The Fallingsnow Ecosystem Project: Comparing conifer release ...

The Fallingsnow Ecosystem Project: Comparing conifer release alternatives in northwestern Ontario by R. A. Lautenschlagerl, F. Wayne Bellf, Robert G.Wagner1 and John A. Winters1

1

The Fallingsnow Ecosystem Project documents the ecological consequences afaItemative coniferrelease mrnenis (motor-manual [clearinghrush saw], mechanicar [Silvana SelectivelFord Versatile tractor], helicoptfl-applied herbicides vision@ [a.i. glyphosate], Releasem[ai.triclopyr], and control [no ~eatment] in young spruce (piceo spp.) plantations. Here a ofpapm that the e e , of these treamenaon components, as well as their rates and costs 1s inmduced. general,one m n after treatpIots to have miew more populations of the biotic components examined. Biotic and abiotic changes caused by the cutting treaments were more similar to each other than to those resulting fromthe herbicide treatments, but statistical differences among maments were few.Herbicide treatmentswere the most productiveand least cosll~,and about 60% of the active ingredient was deposited on the target (aspen [Popuius iremuloides Michx.]) foliage. lw9

Key words: alternative conifer release treabnents, brushcutting, clearing saws, ecosystem research, Fallingsnow Ecosystem Project, glyphosate, herbicides, sustainability, tending triclopyr, vegetation management

Le projet Ccosystkmique de Fallingsnow fait ttat des conskpmxzs hlopiques ~~des aaiments alternatifs de digagement des wnii%es (rnmuel-motoris! [dibroussailleuse], m h i q u e [tracteur Silvana Selective/Ford Versatile], puIvkrisation par M l i c o m de~hytocidsVision' [glYPh-], ReleasemI h - i c ~ l ~ et un tkmoin [aucun traitement] de jeunes plantat~onsd'kpinette [Piceuspp.). Nous introduisons ici unc s&ie d'articles qui quantifient les effets de ces h-aitements alternatifs sur les principales c m p ~ ~ a n tenvimnnemmtdes, es ainsi que les tam de pmducnon et les coiits. De faqon gknkale, une saison de croissmce aprks le Mjternent, les parcelles non-traitkes aendaient & contenir des populations c o n s t a m n t plus importantes, et plus diversifikes des Blkmentsbiotiqueskmdibs. Les changemenE biotiques et abiotirlues masiOnnes par traitemen&de dibmussaillage se ressemblaienr que cew quj suivaient Ies trajtements entre phytocides, mais les diffkrences st&idiquese n k les mitements ikmc fibles. miitements phmides h i r n t plus prductifs et les moins c o h x , et prk de 6Ph de I'ilernent actif etait dkpov5 sur le fenillage ciblC [Pop~lur mmulor'des Michx]. Mots clCs: mitemeats altmatifs de dkgagement des coniferes, debroussaillage, scies debroussailteuses, rochercha icosystemique, projet kcosysthique de Fallingsnow, glyphosate, phytocides. durabihtt, soins culturaux. triclopyr, contrfile de la vegetation

Introduction 'Ecosystem management",currentlymore an abstract idea than an organized system (Galindo-Leal and Bunnell1945), has been the source of much debate in forestry literature (Gerhch and Bengston 1994; Gordon 1994; Grumb'ie 1994; Irland 1994;Lautenschlager 1994; Salwasser 1994). The need to meet present and futlrre human needs whle tempcring humanpressures on the land has been identified as a key reason for developing an ecosystem approach to management (Salwasser 1994). Salwasser (1994) and others (Lee 1993; Slocombe 1993; Pulliam 1995) aIso identify the importance of understanding the consequencesof management choices. As an increased undersmnding of how specific management practices affect ecosystems is acheved, alternative approaches can be @xed(Pllllram 1995) and management practices andm systems can be r e s ~ c t e dchanged, , or their effects mitigated

(Lautenschlager 1996). Forest vegetation management,especially the use of herbicides, has been (Smith1986; Lautenschlaga 1993; Wagner 1994) and c o n h u e s to be a contentious silviculturalpractice (Decision Research 2 995). It has traditionally f m d almost exclusively on the mtvival and growth of forest cmp trees, generally mnifers. Efforts to make vegetation managementprescriptions consistent with ecosystem managementprinciples 'Ontario Minisay of Natural Resources, Ontario Forest Reseamh Institute, 1235 Queen St. Em, Sault Ste. Marie. Ontario. Canada P6A 5N5.

will requirem u l t i e m Iintegrated m

h into the effects of traditional and alternative approaches on ecosystems through time and space (Slocombe 1993;Wagner 1994). The following series of papers is intended to begin a movement away from abstract philosophical discussions about ecosystem management toward a concrete understanding of the ecological consequences of a specific forest management practice -conifer release !"tending") in early successional spruce stands. Here we: 1) review the background of this large-scale, multi-disciplinary ecosystem project;2) provide an overview of the project; 3) introduce papers that document d M s ofthe project; 4) provide an overview of d t s to date, and 5) discuss their implications fm ecosystem man-

agement.

Ecosystem Management and the Vegetation Management Alternatives Program In Ontario, as in other regions of North America, new para&gms for natural resource management have recently emerged. The policy shift to an ecosystem-based philosophy, outlined by Euler ( 1 995), is documented in: 1) the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources' (OMNR's) "Direction '90s"' ( O M 1992); 2) Bill 171, the "Crown Forest Sustainability Act" (Hampton 1994); and the OMNR's "Policy Framework for Sustainable Forests" (OMNR1945). The Vegetation Management Alternatives Program (YMAP), part of the OMNR's Sustainable Forestry initiative, began in 1991. The goal of the W is to develop approach-

JANUARYlFEBRUARY 1997, VOL. 73, NO,1, THE FORESTRY CHRONICLE

35

esto managing fcmtvegetatimthat will gduallyreduce depzw

dence on herbicides in Ontario (Wagner 1992). At the program's inception, Ontario had the largest a e d herbicide program among the 10 Canadian provinces (Campbell 1990). Increased public concern about chemical use in the envimnment, however, had raised questionsabout the political and environmental sustainabiliv of this practice. The W was designed to ensure that forest vegetation management practices on Crown Lands were socially acceptable and consistent with emerging principles of ecosystem management. Although a number of alternativesto herbicides have been identified as being acceptable to Ontario's public (Decision Research 19951, there is little work comparing the effects of these methods on the forest ecosystem. To address these issues, a significant portion of VMAP research is dedicated to understanding the ecosystem dynamics associated with cenvemtional and alternative f m t vegetation marugematPCtices. The Fallingsnow Ecosystem Project was initiated as part of this effort.

The Fallingsnow Ecosystem Project History and Objective The Fallingsnow Ecosystem Project, begun in 1993, is ongoing. The project (named after a lake near the study area) is large-scale, comprehensive, and integrated. It includes a large team of researchers from university, govenament, and private research organizakions a m s s Ontario. The objective of the project is to document the ecological (abiotic and biotic) consequences of conifer release matrnents with the herbicide most commonly used in foresny (helicopter-applied solutions containing Visionm2 [a-i. glyphosate]), and four alternatives [motor-manual release with clearing saws [commonly called brush saws], mechanical release with Silvanat SelectiveEord Versatile tractor, helicopter-applied solutions containing Releasem3 [a.i, triclopyr] herbicide, and controI [no treatment]). Fahngsnow cooperators are also documenting the time required to apply each treatment, costs, operational constraints, subsequent growth of planted spruce, and herbicide deposit. Results From the project will provide forest managers with the scientific dormation required to make ecosystembased decisions about the consequences of alternative conifer release treatments in early successional spruce plantations. Study Area, Experimental Design and Environmental VariabEes The study area is located about 60 km southwest of Thunder Bay, Ontario, in the mansition zone between the Great Lakes -St. Lawrence and boreal forest regions @owe 1972). The randomized complete block design, with four separate 28 to 52 ha blocks that were cut and planted (spruce [Piceo spp.]) four to seven years before the study began, is the focus for the conifer release aspects of the study. Each block contains five post-harvest treatments (including untreated}and an adjacent uncut 5 to 10 ha aspenlspruce stand to which comparisons are being made. Environmental variables being examined include: 1$ soils (types, moisture patterns, nutrients, nitrogen mineralization, and fungal and invertebrate communities); 2) below-ground

36

soil tempemhlreImoisture and above-ground air temperature, relative humidity, and photosynthetically active radiation; 3) vegetation (trees, shrubs, herbs, grasses, sedges, lichens, Iivmorts, mosses, fungi) species composition, abundance, pattern, and changes in foliar nutrient content (spruce and i~mbling aspen [Popudus tremraloides Micku.]); 4) below- nnd above-ground insects; 5) terrestrial gastropods (slugs and snaik); 6 )amphibians and reptiles; 7) small mammals; 8) songbirds; and 9) moose area use and foods (production and forage @ty). P w - ~ mdata t were collected h g the p w ing season before the treatments were applied (late summer and fall of 1993). Post-treatment d a collections ~ began in 1994 and have continued since then.

Results h the following series of papers authors report on treatmentrelated changes IgeneralIy comparing pre- and one growing season post-treah~ent)in ecosystem components, operational concems (the time r q m d to apply tmtments, treatment costs), and herbicide deposit and distribution. Simpson et al. (1997) report no substantial differences in the concen'tration of selected nutrienfs IN,K and Caj in zemtensioo samplers among treatments,including untreated. Reynolds et al. (1 997a) report that when compared with controls, photosynthetically-active radiation (PAR)near and above the forest floor was c ~ ~ ~ m o30 nly times higher in early June during the first post-treatment growing season following all conifer release treatments. l n d PAR following lreatmentsresultedin significant soil warming during the growing season, with the wannest soil temperahires found following the vi5ionmand ele ease^ mhnerm. Relative humidity near the forest floor was lowest following the herbicide treaments, intermediate after the h h saw treatment,and highest on untreated plots. Soil moisture levels were higher on treated than on untreated plots during the growing season after treatment. Bell et al. (1997a) report that cover PA) o f f 1vegetation classes increased on controI plots one growing season after treatment. Deciduous tree, shrub, and herb cover were signifrcantIy lower in herbicide@ than in cut plots. Brush saw and Silvana SeIective treatments reduced deciduous tree cowr, but shrub and herb cover i n c d following these Watments. They conclude that the visionMtreatment reduced woody and herbaceous vegetation more than any other matment.Reynolds el: al. (199%) report that during the first post-treatment growing season l a f area index 0 differed significantlyamong treatments, highest on control md lowest on isi ion^, and that LAI was highly correlated with measured competition index levels. Hawkins et a t (1997) report that declines in terrestrial gastropod densities were related to reduced rainfall in 1994 rather than the conifer release treatments. The lack of difference among treatments was also artributed to rapid re-establishment of the herbaceous layer which continued to provide favourable conditions for snails and slugs. Ward reported that the same carabid species identified pre-treatment remained dominant following treatment, but that some "open c o u n ~ "species increased following treatment (Wagner et a!. 1995). Kostyk (pen, c o r n . ) found that yellowheaded spruce sawfly damage was restricted to areas exposed to direct sunlight. The number of whte spmce trees partiaZly defoliated by this sawfly h m s d (by 1-9?/0) on a t -

JANVIERIE~UE 1897, R VOL. 73, NO. 1, THE FORESTRY CHRONICLE

ed plots of only one of the four bIocks folIowing the c o d e r release treatments, and the defoliation levels were not mfluenced by the conifer release alternative used. Bogart examined effects of meatments on amphibians and reptiles, and reported that more amphbians were observed on study blocks before treament (1993) h u during the fmt posttreatment growing season (Wagner et al. 1995). Rather than an effect of the maments, however, he attrjbuted the changes to reduced rainfall during the spring of 1994. Lautenschlager et al. (1997) report that during the k t two growing seasons after treatment, deer mouse (Pemnysm maniculafus Wagner) densities were highest on SiEvana Selective plots; eastern chipmunk (Tamim sm'atus L.)densities were highest on control, VisionE, and Silvana Selective plots; Ieast chipmunk (T. minimus Bachman) densities were highest on Visionm, and ele ease^ plots; and meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvamicus Oxd) densities were highest on ~ e l e a e plots. @ Redback vole (Clefhrionorwysg~ppen'Vigors) densities were highest on control plots during the first posttreatment growing seasw, and hghest: on control and visionm plots during the second post-treatment growing season. Woodcock et al. (1997) reported that mean densities of the 11 most common songbird species increased by 4.5110 ha on control plots d h g the first post-treatment year, but they decreased by 17 (brush saw), 16 (Silvana Selective), 10 (Release?, and 4110 ha (Vision@) on treated plots during that h e . C h a t - s i d e dWarbler (DendroieupensyIvanr'caL,)densities were sipficantly lower on brush saw, and Silvana Selective plots than an control during the first post-treatment growing season, and that the number of sparrows increased and warblers decreased on treated plots in late summer and fall. Dalton examined moose area use based on past-snowmelt pellet group counts (Wagner et a t 1995). In 1994, pellet group counts in all treated plots were lower than those inmitreatsd In 1995, pellet group counts i n d on Vision@and Silvana Selective plots, increased slightly on brush saw plots, and decreased on ~ e ~ e a s eand @ control plots. Bell et al. (1997b) report that the average productivity for brush saw, Silvana Selective, and helicopter operations was 7.42,3.72, and ~ 0 . 10productive man howsha, respectively. Treatment md supe~sioncastsha-' for Sivaua Selective, brush saw, and helicopter-applied herbicide mixtureswere $276, $227, and $152, respectively. Vegetation indices (% cover x mean height) for non-conifer woody vegetation at the end of the first post-treabnent growing season decreased 43% (brush saw), 48% (Release"), 53%{SilvauaSelective), and 69% (VisionR), while it increased 48% on control plots during that time. Thompson et al. (1997) report overall mean deposit of glyphosate and mclopys on aspen foliage of 68.5 and 50.3%, respectively. They also report highest interception in the upper (aspen) canopy, and an average of 25% and 12% in the lower, and shrub and ground-level vegetation tiers mpeAvely.

Discnssion In general, one growing season post-treatment, control plots had slightly larger, more diverse populations of the biotic components examined. Although there were shortterm abiotic and biotic differences among the alternative conifer release treatments examined, few of these differences were statistically significant. Researhers have, however,

identified some major biotic differences between these early successional stands and stands in the adjacent uncur fmst. Hawkins et al. (19971, for instance, found that pIantatians had p t e r densities and richness of termtrial gasimpods than adjacent uncut forests. We fomd minor differences in species composition between the uncut forests and plantations, but consistently lower smaIl mammal,totar densities in uncut forests, while W d c o c k (pers. coma)found major Merences in @es composition and densities of mitorial songbirds between early successionaI plantations and adjacent uncut forests. The Fallingsnow Ecosystem Project is providing: 1) data documenting the ecological effects of alternative conifer release treatments; 2) some of the first quantitativemeasures of plant and amnal diversity changes associated with early stand management in northern forest ecosystems;3) examples of how new and traditional conifer release treatments may be used in ecosystem management; and 4) an example of how integrated, cooperative research, bringing specialists fiorn a variety of disciplines and o m t i o m together, can contribute to understanding the consequences of specific management practices in forest ecosystems. Future research will document longer-tern environmenml consequences of these $eaments as well as integration among the envhmental components.This research provides the first available comprehensiveanalyses of how a variety of conifer release alternatives affect speclfic scosystem components, and identifies differences and similarities among the alternatives. If"ecosystem management"' is to be implemented this and other studies whch examine the environmental consequences of specific management practices of concern and proposed alternatives, must be followed long enough to make meaningfulpredictions.

Acknowledgements We thank: Nikki Wood and Heather Barns for coordinating field aspects of this work, and Wendeline Price for comments on an early draft of this manuscript. Thfs work was supported by the VMAP (Vegetation Management Alternatives Program) under the Sustainable Porestq Initiative, Ontario Mmstry of Natwral Resources, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.

References Bell, F.W., RA. Lautenschlager, R.G. Wagner, D.G. Pitt, J. Hawkins and K R Ride. 1997a. Motor-manual, mechanical, and herbicide release affect early successiona1vegetation in northwestern Ontario. For. Chron. 73: 6 1 4 8 . Bell, F*W., K.R. Ride, M.L. St-Amour and M. Ryans. 1997b. Productivity, cost, efficacy and cost efectiveness of motor-manual, mechanical, and herbicide release of boreal spruce plantations. For. Chron. 73: 3 H 6 . Campbell, R k 1990. Herbicide use fw forest management in Canada: Where we are and where we are going. For. Chron. 66: 35S360. Decision Research. 1995. Vegetation management in Ontario's forests: Survey research of public and professional perspectives. Ont. Min. Nat. Resour., Ont. For. Res. Inst., Sault Ste. Marie, ON. W A P Tech. Rep. 95-2 7 1 p. + append. Euler, D.L. 1995. Implementing an ecological approach to foresw in Ontario. Ont. ,Win. Nat. Resour., Policy Br., Sault Ste. Marie, ON. T3 p. Galindo-Lea!, C. and F.L. BunnelL 1995. Ecosystem management: implications and opportunities of a new paradigm. For. Chron.71 : 601606.

Gerlach, LP. and D.N. Bengston. 1994 If Ecosystem Management is the Solution, What's the Problem? J. For. 92(8): 18-21.

JANUARYFEBIEUARY t 997, VOL. 73,NO. 1 ,THE FORESTRY CHRONICLE

37

Gardon, J.C. 1994. From vision to policy-A role for foresters. J. For. 92(7): 17-1 9. Grumbine, R.E. 1994. What is ecosystem management?Conserv. Biol. 8: 27-38. Hampton, H. 1994. An act to revise the Crown Timber Act to provide for the sustainability of Crown Forests in Ontario. Bill 171,5d Session, 35th Legislature, Ontario. 37 p. Hawkins, J.W, M.W. Lankester, RA. Lautenschlager and F.W. Bell. 1997. Effects o f alternative conifer release treatments on terrestrial gaswopods in northwestern Ontario. For. Chron. 73: 91-98. Irland, L. C. 1994. Getting from here to there: Implementing ecosystem management on the ground. 3. Far, 92(8): 12-1 7. Cautenschlager, Rk. 1993. Response of wildlife to forest herbicide applications in northern coniferous ecosystems. Can. J. For. Res. 23: 2286-2299, Lautenschlager, R A . 1994. A new paradigm and a loony will still buy a coffee. For. Chron. 70: 521. Lautenschlager, R.A. 1W6. Identify the specifics: A bio-political approach to establishingnatural resource management research pionries in government agencies. J. For. 94(4): 3 1-34. Lautenschlager, R.A., F.W. Bell and R.G. Wagner. 1997. Alternative conifer release treatments affects small mammals in northwestern Ontario. For. Chron. 73: 99-1 06. KN. 1993. Compass and gyroscope: I n t e m g s c i m and politics for the environment. Island Press, Wash~ngton,DC. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1992. Drrection '90s.Ont. Min. Nat. Resour., Toronto, ON, I4 p. Ontario Ministry of Naturar Resources. 1995. Policy Framework for sustainable forests. Ont. Min. Nat. Resour., Toronto,ON. 6 p. Pulliam, H . R 1995. The birth of a federal research agency. BioSci. (Supplement): 91-95. Reynolds, P.E., J.A. Simpson, Rk Lautenschlager, F.W. k I I , A.M. Gordon, D. Buckley and D. Gresch. 1997a. Alternative conifer release treatments affect below- and near-ground microclimate. For. Chron. 73: 7 5 8 2 . Reynolds, P.E.,J.A. Simpson, Rk Lautenschlager, F.W. Bell,

38

AM, Gordon, D. Buckley and D. Grmh. E997b. AIternative conifer release treatments affect !eaf area index of competing vegetation and available light for seedling growth. For. Chron. 73: 8S89.

ROW&J. S. 19'72. Forest regions of Canada Can. Dept. Environ., Can. For. Serv., Publ.No. 1300. 172 p. Salwasser, H. 1994. Ecosystem management - Can it sustain diversity and productivity? J. For. 92(7): &I 0. Simpson, J.A, A M . Gordon, P.E. Reynolds, I4.A kutensehlager, F.W. Bell, D. Gresch and D. Buckley. 1997. Influence ofaltemative conifer release treatments on soil nutrient movement. For. Chron. 73: 6%73. Slmrnbe, n. S. 1993. Implementing ecosystem-basedmanagement. BioSci. 43(9): 612422. Smith, D.M. 1986. The practice of silviculture. 8th ed. John Wlley & Sons. 527 p. Thompson, D.G., D.G.Pitt, B. Stamik, N. Payne,D. Jaipersaid, R.A. Lautenschlager and F.W. Bell. 1997.On-target deposit and vertical distribution of aenally released herbicides. For. Chron. 73: 47-59. Wagner, RG.1992,Vegetation Management Alternatives Program Prospectus. Ont Min. Nat. Resour., Ontario Fm.Res. Inst., Sault Ste. Marie,ON. 18 p. Wagner, ItG. 1994. Toward integrated forest vegetation management. J. For. 92(11): 2630. Wagner, RG., L.J. Buse, R A Lautenschlager, F.W. Bell, C. Hollstedt, S. Strobl, A. Morneault, W. Lewis and M.T. TerM ikaelian. 1995. Vegetation Management Alternatives Program: I 994-95Annual Report. Ont. Min. Nat. Resour.,Ont. For. Res. Inst., Sault Ste. Marie, ON. 99 p. Woodcock, JM., RA.Laulenschlager, F.W. Be11 and J.P. Ryder. 1997. Indirect effects ofconifer release alternatives on songbird pop ulations in northwestern Ontario. For. Chron.73: 107-1 12.

JANVTERIFEVRIER1997, VDL. 73, NO,1, THE FORESTRY CHRONICLE