Next Article in Journal
Climate Change in the Provenance Regions of Romania over the Last 70 Years: Implications for Forest Management
Previous Article in Journal
Spatial Predictions of Human and Natural-Caused Wildfire Likelihood across Montana (USA)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 13
Issue 8
10.3390/f13081202
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Eleven-Year Effects of Mechanical Site Preparation on Oaks Planted on Former Agricultural Fields

by
Andrew B. Self
1,* and
John L. Willis
2
1
College of Forest Resources, Mississippi State University Extension Service, 50 E. Pecan St., Ste. B, Grenada, MS 38901, USA
2
USDA Forest Service, 521 Devall Dr, Auburn, AL 36849, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2022, 13(8), 1202; https://doi.org/10.3390/f13081202
Submission received: 15 June 2022 / Revised: 2 July 2022 / Accepted: 26 July 2022 / Published: 30 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Forest Ecology and Management)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Mechanical site preparation is often prescribed as a tool for correcting soil condition problems encountered when planting former agricultural fields. While the impact of mechanical site preparation on early growth and survival of young oak seedlings is well-known, there is a shortage of information regarding the longer-term effects of these treatments. Four hundred and eighty, 1-0 bare-root seedlings each of Nuttall oak (Quercus texana Buckley), Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii Buckley), and swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii Nutt.) seedlings were planted in February 2008 on a retired agricultural site in northwest Mississippi. Four site preparation treatments were utilized, with 160 seedlings of each species per species/mechanical treatment combination, totaling 1440 seedlings for the study. Mechanical site preparation included control, subsoiling, bedding, and combination plowing treatments applied on 3.1 m row centers. Eleven-year diameter (DBH), total height growth (HT), height-to-live crown (HTLC), and survival data were recorded in early 2019. Treatment effects were analyzed, and significant differences were not detected for tree survival. However, differences were observed in the DBH, HT, and HTLC averages of swamp chestnut oak and the DBH of Shumard oak.

1. Introduction

Cost-share incentive programs, in conjunction with increased awareness of the ecological importance of forested bottomland ecosystems, have resulted in the establishment of millions of hectares of hardwood plantations in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley (LMAV) over the past few decades. While the exact area of established LMAV hardwood plantations is not available, 149,798 hectares had been established in the LMAV by 2004 [1]. Predictions indicate afforestation of up to 10.1 million hectares of retired agricultural fields by 2040 [2]. This necessitates the development of successful establishment techniques for these new hardwood forests, which are expected to be oak (Quercus spp.)-dominant [3].
The survival and growth of planted oaks were insufficient in a substantial number of early afforestation efforts in the 1980s and 1990s [2]. These early results led to the development of appropriate planting techniques that, when employed, can be used to successfully afforest bottomland oak species. Acceptable seedling performance can be expected when quality seedlings are planted on appropriate sites undergoing necessary cultural and herbicidal treatments, with multiple early rotation studies observing planted bottomland oak survival rates above 80 percent [1,4,5,6,7].
The growth and survival of seedlings can be positively influenced by using quality stock and sound planting methodologies. Additional ameliorative benefits are often realized through the use of mechanical site preparation for areas with soil compaction problems. Many of the planting efforts over the last few decades have taken place on retired agricultural fields, where soil compaction is often problematic on these sites due to prior land use [7]; a variety of mechanical site preparation treatments have been used to help correct these issues.
Subsoiling, bedding, and combination plowing have all been used in various site preparation efforts, with varying degrees of success. Subsoiling is performed by pulling a straight or parabolic shank with or without a winged tip through the soil at varying depths to fracture restrictive layers that limit nutrient availability and root penetration in compacted soils [8]. Planted seedling growth is improved from increased moisture availability and enhanced root development through increased ability to exploit soil nutrients, especially in low-moisture or low-fertility conditions [9,10]. These increases in root volume and rooting depth were documented [10], but was not observed in earlier work on oak seedlings grown in subsoiled areas that included trees from this study [11]. Statistical differences in three-year stem biomass measurements were not detected between seedlings grown in control and subsoil plots. However, research sites received above-average rainfall throughout the study duration, and the authors surmised that, under low-rainfall drought conditions, subsoiling and control treatments would have likely separated.
Improved early growth and survival for seedlings planted on retired agricultural areas receiving subsoiling treatments have been observed for a variety of species including Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii Buckley), water oak (Quercus nigra L.), willow oak (Quercus phellos L.), northern red oak (Quercus rubra L.), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marsh.), among others [3,10,12,13]. While the typical benefits of subsoiling to growth and survival are well-known, the three-year results involving seedlings grown on the site, detailed in this paper, differed from normal expectations, with no detectable differences between groundline diameter or height of three different oak species [4].
Bedding is accomplished using a plow or disk system to create a mounded planting site comprised of cultivated soil 1 to 2 m wide and 15 to 60 cm deep [14,15]. Site preparation, in the form of bedding, is often prescribed to elevate the root systems of planted seedlings above saturated or inundated soils in efforts to improve seedling survival [14]. The treatment was successfully utilized in pine silviculture [16], but, theoretically, its use on low-lying sites should prove even more beneficial for some species of hardwoods. Hardwood species are incredibly variable in flood tolerance, with species of greater commercial interest typically being less tolerant of poorly drained soils as well as flooding events [17].
Increased seedling growth has been documented in oaks planted on bedded sites due to improvements in soil drainage and aeration, incorporation of organic matter into the beds, and a degree of vegetative competition control [14,18,19]. Other research efforts showed that survival may be increased for Nuttall oak on bedded sites [14] by as much as 35 percent, but, overall, bedding results are inconclusive. An earlier report of oak performance at three years on this study site observed no difference in survival. However, greater height and groundline diameter (GLD) growth was exhibited in three-year-old Nuttall oak, Shumard oak, and swamp chestnut oak in bedded areas compared with subsoiled or control areas [20]. Two bedding studies in Missouri and Indiana did not result in detectible growth or survival differences for pin oak (Quercus palustris L.), swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor Willd.), or swamp chestnut oak [14,21].
Combination plowing involves using a tipped or untipped subsoil shank in conjunction with a bedding plow or disk blades in one equipment pass. The treatment serves to combine both subsoiling and bedding into one treatment. Combination plowing is intended to improve seedling growth and survival through improvement in soil compaction and drainage, as well as provide some short-term competition control. Use of combination plowing and its benefits to growth and survival are well-known in pine silviculture [22,23], but use of the treatment is relatively unexplored in hardwood establishment. Earlier observations of seedlings planted in this study, along with those on two other research sites, constitute most of the reported knowledge regarding combination plowing for mechanical site preparation in hardwood plantation efforts. These early results indicated that combination plowing results in greater seedling growth than subsoil-only or control plots, but did not differ compared with seedlings grown in bedding treatments [4,13,20].
Very little information is available regarding stem development of oaks grown under plantation conditions. Additional stems arising from natural sources of seed were expected during the plantation establishment efforts described in the opening paragraphs of this article. However, sufficient quantities of these stems have been lacking in most plantation efforts, resulting in lower than anticipated total densities as these stands mature [7,24]. Poor pruning is typically encountered as hardwood plantations age due to cost-driven low planting densities and lack of additional natural regeneration by light-seeded tree species [7,25]. Traditionally, branches on the lower bole of a tree are expected to prune early in stand development, resulting in a higher concentration of clear wood growth over time occurring at that position due to the absence of live branches. Subsequently, the greatest proportion of tree value forming in natural stands resides in butt logs [26]. Consequently, the lack of self-pruning and the persistence of lower-bole limbs raise concerns over the future value of these stands [24].
The early growth and survival results of trees measured in this study are reported in a previous volume of this journal [20]. The magnitude of treatment differences declined over time when considering the 11-year results described herein. Very little information exists regarding mechanical treatment effects on oak growth and survival more than five years after initial establishment. It is possible that early treatment effects should not be viewed as reliable predictors of future growth in hardwood planting efforts and more as indicators to ensure early survival. The objective of this study was to evaluate mechanical site preparation effects on growth, survival, and lower-bole self-pruning of three oak species on a retired agricultural site over 11 growing seasons post-planting.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site Description

This study was conducted on a former agricultural field on the United States Army Corps of Engineers Arkabutla Lake Project approximately 11 km northwest of Coldwater, Mississippi (33.744° N, 90.078° W) at an average elevation of 76.2 m. Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) production occurred onsite through September 2007. The soils map as Collins/Falaya silt loam (coarse-silty, mixed, active, acid, thermic Aquic Udifluvents) and Richland silt loam (fine-silty, mixed, thermic Typic Fragiudalfs) [27]. These soils are moderately well-drained, and testing showed an average pH of 6.2 across the site at planting. Onsite precipitation was measured for the first three years after establishment and averaged 153.8 cm [20]. The average 30-year temperature is 16.2 °C, with temperature extremes ranging from −20.0 to 40.6 °C, and average precipitation over the course of this study has been 145.2 cm [28]. Dominant herbaceous species present at planting included Brazil vervain (Verbena brasiliensis Vellozo.), poorjoe (Diodia teres Walt.), and thorny amaranth (Amaranthus spinosus L.). Over 20 additional herbaceous species occurring in smaller quantities were also identified. The total ground coverage of all herbaceous species was approximately five percent.
A diverse vegetative complex germinated from the seedbank after afforestation occurred. However, initial onsite herbaceous vegetation was controlled using pre-emergent Bayer AG Oust® XP applications [4]. After canopy closure occurred between 2015 and 2016, very little herbaceous vegetation persisted in the shaded ground conditions created by the overstory canopy.

2.2. Treatments and Seedling Establishment

Four mechanical treatment options were utilized: control (no mechanical treatment), subsoiling, bedding, and combination plowing. Treatments were installed on 5 November 2007, using 3 m centers with an agricultural tractor. Subsoiling was performed using a Case IH no-till subsoiler system to a depth of 38 cm. Bedding was accomplished using an agricultural furrow plow with disk blades set to form a soil bed 1 m wide and 20 to 25 cm deep. Combination plowing involved bedding over subsoil trenches.
Prior to budbreak, all treatment areas received a pre-emergent herbaceous weed control (HWC) application of Oust XP® over the top of all seedlings on 4 March 2008, in 1.5 m bands at a rate of 140.1 g product/hectare. A second application of Oust XP® was applied on 2 March 2009, over the top of one half of planted seedlings. A Solo® backpack sprayer was used for herbicide application, with a total spray volume of 93.5 L/ha. HWC treatments were considered in the statistical analysis; however, due to minimal effects on growth parameters, differences between chemical treatments are not reported in this manuscript.
Seedling specifications dictated 1-0 bare-root seedlings possess stems between 45.7 and 61.0 cm tall and root systems between 20 and 25 cm in length. In addition, root systems were to have a minimum of eight first-order lateral roots. A total of 1440 seedlings were planted, with 480 seedlings each of Nuttall oak, Shumard oak, and swamp chestnut oak. The study had 480 seedlings of each oak species (480 total = 160 per block = 40 per mechanical treatment). Seedlings were planted at root-collar depth with planting shovels on 12 February 2008, using 3.1 by 3.1 m spacing to give a seedling density of 1075 seedlings per hectare.

2.3. Measurements

Diameter at breast height (DBH), total height growth (HT), height-to-live crown (HTLC), and survival data were recorded in January and February 2019. DBH was measured 1.37 m above ground using a Spencer Products loggers’ tape in ¼ cm increments. HT and HTLC were recorded in 0.3 m increments using a Haglof Vertex III hypsometer. HT was measured to the tip of the dominant apical bud, and HTLC was measured at the lowest living branch.

2.4. Experimental Design and Data Analysis

We used a mixed-effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) to model (cumulative 11-year) mean height growth (HT), diameter growth (DBH), and height-to-live crown (HTLC) in a split-plot design. The results of initial analyses indicated a strong species effect, which compelled us to run species-specific models for all response variables. Site preparation treatment was considered the whole plot factor, while pre-emergent competition control treatment was considered the split plot factor. The full model in all analyses initially contained block, mechanical site preparation treatment, pre-emergent competition control, and the interaction between mechanical site preparation and pre-emergent competition control as fixed effects. Block was not a factor of interest, but was included in the model as a fixed effect due to low replication (n = 3) [29]. Initial model runs producing an interaction term greater than the suggested threshold (p > 0.25 [30]) were pooled and the model rerun with only main effects. To account for nesting, pre-emergent competition control nested within the main mechanical site preparation plot was considered a random effect. A Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom. Fixed effects were evaluated for significance at α = 0.05. Significant fixed effects were further evaluated with LSmeans. Model assumptions of normality and equal variance were confirmed by examining quantile-quantile plots and plots of the residuals. All analyses were conducted in SAS PROC Glimmix (Version 9.4, Cary, NC, USA).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Diameter by Mechanical Site Preparation Treatment

The analysis did not detect statistical differences among mechanical treatments for DBH growth for Nuttall oak (p = 0.4206, F = 1.09) or swamp chestnut oak (p = 0.0794, F = 3.74), but differences were observed for Shumard oak (p = 0.0137, F = 4.76). Differences in Nuttall oak and swamp chestnut oak tree DBH were not detected and ranged between 14.49 and 17.20 cm and 11.40 and 13.30 cm, respectively (Table 1).
While treatment effect differences diminished over the 11-year duration of this study and analysis did not detect significant differences among treatments for Nuttall oak and swamp chestnut oak, it does not necessarily mean that those effects disappeared, but that they were not detected. Variation increases in biological studies over time, thus lessening the power of an analysis while potentially masking continued treatment effects [31,32]. It is likely that separation may occur in a test with more statistical power, but mechanical treatment averages for swamp chestnut oak DBH were not significantly different. However, in Shumard oak, statistically greater DBH growth was observed in trees planted in bedded plots compared with those planted in control, subsoiling, or combination plowing areas (11.75, 10.29, 9.68, and 10.28 cm, respectively).
Researchers studying various methods of mechanical site preparation have often reported differences in their effects on oak growth in younger plantations [3,18,20,33]. Subsoiling has been observed to increase early seedling height growth and/or survival in studies comparing its benefits to oak seedlings [3,10,12,13,18]. However, the lack of differentiation among seedlings grown in subsoiled and unsubsoiled plots was noted in earlier studies that involved the seedlings reported in this paper [4,20]. The authors deduced that the absence of detected differences in seedlings grown in subsoiled compared with control plots was a function of good growing season weather conditions, proper planting technique and vegetative control, as well as the soil quality of the growing site. The authors also indicated that soil compaction was lessened by all three mechanical treatments, and predicted that trees in subsoiled treatment areas would statistically separate from those in control areas in the future. Interestingly, this separation had not occurred by the eleventh growing season and is unlikely to in the foreseeable future, as intraspecific competition is expected to increase with further crown and root development.
Greater diameter growth of oaks planted in bedded plots compared with control or subsoil plots was observed in earlier reports involving trees planted in this study [4,20]. Conversely, at 11 years, differences in DBH averages for mechanical treatments were not detected in Nuttall oak or swamp chestnut oak; however, Shumard oak exhibited a greater DBH in bedded compared with other treatment areas. The Baker/Broadfoot site evaluation methodology [34] was used to select suitable species at project initiation; however, the study site received some periodic short-term flooding in the first few years of this study. Shumard oak is less tolerant of soil saturation than swamp chestnut oak, which is less tolerant than Nuttall oak [35]. This, combined with greater overall height observed for Shumard oak (Table 2), likely points to differences in inherent capability for growth among species.

3.2. Height by Mechanical Site Preparation Treatment

The analysis did not detect significant main effect differences for HT among site preparation treatments for Nuttall oak (p = 0.3811, F = 1.22) or Shumard oak (p = 0.3845, F = 1.21). Swamp chestnut oak analysis yielded a p-value of 0.0203 (F = 7.24) but treatment means were not significant. Consequently, mechanical treatment differences were not considered significant in swamp chestnut oak. The average HT of Nuttall oak, Shumard oak, and swamp chestnut oak trees ranged between 10.22 and 11.95 m, 12.18 and 13.57 m, and 7.80 and 9.67 m, respectively (Table 2).
Bedding and combination plowing were found to result in greater height compared with control and subsoiling treatments in earlier work involving trees from this study [4,20]. It is likely that improved soil drainage and aeration and incorporation of organic matter into the more intensive site preparation treatments served to enhance these early positive results. While treatment effects seem to have evened over the 11-year duration of this study and analysis did not detect significant differences among them, it does not necessarily mean that those effects have disappeared, just that they were not detected.
Some generalized biological trends seem to be manifesting by age 11. While not analyzed together, swamp chestnut oak is expected to be smaller than Nuttall oak on average [34,35]. The HT of swamp chestnut oak was appreciably less than that of Nuttall oak and Shumard oak. In addition, while not as fast-growing as Nuttall oak, Shumard oak is known to grow taller than either of the other two species as it matures [35]. This generalization seems to already be present in this study by age 11.

3.3. Height to Live Crown by Mechanical Site Preparation Treatment

The analysis did not detect main effect differences in HTLC among mechanical treatments for Nuttall oak (p = 0.4338, F = 0.96) or Shumard oak (p = 0.6383, F = 0.58). Swamp chestnut oak possessed a p-value of 0.0369 (F = 3.55), but treatment means were linked due to low statistical power, and mechanical treatment differences were not considered significant in swamp chestnut oak. The HTLC averages for Nuttall oak, Shumard oak, and swamp chestnut oak trees ranged between 3.28 and 3.80 m, 3.75 and 4.05 m, and 2.12 and 2.85 m, respectively (Table 3).
While HTLC differences were not detected among the treatments in this study, some typical biological expectations for the tested species were observed. As previously stated, grown under similar conditions, swamp chestnut oak is typically shorter than Nuttall oak or Shumard oak [35]. The average HT of swamp chestnut oak was substantially less than that of Nuttall oak and Shumard oak (Table 2). Excluding inherent growth differences of different species, if light is not limited, shorter trees typically exhibit crown systems closer to the ground [36,37]. This was substantiated by the notably lower HTLC observed for swamp chestnut oak (Table 3).
Another interesting trend that seems to be developing is that of low HTLC in Nuttall oak. Nuttall oak is known to possess poor self-pruning characteristics [35]. This is important to note considering the substantially greater DBH averages of Nuttall oak compared with those of Shumard oak in this study. Knowledge of this trend is of value to managers of Nuttall-oak-dominant plantations across the LMAV. Poor pruning and low HTLC are very likely to negatively impact the future commercial value of these stands as they mature through the creation of a larger, knottier, inner core than that of naturally regenerated trees.

4. Conclusions

Establishment of hardwood plantations in the LMAV has resulted in a stand type that was relatively unknown to forest managers prior to a few decades ago. Commercial management of hardwood stands occurred in naturally regenerated systems that do not typically develop under the low-density, single-species conditions typical of hardwood plantations. The initial efforts in these systems centered on the development of appropriate establishment techniques to ensure the survival and future growth of planted seedlings. The next stage of learning how to manage these stands involves qualifying and quantifying how they develop as they mature. In order to formulate management procedures for how to maximize end-of-rotation stem quality, further studies of the treatment effects on growth, survival, and bole quality are needed.
Most LMAV plantation establishment has occurred on retired agricultural fields, which often possess soil-related problems due to past land use [7]. Mechanical treatment of these soils is often prescribed to correct some of these issues. While site preparation of these soils is often reported to affect survival in plantations, proper planting techniques utilizing high-quality seedlings and good environmental conditions likely resulted in the excellent survival observed in this study.
An earlier paper published in this journal [20], involving the stems included in this study reported differences among mechanical site preparation treatments for all three oak species with seedlings grown in bedding and combination plowing treatments exhibiting greater diameter and height than those grown in control or subsoiling plots. While treatment differences may still exist, they are mostly undetectable at 11 years, indicating an “evening out” of treatment effects over time. As such, the results of this study suggest that, given good site conditions and adequate initial vegetative control, the importance of properly planting good quality seedlings likely outweighs the impact of mechanical site preparation. This does not negate the potential benefit of mechanical site preparation in regard to improved seedling performance on unfavorable sites or during drought conditions, but may mean that the primary use of mechanical treatments is simply to ensure early survival on those sites.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and methodology, A.B.S.; data collection, A.B.S. and J.L.W.; formal analysis, J.L.W.; writing—original draft preparation, A.B.S. and J.L.W.; writing—review and editing, A.B.S. and J.L.W.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Both Mississippi State University and the USDA Forest Service provided support for this project.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data associated with this project are publicly available at the USDA Forest Service’s Research Data Archive (https://www.fs.usda.gov/rds/archive/, accessed on 17 May 2022).

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to convey their appreciation to the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Arkabutla Lake Project office, for use of their land in this research effort. This paper was written and prepared in part by a U.S. Government employee on official time; therefore it is in the public domain and not subject to copyright. The findings and conclusions in this publication are those of the authors and should not be construed to represent an official USDA, Forest Service, or United States Government determination or policy.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Disclaimers

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not imply endorsement by Mississippi State University or the USDA of any product or service.

Pesticide Precautionary Statement

This publication reports research involving pesticides. It does not contain recommendations for their use, nor does it imply that the uses discussed here have been registered. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate state or federal agencies, or both, before they can be recommended.

CAUTION

Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable plants, and fish or other wildlife—if they are not handled or applied properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended practices for disposal of surplus pesticides and pesticide containers.

References

  1. Stanturf, J.A.; Conner, W.H.; Gardiner, E.S.; Schweitzer, C.J.; Ezell, A.W. Recognizing and Overcoming Difficult Site Conditions for Afforestation of Bottomland Hardwoods. Ecol. Restor. 2004, 22, 183–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Wear, D.N. Land Use. In Southern Forest Resource Assessment; General Technical Report SRS-53; Wear, D.N., Greis, J.P., Eds.; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: Asheville, NC, USA, 2002; pp. 153–173. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ezell, A.W.; Shankle, M.W. Effects of Subsoiling and Competition Control on First Year Survival and Growth of Four Hardwood Species. In Proceedings of the 12th Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference, Biloxi, MS, USA, 24–28 March 2003; General Technical Report SRS-71. Connor, K.F., Ed.; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: Ashville, NC, USA, 2004; pp. 571–573. [Google Scholar]
  4. Self, A.; Ezell, A.; Rowe, D. Performance of Oak Seedlings Grown under Different Oust® XP Regimes. Forests 2014, 5, 1331–1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ezell, A.W.; Yeiser, J.L.; Nelson, L.R. Survival of Planted Oak Seedlings is Improved by Herbaceous Weed Control. Weed Technol. 2007, 21, 175–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Alkire, D.K.; Rainer, J.C.; Self, A.B.; Ezell, A.W.; Londo, A.J.; Schultz, E.B. Influence of planting stocks on the survival and growth of Nuttall and cherrybark oak planted on lands damaged by Hurricane Katrina. In Proceedings of the 18th Central Hardwood Forest Conference, Morgantown, WV, USA, 26–28 March 2012; General Technical Report NRS-P-117. Miller, G.W., Schuler, T.M., Gottschalk, K.W., Brooks, J.R., Grushecky, S.T., Spong, B.D., James, S., Eds.; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: Madison, WI, USA, 2013; pp. 338–351. [Google Scholar]
  7. Allen, J.A.; Keeland, B.D.; Stanturf, J.A.; Clewell, A.F.; Kennedy, H.E., Jr. A Guide to Bottomland Hardwood Restoration; General Technical Report SRS-40; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: Asheville, NC, USA, 2001; pp. 35–36.
  8. Stanturf, J.A.; Gardiner, E.S.; Hamel, P.B.; Devall, M.S.; Leninger, T.D.; Warren, M.E., Jr. Restoring bottomland hardwood ecosystems in the lower Mississippi alluvial valley. J. For. 2000, 98, 10–16. [Google Scholar]
  9. Morris, L.A.; Lowery, R.F. Influence of site preparation on soil conditions affecting seedling establishment and early growth. South. J. Appl. For. 1988, 12, 170–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rathfon, R.A.; Kaczmarek, D.J.; Pope, P.E. Site preparation for red oak plantation establishment on old field sites in Southern Indiana. In Proceedings of the Tenth Central Hardwood Forest Conference, Morgantown, WV, USA, 5–8 March 1995; General Technical Report NE-197. Gottschalk, K.W., Fosbroke, S.L.C., Eds.; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: Syracuse, NY, USA, 1995; pp. 349–362. [Google Scholar]
  11. Self, A.; Ezell, A.; Rowe, D.; Schultz, E.B.; Hodges, J.D. Mechanical site preparation and Oust XP effects on stem biomass in three-year-old Nuttall oak seedlings planted on a former agricultural field. In Proceedings of the 17th Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference, Shreveport, LA, USA, 5–7 March 2013; e-General Technical Report SRS–203. Holley, A.G., Connor, K.F., Haywood, J.D., Eds.; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: Ashville, NC, USA, 2015; pp. 57–61. [Google Scholar]
  12. Moree, J.L.; Ezell, A.W.; Hodges, J.D.; Londo, A.J.; Godwin, K.D. Evaluating the use of enhanced oak seedlings for increased survival and growth: First-year survival. In Proceedings of the 14th Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference, Athens, GA, USA, 26 February–1 March 2007; General Technical Report SRS-121. Stanturf, J., Ed.; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: Ashville, NC, USA, 2010; pp. 165–169. [Google Scholar]
  13. Fields-Johnson, C.W.; Burger, J.A.; Evans, D.M.; Zipper, C.E. Ripping Improves Tree Survival and Growth on Unused Reclaimed Mined Lands. Environ. Manag. 2014, 53, 1059–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Kabrick, J.M.; Dey, D.C.; van Sambeek, J.W.; Wallendorf, M.; Gold, M.A. Soil properties and growth of swamp white oak and pin oak on bedded soils in the lower Missouri River floodplain. For. Ecol. Manag. 2005, 204, 315–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Williams, T.M. Site preparation on forested wetlands of the Southeastern Coastal Plain. In Proceedings of the Symposium: The Forested Wetlands of the Southern United States, Orlando, FL, USA, 12–14 July 1988; General Technical Report SE-50. Hook, D.D., Lea, R., Eds.; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: Ashville, NC, USA, 1989; pp. 67–71. [Google Scholar]
  16. Xu, Y.; Burger, J.A.; Aust, W.M.; Patterson, S.C.; Miwa, M.; Preston, D.P. Changes in surface water table depth and soil physical properties after harvest and establishment of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) in Atlantic coastal plains wetlands of South Carolina. Soil Tillage Res. 2002, 63, 109–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hodges, J.D. Development and ecology of bottomland hardwood sites. For. Ecol. Manag. 1997, 90, 117–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Patterson, W.B.; Adams, J.C. Soil, hydroperiod and bedding effects on restoring bottomland hardwoods on flood-prone agricultural lands in north Louisiana, USA. Forestry 2003, 76, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lof, M.; Dey, D.C.; Navarro, R.M.; Jacobs, D.F. Mechanical site preparation for forest restoration. New For. 2012, 43, 825–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Self, A.; Ezell, A.; Rowe, D.; Schultz, E.B.; Hodges, J.D. Effects of Mechanical Site Preparation on Growth of Oaks Planted on Former Agricultural Fields. Forests 2012, 3, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Seifert, J.R.; Pope, P.E.; Fischer, B.C. The effects of three levels of site preparation on planted swamp chestnut oak on a poorly drained site. In Proceedings of the 3rd Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA, 7–8 November 1984; General Technical Report SO-54. Shoulders, E., Ed.; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: Southern Forest Experiment Station: New Orleans, LA, USA, 1985; pp. 53–56. [Google Scholar]
  22. Carlson, C.A.; Fox, T.R.; Allen, H.L.; Albaugh, T.J.; Stape, J.L.; Rubilar, R.A. Effects of combination plowing on the survival and growth of loblolly pine. Tree Plant. Notes 2014, 57, 18–22. [Google Scholar]
  23. Angel, H.Z.; Stovall, J.P.; Williams, H.M.; Farrish, K.W.; Oswald, B.P.; Young, J.L. Surface and sub surface tillage effects on mine soil properties and vegetative response. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2018, 82, 475–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Stoll, J.; Frey, B.R. Stand development patterns for young planted oak stands on bottomland hardwood restoration sites. In Proceedings of the 18th Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference, Knoxville, TN, USA, 2–5 March 2015; e-General Technical Report SRS–212. Schweitzer, C.J., Clatterbuck, W.K., Oswalt, C.M., Eds.; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: Asheville, NC, USA, 2016; pp. 369–376. [Google Scholar]
  25. Meadows, J.S.; Goelz, J.C.G. Fifth-year response to thinning in a water oak plantation in north Louisiana. South. J. Appl. For. 2001, 25, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Rast, E.D.; Sonderman, D.L.; Gammon, G.L. A Guide to Hardwood Log Grading; General Technical Report NE-1; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: Upper Darby, PA, USA, 1973; pp. 9–15.
  27. Web Soil Survey. Available online: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm (accessed on 12 April 2022).
  28. NOAH National Centers for Environmental Information. Available online: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/ (accessed on 12 April 2022).
  29. Fox, G.A.; Negrete-Yankelevich, S.; Sosa, V.J. Ecological Statistics: Contemporary Theory and Application, 1st ed.; Oxford University Press: Cary, NC, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  30. Bancroft, T.A. Analysis and inference for incompletely specified models involving the use of preliminary test(s) of significance. Biometrics 1964, 20, 427–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. South, D.B.; VanderSchaaf, C.L. The statistical reason why some researchers say some silvicultural treatments “wash-out” over time. In Proceedings of the 13th Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference, Memphis, TN, USA, 28 February–4 March 2005; e-General Technical Report SRS–92. Connor, K.F., Ed.; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: Asheville, NC, USA, 2006; pp. 333–337. [Google Scholar]
  32. South, D.B.; Vander Schaaf, C.L. Should forest regeneration studies have more replications? Reforesta 2017, 3, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Russell, D.R., Jr.; Hodges, J.D.; Ezell, A.W. An evaluation of hardwood reforestation methods on previously farmed lands in Central Alabama. In Proceedings of the Ninth Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference, Clemson, SC, USA, 25–27 February 1997; General Technical Report SRS-20. Waldrop, T.A., Ed.; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: Asheville, NC, USA, 1998; pp. 272–276. [Google Scholar]
  34. Baker, J.B.; Broadfoot, W.M. A Practical Field Manual of Site Evaluation for Commercially Important Southern Hardwoods; General Technical Report SO-26; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Research Station: New Orleans, LA, USA, 1979; pp. 22–32.
  35. Burns, R.M.; Honkala, B.H. Silvics of North America: 2. Hardwoods; Agriculture Handbook 654; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1990; Volume 2.
  36. Schomaker, M.E.; Zarnoch, S.J.; Bechtold, W.A.; Latelle, D.J.; Burkman, W.G.; Cox, S.M. Crown-Condition Classification: A Guide to Data Collection and Analysis; General Technical Report SRS-102; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: Asheville, NC, USA, 2007.
  37. Meadows, J.S.; Goelz, J.C.G.; Skojac, D.A., Jr. Influences of tree, stand, and site characteristics on the production of epicormic branches in southern bottomland hardwood forests. In Proceedings of the 15th Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference, Hot Springs, AR, USA, 17–20 November 2008; e-General Technical Report SRS-GTR-175. Guldin, J.M., Ed.; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: Asheville, NC, USA, 2013; pp. 47–55. [Google Scholar]
Table
Table 1. Analysis of diameter of oak trees by species and mechanical site preparation treatment at 11 years post-planting.
Table 1. Analysis of diameter of oak trees by species and mechanical site preparation treatment at 11 years post-planting.
DBH (cm)
Mechanical
Treatment		Nuttall OakShumard OakSwamp Chestnut Oak
Control14.85a *10.29b11.40b
Subsoiling14.49a9.68b12.05ab
Bedding17.20a11.75a13.30a
Combination Plowing15.90a10.28b13.08a
* Values within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at α = 0.05.
Table
Table 2. Analysis of total height of oak trees by species and mechanical site preparation treatment at 11 years post-planting.
Table 2. Analysis of total height of oak trees by species and mechanical site preparation treatment at 11 years post-planting.
Height (m)
Mechanical
Treatment		Nuttall OakShumard OakSwamp Chestnut Oak
Control11.95a *12.18a8.62bc
Subsoiling10.22a12.68a7.80c
Bedding11.50a13.57a9.67a
Combination Plowing11.10a13.48a8.82ab
* Values within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at α = 0.05.
Table
Table 3. Analysis of height to live crown of oak trees by species and mechanical site preparation treatment at 11 years post-planting.
Table 3. Analysis of height to live crown of oak trees by species and mechanical site preparation treatment at 11 years post-planting.
Height to Live Crown (m)
Mechanical
Treatment		Nuttall OakShumard OakSwamp Chestnut Oak
Control3.55a *4.02a2.43ab
Subsoiling3.51a3.87a2.35b
Bedding3.80a4.05a2.85a
Combination Plowing3.28a3.75a2.12b
* Values within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at α = 0.05.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Self, A.B.; Willis, J.L. Eleven-Year Effects of Mechanical Site Preparation on Oaks Planted on Former Agricultural Fields. Forests 2022, 13, 1202. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13081202

AMA Style

Self AB, Willis JL. Eleven-Year Effects of Mechanical Site Preparation on Oaks Planted on Former Agricultural Fields. Forests. 2022; 13(8):1202. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13081202

Chicago/Turabian Style

Self, Andrew B., and John L. Willis. 2022. "Eleven-Year Effects of Mechanical Site Preparation on Oaks Planted on Former Agricultural Fields" Forests 13, no. 8: 1202. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13081202

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop