Forestry best management practices for timber harvesting and site preparation in the eastern United States: An overview of water quality and productivity research during the past 20 years (1982–2002)

Aust, W. Michael; Blinn, Charles R.

doi:10.1023/b:wafo.0000012828.33069.f6

Cited by 156 publications

(141 citation statements)

References 87 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

124

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This result may indicate that although losses can be high in the spring, conditions for N demand and uptake by the crop tree for a readily available N source may still be high. Low fertilizer N uptake by trees after fertilization during the dormant season (winter) in the south may cause other loss pathways, such as denitrification [51] and leaching [53] to become more important than NH 3 volatilization and also contribute to lower fertilizer N recovery in studies. Third, many studies only account for N uptake in the foliage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, large N losses following urea fertilization can occur due to ammonia (NH 3 ) volatilization depending on the interactions of weather and edaphic factors [45][46][47][48][49][50]. Volatilization, combined with leaching and denitrification, reduce the amount of fertilizer N remaining in the system, and may decrease fertilizer N availability for plant uptake and hence FNUE [51][52][53][54].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Understanding the Fate of Applied Nitrogen in Pine Plantations of the Southeastern United States Using 15N Enriched Fertilizers

Raymond

Fox

Strahm

2016

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was conducted to determine the efficacy of using enhanced efficiency fertilizer (EEFs) products compared to urea to improve fertilizer nitrogen use efficiency (FNUE) in forest plantations. All fertilizer treatments were labeled with 15 N (0.5 atom percent) and applied to 100 m 2 circular plots at 12 loblolly pine stands (Pinus taeda L.) across the southeastern United States. Total fertilizer N recovery for fertilizer treatments was determined by sampling all primary ecosystem components and using a mass balance calculation. Significantly more fertilizer N was recovered for all EEFs compared to urea, but there were generally no differences among EEFs. The total fertilizer N ecosystem recovery ranged from 81.9% to 84.2% for EEFs compared to 65.2% for urea. The largest amount of fertilizer N recovered for all treatments was in the loblolly pine trees (EEFs: 38.5%-49.9%, urea: 34.8%) and soil (EEFs: 30.6%-38.8%, urea: 28.4%). This research indicates that a greater ecosystem fertilizer N recovery for EEFs compared to urea in southeastern pine plantations can potentially lead to increased FNUE in these systems.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the Fate of Applied Nitrogen in Pine Plantations of the Southeastern United States Using 15N Enriched Fertilizers

Raymond

Fox

Strahm

2016

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This threshold, however, appears to vary depending on soil type, condition, and management objectives. If one was to attempt to populate the cells of a soil type )condition )management objective matrix, it would become apparent that the science literature does not cover the wide spectrum of the situations encountered during normal operations (Aust and Blinn 2004). As a result, it is difficult to quantify the threshold value for when disturbance becomes damage based on the existing scientific literature.…”

Section: Current State Of Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

Developing site disturbance standards in Ontario: Linking Science to Forest Policy within an Adaptive Management Framework

Duckert¹,

Morris²,

Deugo³

et al. 2009

Can. J. Soil. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

S. 2009. Developing site disturbance standards in Ontario: Linking science to forest policy within an adaptive management framework. Can. J. Soil Sci. 89: 13Á23. In anticipation of the review and revision of Ontario's current site protection guidelines, a site disturbance task team was formed in 2004. Over the next two years, they conducted an extensive review of the scientific literature and existing guidelines from other jurisdictions, as well as engaging both forest industry partners and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) field services personnel in a consensus building exercise (i.e., client survey, field tours, and formal workshops). The goal of their efforts was to develop a set of provincial-level site disturbance standards with metrics to be considered as part of Ontario's new stand/site guide scheduled for release in 2009 and implemented in the 2011 forest management plans. The process developed by the task team was a pro-active approach that engaged the end users of the product throughout the process and should provide stronger accountability to the public and increase competency in our practices. Setting the first iteration of a standard as a practical benchmark for rutting (depth 3 cm, length 4 m and cumulative limits for each harvest block Á 10% for clearcut and 2% for partial cut systems) will allow the forest industry to adapt to the approach relatively easily and provide a visual indicator of performance. It was stressed that there needs to be a rigorous effectiveness monitoring protocol based on objective-based silviculture that is integrated within an adaptive management framework. This, in turn, will provide local science and evidence to: (1) conduct a comprehensive evaluation to the effects and impacts of site disturbance, (2) provide a quantitative, results-based evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed guidelines, and (3) increase core competency and performance with respect to silviculture effectiveness and the role of soil disturbance in meeting our forest management objectives. Without a strong commitment and linkage of compliance, effectiveness, and validation monitoring, Ontario's forest policy development will largely remain in a state of ''repeat or react'' rather than ''evaluate and adjust''.

show abstract

“…Forest harvesting operations have the potential to negatively impact water quality [9][10][11][12]. Following the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 and subsequent amendments, states throughout the U.S. have adopted voluntary or mandatory BMP guidelines for protecting water quality during timber harvests [11,12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 and subsequent amendments, states throughout the U.S. have adopted voluntary or mandatory BMP guidelines for protecting water quality during timber harvests [11,12]. Individual states have been charged with monitoring BMP implementation rates for forest harvesting operations [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices on Biomass and Conventional Harvesting Operations in Virginia

Barrett

Aust

Bolding

et al. 2016

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Logging residues are often utilized as a Best Management Practice (BMP) for stabilizing bare soil on forest harvesting operations. As utilization of woody biomass increases, concern has developed regarding availability of residues for implementing BMPs. The Virginia Department of Forestry (VDOF) inspects all logging operations in Virginia and randomly selects a portion of harvests for more intensive audits. The VDOF BMP audit process intensively evaluates implementation of BMPs in seven categories (84 specific BMPs) on 240 sites per year. This research analyzed three years of audit data (2010-2012) to quantify differences in BMP implementation between biomass and conventional harvesting operations. Among 720 audited tracts, 97 were biomass harvests, with 88 occurring in the Piedmont region. Only the streamside management zone (SMZ) category had significant implementation percentage differences between biomass (83.1%) and conventional harvests (91.4%) (p = 0.0007) in the Piedmont. Specific areas where biomass harvesting operations had lower implementation were generally not related to a lack of residues available for implementing BMPs, but rather were from a lack of appropriate SMZs, overharvesting within SMZs, or inadequate construction of roads, skid trails, and stream crossings. Existing BMP recommendations already address these areas and better implementation would have negated these issues.

show abstract

Forestry best management practices for timber harvesting and site preparation in the eastern United States: An overview of water quality and productivity research during the past 20 years (1982–2002)

Cited by 156 publications

References 87 publications

Understanding the Fate of Applied Nitrogen in Pine Plantations of the Southeastern United States Using 15N Enriched Fertilizers

Understanding the Fate of Applied Nitrogen in Pine Plantations of the Southeastern United States Using 15N Enriched Fertilizers

Developing site disturbance standards in Ontario: Linking Science to Forest Policy within an Adaptive Management Framework

Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices on Biomass and Conventional Harvesting Operations in Virginia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About