Sustainable Landowner Options for Aspen Forests

Charly Ray, Northern Ecosystem ServicesJason Fischbach, UW-Extension

June 8, 2013

Project Collaborators

• USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) Grant Program

• UW Extension• USDA NRCS office Ashland• Northland College and the Sigurd Olson

Environmental Institute (SOEI)• Chequamegon Bay Area Partnership (CBAP)• George Lulich• The Nature Conservancy

Sustainable forestry

• Historic forest cover and type• Representative range of disturbance• Watershed conserving management• Producing a range of forest products from

pulp to sawtimber from a range of natural species

Large Dead Trees

Coarse Woody Debris

Forestry in our Region Must Recognize Historic Disturbance and Succession

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1936 1956 1968 1983 1996

Aspen/BirchAspen/Birch

Maple/BasswoodMaple/Basswood

For

este

d ar

ea in

thou

sand

acr

esThe Forest is Succeeding…Will We Let It?

Conifer migrationfrom drainages

Upland managementfor aspen

Longer-lived species are still present, but will

depend on humans to recover.

What’s Wrong With Aspen

• Nothing but….• Open vs. closed watershed function• Short life=limited market window• Limited products (pulp with limited sawlog)• Habitat limitations: lacks winter thermal

cover, mast, coarse woody debris, mid and lower canopy

• Sustainability of continued rotations is suspect

The Aspen Management Box

• Aspen is short-lived, relatively easy to harvest, and has a ready market

• Aspen regenerates vigorously in clearcuts outcompeting other species – it’s easy to manage

• Industry and government encourage aspen• Plus deer are strongly limiting white pine and

red oak regeneration in places

Are There Other Options?

Alternatives to Clear-Cutting Aspen

• Do nothing (let nature run its course)• Cut all aspen but leave everything else (slow

transition)• Cut some of the aspen (hastened transition)

– Capture some value of aspen– Limit suckering to encourage other species– Lack of seed and deer are major challenges– Risk of losing forest to brush or low-quality red

maple

Species Diversity

Project History

• Living Forest Cooperative – interested in value added products from forests and conservation management of forests – not just for timber

• Many landowners with aspen interested in some harvest but not clearcuts

• Little in the research or field regarding alternatives to clearcutting in aspen – focus on production

Components of Forest Ecosystems that Enhance Ecosystem Function

What We Know About the Project Location

Glacial Advance and RetreatCreated Our Soils andTopography

Land Type Associations

Legend

origveg

<all other values>

DESC_

aspen, white birch, pine

brush

hemlock, sugar maple, yellow birch, white pine, red pine

jack pine, scrub oak forests and barrens

oak - white oak, black oak, bur oak

oak openings - bur oak, white oak, black oak

open water

sugar maple, yellow birch, white pine, red pine

swamp conifers - white cedar, black spruce, tamarack, hemlock

white pine, red pine

white spruce, balsam fir, tamarack, white cedar, white birch, aspen

Pre-Settlement Vegetation Circa 1860

Project Location(White Pine-Red Pine)

Variability in the Clay Plain – Habitat Types

Habitat Typing Helps Us Understand the Potential of a Site

Often What’s Growing Now Is Not Maximizing the Potential of the Site

Quast Property

• 40-50 year old aspen dominated stands• Minor component of white pine, spruce, red

maple, balsam, northern hardwoods• Enrolled in MFL• Conservation easement• Fish Creek

Forest Stands

• A 5-112/A 0-51

• MFL required a harvest of the aspen

“Complete a shelterwood type harvest reducing crown closure to around 60%. The goal is to discourage aspen regeneration but allow more light to reach the understory to encourage natural and planted mixed pine/hardwood seedlings. Leave conifers for a seed source. Complete by 2012. Then within 5 years of the shelterwood harvest, establish an understory of seedlings of 900 seedlings per acre in conifer or hardwood seedlings other than aspen. May need to plant in order to do this. If understory meets stocking requirement, remove part or all of the remaining overstory where it can be done without damage to the understory. If understory stocking does not meet requirements, remove entire overstory to regenerate aspen. Cut all trees down to 2 inches DBH. Any healthy pine or spruce may be left. Snag and den trees may be left for wildlife.”

MFL Alternative Mandatory Practice for the stands

Our Research Project• What is the right amount of aspen to remove

via an “aspen shelterwood” on the clay plain?• We set up a timber sale to remove varying

amounts of aspen• Evaluate the response at 1, 7, and ? Years…

– Residual aspen (mortality and growth)– Aspen suckering– Non-aspen growth and regeneration– Shrub growth and colonization

Methods

• Marked harvest in February 2005• Plots established prior or immediately after

harvest• White pine planted at 300 tpa in April 2005• Data collected in fixed radius plots by FIA

technician• 1/10th acre plots for overstory trees• 1/300th acre plots for seedlings and saplings

The Data

What Happened to the Residual Aspen?

West Side

Average: $70.39/acre revenue to landowner

West Side

Residual Aspen Summary• There was some mortality, but no clear

relationship to residual basal area or removal intensity

• Continued growth resulted in a net gain of volume seven years after harvest

• Although value was left in the forest at the initial harvest, that value has appreciated and has provided aesthetic and other benefits

• Economic analysis is not yet complete

What Happened In the Understory?

Understory Summary• Aspen and non-aspen tree regeneration and

growth was sufficient to meet stocking levels, but not clearly correlated with overstory basal area

• The long-term competition between shrub and trees remains unclear

• More analysis remains to be done

Take Home Message

• Let’s go to the woods and take a look