Coppicing: Using a Forester's Tool on Range- Lands Linda Howell Hardesty

Rangelands 9(3), June 1987 129

Coppicing: Using A Forester's Tool on Range- lands Linda Howell Hardesty

The phenomenon of coppicing, widelyused by foresters, ments. The coppicing stump uses the root system and can also bean important range managementtool. Coppice is reserves of the original plant, and under the influence of a defined as "all regeneration that is derived from vegetative chemical "contingency plan" reinitiates growth with proper- sprouting of dormant or adventitious buds." Range manag- ties very different from seedling growth. These properties ers talk about sprouting in conjunction with brush control, can affect forage production and quality. generally in a negative sense, as in: "mesquite's sprouting ability makes control almost impossible." While most people know what sprouting is, coppicingis only vaguely familiaras a managementtool. Foresters use coppice methods to insure a rapid, economical return to full stocking after wood is harvested, to maintain a desirable species and genetic composition, and to shorten rotation times. Following this more positive vein, what advantages might coppicinghave for the range manager interested in improving forage production?

Coppiceregeneration and uncut caatinga woodlandsin northeast Brazil.

The most familiar phenomenon is the speed with which coppice shoots emerge and grow. Most range managers have seen coppice shoots emerge from charred shrubs withindays ofa range fire, or have cut a tree in theyard only to have it begin almost immediately to fight back. The for- estry literature notes that coppice shoots may out-grow seed- lings for as long as 40 years (Daniel et al. 1979). Coppicing Cutting backcoppice growth of Auxemmaoncocalyx. stumps can provide browse in a hurry. In addition, stumps whichcoppice once can usually do so Some woody plants are important as forage, although repeatedly.Some Europeanwoodlands have beenmanaged many problems are caused by less desirable trees and for centuries for short rotation fuelwood production. Each shrubs. If brush management is considered as minimizing stump has produced many generations of regrowth. We the undesirable effects of woody plants while maximizing don't have much data on the prolonged sprouting perfor- their contribution to sound management, then coppicing manceof rangeland shrubs, butthe persistanceof sprouting can be a useful tool for the range manager also. species such as mesquite, and salt cedar suggest that Coppicing results from injuryto, or removalof the above- repeatedsprouting is possible under rangeland conditions. ground plant parts. It is a common responseto fire, mechan- Notonly do sprouts grow differently, butthe crowns they ical treatment, heavy browsing, and some herbicide treat- produce are differentas well. Coppicing can cause a shift from atall, tree-likegrowth formto a lower shrub-like form. Author is assistantprofessor, Departmentof Forestryand Range Manage- or for ment,Washington State University.At the time of this research theauthor was This change may be short lived, may persist many researchassociate at Utah State University. This increases accessibility for browsers, and can This paper was based upon research carried out as a part of the United years. StatesAgency forInternational Development Title XII Small RuminantsColla- improvefuel conditions if burning is planned. In many cases, borativeResearch Support Programunder Grant No. AID/DSAN/Xll-C-0049. shoots produce proportionally greater amounts of incollaboration with the Empresa BrasileiradePesquisa Agropecuaria, Brazil. coppice Portions of this paper appear in a doctoral dissertation at Utah State University. 130 Rangelands 9(3), June 1987

In addition coppice shoots are often quite palatable, even those of species which are not normally browsed. Animals selected coppice even in the rainy seasonwhen ample sup- plies of normally more palatable herbaceous forages were available. Similar observations have been reported in the literature, and this preference for coppice shoots is recognized by deerhunters who seek outdisturbed areas. Differ- ences in succulence, mineral, and nutrient levels have all beenproposed to explain thistendency. To date few studies havecompared the nutritional quality ofcoppice and mature growthof the same species. However,these reports generally supportthe idea that the nutritional value of browse is enhanced by coppicing (Reynolds and Sampson 1943, Leege and Hickey 1971, Hallisey and Wood 1976). Although this discussion ofcoppicing is primarilyin terms offorage production, two points related tosite quality should be mentioned. Treatments which stimulate coppicing, such as nonlethal herbicides, light fires, slashing, or browsing, create less site disturbance than some treatments which remove or kill roots and eliminate coppicing. Intact root systems help stabilize the site and rapid regeneration pro- - * , r ..

rumpor aesaipiniapyramidaUs sprouts within days ofcutting. foliage and tender stems to Inedible woody growth. Phenology is also affected by coppicing. In northeast Brazil coppice growth of deciduous species may shift to a more evergreen pattern when regrowing. In 1983, undis- turbed woodlands shed their leaves inJune. Coppice growth retained its leaves an additional 60 days. More remarkable were coppicingstumps whose regrowth had been heavily browsed by goats. These stumps leafed out again in June and July, with the dry season already underway, and main- tained green foliage for the duration of the 6-month dry season.With no further treatment, this pattern persisted into the 1984 dry season (Hardesty 1987). Dried fallen leaves of severaltree species are the major component of sheep and goat diets during the dry season (Pfister and Malechek 1986).If accessible, coppice shoots, with their delayed leaf- fall, can be used to extend the period when green feed is available,or can bedeferred untilthe leaves have cured and beused late inthe dry seasonwhen otherforage sourcesare exhausted. Similar observations have been reported in Africa, Costa Rica, and theCalifornia chaparral. As yetthere is no clear explanation for these shifts but reduced water stress or the effects of growth regulators have both been suggested. First year's coppice growth ofCaesalpinla pyramidalis. Range/ends9(3), June 1987 131

Goatseagerly browsecopplc,, 'th ofMimosa acutistipula. The foliage of uncuttrees is Outof ofbrowsers. more rapidlyand may have a different growth potential than dormant bud sprouts. Thus you can influence the sprout typeand density most consistantwith your goal for a particular species, be it control or propagation. The season of injury has agreat effect on the ability to resprout. Generally, injury duringthe dormant season pro- duces the strongest coppicingresponse. Conversely, injury shortlyafter the canopy leafsout hits the plant at a time when Maturecoppice ofCaesalpinia pyramidalis. Notedecadent stump ismore difficultand and insect are in center. regrowth pathogens pests most active. Often plants cut during the growing season vides for the soil surface and a more moderate resprout, but with only the remainderof the growing season protection in whichto do not survive the environment for understory growth. When the roots of recover, they following year. remain the root is Secondary stresses such as drought, browsing, fire, or di- woody plants alive, deep space occupied further reduce survival or Mixed stands of and may be more resistant to woody invaders, while still sease, may vigor. of shallow-rooted herbaceous specieswith varying phenologiescan bemanipulated through allowing growth species of treatments or selective seasonal treat- (Smith 1970). precise timing Numerous factors influence the of trees ments. Preferred species can be cut when coppicingwill be coppicingability when and shrubs, the most obvious of which is Some most vigorous and less desirable species coppicing genetic. will be least species do not sprout at all, whileothers havevarying ability likely. Theextentof the original treatment also influences regrowth. depending on the site. Blaisdell and Mueggler (1956) report that bitterbrush does not in but does Somespecies root graftwith neighbors of the samespecies sprout Oregon, sprout in a vascular connection similar to that of clonal in eastern Idaho and Utah. They suggest that sub-specific resulting differences be involved. species. Coppicing is inhibited by growth regulators trans- genetic may located from the crown. To abundant and size are also a as the to encourage coppicing, Age factor, ability coppice the of all individuals of a should varies during the life of a plant (Blake 1973). Production of aboveground parts species from dormant buds decreasewith due to be killed to prevent growth regulators produced by intact sprouts may age from in thickening ofthe bark or damageto thebuds. Age may notbe neighbors inhibiting sprouting connecting stumps as a factorin which adven- (Wold and Lanner 1965).This same principlesuggests that important plants readily produce ofless desired titious buds, in termsof a declinein with leaving some intactindividuals species might except general vigor reduce of ofthe same This age or site changes. None of these variables are within our coppicing nearbystumps species. butwhen can beused to the would be most advantageous with species which do not control, recognized they predict as is the with to a treatment. reproduce well from seed, case prolifically response particular such as andsome Thereare otherfactors howeverwhich can bemanipulated sprouting species aspen chaparral species One of these is the of the (Keely and Zedler 1978). directly. height remaining stump. Further is the The height of the affects both the and the manipulation possible through subsequent stump origin of the stand. As mentioned number of sprouts produced. Adventitious sprouts appear management coppice earlier, 132 Rangelands9(3), June 1987 browsing, burning, and mechanical treatment can all be Literature Cited used to. reduce the of or to renovate vigor coppicestands, Blaisdell, J.P., and W.F. 1956. of bitterbrush them and them in a and Both Mueggler. Sprouting keep young productive stage. (Purshia tridentata) following burning or top removal. Ecology the timing and degree ofthe treatment determine the effect. 37:365-370. In onestudy, two periods of heavy goat browsing duringthe Blake,T.J. 1983. Coppice systemsfor short-rotation intensive for- initial of stimulated additional 4 estry: the influence of cultural, seasonal,and plant factors. Aust. period regrowth regrowth by Forest. 13:279-291. browse and when Res. tropical species prolonged the period DanIel,T.W., J.A. Helms,and F.S. Baker. 1979. Principles of silvicul- green foliage was available (Hardesty 1986). This treatment ture,2nd ed. McGraw Hill Book Co., New York. reducedtotal browse production thefollowing year. Perhaps Halllsey, D.M., and G.W. Wood. 1978. Prescribedfire in scruboak more this caused of habitat in central Pennsylvania.J. WildI. Manage. 40(3):507-516. importantly, high mortality of stumps L.H. of several species. considered Hardesty, 1987. Factors affecting the sprouting response Among species forage produc- woody caatinga speciesand their implications for improvedcaa- ers, no mortality occurred. Only the species which are not tinga management.Ph.D. Diss. Utah StateUniversity, Logan. usually considered browse succumbed to this treatment. Keeley,J.E., andPH. Zedler.1978. Reproductionof chaparral shrubs This suggests that browse species are more tolerant to afterfire: A comparison of sprouting andseeding strategies. Amer. and that defoliation treatments can be Midi. Natur. 99(1):142-161. repeated defoliation, and W.O. 1971. of northern used to favor the of browse in the stand. Leege, T.A., Hlckey. Sprouting Idaho persistance species shrubsafter prescribed burning. J. Wildlife Manage. 35(3):508-515. Describingthe possibleadvantages of coppicing toimprove PtIster, J.A., andJ.C. Malechek.1986. Dietary selectionby goats and forage production, does not mean that this responseisn't a sheep in a deciduous woodland of northwesternBrazil. J. Range problem at times. The point is that with our broadened Manage. 39(1):24-28. wood and Reynolds,H.G., and A.W. Sampson.1943. Chaparral crown sprouts understanding of the roleof plants on rangelands as browsefor deer. J. Wildl. 7:119-1 22. the Manage. increasing emphasis on brush management, this is an Smith,D.M. 1970.The practice ofsllviculture, 8th ed. John Wiley and ideal time to take a lesson from the foresters, to reconsider Sons Inc., New York. coppicing, and to gain better of how we can Wold, M.L., and R.M. Lanner.1965. Newstool shoots froma 20 year understanding old manipulate this responseto further our managementgoals. swamp mahoganyEucalyptus stump. Ecology 46:755-756.

Taking the Great Animal Crusades Over the Top Robert H. Schmidt

Animal rights and animal welfare issues receive a great and rodent control, will keep these issues "boiling" in the deal ofmedia attention. Although manywould arguethat this future. attention is undeserved because only a small minority of The Animal Welfare Institute (API), amajor animal welfare people are involved, it is important to realize that animal group based in Sacramento, California, held their annual welfare issues strike a response chord in many people. I conference 17-19 October1986. The theme for the confer- firmly believe that these issues will not disappear anytime ence was "Takingthe Great Animal CrusadesOver theTop." soon; indeed, the evidence indicates that these organiza- In thisarticle I review someof the major pointsraised during tions are continuing to consolidate their power. This evi- the conference. dence includes newly formed animal care committees on The underlying theme for most of the keynote speakers many university campuses, passage of the federal Dole/- was thatanimal rightsactivists needto approach peopleon a Brown Bill ("Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals totally rational level and avoid emotional debates. "Arm Act"), revisions of the Public Health Service's animal care yourself with the facts," said Donna Ewing of the Illinois guidelines, and withdrawal of funding from institutions Hooved Animal Society. John Livingston, author of The Fal- found In violation of animal care regulations (Hoiden 1986). lacy of Wildlife Conservation,declared that activists should In addition toconcerns aboutthe use and welfare oflabor- "Never accept the burden of proof; shift the burden of proof atory animals, there is a good amount of attention being to the otherside." This is because ugliness, suffering, and focused on the production of animals for food (Mason and beliefs cannot bequantified. Donald E. Doyle, advisor toAPI Singer 1980, Curtis 1980, CAST 1981, Baker 1983). For on medical science, noted, "If you scratch an intelligent example, an injunction forced the USDA to modify their person deep enough, you'll uncover ignorance." This infor- Dairy Termination Program to exclude the provision requir- mation must reach the general public. LukeDommer, ofthe ing thehot-iron face branding ofdairy cows (Animal Welfare Committee to Abolish SportHunting (CASH), reported that institute1986). Specific concerns aboutfarm animal welfare, "Unless you crack the media, you'rewasting your time." along with concerns about hunting trapping, and predator Issues covered during the major presentations included egg production using hens in battery cases, veal production, The author Is area natural resourcesspecialist, University of California CooperativeExtensIon, HoplandField Station. 4070 University Road, Hopland, the trade in primates, project WILD (a wildlife-oriented CA 95449. teaching curriculum designed for grades K through 12), Editor's Note: Everyoneshould heed themessage In thisarticle. hunting and trapping on national wildlife refuges,the Dairy