Biomass and nutrient content of extensively and intensively managed coppice stands

Abstract

Studies on biomass production and nutrient accumulation in forest stands started 10 years ago in the authors' research group. Several reports presented results from individual stands. The aim of the present paper is to sum up the results obtained from 19 coppice stands, both extensively and intensively managed. Statistically significant relationships between biomass production and nutrient content of coppices were found, from which tables were developed for converting biomass production data of a coppice stand into nutrient contents. These tables will be useful to forest managers for determining the nutrient losses associated with harvesting according to its intensity, i.e. stem harvesting versus whole tree harvesting, and more generally according to the silvicultural scenarios. Significant relationships between soil characteristics and biomass production or nutrient content of the stands were also observed. These were used to calculate simple statistical models for predicting how production and nutrient immobilization vary with soil fertility parameters. This was done separately for extensively and intensively managed stands. The results presented here are sufficiently simple and accurate to be incorporated as they are into forest management models. It is nevertheless necessary to continue data collection to establish truly predictive models. This is particularly true for intensively managed stands for which the present information is incomplete.

Age-related physiological and structural traits of chestnut coppices at the Castelli Romani Park (Italy)

“…Chestnut is a moderate heliophile species and, compared to other temperate species, has rather high photosynthetic rates [11,16,44], contributing to its fast growth [12,13,40]. New management systems underline the use of longer rotation period with a moderate thinning [3,7,17], allowing the branch biomass to increase progressively, and contributing to the improvement of soil fertility, which has been reduced in the past by short rotation periods [48,49]. At the present, many chestnut coppices are improperly managed resulting in a heavy and progressive reduction of their ecological and economical value [4].…”

Responses in young Quercus petraea: coppices and standards under favourable and drought conditions

“…Some authors (Floret et al, 1992;Ducrey, 1992) state, that perseverance of individuals by the sprouting mechanism might cause the eventual genetic senescence and decrease in productivity of coppices. As the coppices have been applied on the sites with harsh site conditions, especially where drought represented the limiting survival aspect, several researchers (Ranger & Bonneau, 1986;Ranger & Nys, 1996) linked coppicing with the risks of the soil environment degradation, reduction in soil fertility and production poten tial with increased use of nutrients, loss of fertil ity and loss of organic matter. The rate of potential degradation depends also on the mineral strength of the site and duration of coppicing, with long-term re duction of soil fertility and thus the production and stability of the forest ecosystem being the conse quence (Kupec et al, 2015).…”

Contribution to a discussion on the influence of coppicing on soil environment

“…Pelíšek 1957;Switzer, Nelson 1973;Hansen, Baker 1979;Ranger, Bonneau 1986;Ranger, Nys 1996). Short rotations in coppice stands cause, compared with high forest, the utilization of nutrients to become more intense, particularly in stands of age up to 20 years (Ranger, Bonneau 1986).…”

“…Short rotations in coppice stands cause, compared with high forest, the utilization of nutrients to become more intense, particularly in stands of age up to 20 years (Ranger, Bonneau 1986). A specific effect on the soil environment is the frequent disturbance of the soil due to timber harvest and skidding (Ranger, Nys 1996). Specific consequences of pro-active coppicing particularly involve the negative relationship of nutrient concentrations and pH, as well as a negative balance of the propor- tion of nutrients in soil and in biomass.…”

“…However, some reports have presented indifferent or positive effects of coppicing on soil conditions (Ranger, Nys 1996;Hölscher et al 2001;Pignataro et al 2011). Non-decreasing pH or nutrient availability as well as burning of post-harvest biomass and incorporation of organic matter into the soil surface are attributed to the unintentional cultivation of soil, and were also highlighted as the main positive consequences of coppicing.…”