Response of aspen suckering to pre-harvest stem treatments

a literature review by Bryce Bancroft

Publisher: Forestry Canada in Victoria, B.C

Written in English
Published: Pages: 55 Downloads: 87
Share This


  • Populus tremuloides -- Control -- British Columbia.,
  • Peuplier faux-tremble -- Contro le -- Colombie-Britannique.

Edition Notes

Statementby Bryce Bancroft.
SeriesFRDA report -- 087.
ContributionsCanada. Forestry Canada., British Columbia. Ministry of Forests., Canada-British Columbia Forest Resource Development Agreement., Canada/BC Economic & Regional Development Agreement.
The Physical Object
Paginationvii, 55 p. :
Number of Pages55
ID Numbers
Open LibraryOL14372814M
ISBN 100772610134
LC Control Number89092238

appropriate treatments to improve the condition of your grove. Many aspen stands in Oregon require immediate action to restore health and vigor (Figure 18). The Aspen Management Options Flowchart (Fig page 25) will. Figure Where conifers threaten aspen, management actions may be needed to promote aspen suckering and. free up aspen. Stem cell therapy has significantly improved since it was first introduced. Nowadays, innovative techniques and advanced equipment allow for a quick procedure. In fact, our stem cell therapy in Aspen and Denver can be used at the site of injury to improve movement, flexibility, and reduce pain. Stem cell therapy from our Aspen and Denver. ASPEN Journals & Publications. ASPEN strives to bring valuable resources to the health care community through its products and publications. These products include our peer reviewed journals, Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (JPEN) and Nutrition in Clinical Practice (NCP).Non-journal publications include books, Apps and online educational products that ASPEN develops and markets. affected juvenile aspen stem densities. Clear-felling on one site with large stable stands stimulated new stem growth, while prescribed burns on another site with smaller stable stands did not stimulate new stem growth. In Chapter 3, I classified sites based on soil and other abiotic site characteristics using partitioning around medoids (PAM).

No suckering was observed on control plots. Above-ground aspen biomass and nutrient-pool values reflected stem densities; these results are discussed in the light of known physiological responses of the species to disturbance. Litterfall mass and nutrient inputs over 3 yrs were also a function of treatment, and reflected stand break-up. upland clear-cut. We quantified density of aspen regeneration before and after harvesting within the riparian buffers. First-year post harvest results indicate that the residual basal area treatment does not inhibit aspen suckering (36, stems/ac), with stocking approaching levels acceptable under single-cohort management. Suckering. We proudly provide evidence-based regenerative medicine in Aspen, including stem cell therapy, HRP, and more. Connect with Dr. Gershon and his team of specialists to arrange a consultation today. Removal of Encroaching Conifers to RegenerateDegraded Aspen Stands in the Sierra NevadaBobette E. Jones,1 Tom H. Rickman,1 Alfred Vazquez,1Yukako Sado,2 and Kenneth W. Tate2,3Abstract were measured in treated stands (removal of competing conifers) and non-treated stands (control) immediatelyAspen is considered a keystone species, and aspen com- prior to treatment and 2 and 4 years post-treatment.

Aspen leaves are short and have a flat stem. Even the slightest of breeze is sufficient to ruffle them around. This has led to the tree being famously known as the quaking aspen. The scientific name of the tree, Populus Tremuloides, has made is famous as the trembling aspen. In the FALL treatment, burning eliminated all remaining juniper trees and seedlings, stimulated a 6-fold increase in aspen suckering (10 ha-1), but initially resulted in a significant reduction in herbaceous cover. Spring burning removed 80% of the mature juniper trees that remained after cutting. DAY: THE ROOT SYSTEM OF ASPEN aspen's common associates except pin cherry (Prunus pennsylvanica L.). Figure 1 illustrates the course of the main lateral root of an eighteen year old aspen growing on Rubicon sand. This tree was a sucker and the root from which it arose can be seen at the left side of the figure. Only the main lateral. Critical Care Toolkit. The Guidelines for the Provision and Assessment of Nutrition Support Therapy in the Adult Critically Ill Patient: Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) were published in providing recommendations to guide best practice in nutrition care for the critically ill patient.

Response of aspen suckering to pre-harvest stem treatments by Bryce Bancroft Download PDF EPUB FB2

Bancroft, B. Response of aspen suckering to pre-harvest stem treatments: a literature review. Forestry Canada and B.C. Ministry of Forests, Research Branch, Victoria, B.C. This document is currently not available by: 7. Get this from a library. Response of aspen suckering to pre-harvest stem treatments: a literature review.

[Bryce Bancroft; British Columbia. Ministry of Forests.; Canada/BC Economic & Regional Development Agreement.; Canada-British Columbia Forest Resource Development Agreement.; Canada.

Forestry Canada.]. Response of Aspen Suckering to Pre-harvest Stem Treatments: A Literature Review: Author(s) or contact(s): B. Bancroft: Source: Research Branch: Subject: Vegetation Management: Series: FRDA Report: Other details: Published Hardcopy is available.

managing aspen. The suckering response is usually adequate if group openings are sufficiently large to allow full sunlight to reach the ground throughout most of the area. Harvesting in smaller units partially shades the openings but creates a greater amount of edge between uncut and regenerating aspen than an equivalent area of large harvest by: The objectives of this study were to determine (1) overall root suckering response of planted aspen to aboveground disturbance; (2) if different cut heights of the stem or infliction of root.

Herbicides Herbicide treatments that kill aspen stems without lulling the root system usually result in excellent sucker regeneration (Brinkman and Roe ). Aerial spraying with herbicides is an inexpensive substitute for clear- cutting, and does not require unusual weather and.

Response of aspen root suckers to regenera- on machinery trail potentially stimulates aspen suckering. Timber harvesting generally causes soil disturbance and compaction [74,75], and the level. gate alternative mechanical treatments that might be used to stimulate aspen suckering.

The first study was estab-lished in an aspen stand on the Coconino NF in an aspen stand that had been partially cut about 15 years previ-ously, but had not successfully regenerated.

The stand contained about large aspen trees in a five-acre area. As for the suckers, they will continue at the present rate.

The process for getting rid of those is to cut them as soon as they sprout and dab the cut stem with herbicide (a small amount of herbicide is better than the alternative). Eventually the whole tree system will die off and the sucker problem will go away. Celebrating Wildflowers explores how aspens grow, the symptoms and possible causes of aspen decline, and the challenges to maintaining this species in the western landscape.

Enjoy this unique species, its dazzling fall colors, the wildflowers found in aspen groves, and. Aspen vegetative reproduction is controlled primarily by the hormones auxin and cytokinins. When an individual aspen stem dies, auxin, a hormone suppressing root suckering, is no longer transported to the roots allowing cytokinins in the roots to stimulate lateral roots to grow new ramets through root suckering (Schier et al.

In many cases, fire has been observed to increase suckering. The blackened ground and reduction of the tree canopy caused by fire increases soil temperatures, while the killing of mature aspen stimulates growth hormones, which cause sucker- ing.

These changes result in the regeneration of new aspen. Shearing preexisting aspen stems with a sharp blade has proven to be one of the most successful site preparation methods used to promote aspen suckering.

This site preparation technique is most effective when done on frozen soils to minimize damage to the parent root systems. We can look at aspen response to conifer removal in partial harvesting studies to inform how aspen may respond to canopy openings caused by MPB.

Four years after partial cutting of overstory in boreal mixed hardwood and conifer forest, aspen growth had doubled compared to pre-harvest rates (Gendreau-Berthiaume et al., ).

Diagrammatic representation of the treatments applied in Experiment 1 to study the effects on root suckering and stem sprouting in aspen (Populus tremuloides) of removing various aboveground organs.

fire) aspen clones (stands) to determine treatment response years post-treatment. A sampling design was tested for monitoring pre- and post-treatment stem densities.

Total aspen sucker densities ranged from 3, to 29, stems/ac (8, to 73, stems/ha). Two 9-year-old treatments and one 7-year-old treatment achieved > 1, A field experiment in western Manitoba, Canada, assessed root suckering and root carbohydrates of aspen in response to season of harvest and machine traffic.

Six sites ( m × Since pre-treatment vegetation status (PC-pre) could affect species response to treatments, particularly for aspen (e.g., Brown and De Byle, ; Wang, ), PC-pre was factored as a covariate.

REGENERATION OF ASPEN BY SUCKERING. Dixon Sandberg and Arthur E. Schneider (1) Though seeding by aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) has undoubtedly been important in the spread of the species in northern Minnesota, suckering (~prputing from adventitious buds on the roots) is the chief means by which this important pulpwood tree reproduces.

Response of aspen suckering to pre-harvest stem treatments: A literature review. Bancroft, B. Year: Catalog ID: Available from: Pacific Forestry Centre CFS Availability: Not available through the CFS (click for more information). Mark record. In a growth chamber, we tested how the seasonal timing of placing a physical barrier (simulating a possible effect of log storage) and inflicting root damage impacted aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) root systems and their suckering capability.

Roots from 4-year-old saplings were used, and one half of these root systems had the above-ground portion cut in the winter (dormant) while the other. Aspen exhibits vegetative suckering, a unique and effective ad-aptation to disturbance-prone environments based on the disrup-tion of growth hormones in the plant (Wan et al.

), that can result in a prolific response (thousands of shoots per hectare) to overstory removal. As such, traditional aspen regeneration treat. Many ASPEN books come in print and digital (ebook) options. With the ebook option, you’ll have access to your publications anytime, anywhere—on your PC, mobile phone or tablet—online or offline.

Users can also add personal notes, bookmark a page and highlight text in ebooks they purchased. Trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) is an important early successional species in the boreal region that commonly regenerates via root suckering and, to a lesser extent, stump sprouting after aboveground disturbance such as harvesting or wildfire.

However, the response of aspen to disturbance on reclaimed oil sands sites is not known. To determine the suckering and sprouting response. In terms of stem numbers (), the mixing treatments (SM, WAM) generally suppressed hardwood suckering whereas screefing treatments (SS, WAS) generally promoted to variability, significant differences were limited to the WAM-WAS comparison only.

In terms of hardwood (largely trembling aspen) biomass, mixing (both SM and WAM) and SS significantly reduced hardwood.

The mean densities of poplar suckers exceeding the m height ranged f stems ha −1 in the DEC clear-cuts to as low as stems ha −1 in the CON stands with 75% retention ().Stem density (p = ) and stand sucker volume ha −1 (p = ) of poplar regeneration decreased with an increased conifer component in the pre-harvest overstory; however, mean stem volume of.

suckers are induced in response to a decrease in auxin concentration (Farmer However, most treatments were carried out when shoot ; Eliasson b). elongation was occurring. We do not know if the season of treatment affects suckering. Therefore, a series of experiments were conducted on young aspen to.

These treatments were (1) pre-harvest aerial spraying with glyphosate to suppress trembling aspen regeneration and produce intimate mixtures of conifers and broadleaves (subsequently referred to as ‘pre-harvest spray’), (2) post-harvest ground spraying with glyphosate in mosaic to produce alternating m-wide sprayed and unsprayed strips.

Aspen trees (Populus tremuloides), also known as quaking aspens for their leaves that tremble on flexible leaf stalks in the breeze, produce spectacular fall foliage in U.S. Department of Agriculture plant hardiness zones 1 through addition to adding beauty to landscapes, the aspen serves as a succession tree.

Aspen restoration options may be limited by available technical information. There is varying public support or understanding about the im-portance of aspen, the decline of aspen, and why any given re-sponse would be chosen, and there are varying levels of support for aspen treatment.

Prescribed burning and browsing showed complementary effects on post-fire vegetation development. Both back and head fire behaviors were effective in inducing stem mortality of aspen and rejuvenating the heathland, but in the absence of measures to control post-fire suckering, aspen tended to recover the pre-treatment stand structure.ASPEN Guidelines for the Selection and Care of Central Venous Access Devices for Adult Home Parenteral Nutrition Administration JPEN Issue 1, pp.

15 - 31 Guidelines for the Provision and Assessment of Nutrition Support Therapy in the Pediatric Critically Ill Patient JPEN Issue 5, pp. -   Mean volumes of aspen removed were higher on the untreated sites ( m /ha) compared to the treated sites ( m /ha) (p=), however since there was no rela- tionship between post-harvest sucker density (9–12 years after harvest) and pre-harvest aspen volume in the current study (p=, Figure 1) or in pre- vious studies (Stahelin.