IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/caa/jnljfs/v60y2014i5id66-2013-jfs.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of different forest regeneration methods after windthrow

Author

Listed:
  • A. Martiník

    (Department of Silviculture, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Brno, Czech Republic)

  • L. Dobrovolný

    (Department of Silviculture, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Brno, Czech Republic)

  • V. Hurt

    (Department of Silviculture, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Brno, Czech Republic)

Abstract

The prosperity of various forest regeneration methods was evaluated on the prepared windthrow area established in 2010 in a previously allochthonous coniferous stand growing in mid-elevations of the Czech Republic. The forest regeneration variants were as follows: (1) "planting" of target species (Picea abies [L.] Karst.) and Fagus sylvatica (L.), (2) "seeding" of pioneer (non target) species (Betula pendula Roth) and (3) spontaneous "succession". Two years after windthrow the "planting" was evaluated in accordance with the Czech forestry law as regeneration method with sufficient attributes, density (6,000-9,000 indd.ha-1) and regular spatial distribution of target tree species. The "seeding" and "succession" variants showed a insufficient attributes of target tree species - total density ca 3,000 indd.ha-1 (being ca 1,000 indd.ha-1 higher than 20 cm) and irregular distribution across the plot. The non-target species birch on the "seeding" variant showed a high density of plants (131,000 indd.ha-1) being eight times higher than the succession variant. The cost of the regeneration treatment was different between the variants - planting: 5,000-6,000 EUR.ha-1, 1,300 EUR.ha-1, succession: 1,000 EUR.ha-1. Comparing to "planting" the higher diversity of tree species and higher density of non-target species (20,000-134,000 EUR.ha-1) in the "seeding" and "succession" variants promise success for the future, however the real potential of regeneration methods that were used will be clear after long-term observations.

Suggested Citation

  • A. Martiník & L. Dobrovolný & V. Hurt, 2014. "Comparison of different forest regeneration methods after windthrow," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 60(5), pages 190-197.
    • Handle: RePEc:caa:jnljfs:v:60:y:2014:i:5:id:66-2013-jfs
    DOI: 10.17221/66/2013-JFS
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://jfs.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/66/2013-JFS.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: http://jfs.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/66/2013-JFS.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17221/66/2013-JFS?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. P. Jelínek & P. Kantor, 2006. "Spontaneous infiltration of broadleaved species into a spruce monoculture left without tending," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 52(1), pages 37-43.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:caa:jnljfs:v:60:y:2014:i:5:id:66-2013-jfs. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ivo Andrle (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cazv.cz/en/home/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.