4.7 Article

Effect of natural root grafting on growth response of jack pine (Pinus banksiana) after commercial thinning

Journal

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
Volume 260, Issue 4, Pages 526-535

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2010.05.008

Keywords

Root grafting; Commercial thinning; Thinning shock; Radial growth; Dendrochronology

Categories

Funding

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC/CRSNG)
  2. CRSNG-QAT-UQAM Industrial Chair in Sustainable Forest Management
  3. Universite du Quebec en Abitibi-Temiscamingue

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Commercial thinning is a silvicultural treatment used to increase the merchantable yield of residual trees. Growth response to thinning, however, is highly variable and discrepancies between studies remain largely unexplained. The objective of this study was to demonstrate the effect of natural root grafting on growth response after thinning. We excavated root systems of jack pine (Pinus banksiana) in five naturally regenerated stands, in which three had been commercially thinned 6 and 9 years earlier. Radial growth before and after thinning was examined using dendrochronological techniques. Thinning increased radial growth of trees, however growth increments were significantly less for trees that had root grafts with removed trees, while growth of grafted trees was better in unthinned stands. Furthermore, radial growth response of trees grafted to removed trees was smaller than that of non-grafted trees 4 years and more post-thinning. On average, non-grafted stumps survived less than 1 year (0.4 year), while grafted stumps lived 2.0 years after the stem was removed. Differences in growth response to thinning between grafted and non-grafted trees thus appear to be linked to the support of roots and stumps of removed trees by live residual trees. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available