Proceedings of the Conference on Diameter-Limit Cutting in Northeastern Forests
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
United States Department of Agriculture Proceedings of the Conference Forest Service on Diameter-Limit Cutting Northeastern Research Station in Northeastern Forests General Technical Report NE-342 The findings and conclusions of each article in this publication are those of the individual author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture or the Forest Service. All articles were received in digital format and were edited for uniform type and style. Each author is responsible for the accuracy and content of his or her paper. Cover Photo Diameter-limit cutting in a northern conifer stand. Manuscript received for publication 2 February 2006 Published by: For additional copies: USDA FOREST SERVICE USDA Forest Service 11 CAMPUS BLVD SUITE 200 Publications Distribution NEWTOWN SQUARE PA 19073-3294 359 Main Road Delaware, OH 43015-8640 April 2006 Fax: (740)368-0152 Visit our homepage at: http://www.fs.fed.us/ne Proceedings of the Conference on Diameter-Limit Cutting in Northeastern Forests May 23-24, 2005 University of Massachusetts Compiled and edited by: Laura S. Kenefic USDA Forest Service and Ralph D. Nyland State University of New York Sponsored by: UMass Extension University of Massachusetts, Department of natural Resources Conservation State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station Society of American Foresters, Yankee Division Published by: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station Contents Facilitating a Dialogue About Diameter-Limit Cutting ...............................................1 Laura S. Kenefic and Ralph D. Nyland Historical Perspective on Diameter-Limit Cutting in Northeastern Forests ..................3 Matthew J. Kelty and Anthony W. D’Amato Diameter-Limit Cutting and Silviculture in Northern Hardwoods ............................. 16 Ralph D. Nyland Overview of USDA Forest Service Research on Diameter-Limit Cutting in Northern Conifers ................................................................................................ 24 Laura S. Kenefic, John C. Brissette, and Paul E. Sendak Research on Diameter-Limit Cutting in Central Appalachian Forests ........................ 32 Mary Ann Fajvan Economics, Markets, and Diameter-Limit Cutting .................................................... 39 Kenny Fergusson Genetic Effects of Diameter-Limit Cutting ............................................................... 41 Gary Hawley, and Donald DeHayes, Paul Schaberg and John Brissettee Ethics Considerations with Diameter Limit-Cutting ................................................. 43 Victor L. Ford Rehabilitating Cutover Stands: Some Ideas to Ponder ............................................... 47 Ralph D. Nyland Facilitating a Dialogue About Diameter-Limit Cutting Laura S. Kenefic1 and Ralph D. Nyland2 USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Bradley, ME 2Faculty of Forest and Natural Resources Management, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY Why a Conference About Diameter- (894) recounted the harvest of only the largest and best limit Cutting? trees. In fact, diameter-limit cutting was recommended Before embarking on an exploration of the specifics of at the time as a means of preserving growing stock (Cary diameter-limit cutting, we would be well served to ask 907, Murphy 97). With no markets for anything ourselves, “Why is this topic important?” The answer but high-value trees, large trees were selectively removed to that question requires us to consider silviculture. under the guise of selection silviculture. See Pinchot Silviculture is “the art and science of controlling the (905) or Westveld (949) for examples. establishment, growth, composition, health and quality of forests and woodlands to meet diverse needs and Some foresters raised concerns about diameter-limit values on a sustainable basis” (Helms 998). This cutting as early as the 900s. Murphy (97) reported definition highlights two critical features of silvicultural that diameter-limit cutting was common in the spruce treatments: focus on residual stand condition and a long- regions, but warned that failure to improve the smaller term perspective. size classes or retain thrifty trees of large sizes would prevent sufficient yield to make cuts periodically. Later Diameter-limit cutting means removing all merchantable research led Blum and Filip (963) and Roach (974) trees larger than a specified diameter at breast height to question the sustainability of structure and growth (Helms 998). In practice, this usually involves the in diameter-limit cut stands. Seymour et al. (986) use of a fixed, or inflexible, diameter threshold, above expressed concern about “short-sighted, financially which merchantable trees are harvested with retention motivated cutting,” and encouraged wider application of unmerchantable timber and without tending in the of silviculture. More recently, Kenefic et al. (2005) and smaller size classes. Unlike silviculture, the focus of Nyland (2005) concluded that repeated diameter-limit diameter-limit cutting is on what is removed, i.e. the cutting reduced stand quality, value and long-term largest and most valuable timber. A related practice yields. Alternative silvicultural treatments were suggested is high grading, or removing the most commercially (Kenefic and Nyland 2005). valuable trees from a stand. High grading is a more general term and encompasses diameter-limit cutting Diameter-limit cutting is an integral part of our forest as commonly applied. Both practices are commodity history in the Northeast, resulting in millions of acres of driven: trees are selected for harvest based on an cutover lands. Many second-growth stands now contain overriding interest in short-term revenue while bypassing poor quality stems, less valuable species, and variable the desirable features (focus on the residual and the long- stocking and crown cover as a result of past harvesting term) of silviculture. practices (Nyland 992). At the dawn of the 2st century, Irland (999) concluded that cutting in the Northeast If the benefits of silviculture are acknowledged, why are generally was depleting stand quality and value far more commodity-driven harvests so common? An historical than improving it. perspective provides some clues. Forestry, as a profession, became established in the Northeast in the late 870s Partial cuts focusing on extracting value continue to when the USDA Division of Forestry was formed, be widespread (Seymour 2005). Long-standing use followed by state forestry commissions and forest of diameter-limit cutting has been little mitigated by societies in the 880s and 890s (Fernow 93). Early findings from research about the benefits of silviculture. reports of forestry practice, such as those by Austin Cary The short-term financial benefits of cutting only the largest trees are compelling. This raises a number of Kenefic, L.S.; Nyland, R.D. 2005. Diameter-limit questions: What historical factors shaped the widespread cutting and silviculture in northeastern forests: application of these cutting practices and discouraged a primer for landowners, practitioners, and silvicultural treatments? What are the long-term impacts policymakers. NA-TP-02-05. Newtown Square, of diameter-limit removals on the region’s forests? What PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, are the economic and genetic implications? What are the Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry. 8 p. ethical obligations of foresters considering diameter-limit cutting? And, perhaps most important, can we effectively Kenefic, L.S.; Sendak, P.E.; Brissette, J.C. 2005. rehabilitate the cutover forests of our region? Comparison of fixed diameter-limit and selection cutting in northern conifers. Northern Journal of The papers presented in this report reflect the content Applied Forestry. 22(2): 77-84. of a two-day conference for forestry practitioners, researchers, policy makers, and landowners at the Murphy, L.S. 97. The red spruce: its growth and University of Massachusetts on May 23-24, 2005. We management. Bull. No. 544. Washington, DC: U.S. hope that this presentation of the conference papers will Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 00 p. help to sustain a dialogue about diameter-limit cutting in the Northeast and increase interest in opting for Nyland, R.D. 2005. Diameter-limit cutting and silviculture instead. silviculture: a comparison of long-term yields and values for uneven-aged sugar maple stands. Literature Cited Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 22: -6. Blum, B.M.; Filip, S.M. 963. A demonstration of four intensities of management in northern hardwoods. Nyland, R.D. 992. Exploitation and greed in eastern Res. Pap. 4. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department hardwood forests. Journal of Forestry. 90(): 33-37. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 6 p. Pinchot, G. 905. A primer of forestry. Part II – practical forestry. Washington, DC: U.S. Department Cary, A. 894. On the growth of spruce. In: Second of Agriculture, Bureau of Forestry. 88 p. annual report of the Forest Commissioner of the State of Maine. Augusta, ME: Burleigh & Flynt: 20-36. Roach, B.A. 974. Selection cutting and group selection. AFRI Misc. Publ. No. 5. Syracuse, NY: Cary, A. 907. Practical forestry on a spruce tract in SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. Maine. Circ. 3. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 9 p. of Agriculture, Forest Service. 5 p. Seymour,