.^m *^ IM» 'Tjm !^m ■^im%m^^m
"^ÊtÊ '^^1«tt '^-'^àa» '%Mk ''«^p^ttÉ^tMLTUM.'
.t\
|
! 1 ( |
|
|
1 |
|
|
I |
1 |
IP* .-^„ ^
PlW'^^
"^.'.T^- .""
ONTARIO HARDWOOD DECLINE SURVEY 1989 AND 1990
APRIL 1993
znjix
Ministry of
® Ontario ibS'ss^r
or \
ISBN 0-7778-0789-0
ONTARIO HARDWOOD DECLINE SURVEY 1989 AND 1990
APRIL 1993
©
Cette publication technique n'est disponible qu'en anglais.
Copyright: Queen's Printer for Ontario, 1993
This publication may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes
with appropriate attribution.
PIBS 2283
ONTARIO HARDWOOD DECLINE SURVEY 1989 AND 1990
Report prepared for:
Phytotoxicology Section
Air Resources Branch
Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy
ARB-167-92-Phyto
Report prepared by:
BEAK Consultants
14 Abacus Road
Brampton, Ontario
L6T 5B7
DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared by BEAK Consultants Ltd. under a con- tract with and direction of the Air Resources Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment. The accuracy and validity of the data and its interpretation was the responsibility of the contractor. Opinions and recommendations expressed are those of the contractor and shall not be construed to represent policy of the Ministry of Environment or the Government of Ontario. Mention of specific brand or trade names does not constitute an endorsement by the Ministry of the Environment or the Government of Ontario .
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was conducted under contract to the Phytotoxicology Section, Air Resources Branch of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
The study team would like to acknowledge the help provided by representatives from the District and Region offices of the MNR and MOE; Dr. Tom Hutchinson, Craig Kinch, Bill Gizyn and Dave McLaughlin.
Wilson Eedy, Ph.D Project Principal
Rob Watters, Ph.D. Project Manager
0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A hardwood decline survey was conducted in 1989 and 1990 to reassess the status of deciduous forest decline in Ontario. Previous surveys were conducted in 1986 and 1987. The work was carried out under contract to the Phytotoxicology Section of the Air Resources Branch, Ministry of the Environment by Beak Consultants Limited.
The survey consisted of visual evaluations of tree condition at 1 10 permanent plots, each containing 100 trees greater than 10 cm dbh.
Tree decline was assessed with a numerical decline index (DI) rating system which ranged from 0 (healthy, no symptoms) to 100 (dead tree). The mean DI of hardwood trees was 1 1 in 1989 and 13 in 1990. By comparison, the mean DI in 1986 and 1987 was 14 and 15, respectively. All of these values represent relatively low decline.
A Geographic Information System was used to assess the spatial distribution of forest decline in the Province. Severe hardwood decline (DI greater than 25) was found in 3 plots in 1990; 7 plots in 1989, 10 plots in 1987 and one plot in 1986. The Sudbury MNR Administrative District was the only District to contain plots which showed consistent and severe decline in 1987, 1989 and 1990.
Between 1989 and 1990, 91 % of all plots either had no mean change or increased/decreased by one decline class. An increase in DI implies a deterioration in tree condition. This compares with 78% between 1987 and 1990, 90% between 1986 and 1990, 72% between 1987 and 1989, 82% between 1986 and 1989 and 83% between 1986 and 1987. The greatest change in tree condition occurred between 1987 and 1989, with 28% of the plots reporting a change in DI of more than one decline class. The least amount of change in tree condition (9%) occurred between 1989 and 1990.
Most of the change in decline occurring between 1987 and 1989 was reported in the Sudbury and Algonquin Park MNR Districts. Mean plot DI decreased by four decline
®
classes at single plots within each of these two MNR Districts. Mean plot DI decreases of three decline classes were also recorded at two plots within the Algonquin Park District, and at individual plots in the Bracebridge, Cornwall, Owen Sound, Pembroke and North Bay MNR Districts.
The most substantial change in individual mean plot DI between 1989 and 1990 occurred in the Parry Sound MNR District (Plot 18), where there was a decrease of three decline classes. Increases in mean plot Dis of two decline classes occurred at individual plots in the Parry Sound, Tweed and Napanee MNR Districts. Decreases in average plot Dis of two decline classes were recorded at two plots in both the Parry Sound and Sudbury MNR Districts, and at single plots in each of the Espanola and North Bay MNR Districts.
Tree mortality across all survey plots was 1.7% in 1986, 3.1% in 1987, 1.1% in 1989 and 1.5% in 1990. The total number of dead trees increased from 1986 to 1987, and from 1989 to 1990. There was a substantial decrease in the number of trees classed as dead from 1987 to 1989. The number of dead trees in 1986 was also higher than in 1989 and 1990. It is probable that many of the trees noted to be dead in 1986 and 1987 were so classified due to extensive defoliation.
Almost one-quarter of the dead sugar maple identified in the 1989 survey were found in the Minden MNR District. The Parry Sound and Espanola Districts each contained roughly 10% of the total 1989 dead sugar maple. The remaining dead maple were scattered in small numbers throughout the rest of the study area. In 1990, dead sugar maple were more evenly distributed across the Province. Aylmer District had the highest percentage of dead maple within Ontario at 8.9%. The North Bay and Niagara Districts both had the next highest percentage at 7.9%.
No consistent relationship was established in any survey year between the areas of hardwood forest decline and wet sulphate and nitrate deposition.
M*ns OH (KTOB M^B
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES v
LIST OF FIGURES vu
LO INTRODUCTION 1
1 . 1 General Background 1
1.2 Study Background 3
1.2. 1 The Site-Specific Maple Decline Study 3
1.2.2 The Hardwood Decline Questionnaire 4
1.2.3 The Hardwood Decline Survey 4
2.0 STUDY OBJECTIVES 23
3.0 METHODOLOGY 24
3.1 Field Crew Selection 24
3.2 Field Tasks 24
3.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) 25
3.3.1 Crew Training 25
3.3.2 Data Handling and Communication 27
3.3.3 The Field Manual 28
3.3.4 Overlap Plots 28
3.4 Data Analysis 29
3.4.1 Tree Assessment Data 29
3.4.2 Plot Directions and Location Maps 31
m
0
Page
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 32
4. 1 Hardwood Decline Assessment Results 32
4.1.1 Decline by Survey Plot 32
4.1.2 Regional Decline Patterns 81
4.1.2.1 Hardwood Decline by Forest Section 81
4.1.2.2 Hardwood Decline by MNR Administrative Districts 82
4.1.3 Hardwood Decline and Wet Sulphate and Nitrate Deposition Zones 88
4.1.4 Quality Assurance Field Checks 92
5.0 CONCLUSIONS 98
6.0 REFERENCES 100
IV
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Page
1: Summary of General Location Information for Hardwood Decline Survey
Plots 10
2: Summary of Field Soils Data for the Hardwood Decline Plots 13
3: Summary of General Forest Stand Characteristics of the Hardwood
Decline Study Plots (at the time of establishment - 1986) 17
4: Mean Decline Index (DI) by Plot (for all species) 33
5: The Spatial Coverage of Each Survey Plot 38
6: Mean Decline Index (DI) Changes by Survey Plot 42
7: 1990 Mean Decline Index (DI) for Individual Species within Each Plot 53
8: 1989 Mean Decline Index (DI) for Individual Species within Each Plot 59
9: Summary of Mean Decline Index for Trees Surveyed 65
10: 1990 Stand Composition Statistics 66
11: Summary of Mean Tree Quality Observations by Plot (1990) 68
12: Summary of Mean Tree Quality Observations by Plot (1989) 71
13: Tree Mortality by Species in 1986, 1987, 1989 and 1990 74
14: A Summary of Dead (Fallen) Tress by Survey Plot in 1989 and 1990 75
15: A Summary of Dead (Fallen) Trees by MNR Administrative District
in 1989 and 1990 79
16: Hardwood Decline by Forest Section 84
17: Hardwood Decline by MNR Administrative District and Region 86
18: Hardwood Decline and Wet Sulphate and Nitrate Deposition 91
^iWTB CMWIiCiiB»
Page
19: 1989 Overlap Plots - Statistical Analysis of Differences Between
Crew Assessments 93
20: Results of Analysis of Variance: Two- Way Analyses of Variance including Both Man and Interaction Effects for Decline Index and Various Components of the Index 95
21: Planned Comparisons Between Crews for Decline Index (and Dead
Branches Component) at Overlap Plots 96
®
nMTTB) OH CCTOB) Mtm
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Page
1: Approximate Location of Survey Plots 6
2: Schematic Design of Hardwood Decline Plots 8
3: Tree Condition Assessment Form 21
4: Data Handling and Analysis 30
5: Mean Decline Index (DI), 1990 34
6: Mean Decline Index (DI), 1989 35
7: Mean Decline Index (DI), 1987 36
8: Mean Decline Index (DI), 1986 37
9: The Proportion of Plots in Each Decline Class 41
10: Decline Index (DI) Change, 1989 to 1990 45
11: Decline Index (DI) Change, 1987 to 1990 46
12: Decline Index (DI) Change, 1986 to 1990 47
13: Decline Index (DI) Change, 1987 to 1989 48
14: Decline Index (DI) Change, 1986 to 1989 49
15: Decline Index (DI) Change, 1986 to 1987 50
16: Forest Sections in the Hardwood Decline Survey Area 83
17: MNR Administrative Districts in the Hardwood Decline Survey Area 85
18: Mean Wet Sulphate Deposition Zones (1981-1984) in the Hardwood
Decline Survey Area 89
19: Mean Nitrate Deposition Zones (1981-1984) in the Hardwood Decline
Survey Area 90
&
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General Background
Forest decline is not a new phenomenon; rather, it has been recorded worldwide for more than a century (Cowling, 1985). However, within the last decade, an unprecedented number of severe declines have been reported in many European countries and parts of North America.
Forest declines in Europe were first noted for silver fir (Abies alba) in West Germany during the early 1970s. By the early 1980s, declines were being reported in Britain (Binns et al., 1987), Norway (Tveite, 1987), Switzerland and Austria (Bûcher, 1987), France (Bazire, 1987), Hungary (Jakucs, 1988), Czechoslovakia and East Germany (Blank et aJ., 1988). Hardwood forest decline in North America was first reported for yellow and white birch fBetula alleghaniensis. B. papyrifera) in the early 1930s in Nova Scotia (Hawboldt and Skolko, 1948), New Brunswick (Balch and Prebble, 1940), Quebec (Pomerleau, 1953) and Maine (Nash et al., 1951). Although declines of individual species in some areas have shown recent signs of recovery, e.g., silver fir in West Germany, many declines continue to worsen annually (Ulrich, 1988).
Sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.) decline was first reported in Ontario in the Ottawa-Huron and Algoma extension forests (Nordin, 1954). Maple decline was subsequently noted in Wisconsin (Skilling, 1959), Massachusetts (Mader and Thompson, 1969), Michigan (Kessler, 1963), New York State (Hibben, 1964), New Hampshire (Laçasse and Rich, 1964) and Quebec (Pomerleau, 1953). Severe sugar maple decline has recently been reported in Quebec, specifically in the Appalachian region south of Quebec City. Aerial and field surveys have shown the decline in Quebec to be increasing both spatially and temporally (Gagnon et al., 1985). Recent declines in Ontario have been reported largely in the Sudbury, Parry Sound, Muskoka, Simcoe and Grey
®
Districts/Counties (McUveen et al. , 1986). The degree of reported damage to sugar maple stands in Ontario has been highly variable, ranging from light to severe.
Symptoms of sugar maple decline may include (McLaughlin et al., 1987):
leaves often dwarfed and exhibiting interveinal necrosis;
chlorosis and marginal leaf scorch;
delayed spring bud flush;
early leaf discolouration followed by premature leaf fall;
progressive branch dieback;
reductions in increment growth, slow tap hole closure;
increased root mortality; and
epicormic sprouting.
Various causes of forest decline have been hypothesized. There are presendy more than 180 theories on the causes of forest decline, emphasizing the complexity of the phenomenon (Henrichsen, 1986). Some of the more likely contributing causes include:
• acid deposition/soil acidification (Cronan et al., 1980; Ulrich et al., 1980);
• pollutants, such as road salt (Guttay, 1976) and pesticides;
• stand dynamics (Bormann and Likens, 1979);
• diseases, such as Armillaria mellea root rot, wUts and cankers;
• insect infestation, especially the forest tent caterpillar rMalacosoma disstria);
• climatic conditions, such as drought (Bauch, 1983), frost, low winter temperatures and wind exposure;
• improper stand management, such as overcutting, overtapping and livestock grazing; and
• a combination of the above stresses (Manion, 1981).
1.2 Study Background
In the spring of 1984, maple syrup prcxlucers from the Muskoka region queried the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) about an increase in dieback and mortality of sugar maple. The producers felt that continued sugar maple decline could jeopardize the local maple syrup industry and the health of hardwood forests regionally. Because air pollution was suggested as a possible cause for the decline, it was within the mandate of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) to investigate the problem in Ontario. The three main studies specifically undertaken by the MOE to address the problem were:
• a site-specific Maple Decline Study;
• a Hardwood Decline Questionnaire; and
• a Hardwood Decline Survey.
1.2.1 The Site-Specific Maple Decline Study
A total of eleven permanent field sites were established in three areas of Ontario: seven were established in woodlots in the Muskoka region, two in the Peterborough area, one in Algonquin Park and one in a woodlot near Thunder Bay. The sites were chosen specifically to represent a gradient of decline. Detailed descriptions of the study are provided in McLaughlin et al. (1985). Woodlot owners provided detailed stand management histories for each site. Soil, foliage, twigs and roots were collected from a number of sugar maple trees in each plot exhibiting a gradient of decline symptoms. Increment cores were taken from a number of trees in each plot and examined for annual xylem growth patterns. Atmospheric acid deposition rates, forest management practices, the presence and history of disease and insects, site disturbance, tree age, site quality and weather records were also documented for each site.
The results from this study demonstrated that decline was not consistent with respect to topography, aspect or site (McLaughlin et al., 1985). Air pollution was concluded to be
a contributing factor to maple decline because of the elevated available aluminum concentrations detected in the soil of poorly-buffered sites, and because of the consistent trend towards reduced xylem growth in the last 30 years. Inciting factors included insect defoliation in 1975-1978; drought in 1976, 1977 and 1983; and tree age and improper site management (McLaughlin et al-, 1987).
1.2.2 The Hardwood Decline Questionnaire
In 1985, with the cooperation and assistance of OMAF, the MOE distributed a questionnaire to 610 members of the Ontario Maple Syrup Producers Association. The questionnaire was intended to provide an immediate data base on the condition of Ontario's syrup-producing hardwood stands.
One third of the syrup producers felt that decline was a problem in their woodlot. Of the 33% reporting decline, 72% said it was getting worse, and 89% said they had not previously experienced a similar decline in their woodlot. The survey indicated that decline in maple syrup bushes was most common in the Georgian Bay, Algonquin Park and Parry Sound areas, and in the southwest counties.
1.2.3 The Hardwood Decline Survey
A Hardwood Decline Survey was initiated by the MOE in 1985 and involved:
• establishing a network of 110 permanent observation plots across the hardwood forest region of Ontario; and
• monitoring the crown condition of 100 marked trees in each of these plots, i.e., 11,000 ti-ees in total.
Plots were established in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence and Deciduous Forest Regions, as defined by Rowe (1972). The Haileybury Clay and Temagami Forest Sections were
®
excluded in the survey because suitable plots could not be located. Plot 95, located in the Ministry of Natural Resources' (MNR) Espanola District, was removed from the survey in 1990 because it was erroneously established on private property without the owner's permission. Thus, 109 plots were surveyed in 1990.
Plot Selection
A main objective of the hardwood survey was to establish a network of permanent plots which provided representative coverage of the geographic distribution of sugar maple (the target species) in Ontario using a stratified systematic sampling design. To this end, documents and maps were collected for the Province, including:
• 1:50,000 topographic maps;
• Forest Resources Inventory (FRI) maps; and
• 1:10,000 aerial photographs.
The Province was systematically divided into 100 km square blocks, and a minimum of one plot was established in each block. This was to ensure an even distribution of assessment coverage. Additional plots were then added in areas which had been previously identified as having either a low or high decline frequency. This was the stratified component of the design. The location of the survey plots is shown in Figure 1. The plots were chosen to a rigorous set of criteria, including:
having greater than 50% sugar maple;
belonging to a stand greater than 10 hectares in area;
having a stand age between 75 and 150 years;
having good access to accommodate re-evaluation;
belonging to a relatively undisturbed stand in the last 20 years, with no
scheduled cutting during the next 20 years;
CO
o
r
:3
iN
o Q
o o
• being located more than 10 km from an urban area or point source of air
pollution;
• being publicly owned (or an Agreement Forest, preferred); and
• being located at least 30 m from any woodlot edge.
Plot Installation
The survey plots were established in the following way (ESP, 1989):
• a pressure- treated 4" x 4" post was placed at the plot cwitre, and a plot
identification tag was attached;
• the tree closest to the centre post (and located due north) was identified as tree Number 1;
• an engineer's transit was set up over the plot centre and aligned to this tree;
• one hundred trees of aU species over 10 cm dbh were then numbered in a roughly circular area around the plot centre;
• the trees were numbered with an aluminum tag fixed at breast height, and the tree number was marked on the tree with paint (except where this conflicted with the land owner's wishes);
• a 30-metre buffer zone was established around each permanent plot by painting a ring of trees to discourage encroachment on the plots (Figure 2); and
• the plot was marked with a yellow MOE poster indicating that the stand was an MOE study plot.
All plots were located and mapped using standard MNR references, such as Township and stand number in northern Ontario, and township and compartment number in southern Ontario. Reference maps and directions for each plot also were prepared.
I*«TO£gwBI
PLOT BUFFER ZONE
PLOT BOUNDARY
MOESIGN
N
A
FIGURE 2: SCHEMATIC DESIGN OF HARDWOOD DECLINE PLOTS (SOURCE: ESP, 1989)
Plot Characteristics
Plot location summarizes are presented in Table 1 and include the following infonnation for each plot:
forest Region and Sector;
Township with lot and concession (where available);
MNR Administrative District;
forest stand number (where available);
NTS topographic map number;
UTM coordinates; and
applicable air photograph number (where available).
Other plot information includes:
• soils data (Table 2); and
• general stand characteristics (Table 3).
Tree Assessments
At each of the survey plots, 100 sample trees were evaluated for crown condition. Evaluations were made using the decline index (DI) technique developed by the MOE (McLaughlin et al., 1988). This technique involved a weighting of those symptoms most often observed in declining sugar maple in Ontario. These were:
• dieback of the fine branch structure,
• pale green or chlorotic foliage, and
• leaves which are distinctiy undersized.
|
J_ |
oo |
— H. «^ \û |
.^ ,^ O -3- |
^ |
o |
<Tv<rvr>-rv.— rvvoo»^ |
||||||||
|
ciriA^cA |
||||||||||||||
|
E |
o t |
^1* |
r^fSitMfAovo'O^ià- |
|||||||||||
|
Z |
nS |
ON ON 0\ <T» N£> |
AJ. |
<M O |
o |
|||||||||
|
<< zz |
< 2 |
J- JT ^ ^ ^ «O oo eO ^C oO fs. r* rs. r^ r-* |
<< 22 |
— «o 00 r». |
<< ZZ |
77-1 77-1 78-1 66-1 |
i |
<<< |
<<<<< |
< |
■^'T'T'T'^'^^ "T-i |
|||
|
< ê. |
222 |
(*-* |
22222 |
2 |
Û.2
2222222222 2222222222 2222222222 2222222222
OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO 0 0 0 0 0 0*^000 oooooooooo
o*^«^"-\ooo«^oo o*^oooooo«^o ooo«>^«^or^*^«^«^ :r*^2*
C^(NOfN«r\or^^oOf*^ — fNj«a<r\*^OO0 — o- — of^O*^0<^r^^t^ OrvO»
f.-voQ«-4,^^«-\.3.pr400 (*^o*~»•^^ûO*'^•^^^*^ aNfN«^»^"'^*^0^0'OC^
alUlllllJllJLJlUUJtJaJ nJllJUJUJUJLJLJUJllJUJ CJLJLJtlJUJUJ:iJUJliJUJ UJL-'lUliJUJtULJUJCJuJ
OOOOOOOOOO 00000000«~ïO 000000"^000 OOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOCa*^*^ 00«^0*^000r^0 ^r^o*^"^0•^^^J*r^«r\lr^ r^O'f>«^'f»00»<^00
tri r-v — — O <
0- >j fe « !é
^ T So£ 5 c. = = i; «
a "S JS — W-^
u nr
« 6£ CO Dû tso.:^ -^ .c re 4)
»- _«- k- _»- I- ! tr^ CJ —
& ii^iu.
UJ tu -J _1 111 U O O U- O u. la o U Z:itJ 111 Q < < Q Û G QiîiïiiJi:
rz$
'"""^ZZZ'^Z
<<
ZZ'
V < vo ^ <^ o < < < < < < < o r- ,
ÎZ"^*"— 2z2 zzzzz~ — '
a 2 c c 2 = = = .Sc c=«^ =
'-ei;'-nS;ï;i;Ei. b:o3t;S"S'-'-^i; ^!;--t^"0"S'D'=- ^— — i — i = ZtsZZûUUOCtJ (Jc2<rtU& — ""^"^ — -r-r-T-_,^,„,^.^iii iu^a«c5ffliy-)
iCt — X ~IX.; 1
<< <<<
Z Z ZZ z
=>z^zzzz>~ -^~~xzzzzz zzzzzzzzzz
ZZ ZZ Z'
^zzzz'
<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<
'zzzzz zzzzzzzzzz
iXiëi^SûSSô^s joqojÛusûjS s>2SPs-2t!HU (jcX>X(5&s< = >E
) r T -ï? — -^ •- o
CQ C 12 12 CD ,
|0_QO__ [2ClI3£2c2LJ_llJl
UJOOOOOOOOO
_1_1_1_I_J J_l_l_l_l _l_'_l_l_j_lj-j_l_)_l
J J J J _î _i _) _i _i J _i _i J _i _i _i _i _i -J -J _j _; _i _i _i _i _i -IJ -J
(J (J ou UOO oo U OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO
_1 _1 _) J _) U _U -J J J J J J J ^ .J
irt «1 w^ */> Ï/1 (/I v> VÎ m tn --.-.-
_J_J_JJ-1-1-J_1-J-1
oSoSoSoOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO
«c<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<
10
-^ %Û — o
toooo::5-oo'::5-:^oooo':5-
■ -r ^ "^ - -i d ^
J.<i AS
OO OO "^ OO OO '^ oC OO
2ZZ22ZZ22Z 22Z2ZZZ22Z 2ZZZZ2ZZZZ Z2ZZZ2ZZZ2 oooooooooo oo«^ooooooo — ^ — ^«'-^ — ^--^ «^^<--,^^^^^,--
o o o o «>-\ •
. *r> tr^ C) O C3 O «^
o o o o o o o > o o o o f^ «^ «^
>ooooooooo
) ON O «
UJtULUIlJUJUJUJtailJUJ OlUJuJUJtUUJllJUJliJtU LJUJUJtlJUJUJUJUJl
------\oooo oooooooooo --— — — — — — — .
JOOOO 00t^«^*^00'^00
jiULJCJuJUJiuuJiuti: >ooooooooo
s0000«^«^000
; > ^ ^ = p p - 8 o -
' X C3 D- C (- ^ >
;2-«^^
> o ^ ^ ^ -£ ^ -
: o -- = = "t — -
iU n ra ra n S
1 - n: X x c. C' (
2^ -5-c Ê Ï -5 c o t; o ■£,— J^ — SooS — ■? =
<<
'2— ZZ-2Z
.<-^<M<<< I — f^ — <^ Z2Z
O O ON — O «-v \
^•zzzz tzzi^rS
UX ZdZ U S Z _i _i m a 5 2 2 2 s O U < c _i _J .
: = > = >><-= >f>><g|>g-= |=|g?xf=>^ =ts;
'Z 2
o ii
Hl^illllS ^sl^llilf^ lyflllihl ÎHIflllll
2i<:iai2222Zcû.y^ iSÙjOoÏ-iSi-jXO USOO.^X^&nlj cii::<<X^(j2U<ii;
_„_u ovoo a a a ç yo
r:J n^ Q Q a Q Q d Q Q a a Q :i
jjUOUUUOUU OUUj (J O Q Q Q Q Q Q Cl Q Q Q Q y
QOQQQr;' si D^ S^ 3^ C^ C^ S^ Û Û C ^i 5; C^ 5J Q C^ SJ i:^ jj si UjUUUOUj IJ_jli_j_S_i!jOOU _;_j_!_iO_i_i_;_i_> Q (J □ Q Q Q Q U (J O O O O OU Û Q Q o (J O O " O (J C O O
of
CL 2
— <M**N.»«^>a^^OOC^O
oooooooooo oooocjooooo Ô0O0000000 oooooooooo <<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<
11
^1
^ <<<< < < . ■
"zzzzzzf;!
■=; <<^ <<<<<<
Z2Z2ZZ22ZZ ZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZ22
oooooooooo oooooooooo oooooooooo
«r\0000000"-\*^ «r\ir\o«^00000'^ i.-\tr\oOO»^«^000
CvooC^C^OCvO^C^OO OOOOOOOOOO — lOCT^— -C^— •— *^*^f^
ujuuJLiJLJuJLiJuJtiJuJ LJcJiLiu-'ujuJiiJtJnjc-; c:LiJtiJiuii:u.'tJu:ii:a;
oooooooooo oooooooooo oooooooooo
v%0«-\000«^0«^'^ »r\»r~,O0O»^0*^O0 OP^OO«^0»^*^»^0
«-^«r\o«or-vr^CDO''%oo o*^r^c\r-i — -a-soo-rs piîr^ïlî^^ï^î^^;^
E§ïb
5i s 5
tTzu < < u< <xîîj oïùj o u ocj uÙjÙj u. rjr:<_i<ri:
• t- C2 £: ci
i-S s s = ■ — ^ ^ o
— <■ Sz!
^ZZZ 3 =ZZZ
c = e
JC J£ ^ JC
iiiiiiii §i S S SS S a = = li-„^-
7^'^^cc-5cc>.>- >,>,cccccccj2 £cc-cccci:3^
HZZOOdOOcc. c a. UJ u uj < < < <c. Z O OZ O ti cj F F i-
zzz
x;j = £Sg5
■^zzzzz z^^^^^zzzzz
zzz'
> < <<<$
' zzzzz
'z zzzzz
Irlû^JIJsi^ 6JI<<§êQ:.^cl zj^iSifii^sll^
Si Sîv ~ Q- î^ =
3 3 t; •-
I ^M Cl Q û Q (u tu uj û ta ta a y
!__CJ_UJUJ
_! _1 _1 _1 _1 _1 J J _U _U J _1 _1 .
I _J J _1 _J _1 _J _J _1 J _1 _1 _J
az
• «^ M> rs. flo e\ o
„„„ , _ , _ _ y\ o ^C30c
0O00000OC30 oooooooo<
<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<
12
■ê 'Sj'Sj'o c c XI c mT? -d c "Si's c'Sjccc'm V'Sjcc'Sjcc'oSc cooc "S "m £ "m S mm S^^SZZSZC^S SZITÎSZ^ZZZC^ 2CSZZ?;zzSujZ Z./)2S^ZtoZ^^
b'5 c c c c "u "D
0=0=5 =
ISZZZZSS ZZZ>ZJ^2;7ïZ
>5;2ZC^2ZSu;Z uj^iDôs^z;^:
CCCCCisC.C .CC„CC^.^C:C C^CICt^Ct^t^t-;^^. l-l_h-l-l-^^i-i_^
oo^ooo'?Or!,o J,oo^oo"^'7oo oooooooooo oooooooooo zzSzzzcjzSz ?;zz<iz2d.ciz2 ZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZ
t)4JOcaju„___ î^-o^„tnJ'SJ„„-c ■0"0«Sf'^*-*-'C— ï •""02'04;^*ft^2*- cLû.D.û.û.a.^^^-j2 «-Drt^^'^fflrtlS !H2rt^2co«25* ^IH22è«Sî*'— * 5"5'5"r) 0:3 E E E E ùsEEujoiZEIS ssEjSEESSj ùssssEoEsE
<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<< ^$^$$-S$^$i
ZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZ
ooooo
<<<
zzz
00 000-
< <<<<<
I — o — ^^^^ — ^ Z ZZZ2 Z
oooooooooo oooooooooo
1 <-> < J^/ni/i
'zîCzU'^-'
'zzzz'^'^zfcU zzzz ztzz-
«^_o-rsi«'N<^— ••^o*^
'££u2:
_1 — </) l« U. _1
ll^^^^^^^ëg §s,^^^^2^.
Be
Se:
1 U. L. _i U.
— ^ 22 — - • — — — *
ÏXX^^X^Xg-S- ï g- S-ï X X ï X g-S XIÎÛXX ocûX o Xû g-XX g-g-ÎT o
•e e
oooooooooo oooooooooo oooooooooo oooooooooo 0OOOC3OO0O0 oooooooooo oooooooooo *r££SSS^S^S
5^'È
g<?S-«>->00§g °!>^g«^og^^r^^ Oog<?ÏJ
;so<= oi-;o»<s<o«-;i<iv.
o;^ ;,^oo s j
COO'^OOOOOO
— <N«-^3-*>\Dr>«ooOvO — •cM«<\a-"^\^r^oooso — .r>jf^^*^\orvooc^o — ?î^^?^î^?^ïS?^? ooSoSoSoSo oooooooooo oooooooooo oooooooooo
<<<<<<<<<< «é <<<<<<<< < <<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<
13
uJZcJiutlZZZZZ
c c c ■5 c 00 c T? Mob "2 "2 « oiob'S 00 c c "S C" 00 c tb c m m CD -o 00000—00 syJS' o o Jr^^ ô^ooo „^o:5^o — — o o o
zzzsz5;z5:^5^ sswS^c^Swzzs >c^zj^z5;c;?z2s
• ZCJCJCJZZZZZ
c'occctioooo "2 = = __ooooox== ooo ZZZSZZZuJ^Cô 5ZZ
0000-=^ o*-=^o .S'Jr o — o o o
sszzc^ zj;z5;5;z5îzz2
o o o o o o X ^^ ooor:r:*^°oo— 0—0 — ^0:^000
îic — — Sccccc
"ToTTiOoooo 000 000 o oZooizZZZZ ZZZoZZZo—
0000 i 0(*^00" ZZZZoZfvZZo
'^OO^OOv,^'~r
oZZnûZZoj — o
"o*^»-^"0^^'o ^ SûIûIiîISEzSl-EI
I •□ i O.'D t3 "D Q. O. û, O. 5 '
! — O °-— =— «IOlQ.Q.0
u.<JC;5u.ti.2_i3S S2Q30D_lIi.li.U 2 J Z Z) O _j _i 2 D O
- o — — *- z: o:
< <
' zz
'-^-^(/î Irt c
0<rt UU UOO'
1 U^UU^i u
Joooo^oi^o
000 — Oo2«*^0<
*^S'^*^SS^O^^
jj ^ < -J < _i J < J .
— </>2t.Z<^u.2u.<
mmt
_1<
zz
C55
t/l w^ l/ï ^
I O O O O rsi O «^
) o «o ec *-i o «
00000*^0«^0000
JOO<NOOO«^«^C3
d^r^5^ri-->-- 5^^0^urfg^rf5i rii£5ièJ2ègrjè5 C^^^^yg^gè
. o o o o «^ -a- <
^Mgi^°;
o-iri-i.
2 E
•i ë»
2c:
& c:.::^
Q.'X T T. T "2 T. Cl
52S*&SS=
— o. — "2 — c— û.
&&S&&2&&&& & cr:&2?^&&£& e: 2 S S 5^ & i z e: & S
-=• '^ o " '^ "^ "^ <-> o 5 oo l^o o o "j! s ooooooog22 - H o 2 — s s o o o
•^oooosoo,
S^ê
ooooooooo<
<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<
14
M c "S "g = "5? ob c obu) "S M oo"5 £■ c c c £■ t- •g-5)o"5"Sccc<o 5Î22S25:^ZC^;^ 255?;5>2ZZ>> 5C^iu2S22ZZuj
Oo,— -004*4; OOxOOoOO — X
:>5;zz>> SSujSSZZZZcj
o 00
ZôoôZôZo(-aZ — Ô
. o C5 o ■
! Z ô Z o Z <i
sEssjSzzsz sdzzzssuôs sEusEEnszs
<<<
'zzz'
lU uuu</^ U:
; o o o ::i ii 1:: o <
,-oog»>-CO
iSi^i^ï^dî^ 2^---i^î2&^- S^ugs;^^^^^ 2ZZZ22>2'^'^ ^ZZZZ-l-J^gz _j 2 55 ^ Z Z ZZ
11. iri bi _i ii ^ i£ {:> =: u. =15:11:11-11.
a. <2 Î2 t] i^ ^ r^ i^ £
s u.d_id II. z _!<:(_)
1^0— v>*^0<^«'^<
i«>^^oo^oc;o
, U i/i r;; li. -1 -1
:^:^ =iii.'i-tii--i-i'
< J
2i2
2i5
.^l^l^o^Ug ^&<S&S&&&2> &*&2>^^l2.ê
'c^C>.^C300-.,00 000000C3000 C30000C300<0
'oio_^oooVoo ooooooooocD 00000000^ — .0
^i
2op.ç-o^§gp§ §<c.«>g<?gggpr? pg.opgo°o<o
■SSf-S 2'><^SS<S
gx 00^0
If
.0 — ^slf»^.^■lr^vor^ooc^o .0 000000000—
oooooooooo oooSoC
<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<
15
Notes to Table 2:
Page li oi U
Plot locations are as shown in Figure 1.
Three classes: 0-W cm (very shallow)
'fl-lOO cm (shallow)
GT 100 cm (deep) A value of 200 indicates no bedrock was encountered.
Three classes: 0-50 cm (strongly limey)
51-100 cm (weakly limey) GT 100 cm (no carbonates encountered)
A value of 200 indicates no free carbonates were encountered.
four drainage classes:
Ten moisture classes:
"Well" = well and moderately well-drained
"Rapid" - very rapid and rapid drained
"Imperfect" = imperfectly drained "Poor" = poorly-drained
0 = moderately dry
1 = moderately fresh
2 = fresh
3 = very fresh
(f = moderately moist
5 = moist
6 = very moist
7 = moderately wet
8 = wet
9 = very wet
Eleven texture classes:
SL
L
S
FSL
CL
LFS
LS
SIL
MS
SIC
SI
sandy loam
loam
sand
fine sandy loam
clayey loam
loamy fine sand
loamy sand
silty loam
medium sand
silty clay
silt
"S" indicates simple slopes, while "C" indicates complex topography. "N/A" indicates no data available.
16
|
TABLE 3: |
SUMMARY OF GENERAL FOREST STAND CHA OF THE HARDWOOD DECLINE STUDY PLOTS |
iRACTERIST |
ICS |
||
|
(at the time of establishment - |
1986) |
||||
|
Mean |
Mean |
Total |
Mean |
||
|
Plot No.^ |
Mean dbh |
Tree Height |
Breast Height |
Basal Area (mVha) |
% Crown |
|
(cm) |
(m) |
Age |
Closure |
||
|
A-OOl |
16.8 |
15.6 |
N/A |
20.0 |
75 |
|
A-002 |
2L0 |
20.2 |
93 |
3'f.O |
75 |
|
A-003 |
21.1 |
19.9 |
N/A |
28.0 |
75 |
|
A-OOf |
21.8 |
17.0 |
N/A |
20.0 |
65 |
|
A-005 |
25.9 |
18.9 |
113 |
26.0 |
N/A |
|
A-006 |
32.9 |
25.3 |
107 |
23.2 |
N/A |
|
A-007 |
35.7 |
26.8 |
103 |
25.2 |
85 |
|
A-008 |
22.6 |
19.7 |
73 |
22.0 |
80 |
|
A-009 |
22.3 |
19.1 |
77 |
If.O |
50 |
|
A-OlO |
22.7 |
18.6 |
82 |
20.'f |
N/A |
|
A-011 |
20.8 |
l'f.5 |
N/A |
2itA |
80 |
|
A-012 |
22.6 |
19.9 |
93 |
18.8 |
65 |
|
A-0I3 |
22.*» |
16.3 |
78 |
18.8 |
50 |
|
A-Ol^f |
22.0 |
19.7 |
81 |
19.6 |
85 |
|
A-015 |
23.1 |
VlG |
N/A |
18.8 |
50 |
|
A-016 |
22.^ |
18.1 |
93 |
21.6 |
90 |
|
A-017 |
17.7 |
13.2 |
76 |
18.8 |
N/A |
|
A-018 |
26.2 |
17.8 |
82 |
lf.8 |
N/A |
|
A-019 |
36.7 |
27.8 |
102 |
26.0 |
75 |
|
A-020 |
26.8 |
21.0 |
85 |
m.z |
90 |
|
A-021 |
26.5 |
21.2 |
S6 |
26.1* |
90 |
|
A-022 |
21.0 |
19.5 |
95 |
25.6 |
99 |
|
A-023 |
20.7 |
18.9 |
102 |
2'f.O |
95 |
|
A-02f |
25.0 |
18.7 |
95 |
2'f.O |
90 |
|
A-025 |
21.^ |
20.0 |
N/A |
19.6 |
99 |
|
A- 026 |
20.8 |
18.9 |
86 |
22.0 |
75 |
|
A-027 |
23.2 |
18.8 |
117 |
23.6 |
N/A |
|
A-028 |
21.0 |
18.2 |
82 |
2'*.0 |
85 |
|
A-029 |
20.1 |
18.3 |
82 |
2'*.0 |
70 |
|
A-030 |
26.3 |
21.8 |
127 |
19.6 |
70 |
|
A-03I |
17.8 |
16.0 |
N/A |
18.8 |
85 |
|
A-032 |
23.2 |
16.8 |
S7 |
23.2 |
80 |
|
A-033 |
2«f.«f |
18.1 |
N/A |
25.6 |
85 |
|
A-03'« |
2f.6 |
18.7 |
103 |
22.0 |
90 |
|
A-035 |
18,9 |
l'J.8 |
73 |
19,2 |
70 |
|
A-036 |
29.5 |
20.0 |
N/A |
26.8 |
85 |
|
A-037 |
27.3 |
22.3 |
N/A |
23.6 |
65 |
|
A-038 |
20.6 |
18.2 |
N/A |
19.6 |
N/A |
|
A-039 |
22.1 |
15. t» |
77 |
22. £f |
60 |
|
A-OffO |
27.3 |
19A |
76 |
22.«> |
90 |
17
|
TABLE 3: |
SUMMARY OF GENERAL FOREST STAND CHARACl ERISTICS |
||||
|
(Cont'd) |
OF THE HARDWOOD DECLINE STUDY PLOTS |
||||
|
(at the time of establishment - |
1986) |
||||
|
Mean |
Mean |
Total |
Mean |
||
|
Plot No.^ |
Mean dbh |
Tree Height |
Breast Height |
Basal Area (m^/ha) |
% Crown |
|
(cm) |
(m) |
Age |
Closure |
||
|
A-O^fl |
27.3 |
19.6 |
63 |
l'f.8 |
85 |
|
A-0'*2 |
35.1 |
29.7 |
102 |
28.8 |
85 |
|
A-0f3 |
29.2 |
25.8 |
60 |
22.8 |
90 |
|
A-Oiit |
28.8 |
22.9 |
85 |
21.6 |
80 |
|
A-0it3 |
26.*» |
23.8 |
77 |
23.2 |
80 |
|
A-0«f6 |
30.3 |
25.6 |
69 |
2'f.O |
85 |
|
A-0ii7 |
30.2 |
25.8 |
65 |
22.8 |
85 |
|
^-o^s |
27.5 |
25.6 |
96 |
27.6 |
75 |
|
/K-0U9 |
26.0 |
28.6 |
71 |
2tA |
85 |
|
A-050 |
3L9 |
29.5 |
80 |
25.6 |
80 |
|
A-051 |
26.8 |
25.2 |
71* |
23.2 |
70 |
|
A-052 |
23.5 |
2'f.l |
79 |
30.0 |
75 |
|
A-053 |
2L3 |
20.8 |
63 |
20.8 |
90 |
|
A-05'f |
21*. 9 |
2LI |
100 |
21.2 |
60 |
|
A-055 |
23M |
2'f.6 |
60 |
26.0 |
90 |
|
A-056 |
26.2 |
27.2 |
67 |
26.f |
80 |
|
A-057 |
26.8 |
19.8 |
89 |
22.0 |
95 |
|
A-058 |
25.2 |
2I.I |
8if |
28.0 |
80 |
|
A-059 |
23.2 |
19.6 |
63 |
16.0 |
60 |
|
A- 060 |
2'f.9 |
21.3 |
76 |
16.0 |
70 |
|
A-Oél |
25.0 |
25.5 |
N/A |
21.2 |
65 |
|
A-062 |
21.3 |
21.7 |
67 |
26.^» |
95 |
|
A-063 |
23,5 |
21.1 |
90 |
2'f.O |
65 |
|
A-Oé'f |
28.0 |
23.3 |
N/A |
23.2 |
60 |
|
A-0é5 |
19.9 |
17.2 |
71 |
26.'* |
75 |
|
A- 066 |
25.9 |
22.3 |
N/A |
15.6 |
50 |
|
A-067 |
28.8 |
21.6 |
87 |
2ii.Z |
65 |
|
A-068 |
22.2 |
22.5 |
63 |
23.6 |
85 |
|
A-0é9 |
37.7 |
23.1 |
60 |
25.2 |
70 |
|
A-070 |
26.it |
2'*.7 |
81 |
28.'* |
80 |
|
A-071 |
23.8 |
19.5 |
117 |
32.'* |
75 |
|
A- 07 2 |
26.9 |
21.9 |
N/A |
21.2 |
65 |
|
A-073 |
30.6 |
2f.8 |
96 |
2'*.8 |
70 |
|
A-07^ |
26.8 |
2'J.7 |
79 |
16.8 |
65 |
|
A-075 |
26.8 |
2f.8 |
108 |
2ii.ti |
80 |
|
A-076 |
26.5 |
26.9 |
61 |
3tt.O |
80 |
|
A-077 |
19.8 |
19.8 |
75 |
30.it |
90 |
|
A-078 |
22.1 |
22.2 |
68 |
28.8 |
80 |
|
A-079 |
2f.9 |
21.3 |
97 |
26.8 |
80 |
|
A-080 |
23.0 |
17.6 |
9^ |
21.6 |
60 |
|
TABLE 3: |
SUMMARY OF GENERAL FOREST STAND CHARACTERISTICS |
||||
|
(Cont'd) |
OF THE HARDWOOD DECLINE STUDY PLOTS |
||||
|
(at the time of establishment - |
1986) |
||||
|
Mean |
Mean |
Total |
Mean |
||
|
Plot No.^ |
Mean dbh |
Tree Height |
Breast Height |
Basal Area (m^/ha) |
% Crown |
|
(cm) |
(m) |
Age |
Closure |
||
|
A-081 |
20.2 |
19.0 |
Wt |
30.0 |
70 |
|
A-082 |
25.1 |
21.3 |
im |
26.<» |
75 |
|
A-083 |
22.5 |
20.0 |
85 |
18.0 |
60 |
|
A-Ogif |
25.7 |
21.3 |
100 |
26.f |
85 |
|
A-085 |
22.2 |
22.3 |
63 |
26.0 |
70 |
|
A-086 |
2'f.6 |
20.8 |
8^ |
20.0 |
75 |
|
A-087 |
35.'f |
28.0 |
77 |
29.2 |
65 |
|
A- 088 |
20.2 |
21.5 |
73 |
33.2 |
85 |
|
A-089 |
19.2 |
16.9 |
7it |
22.8 |
75 |
|
A-090 |
27.0 |
20.0 |
95 |
25.6 |
60 |
|
A-091 |
22.6 |
18.6 |
68 |
2^.0 |
65 |
|
A-092 |
25.1 |
19.9 |
102 |
26.'» |
75 |
|
A-093 |
21.3 |
18.2 |
67 |
25.6 |
60 |
|
A-09it |
21.0 |
18.3 |
77 |
2^.«f |
60 |
|
A-095 |
26.2 |
20,2 |
122 |
22.0 |
50 |
|
A- 096 |
30.'f |
21.0 |
93 |
2kM |
75 |
|
A-097 |
25.0 |
20.8 |
88 |
28.0 |
80 |
|
A-098 |
20.2 |
20.6 |
60 |
29.6 |
75 |
|
A-099 |
25.5 |
20.3 |
75 |
28.8 |
75 |
|
A- 100 |
2^.0 |
19.8 |
83 |
30.'f |
80 |
|
A-101 |
2f.9 |
23.0 |
Jtt |
25.2 |
70 |
|
A- 102 |
20.3 |
21.2 |
75 |
33.6 |
85 |
|
A-103 |
23A |
18.1 |
87 |
29.2 |
80 . |
|
A-lO^ |
2ii.6 |
19.7 |
82 |
26.0 |
75 |
|
A-105 |
21.9 |
18.7 |
70 |
31.2 |
85 |
|
A- 106 |
28.0 |
20.2 |
133 |
26.8 |
75 |
|
A-107 |
18.9 |
17.9 |
70 |
20. «f |
70 |
|
A- 108 |
20.7 |
16.9 |
78 |
22.^» |
80 |
|
A- 109 |
27.8 |
18.9 |
N/A |
28.«f |
65 |
|
A-110 |
19.2 |
16.8 |
N/A |
25.2 |
50 |
Source: ESP (1989)
' Plot locations are as shown in Figure 1.
N/A = No data available.
19
These three parameters were individually assessed to the nearest 10% and then combined in the weighted formula to yield an numerical DI value ranging from 0 (a healthy tree with no symptoms) to 100 (a dead tree).
The DI formula is:
DI = DB + (A X UL) + (A X ST) + (A X 5172)
where: DI = decline index;
DB = percent dead branches;
A = (100 - DB)/400;
UL = percent undersized leaves;
ST = percent strong chlorosis; and
SL = percent slight chlorosis.
To aid in the assessment of each of the above characteristics, laminated field assessment templates were prepared, illustrating a series of tree crown silhouettes in 10% decline gradients. On the reverse side of the templates were three series of colour chips. Each of the three series contains six chips chosen to illustrate a range of foliar colour encountered in sugar maples in Ontario. One series represents normal green foliage, the second represents pale green or slightly chlorotic foliage, and the third illustrates the colour range considered to be strongly chlorotic.
Using these templates, two evaluators trained in the recognition of characteristics decline symptoms in Ontario, subjectively estimated the amount of crown and branch dieback, slight and strong chlorosis and undersized leaves for each tree. This information was recorded on a decline assessment form, (e.g.. Figure 3) and later transcribed to a spreadsheet file where the DI is calculated.
20
î Q. Q. o o t:
</i </) i/i (n Z O CNj rO ^ m tû N-
< 5
iLl
"-^Q.
^'o.
'^o
^■^.
^^^
|
û |
|
|
o |
|
|
r |
|
|
5 |
|
|
^ |
|
|
2 |
|
|
t) |
|
|
D |
|
|
5 |
|
|
) |
|
|
) . |
|
|
- |
|
|
^ |
|
|
> |
|
21
The DI technique has been shown to be reproducible (McLaughlin et al., 1988) and was used by Ecological Sendees for Planning (ESP) for 1986 and 1987 Hardwood Decline Surveys (McHveen ^ al., 1989 and ESP, 1989). The results from these surveys showed that decline problems in Ontario were concentrated in the southwest and northcentral regions of Ontario (Mcllveen et al-, 1989 and ESP, 1989). Increases in Dis (deterioration in tree condition) during the 1986 and 1987 growing seasons generally corresponded to infestation by forest tent caterpillar and the bruce spanworm fOperophera bruceata) (ESP, 1989). Although the survey was primarily designed to aissess sugar maple decline, the study showed elevated declines for yellow and white birch, red maple (Acer rubrum) and black cherry (Prunus serotina). There were no discernible patterns in decline with respect to wet sulphate deposition.
In 1989, a three-year contract was awarded to Beak Consultants Limited (BEAK) to continue the Hardwood Decline Survey. The results from the 1989 and 1990 surveys are provided in this report.
22
2.0 STUDY OBJECTIVES
The primary objectives of the 1989 and 1990 surveys were to:
• re-evaluate the 100 trees in each of the survey plots;
• carry out maintenance work in each plot; and
• compare 1989 and 1990 data with the 1986 and 1987 data.
In addition to the above-mentioned objectives, BEAK extended the scope of work to include:
• correction and revision of plot location data;
• development of a quality assurance and quality control (QAVQC) field check program;
• development of a tree evaluation training program for crew members;
• development of a field manual for crew use; and
• the use of a Geographic Information System to summarize results from the survey, and to assess relationships between hardwood decline and environmental factors such as sulphate and nitrate deposition.
23
' *«vTBai«ctti0Pw«
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Field Crew Selection
Four field crews were selected by BEAK for the 1989 survey and 3 crews were used for the 1990 work. Each crew consisted of two individuals. All crew members were university students with experience in forestry and fieldwork. The crew leaders had proven experience in leadership and tree identification.
3.2 Field Tasks
Each of the crews was responsible for assessing at least one-quarter (in 1989) or one-third (in 1990) of the survey plots. The crews began in the northern part of the Province in mid- July and progressed southward so that seasonal differences in canopy condition could be minimized.
At each of the plots, field crews performed the following activities:
• revised plot and location data;
• re-marked the plot and buffer zones;
• re- tagged sample trees; and
• re-assessed sample trees.
To facilitate fmding plots in successive surveys, the T-bars used to identify the location of the plots were repainted. If the T-bars were removed or damaged, an appropriate permanent object such as a tree or fence-post was painted and recorded in the plot directions as a landmark.
Numbered aluminum tags were originally placed on survey trees at breast and/or stump height using galvanized steel nails. These tags and nails were removed and new tags were
24
'iwTB) OH «cms Mm
installed at breast height using screws. At least 4 cm clearance was left between the screw head and the surface of the bark to allow for radial growth increases. The screws can be retracted during subsequent plot visits.
All sample trees were re-assessed for decline using the MOE technique outlined in Section 1.2.3. Independent observations by each member of the crew were combined, through a consultative process, into a single set of observations for each sample tree. Observations of tree injury and dead or fallen trees were also recorded.
3.3 Quality Assurance/QuaUty Control (QA/QQ
The Hardwood Decline Survey involves the visual assessment of a large number of trees by a relatively small number of individuals. To ensure data quality, BEAK initiated a quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program, which involved:
thorough and detailed training in the field tasks required; development of a comprehensive field manual for each crew member; strict data handling and record keeping protocols; plot overlaps by a number of crews to evaluate assessment quality; and regular plot visits by experienced BEAK personnel.
Additional QC testing was conducted by the MOE in that all crew members were tested in the tree assessment technique prior to initiation of the study. Random plot visits were also made by MOE staff.
3.3.1 Crew Training
Field crews were trained by experienced BEAK personnel in early July of each year in:
• tree assessments;
• plot maintenance; and
• record-keeping and data handling.
A training program was conducted on several plots over a three-day period. Four plots were selected to cover a variety of decline types: two in the Muskoka region and two in the Peterborough region.
Field crew members were trained in tree assessments using the MOE technique that was used for the 1986 and 1987 assessments (McLaughlin et al., 1988). The specific skills developed during this three-day training program included:
• the ability to recognize common hardwood tree species;
• the recognition and ability to score the three important symptoms, namely:
- dead branches,
- undersized leaves, and
- foliar chlorosis;
• the recognition and ability to score the impacts of insect defoliators on individual sample trees; and
• the recognition of various main stem injuries caused by forest tree diseases, management activities or other events.
Of particular importance to the success of the training program, and the validity of subsequent survey data, was that each crew member be able to assess the trees in a reproducible manner. To this end, individuals and crews were required to repeatedly assess a series of trees independently until all crew members were rating trees accurately and consistently.
Field crews were tested by experienced MOE personnel at the Halton Hills Conservation Area prior to commencement of each survey. Crews were asked to repeatedly rate a series of sugar maple trees having a range of decline symptoms. The crews were assessed with respect to the accuracy and reproducibility of decline component scores for each tree.
26
'■HibLoiiccfaaMm
3.3.2
Data Handling and Communication
Crews were provided with carbonless duplicate decline assessment forms (see Figure 3). They were required to mail a copy of this form to BEAK (in previously labelled and stamped envelopes) within 24 hours of the plot visit, with the following:
• field notes;
• revised plot directions and location maps; and
• revised topographic maps.
The field notes recorded during each plot visit were to include:
the time of crew arrival at the plot;
a thorough list of maintenance activities performed at the plot;
the overall site conditions, including any obvious signs of damage or
change;
the weather conditions;
any recent changes in land use or development in the immediate vicinity
of the plot;
comments on specific problems in finding individual trees or plots;
notes on general difficulties encountered during assessments or plot
maintenance; and
the time of crew departure from the plot.
The field notes and Dl forms mailed to BEAK were put into one of 1 10 individual files. This ensured ready access to plot information, and that no data were lost (since two copies of the decline assessment forms existed).
After completing activities at each plot, the crews were required to call the BEAK Project Coordinator to:
27
■^UfanEcua^ww
• report progress to-date; and
• give a forecast of activities and travel path.
This regular communication allowed BEAX personnel to schedule unannounced spot checks and to monitor the overall progress of plot assessments.
3.3.3
The Field Manual
As a supplement to field training, a Hardwood Decline Survey Field Manual was prepared by BEAK and given to each crew member for reference. The manual included;
the names and contact numbers for liaison officers from BEAK and the
MOE;
a detailed description of field tasks;
contingency plans;
a brief "To Do" and equipment lists;
the MOE Tree Assessment Methodology Manual;
a tree identification package; and
a Hardwood Disease and Insect Identification package.
The manual was a useful addition to the QA/QC program because it saved valuable time in the field when crews were unsure of a task or when a problem arose.
3.3.4
Overlap Plots
To check the quality of tree assessments by each crew, a number of plots had assessments carried out by more than one crew. Scheduled overlaps occurred randomly throughout the study area. The data from the QA/QC programs were analyzed statistically (using analysis of variance and planned comparisons), and the results considered in view of the quality of crew assessments and the possibility of expanding this program in future years.
28
3.4 Data Analysis
Data collected during each survey were processed, edited and analyzed as described in Figure 4.
3.4.1 Tree Assessment Data
Upon the arrival of one copy of data at BEAK offices, information on the decline assessment forms was entered onto a Lotus- 123 file. After editing and verification, all plot files were merged for statistical analysis. General statistics were then carried out by plot and species, including:
mean Dl by plot for all species combined;
mean DI by plot for sugar maple;
mean DI for individual species (across all plots);
mean values for tree injuries and disease by plot; and
noted dead or fallen trees by plot and by species.
In addition to these general statistics, the spatial characteristics of mean DI by plot were examined using Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis. SPANS (Spatial Analysis System), a PC raster-based GIS developed by TYDAC Technologies, was used to examine mean DI by plot in relation to:
• Forest Sections (Rowe, 1972);
• MNR Administrative Districts;
• wet sulphate deposition zones; and
• wet nitrate deposition zones.
These four spatial variables were digitized from previously published maps. Mean DI values by plot for 1989 and 1990 were derived from analysis of the data collected from each
29
Figure 4: Data Handling and Analysis
Plot Directions Modified
and Saved in
WordPerfect Files
Data Collection
• Dl Forms
■ Field Notes
■ Location Maps
• Plot Directions
One Copy Mailed to BEAK
Dl Parameters Input to Lotus 1 23 nies
Editted and Verified
Lotus Files Merged
General Statistics by Plot and Species
G IS Work
|
1 |
|||
|
Merged Data by Section/District |
|||
|
Calculated Mean Decline Irxjex by Forest Section |
|||
|
Calculated Mean Decline Index by MNR Administrative District |
|||
Merged Data by Potential Causal Factor
One Copy Retained by Field Crew
Plot Location Maps Re-dratted using Macintosh
Calculated Mean Decline Index by Ptot for all Species
Calculated Mean Decline Index by Plot for Sugar Maple
Calculated Mean Decline Index for Individual Species
Calculated Mean Values for Tree Injuries and Disease by Plot
Noted Dead or Fallen Trees by Plot and Spedes
Mean Decline Index vs. Wet Sulphate Loadings
Mean Dedine Index vs. Wet Nitrate Loadings
30
of the survey plots. Mean DI by plot for the 1986 and 1987 surveys (Mcllveen et ai., 1989 and ESP, 1989) were also input into SPANS. All files were converted from the SPANS system format to an ARC/INFO GIS system (ESRI). The files were then output to a HP Laserjet printer with an HPGL Plotter Cartridge.
For the analysis, each of the plots was assumed to be representative of forest conditions between plots. Interpolation between plots was carried out using the Thiessen Polygon (also known as Voronoi polygons or Dirichlet cells) Interpolation Modelling Technique. Maps showing the spatial distribution of mean DI by plot (for 1986, 1987, 1989 and 1990) were developed from this modelling approach.
Changes in mean DI by plot from one year to the next were also computed using GIS. These changes were noted by relative increases or decreases in one (or more) DI classes. Comparisons were made, by plot, for 1989-1990, 1987-1990, 1986-1990, 1987-1989, 1986- 1989 and 1986-1987.
Following development of the mean decline index model (map), the relationship to other spatial variables, including forest Sections, MNR administrative Districts, wet sulphate deposition zones and wet nitrate deposition zones, was examined using an overiay approach. Maps and cross-tabulation tables were output.
3.4.2 Plot Directions and Lxjcation Maps
Revised plot access information and location sketches are compiled in a separate document. Sketches were accomplished with the aid of a Apple Macintosh microcomputer. Future changes can be made readily to accommodate changes in road alignments, landmarks, etc., or to correct errors.
31
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Hardwood Decline Assessment Results
4.1.1 Decline by Survey Plot
The mean decline index (Dl) for each plot in 1986, 1987, 1989 and 1990 is summarized in Table 4. Considerable variation in mean DI is evident between plots within the same year and also at any given plot between years. The mean DI for hardwood trees in Ontario was 13 in 1990, 11 in 1989, 15 in 1987 and 14 in 1986. For interpretation and mapping purposes, five decline classes (and relative decline ratings) were established by the MOE as follows:
Relative Decline Rating
Very low
Low
Moderate
High
Severe
Overall, hardwood forest decline in Ontario for 1986, 1987, 1989 and 1990 was rated as low. The spatial distribution of mean DI across the Province is illustrated for 1990, 1989, 1987 and 1986 in Figures 5 to 8, respectively. The mean DI for each plot was assigned to one of the five decline categories and mapped using the GIS. Individual Thiessen polygons were drawn around each plot. The size of the polygon depends on the proximity of one plot to another. Plots separated by greater distances are represented by larger polygons. Data collected at each plot are assumed to be representative of the area encompassed by each polygon. The approximate area represented by each plot is listed in Table 5. Some plots.
32
MarTH) (H MriCLD n
|
Decline |
Range |
|
Category |
of DI |
|
1 |
< 11 |
|
2 |
11-15.99 |
|
3 |
16-20.99 |
|
4 |
21-24.99 |
|
5 |
25-^ |
MEAN DECLINE INDEX' (DI) BY PLOT (for all species)
|
Mean |
Mean |
Mean |
|||||||||||||||
|
Plot |
1986- |
Plot |
1986- |
Plot |
1986- |
||||||||||||
|
No;- |
1986 |
1987 |
1989 |
1990 |
1990 |
No."- |
1986 |
1987 |
1989 |
1990 |
1990 |
No.= |
1986 |
1987 |
1989 |
1990 |
1990 |
|
1 |
15 |
10 |
11 |
7 |
11 |
41 |
22 |
24 |
19 |
17 |
21 |
81 |
13 |
5 |
10 |
19 |
12 |
|
2 |
IS |
29 |
16 |
13 |
18 |
42 |
7 |
8 |
2 |
3 |
5 |
82 |
13 |
5 |
9 |
19 |
12 |
|
3 |
14 |
17 |
18 |
18 |
17 |
43 |
16 |
16 |
10 |
8 |
13 |
83 |
12 |
5 |
7 |
11 |
9 |
|
4 |
17 |
25 |
16 |
16 |
19 |
44 |
14 |
11 |
6 |
4 |
9 |
84 |
8 |
15 |
7 |
13 |
U |
|
5 |
10 |
23 |
15 |
7 |
14 |
45 |
19 |
14 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
85 |
7 |
10 |
2 |
7 |
7 |
|
6 |
11 |
10 |
8 |
11 |
10 |
46 |
13 |
14 |
5 |
6 |
10 |
86 |
15 |
4 |
6 |
9 |
9 |
|
7 |
9 |
9 |
6 |
12 |
9 |
47 |
15 |
20 |
8 |
12 |
14 |
87 |
13 |
14 |
8 |
9 |
11 |
|
8 |
13 |
24 |
6 |
12 |
14 |
48 |
15 |
14 |
7 |
6 |
11 |
88 |
15 |
21 |
1 |
14 |
13 |
|
9 |
15 |
7 |
4 |
9 |
9 |
49 |
15 |
13 |
4 |
7 |
10 |
89 |
18 |
19 |
18 |
15 |
18 |
|
10 |
13 |
3 |
6 |
11 |
8 |
50 |
19 |
23 |
15 |
8 |
16 |
90 |
19 |
20 |
19 |
12 |
18 |
|
11 |
18 |
11 |
7 |
8 |
11 |
51 |
12 |
13 |
4 |
8 |
9 |
91 |
21 |
21 |
26 |
19 |
22 |
|
12 |
9 |
2 |
5 |
6 |
6 |
52 |
14 |
15 |
II |
13 |
13 |
92 |
12 |
15 |
21 |
13 |
15 |
|
13 |
20 |
17 |
12 |
16 |
16 |
53 |
11 |
14 |
2 |
6 |
8 |
93 |
15 |
19 |
12 |
12 |
15 |
|
14 |
11 |
16 |
5 |
9 |
10 |
54 |
9 |
4 |
4 |
7 |
6 |
94 |
15 |
18 |
7 |
13 |
13 |
|
15 |
14 |
12 |
7 |
9 |
11 |
55 |
18 |
15 |
9 |
9 |
13 |
95 |
18 |
26 |
20 |
-' |
21 |
|
16 |
16 |
21 |
13 |
20 |
18 |
56 |
16 |
23 |
13 |
15 |
17 |
96 |
17 |
28 |
10 |
14 |
17 |
|
17 |
25 |
25 |
27 |
24 |
25 |
57 |
6 |
9 |
8 |
II |
9 |
97 |
18 |
27 |
12 |
11 |
17 |
|
18 |
10 |
20 |
26 |
14 |
18 |
. 58 |
15 |
21 |
12 |
10 |
15 |
98 |
19 |
25 |
14 |
14 |
18 |
|
19 |
12 |
16 |
11 |
7 |
12 |
59 |
8 |
2 |
10 |
16 |
9 |
99 |
15 |
27 |
18 |
15 |
19 |
|
20 |
16 |
19 |
8 |
13 |
14 |
60 |
6 |
11 |
6 |
13 |
9 |
100 |
14 |
33 |
12 |
16 |
19 |
|
21 |
11 |
12 |
9 |
6 |
10 |
61 |
20 |
21 |
17 |
21 |
20 |
101 |
14 |
16 |
21 |
12 |
16 |
|
22 |
9 |
10 |
2 |
6 |
7 |
62 |
9 |
11 |
7 |
13 |
10 |
102 |
11 |
11 |
6 |
II |
10 |
|
23 |
12 |
11 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
63 |
17 |
9 |
18 |
13 |
14 |
103 |
16 |
18 |
9 |
15 |
15 |
|
24 |
16 |
14 |
8 |
10 |
12 |
64 |
21 |
12 |
IS |
22 |
18 |
104 |
13 |
27 |
15 |
11 |
17 |
|
25 |
10 |
10 |
7 |
12 |
10 |
65 |
16 |
21 |
28 |
34 |
25 |
105 |
12 |
14 |
4 |
14 |
11 |
|
26 |
15 |
26 |
9 |
12 |
16 |
66 |
19 |
22 |
25 |
35 |
25 |
106 |
16 |
16 |
21 |
18 |
18 |
|
27 |
14 |
15 |
13 |
18 |
15 |
67 |
16 |
11 |
15 |
13 |
14 |
107 |
12 |
IS |
25 |
21 |
19 |
|
28 |
18 |
22 |
32 |
19 |
23 |
68 |
18 |
15 |
1 |
10 |
II |
108 |
14 |
12 |
8 |
11 |
11 |
|
29 |
21 |
29 |
27 |
18 |
24 |
69 |
16 |
12 |
3 |
4 |
9 |
109 |
19 |
16 |
8 |
6 |
12 |
|
30 |
17 |
30 |
33 |
25 |
26 |
70 |
14 |
14 |
10 |
15 |
13 |
110 |
13 |
11 |
4 |
7 |
9 |
|
31 |
13 |
21 |
25 |
18 |
19 |
71 |
14 |
5 |
10 |
17 |
12 |
TOTAL |
|||||
|
32 |
12 |
14 |
17 |
14 |
14 |
72 |
5 |
6 |
17 |
11 |
10 |
PLOT |
14 |
15 |
11 |
13 |
13 |
|
33 |
13 |
14 |
16 |
13 |
14 |
73 |
10 |
2 |
15 |
15 |
11 |
MEAN |
|||||
|
34 |
12 |
18 |
22 |
20 |
18 |
74 |
4 |
12 |
8 |
12 |
9 |
||||||
|
35 |
15 |
19 |
18 |
14 |
17 |
75 |
8 |
5 |
7 |
II |
8 |
||||||
|
36 |
11 |
11 |
13 |
9 |
11 |
76 |
12 |
17 |
16 |
18 |
16 |
||||||
|
37 |
29 |
25 |
22 |
24 |
25 |
77 |
15 |
17 |
1 |
14 |
15 |
||||||
|
38 |
20 |
22 |
17 |
22 |
20 |
78 |
7 |
14 |
10 |
13 |
11 |
||||||
|
39 |
15 |
17 |
11 |
15 |
15 |
79 |
12 |
0 |
9 |
13 |
9 |
||||||
|
40 |
11 |
12 |
8 |
8 |
10 |
80 |
14 |
IS |
Q |
16 |
14 |
' Mean Dis calculated as outlined in Section 3.0. • Plot locations as illustrated in Figure 1 . ' Plot not surveyed in 1990,
o
CD O)
Q
X
0)
o
CD Q
C
a
CD
in
(D cn
34
35
36
|
TABLES |
THE SPATIAL COVERAGE OF EACH SURVEY PLOT' |
|||||||
|
Total Area |
%ofToul |
Total Area |
% of Total |
Toul Area |
% of Total |
|||
|
Represented |
Hardwood |
Represented |
Hardwood |
Represented |
Hardwood |
|||
|
Plot |
(km-) |
Forest Area |
Plot |
(km=) |
Forest Area |
Plot |
(\nr) |
Forest Area |
|
I |
1,149 |
0.7 |
41 |
249 |
0.1 |
81 |
2,446 |
1.4 |
|
2 |
954 |
0.6 |
42 |
869 |
0.5 |
82 |
3.500 |
2.0 |
|
3 |
2,735 |
1.6 |
43 |
836 |
0.5 |
83 |
3,576 |
2.1 |
|
4 |
1,860 |
1.1 |
44 |
1,420 |
0.8 |
84 |
1.536 |
0.9 |
|
5 |
1,372 |
0.8 |
45 |
2,285 |
1.3 |
85 |
1,023 |
0.6 |
|
6 |
425 |
0.2 |
46 |
1,515 |
0.9 |
86 |
1,234 |
0.7 |
|
7 |
1,525 |
0.9 |
47 |
2,207 |
1.3 |
87 |
1,487 |
0.9 |
|
8 |
891 |
0.5 |
48 |
1,069 |
0.6 |
88 |
407 |
0.2 |
|
9 |
2.782 |
1.6 |
49 |
1.065 |
0.6 |
89 |
1.921 |
l.I |
|
10 |
2.424 |
1.4 |
50 |
1.232 |
0.7 |
90 |
806 |
0.5 |
|
M |
2,247 |
1.3 |
51 |
414 |
0.2 |
91 |
613 |
0.4 |
|
12 |
1,795 |
1.0 |
52 |
941 |
0.6 |
92 |
706 |
0.4 |
|
13 |
1,879 |
1.1 |
53 |
2,454 |
1.4 |
93 |
1.22! |
0.7 |
|
14 |
2.649 |
1.5 |
54 |
1.511 |
0.9 |
94 |
1.044 |
0.6 |
|
15 |
3,521 |
2.1 |
55 |
541 |
0.3 |
95= |
779 |
0.5 |
|
16 |
1.186 |
0.7 |
56 |
2.960 |
1.7 |
96 |
810 |
0.5 |
|
17 |
1,435 |
0.8 |
57 |
1.739 |
1.0 |
97 |
1.282 |
0.8 |
|
18 |
1,407 |
0.8 |
58 |
879 |
0.5 |
98 |
1,308 |
0.8 |
|
19 |
658 |
0.4 |
59 |
1,693 |
1.0 |
99 |
4.030 |
2.3 |
|
20 |
2,493 |
1.4 |
60 |
1.734 |
1.0 |
100 |
3.346 |
2.0 |
|
21 |
782 |
0.5 |
61 |
2.016 |
1.2 |
101 |
1.578 |
0.9 |
|
22 |
627 |
0.4 |
62 |
1.774 |
1.0 |
102 |
375 |
0.2 |
|
23 |
448 |
0.3 |
63 |
1.209 |
0.7 |
103 |
557 |
0.3 |
|
24 |
1,825 |
1-1 |
64 |
1.047 |
0.6 |
104 |
2.781 |
1.6 |
|
25 |
453 |
0.3 |
65 |
780 |
0.5 |
105 |
1.004 |
0.6 |
|
26 |
5,119 |
3.0 |
66 |
1,954 |
1.1 |
106 |
833 |
0.5 |
|
27 |
431 |
0.3 |
67 |
971 |
0.6 |
107 |
604 |
0.4 |
|
28 |
2.627 |
1.5 |
68 |
1.509 |
0.9 |
108 |
765 |
0.4 |
|
29 |
260 |
0.2 |
69 |
8.205 |
4.8 |
109 |
891 |
0.5 |
|
30 |
673 |
0.4 |
70 |
2.601 |
1.5 |
110 |
1.513 |
0.9 |
|
31 |
515 |
0.3 |
71 |
1.772 |
1.0 |
Total |
172.000 |
100.0 |
|
32 |
314 |
0.2 |
72 |
2.558 |
1.5 |
|||
|
33 |
578 |
0.3 |
73 |
3.314 |
1.9 |
|||
|
34 |
406 |
0.2 |
74 |
1,602 |
0.9 |
|||
|
35 |
1,152 |
0.7 |
75 |
2,093 |
1.2 |
|||
|
36 |
481 |
0.3 |
76 |
1,049 |
0.6 |
|||
|
37 |
1,857 |
1.1 |
77 |
2,239 |
1.3 |
|||
|
38 |
594 |
0.3 |
78 |
1.899 |
1.1 |
|||
|
39 |
1,465 |
0.8 |
79 |
3,042 |
1.8 |
|||
|
40 |
809 |
0.5 |
80 |
1.974 |
1.1 |
As estimated by Thiessen polygons.
Area of Plot No 95 used in 1986, 1987 and 1989 survey years only.
38
such as No. 69 in the Chatham MNR District, represent large areas of the Province, i.e., 4.8%, while other plots, such as No. 41 in the Niagara MNR District, represent much smaller areas (0.1%). The differences reflect the relative difficulties in locating suitable plots in different parts of the Province.
In 1990, severe hardwood decline (plot mean DI > 25) was found in 3 (3%) of the survey plots; in the Sudbury (Plot 30) and Minden (Plots 65,66) MNR Districts. Severe decline was reported in 6% of the Province in 1989, and was identified in the following MNR Districts and plots:
• Sudbury (Plots 28, 29);
• Espanola (Plot 30);
• Parry Sound (Plots 17, 18, 91); and
• Minden (Plot 65).
In 1987, severe hardwood decline was found to occur in 9% of the plots, in these MNR Districts:
Bracebridge (Plot 2); Sudbury (Plots 26, 29); Espanola (Plots 30, 95); Algonquin Park (Plots 96, 97, 99); Pembroke (Plot 100); and North Bay (Plot 104).
Severe decline in 1986 was noted only for Plot 37 (DI = 29) in the Sault Ste. Marie District. The Sudbury and Minden Districts reported severe decline in 1989 and 1990, while only the Sudbury and Espanola Districts reported severe decline in both 1987 and 1989.
39
The pattern of decline in 1986, 1987, 1989 and 1990, for all species combined, is illustrated in Figure 9. Considerable differences are evident when the proportion of total plots within each relative decline class are compared. Thirty-two percent of all plots in 1990 were within the very low decline category, i.e., DI less than 11. This compares with 53% for 1989, 21% for 1987 and 17% for 1986. The relative size and location of these decline changes can be determined by comparing the mean DI for each plot over the four-year period. For presentation purposes, changes are expressed relative to the number of DI classes that any given plot has moved from one year to another. Plots that have increased by a given number of class changes have deteriorated in condition. Those that have decreased by a number of class changes have improved in health.
Individual plot changes for 1989 to 1990, 1987 to 1990, 1986 to 1990, 1987 to 1989, 1986 to 1989 and 1986 to 1987 are listed in Table 6 and shown graphically in Figures 10 to 15. Plot changes of more than one decline class are considered significant (pers. comm., D. McLaughlin, 1992). Between 1989 and 1990, 91% of all plots either had no mean change or increased/decreased by one decline class. This compares with 78% betweai 1987 and 1990, 90% between 1986 and 1990, 72% between 1987 and 1989, 82% between 1986 and 1989 and 83% between 1986 and 1987. Therefore, the greatest change in tree condition occurred between 1987 and 1989, with 28% of the plots reporting a change in DI of more than one decline class. Of this 28%, 4% represented increases in decline class (deterioration in tree health) and 25% represented decreases in decline class (improvement in tree health). The smallest change in tree condition occurred between 1989 and 1990 (9%).
Most of the change in decline occurring between 1987 and 1989 was reported in the Sudbury and Algonquin Park MNR Districts. Mean plot DI decreased by four decline classes at single plots within each of these two Districts. Mean plot DI decreases of three decline classes were also recorded at two plots within the Algonquin Park MNR District, and at individual plots in the Bracebridge, Cornwall, Owen Sound, Pembroke and North Bay MNR Districts.
40
<
w z
!Ij u tu Q
X U <
m )— <
CO
B
J a, tu O
2
O
P
O
cu O oi a,
m
D O tu
o o o
o
CO
o
CO
o
CO
o
|
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
■o |
UO |
■^ |
CO |
CN |
41
TABLE 6: MEAN DECLINE INDEX (DI) CHANGES BY SURVEY PLOT
No. of Decline Class Change' Plots Plot Numbers
1989 to 1990
Increase by 2 classes 3 71, 81, 82
Increase by 1 class 32 6, 7, 8, 13, 16, 20, 25, 26, 27, 38, 47, 52, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64,
66, 70, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 84, 88, 94, 96, 102, 103, 105
No change 48 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 37, 39, 40, 41,
42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 65, 67, 68, 69, 73, 76, 83, 85, 86, 87, 93, 97, 98, 100, 104, 108, 109, 110
Decrease by 1 class 19 1, 4, 5, 17, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 50, 58, 63, 72, 89, 90, 99,
106, 107
28, 29, 31, 91, 92, 101
18
95
|
Decrease by 2 classes |
6 |
|
Decrease by 3 classes |
1 |
|
Not assessed |
1 |
|
1987 to 1990 |
|
|
Increase by 2 classes |
4 |
|
Increase by 1 class |
12 |
|
No change |
33 |
64,71,81,82
6, 7, 25, 27, 59, 63, 65, 66, 72, 73, 75, 79
1, 3, 9, 10, 12, 13, 22, 32, 33, 34, 38, 42, 45, 52, 54, 57, 60, 61, 62, 67, 70, 74, 76, 78, 83, 84, 85, 86, 92, 102, 105, 106, 107
Decrease by 1 class 40 11,15,16,17,18,20,21,23,24,28,30,31,35,36,37,39,
40, 41, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 53, 55, 68, 69, 77, 80, 87, 89, 90,91, 93, 94, 101, 103, 108, HO
Decrease by 2 classes 8 8, 14, 19, 29, 43, 56, 88, 109
Decrease by 3 classes 12 2, 4, 5, 26, 50, 58, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 104
Not assessed 1 95
42
TABLE 6: MEAN DECLINE INDEX (DI) CHANGES BY SURVEY PLOT (Cont'd)
No. of Decline Class Change' Plots Plot Numbers
1986 to 1990
Increase by 2 classes 3 18, 65, 66
Increase by 1 class 23 3. 7, 25, 27, 30, 31, 34, 38, 59, 60, 61, 62, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75,
76, 78, 81, 82, 84, 107
No change 36 2, 5. 6, 8, 12, 13, 16, 22, 26, 28, 32. 33, 35. 39, 42, 47. 52,
54, 57, 64, 70, 77, 79, 80, 85, 88, 92, 93, 94, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104. 105, 106
Decrease by 1 class 39 1, 4. 9, 10. 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 29, 36, 37, 40, 41, 44,
45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 53, 56, 58, 63, 67, 83, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 96, 97, 98, 103. 108, 110
11, 24, 43, 50, 55, 68, 69, 109
95
|
Decrease by 2 classes |
8 |
|
Not assessed |
1 |
|
1987 to 1989 |
|
|
Increase by 2 classes |
4 |
|
Increase by 1 class |
13 |
|
No change |
32 |
18, 63, 72, 92
1, 28, 31. 32, 33. 34. 64. 65, 73, 91, 101. 106, 107
3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 17, 22, 25. 27, 29, 30, 35, 36, 42. 45. 54, 57. 59, 66, 67, 71, 75, 76. 79, 81, 82, 83, 85,
86, 89, 90
Decrease by 1 class 34 11,13,15.21.23.24.37,38,39.40.41.44.46,48.
49. 51, 52, 53, 55. 60. 61, 62. 68. 69. 70. 74. 78. 84,
87. 93, 102, 105, 108. 110
Decrease by 2 classes 18 4, 5, 14, 16, 19, 20, 43, 47, 50, 56. 58, 77. 80, 94,
95. 99, 103. 109
Decrease by 3 classes 7 2, 8, 88, 97, 98. 100. 104
Decrease bv 4 classes 2 26. 96
43
TABLE 6: MEAN DECLINE INDEX (DI) CHANGES BY SURVEY PLOT (Cont'd)
Decline Class Change'
No. of Plots
Plot Numbers
1986 to 1989
Increase by 4 classes Increase by 3 classes Increase by 2 classes Increase by 1 class No change
Decrease by 1 class Decrease by 2 classes
1 18
1 31
8 28, 30, 34, 65, 72, 92, 101, 107
12 3, 5, 29, 32, 33, 35, 66, 73, 76. 91, 99, 106
32 1, 2, 4, 7, 12, 17, 22, 25, 27, 36, 38, 39, 42, 54, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 74, 75, 78, 84, 85, 89, 90, 93, 95, 100, 104
46 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 21, 23, 26, 37, 40,
41, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 56, 64, 67, 70, 71, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 86, 87, 88, 94, 97, 98, 102, 105, 108, 110
10 11, 20, 24, 43, 55, 68.69, 96, 103, 109
1986 to 1987 Increase by 3 classes Increase by 2 classes Increase by 1 class
No change
108, 109, 110 Decrease by 1 class
Decrease bv 2 classes
6 2, 5, 26, 99, 100, 104
11 4, 8, 18, 30, 31, 58, 88, 95, 96, 97, 98
29 1, 3, 14, 16, 19, 28, 29, 34, 35, 38. 39, 47, 50, 56,
60, 61, 62, 65, 66, 74, 76, 77, 78. 80. 84, 93, 94, 101, 107
46 7, 12, 13, 15, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 32, 33, 36,
37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 48, 49, 51. 52, 53, 54, 57, 59, 70, 72. 73, 75, 85, 87, 89, 90, 91. 92. 102. 103, 105, 106,
16 6, 9. 10, 11, 24, 45, 55, 67, 68. 69. 71. 79, 81, 82,
83, 86
2 63, 64
Increase in decline class Decrease in decline class
deterioration in tree health, improvement in tree health.
44
45
46
47
48
49
00
en
CO 00
c
D O
X
(D
C
CD
o
Û
LO
50
The most substantial change in individual mean plot DI between 1989 and 1990 occurred in the Parry Sound MNR District (Plot 18), where there was a decrease of three decline classes. Increases in mean plot Dis of two decline classes occurred at individual plots in the Parry Sound, Tweed and Napanee MNR Districts. Decreases in average plot Dis of two decline classes were recorded at two plots in both the Parry Sound and Sudbury MNR Districts and at single plots in each of the Espanola and North Bay MNR Districts.
Between 1986 and 1989, plots in the Bracebridge, Sudbury, Algonquin Park, Pembroke and North Bay MNR Districts varied considerably in condition. Between 1986 and 1987, substantial decline, as indicated by mean plot Dl increases of three decline classes, was reported at the following 6 plots: Bracebridge (Plots 2,5); Sudbury (Plot 26); Algonquin Park (Plot 99); Pembroke (Plot 100) and North Bay (Plot 104). From 1987 to 1989, the mean Dl values at these same plots fell considerably. During this latter period, reductions in mean Dis led to a decrease of four decline classes at Plot 26; three classes at Plots 2, 100 and 104; and two classes at Plots 5 and 99.
On 22 and 23 June 1989, MOE representatives visited 34 of the 110 hardwood decline survey plots to evaluate the extent of defoliation by forest tent caterpillar. These plots were: 2, 5, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 52, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 71, 72, 73, 74, 84, 85, 91, 92, 96, 97, 102, 103 and 105. None of the plots in the Bracebridge, Parry Sound and Algonquin Park MNR Districts were significantly defoliated, although extensive defoliation of poplar and birch was seen in the vicinity of Sundridge and Magnetawan. Plots in Simcoe County and along the southern shore of Georgian Bay and through the Bruce Peninsula had marginal to no defoliation of sugar maple, although feeding by tent caterpillar was more common on poplar, ash and cherry.
Forest tent caterpillar was present at all plots in and around Peterborough County, but there was no significant defoliation on sugar maple. Gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) was more common in the vicinity of the four most southerly plots (59, 60, 73 and 74), although defoliation was restricted to oak. Forest tent caterpillar defoliation of all deciduous species
51
was severe in the vicinity of Buckhom and Gooderham, but the plots in these areas were not affected.
The increased decline from 1986 to 1987 may largely be explained by defoliation of sugar maple in 1987 (ESP, 1989). The improved tree health apparent from 1987 to 1989 may be explained by minimal-to-no defoliation in 1989 and the improvement in condition of trees which had been severely defoliated in 1987. This observation is also reflected in the individual species DI and mortality rates. Those plots showing increased decline from 1987 to 1989 do not necessarily indicate a "flaw" in the assessment methodology, but rather they illustrate the sensitivity of the system. The field staff must be well trained in order to minimize potential errors in differentiating between mortality and defoliation.
Individual Species Decline
The mean DI for individual tree species within each plot is summarized, for 1990 and 1989, in Tables 7 and 8, respectively. Variation in DI was considerable between species within plots and for similar species between plots. A summary of these data (averaged for each species across all plots) is given for 1986, 1987, 1989 and 1990 in Table 9. A summary of live, standing dead, fallen dead and missing trees for each species as of 1990 is provided in Table 10. Sugar maple constituted approximately 75% of all trees surveyed. Those species with the next highest proportion of total trees were white ash, red maple, beech, basswood and ironwood, all at approximately 3%. Fourteen of the 23 hardwood species present at the plots constituted less than 1% of aJl trees surveyed.
In general, those species having extreme Dis were those constituting less than 1 % of the total trees assessed. American elm, for example, had a mean DI in 1990 of 59, and green ash had a mean DI (in 1989) of 0. Of those species representing a larger proportion of sampled trees, soft maple (3.1%) showed the largest relative decline in mean DI values between 1989 (18) and 1990 (23). Ironwood (2.7%) exhibited the second highest decline from 31 in 1989 to 35 in 1990. Ironwood showed more decline in 1989 and 1990 than in 1987 or 1986. Sugar maple, representing 75% of the total population, had a mean DI of
52
ftÉA ntWTID DM «KTOD n
o o o
> 5: _; - — o
O Cv ♦rvi^Xp
O 00 so ^
.-o— o<->«^j-«,o
^ o —
^CN CN !^ 2'
O — (Nr-ij-"^vûr«s.ooCT^O ^<
> ^s. 00 c^ o
53
, "^ - o ,
«O — fNf»^^•^^or^oOO^O
54
ooooooooo—
55
•A '^G
56
57
kNOrN.ooovo ooooooooo —
58
El
o o o o
— o o o :
o o
o o
o rsi o o
o — o o "" -=■
o o CM — w^ ,
• o — o «
• o — <^'*^.a'«^NOr^«ooNO
59
o o o
.0^0 oj::; — ooo«
Jo Scs'Ts^f^ - '^C\
, - - cvj ,^ :: « SÛ s ^
.000*0 — <s**^.3-*%OhvOOOO
60
o o o
^*-^3■»^^£^^^coC^O — <
I O O O O (
61
kO — tsif^-a-ti^OPvoocsO
62
63
1^ O f^ <N
) o o ~
O — O Ov O
«o ooooooooo—
i:- I-
5 g
64
TABLE 9: SUMMARY OF MEAN DECLINE INDEX FOR TREES SURVEYED
|
% of Survey Population |
Mean DI |
Mean DI |
||||
|
Species |
1990 |
1989 |
1987 |
1986 |
Change' |
|
|
Hardwood Species |
||||||
|
Mh Sugar Maple |
74.7 |
11 |
10 |
14 |
12 |
-1 |
|
Aw White Ash |
3.6 |
17 |
13 |
18 |
17 |
0 |
|
Ms Soft (red) Maple |
3.1 |
23 |
18 |
24 |
22 |
1 |
|
Be Beech |
3.1 |
13 |
9 |
13 |
13 |
0 |
|
Bd Basswood |
3.0 |
19 |
18 |
21 |
18 |
1 |
|
I Ironwood |
2.7 |
35 |
31 |
22 |
23 |
12 |
|
By Yellow Birch |
1.7 |
17 |
18 |
24 |
20 |
-3 |
|
Cb Black Cherry |
1.6 |
19 |
15 |
30 |
28 |
-9 |
|
Or Red Oak |
1.4 |
21 |
24 |
17 |
20 |
1 |
|
Bw White Birch |
0.98 |
48 |
31 |
26 |
24 |
-24 |
|
Hb Bittemut Hickory |
0.85 |
10 |
6 |
15 |
14 |
-4 |
|
Po Trembling Aspen |
0.79 |
24 |
23 |
25 |
25 |
-1 |
|
Ab Black Ash |
0.38 |
21 |
14 |
21 |
12 |
-9 |
|
Pob Balsam Poplar |
0.15 |
13 |
42 |
29 |
23 |
-10 |
|
Pol I^rgetooth Aspen |
0.14 |
25 |
24 |
23 |
36 |
-11 |
|
Ew American Elm |
0.11 |
59 |
50 |
NR2 |
53 |
6 |
|
Bn Butternut |
0.07 |
9 |
13 |
17 |
27 |
-18 |
|
Cr Pin Cherry |
0.06 |
45 |
12 |
15 |
12 |
33 |
|
Ow White Oak |
0.05 |
31 |
31 |
51 |
42 |
-11 |
|
Hi Hickory |
0.03 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
10 |
-7 |
|
Ob Bur Oak |
0.02 |
14 |
10 |
31 |
33 |
-19 |
|
Ag Green Ash |
0.02 |
7 |
0 |
NR |
8 |
-1 |
|
Ww Weeping Willow |
0.02 |
21 |
21 |
32 |
28 |
-7 |
|
Conifer Species |
||||||
|
He Hemlock |
0.81 |
NA^ |
NA |
NA |
NA |
|
|
Bf Balsam Fir |
0.25 |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
|
|
Pw White Pine |
0.18 |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
|
|
Ce White Cedar |
0.13 |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
|
|
Sw White Spruce |
0.07 |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
|
|
Tx Larch |
0.01 |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
* Change in mean DI in 1990 relative to 1986.
^ NR = not recorded.
^ NA = not available for conifers.
65
TABLE 10: 1990 STAND COMPOSITION STATISTICS
|
Total |
No. |
No. |
No. |
No. |
||
|
No. |
Live |
Standing |
Fallen |
Missing |
||
|
Species |
Trees |
Trees |
Dead Trees |
Dead Trees |
Trees |
|
|
Hardwood Si>ecies |
||||||
|
Mh |
Sugar Maple |
8,143 |
7,715 |
341 |
79 |
8 |
|
Aw |
White Ash |
393 |
362 |
19 |
12 |
- |
|
Ms |
Soft (red) Maple |
335 |
314 |
17 |
4 |
- |
|
Be |
Beech |
334 |
318 |
10 |
6 |
- |
|
Bd |
Basswood |
331 |
296 |
25 |
10 |
- |
|
I |
Ironwood |
294 |
230 |
46 |
18 |
- |
|
By |
Yellow Birch |
180 |
159 |
17 |
4 |
- |
|
Cb |
Black Cherry |
175 |
150 |
19 |
6 |
- |
|
Or |
Red Oak |
158 |
152 |
5 |
1 |
- |
|
Bw |
White Birch |
107 |
76 |
30 |
1 |
- |
|
Hb |
Bittemut Hickory |
93 |
88 |
3 |
2 |
- |
|
Po |
Trembling Aspen |
86 |
79 |
5 |
2 |
- |
|
Ab |
Black Ash |
41 |
37 |
2 |
2 |
- |
|
Pob |
Balsam Poplar |
16 |
15 |
- |
1 |
- |
|
Pol |
Largetooth Aspen |
15 |
12 |
1 |
2 |
- |
|
Ew |
American Elm |
12 |
5 |
6 |
1 |
- |
|
Bn |
Butternut |
8 |
6 |
2 |
- |
- |
|
Cr |
Pin Cherry |
6 |
6 |
- |
- |
- |
|
Ow |
White Oak |
5 |
4 |
1 |
- |
- |
|
Hi |
Hickory |
3 |
3 |
- |
- |
- |
|
Ob |
Bur Oak |
2 |
2 |
- |
- |
- |
|
Ag |
Green Ash |
2 |
2 |
- |
- |
- |
|
Ww |
Weeping Willow |
2 |
2 |
- |
- |
- |
|
Conifer Species |
||||||
|
He |
Hemlock |
89 |
78 |
8 |
3 |
- |
|
Bf |
Balsam Fir |
27 |
19 |
3 |
5 |
- |
|
Pw |
White Pine |
20 |
16 |
2 |
2 |
- |
|
Ce |
White Cedar |
14 |
12 |
- |
2 |
- |
|
Sw |
White Spruce |
8 |
7 |
1 |
- |
- |
|
Tx |
Larch |
1 |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
|
TOTALS |
10,900 |
10,166 |
563 |
163 |
8 |
66
11 in 1990, 10 in 1989, 14 in 1987 and 12 in 1986. These changes compare well with the above-mentioned discussion of increased decline from 1986 to 1987; improved health from 1987 to 1989, and minimal change between 1989 and 1990. Similar relationships are also evident for some of the other species, i.e., basswood and yellow birch.
Mean values of individual decline attributes and tree quality observations are listed, for each plot in 1990 and 1989, in Tables 11 and 12. This information may be useful for assessing potential causes of decline on a plot-by-plot basis.
Tree Mortality
Tree mortality data for the survey plots are summarized by year for 1986, 1987, 1989 and 1990 in Table 13. Tree mortality across all survey plots was 1.7% in 1986, 3.1% in 1987, 1.1% in 1989 and 1.5% in 1990. The total number of dead trees increased from 1986 to 1987, and from 1989 to 1990. The number of dead trees in 1986 was also higher than in 1989 and 1990. Of concern is that the number of dead trees apparently decreased from 1987 to 1989. In this time period there was a considerable decrease in the number of dead sugar maple. Since the same trees were surveyed each year, it is probable that many of the trees noted to be dead in 1987 were extensively defoliated. This would explain the apparent recovery of a large number of trees in 1989. In view of this, there is some question about the validity of the 1987 mortality data.
Tree species mortality data for the 1989 and 1990 survey years are summarized by plot and MNR District in Tables 14 and 15, respectively. In total, 70 sugar maple were dead in 1989, and 79 were fallen dead in 1990. Almost one-quarter of the dead sugar maple identified in the 1989 survey were found in the Minden District. The Parry Sound and Espanola Districts each contained roughly 10% of the total 1989 dead sugar maple. The remaining dead maple were scattered in small numbers throughout the rest of the Province. In 1990, dead sugar maple were more evenly distributed across the Province. Aylmer District had the highest percentage of dead maple within Ontario at 8.9%. The North Bay and Niagara Districts both had the next highest percentage at 7.9%.
67
'WTH) on «ctoB Piva
SUIVIS iOEpU033S U35IOJQ
Mix «! spcM
^ oouepunqv I^OJ^S 1 uoiicooT inoids
X ooucpunqv l'iojds l UOI1C001 inojds
jojog =>i<lc^s] JcSns
spunOAV -J^MlO
^JnfuI îoosui
S310H JoqiO
inox «lOH ^^L
P3IC3H soioH <icx
(inox) sitDCJD
(jofe^^j) sî^DCJO isoij
(JouI^^^) s>iDGJo isojj
spuno^W SUJ31S uai^ojg
UOUCIlpJOQ %
sisoJooM %
ino[00 wz:i XiJca %
ouEH ssEO av\oJ3
XapUI 3UIp3Q
S3AE31 p3ZÏSJ3pUfl %
sisojomo oUOilS %
sTsoiomo jqSiis %
oooooooooo _-—. — — o — o-^oo oooooooooo
oooooooooo oooooooooo — oo — — ooo — -^
oooooooooo oooooo — ooo oooooooooo oooooooooo
oooooooooo o — o — -"O — ooo oooooooooo oooooooooo oooooooooo ooooooo-^oo « — o — — — o — oo oooooooooo oooooooooo oooooooooo oooooooooo
oooooooooo oooooooooo oooooooov^o oooooooooo oo — o — o — — > — o oooo — oo — -^o oo — ooooooo — .o — — ooo— oo oooooooooo
cnCM — CN — 'fCJOOOO
oooooooooo o-*- — ooo — — oo
o — o — o — — o — r^i oooooooooo oooooooooo oooooooooo
oooooooooo
o — — ■ • ooo
ooo — o — — ooo
ooo — — ooooo
ooooo — — ooo
oooooooooo
oo — «NO — — no —
oooooooooo
OOOOOOOOOO
o— — r-1— o— ociO — ooooc^f^o- —
oooooo — — 0<N <N| — o — — o— <NOO
r*\ — — dcs<N*j-iv-ïo40 %ocJrno— mr^»'^^^'^
OOOOOOOOOO
— — — oo — OOOO OOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOO — ooo
(;^__ — ^— O— — o —
oooooooooo oooooooooo oooooooooo oooooooooo oooo — — — oo — oooooooooo oooooc^oooo oooooooooo oooooooooo
ooooooo
— oooooo
ooooooo
ooooooo
ooooooo
^ o — — — o o
ooooooo ooooooo ooooooo ooooooo
o — — — — OJ —
o o o o o ■— o ooooooo ooooooo ooooooo
oooooooooo ooooo — —
ooooo — ooo- ooooooo
ooo — — — oooo ooooo- ■
oooooooooo ooooooo
— o o vo n —
oooooooooo — ooooo«/i oooooooo oooo-oo
— — — ooric^cjo— _-— oJ — — oo
ooo-^oo — — —
\o o — <^ — o o
-^ CJ r% o »A >o
\C> ^ CO o>- Z-, ç-i .f^ —
— CJ tn o W-» vO
^o oo ir: i: - — — - 04 -
o o —
68
SuiqSnois îï-ïcg 3 33uepunqv moidg
Z uopcooi inojds I sDuepunqv inojdg
I uoiicoo^ jnojdg
J3Joa 3[dcj-'\j Jc3ns spuno/v^ JoqiO
sajnpoJis [cSunj
S3I0H JsqiO
imox S3I0H dex
poic3H S310H dcx
(Unox) SÎ10CJ3
(JOfBt\) S5(0EJ3 ISOJJ
(jomi\) s>ioEJ3 isojj
spuno^
SUJ315 uaitojg
UOtlBI[OJ3a 5â
stsoJ::>3fj %
jnoioo ncj /(iiC3 o^
oijcy sseiQ ua\oj3
X^pUJ 3UIp3Q
«Aran pazisjopun %
siS0J0[q3 SuoJis %
sisojomo m3iis o^
saqoucjg pcoQ %
ooo oooooooooo oooooooooo ooooooooo ooooo
.^.M^H 00000000-— o ooooo — ooo— OOOOOOO — O
ooo OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO
OOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO ooooooooo
o o — o — ooooo ooooo
ooo oooooooooo
oooooooo ooooooooo ooooo
ooo oooooooooo OOOOOO — O— — O— -OOOOOOO oooo — o — o oooo — ooo— O o — o — — — — o — — — .CJ — — . — _ — — — — „o — —
ooo oooooooooo-
ooooooooo ooooooooo ooooo
ooo oooooooooo oooooooooo ooooooooo ooooo o — o oooooooooo oooooooooo ooooooooo ooooo
ooo oooooooooo oooooooooo ooooooooo ooooo
««„ o — — oo — — — o —
— OOOOOO -. — — —. — — —.—
CJ — o — o
o — o oooooooooo oooooooooo ooooooooo — oooo ooo oooooooooo oooooo<NOoo ooooooooo ooooo
ooo oooooooooo o — oooooooo ooooooooo ooooo ooo oooooooooo o — oooooooo ooooooooo ooooo
«^„ oooooooooo o — oooooooo — oo — oo — o— o — ooo o — — oooooooooo oooooooooo ooo — oo — o— o — ooo
ooo oooooooooo oooooooooo
oooooooo ooooo
— oo o — OOOOOOO— — oooooooo— ooo — oo — o— ««oo- ooo oooooooooo oooooooooo ooooooooo ooooo
«— — -^ooOfnvocJ
\o*rj\o3«or-o-<T
oo-n r-loo— oo— ooo oo — oc-i ooooo oo — oo— ooo oooo — ooo oooooooooo oooooooooo ooooooooo oooo —
■^ Z ^ — *^
O ^0 r-i — m n
on — -^OOO- O OrinO— 0*0— OO OOO — '
ooooooooo 000 — 00 — o
O O O C4 O
Vl^ >0 ^ \0 VO
r^ ^ v^ \o
^ o o -^
(NOOO OOOJOO
rsi — O— 000*n<N
r-^oo ocj^c>»o
04 n -^ w-> o r-
vO \0 ^o ^o O ^o
^c >c r- r- r-
69
SU13ÏS iClUpUOD^ U331CUa
SumSnois y[i^Q.
1 oouFpunqv jnojds
^ uoncDOT inoids
I 3DUCpunqv inojds
J uoucooT jnojds
jojog aidcw -icSng spunoAV -laqiO
S3I0H -isqiO
leiox S3I0H dex
P3IC3H s=»l0H dcx
([«lox) S^lOBiD
(JOCb^M) S5ÏOEJ3 JSOJJ
spunoAv siuais u35tojg
UOUEllOjOQ %
sisoJoaM %
jnoioo ncj Xijug «^
oucy SSC13 UMOJO
X3pu[ aujioaQ
S3AC3T p32ISJ3pUfl ^
stsojom^ âuojis %
sTsojomo iq^iis % soqoucjg peaa ^
OOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOCDO -^OOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOO
OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOO— O — OOOOOO— OO OOOOO— — — O OOO — OO — OOO
— OOO — — — — — OO — O—- — O — — OO — — -*— — .^ — o-— — -^<NOO OOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO
OCJ — CJ — O O — — CJ- — — — OO OO — (N — O — -^-^ —
— — ot o —
OOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOO
OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO O— OO — OO— OO
OOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOO OOO — OOOOCJ- _-. — OO — — — — O OOOOOO — — — — OOOOOO OOOOOOOO — O OOOO — — — — O OOOOOO — — — o
OOOOOO OOOOOOOO —
— — 'OOOOOOO OOOOOOO — OO
OOOOOO
OO— — — OOOOO OO — OO — — — O o— — O— O — OO —
OOOOOOOOOO
■ — o
OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO
fT OO \o rar-'VOcno
cM^vor^^nmO
OO — OOO — OOOOOOOOO — OO— OOOO
ncn— w-1^^— OO
OOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOO — OOOOOOOO OOOOOO — OOO
OO — OO— o--or-i — OOO-
OO o o o o o
— OOr-lOO-
O O O O O —
O— OOOOO — OOO — — OO— OOOO — — — OOO
«o^o^ZZl- :z — — — — Z — I^:^ __-,:. — — — ^ —
%or-eooo — <N*-^Trvo
O* O^ Ov Ov O^ — "
— rJo-ww-j^or-ooCTjO OOOOOOOOO —
70
TABLE 12: SUMMARY OF MEAN TREE QUALITY OBSERVATIONS BY
PLOT (1989)
xo O ^ -
z a
■S > 2
1 5.9 11.6 16.4 0.Ï 0.2 0.0 2.S 20.1 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.9 0.3 2.0
2 12.5 9.8 8.9 0.Î 0.0 0.0 3.0 1S.9 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.Î 0.6 -0.7 2.0
3 14.7 J. 5 11.2 0.0 0.6 0.1 J.2 3.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 O.O 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.7 0.4 2.0
4 13.6 9.8 6.6 0.2 0.4 0.1 3.1 1.5 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.1 0^0 1.3 0.7 0.6 2.0
5 13.1 8.6 2.6 1.0 0.8 0.2 3.2 4.1 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0.0.1 0.1 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.0
6 7.4
0.2 0.0 1.2 0.4 2.6 2.5 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.I 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 2.3 0.9 0.6
5.6 0.7 0.2 0.0 1.2 0.4 2.5 1.5 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.I 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.1 1.9 0.9 0.7
5.7 2.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 1.2 2.5 3.5 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.7 0.7 0.2 3.7 0.^ 0.3 0.1 0.6 1.3 2.3 3.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.7 0.9 0.4
10 5.6 1.4 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.3 2.5 3.8 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.9 0.6 1.0
Tl 7.2 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 2.6 14.5 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.3 1.0 0.5 1.0
12 4.7 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.2 2.4 1.9 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.9 0.2 1.0
13 11.0 4.0 0.3 0.0 1.5 1.5 2.9 10.1 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 K 4.6 2.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 2.3 2.6 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.7 0.9 0.3 1.0
15 5.9 1.9 0.3 0.0 0.3 2.2 2.6 4.2 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.5 0.7 0.0 0.0
16 12.1 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.3 5.0 3.9 U.O 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.6 0.0 1.0
17 24.2 11.6 9.7 9.2 2.7 0.6 4.1 7.9 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.6 0.1 0.0 IS 16.9 1.9 0.1 0.0 1.5 1.5 3.5 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.6 0.0 0.0
19 10.2 1.1 0.8 0.0 0.6 0.3 3.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 3.8 5.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.6 0.0 1.0
20 7.9 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0
21 8.9 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.8 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.7 0.7 0.1 1.0
22 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.5 1.1 0.0 1.0
23 8.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.0 2.9 3.2 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.7 0.9 0.0 1.0
24 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 2.8 2.7 0.1 O.S 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.9 0.0 1.0
25 7.1 2.1 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 3.9 21.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.8 0.0 0.7
26 8.0 3.9 1.6 0.1 0.5 2.5 4.1 28.2 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.2 0.8 0.0 1.0
27 12.7 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 3.3 5.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.0 0.0 1.0 2S 24.4 35.4 18.1 9.6 0.1 2.6 4.1 24.8 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0
29 25.5 9.9 2.4 0.5 0.3 O.I 4.1 3.4 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 O.I 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.6 0.0 O.C
30 31.0 14.5 5.7 0.0 0.8 0.0 4.8 14.4 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.9 0.0 I.C
31 13.2 23.9 41.0 15.8 0.4 0.0 3.4 56.8 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.1 0.6 0.0 O.C 0.6 1.0 3.4 6.5 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 O.I 0.4 0.4 O.O 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.0 O.C 1.5 1.8 3.2 7.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 O.I 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.6 0.0 0.0
1.3 3.7 3.8 53.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.2 2.1 3.6 10.3 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 I.l 0.5 0.0 1.0
1.4 3.2 2.9 2.2 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.; 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.2 0.6 0.1 0.- 4.0 1.4 3.8 11.5 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.I 0.9 O.S O.I O.C 5.7 0.6 3.2 12.4 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.I 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 O.C 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.6 2.9 8.1 0.1 O.J 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.I 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Oi "9 0.4 on O.C
40 6.6 0.7 0.2 0.0 3.0 4.1 2.8 8.4 O.I 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.0
41 17.7 7.1 2.2 0.0 6.0 0.0 4.5 7.4 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.I 0.9 0.4 0.1 I.C
42 1.9 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 2.2 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.1 0.8 0.0 0.0
43 9.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.5 5.9 11.5 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.4 0.7 0.0 I.C
44 5.8 I.I 0.6 0.1 0.0 «.. j.u i.\ 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.i/ o.O O.I O.I 0.0 0.0 O.I 2.0 1.2 0.0 l.(
45 11.8 1.5 0.6 0.0 0.1 2.6 3.5 1.4 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.5 1.0 0.1 I.C
46 4.2 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 1.3 2.4 2.7 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.I 1.7 0.9 0.0 O.C
47 7.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.8 2.6 1.2 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.5 O.S 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.S 0.7 0.1 O.C 43 7.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.6 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.8 0.0 O.C
|
15.0 |
12.4 |
1.5 |
0.0 |
|
14.4 |
8.7 |
3.8 |
0.0 |
|
20.3 |
5.2 |
4.6 |
3.7 |
|
16.5 |
7.9 |
2.8 |
0.5 |
|
11. 1 |
11.5 |
0.8 |
0.2 |
|
20.1 |
9.0 |
5.2 |
0.3 |
|
15.9 |
4.5 |
1.6 |
0.0 |
|
10.6 |
3.6 |
0.6 |
0.0 |
0.5 0.1 0.0 1.5 0.2 3.4 9.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
.1 .e.o
71
TABLE 12: SUMMARY OF MEAN TREE QUALITY OBSERVATIONS BY
(Cont'd) PLOT (1989)
|
2 s a. 2^ |
JZ |
lU |
CO c 0 |
0 0 |
X> C |
U c 0 (J |
0 4) Û 2P |
00 C 0 ca |
c 0 |
0 III |
V 0 X 0. t- |
V 0 X Q. <a 1- |
0 X <u JZ 0 |
a 00 c z> a. |
c <0 0 |
0 jC 0 |
<0 «0 z> t/5 |
00 c t/1 |
0 Q. |
< 3 0 Cl |
0^ |
'4C |
|
|
sn K.9 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
0.0 |
3.4 |
2.1 |
0.1 |
0.6 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
-0.0 |
0.5 |
1.7 |
1.0 |
0.1 |
1.0 |
|
51 4.5 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
2.3 |
0.7 |
0.0 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
1.7 |
0.9 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
52 10. S |
0.6 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
1.4 |
0.0 |
2.9 |
0.4 |
0.1 |
0.4 |
0.3 |
0.4 |
O.S |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
1.5 |
0.6 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
|
53 9.4 |
0.8 |
0.4 |
0.1 |
0.9 |
0.0 |
3.3 |
S.l |
0.1 |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
1.7 |
1.1 |
0.0 |
1.0 |
|
54 3.5 |
0.4 |
0.1 |
0.3 |
O.S |
0.1 |
2.3 |
2.0 |
0.0 |
0.4 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
0.0 |
1.9 |
0.9 |
0.4 |
1.0 |
|
5S 9.0 |
1.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.6 |
0.0 |
3.7 |
9.6 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
1.4 |
0.7 |
0.0 |
1.0 |
|
54 12.5 |
0.4 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
4.4 |
14.6 |
0.1 |
0.6 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
1.4 |
0.9 |
0.1 |
1.0 |
|
57 8.0 |
o.s |
0.7 |
0.3 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
3.3 |
1.0 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
1.5 |
1.0 |
0.6 |
1.0 |
|
58 10.6 |
s. 2 |
1.2 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
3.9 |
9.2 |
0.0 |
O.S |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
1.7 |
0.9 |
0.0 |
1.0 |
|
59 9.9 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.2 |
1.9 |
2.8 |
4.0 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
1.5 |
1.0 |
0.3 |
1.0 |
|
M S. S |
0.5 |
0.3 |
0.2 |
0.4 |
0.6 |
2. S |
1.7 |
0.0 |
1.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
1.4 |
1.0 |
0.6 |
1.0 |
|
e\ 15.8 |
8.3 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
3.9 |
0.2 |
3.4 |
1.8 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.2 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.7 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
i2 6.1 |
2.6 |
1.1 |
2.1 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
2.7 |
0.9 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
O.I |
0.1 |
O.S |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
2.0 |
0.9 |
0.6 |
0.1 |
|
63 16.8 |
8.S |
0.6 |
0.2 |
0.9 |
1.1 |
3.5 |
3.4 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.8 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
64 16. S |
7.2 |
1.3 |
0.9 |
1.3 |
0.0 |
3.5 |
1.6 |
0.0 |
0.5 |
O.S |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.9 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
65 23.8 |
13.5' |
12.3 |
10.5 |
4.1 |
0.7 |
4.0 |
8.3 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.5 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.7 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
66 22.7 |
14.0 |
.2.5 |
0.0 |
2.0 |
0.8 |
3.9 |
13.1 |
0.1 |
0.4 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.4 |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.6 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
67 13.1 |
8.1 |
0.7 |
0.3 |
2.0 |
I.S |
3.2 |
1.1 |
0.0 |
0.4 |
0.5 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.5 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.8 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
o.u |
|
68 4.2 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
1.1 |
2.4 |
1.4 |
0.0 |
0.5 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
1.5 |
0.7 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
69 3.3 |
1.2 |
0.1 |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
2.3 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
0.8 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
1.6 |
0.9 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
70 10.0 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.2 |
1.8 |
2.8 |
2.8 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0-2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
1.5 |
0.6 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
71 9.9 |
0.8 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
0.9 |
0.0 |
3.3 |
-5.8 |
0.2 |
J.O |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
oTo |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
1.6 |
1.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
72 15.9 |
8.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
1.2 |
3.S |
5.6 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.5 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.8 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
73 11.9 |
18.9 |
0.9 |
0.3 |
2.2 |
2.9 |
3.1 |
6.6 |
0.0 |
0.4 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.5 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
O.S |
0.5 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
74 7. S |
3.7 |
0.6 |
0.1 |
2.3 |
0.0 |
2.8 |
0.8 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.8 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
75 6.4 |
O.S |
0.3 |
0.0 |
1.1 |
0.0 |
2.9 |
3.0 |
0.0 |
0.6 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
1.7 |
0.7 |
0.0 |
1.0 |
|
76 16.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.4 |
3.3 |
1.4 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
1.4 |
0.7 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
77 7. S |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
1.2 |
2.6 |
0.8 |
0.0 |
0-\ |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
I.S |
0.7 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
|
78 9. S |
0.9 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.4 |
2.8 |
2.5 |
0.0 |
O.S |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.7 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
1.6 |
0.9 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
79 9.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
O.I |
0.2 |
0.1 |
2.8 |
1.1 |
0.0 |
0.4 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.5 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
1.6 |
1.0 |
0.4 |
1.0 |
|
80 8.6 |
0.3 |
0.3 |
0.4 |
1.4 |
0.4 |
2.7 |
6.5 |
0.1 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.5 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
1.6 |
0.9 |
0.4 |
1.0 |
|
il 9.9 |
0.4 |
1.3 |
0.5 |
O.J |
0.1 |
2.8 |
12.3 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
2.0 |
0.9 |
0.4 |
1.0 |
|
62 9.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
O.S |
0.7 |
2.8 |
4.6 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
G.O |
0.0 |
0.7 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
1.8 |
0.9 |
0.5 |
1.0 |
|
83 6.4 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
2.5 |
4.1 |
0.0 |
O.S |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
0.0 |
2.1 |
1.0 |
0.6 |
1.0 |
|
85 8.1 |
0.9 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
1.6 |
2.6 |
1.8 |
0.1 |
0.7 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.9 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
1.8 |
0.8 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
85 1.5 |
3.8 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
2.2 |
12.3 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
2.1 |
1. 1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
86 6.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
1.2 |
0.0 |
2.4 |
8.1 |
0.0 |
0.4 |
0.1 |
O.n |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
n.O |
0.2 |
0.0 |
1.8 |
1.0 |
0.4 |
1.0 |
|
87 7.9 |
0.6 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
2.7 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
«., |
u.o |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
O.i |
0.0 |
v-.O |
0.0 |
0.1 |
1.9 |
0.9 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
88 10.3 |
0.5 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
1.6 |
6.7 |
2.8 |
2.4 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
1.2 |
0.8 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
89 16.6 |
10.1 |
2.0 |
0.4 |
1.2 |
0.0 |
3.4 |
3.6 |
0.0 |
0.5 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.3 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
I.S |
0.8 |
0.1 |
0.4 |
|
17.5 |
9.6 |
1.7 |
0.3 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
3.6 |
8. S |
0.0 |
0.6 |
0.7 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.4 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.8 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
0.4 |
|
24.9 |
7.3 |
0.5 |
0.0 |
1.1 |
0.0 |
4.0 |
0.7 |
0.0 |
0.6 |
0.6 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.5 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
1 .1 |
0.8 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
|
19.5 |
15.3 |
2.1 |
0.0 |
0.9 |
0.0 |
3.7 |
14.0 |
0.0 |
0.6 |
0.6 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.4 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
1.0 |
O.S |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
11.2 |
2.3 |
3.6 |
0.0 |
0.4 |
O.S |
2.9 |
23.8 |
0.0 |
0.5 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
1.6 |
1.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
6.4 |
5.8 |
1.7 |
0.0 |
O.S |
0.7 |
2.S |
12.6 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.2 |
O.S |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
1.7 |
0.9 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
14.1 |
16.2 |
13. S |
0.4 |
1.2 |
5.4 |
3.2 |
8.5 |
0.0 |
0.4 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.5 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
1.7 |
0.8 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
|
10.2 |
0.9 |
0.4 |
O.S |
0.6 |
0.0 |
2.8 |
1.3 |
O.I |
0.2 |
O.S |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
1.9 |
0.9 |
0.7 |
1.0 |
|
10.6 |
2.1 |
3.4 |
O.S |
0.7 |
0.0 |
2.9 |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
1.1 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
2.1 |
1.0 |
0.7 |
1.0 |
|
11.5 |
l.fl |
2.0 |
0.2 |
O.S |
7.9 |
2.9 |
0.9 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
O.S |
0.0 |
0.0 |
O.I |
0.1 |
0.0 |
1.0 |
0.0 |
O.I |
0.0 |
1.4 |
0.9 |
0.4 |
r.a |
|
16.8 |
4.6 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.6 |
4.3 |
3.4 |
1.5 |
0.1 |
0.2 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
V.V |
1.3 |
0.8 |
O.S |
1.0 |
72
TABLE 12: SUMMARY OF MEAN TREE QUALITY OBSERVATIONS BY PLOT
(Cont'd) (1989)
«^ CO I- O <J XI c
'-' to oj j; 2 r) 5 ^ è? ae j^ <^ je Ù
3 £
10.7 3.0 I.l 0.3 0.2 2.0
2-9 2.3 0.0 0.2 0.3
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
0.8 0.4
IS.l 5.3 23.3 0.0 0 3 0 3 31 „7 „„ Z, "•" ""^ "' °-^ ".O 0., 0.0
^.r o.r 0.0 o.a o." o ^ tl ' ;; " " ^'^ ^'^^ ^ - "- o.o o.s o.o o., o.o ,.. o.. o.. ,.o
n.6 ç.2,0.r 0.5 0.3 0, ,o „: „„ °- °-] "•'' "■'' "O "•' "J O-Û 0.0 0.0 0., ,7 ,„ „„ „„
0.5 0.3 0., 2.9 o.s 0.0 02 03 0 0 o', n, n °-° °-' '•' '-° "-^ °-°
3- 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 a.3 ..0 0.0 o.-' o' 0 ■ • • ■: !■' °-° °-° °-° '-^ °- 0. ,.0
0.0
■ .ni „ "•' "•' "•'' "•" "■' °-° °-° 0-° °-'> 0-0
- - ::r::: ::::::::::-:---- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ,.. 0.. 0., CO
0.9 0.0 0.2 O.I ? 3 o, •" "•' 0-^ 0-8 0.0 0.0
'07 20.7, ,.6 ,2.6 ..6 0.9 O.'s ..'s 2;:2" Ô1 O^l ô'2 o'o O^'o 11 "-" °-° "^ °° "^ "■' ""^ '-^ O.^ ... -a _7.a 2.3 0.. 0.0 0.2 0.3 2.7,,.. c] ol 1 ' " " ""^ "^ ""^ ^ ^ ^ ^ "., 0.0 0.0
- O.S 0., 0.0 0., 0.3 2.7 ... 0.0 0.3 o".5 O. o! 0 "^ I'l ^l ^^ ^
0.2 0., 2.3 9.2 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0 0 .1 . ■' °-° "■'' '■° °-' '-^ 0.8 0., 0.0
__ '■' "-^ °-° - - 0.. 0.. 0.0 o:ô z :; ;;: :;:
'.3. 2.M 0.« 0.80 0.8. 3.09 ."«'o;0^'o:38"o:2o"o;os"o;06"o:
0.0
-OS 0.06 0., 7 0.17 0.00 0.0. 0.07, .40 0.76 0.,s"o.'
73
TABLE 13: TREE MORTALITY BY SPECIES IN 1986, 1987, 1989 AND 1990'
Species
1986
No. of Dead Trees
1987
1989
199CF
Hardwood Species
Sugar Maple White Ash Soft (red) Maple Beech BassNvood Ironwood Yellow Birch Black Cherry Red Oak White Birch Bittemut Hickory Trembling Aspen Black Ash Balsam Poplar Largetooth Aspen American Elm Butternut Pin Cherry White Oak Hickory Bur Oak Green Ash Weeping Willow
|
97 |
182 |
70 |
79 |
|
16 |
22 |
9 |
12 |
|
9 |
15 |
3 |
4 |
|
2 |
4 |
3 |
6 |
|
5 |
11 |
6 |
10 |
|
21 |
35 |
14 |
18 |
|
9 |
12 |
4 |
4 |
|
13 |
17 |
2 |
6 |
|
3 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
|
7 |
7 |
1 |
1 |
|
0 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
|
4 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
TOTAL HARDWOODS
186
318
115
151
Conifer Species
Hemlock Balsam Fir White Pine White Cedar White Spruce Larch
TOTAL CONIFER
TOTAL (ALL SPECIES)
% MORTALITY
|
3 |
7 |
1 |
3 |
|
1 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
|
0 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
1 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
|
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
5 |
18 |
10 |
12 |
|
191 |
336 |
125 |
163 |
|
l.Vfc |
3.17c |
1.17c |
1.57c |
Includes fallen dead trees only.
Plot No. 95 not assessed in 1990, therefore, only 10,900 trees were assessed this year.
74
TABLE 14: A SUMMARY OF DEAD (FALLEN) TREES BY SURVEY PLOT IN 1989 AND 1990
Species
Plot
MNR District
Dead Tree No. (1989)
Dead Tree No. (1990)
|
Mh Sugar Maple |
5 6 7 |
Bracebridge Cornwall Cornwall |
48 100 37 |
|||
|
13 |
Sault Ste. Marie |
77 |
77 |
|||
|
14 |
Cornwall |
12, |
39 |
|||
|
15 |
Wawa |
42 |
42 |
|||
|
17 |
Parry Sound |
9, 20, 46 |
87 |
|||
|
18 |
Parry Sound |
56 |
55, |
56,70 |
||
|
26 |
Sudbury |
36, 54, |
57 |
36, |
54, 58, 67 |
|
|
28 |
Sudbury |
82 |
82 |
|||
|
29 |
Sudbury |
16 |
||||
|
32 |
Blind River |
68 |
||||
|
34 |
Blind River |
9 |
||||
|
35 |
Blind River |
27 |
27 |
|||
|
36 |
Blind River |
67, 75 |
21 |
|||
|
37 |
Sault Ste. Marie |
72 |
72 |
|||
|
38 |
Sault Ste. Marie |
64 |
58 |
|||
|
39 |
Sault Ste. Marie |
43 |
43 |
|||
|
41 |
Niagara |
46, 50, |
63 |
38, |
46, 50, 63 |
|
|
43 |
Niagara |
76 |
||||
|
45 |
Cambridge |
97 |
||||
|
47 |
Aylmer |
60 |
||||
|
48 |
Simcoe |
31, |
79 |
|||
|
50 |
Aylmer |
21,52 |
7, i |
L5, 21, 50, 52 |
||
|
51 |
Chatham |
34 |
82 |
|||
|
58 |
Niagara |
34 |
34 |
|||
|
61 |
Bancroft |
52, 65, |
68,88 |
12 |
||
|
63 |
Minden |
72 |
||||
|
64 |
M Laden |
4, 35, : |
37,40 |
|||
|
65 |
Minden |
5, 9, 36, 42, 44 |
44 |
|||
|
66 |
Minden |
51, 60, 88, 94, |
63, 80, 86, 97 |
27, |
86 |
|
|
68 |
Chatham |
28 |
||||
|
69 |
Chatham |
8 |
||||
|
70 |
Aylmer |
55 |
||||
|
73 |
Lindsay |
81 |
||||
|
74 |
Lindsay |
75, 76 |
21 |
|||
|
75 |
Maple |
58 |
||||
|
79 |
Tweed |
50, 69 |
37, |
50, 69 |
||
|
82 |
Napanee |
15 |
||||
|
84 |
Owen Sound |
23 |
23, |
98 |
||
|
85 |
Owen Sound |
3 |
3 |
|||
|
86 |
Brockvilie |
34 |
||||
|
89 |
Parry Sound |
12 |
75
|
TABLE 14: A SUMMARY |
OF DEAD (FALLEl |
^) TREES BY su: |
RVEY PLOT |
|
IN 1989 AND 1990 (Cont'd) |
|||
|
Dead Tree |
Dead Tree |
||
|
Species Plot |
MNR District |
No. (1989) |
No. (1990) |
|
90 |
Parry Sound |
59 |
|
|
91 |
Parry Sound |
49,67 |
49 |
|
93 |
Espanola |
42,61,92 |
27, 42, 92 |
|
95 |
Espanola |
68, 97, 99 |
|
|
96 |
Algonquin Park |
12, 58, 68 |
12, 14 |
|
97 |
Algonquin Park |
22, 77 |
22, 77 |
|
104 |
North Bay |
6, 12, 24, 26, 98, 100 |
|
|
105 |
Owen Sound |
27 |
6, 27, 88 |
|
106 |
Espanola |
97 |
|
|
107 |
Espanola |
31 |
31 |
|
108 |
Thunder Bay |
81 |
|
|
109 |
Thunder Bay |
3, 15, 42 |
|
|
Aw White Ash 36 |
Blind River |
49 |
|
|
48 |
Simcoe |
67, 75, 76 |
|
|
54 |
Brockville |
50 |
50, 61 |
|
61 |
Bancroft |
78,94 |
|
|
63 |
Minden |
16 |
16 |
|
65 |
Minden |
53 |
|
|
66 |
Minden |
65 |
|
|
72 |
Lindsay |
26 |
|
|
76 |
Wingham |
62 |
62 |
|
82 |
Napanee |
17 |
|
|
83 |
Napanee |
99 |
99 |
|
93 |
Espanola |
4 |
4 |
|
Ms Soft (red) Maple 16 |
Sudbury |
55 |
|
|
38 |
Sault Ste. Marie |
96 |
96 |
|
40 |
Sault Ste. Marie |
18 |
|
|
50 |
Aylmer |
61 |
|
|
61 |
Bancroft |
83 |
|
|
63 |
Minden |
7 |
|
|
Be Beech 38 |
Sault Ste. Marie |
46 |
46 |
|
50 |
Aylmer |
44 |
44 |
|
67 |
Minden |
89 |
38, 89 |
|
81 |
Tweed |
24 |
|
|
99 |
Algonquin Park |
82 |
|
|
Bd Basswood 8 |
Cornwall |
21 |
21, 88 |
|
22 |
Huronia |
29 |
|
|
51 |
Chatham |
73 |
|
|
66 |
Minden |
28, 71, 72 |
28, 71, 72 |
76
TABLE 14: A SUMMARY OF DEAD (FALLEN) TREES BY SURVEY PLOT IN 1989 AND 1990 (Cont'd)
Species
I Ironwood
By Yellow Birch
Cb Black Cherry
Or Red Oak
Bw White Birch
Hb Bittemut Hickory
Po Trembling Aspen
Ab Black Ash
Plot
50
1
77
104
MNR District
|
93 |
Espanola |
|
103 |
Owen Sound |
|
18 |
Parry Sound |
|
20 |
Huronia |
|
21 |
Huronia |
|
25 |
Huronia |
|
29 |
Sudbury |
|
32 |
Blind River |
|
63 |
Minden |
|
65 |
Minden |
|
66 |
Minden |
|
81 |
Tweed |
|
83 |
Napanee |
|
90 |
Parry Sound |
|
92 |
Parry Sound |
|
103 |
Owen Sound |
|
37 |
Sault Ste. Mi |
|
64 |
Minden |
|
67 |
Minden |
|
90 |
Parry Sound |
|
104 |
North Bay |
|
2 |
Bracebridge |
|
4 |
North Bay |
|
17 |
Parry Sound |
|
24 |
Huronia |
|
50 |
Aylmer |
|
29 |
Sudbury |
|
89 |
Parry Sound |
|
23 |
Huronia |
|
89 |
Parry Sound |
Aylmer
North Bay Wingham
North Bay
Dead Tree No. (1989)
75 90
35
12, 49
|
11, |
13, |
38 |
|
5, |
79 |
|
|
60 |
||
|
66 |
||
|
17, |
47 |
|
|
38 |
||
|
93 |
||
|
71 1, |
20 |
63
36
40
42
52 97
Dead Tree No. (1990)
|
25, |
26,75 |
|
70 |
|
|
35, |
36 |
|
82 |
|
|
60 |
|
|
82 |
|
|
12, |
49 |
|
67 |
|
|
69 |
|
|
5, ' |
79 |
|
60 |
|
|
66, |
100 |
|
17, |
47 |
|
38 |
43 6 4, 99
36, 41 86
18
27, 42
64. 97
67 31
30, 56
77
TABLE 14: A SUMMARY OF DEAD (FALLEN) TREES BY SURVEY PLOT IN 1989 AND 1990 (Cont'd)
|
Dead Tree |
Dead Tree |
|||||
|
Species |
Plot |
MNR District |
No. |
(1989) |
No. (1990) |
|
|
Pob Balsam Poplar |
38 |
Sault Ste. Marie |
18 |
|||
|
Pol Largetooth Aspen |
29 69 |
Sudbury Chatham |
61 3 |
|||
|
Ew American Elm |
11 |
Carleton Place |
93 |
93 |
||
|
He Hemlock |
66 104 |
Minden North Bay |
75 |
75 27,94 |
||
|
Bf Balsam Fir |
18 |
Parry Sound |
92 |
|||
|
32 |
Blmd River |
59 |
59 |
|||
|
40 |
Sauli Ste. Mane |
80, |
90, |
97 |
80, 90, 97 |
|
|
Pw White Pine |
33 |
Blind River |
13 |
13 |
||
|
53 |
Niagara |
72 |
72 |
|||
|
Ce White Cedar |
37 |
Sault Ste. Marie |
95 |
95 |
||
|
94 |
Espanola |
27, |
79 |
27 |
78
o
2 o
|
lO |
r<-) |
— |
VO |
-^ |
\o |
|
CN |
^ |
^D |
OO |
r- |
o |
|
o |
00 |
O |
in |
m |
o |
|
o |
■^ |
^ |
o\ |
ON |
o |
|
^^ |
oo |
CO |
MU |
, , |
en |
|
in |
CO |
MD |
r- |
in |
— . |
— vo 00 'd- r- o m o — o MD o
CN o ■* m — ' o — o o4 in r-' o
— CO m — m O m — — in vo O
vo CO (N vo m o ^' — ' o '^'
O <r-- (N O 04
O od — ■ o — '
m o CO CO ^
00 On
O
|
o |
(N |
oo |
o |
oo |
oo |
o |
\o |
oo |
^O |
o |
o |
|
o |
r~- |
00 |
o |
00 |
o |
-^ |
in |
O |
m CN |
CN |
o |
|
o |
— |
CO |
o |
r- |
o |
o |
m |
oo |
CO |
r- |
o |
|
o |
ON |
r- |
o |
CN |
o |
o |
m |
'""' |
CN |
<N |
o |
|
o |
r- |
o |
o |
r- |
'^ |
— |
r~- |
o |
CO |
^ |
o |
|
o |
m |
o |
o |
m |
— |
r- |
in |
O |
CN |
^ |
o |
O 00 ^ o o
O O CN CD rf
O C50 O O CX> CD — ' O <d — '
o o CO o r~-_ (D o ^' o in
r — ^ — ' '^ I.N __
-. — CO [II ZI o
— r-~ CN — r~
•<3- in oo oo
— o <N LJ ^ cr>
o r- — o —
H
c^S
r^i m ^ -^ • —
•* — — ^ in O
— O — — ^
o^ _ o ~
i^. r ^ 'fl o
o — CO o m
in -^ o r-~ o
o CO — ^ r~- o
o — o o —
c?5 S
'^ r- o -^ —
<n '^ o L. oo o
O C CO o "*
ffl
U
r
o Z
l/l >
t: ^
CO
s r ^ 5
H Z a LU Z c^ ^
0J5
- -^ rs o ^ 5 o 8 ■? ^^
< 22 22 2 Û- O-
O
'53d
s P g t: a. 2P « « =.= «■-
' ■ ■■ I J 2 Z
U O
79
s
|
o |
||
|
H |
||
|
o |
||
|
ON as |
||
|
CJ |
||
|
L. |
D |
|
|
OB |
Q. |
|
|
cTd |
S |
CX5 vo r~- w-i — '
— ^ O c^ CN ro
-^ CN Tt OO -^ CN — ' CN -^' 04
f^ O — O CO
— O iri O CO
00 oo oo Tl- -^ O O O oJ oi
OO OO CXD vo oo
O O O ^ On O O O — oi
cn — SO Tj- (O
rS — CN -^ CN
— O ^ O m
— — — r^ m
O O O — CN
|
o |
— |
c^ |
— |
CN |
o |
|
oo |
r^. |
en |
m |
^^ |
o o |
|
_ |
-* |
o |
■^c |
rl- |
o |
|
r- |
(N |
o |
m |
CN |
g |
|
ON |
OO |
vC |
lO |
o |
o |
|
oo |
c^ |
r^ |
CN |
o |
o o |
CN 00 O O OC
|
on |
o |
^ |
O |
o |
o c |
|
o |
o |
VO |
O |
oo |
o |
|
m |
o |
ro |
o |
~ |
o o |
|
ON |
^ |
r^. |
o |
o |
o |
|
CN |
— |
■^ |
o |
o |
o |
U-) \0 V-, CN SO
vO CN O r^ CN
r- c^. \o CN o
■^ — ir-, O — CN
CN O CN O —
CN — CO O O
O
0^ (U Cl,
= -- = ««
•Z > o
> J^
cs c: c« c rt 5
[d ca u u z E-
41 C O E
5 •„ = OO a» c«
;: o « ^ o —
c/5 < U O c/D >
<
O
80
When all species are combined, 26% of the 1989 mortality occurred in the Minden District, 12% in the Parry Sound District and approximately 9% in both the Espanola and Sault Ste. Marie Districts. The remaining Districts each contained only a small proportion of the total number of dead trees. Similar to that for maples, total 1990 species mortality was somewhat more dispersed within the Province. Minden District contained the greatest proportion of the provincial total (10.4%), followed by North Bay District (8.6%) and Aylmer District (8.0%).
4. 1 .2 Regional Decline Patterns
The plot-by-plot spatial (and temporal) pattern of hardwood decline has been discussed. It is also of interest to discuss decline within defined boundaries. For this purpose, mean Dis were computed by Forest Section and MNR Administrative Districts. Some of the regional patterns of decline have been discussed for MNR Districts. Further discussion will appear in this section.
4.1.2.1 Hardwood Decline by Forest Section
The hardwood survey plots lie within two forest regions in Ontario, as recognized by Rowe (1972):
• Deciduous Forest Region; and
• Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Forest Region.
There are a total of twelve Forest Sections occurring within these two Forest Regions. Both the Rainy River and Haileybury Clay Forest Sections, however, lie outside of the hardwood forest study area. The Timagami Forest Section which was examined as part of the 1989 Hardwood Decline Survey (BEAK, 1990) was removed from the 1990 study area due to the low density of sugar maple in the Section. The removal of the Timagami Forest Section from the 1990 study area has resulted in the southward movement of the northern boundary of the study area. This change in the northern boundary has reduced the study area by
81
approximately 24,200 km^ to 172,000 km^ The nine Forest Sections examined in the 1990 survey are shown in Figure 16.
The revision to the study area boundary required recalculation of the Thiessen polygons associated with the more northerly sample plots. Utilizing the new polygon boundaries, mean Dis were computed by apportioning individual plot means within each Forest Section. Mean Dis for each Forest Section in 1986, 1987, 1989 and 1990 are presented in Table 16. The highest Dis in 1990 and 1989 were found in the Georgian Bay and Sudbury-North Bay Sections. In 1987, the highest Dis were found in the Algonquin-Pontiac and Sudbury-North Bay Sections. In 1986, the Georgian Bay and Algoma Forest Sections had the highest Dis. Between 1989 and 1990, there was a marginal deterioration in tree health across the Province. Mean Dis increased by one decline class in both the Huron-Ontario and Middle Ottawa Sections while the mean DI decreased by one decline class in the Sudbury-North Bay Section. There were no changes in decline class between 1989 and 1990 for the remaining five Forest Sections. Mean DI values decreased within five Forest Sections between 1986 and 1990, indicating a general improvement in tree health. During this same period, mean DI values increased by only one unit within the Georgian Bay, Huron-Ontario and Middle Ottawa Sections, and remained unchanged in the Sudbury-North Bay Section.
4.1.2.2 Hardwood Decline by MNR Administrative Districts
A total of 28 MNR Administrative Districts were identified within the 1990 Ontario Hardwood Decline Survey study area (Figure 17). As discussed in the previous section, changes in the northern boundary of the study area required recalculation of the Thiessen polygons associated with each sample plot. Mean Dis for each MNR District in 1986, 1987, 1989 and 1990 are presented in Table 17. The Districts with the highest mean Dis in 1989 were Minden, Espanola and Parry Sound. In 1990, the highest mean Dis were reported in the Minden District. In 1987, the highest decline was reported in the Algonquin Park and Espanola Districts. Highest decline in 1986 was found in the Sauk Ste. Marie and Parry Sound MNR Districts. Twenty of the twenty-two Districts showed increased decline
82
onatcrtUDMm
o
(D >
13
in
Q)
o
Q
"D O O
D
CD
CO
|
CO |
c |
|
o |
|
|
T |
. — |
|
-4-» |
|
|
o |
|
|
(D |
0) |
|
(^ |
|
|
i_ |
|
|
D |
■+-> |
|
CO |
|
|
cn |
0) |
|
i^ |
|
|
o |
|
|
Ll. |
Ll. |
83
z
o
u
a
c—
O
LI. >-
2 U
Û
o
o
<
|
n |
(U |
|
Oi) |
|
|
c |
c |
|
s |
C3 |
|
S |
U |
|
_^ ^ |
|
|
o |
|
|
Q |
On On |
7; c c
-^ s iH
U
c
Cl, -^ O <_ — 00
o ^ c
o -o
çr^^^^^^^^t^Or»^
mr-oocsf^'— 00— . ro
ON i_'
^-rtooc-.-^QQ^nfj^ en
^ISSonS^S'^ —
— (N — -^ — — <N^ —
t~~u-, t^(N(nmvn<N ■*
<N — Ttoo\oor-o
ai
3
o
OS -^
o
Q
^ E
^ es
« -J
5 ^
o o
dû Où
M S iS
CQ u
8 r?
_ :3 c.
o tu
a
c o
•s
c o
o n- .
rt 00 o Os X) — '
>»2
c (U
"= >
CO -^
r~ ^— On
ON c --
es: ^ c
•^ Ô. s
C -a
< ^ u
84
|
D |
|
|
CO |
CD |
|
-4-* |
|
|
i_ |
|
|
o |
|
|
« « |
< |
|
i^ |
|
|
-+-' |
>N |
|
CO |
CD |
|
o |
> |
|
L_ |
|
|
(D |
Z5 |
|
> |
CD |
|
-4-' |
|
|
CD |
|
|
L; |
|
|
1_ |
C |
|
♦ — ^ |
o |
|
c |
0) |
|
E |
n |
|
u |
|
|
< |
u |
|
o |
|
|
0:: |
o |
|
X. |
|
|
:^ |
-$- |
|
"O |
85
„ o
On C T
SvO
S ON
Z ^ U
i2 -o .2 o <u au
2 UJ .g
|
e2 |
o < |
|
<_ |
>1 |
|
o |
■o |
|
^ |
00 |
t^r~- o — — c^. om —
o— r~~oot^r--oo — r~
0OCX3 :C'^2:!i:^aN!£;
oc ON r- -^ OO r^ \o
>/^ ir; ir-, kr-. ir-, On nC -rr \C
mm t~~ ocr~-r~-(N)
m r~ ir; in ir~.
oo
O m r~~ vc m o — CN m ir; m ■^ CN —
ô Q
—es ^*»
-, ^ o
^ O Si
Z r-
— O
■ — Q ^ s/; -r- '
/^ ^ • — i: ^
— >, . û 22 o
^ -^ g f .^ I g ^
Z ce LU Z on 00 ^
CN <N CN VO — <N —
t^ ir-, t^ 00 c» lo r-~
m 1J-; ir, \C 00 -^ iTi
o 00 s:j E 00 [- p^
■^ CM es vr; t^ Ol
— m, 00 00 r^i NO o vr; rs r^. 01 -^ -^ m
oiij>j t-> .Ï2
:/:.__•
•5 Q .^ U ^
c o-
- o c -^
o
- 2 •?> S
c o d "2 o-^
cû 5 es .= ^ =
< c: 02 S a. Cl,
86
Q "r
S o
t/2
7: c c Z ^ U
• -2 ^ -c o "^ -^
^ Q
»n c^ vo cN r-- —
il; Z, i=- ON _-. —
Z. ii 1h Z- 0^ --
OS 00 ^ 00 ON ON
!!: ^ r- OS !:: s^
NO on f^ (50 so <N
cnioO'^cMO NO — or~- — w-i —
00000 C^^OOfNI —
f — ^-^ s^^ v*^ s.^ ^^^
ON X iri i-. Z- _.'
OON0i/n04 0,_— vo^^
„ "^ " ^ --. Os IJ,
mr~NDONXOo oor»->inmr~NO ~
Ti- r^ 21 ^ >^ r-~
r- cs -^ '^ NO ir-,
Oin — 04r-)CN nOnO — r-imrj-
ir: _i r- ^ lin
mr-u-i-Nft--^ S. <^ ZI. o OS ^
<m 00 m oi u~,
r~i oi ^ oi c-)
r<^ <N r^i — r-- lo '^ ^ ■^ rn — r-
(N NO rsi o o o cni n m -^ -*' r-
00
o
o
£5 o
= 'n u .0 ^ OS
OiJ >— 00 j^ ^ (^ >■
a: Sx) Q 5 .'2 Q § — :2 .2 >,û j^ -sb
f* '^ r^ rt ni •- 1>
p P TO a. M '-^
'-- — C c3 TO
Ç c/i (U b 'C o
Tr .=• o t/î t; ■-
Oi (U D-
c
«J K3
u u
iZ >
OS ■ -
5: Q
gl
H t.
.0 -C G o i3 r;
û .2
(u Q
i/1 r
«J TO -^ .z:
TO --
5 2
< U O c/D >
c -a «J ex «^
TO O TO 5
(X c TO o TO :s td CQ U U Z f-
o
CO
|
c |
^ 0 |
|||||
|
> 0 |
° 2 |
|||||
|
£X |
"O c = 0 a. t: 0 0 |
|||||
|
Td- r-1 |
r- |
CN |
'^ |
0 |
ted in be ap 1986. |
|
|
"i^^s |
||||||
|
^ E ^ |
||||||
|
00 -s |
||||||
|
ai c «J |
||||||
|
^ â y |
||||||
|
— 00 |
r- ^ |
ON |
01 |
0^ |
i2 ^^ |
o '5b
i; '^On
TO .=
•o "
U
— "2 i=
87
between 1989 and 1990. The decline was generally minimal, however, with the largest being an increase of seven decline units for Napanee. Although there was a general trend towards improved tree health from 1987 to 1989, the following Districts showed a deterioration in tree condition: Blind River, Minden, Lindsay, Brockville, Napanee and Tweed. Between 1986 and 1989, a larger number of Districts had declining mean Dis, i.e.. Blind River, Espanola, North Bay, Sudbury, Bracebridge, Minden, Parry Sound and Lindsay.
4.1.3 Hardwood Decline and Wet Sulphate and Nitrate Deposition Zones
Atmospheric deposition of sulphate and nitrate varies widely across the Province. There is a deposition gradient from highest levels in the southwest, to lowest levels in the northwest (Figures 18 and 19 for wet sulphate and nitrate deposition, respectively). This pattern reflects the industrial concentration in southern Ontario, and the proximity to large U.S. centres in the lower Great Lakes basin and further south (McLaughlin et al., 1987).
Wet sulphate and nitrate loadings from 1981-1984 were superimposed on the mean DI maps for 1990, 1989, 1987 and 1986, i.e., Figures 5 to 8, respectively, to determine if the distribution of hardwood decline was related to either wet sulphate or nitrate deposition. The mean DI for each wet sulphate and nitrate deposition zone is listed, for 1986, 1987, 1989 and 1990, in Table 18. The zone of highest wet sulphate deposition, i.e., greater than 35 kg SO/ha/yr, had one of the lowest mean Dis (for 1986, 1987, 1989 and 1990). The highest mean DI occurred (for each of the four years) in the 15 to 20 kg/ha/yr deposition zone. Improved tree health was evident within all deposition zones between 1986, 1987 and 1989. For all zones except the 20-25 kg/ha/yr, there was a marginal reduction in tree health between 1989 and 1990. For the two extreme zones, i.e., less than 10 kg/ha/yr and greater than 35 kg/ha/yr, the improvement in health between 1986 and 1990 was considerable. This may be a result of decreased loadings of wet sulphate and wet nitrate (pers. comm., D. McLaughlin, 1992).
®
'MfTHI ON «CVCUD PtfO
CD
CXD CJ CD 0)
|
CO |
|
|
<D |
>^ |
|
o |
CD |
|
M |
> |
|
i— |
|
|
C O |
3 |
|
U) |
|
|
-<-' |
|
|
• — |
<1> |
|
CO |
|
|
o |
i- |
|
o |
♦ — |
|
CD |
|
|
n |
O |
|
(D |
CD |
|
-^ |
n |
|
(J |
|
|
r |
|
|
o |
u |
|
o |
|
|
Z5 |
o |
|
U) |
^ |
|
-J-' |
u |
|
CD |
\. |
|
^ |
D |
|
C |
1 |
|
D |
|
|
CD |
CD |
00
CD
89
90
û 9r,
SU
S OS
Q
CO —
0 = 5=
^ s iS
Z ^ U D
5 îi 5
Cl, -55 N
2 W^
|
O |
< |
|
u_ |
>, |
|
O |
■a |
|
^ |
00 |
c ^
OO f^ (N o o -^ <Jn
f^ (^ O m ■* en (^
o a\ o — ' o
en Os ^
r~- o 00 — lo —
3
Z
VO CN -^ — ■ VO
-^ OO ^ m CN
ON ^ 2 2 C^
t^ ^ i-j m. r-
>iO ON m m m
vo OJ i2
_ U-. —
S ^ 2 là
u
4 o
•o
« 00 O ON
J2 —
|
>^ |
|
|
o |
|
|
^ |
ON |
|
""^ |
ON |
|
on |
c |
|
O |
l—l |
|
Q |
|
|
—^ |
^_ |
|
,_. |
ra |
|
c |
o |
|
Ci. |
c |
|
15 |
c |
|
■^ |
|
|
> |
c |
|
in |
C3 |
^ u
91
Generally, DI was inversely related to nitrate deposition, although the relationship was not as evident as for wet sulphate deposition. In all but the 1987 survey year, the highest Dis occurred in the 2 to 3 kg/ha/yr wet nitrate deposition zone. Marked improvements in tree health occurred between 1987 and 1989 for each wet nitrate deposition zone. Over the five year study period, the only nitrate deposition zone which exhibited a deterioration in mean DI values was the 4 to 5 kg/ha/yr zone; a marginal decrease of one decline unit was recorded in this zone.
It is apparent that there is no direct relationship between acidic deposition and hardwood forest condition. This is consistent with the literature and current theory. The relationship between acidic precipitation and forest health is believed to be much more obtuse, likely correlated with subtle adverse effects or soil chemistry rather than acute effects on the foliage. This survey was not designed nor intended to be a cause and effect investigation.
4.1.4 Quality Assurance Field Checks
1989 Overlap Analyses
Seven plots were selected at random for use as overlap test sites in 1989. Four plots were assessed by two field crews, and three plots were assessed by three crews. All assessments were conducted independently, i.e., crews were not informed that the plots had been previously assessed by another crew. Overlap plot assessment was conducted throughout the survey's duration.
The differences in mean plot DI generated by the various crews were examined statistically. The statistical analysis results are summarized in Table 19. Eight of the 13 paired plot assessments had a mean DI which varied by 5 or less. Only three of the 13 paired plot assessments had a mean DI which varied by more than 10, the greatest difference being 15. Regardless of the absolute difference in mean plot DI between assessments, none of these differences were statistically significant (p greater than 0.05).
92
TABLE 19: 1989 OVERLAP PLOTS - STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CREW ASSESSMENTS
Survey Mean Plot
Overlap Decline Index Difference
Plot' Crew X** Crew Y** in DI
22
16
Sum of Mean
Squares Square Error F
(SS) (MSE) Ratio^
315.0
541.8
0.58
17
27
12
15
776.5
541.8
1.43
|
26 |
19 |
14 |
5 |
244.5 |
541.8 |
0.45 |
|
26 |
14 |
9 |
5 |
220.0 |
541.8 |
0.41 |
|
26 |
19 |
9 |
10 |
464.5 |
541.8 |
0.86 |
|
36 |
13 |
11 |
2 |
142.5 |
541.8 |
0.26 |
|
36 |
13 |
11 |
2 |
143.0 |
541.8 |
0.26 |
|
36 |
13 |
13 |
0 |
0.5 |
541.8 |
0.0009 |
57
52.0
541.8
0.10
84
54.5
541.8
0.10
|
107 |
25 |
12 |
13 |
633.5 |
541.8 |
1.17 |
|
107 |
25 |
12 |
13 |
638.0 |
541.8 |
1.18 |
|
107 |
25 |
25 |
0 |
4.5 |
541.8 |
0.008 |
' Plots 2, 17, 57 and 84 were overlapped by two crews and plots 26, 36 and 107 by three crews. For the latter set of plots, three comparisons are made between the three crews so that all combinations of crews were compared.
* In no case are differences between crews for decline index statistically significant (p greater than 0.05).
** Plot 2 was overlapped by crews 1 and 2; plot 17 by crews 2 and 3; plot 26 by crews 1, 2 and 3; plot 36 by crews 2, 3 and 4; plot 57 by crews 1, 2 and 3; plot 84 by crews 3 and 4; and plot 107 by crews 2, 3 and 4.
93
1990 Overlap Plot Analyses
Ten plots were selected at random for use as overlap test sites in 1990. Each of these plots was overlapped by each of the three crews. As with the 1989 analyses, all assessments were conducted independently, i.e., crews were not informed that the plots had been previously assessed by another crew. Overlap plot assessment was conducted throughout the survey's duration.
Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were run using decline index and individual components of the decline index as the dependent variables, and crew, plot and crew-by-plot interaction, as the model effects. Planned comparisons between crews for mean decline index (across all overlap plots) were conducted where the crew-by-plot interaction effect was not significant. These single degree of freedom contrasts can be tested at a fixed probability level with considerably more power (of rejecting the null hypothesis that two means are equal) than multiple means tests. Where means are used in determining the planned contrast, the sums of squares attributable to the contrast are as follows:
SS = hLZ
where: n = number of observations in the mean L = the value of the contrast Xj = the ith coefficient of the contrast
This value divided by the mean square error gives the appropriate F-test with 1/n degrees of freedom. The results of ANOVA's for decline index and for the individual components of the decline index are summarized in Table 20. The results indicated that in the case of all dependent variables, with the exception of dead branches, there was a significant crew effect, i.e., less than 5% probability of incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis that mean decline assessments for crews across all overlap plots are equal. The results of planned comparisons between crews for these variables are summarized in Table 21. The results
94
TABLE 20: RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: TWO-WAY ANALYSES
OF VARIANCE INCLUDING BOTH MAIN AND INTERACTION EFFECTS FOR DECLINE INDEX AND VARIOUS COMPONENTS OF THE INDEX
Dependent Variable (Pr > F)
Source
Degrees of Freedom
Decline Index
Dead Branches
Slight Chlorosis
Strong Chlorosis
Small Leaves
Crew
0.03
0.07 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Plot
0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0165
Crew X Plot U
0.99 0.99 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
TABLE 21: PLANNED COMPARISONS BETWEEN CREWS FOR DECLINE
INDEX (AND DEAD BRANCHES COMPONENT) AT OVERLAP PLOTS
Difference Between Means (F Value for Planned Comparison)
Crew Decline Dead
Comparison Index Branches
1-3 2.04' 1.45
(4.10) (2.06)
1-2 2.50' 2.30'
(6.16) (5.18)
3-2 0.46 0.85
(0.21) (0.71)
Difference between crews significant at the 5% level.
96
indicated that members of Crew 1 assigned trees significantly higher decline indices and percentage dead branches than Crew 2. Similarly, Crew 1 assigned higher decline indices to trees within overlap plots than Crew 3, although dead branch assessments between the crews were not significantly different. Crews 2 and 3 were statistically similar in their assessment of decline index and percentage dead branches across overlap plots. Plot effect also is significant for all dependent variables analyzed.
The crew-by-plot interaction effect was significant only for components of the decline index involving chlorosis and leaf size (Table 20). These components of the index are the most difficult to assess in the field and have correspondingly lower weightings in the decline index. The crew-by-plot interaction for these dependent variables suggests that individual crews assess chlorosis and leaf size differently depending on the plot visited. Given this interaction, it is not possible to statistically examine planned comparisons between crew means across all overlap plots.
97
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of hardwood decline surveys conducted in 1986, 1987, 1989 and 1990, forest decline is evident in Ontario. Provincial mean decline indices of 14, 15, 11 and 13 were recorded in the 1986, 1987, 1989 and 1990 survey years, respectively. These values represent relatively low decline. Localized incidences of deterioration in tree health have been identified; however, hardwood forest decline does not appear to be a widespread problem within the Province.
Regional variations in forest condition are evident both within survey years and across the five-year study period. Severe decline was reported within only one plot in 1986, ten plots in 1987, seven plots in 1989 and three plots in 1990. All of these plots are located within the Northeastern and Algonquin MNR Administrative Regions. Severe decline was noted in two years at plots in the Espanola MNR District (1987, 1989) and the Minden District (1989, 1990). The Sudbury District was the only district to contain plots which showed consistent and severe decline in 1987, 1989 and 1990. These three districts are located within areas which possess physiographic associations, soil types, drainage regimes and vegetative conditions which are indicative of low hardwood forest productivity. Such conditions would tend to predispose hardwood species to decline symptoms.
No clear trend in decline levels is evident throughout the five-year study period. There was a marginal increase in the provincial mean decline index from 14 in 1986 to 15 in 1987. Extensive defoliation of hardwood species by forest insects in 1987 may have led to the classification of many study trees as dead. The overall effect of this insect defoliation may have attributed to the increased 1987 mean DI value. Overall, tree health appears to have improved between 1987 and 1989, as indicated by a decrease in mean Dl values from 15 to 11. A modest increase in decline levels was evident between 1989 and 1990, as the provincial mean DI rose to 13 units.
98
®
nWTB) CM «CnB »<
Tree mortality levels were also variable over the study years. Tree mortality across all survey plots was 1.7% in 1986, 3.1% in 1987, 1.1% in 1989 and 1.5% in 1990. The total number of dead trees increased from 1986 to 1987, and from 1989 to 1990. There was a substantial decrease in the number of trees classed as dead from 1987 to 1989. The number of dead trees in 1986 was also higher than in 1989 and 1990. These mortality levels suggest that "normal" mortality in a hardwood forest ranges from 1 to 1.5%.
No direct relationship was apparent between acidic deposition and forest condition. The zone of highest wet sulphate deposition (35 kg SOJhsJyr) had one of the lowest annual mean Dis, whereas the highest annual mean Dis occurred in the zone which received 15 to 20 kg SOJhdJyi. Improved tree health was evident within all wet sulphate deposition zones between 1986 and 1989. For all zones except the 20 to 25 kg/ha/yr, there was a marginal reduction in forest health between 1989 and 1990. Generally, DI values are inversely related to nitrate deposition levels. In all but the 1987 survey year, the highest Dis occurred in the 2 to 3 kg/ha/yr wet nitrate deposition zone. Marked improvements in tree health occurred between 1987 and 1989 for each wet nitrate deposition zone.
The quality assurance field checks carried out in 1989 and 1990 indicate that the decUne index rating methodology can be successfully applied within the Hardwood Decline Survey Program. Statistical analyses indicate that the assessment of foliar colour and size can vary significantly between field survey crews. The low weighting of these parameters within the decline index rating methodology is therefore justifiable.
99
0
nwrS ON CCTOa MKR
6.0 REFERENCES
Balch, R.E. and J.S. Prebble. 1940. The bronze birch borer and its relation to the dying of birch in New Brunswick forests. The Forestry Chronicle 16: 179-201.
Bauch, J. 1983. Biological alterations in the stem and root of fir and spruce due to pollution influence. In: Accumulation of Air Pollutants in Forest Ecosystems. B. Ulrich (Ed.). D. Reidel Publ. Co., Hingham, Mass.
Bazire, P. 1987. Results of the survey of the health conditions of the French forest in 1986, pp. 387-397. L. Kairiukstis, S. Nilsson and A. Straszak (Eds.). In: Forest Decline and Reproduction: Regional and Global Consequences. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.
Beak Consultants Limited (BEAK). 1990. Results of the 1989 Hardwood Decline Survey for Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
Binns, W.O., D.B. Redfem and K. Rennolls. 1987. Forest decline - the view from Britain, pp. 69-81. T.C. Hutchinson and K.M. Meema (Eds.). In: NATO ASI Series, Vol. G 16. Effects of Atmospheric Pollutants on Forests, Wetlands and Agricultural Ecosystems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Blank, L.W., T.M. Roberts and R.A. Skeffmgton. 1988. New perspectives on forest decline. Nature 336: 1-4.
Bormann, F.H. and G.E. Likens. 1979. Pattern and process in a forested ecosystem. Springer Verlag, NY.
Bûcher, J.B. 1987. Forest damage in Switzerland, Austria and adjacent parts of France and Italy in 1984, pp. 43-58. T.C. Hutchinson and K.J. Meema (Eds.). In: NATO ASI Series, Vol. G 16. Effects of Atmospheric Pollutants on Forests, Wetlands and Agricultural Ecosystems. Springer- Veriag, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Cowling, E.B. 1985. Comparison of regional declines of forests in Europe and North America: a possible role of airborne chemicals. In: Air Pollutant Effects on Forest Ecosystems. May 8-9, St. Paul, MN. The Acid Rain Foundation, St. Paul, MN. p. 217-234.
Crpnan, C.S., W.A. Reiners and R.C. Reynolds. 1980. The impact of acid precipitation on forest canopies and soils in the northeastern U.S. In: Ecological Impact of Acid Precipitation. Proceedings of an International Conference, 11-14 March 1980. D. Drablos and A. Tollan (Eds.). Sandefjord, Norway. SNSF Project, Oslo, Norway.
100
®
Ecological Services for Planning (ESP). 1989. Changes in the decline status of hardwood forests in Ontario: 1986 to 1987. A report to the Phytotoxicology Section of the Ministry of the Environment.
Gagnon, G., L. Robitaille, G. Roy and C. Gravel. 1985. Dieback in maple stands - the behaviour of some ecological variables. Unpublished.
Guttay, A.J.R. 1976. Impact of deicing salts upon the endomycorrhizae of roadside sugar rnaples. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 40: 952-954.
Hawboldt, L.S. and A.J. Skolko. 1948. Investigation of yellow birch dieback in Nova Scotia in 1947. J. Forest 46: 659-671.
Henrichsen, D. 1986. Multiple pollutants and forest decline. Ambio. 258-265.
Hibben, C.R. 1964. Identity and significance of certain organisms associated with sugar maple decline in New York woodlands. Phytopathology 54: 1389-1392.
Jakucs, P. 1988. Ecological approach to forest decay in Hungary. Ambio Vo. XVn 4: 267-274.
Kessler, K.J. 1963. Dieback of sugar maple, upper Michigan - 1962. U.S. Forest Service, Lake Slater Forest Experiment Station. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Research Note L5-13.
Laçasse, N.L. and A.E. Rich. 1964. Maple decline in New Hampshire. Phytopathology 54: 1071-1075.
Mader, D.L. and B.W. Thompson. 1969. Foliar and soil nutrients in relation to sugar maple decline. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 33: 794-800.
Manion, P.D. 1981. Decline as a phenomenon in forests. Pathological and ecological considerations. State Univ. of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry.
Mcllveen, W.D., D.L. McLaughlin and R.W. Amup. 1989. A survey to document the decline status of the sugar maple forest of Ontario: 1986. Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
Mcllveen, W.D., S.T. Rutherford and S.N. Linzon. 1986. A historical perspective of sugar maple decline within Ontario and outside of Ontario. Ontario Ministry- of the Environment Report No. ARB-141-86-Phyto.
101
McLaughlin, D.L. 1992. Pers. comm. with D. McLaughlin, Air Resources Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
McLaughlin, D.L., W.L Gizyn, D.E. Corrigan, W.D. Mcllveen, R.G. Pearson and R. Amup. 1988. A numerical decline index rating system to monitor changes in tree condition of hardwood forest species. To be published.
McLaughlin, D.L., D.E. Corrigan, W.D. Mcllveen, S.N. Linzon and R.G. Pearson. 1987. Etiology of sugar maple decline at selected sites in Ontario (1984-1987). Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Air Resources Branch, Phytotoxicology Section. Report No. ARB-202-87-Phyto.
McLaughlin, D.L., S.N. Linzon, D.E. Dimmaand W.D. Mcllveen. 1985. Sugar maple decline in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment Report No. ARB-144-85-Phyto. 18 p.
Nash, R.W., E.J. Duda. and N.H. Gray. 1951. Studies on extensive dying, regeneration and management of birch. Maine For. Serv. Bull. 15: 82.
Nordin, V.J. 1954. Studies in forest pathology. II. Decay in sugar maple in the Ottawa-Huron and Algoma extension forest region of Ontario. Can. J. Botany 32: 221-258.
Pomerleau, R. 1953. Spread versus intensification of dying hardwoods species in Quebec, pp. 50-51. In: Report of the Symposium on Birch Dieback, Canadian Department of Agriculture 1953. Summary of meetings held in Ottawa, Canada on 21 and 22 March 1952. Part 1 and Part 2. Canadian Department of Agriculture, Forest Biology Division, Science Service, Ottawa, Canada.
Rowe, J.S. 1972. Forest regions of Canada. Department of the Environment. Canadian Forestry Service Publication No. 1300.
SkilUng, D.D. 1959. Maple blight: a new fight. Amer. For. 65: 20-21, 53-55.
Tveite, B. 1987. Air pollution and forest damage in Norway, pp. 59-67. T.C. Hutchinson and K.M. Meema (Eds.). In: NATO ASI Series, Vol. G16. Effects of Atmospheric Pollutants on Forests, Wetlands and Agricultural Ecosystems. Springer-Verlag, Berling, Heidelberg.
Ulrich, B. 1988. The occurrence and causes of recent forest decline in Europe. Paper presented at the Conference on Forest Decline: Causes and Solutions, Toronto, Canada, August 8-11, 1988.
Ulrich, B., R. Mayer and P.K. Khanna. 1980. Chemical changes due to acid precipitation in a loess-derived soil in central Europe. Soil Sci. 130: 193-199. —
102
éS^
*f^.
^■^3».,
^tt
«izm
^r^
n»
.« "Jit
^ m: «:
''t.Mfcî^ip— jsii-.^'iK!;JMi^,^^^
mrjm-m
t- w.
4^ -^■-^^.1*^'^
«*^
^" H H L.
*::^.">^'^.
-.^-"L
-1». -»»■• :.wi».* _v '^
-^.j^/;^^'.
-.^.:^;;;<i
.i' .
•^^ «^t
jm^- .— ^J-*^" ,-^- mé^ —4 «• ■ '•> f»- «^"^ «t, - •* «^ «Mf •■<? ««îS pi% «f-^- ««-^ tm: mt mk, ^^
J^.jrî^^^T^- 5^ T" •^ "^^^ •*' -^^^W'- ■' *r m0 mm- «s^ m^. «g?^ «k,-. «bt- «k^: m^v «k^ «■!
jT^l*^ «^ «f « «""^ *^: »/ •»* «» «is;. .
m. m^ m^. m/i^ «f
«t,. «m:
"^'
C«:4(»».
%zm:
mrzmc
'i'f #.""«* ■^:.^«i-~ *
j^i,*
''^'-isr «r*^^^^
_ >«; Tt- V ' ■■♦•
-