Accès libre

Conversion of low-value stands by corridor method in Left-Bank Forest-Steppe, Ukraine

Mykola Vedmid
Mykola Vedmid
, 
Volodymyr Luk'yanets
Volodymyr Luk'yanets
, 
Oksana Tarnopilska
Oksana Tarnopilska
, 
Maksym Rumiantsev
Maksym Rumiantsev
, 
Oleksii Kobets
Oleksii Kobets
, 
Iryna Obolonyk
Iryna Obolonyk
, 
Svitlana Pozniakova
Svitlana Pozniakova
 et 
Sergiy Musienko
Sergiy Musienko
   | 22 sept. 2022
Folia Forestalia Polonica's Cover Image
À propos de cet article
Article précédent
Article suivant
Citez
Article Category: Original Article
Publié en ligne: 22 sept. 2022
Pages: 143 - 155
Reçu: 12 juil. 2021
Accepté: 16 févr. 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ffp-2022-0014
Mots clés
© 2022 Mykola Vedmid et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Figure 1

Location of the study site
Location of the study site

Figure 2

Average radial increment of oak trees in sample plots 2 and 4
Average radial increment of oak trees in sample plots 2 and 4

Figure 3

Health condition index and stem quality category of English oak before and after thinning (32 years, 2019) in the sample plots
Health condition index and stem quality category of English oak before and after thinning (32 years, 2019) in the sample plots

Figure 4

Average heights and diameters of the oak trees in the sample plots before and after thinning (32 years, 2019)
Average heights and diameters of the oak trees in the sample plots before and after thinning (32 years, 2019)

Figure 5

Growing stock in the sample plots after felling
Growing stock in the sample plots after felling

Figure 6

Stand composition in the sample plots after felling. As – aspen (Populus tremula L.); Cp – common pear (Pyrus communis L); Eo – English oak (Quercus robur L.); Fm – field maple (Acer campestre L.); Nm – Norway maple (Acer platanoides L.); others – other species; Sll – small-leaved lime (Tília cordata Mill.)
Stand composition in the sample plots after felling. As – aspen (Populus tremula L.); Cp – common pear (Pyrus communis L); Eo – English oak (Quercus robur L.); Fm – field maple (Acer campestre L.); Nm – Norway maple (Acer platanoides L.); others – other species; Sll – small-leaved lime (Tília cordata Mill.)

Heights of the self-pruned stem sections and crown lengths of oak trees

Sample plot number Height to dead branches (m) Stem section with dead branches (m) Crown length (m)
1 4.9 ± 0.10a,b 2.6 ± 0.09a 6.8 ± 0.14a
2 5.0 ± 0.09a,b 2.5 ± 0.06a 6.5 ± 0.11a
3 5.2 ± 0.15a 2.6 ± 0.08a 6.4 ± 0.16a
4 5.5 ± 0.17a,c 2.5 ± 0.11a 6.2 ± 0.18a
F 2.98 0.59 2.39
p 0.04 0.62 0.07

Stand mensuration characteristics in sample plots 1 and 2

Composition Age (years) Average Stand basal area (m2·ha−1) Stand density (stems·ha−1) Growing stock per 1 ha (m3·ha−1) Health condition index Stem quality category Height (m)
height (m) diameter (cm) to dead knot to living branch
Sample plot 1, stand in the corridor before felling
100% Eo 32 13.5 14.1 7.08 454 51.4 2.5 2.0 4.6 7.0
Stand in the corridor after felling
100% Eo 32 14.3 16.9 6.35 285 47.2 1.4 1.7 4.9 7.5
Unfelled strip in sample plot 1 after felling
56% Fm 30–40 14.2 19.6 4.9 162 33.9 1.4 – – –
29% Sll 17.4 29.5 2.1 31 17.6 1.1 – – –
15% others 14.3 19.7 1.4 46 9.5 1.2 – – –
Total in unfelled strip – – 8.4 239 61.0 – – – –
Total unfelled strip + corridor 44% Eo, 31% Fm, 16% Sll, 9% others – – 14.75 524 108.2 – – – –
Sample plot 2, stand in the corridor before felling
100% Eo 32 13.4 15.1 11.89 665 84.5 2.0 1.8 4.5 7.0
Stand in the corridor after felling
100% Eo 32 14.0 17.1 10.92 470 79.0 1.3 1.6 5.0 7.5
Unfelled strip in sample plot 2 after felling
52% Fm 30–40 12.8 14.5 3.2 193 19.8 1.4 – – –
14% Cp 13.2 23.8 0.8 19 5.3 1.5 – – –
13% Nm 14.2 21.0 0.7 21 4.9 1.3 – – –
21% others 12.9 22.0 1.6 40 8.1 1.2 – – –
Total in unfelled strip – – 6.3 273 38.1 – – – –
Total 67% Eo, 17% Fm, 5% Cp, 4% Nm, 7% others – – 17.22 743 117.1 – – – –

Stand mensuration characteristics in sample plots 3 and 4

Composition Age (years) Average Stand basal area (m2·ha−1) Stand density (stems·ha−1) Growing stock per 1 ha (m3·ha−1) Health condition index Stem quality category Height (m)
height (m) diameter (cm) to dead knot to living branch
Sample plot 3, stand in the corridor before felling
100% Eo 32 13.5 14.6 8.93 535 64.6 2.0 1.8 4.8 7.3
Stand in the corridor after felling
100% Eo 32 14.2 17.0 8.14 360 60.1 1.2 1.5 5.2 7.8
Unfelled strip in sample plot 3 after felling
51% Fm 30–40 13.6 17.5 4.6 190 29.8 1.3 – – –
20% As 17.2 22.2 1.6 40 11.8 1.1 – – –
16% Sll 13.9 14.5 1.3 80 9.2 1.1 – – –
13% others 15.0 22.6 1.1 30 7.4 1.2 – – –
Total in unfelled strip – – 8.6 340 58.2 – – – –
Total 51% Eo, 25% Fm, 10% As, 8% Sll, 6% others – – 16.74 700 118.3 – – – –
Sample plot 4, stand in the corridor before felling
100% Eo 32 13.8 15.5 12.7 672 91.6 2.1 2.0 5.2 7.4
Stand in the corridor after felling
100% Eo 32 14.2 17.4 11.7 482 85.8 1.4 1.8 5.5 8.0
Unfelled strip in sample plot 4 after felling
40% Fm 30–40 12.8 15.4 2.6 143 16.5 1.4 – – –
33% Sll 16.2 20.3 1.7 53 13.5 1.1 – – –
27% Nm 14.3 18.6 1.6 58 11.2 1.3 – – –
Total in unfelled strip – – 5.9 254 41.2 – – – –
Total unfelled strip + corridor 67% Eo, 13% Fm, 11% Sll, 9% Nm – – 17.6 736 127.0 – – – –

The average radial increment of oak trees before and after tending felling

Sample plot number Before tending felling, 1995 After tending felling, 1996 F p Before tending felling, 2000 After tending felling, 2003 F p
2 2.1 ± 0.18a 3.0 ± 0.06b 20.63 <0.01 2.2 ± 0.17a 3.1 ± 0.10b 5.24 0.03
4 2.5 ± 0.19a 3.1 ± 0.14b 8.20 0.04 2.1 ± 0.11a 3.4 ± 0.16b 11.75 0.02

The average radial increment of oak trees in different variants of the experiment

Year Sample plot number F p
2 4
1991 3.3 ± 0.15a 3.5 ± 0.21a 1.59 0.23
1992 2.8 ± 0.19a 3.2 ± 0.20a 1.40 0.25
1993 2.8 ± 0.12a 3.4 ± 0.18b 8.33 <0.01
1994 2.4 ± 0.19a 3.0 ± 0.22b 4.96 0.03
1995 2.1 ± 0.18a 2.5 ± 0.19a 2.86 0.10
1996 3.0 ± 0.06a 3.1 ± 0.14a 0.03 0.86
1997 3.1 ± 0.12a 3.3 ± 0.11a 0.46 0.50
1998 2.6 ± 0.13a 2.7 ± 0.13a 0.005 0.94
1999 2.3 ± 0.11a 2.1 ± 0.10a 0.62 0.44
2000 2.2 ± 0.17a 2.1 ± 0.11a 0.07 0.79
2001 2.4 ± 0.15a 2.2 ± 0.13a 0.62 0.44
2002 2.4 ± 0.17a 2.5 ± 0.11a 0.01 0.93
2003 3.1 ± 0.10a 3.4 ± 0.16a 1.16 0.29
2004 3.0 ± 0.13a 3.2 ± 0.15a 0.16 0.70
2005 3.0 ± 0.13a 3.4 ± 0.19a 1.19 0.29
2006 2.6 ± 0.09a 3.1 ± 0.14a 1.84 0.19
2007 2.7 ± 0.09a 3.3 ± 0.14a 3.88 0.06
2008 2.1 ± 0.17a 2.2 ± 0.15a 0.001 0.99
2009 1.8 ± 0.14a 2.0 ± 0.15a 0.23 0.63
2010 1.9 ± 0.15a 2.3 ± 0.16a 0.26 0.62
2011 1.9 ± 0.15a 2.1 ± 0.16a 0.08 0.78
2012 1.7 ± 0.11a 2.0 ± 0.14a 0.20 0.66
2013 2.4 ± 0.11a 2.6 ± 0.16a 0.005 0.95
2014 2.0 ± 0.09a 2.2 ± 0.15a 0.14 0.71
2015 1.4 ± 0.10a 1.6 ± 0.18a 0.02 0.88
2016 1.6 ± 0.08a 1.5 ± 0.16a 0.89 0.36
2017 1.8 ± 0.10a 1.5 ± 0.17a 2.38 0.14
2018 2.1 ± 0.14a 1.7 ± 0.20a 3.44 0.08
2019 1.2 ± 0.09a 0.9 ± 0.13b 4.48 0.04

Variants of the experiment on low-value stand conversion

Sample plot number Number of corridors Corridor width (m) Corridor direction Width of unfelled strips (m) Number of planted oak rows in the corridors
1 3 6 latitudinal 3 1
2 3 12 latitudinal 6 3
3 2 9 latitudinal 6 2
4 2 12 longitudinal 6 3

Scale used to determine the stand health (Voron et al. 2011)

Health condition index range Stand damage degree Health status of the stand Average health condition category
1.00–1.50 none healthy trees 1
1.51–2.50 light weakened trees 2
2.51–3.50 moderate severely weakened trees 3
3.51–4.50 severe dying trees 4
4.51–5.00 very severe dead trees 5
5.51–6.00 very severe standing dead trees died over recent years 6
eISSN:
2199-5907
ISSN:
0071-6677
Langue:
Anglais
Périodicité:
4 fois par an
Sujets de la revue:
Life Sciences, Plant Science, Medicine, Veterinary Medicine
RSS Feed de la revue