Stand Eligibility for Fertilization

1. Stand Eligibility for Fertilization Presented at: Coast Fertilization Program Meeting Richmond, BC February 4th, 2009 Jeff McWilliams, RPF B.A. Blackwell and Associates Ltd.

2. Stand Eligibility for Fertilization • BAB Experience since 1993: • Fertilizer Screening Trials/Research: Port McNeill FD, Sunshine Coast FD, Nelson FR, South Island FD, TimberWest TFL46, WFP TFL19, West Fraser TFL5, TFL52. • Overview Planning: Soo TSA, Fraser TSA, Sunshine TSA, TimberWest TFL46/67, Mission TFL26, West Fraser TFL5. • Assessments and Prescriptions: Fraser TSA, Sunshine Coast FD, West Fraser TFL5, TimberWest TFL47, WFP TFL44, Mission TFL26. • Implementation: Fraser TSA, Sunshine Coast TSA, Mission TFL26, TimberWest TFL47, WFP TFL44.

3. Stand Eligibility for Fertilization • Outline: • Review of theory of fertilization response • Review of criteria for coastal Fd • Summary of research results and their application and limitations • Key issues for fertilization planning and BAB’s approaches to dealing with them • Review of BAB planning process • Recommendations

4. Stand Eligibility for Fertilization • Review of theory—Biological • Site: Nutrient deficient (N) with no other significant limiting factors (moisture, growing season). • Stand: Healthy, large crowns with room for expansion on healthy trees. • Physiology of Response (H. Brix, CFS): • Increased foliar N leads to increased photosynthesis. • Growth response peaks 3 to 5 years after treatment and is finished by 10 years. • Species: • Fd—Responds well and consistently • Hw—Inconsistent response (except SCHIRP sites) • Cw/Ba/Ss—Insufficient research data to support operational application or health concerns.

5. Stand Eligibility for Fertilization • Review of theory—Financial • Discounted increased value (quantity and quality) of wood must be sufficient to support the discounted treatment and incremental logging costs. • Key Factors: • Desired rate of return on investment • Treatment costs • Assumed future product values • Risk of loss

6. Stand Eligibility for Fertilization • MoFR STAND SELECTION GUIDE FOR COASTAL FD: • Age: 1st priority is 40 to 79yrs; 2nd priority is 15 to 39yrs. • Site Quality: Nutrient medium to deficient sites with no significant water deficit or excessive moisture. • Fully Stocked. • Room for Crown Expansion. • Live Crown Ratio >30%. • Height-diameter ratio <85. • Operationally feasible: Location, Access, Slope, Project and Block size. • Need to achieve 2% internal rate of return • Source: Ministry of Forests Guidelines, 2005).

7. Stand Eligibility for Fertilization • Summary of Research History: • Huge amount of fert trials in US PNW and BC: foliar and volume response • Key trials/reports in BC are: • Shawnigan Lake (CFS); physiology of response, • EP703 (MoFR); used to calibrate TIPSY, • FRDA Research Memo #224; Criteria for Site and Stand Selection of Coastal Fd (1995, E. McWilliams and R Carter)

8. Stand Eligibility for Fertilization • Key Results/Limitations of these Works are : • Site index is the best site predictor of fert response but it is imperfect. • Lower SI’s have higher relative responses but medium (and some good) sites have the best absolute responses. • Research plots predominantly in CWHdm/xm/mm1. Other CWH variants are not, or poorly, represented. • There has been no linkage of response to BEC site series.

9. Stand Eligibility for Fertilization Tipsy Fert Response by Age and SI: Values are MoFR Recommended Fd Responses multiplied by standard OAFs (OAF1=85% and OAF2=90%) and an 80% fertilization-specific operational efficiency factor

10. Stand Eligibility for Fertilization • Key Issues for Fertilization Planning: • Fertilization costs have more than doubled since 1995: • Narrows criteria for stand viability • treatment age • required interval between treatment and harvest and re-treatment • Fd component of stand • Conflicts with harvest planning are common. • Optimal fertilization ages are often not available. • Access issues. • Uncertain fert responses in some key BEC units.

11. Stand Eligibility for Fertilization • BAB Approach to Planning Challenges: • Good planning (education) done well in advance of planned treatment makes business sense. • Rationalizing conflicts with potential harvest. • Species composition is based on responding SPH instead of % composition. • Attention to wood quality. • Integrated SI/BEC-based approach to site selection and rationalization of response for BEC units outside research coverage.

12. Stand Eligibility for Fertilization • BAB Approach to Fert Planning: • Forest-level Planning: • GIS review of available data • Ranking based on Fd%, age and TEM • Net down based on key constraints (ie: alienated land, OGMAs, UWRs, WHAs, CW, VQO=R, slopes >70%, planned logging) • Review of results with planners and foresters (focus on harvest planning and access) • Develop priorities for treatment and preliminary selection criteria

13. Stand Eligibility for Fertilization • BAB Approach to Fert Planning Cont’d: • Stand-level Planning: • Field verification of candidates (including air photo reviews) • Development of prescriptions and financial analysis

14. Stand Eligibility for Fertilization Custom Stand Selection Criteria for TFL44:

15. Stand Eligibility for Fertilization • Recommendations: • More research on sites/stands not covered by existing research network (this is not the same as the fert monitoring being done now!). • Invest in good planning which incorporates education and get ahead of harvest scheduling. • Need to localize selection criteria and keep them up to date as costs and knowledge change. • Develop protocols to monitor and report back on “early harvest” of fertilized stands.