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

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.

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

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.

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

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).

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)

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Stand Eligibility for Fertilization Custom Stand Selection Criteria for TFL44: Ranking Mature Forest (40-100yrs) HighMediumLow Stand Characteristics Fd Composition (well distributed sph with >25% LC, room to expand) >= to to 150 Quality (branching, form, ROG)Good to Medium Medium to Poor Forest Health (Includes: root rots, blowdown, off-site symptoms, other) <5%5-15%15-25% Site Characteristics BEC VariantCWHxm,dm,vm1, mm1 Same as for HighCWHvm2, mm2 ElevationAny <800m Dominant Site Seriesss01 Site Indexxm, dm: 28-32m,Site Index outside the preferred ranges mm2: 30-36m, mm1: 32-36m,vm2: 32-40m vm1: 34-38m Slope<40%41-70%71-100% Other Factors Non-timber resource constraints (Includes buffered creeks) Few Many

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.