1 / 23

Section VI: Landscape-level effects of Herbicide Reduction - Preliminary Results -

Kandyd Szuba, Domtar Inc. on behalf of the VMAP team. Section VI: Landscape-level effects of Herbicide Reduction - Preliminary Results -. Background. A small area is treated chemically each year, but over time it adds up! ~ 12% of the Provincial Crown Forest in total, or

daniel-kelley
Download Presentation

Section VI: Landscape-level effects of Herbicide Reduction - Preliminary Results -

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Kandyd Szuba, Domtar Inc.on behalf of the VMAP team Section VI: Landscape-level effects of Herbicide Reduction - Preliminary Results -

  2. Background A small area is treated chemically each year, but over time it adds up! ~ 12% of the Provincial Crown Forest in total, or ~ 24% of the AOU over 100 years.

  3. Background cont. • Past focus on effects of herbicides on growth and yield and composition at the plot level and stand level • Potential for effects at landscape level over time

  4. Objectives Use case studies to model potential effects of herbicide reduction in the context of: • The forest level (i.e., Sustainable Forest License [SFL]) • Approved forest management plans (FMPs) Assess: • What is the impact of reduced herbicide use on the ability to achieve the social, ecological, and economic objectives of an FMP? • Without herbicides, how much does it cost to achieve FMP objectives?

  5. Approach2Forest Management Units

  6. ApproachThe Forests and Their Associated FMPs

  7. ApproachModels, Objectives, and Constraints I) Use SFMM models approved by MNR for the FMPs i) SF – non-spatial SFMM analysis ii) RMF – feed SFMM model into Patchworks for spatial analysis II) Add a brushsaw option for tending (with realistic cost) III) Modify growth & yield curves for brushsawing based on experimental trials* IV) Maintain existing FMP objectives and constraints i) SF ecological objectives = constraints in SFMM; wood supply = an outcome ii) RMF – Patchworks seeks a “good solution” that achieves all objectives; weights ecological objectives heavily * G&Y task team – Todd Little (Domtar – management forester), Mike Malek (MNR Resource Analyst), Ken Lennon (MNR Forest Productivity Specialist), with input from Wayne Bell (MNR research scientist)

  8. ApproachYield Curve Modifications (NMV) SP1=upland black spruce; may contain up to 30% poplar

  9. ApproachYield Curve Modifications (NMV) • No change to curves for brushsawing in: • jack pine (PJ1, PJ2), • lowland Ce-La-Sb mix (LC1), • boreal mixedwood (MW1, MW2), • poplar (PO1), birch (BW1)

  10. ApproachEight Scenarios Run these scenarios: 1) Selected management alternative (SMA) from the approved FMP (normal budget (NB), full area available for herbicide application) 2) SMA & brushsawing (BR) & unlimited silviculture budget 3) SMA & BR & NB 4) SMA & BR & NB but only 75% of the SMA area available for herbicides 5) SMA & BR & NB with 50% area for herbicides 6) SMA & BRwith NB and 25% area for herbicides 7) SMA with NB and 0% of the area for herbicides 8) SMA with 0% of the area for herbicides and an unlimited silviculture budget Assess scenarios up to 60 years

  11. ApproachSilviculture Costs

  12. ResultsHighlights – Harvested Area

  13. ResultsHighlights – SPF Volume

  14. ResultsHighlights – SPF Volume

  15. ResultsHighlights – Stumpage to the Crown Direct revenue to the province. Excludes the stumpage charges paid for forest renewal & FRI.

  16. ResultsHighlights – Road Distribution & Cost Sample Road network at 40 years – more dispersed with 100% herbicide reduction (right)

  17. Results - HighlightsRoad Distribution & Cost Herbicide reduction requires a larger active road network. This results in higher maintenance cost and higher hauling cost per cubic metre harvested.

  18. Results - Ecological Effects Some SFMM models would not solve because ecological targets were limiting LOTS of Old Growth!

  19. Results - Ecological Effects Lots of habitat for the Black-backed Woodpecker! And other mature and old-forest loving species as less area was harvested

  20. Results - Ecological Effects Less habitat for the American Kestrel

  21. Results - Ecological Effects Less habitat for the White-throated Sparrow

  22. Results - Ecological Effects Less moose browsing habitat

  23. Preliminary Modeling Conclusions Some SFMM models would not solve for ecological reasons. Model choices were influenced by G&Y penalties (lower yield in some cases with brushsawing treatments), higher silviculture cost (up to ~2 times greater for brushsawing), and ecological constraints. • Herbicide reduction resulted in: • Less area harvested • Less SPF volume harvested (also with unlimited silviculture $$) • Lower net revenue to the Crown (also with unlimited silviculture $$) • A larger network of active roads • Higher cost for maintaining roads and hauling wood • More old growth (more than needed to meet ecological targets) • More habitat for wildlife preferring mature and old forest • Less habitat for species of young or recently disturbed forest (kestrel, moose, white-throated sparrow)

More Related