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

Vedmid, Mykola; Luk'yanets, Volodymyr; Tarnopilska, Oksana; Rumiantsev, Maksym; Kobets, Oleksii; Obolonyk, Iryna; Pozniakova, Svitlana; Musienko, Sergiy

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

Volume 64 (2022): Issue 3 (September 2022)

By:

Mykola Vedmid, Volodymyr Luk'yanets, Oksana Tarnopilska, Maksym Rumiantsev, Oleksii Kobets, Iryna Obolonyk, Svitlana Pozniakova and Sergiy Musienko

Open Access

|Sep 2022

Figures & Tables

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

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

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

Growing stock in the sample plots after felling

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 ± 0.10^a,b	2.6 ± 0.09^a	6.8 ± 0.14^a
2	5.0 ± 0.09^a,b	2.5 ± 0.06^a	6.5 ± 0.11^a
3	5.2 ± 0.15^a	2.6 ± 0.08^a	6.4 ± 0.16^a
4	5.5 ± 0.17^a,c	2.5 ± 0.11^a	6.2 ± 0.18^a
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)
Composition	Age (years)	height (m)	diameter (cm)	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	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)
Composition	Age (years)	height (m)	diameter (cm)	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	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 ± 0.18^a	3.0 ± 0.06^b	20.63	<0.01	2.2 ± 0.17^a	3.1 ± 0.10^b	5.24	0.03
4	2.5 ± 0.19^a	3.1 ± 0.14^b	8.20	0.04	2.1 ± 0.11^a	3.4 ± 0.16^b	11.75	0.02

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

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

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ffp-2022-0014 | Journal eISSN: 2199-5907 | Journal ISSN: 0071-6677

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 143 - 155

Submitted on: Jul 12, 2021

Accepted on: Feb 16, 2022

Published on: Sep 22, 2022

Published by: Forest Research Institute

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 4 times per year

Keywords:

corridor direction,

felled corridor width,

L.,

stand diameter,

stand health condition,

Related subjects:

© 2022 Mykola Vedmid, Volodymyr Luk'yanets, Oksana Tarnopilska, Maksym Rumiantsev, Oleksii Kobets, Iryna Obolonyk, Svitlana Pozniakova, Sergiy Musienko, published by Forest Research Institute
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Previous article Volume 64 (2022): Issue 3 (September 2022)Next article

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

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

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

Stand mensuration characteristics in sample plots 1 and 2

Stand mensuration characteristics in sample plots 3 and 4

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

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

Variants of the experiment on low-value stand conversion

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

Paradigm

My account