Foresl Reseorch Informotion Poper No. I I 8

A SurYey ofMixedwbod Reseqrchqnd DeyelopmenlNeeds inOntqrio

December 1994

D. H. WeingortnerG. B. MocDonold

@Ontorio

Minislry ofNoturolResources

Forest Research Information Paper No. 118

A Survey of Mixedwood Researchand Development Needs in Ontario

December 1994

byDavid H. WeingartnerG. Blake MacDonald

Ontario Forest Research Institute1235 Queen Street EastP.O. Box 969Sault Ste. Marie, OntarioP6A 5N5

@Onlorio

Minislry ofNqturolResources

^ A Onlorio

^MW roreslfi:i:"K Reseorch\ , " , f l_ -Y I I InslituleOFRI .IRFO

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data

Weingartner, D. H. (David H.)A suruey of mixedwood research and development needs in Ontario.

(Forest research information paper, ISSN 0319-9118 ; 118)lsBN 0-7778-2807-3

1. Forests and forestry - Research - Ontario.l. MacDonald, G. Blake.ll. Ontario Forest Research Institute.l l l . Tit le.lV. Series.

sD391.W44 1994 634.9'0720713 c94-964038-7

@ 1994, Queen's Printer for OntarioPrinted in Ontario. Canada

Single copies of this publicationare available at no charge fromthe address noted below. Bulkorders may involve charges.

Ministry of Natural ResourcesOntario Forest Research InstituteP.O. Box 9691235 Queen St. EastSault Ste. Marie, OntarioP6A 5N5

Telephone: (705) 946-2981Fax: (705) 946-2030

Cette publication scientifique n'estdisponible qu'en anglais.

General issues of mixedwood management .................4

Enhanced utilization and market development ...........4

Forest measurement

Forest protection ............... o

Basic research addressing mixedwood issues............. ........................10

Linkages to other issues and mixedwood stakeholders. ..................11

Mechanisms for transferring information and technology .................. ....................11

APPIINDfi l: Survey of research and development priorities for mixedwood silviculture in Ontario..................14

A SURVIY O['MIXEIIWOOD NESNARCH ANII IIEYET|)PMEtrI NEADS IN ONIINM

ABSTRACT

A suraey of ontario Ministry of Natural Resources(oMNR)rcsource mnnagerq the forest industry, resutchers, and non-goaernmental

organizntions was conducted to identifu the most important research and

danlopmmt issues for mixedwood silaiculture. The results of the suraey

will be used when dneloping a strategic plan and prospectus for the

Mixedw ood Silaiculture Program.

At the broadest lnel the most intportant issues were mnnagementplanning, forest musurement (growth nnd yield), site preparation nnd

regennntion, stand tending, and utilization and mnrket deaelopmenL

Specific topics identified as important included the impncts of hnruesting

on residual stand quality; species utilization; modified cutting to secure

natwal regenuation; control of species composition; control of stand

quality; control of stand density; insects and disuses; siluics and species-

site relationships; mixed-species vnrinble-density yield tables; nnd

ecosystem structure and t'unction. The most important linknge identifiedwas the integration of timber mnnagement with fish and wildlife labitat

issues. Education, training, and direct trnnsfer of information to clients

were identified as the most relwant types of resurch and daxlopment

outputs. The informntion and technology transfu meclunisms identifud

to be most important were workshops, tours and demonstration forests,and abbrwiated techniul rEorts.

SigniJicnnt differences of opinion were identified among the OMNR,industrial and rcsurch employment groups for specifu issues. These

diffuences tended to conftrm the stueotypical stances one might expect

from the respectiae youp*Resurch tended to rate non-economic, non-

opnational, or basic knowledge issues highu tlan industry or OMNR,

while industry tended to rate economic and operntional issues higher

thnn those in the OMNR or reswrch categofies. OMNR responses tended

to be intermedinte between those of industry and resurch.

Diffnences of opinian based upon the geographic focus of the

respondents identified many issues thnt luue either proaincial or regionnl

signifiunce.

A SURYDY |)F MIXEDW|)()II RISDARCII AND IIEVET|)PMENT NDEIIS IN |)MIIRI|)

INTRODUCTIONln1979, the Spruce-Fir-Aspen Research Commit-

tee of the Canada-Ontario ]oint Forestry Research

Committee (COIFRC)produced the report Forest

Management and Research Needs in the BorealMixedwood Forest of Ontario (Weingartner andBasham 1979). The report, based upon a survey offorest managers and researchers, was intended tostimulate interest in the mixedwood component ofthe boreal ecosystem. Forest management issues wereemphasized; howeve4 the Committee recognized thatwildlife, fuheries, recreation and other concerrrs areimportant. Forest management has not changedappreciably in the 15 years that have passed since thereport, but society's environmental awareness andconcern have increased dramatically

Attention to the mixedwood forest is increasingas a result of several events: the ideals and goals ofthe Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR)

as expressed in Direction '90s (OMNR 1991), thepublication of A Report on the Status of ForestRegeneration (Hearnden, et aL 1992), the results of the

Class Environmental Assessment (Koven and Martel1994), and proposed legislative changes that will shift

the responsibility for operational silviculture from

OMNR to forest industry. The report on forest

regeneration identified conifer dominated cover types

as a cenhal management objective in the boreal forest.

In spite of efforts to maintain conifers on mixedwood

sites, a shift to mixedwood cover types occurs

following harvesting and regeneration heatments. The

goal of sustainable development and the results of the

Class Environmental Assessment (Koven and Martel

L994) are bringing to a focus the need to manage the

forest as an ecosystem. In this context, the

mixedwood is viewed as an essential component of

the forest landscape. Increasing industrial responsibil-

ity for silviculture, and the costs associated with

attempts to maintain coniferous cover types are

forcing a change in the perception of how forcsts

should be managed.

In preparation for the development of the

Mixedwood Program Strategic Plan, a survey was

conducted to identify the predominant research and

development needs for the mixedwood forest. This

paper reports the results of the survey and compares

current views with those expressed n 1979.

ilIATIIODSA formal survey was mailed to 174 stakeholders

in the mixedwood forest across the province. The

sample was selected to cover a wide range of employ-

ment groups and geographic locations. The main

employment groups sampled were OMNR" the forest

industry non-govemmental organizations (NGOs),

and research. The strata sampled within OMNR were

the main office Policy and Operations Branches,

Regional Science and Technology Units, Site Region

Planning Units, and District Area Offices. Individual

specialties included forest management, fisheries,

wildlife, parks, economics, fire management, and

silviculture. The industrial group was composed of

consultants, and of manufacturers of pulp and paper,

lumber, veneer and waferboard. Native and environ-

mental groups were combined within the NGO group/

which was not included when analyzing employment

$oup responses because of the small sample size. The

research group contained representation from OMN&

Canadian Forest Service's Ontario Region, and

Ontario colleges and universities. Individual researdr

specialties included plant physiology, silviculture,

soils, ecology, pathology, entomology, economics,

meteorology, mensuration, fire, wildlife, fisheries,

forest management, parks, and genetics.

In addition to the employment group classifica-

tion, geographic area of focus was used to partition

responses. Survey responses classified as having a

provincial focus included retums from OMNR main

office personnel, environmental groups and research-

ers. The provincial focus group was assumed to have

responsibilities and/or a perspective that extends

beyond local or regional boundaries. Regional grouP-

ings were based upon an individual's location within

the four OMNR Regtons, and comprised native

groups, the forest indwtry, and OMNR regional and

district staff. It was assumed that respondents in these

tt

A SURVIY |)F MIXDIIW|)|)D NDSMRCII AND DEVEt|lPilDilT NNEDS IN ||UtrRI|l

groups perceived mixedwoods within a reshicted

local or regional area. The Cenhal and SouthernRegions were combined under a single classification.

The survey defined mixedwood forests as sitescapable of supporting both hardwood and softwoodcrop-tree species. Mixedwoods could include sites in

the Boreal, Great Lakes-St. Lawrence or DeciduousForest rcgions (Rowe 1972).

A copy of the survey form is presented in

Appendix 1. The survey comprises three main

sections: (l) Priorities for new information andtechnology in mixedwood silviarlture; (II) Outputs

and delivery mechanisms; and (III) Additional input.

Eadr suwey form was coded to identify theemployment group and geographic focus of therespondent to whom it was mailed. Respondents were

permitted to fill out the survey individually or withtheir associates.

Individual issues were rated from 0 to 5, with 0

to 2 representing low importance and 3 to 5 high

importance. The 0-5 scale was selected for rating each

issue to elicit a rating of either high or low impor-

tance thereby eliminating a noncommittal and incon-

clusive "middle of the road" rating on the part of the

respondent.

The percentage response, by employment groupand geographic focus, was calculated to determine the

general level of interest in mixedwood issues. The

basic statistics for each issue were the means for theresponses fty employment and geographic group)

and for all responses combhed. Statistical separationof issues within subsections of the survey was

achieved with F-tests (a = 0.05). Statistically signifi-

cant differences in responses between pairs in the

employment and geographic gtoups were determined

using a paired t-test with a = 0.05.

A SURVEY OF MfrEIIWOOD NDSAARCII ANII IIEYET|)PMDNT NEEIIS IN |)NMH()

RB$IIIfl$ ANID DI$CU$$ION

Suwey r€turns numbered 132,

comprising 20 groups and 112

individual rcsponses. The number of

submissions received represented a

return of 75.9%. Surveys are consid-

ered successful if a return of 20% is

achieved. The high return ratesuggests that mixedwood issues areirnportant to the population sur-veyed.

Of the employment groups

surveyed (Figure 1) only the NGOs

classification had a low rate ofretum. This does not necessarily

imply low interest in this group, butrather may reflect its small samplesize. Surveys were only sent to theprovincial headquarters of environ-

mental groups, and to native groups

known to have an active interest in

nafural resource issues.

Response was also high for all

geographic groups (Figure 2).

A SUNYEY OF MIXDDWOOD RISMRCH ANII IIEVII|)PMEilT NDEDS IN ()NIIH|)

Genercrl issrres ofrni><eclraroocltrroncrgerrrent

The most important general mixedwood manage-

ment issues identified by the survey were utilization

and market development; site preparation and regen-

eration; stand tending; management planning; and

forest measurement, growth and yield. These five

issues were of statistically equal importance based on

an F-test, with mean scores between 3.4 and 3.8. For

these issues, statistical differences of opinion were

detected among employment and/or regional grouPs

for management planning and forest measurement.

Management planning was considered to be of equal

importance by the employment groups, but among the

geographic groups those having a pnrvincial focus

considered it more important than those having a

CentraLSouthem regional focus. Forest measurement

was considered more important by OMNR than the

forest industry or research groups, and industry

considered it more important than the research group.

Among the regional groups, those having a Northeast-

ern regional focus considered forest measurement to be

more important than those having a provincial or

Central-Southern rcgional focus.

The next most important issue was harvesting,

with an average score of 2.9. No difference of opinion

was found among the employment groups, but those

with a Central-Southern regional focus considered this

issue as less important than those with a prcvincial, or

a Northwestern or Northeastem rcgional focus.

Forest protection was consideled the least impor-

tant issue in this group with a mean score of 2.4.

Among the employment groups, research (mean score

2.9) considered this issue to be more important than

either the OMNR or the forest industry (mean scores

1.8 and 2.0, respectively). Geographically, those with a

provincial focus considered it more important than the

three regional groups.

' 4 , ,

Enhcrnced rr t i l izcr t ioncrncl rncrrketdevelolerrrent

Utilization and market development are ongoingissues in forestry, where few of the available speciesare commercially desirable at any point in time.

Utilization of other species only occurs when the

desired species become depleted, when there is a

market shift because of consumer demand, or whenthere is a change in technology that allows utilization

of the less preferred species. The size and quality ofthe individual boles may also limit commercialacceptabili$ It is an exception for all species, sizes

and qualities of trees to be utilized.

Of the specific issues dealing with utilization and

market development, wider species utilization was

rated as the most important issue in the group (mean

score 3.6). No difference of opinion was detectedamong employment groups or geographic focus

$oups. For the boreal region, Weingartner andBasham's (1979) report identified two intoleranthardwoods, aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) and

white bfuch (Betula papyit'era Marsh.), as well asbalsam hr (Abies balsamm (L.) Mill.) as the species of

concem. In 1994, aspen is more widely utilized, but

white birch and balsam fir were still identified as

species of concem by respondents. To the south,poplar (Populus spp.), red maple (Acn rubrum L.) and

balsam fir were considered underutilized. Perhapsunder the umbrella of ecosystem management, onerespondent questioned whether the utilization of

species other than trees should also be considered.

Economic utilization of small-dimension material,

biomass, etc. was rated as important with a meanscore of 3.2. No significant differences of opinionwere detected between employment goups. Those in

the Cenhal-Southem Regrons considered this issuemore important (mean score 4.1) than those in thetwo northern regions or those with a provincial focus

(mean score nnge,2.6 to 3.3). Comments indicatedthat biomass from mixedwood stands will be impor-tant in the fuhre, but that the effects on nuhientcycling and site quality must be understood prior toengaging in biomass production. Respondents werealso concerned about the economic utilization of large-dimension material, and obtaining the greatest valuepossible for the quality of the logs harvested byredirecting logs to mills that can produce the highestvalue product.

The effects of silviculture on wood properties wasan issue of moderate importance (mean score 2.6), andthere was no difference of opinion among the employ-ment groups. There was significantly less concern forthis issue among those in the Central and SouthemRegions than those with a provincial or Northwestemregional focus.

Salvage of damaged trees and stands was ratedas being of low importance (mean score 2.1). Theresearch group rated it significantly higher than didthe OMNR group and those with a Provincial focusrated it higher than did those with a Northwesternregtonal perspective.

Sire 1treltcrrcrtion ctrrclregerrercrl ion

The issues of site preparation and regenerationappear to be perpetually on the minds of foresters,politicians, and the public. The fixation on coniferousregeneration and stand establishment in Ontario haslimited the availability of silvicultural funding forother options, and the attempts to maintain conifersas pure stands on mixedwood sites appear to be atodds with the natural successional hends withinmixedwood ecosystems. In the Class Environmental

Assessment (Koven and Martel 1994) and A Report

on the Status of Forest Regeneration (Hearnden ef al.

A SURYEY |)F MIXEDW|)|)D MSEARCII ANII IIDYET|)PMENT NEIIIS IN ()NMRI()

1992) there is a definite bias toward conifer production.

Heamden et al.'s rcgeneration audit indicates that in

spite of efforts to regenerate conifer species,

mixedwood cover types are increasing significantly. It

appears logical to attempt to maintain the spruce

component within the boreal forest, but there are

ecological trends that must be considered when

regenerating mixedwood sites.

ln1979, it appeared that too much emphasis was

being placed on regenerating spruce on Boreal

Mixedwood sites. Weingartner and Basham's report

presented three regeneration options: (1) Unassisted

natural regeneration of balsam fir, aspen and white

birch, combined with tending and control techniques to

modify the stand structure to achieve management

objectives; (2) Assisted natural regeneratiory with

modified harvesting methods to assure a seed supply

and gene pool maintenance, methods of predicting

seed years, and site preparation techniques to provide

a suitable seedbed; and (3) Artificial regeneratiory

which highlighted the issues of site preparation,

planting methods, and the need to evaluate the

economics of regeneration methods.

The economic reality of silvicultural treatments

was a main theme in the current survey and the

associated comments. The cost of regeneration, whether

natural or artificiaf appears to limit or exclude further

silviculfural intervention in most areas of the province.

Needs identified by the respondents included the

artificial establishment of mixedwood forests to offset

the negative effects of forest fragmentation; the integra-

tion of harvesting, site preparatior; rcgeneration(natural and artificial), and tending; the identification

of physiologically acceptable natural regeneration; and

the development of methods to encourage advanced

regeneration of conifers.

Of the five regeneration related issues, modified

cutting to secue nahral regeneration was rated as

extremely important and received the highest score

A SURVUT OT' MIXEDWOOD ND$EAROII ANII DEYET|)PMENT NEEDS IN ONNH|)

(4.1) in the survey Employment groups did not differ

significantly in their opinions as to the importance of

this issue. Between pairs of geographic groups, those

with provincial and Northeastern regional views

considered this issue to be more important than those

with a Northwestern regional focus. Provincially, this

issue may be important from the perspective of

lowering regeneration cost or keeping it under

control. The successful implementation of CLMG(Careful Logg.g fuound Advanced Growth), devel-

oped in the Northeastem Region, may account for

the high rating by respondents with a Northeastemfocus.

Ecologically sensitive site preparation techniques

were considered to be of major importance by

respondents (mean score 3.7). No significant differ-

ences werc detected between pairs of employment

groups or regions. Increased emphasis on ecosystemmanagement and sustainability and heightened

environmental awareness probably account for the

rating that this issue received. Similarly, the 1979

report suggested that mechanical site preparation

could have negative impacts on nutrient cycling and

soil moisfure regimes. One respondent in the current

survey indicated the need for a greater understanding

of successional trends and stand dynamics within the

context of other ecosystems and the landscape.

Adaptive artificial regeneration (e.9.,

undeqplanting)was considered to be of majorirnportance by respondents (mean score 3.6), and no

significant difference of opinion was detected among

the employment groups. Respondents in the North-eastern Region considered this issue to be moreimportant than respondents with a provincial or a

Northwestem regional focus. Agairy experience with

CLMG may have influenced the Northeastem

rcsponse. The development of advanced regeneration

may have both economic and biological advantages(reduced or no tending costs, and an established free-

6t.l '

to-grow stand) at the start of the next rotation thatoutweigh the increased costs of careful logging.

The use of prescribed buming to control succes-sional pathways in mixedwood forests was also ratedas important (mean score 3.1). Respondents in OMNRconsidered this issue to be more important than did

those in industry. There were no significant differencesof opinion among geographic groups. Comments byOMNR respondents indicated that this issue wasoperationally important in some areas of southemOntario and that it was irnportant from a fire researchperspective.

There were no significant differences of opinionamong employment or geographic groups on theimportance of gene pool maintenance and treeimprovement (mean score 2.9). Comments by severalrespondents (researchers, and industrial and OMNRforesters) suggested that gene pool maintenance andtree improvement are discrete issues. One respondentidentified tree improvement as a species issue andgene pool maintenance as an ecosystem issue. Somerespondents considered gene pool maintenance to bea more important issue than tree improvement.Weingartner and Basham's (1979) report identifiedgene pool maintenance as an important issue whenobtaining assisted natural regeneration of whitespruce (Piua glauu (Moench) Voss), and suggested theneed for studies to define modified harvestingsystems to meet silvicultural and genetic managementgoals.

Tencling

In Ontario, stand tending has traditionally beenequated with the chemical release of newly establishedconiferous stands. Current thought, as expressed in theClass Environmental Assessment (Koven and Martel1994), supports this view. Tending actually refers to awide range of options that may be applied at any time

during the rotation to accomplish release or standimprovement (in terms of bole quality or speciescomposition).

Tending issues fell into two groups based uponF-tests. Issues considered of high importance (mean

scores between 3.3 and 3.5)were species control(weeding), stand quality control (improvement,

rehabilitation), and density control (cleaning, thin-ning). The fourth issue, tree product control (spacing,

pruning) was considered to be moderately important(mean score 2.9). Species control (weeding) was theonly issue for which differences of opinion weredetected in the employment or geographic groups.The forest industry rated weeding more highly thandid the research group, and those with a North-eastern perspective considered it more important thanthose with a provincial perspective.

An industrial respondent commented that speciescontrol is a priority item, and that more efficientchemical techniques (lower volume and controlledapplication) are required to maintain the economicadvantage of herbicide use. An OMNR respondentwas interested in nonchemical methods of tending. InWeingartner and Basham's (1979) report, chemical andmechanical methods of tending were identified asateas in need of further research and developmentand were related to other issues (e.9,, equipmentdevelopment, disease, economics).

lllli><eclwooclr lrcrr.rcr€temenl plcrnning

Management planning was considered to be ofhigh importance (mean score 3.5) and there was nodifference in opinion among employment groups.Respondents with a provincial focus considered this

issue significantly more important than those with aCentral-Southern regional view. Perhaps this reflects

the level of sophistication in forest planning in cenhal

A SURVUY OF MIXEIIW|)|)II RDSIARCII ANII IIEVET||PMENI NEIDS Iil |)NIIH||

and southern Ontariq where management for the

more valuable tolerant hardwoods tends to predomi-

nate. Management there is more intensive and occurs

on smaller arcas than in northem Ontario.

il&ingartner and Basham's (1979) report identi-

fied several management planning needs: quan-

titative silvical information for the management of

mixedwood species throughout the rotation; delinea-

tion of the parameters needed to quantify site quality;

improved stocking standards and defined perform-

ance standards; and the need to determine the

influence of various site and stand conditions on

growth and yield to aid planning for forest produc-

tion goals.

In the curent survey, silvics and species-site

relationships were considered to be of major impor-

tance by the respondents (mean score 3.9). No

statistical differences were detected among employ-

ment or geographic groups.

Free'to-grow standards were of high importance

to the respondents (mean score 3.2). The only signifi-

cant difference in response was that the research

group considered this issue to be less important than

did the forest industry group. Results of. the 1979

survey suggested that stocking standards be improved

to include performance criteria based on site quality

for both artificial and naturally regenerated stands.

Comments in the current survey suggested that both

the industry and OMNR need free-to-grow standards.

Howeveq, one industry respondent suggested that a

significant area is classified as NSR (Not Sufficiently

Regenerated) 'tecause fue'togrow is controlled by

species composition [the working group concept] to a

great extent." As identified in the 1979 report, the

working group concept is most applicable to sites

capable of supporting stands of simple composition(one or two species), and is inappropriate for

mixedwood management.

A SUBVEY ()F IIIXEIIW()()D RDSMRCH ANII DEVET|)PMEilT NEDDS IN OMtrH()

Crop planning models and expert systems were

ranked as being of high importance (mean score 3.4).

There was no difference of opinion as to the impor-

tance of these issues between employment or geo-

graphic groups. OMNR respondents identified a need

to include wildlife habitat as a component of crop

planning, and a need for expert systems that address

issues at both the stand and forest landscape levels.

Forest-level wood supply was rated as being of

high importance (mean score 3.4). Industry considered

this issue to be more important than did the research

group (mean scores 4.2 vs. 3.2), and those with a

provincial focus considered it to be less important

than those with a Northeastern regional focus. The

importance of this issue can be athibuted to the

dynamics of the mixedwood forests and the inadequa-

cies of the previous timber production policy In the

south, aggressive natural regeneration of tolerant

species (e.g., Acu spp.), and in the north, aggressive

natural regeneration of intolerant species (mostly

hembling aspen) have supplanted the historically

desired coniferous species. The previous timber

production policy established a long-term volume

production goal without specifying the species

composition desired or required. As predicted gaps in

coniferous supplies approach, the need to rationalize

the available species mix with the indushial require-

ment becomes critical. Forest-level wood supply

modelling will identify the location and magnitude of

shortfalls and allow for the implementation of reme-

dial plans.

Foresl Allecrsrr rerrrent

Mensurational topics were considered to be of

major importance by the respondents (mean score

3.6); howeveq there were many significant differences

of opinion among groups. Industry considered

mensurational topics to be more important (mean

,<f i,",'

score 4.3) than did the OMNR or research groups/and the OMNR rated them to be more important(mean score 3.8) than did the research group (mean

score 3.2). In the geographic groups the Northeastern

Region considered these issues to be of greater

importance than either those with a provincial view

or those with a Central-Southern regional view. The

importance of these issues to the industry and to a

lesser extent Olvfi\f& reflects two underlying issues:

lack of a reliable inventory at the local level, and lack

of information on the growth patterns in second

growth stands (Weingartner and Basham 1979),

particularly for the conifers. Baskerville (1986) identi-

fied difficulties with how the Forest Resources

Inventory (FRI) was being used, and the need for

relevant information for forecasting fuhue wood

supplies. As the volume harvested approaches the

maximum allowable depletion, the need for accurate

inventory and growth and yield information in-

creases. The greater level of importance attributed to

these issues by the Norlheastem regional group may

reflect how closely harvest levels are approaching the

annual allowable cut (as determined by the maximum

allowable depletion) within the region.

Mixed-species, variable-densrty yield tables were

ranked as being of major importance by respondents(mean score 3.6), but there was considerable difference

of opinion among groups. Researchers consideted this

to be less important (mean score 3.3) than did the

OMNR or industry groups (mean scores 39 md 4.2,

respectively). The Northeastem regional group

considered it more important than those with a

provincial or Cenhal-Southem regional focus , and

those with a Northwestem regional view consideredit more important than those with a provincial view.

Inventory and allied issues were considered to be

of high importance (mean score 3.3), and there wasno difference of opinion among employment groups.

Those with a Northeastern regional focus considered

these issues to be more important (mean score 4.2)

than those in the other geographical groups (mean

score range, 3.1 to 3.4). Comments revealed the need

to identify individual Popuhn spp. volumes within the

inventory, particularly aspen and balsam poplar(P opulus balmntifu a L,).

Quantification of biomass, form and cull were

rated of average importance (mean score 2.9), with no

significant divergence of opinion among employmentor geographic groups.

fllli><edwoocl lrcrruesting

Hamesting was of moderate importance in the

rcspondents' opinion (mean score 2.9). There were no

significant differences among employment groups.Howeveq, comparisons among the geographic groupsrevealed that respondents in the Central-Southem

regions considered harvesting to be of low importance(mean score 2.1) versus the higher importance as-

srgned by those with a provincial, Northeastern orNorthwestem focus (mean scorc range, 2.9 to 3,4).These results indicate that concern about harvesting isgreatest in the boreal regron. The concern may resultfrom decreased coniferous stocking in second growthstands following clearcutting and a need to developharvest methods that reduce the shift toward intoler-ant hardwoods, mostly trembling aspen.

Impacts on residual stand quality was rated asmost important among the harvesting issues (mean

score 3.8). There was considerable difference of

opinion within the employment and geographic

groups. Researchers considered impacts on residual

stand quality to be more important than did OMNR

and the industry, and those with a provincial view

considered residual stand impacts to be more impor-

tant than did the three regional groups. The impor-

tance of protecting stand quality cannot be overstated,whether at the general level or at the level of specific

A SURVDY OT'}IIXEIIWOOD ruSEAruH AilII IIEVET|)PMTNT NDEIIS IN OilUNM

silvicultural operations. In applying selection harvest-

ing in tolerant hardwood stands the importance of

protecting the residual stands has been well docu-

mented (Anderson et al, 1990).ln mixedwood stands,

the same care will be required for harvesting systems

designed to preserve advanced regeneration or trees

reserved following thinning and other tending opera-

tions. Irees injured many years before harvest will have

reduced qualrty as a result of infection by pathogens or

attack by insects.

Harvesting impacts on site quahty was ranked as

an issue of high importance (mean score 3.5), but there

was considerable difference of opinion among employ-

ment and geographic groups. OMNR and industry

respondents considered impacts on site quality to be

less important than did researchers, and the industry

considered site impacts to be less important than did

OMNR. Those with a provincial view considered site

impacts to be more important (mean score 3.9) than

did those in the three regional groups mean scorc

range, 2.8 to 3.2).

Economically feasible altemative systems were

considered to be somewhat important (mean score 3.2),

and there werc no significant differences among

grouPs.

Equipment development was assigned low impor-

tance by the respondents (mean score 2.3), but industry

considered this significantly more important than did

OMNR. There were no significant differences of

opinion among geographic groups. Comments identi-

fied small equipment and on-site chippers as needs.

Forest protection

Forest protection had the lowest importance rating

among the issues of general mixedwood management

(average score 2.4), but the analyses revealed significant

differences of opinion among groups. Researchers

considered protection significantly more important

A SUNYDY OF MIXEDWOOD NDSDIRCH ANII DNIEMPMENT NEEIIS Iil |)MIIRI||

(mean score 2,9) than did those in OMNR (mean

score 1.8) or the industry (mean scorc 2.0). Respond-

ents with a provincial view considered protection

significantly more important (mean score 2.9) than

did those in the three regional groups (mean scorerange, L.6 to 2.0). These differences may reflect the

high proportion of researchers in the provincial group.

It may also indicate that forest health issues are most

important from the provincial perspectives of forcst

sustainabiliry and maintenance or enhancement ofindustrial forest opportunities.

When considering the individual issues that

comprise forest protectior! two groupings were

detected. Insects and diseases were considered ofmoderate importance (mean scores 2.6 each), but

there were differences of opinion within the employ-ment and geographic groups. Insect and diseaseissues were considered to be more important by those

in research than by either OMNR or the industry The

issue of insects was considered more important by

those with a provincial perspective (mean score 3.0)

than those in the three regional groups (mean scorennge,2.1. to 2.2). Diseases were more important tothe provincial group (mean score 3.0) than to the

Northeastern (mean score 2.0) or Cenhal-Southemgroups (mean score 1.9). Respondents' comments

suggested that disease (decay) issues are morc

important than insect infestation issues.

The issues of fire and animal damage wereconsidered of little importance, with mean scores of

1.9 and 2.0, respectively Fire was significantly lessimportant to OMNR and the industry than to theresearchers. Fire was considered more important from

the provincial perspective than from any of the

regional perspectives. Employment $oups showed no

difference of opinion with respect to the animal

damage issue. However, the Northeastern group

considered this issue less important than did either

the provincial or the Central-Southern $oups.

to

Bcrsic resecrrclrcrclclressi ng rni><ech^/GDodissues

The five issue areas addressing basic research in themixedwood were separated into four ranls of impor-tance. Ecosystem issues were rated of major importance(mean score 3.7), but there was significant variationamong groups. Researchers considered these issues to bemore important (mean score 4.1) than did OMNR or theindustry, and OMNR considered them more important(mean score 3.6) than did industry (mean score 2.6).Those with a provincial focus considered these issues tobe more important than those with a Northwestern orNortheastem regional focus.

The physiology of growth and development wasconsidered important (mean score 3.1) and there was nosipificant variation in opinion among groups.

Microclimatic and hydrological relationships wererated as important by the respondents (mean score 3.0).Researchers considered these issues to be more important(mean score 3.4) than did the OMNR or the industry(mean scores 2.8 and 2.3, respectively). The provincialgroup deemed these issues to be more critical than didthe Northwestern or Northeastem regional groups, andthe Cenhal-Southem regional group rated them morehighly than did the Northeastem regional Soup.

Genetic research was considered to be of averageimportance (mean score 2,6), and, no disagreement wasidentified among geographic groups. The researchersconsidered genetia to be more important than did theindustry

The issue of wood chemistry and structural proper-ties was ranked as having low importance by respond-ents (mean score 2.1). No significant differences weredetected among employment groups; howeve4 thosewith a provincial perspective considered this issue to bemore important (mean score 2.2) than did those with aCentral-Southem regional view (mean scor€ 1.6).

A SURYDY |)I'MIXEDWO|)II RHIEABCII ANII IIEYEL|)PiIEilT NEEIIS IN OUURI|)

Linkcrges lo other issrrescrnd rni><edrlvoodstcrkeholders

Linkages were generally recognized as important,

but the linkage with fish & wildlife habitat was the

most important (mean score 3.9). Those with a

Northeastem regional perspective rated this issue to

be more important than did those with a Northwest-

ern or Cenhal-Southem regional perspective.

Linkages to site classification, economics,

biodiversity and genetic heritage, social issues, and

recreation/tourism values were considered to be of

high importance (mean score range/ 3.2 to 3.6) by therespondents. Industry respondents considered eco-nomic issues to be of greater importance than did

researchers. OMNR respondents considered

biodiversity and genetic heritage linkages more

important than did the industry Researchers consid-

ered linkages with social issues to be more important

than did those in the industry.

Linkages to address climate change were consid-

ered to be of low importance (mean score 2.1). The

researchers considered climate change to be more

important than did OMNR or the industry, but even

researchers did not consider the issue to be of more

than moderate importance (mean score 2.5). Those

with a provincial focus considered it more important

than those with a Northwestern or Northeasternregional perspective.

Focrrs 'Jor orrt;rrrts

Education, haining and transfer of information

directly to clients were the most prefened outputs,followed by applied mixedwood silvicultural pro-

grd-rns, discovery of new information, and policy

support. The establishment of applied provincial

programs in mixedwood silviculture was considered to

be less important by the industry than by OMNR or

researchers. Not surprisingly, researchers considered

discovering new information to be more important

than did those in industry. Industry considered policy

support to be less important than did OMNR or

researchers, and those with a provincial focus consid-

ered it to be morc important than did those in the

three regional groups.

fl/lechcrnisrrrs frortrcrnsferringinforrncrt ion crndtechnology

Abbreviated technical reports, worlahops, and

tours and demonstration forests were considered to be

more important than scientific publications, newslet-

ters, videos, computer software (e.g., crop-planning

models), and individual consultation. Howevel, both

groups of technology issues were considered highly

important.

Scientific publications were mor€ important to

researchers and those with a provincial focus than to

the other groups.

Conversely, vidms werc more important to

OMNR respondents than to researchers. Those with a

Northeastem regional focus considered software to be

more important, and consultation to be less impor-

tan! than did those with a provincial or a Central-

Southem regional focus.

/2,

a suRvDY 0F ilrxDrfw|)|)D Rlsnaf,cll lilll ll[vDt0PMIlNT N0EDS Iil |)rmRI||

c0Nilu$r0N$The survey results indicated general consensus

on the level of importance for more than onehalf of

the issues examined. Where differences of opinion

occuned among the geographic groups, they could be

athibuted to the scale of focus for the respondents.

Those having a provincial focus tended to athibute

greater relevance to issues of broad importance, and

issues with future implications or long term conse-

quences for mixedwood forests. Respondents with a

specific regional focus tended to rate issues perceived

to be resolved as less important than issues for which

solutions do not appear imminent.

Where significant differences occurred among

employment groups, they could be attributed to the

function of the respondents within the forest contmu-

nity Industry tended to rate commercial or opera-

tional issues as more important, and biological or

science issues as less important than those in the

OMNR and research groups. The OMNR group

tended to occupy the middle ground between the

industry and researchers where differences occuned.This position is attributable to the role of OMNRresouce managers in trying to balance commercial

operations and biological issues such as ecosystemintegrity. The responsibility for investigating the

biological and ecosystem aspects of the forest tends to

place the research community at the opposite end of

the spectrum fiom the industry. Dfferences observedamong these groups, though statistically significant,

represent tendencies for less than one-half of the

issues. By understanding these differences in the

context of the roles of a group's members, individuals

have an opportunity for improved cooperation.

A SURVDY OF MIXDIIW|)|)D ruSMRCIH AND IIEYDI,|)PMENT NIIIIS IN OMIRI|}

RAT'BRENCE$Anderson, H.W., B.D. Batchelo{, C.M, Corbett, A.S.

Corlett, D.T. Deugo, C.F. Husk, and W.R. Wilson. 1990.

A silvicultural guide for the tolerant hardwoods

working group in Ontario. Ont. Min. Nat. Resour.,

Toronto, Ont., Sci. and Technol. Series, Vol. 7.178 p.

Baskerville, G.L. 1986. An audit of management of the

crown forests of Ontario. A report to The Hon. VG.

Kerrio, Minister of Nafural Resources, Province of

Ontariq August 1,,1986. Ont. Min. Nat. Resour.,Toronto, Ont. 97 p.

Heamden, K,W, S.V Millsoru and W.C. Wlson. 1992. A

report on the status of forest regeneration. OntarioIndependent Foret Audit, Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. 117 p.

Koven, A. and E. Martel. 1994. Reasons for the decision

and decision, class environmental assessment by the

Ministry of Natural Resources for timber management

on Crown lands in Ontario. Environmental Assessment

Board, Toronto, Ont., Report EA-87{2. 561 p.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1991. Direction'90s. Ont. Min. Nat. Resour., Toronto, Ont. 14 p.

Rowe, j.S. 1972. Forest regions of Canada. Dep.

Environ., Can. For. Serv., Ottawa, Ont., Publ. No. 1300.

172p.

Weingartneq, D.H. and f.T. Basham (Eds.). 1979. Forest

management and research needs in the boreal

mixedwood forest of Ontario. The SpruceFir-Aspen

Research Committee. 90 p. (Unpublished report).

ACKNOlryTDDOBMANT$The authors would like to extend their apprecia-

tion to the many people who made this projectpossible by responding to the survey. Special thanlcare extended to lvls. Ann Foggia and Ms. Tanya

Quevillon for their efforts in preparing the question-

naires and mailing the survey; lvfu. Naomi Donat for

entering the survey results on the computer; Mr.

Shang Zeng for analyzing the data; Drs. George

Buchert, R.A. Lautenschlage4, and Bill Parker of OFRI

for their comments and suggestions on an early draft

of the report; and Ms. Trudy Vaittinen for graphic

design and desk top publishing.

A SURVDY |)F MilADW|lOD NESEARCIT ANII DNTEMPMNNT NEEDS IN |)NMH|)

APPBNDIX ISr.rnrey of resecrrch crnd clerrelotrrrnent priorities forrnbcedwood silvicrr|tr.rre in Ontcrrio

Mixedwood forests arc landscape units on whic-h the simultaneous management of softwood and hardwood croptrce species is economically and ecologically feasible. While several species may be present on a mixedwood site, onespecies often dominates the canopy at a particular successional stage. The extent of mixedwoods will increase as theuse of clearcutting and herbicides declines, but little information exists on how to effectively manage these foresttypes. Your responses to the following questions will help to assign research and development priorities to severalissues concerning mixedwood management in Ontario.

Please rate the importance of each item by circling one number per line:

l. Priorities for new informotion qnd technology in mixedwood silvicuhure

r'4

I. Generol issues of mixedwood monogemenl Importancelow high

a) Harvesting 012 3 4 5b) Utilization and market development 012 3 4 5c) Site preparation and regeneration 012 3 45d) Stand tending 012 3 4 5e) Forest protection 012 3 4 5f) Management planning 012 3 4 5g) Forest measurement, gxowth & yield 012 3 45

2. ilixedwood horvesting Importance

low high

a) Economically feasible alternative systems 012 3 4 5b) Equipment development/modification 012 3 45c) Impacts on site quality 012 3 45d) Impacts on residual stand quality 012 3 4 5

3. Enhonced ulilizotion ond morkel developmentImportance

low high

a) l{ider species utilization 012 3 4 5b) Economic utilization of small dimension materiaf biomass, etc. 012 3 45c) Effects of silviculhue on wood properties 012 3 4 5d) Salvage of defective, bumed or insect-killed stands 012 3 4 5

A SURVDY OF MIXEDW|)(}II RISMRCII INII IIDYDT()PIIENT NEADS IN |)MIH()

4. Regenerotionlmportance

low high

a) Gene pool maintenance and tree improvement 012 3 4 5b) Ecologically sensitive site preparation techniques 012 3 4 5c) Conhol of succession with prescribed buming 0 t 2 3 4 5d) Modified cutting to secure natural rcgeneration 012 345e) Adaptive artificial regeneration (e.g. underplanting) 012 3 45

5. Tending Importance

low high

a) Species control (weedine) 012 3 4 5b) Densitv conhol (cleanine. thinnins) 012 3 45c) Tiee product control (spacine, prunine) 012 3 45d) Stand quality conhol (improvement, rchabilitation) 012 3 4 5

5. Forest protectionImportance

low high

a) Insects 012 3 45b) Disease 012 3 45c) Fire 012 3 4 5d)Animal damage 012 3 45

7. i/lixedwood monogement plonningImportance

low high

a) Silvics and species-site relationships 012 3 45b) Free-to-grow standards for mixedwood crop species 012 3 45c) Crop planning models and expert systems for decision support 012 3 45d) Forest-level wood supply 012 3 4 5

8. Forest ftleosuremenlImportance

low higha)Inventory remote sensing, GIS 012 3 45b) Mixed-species, variabledensity yield tables 012 3 45c) Quantification of biomass, form, cull 0 t 2 3 45

A SURVOY (|F M|XNDWO||D MSEARCH ANII DEVET|)PMTT{T NEEIIS IN |}NUru|)

9. Bosic reseorch oddressing mixedwood issuesImportance

low high

a) Ecosystem shucture & function, nutrient cycling, soil biology, etc. 012 3 4 5b) Microclimatic and hydrological relationships 012 3 4 5c) Genetics 012 345d) Physiology of growth and development 012 3 45

e)Wood chemistry and structural properties 012 3 45

10. Linkoges lo olher issues ond mixedwood stokeholders Importance

low high

a) Biodiversity and genetic heritage 012 3 4 5b) Climate change 012 3 45c) Site classification 012 3 45d) Economics 012 3 45e) Recreation/tourism values 012 3 450 Fish & wildlife habitat 012 3 4 5g) Social issues (old growt[ community forestry, land claims, etc.) 012 3 4 5

ll. Outpuls ond delivery mechonisms

l. Focus for outputs Importancelow high

a) Discovering new information 012 3 45

b) Supporting forest policy development 012 3 4 5c) Establishing applied provincial programs in mixedwood silviculture 012 3 4 5d) Education, haining and transfer of inlormation directly to clients 012 3 4 5

2. l,llechonisms for tronsferring informqlion ond lechnologyImportance

low high

a) Scientific publications 012 345b) Abbreviated technical reports 012 3 4 5c) Newsletters 012 3 45d)Workshops 012 3 45e) Tours and demonshation forests 0 t 2 3 4 5f) Vidms 012 3 4 5g) Computer software (e.g. crop planning models) 012 3 45h) Individual consultatioru help-line 012 3 4 5

A SURYIY |)N il|xEDWO|)II RDSE,iROII ANII DEVETOPMNNT NNENS IN ONMRI|)

lll. Additionol input

1. Please indicate whether your survey was completed by i) an individual l--l or ii) a group l--l

2. Comments are welcome here on any aspect of mixedwood management or research.

s0551(2.0 k P.R., 94 t2 15)ISSN 0319-9r18ISBN 0-7778-2807-3