Skip to main content

Full text of "Ontario hardwood decline survey, 1989 and 1990"

See other formats 


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^