray the stuff, so there are consequences. He notes that he does his best not to spray the 'wild' hemp ;D or the milk weed. Milk weed being used by the monarch, hemp being used as chinking (retted fibres) in his buildings mixed with clay for a binder. There is more going on than you have read from propaganda papers. ;)

[Old Greenhorn]

As temperatures rise and drought intensifies, fires grow larger and burn more severely. What happens to the landscape next is unknown.  It's about Arizona and the millions of homeless and deceased animals who have lost their Trees of Life and their Forests of Life.  That's todays headline.   I realize most people on this forum are selling equipment to turn trees into something else. but with the thousands of members who log on.  couldn't the moderators lead a team of volunteers to help accelerate the reforesting. Not for plantations.  But for life.  Arizona and California, could really use the help. It's heart breaking and deviating here.  Hello Ontario?!  And please indict the people who  have decimated the monarch butterfly habitats!

When I read your post last night I did not have the energy and was not in the right frame of mind to respond. however today is a new day. ;D
Not knowing anything about you that would indicate your perspective, experience, involvement, level of knowledge, or anything else that could help direct a meaningful response, I went and looked at your profile information. All I could glean  from that is that you have been registered here for about 10 months, made only 2 posts, spent just 4 hours total in that 10 months reading other posts here, and are not quite able to make up your mind where you live. I also note that you do not engage in meaningful conversation regarding your posts, which is considered rude in the forum world. (Some might label you as a troll, but I am not ready to go that far yet. That depends on your next step.)
So all I am left with is that little bit of knowledge and your post. You have already gotten some thoughtful replies from other members here which are worth putting in some time to understand.
First, let me correct an assumption you wrote:" I realize most people on this forum are selling equipment to turn trees into something else."
Whereas we do not (that I know of) have a definitive demographic study of our membership, I think by just reading where the many many thousands of posts and discussions here focus will clearly indicate equipment sales is not what MOST of us do. Most of us are working to make a living and learning new things or getting help getting through our jobs from other like minded people with a vast array of experience to draw from. This forum was originally founded for sawyers, producers of lumber and has grown from there.
The overall tone of your note indicates you think 'we' are the problem and 'we' should organize and 'do something'. I don't think you have done much meaningful reading here at all if you have not seen the extensive posts and threads on habitat restoration, field regeneration, maintaining and restoring healthy tree growth, TSI work and forest health improvements, and reclaiming poorly managed lands for better habitat (for ALL species) while at the same time following a well designed plan to serve the needs of the landowner, wildlife, and the health of the natural lands in our care. In short I think, as Swampdonkey alluded to, you are just throwing out a bunch of assumptions and challenging folks to "mend their ways and do something."
Turnabout is fair play so I would like to ask you what YOU have been doing to make a difference with this problem? Tell us what you do, how you do it, where you do it, and what results you have seen. If you want to 'make a difference' it has to start with you. There are no excuses, you have to 'walk the walk' before you can 'talk the talk'. An old folk singer I had known for decades used to have a saying I stole from him when I was a teenager and have used in my daily life ever since. He said "Think globally, act locally". The man was an environmental activist of the highest caliber who gave his entire life to supporting and working with his hands toward the movements who held so dear. (His name was Pete Seeger.) I knew Pete well enough to know he would listen to what you have said and his first question would be "So what are YOU doing about it?"
I'd like to ask you the same question.

[Tacotodd]

BRAVO Tom, Bravo!

[Old Greenhorn]

I could have sworn there was another reply here I read early this morning or last night and came back to read again and reply. Now it appears to be gone. Am I imagining things? Maybe I should check my meds, oh wait, I don't take any meds. ;D 

[btulloh]

It's gone now. Only the NSA could have made it disappear like that. 

[mike_belben]

This is a forum full of eco-activists, we all are really.  Hang around and youll see that most of us prefer the woods and the natural world far more than the mass produced particle board and pavement mess that wall street and washington lobbying have led us into.


Where this crowd differs from the eco-warrior is we are people who value innocent human life above plant and animal life.  "We" collectively have actually gone into the woods for generations...modified and observed it for changes toward its betterment. I take my 8yr old for walks in our experiments woods all the time.  


The forestry profession has realized that humans, plants and animals can all reap abundance if forests are managed for continual vigorous regrowth of the best suited species mix for a given site. We work with nature rather than against it to maximize growth rates and reap bountiful harvests.  

If forests stay in this rotation there is always suitable habitat available for the critters, from fresh regen to mature closed canopy.  Species dont have to migrate very far in search of replacement habitat when harvest operations occur, if large forests are kept in productive rotation.

When privately owned forests are mismanaged, they stop producing a cash crop and economics usually cause them to be subdivided into residential space and sold.  That is permanent habitat loss.


rather than saying "dont touch,  mother nature or gaia knows best" like other forest enthusiats believe, we modify forests ahead of her schedule.   Mother natures management plan is precisely what youre seeing;  pests weakening trees and then huge, catostrophic fires clearing them out to make way for replacement with different species better suited to the site.  

Mankind struggles with foreign pests today thanks in part to free-trade, but we have a very easy time preventing the fuel conditions that lead to horrible fires, if politics dont prevent these prudent management activities from being carried out properly.  


Flora and fauna and birds and bees and rabbits and deer love the sound of a chainsaw.  Thats the sound of a vigorous new edge habitat on the way.  from rabbits to cervids to ruminants, the data shows critters concentrate grazing preference to the regen of burned sites rather than unburned if given free choice. 



 It is 50 years of starry eyed earth firsters chaining themselves to equipment and lobbying  government to block forest operations that shoulder an awful lot of blame for the mess theyre in out west.  We here dont waste food and dont waste trees.  If loggers and forestors werent locked out by eco warriors, standing dead timber would have been harvested and utilized by humanity long before it could contribute to wildfire.  Small controlled fires would have been conducted all along, denying the wildfires their birthrights.  


Eco-warriors have been blaming loggers for everything forever and still arent taking credit for what they prevented us from preventing.. so its a real sore spot around here, the pot calling the kettle black.  There are a number of professional wildland firefighters on this site that can tell you precisely how politics has caused them to be laying down their lives to save the public from a mess the public insists upon out of their ignorance.


Indictments for those who ruined a butterfly habitat?  Avenge the butterflies first and the dead men women and children after?  That prioritization doesnt really jive on this forum.