Forest Research Branch

Norway Spruce Plantations in Quebec

by

J. D. Mac.ARTHUR

fHIS FILE COpy MUST BE RETURNED

TO�

Sommaire en Jranr;ais

DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY PUBLICATION NO. 1059 1964

Published under the authority of The Honourable Maurice Sauve, P.C., M.P.,

Minister of Forestry

Ottawa, 1964

ROGER DUHAMEL, F.R.S.C.

QUEEN'S PRINTER AND CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY

OTTAWA, 1964

Cat. no: Fo 47-1059

3

74726-1

), established .,1".nrh<.r! soil at

in Quebec, and volume usually poor Commercial

after planting. adaptable to

Voss). Height white pine

reduced height "'''''''"''' produc­

consider­planta-

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

REVIEW OF LITERATURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Provenance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Soil and Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Growth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Enemies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 General Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1

MATERIALS AND METHODS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Description of Plantations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Field Work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Compilation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

RESULTS......................................................... 15 Provenance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Soil and Site. . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Mortality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Growth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Basal Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Volume. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Height. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Reproduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 White Pine Weevil Damage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Miscellaneous Damage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Provenance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Soil and Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Growth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 Damage. . . . ... . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ... . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 3 1 Future Role. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

SUMMARy........................................................ 33

SOMMAIRE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

ApPENDIX I Summary of measurements for all plots arranged from left in ascending order of mean annual height growth of dominants above breast height. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

ApPENDIX II Per acre stand and stock tables for representative plots. . . . 39

REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The assistance received from tiM. Jean Smith, directeur, Bureau de Sylvi­culture et de Botanique, ministere des Terres et Forets, Quebec", who supplied useful information on the location and condition of a number of plantations, is gratefully acknowledged.

6

Norway Spruce Plantations in Quebecl by

J. D. MACARTHUR2

INTRODUCTION

In reforestation it is generally accepted that exotic (non-indigenous) species should not be planted on an operational scale until their value had been estab­lished by preliminary testing. Nevertheless large-scale introductions of untested exotics have occurred with results ranging from spectacular success to dismal failure. Usually there was reason to suppose that the exotic would succeed, but the range in results clearly establishes two important points: 1) the local species is not invariably the best, in terms of production at least, and 2) large scale planting of an untested exotic species involves grave risk. When such a risk is taken the results are interesting, particularly when an introduced species is suc­cessful. A good example of this is to be found in the Norway spruce3 plantations established in Quebec between 1914 and 1928.

Tree planting began in Quebec around 1914 and during the following 14 years two European species, Norway spruce and Scots pine, were planted exten­sively. Most of the plantations were established on abandoned farmland or otherwise disturbed soils. Several agencies, but principally the Quebec Depart­ment of Lands and Forests, were active in reforestation in the Great Lakes­St. Lawrence Forest Region in central Quebec. About 1928 the planting of exotic species virtually ceased for a number of years. Later, when the early Norway spruce began to bear seed, a second phase of planting began and continued to the present. In the process a few relatively small and scattered parent plantations gave rise to a greater number of even more widely dispersed second generation stands. From 1952 to 1961 approximately 1.5 million trees were delivered by the nurseries and presumably an aggregate area of some 1,000 acres was planted. Reduced planting of Norway spruce resulted from fear of white pine weevil damage and annual production from Quebec nurseries is now 175,000 trees.

In 1959 a survey of the older Norway spruce plantations in Quebec was undertaken to obtain data upon which to base evaluation of the species for planting in Quebec. This paper presents some results of the survey and includes comparisons with plantations in Britain and Finland and with planted and natu­ral white spruce in Quebec. A potential role for Norway spruce in Quebec reforestation is suggested.

'Department of Forestry, Canada, Forest Research Branch Contribution No. 595.

'Formerly Research Officer, For. Res. Br., Dept. of Forestry, Box 35, Sillery, Que.

'Nomenclature as in "Native Trees of Canada", Dept. of Forestry, Canada, Bull. 61, 6th ed., 1961.

7

74726-2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE Status

In North America planting of Norway spruce began around 1860 and by 1936 it occupied some 120,000 acres in the Northeastern States (Hosley 1936). Forty-three per cent of the 25 million spruce seedlings produced in the Northeast in 1957 were Norway (Carlaw 1958) and in Maine 250,000 seedlings were planted in 1956 (Ashman 1958). The continuing popularity of the species is indicated by the matter of fact treatment it receives in seed and planting manuals (U.S. Forest Service 1948, 1961a, 1961b). Norway spruce has replaced red spruce in planting in West Virginia (Heimburger and Holst 1955) ; it has grown well on east slopes in the southern Appalachians (Minckler 1940) ; and in Iowa (Krajicek 1955) ; and is the first exotic to be planted extensively in the Lake States (Rudolph and Slabaugh 1958).

In Canada the first mention of Norway spruce was by Chapais (1891) who recommended it enthusiastically for planting in Quebec. Mulloy (1935) was im­pressed by the Grand'Mere plantations but was presumably unaware of others in Quebec. A number of more recent reports (Cunningham 1953, MacArthur 1957, 1959, Stiell 1958) cover only a few of the existing stands in Quebec and reports from other provinces (Holst 1955, Hughes and Loucks 1962, Jameson 1956, McLeod 1956, Stie1l 1958) indicate that planting has been on a small scale.

Provenance Provenance has not been blamed for failures, but could in some cases have

been the primary cause because, as Hough (1943) remarks, most studies have been in successful plantations and failures tend to be ignored. On the other hand the value of good results may have been limited by ignorance of the provenance involved. Although the provenance of the older plantations is not known Sweden and Germany are the most probable general regions of origin. It now appears possible that the origins of at least some of the older plantations might be approx­imated by taxonomic study based on Lindquist's (1948) work on twig pubescence in European stands. A study of pubescence by Santon4 in a 40-year-old planta­tion at Grand'Mere confirmed the opinion, based on old correspondence, that the plantation was of north Swedish origin (MacArthur 1957).

In the past 10 to 20 years interest in Norway spruce has increased and various provenance experiments and observation plantations have been made. In New Hampshire a seven-year test of 58 provenances indicated that central European races were best (Baldwin 1949). Polish spruce was the best of twelve provenances after 15 years in Lower Michigan (Rudolph and Slabaugh 1958). In Connecticut, German and Swedish provenances gave equally good results (Hawley and Lutz 1943) but Lindquist's (1948) report of long-term and extensive planting of German stock in Southern Sweden suggests that they may have been practically the same.

Most Canadian studies are in Quebec but have not yet yielded results. In New Brunswick, however, spruce from the Carpathian mountains and from Grand'Mere (northern Sweden) were taller after 11 years than those from Czechoslovakia, Austria, Latvia, or Norway (McLeod 1956). Although not an experiment the remarkable growth of northern Swedish spruce at Grand'Mere, Que. (Cunningham 1953, MacArthur 1957) suggests the possible value of the species.

'Santon, J. B. (1963) Analysis of pubescence in Norway spruce provenances, Department of Forestry, Canada, Fore..t Research Branch Unpub. Report.

8

Soil and Site The adaptability of Norway spruce to variations in soil and climate is often

mentioned in the European literature. It ranges from the eastern shore of the Adriatic to within a few miles of the Arctic Ocean in Scandinavia (Lindquist 1948, Parrot 1960) and has been described as a tree of the boreal forest occupying corresponding climatic zones in the mountains of central Europe and successfully extended by planting to the plains areas (Heimburger and Holst 1955) . The best growth occurs on fresh to moist soils of medium texture in regions with high atmospheric humidity (Kostler 1956) . Hosley (1936) mentions that it is known in Europe as the drunkard of the trees.

In the northeastern U.S.A. Norway spruce behaves much as in Europe. Shepard (1921) felt that it was highly adaptable to site variation. On light porous sandy loam with a high water table in N ew York it outgrew red and white pine and was 23.5 feet tall in 14 years (Belyea 1924). Extensive study of planta­tions in the northeastern U.S.A. (Hosley 1936) revealed that good growth had occurred on fresh to moist loam and sandy loam or on any good spruce site. In the southern Appalachians Norway spruce survived and grew better than red spruce and red pine on eastern slopes (Minckler 1940). Hetzel (1941) studied 73 plantations of various species on old fields and other cleared land in north­western Pennsylvania and concluded that Norway spruce was one of the best species. In central Pennsylvania it was well adapted to soil and climate (Steven­son and Bartoo 1940). Littlefield (1942) rated it as the best of the spruces used in reforestation in New York but warned that it fails in swampy areas or under a hardwood canopy. Hough (1943) concluded from results in New England that the best growth occurred on moist well-drained loam and sandy loam on east and north slopes but warned that on former hardwood sites the spruce would be retarded by hardwood volunteers. In the Harvard Forest both white and Norway spruce failed on very dry and very wet sites (Spurr 1956). Frantz (1955) reports an interesting example of adaptation in which spruce, brought down gradually from high in the Alps to 900 feet by German foresters, is now being planted in New Jersey.

Results in Canada are generally in agreement with those from the United States. McLeod (1956) recommends that in New Brunswick Norway spruce should only be planted on well-drained loamy soil in areas with good air drainage. Also in New Brunswick Hughes and Loucks (1962) found exceptional growth, greatly superior to that of red spruce and balsam fir, on moist rich silt loam near the Bay of Fundy where humidity is high.

Surprisingly good growth on relatively coarse soils reported in Quebec (Cunningham 1953, MacArthur 1957) may be in part a result of the deeper rooting of Norway spruce reported by Paine (1960). Stiell (1958) found poor growth on clay in Forest Section B.4 and on coarse well-drained soils in L. 10 but was impressed by good growth on moist stony loam in L.5. In young plan­tations in L.5 he found poor growth in wet hollows and good growth on moist slightly stony loam nearby. Norway spruce was subject to suppression by hard­woods and he concluded that old field planting was less risky. Stiell's observations suggested that Norway spruce was more readily suppressed than white but, on the other hand, Logan (1951) reports better survival and height growth of Nor­way spruce after 15 years of hardwood suppression where 1-0 seedlings of it and white spruce were planted under a girdled mixedwood stand.

9

74726-2�

Norway spruce has been largely restricted to windbreaks in Ontario where it has been heavily attacked by the white pine weevil (Heimburger and Holst 1955). There is almost no reference in the literature to conventional plantations. One is featured in a study by Armson (1959) in which he shows that land use may still be reflected by growth 40 years after planting. In Manitoba the one reported trial of Norway spruce ended in failure that was blamed on drought (Jameson 1956).

Growth Several authors are of the opinion that in the northeastern U.S.A. Norway

spruce is capable of more rapid height growth than white spruce. Baldwin (1949) expects it to grow 0.3 to 0.5 feet annually for 7 to 8 years and much faster there­after than red or white spruce, Hawley and Lutz (1943) expect it to grow as well as white pine, and Hosley (1936) states that in the Northeast height growth exceeds that of native spruces and is equal to the best reported for Norway spruce anywhere. In the Morris Arboretum at Philadelphia open-grown Norway and white spruce were compared and the former had greater height and diameter growth (Wright 1956). In New Hampshire white spruce was taller than Norway spruce in a direct comparison (Rock 1960) but the average for Norway spruce was for a number of provenances and all had been heavily weevilled. In the Lake States Rudolph (1950) observed that height of Norway spruce was greater than that of white spruce at 20 years. In Iowa height at 72 years was 90 feet in an excellent plantation (Krajicek 1955).

In Quebec Cunningham (1953) found that at Grand'Mere Norway spruce had clearly outgrown white spruce on sandy soil heavily treated with farmyard manure before planting. However, the white spruce supposedly came from the Black Hills of South Dakota and would also qualify as an exotic. Cunningham found elsewhere in the Grand'Mere plantations that in mixtures of white and Norway spruce the latter was usually dominant. Where white and Norway spruce were both failing at Grand'Mere the latter was taller (MacArthur 1959). In his general survey of pulpwood plantations in Ontario and Quebec Stiell (1958) found that in Ontario white spruce outgrew Norway spruce while in Quebec the situation was reversed. In New Brunswick McLeod (1956) reported slightly superior height growth of white spruce but soil differences may have existed. Hughes and Loucks (1962) found remarkable growth in a 45-year-old plantation with some current leaders three feet long on trees 60 to 70 feet tall.

Regarding volume growth, several authors are on record as considering Norway spruce a potentially valuable pulpwood producer for the Northeastern States (Ehrhart and Shull 1940, Hawley and Lutz 1943, Hetzel 1941, Hosley 1936, Hough 1943). Hosley even goes so far as to say that plantations from 35 to 65 years old have produced more volume than any other species ever grown in the Northeast.

,In Quebec under exceptional conditions at Grand'Mere total standing vol­ume plus thinnings 37 years after planting was about 5,200 cubic feet per acre (MacArthur 1957). In another Quebec plantation in the Eastern Townships total volume was 3,600 cubic feet 3 1 years after planting with thinnings not included (Stiell 1958). In a New Brunswick plantation total volume 45 years after planting was about 7,000 cubic feet and the mean annual increment of Norway spruce was 42 per cent greater than in a natural red spruce-balsam fir stand of the same age and better than average quality (Hughes and Loucks 1962).

10

Enemies The only serious enemy of N onvay spruce reported to date in North America,

the white pine weevil, is active throughout the planting range of the spruce. CraIghead (1950) reports serious damage to plantations in New York, Littlefield ( 1942) reports heavy weevil damage in the Adirondacks, and Hawley and Lutz (1943) report that there were no seriously weevilled plantations in south Con­necticut but recognize the danger. Both Holst (1955) and Stiell (1958) express concern regarding weevil damage and its effects on log quality. Holst has observed that slender-crowned genotypes seem to be less susceptible and hopes to decrease susceptibility by breeding and by planting slender-crowned races. Observations by Heimburger and Holst (1955) in Massachusetts suggested that heavy damage to bushy dominants might favour their replacement by slenderer co-dominants and permit selection for resistance by early removal of damaged trees.

A second, and probably less important, enemy of Norway spruce has recently been reported. A branch and stem canker disease associated with a fungus CValsa kunzei Fr. var. picea) has been found on white and Norway spruce in Ontario (Jorgensen and Caffey 1961) and in Quebec (Ouellette and Bard 1962). The former concluded that only trees predisposed by' low vigour were attacked and that in Ontario the disease was of little importance. In Quebec, however, infections were found on good as well as poor trees and it appears that under some conditions the disease might affect plantation growth significantly.

General Conclusions The foregoing review supports the following general conclusions. In North

America Norway spruce has been planted for a longer time over a wider area, and with better results than is generally realized. In the northeastern U.S.A. it seems to have become practically a naturalized species. In most instances it' has grown at least as well as native spruces and often much better. Present planting rates are an indication of continuing popularity.

Origins of the older plantations are largely unknown and tests of known provenances have been undertaken only recently. Eventually they should yield information of great value in the choice of provenance for specific regions. In the meantime seed from the better established plantations will probably continue to be used. The possibility that origins of the older plantations may be approxi­mated, if not pin-pointed, by taxonomic studies has interesting implications.

The best sites in North America have been moist to fresh loams and sandy loams in humid regions and good growth has occurred on a rather wide range of soil textures. Thus the species has exhibited the same reaction to soil and site in North America as in Europe. Some evidence suggests that it will only do well in the relatively humid climate of eastern North America and should not be planted in drier regions farther west.

Damage to Norway spruce by its principal enemy the white pine weevil is widespread and serious insofar as sawlog production is concerned, but pulpwood production does not seem to have been affected. Possibly weevil damage may be avoided in future through judicious choice of planting stock and the use of resistant strains produced by selection and breeding.

The one disease reported to date has not yet been fully investigated but indications are that it is a minor danger.

11

..... ""

750 740 730 720 710 7 00 690 48 ,I I ) I I I I ' .. '" ... .. r I 7 , 48 -

--�-�,-�

47

460

...... " ,------'

81 Q + I P2 J

I J +PI

@

u

l G , / 'P�,\ P4 /

. ,-+.,,"

, ,

\

l... e I "

, '---­ ---

SHERBROOKE •

@

U. S. A .

<. ( jL EG END

PL ANTATION LOCATION and NUMBER. .... :+ P2 FOREST REGION BOUNDARy • . . • • • • . • . -

FOREST SECTION BOUNDARY ........ ----,.... ...

PI2 ++ PI3 .." : �.r"'...J \1 Scale in Miles

,6 8 0 ,6 32 48 Ed � r-------d

47

46 0

450 'I '450 750 740 730 720 71 0 700 690

Figure 1. Location of Norway spruce plantations sampled forest regions and sections also shown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Description of Plantations

The 12 plantations sampled are widely distributed in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Forest Region with one or more in each of Forest Sections L.2, L.3, L.4a, L.4b, L.5, and L.6 (Figure 1). All except one are on land that had been more or less disturbed before planting. They are spread over 2°15' of latitude, 5° 20' of longitude, 1,000 feet of elevation, and have a collective area of about 235 acres. Owners are the Government of Quebec, the Government of Canada, three pulp and paper companies, one hydro-electric company, and two private individuals (Table 1).

TABLE 1. LOCATION A N D OWNERSHIP OF PLANTATIONS STUDIED

Plant No.

Location' (acres)

Lat. Long. Alt. Forest Owner North West feet Section ---1 ----------- 1--- ---------1----------

1 St. Jovite Station, Terrebonne 46°10' 74°35' Co. (25)

2 L' Annonciation, Labelle Co. 46°25' 74°50' (5)

3 Lower Rouge River, Argen- 45°40' 74°35' teuil Co. (35)

4 Lachute Forest Reserve, Ar- 45°40' 74°20' genteuil Co. (40)

6 I3erthierville Provo Tree 46°05' 73°05' Nursery, Berthier Co. (45)

7 St. Philomene de Berthier, 46°05' 73°05' Berthier Co. (10)

8 Grand'Mere-Grandes Piles, 46°40' 72°40' Laviolette Co. (25)

700

800

500

500

250

300

500

9 Parke Forest Reserve, 47°50' 69°30' 1 , 000 Kamouraska Co. (5)

10 Riviere a Pierre, Portneuf Co. 47°00' 72°10' (10)

11 Valcartier Forest Exp. Sta- 46°55' 71°35' tion, Quebec Co. (5)

700

600

12 Gould Compton Co. (15) 45°40' 71°10' 1,500

13 La Patrie Compton Co. (15) 45°25' 70°40' 1,500

'Total area about 235 acres.

Field Work

LAa Canadian International Paper Co.

LAb Private

L.2 Gatineau Power Co.

LAa Government of Quebec

L.2 Government of Quebec

L.2 Government of Quebec

L.3 Govt. of Quebec and Con-solidated Paper Corp.

L.6 Government of Quebec

LAa Consolidated Paper Corp.

LAa Government of Canada

L.5 St. Lawrence Corporation

L.5 Private

A reconnaissance was made in 1958 and twelve plantations chosen for study were sampled in 1959 by 23 fifth-acre (1 X 2 chains) and five tenth-acre (1 X 1 chain) permanent sample plots. Plots were subjectively located to sample dis­tinct stand or habitat conditions. In small uniform stands one plot was usually adequate whereas in the larger plantations two or more plots were measured. Plot corners were marked by numbered aluminum pickets and a hole about one foot deep was dug at each to facilitate relocation. The following measurements and observations were made on each plot.

13

1 . Tally of diameters to the nearest tenth inch at breast height of all living trees measured with a steel tape. (The b.h. point was located by measure­ment for each tree. Tally was taken by rows and all trees and spaces were recorded.)

2. Each living tree was classified as either dominant, codominant, intermediate, or suppressed.

3 . The number of crooks and persistent dead leaders visible from the ground was recorded for each tree to obtain an estimate of the amount of damage by the white pine weevil (Pissodes strobi (Peck.)).

4. Total height of the 20 largest diameter dominants per fifth-acre, and the 10 largest per tenth-acre, was measured with the Raga altimeter.

5. Sufficient additional heights of dominants and codominants were measured to construct height-diameter curves for local volume tables.

6 . Age since planting was estimated from borings of several trees at stump height (8 to 12 inches above ground level).

7. Age of dominants and codominants at breast height was determined from increment cores.

8. A soil pit was dug to below 'rooting depth and notes on the profile and on soil conditions were made.

9. A composite soil sample of ten systematically distributed probes to a depth of six inches with a Wisconsin soil sampler was taken for physical and chemical analysis.

10. General notes on topography, history, stand development and condition, and any unusual features were made.

Compilation

The main data summaries were prepared by the Forest Research Branch data processing unit. Total cubic foot volumes were calculated from local volume tables based on interpolated volume tables for white and red spruce (Dominion Forest Service 1944) assuming Form Class 70. Volumes thus derived include stump and top but exclude bark. They serve as rough estimates of true volume for comparisons between plots and plantations.

The following factors were worked out for each plot to complement the sum-maries.

1 . Upper height (the average height of the 100 largest diameter trees per acre). 2. Average age at breast height of dominants and codominants. 3 . By crown classes, (A) the per cent of trees apparently weevilled, (B) the

average number of attacks per weevilled tree, and (C) the average number of attacks on all trees in a class.

4. Average basal area per acre, the corresponding average diameter, and the corresponding average height from the height-diameter curve.

5 . Estimates of volumes removed from thinned plantations based on stump tallies.

6 . Survival per cent to 1959. 7. Mean annual upper height increment above breast height. 8. Quality class according to the British Forestry Commission yield tables for

Norway spruce plantations (British Forestry Commission 1952).

14

RESULTS

The bulk of the numerical data are presented in Appendices 1, and 2. Sufficient data are used in the text to indicate the conditions existing in the planta­tions, their range of variation, and to make the desired comparisons, but further details are given in the appendices.

Provenance Generally stand records are fragmentary and provenance records are at best

uncertain. Old correspondence in the Consolidated Paper Corporation files indi­cates that at least some of the Grand'Mere plantations are of northern Swedish origin (lat. 64° N). Another stand at Grand'Mere is suspected of being a Czecho­slovakian race but this has yet to be confirmed. There were no obvious differences between plantations that might suggest provenance differences except in one

Figure 2. Small cones from Plantation No. 13 compared with cones from Plantation No. 12 (end cones in each row). Top row shows range in size, middle and bottom rows are 1958 and 1959 cones collected in 1959.

15

74726-3

(N o. 13) which differed in a number of respects from the others. Crowns were smaller, branches more descending, bark darker and smoother, and cones smaller. The discernible cone characteristics (Figure 2) suggest that the provenance of this plantation might be northern or northeastern Europe5 but only special taxonomic study could confirm this.

Soil and Site

Wide variations in soil and site within and between. plantations were noted (Table 2). Six stands were on formerly cultivated land, two on blows and in formerly cultivated areas, and four on cut-over and burned-over forest land. Sand dunes, sand plains, sandy river terraces, till slopes, and clay plains were the diverse land forms occupied by the plantations.

TABLE 2. NOTES ON SITE A N D SOIL BY PLANTATIO NS A N D BY PLOTS

Plant Plot Plot Soil Percent No. No. Size Texture Moisture Silt and Clay Terrain

(acres) -- ---

I 1 . 1 0 . 2 sandy loam dry 23 sandy river terrace and moulded Still. All formerly farmed.

1 . 2 0 . 2 loamy sand dry 20 1 . 3 0 . 2 sandy loam dry 26 1 . 4 0 . 2 silt loam moist 61 1 . 5 0 . 2 loamy sand dry 19

--- ---2 2 . 1 0 . 2 sandy loam moist 24 Sand flat at foot of till slope.

Planted after fire. Drainage re-tarded by hardpan.

--- ---3 3 . 1 0 . 2 sandy loam fresh 43 Till slopes and clay r iver flood

3 . 2 0 . 2 clay wet 66 areas. All formerly farmed. 3 . 3 0 . 2 sandy loam fresh 37 3 . 4 0 . 2 sandy loam fresh 36 3 . 5 0 . 2 sandy loam fresh 38

--- ---4 4 . 1 0 . 2 sand dry 3 Deep dune sand on clay. Forming

4 . 2 0 . 1 sand dry 14 and then wind erosion. 4 . 3 0 . 1 loamy sand dry 18

--- ---6 6 . 1 0 . 2 clay loam wet-gley 64 Clay plain. Formerly farmed.

6 . 2 0 . 2 loam wet-gley 52 6 . 3 0 . 2 sandy loam wet-gley 38

--- ---7 7. 2 0 . 2 sand dry 11 Deep dune sand on marine clay.

Formerly far med. --- ---

8 8 . 4 0 . 2 sandy loam fresh 28 Sand plain on clay at varying 8 . 5 0 . 2 sandy loam fresh 24 depths. Cleared and burned over. 8 . 6 0 . 1 sandy loam fresh 27 Not farmed. 8 . 10 0 . 2 sandy loam dry 22

--- ---9 9 . 1 0 . 1 sandy loam wet-gley 31 Lower till slope. Planted after fire.

--- ---10 10 . 1 0 . 2 sandy loam moist-wet 38 Lower till slope. Planted after fire.

--- ---1 1 1 1 . 2 0. 1 sandy loam fresh 28 Sand flat on clay at varying depths.

Farmed. -- --- ---

12 12 . 1 0. 2 sandy loam fresh 48 Gentle till slope. Formerly farmed. 12 . 2 0 . 2 loam moist 52

--- - - -13 13 . 1 0 . 2 loam fresh 58 Gentle till slope. Formerly farmed.

5Personal communication from Nlr. Mark Holst, Forest Geneticist, Petawawa Forest Experiment Station, Chalk River, Ontario.

16

"" .. "" "" r ""

...... -l

:r: cD W > 0 CD . «I I- cD I I-5:2« W IW

<.!>

2.5�--------�--------r--------4r-------�---------;--------�--------�

2.0

0 0 0 0

0+0 0 + 0

08 0 · 0

0

0 + *

0 0+

o o

+

� « 1.0 0 « � � 0 0 LEG E ND

0.5 Farmed . . . . . . . . ... .. . . 0 Not Fa rmed . . . . . . . . . +

0+1--------�----------�--------�--------+_--------4_--------�--------� o 5 1 0 15 20 25 30 35

PER CENT CLAY Figure 3. Dot chart of mean annual dominant height growth above breast height on per cent clay.

o

MEAN ANNUAL INCREMENT DOMINANT HEIGHT ABOVE B, H, (FEET)

I\) o (Jl b

to 0 "0 :::0 0 � ..... �

" 0 :::0 "0 IT1 0 (J) ..... ::r: (f)

lin 11\)-

.f:> � "0 0 � (J) � -I

(Jl

18

.; "' S 'biJ "' .... "' .... ;:l -+" 00 '0 S >, ..0 -+" ib 's ..c: -+" '" oj "' .... ..0 "' :> 0 � "t5 "' ...... ,S ..c: -+" � 0 .... b.O -+" ih 's ..c: -+" § � '§ 0 '1j � ;:l � � oj � oj "' :;g ..;< "' .... ;:l b.O �

Texture of the surface soil (upper six inches) ranged from medium sand to clay with sandy loam the most frequently encountered. Extreme values for the silt plus clay fraction were 3 and 65 per cent with most values falling between 20 and 40 per cent. Maximum and minimum clay per cents were 34 and 0.4 with half of the samples below 6 per cent. Similarly moisture regime ranged widely from dry in sandy soils to wet in clays and poorly drained loams.

Attempts to relate the physical and chemical soil factors (texture, per cent organic matter, pH, carbon-nitrogen ratio, degree of base saturation, exchange capacity, and content of P, Ca, Mg, K, Fe, Mn, and Na) and growth were not rewarding. However a weak relationship may exist between mean annual height increment above breast height and the per cent clay content, particularly below the 15 per cent level (Figure 3).

The better stands were always found on moist to fresh loams and sandy loams but surprisingly good growth had occurred on some sands and clays where it would not normally be expected within the sample. The effect of moisture regime on height growth (Figure 4) was slight but plots were only established where there was a stand. On very dry sands or water-logged clays failure had been so complete that such sites are not represented. Furthermore such sites were not often planted. Fresh sites appear to be slightly superior to the others.

In two plantations abrupt and distinct changes in stand quality occurred along old fence lines and appeared to be reflections of soil differences caused by past land used.

Mortality Differences in numbers of trees in fully stocked stands on various sites

(Table 3) indicate that mortality associated with stand development varied inversely with stand quality. Plot 4-2 represents a stand that was slow-growing to the point of stagnation whereas in Plot 12-2 fast growth had resulted in a strong expression of dominance and high mortality through the suppression of slow-growing trees.

TABLE 3. STAN D DATA FROM SEVEN REPRESENTATIVE PLOTS IN ASCENDING OR DER OF QUALITY FROM LEFT TO RIGHT

Plantation and plot no .. .... . . 8-10 4-2 2-1 8-5 12-1 3-5 12-2 Years since planting . . . . . . . . . . 35 34 38 39 35 38 35 Trees/acre . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . 1,185 1,760* 1 , 015 805 860 765 655 Upper height (feet) . . . . . . . . . 39 40 46 56 53 62 58 Upper height + breast height

age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 2 1 . 4 1 . 3 1 . 7 1 . 7 1 . 8 1 . 8 Upper height + years planted 1 . 1 1 . 2 1 . 2 1 . 4 1 . 5 1 . 6 1 . 6 Average height (feet) . . . . . . . . 30 31 38 49 47 57 49 Average diameter (inches) ... 4. 0 3 . 4 5 . 2 5 . 9 6. 3 6 . 6 7 . 3 Basal area (square feet) . . . . . . 106 114 152 151 185 182 � 190* Total volume/acre (cubic

feet) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . 1 , 620 1 , 790 2, 900 3, 410 4,100 4,780 4,470 M.A.I. (cubic feet/acre/year) 46 52 76 87 117 126 128* Quality class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV III III II II I I Per cent silt . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 18 . 9 1 1 . 6 19. 9 20 . 5 43 . 4 27. 7 45. 8 Per cent clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . 1 1 . 9 3 . 7 3 . 5 4 . 6 10. 5 6. 2 Soil texture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sandy sand sandy sandy loam sandy loam

loam loam loam loam Moisture regime . . . . . . . . . . . . dry dry moist fresh fresh fresh moist

*Maximum value recorded in study.

19

Where Norway spruce was planted on dry sandy soils either in pure stands, or in row by row mixture with red or Scots pine, it exhibited a surprising tenacity even W:1en its growth was practically at a standstill (Figures 5, 6, and 7). Only one plantation had suffered high mortality that could be ascribed to poor soil and severe local climate. On rich sites early mortality had obviously been caused by competition from broad-leaved species. The surviving spruce were usually excellent trees although the number per acre varied widely. In the better stands they had completely overcome the broad-leaved volunteers but concentrations of dead branches on the lower stems of many trees bore witness to their previous competition.

Figure 5. Stunted spruce and normal Scots pine in adjacent rows in Plantation No. 4 on sandy soil once subject to wind erosion. Cross-section of stand along new road shows sup­pression and persistence of spruce under pine for 30 years.

20

Figure 6. Norway spruce between red and Scots pine at left and right respectively on sand dunes in Plantation No. 7 (age 34 years). Note variation in height of spruce.

21

Figure 7. Stagnant Norway spruce where top-soil was removed by wind in Plantation No. 4 (age 30 years). Growth is better in the background where some top-soil remained.

Growth Basal Area

The presence of species other than Norway spruce, on many plots, limits the use of basal area as a criterion of Norway spruce growth. Basal area in pure Norway spruce plots ranged from 190 to 106 square feet per acre (Table 3) and the maximum and minimum values were both recorded in untreated stands 35 years after planting. According to the British Forestry Commission yield tables for managed Norway spruce plantations the maximum value in Quebec planta­tions would be about average for Quality Class I while the minimum would be well below average for Quality Class IV.

Volume Volumes (total) in pure stands ranged from 1,600 to 4,500 cubic feet per

acre 35 years after planting (Table 3). One of the better stands is depicted in

22

Figure 8. On nine plots, which represent three plantations, the M.A.!. exceeded 100 cubic feet per acre and on plots in two additional plantations the M.A.!. was over 90 cubic feet.

Figure 8. One of the better stands of Norway spruce (Plantation No. 12). Total volume per acre at age 35 is 4,000 cu. ft.

In all but three plantations there had been no salvage of mortality and only in plantation No. 13 had there been anything approaching a regular series of thinnings. This is in contrast to practice in British plantations where thinnings begin as early as 16 years after planting in Quality Class I, and at 30 years In Quality Class IV.

TABLE 4. ESTIMATED YIELD PER ACRE FROM THIN NED PLOTS IN NORWAY A N D WHITE SPRUCE PLANTATIO NS

(Total volume in cubic feet)

Plantation Quality Standing Volume Total and Plot No. Age* Class Volume Hemoved Yield M.A.I.

3-1 38 II 3,400 500 3,900 102

3-2 38 II 2,300 1 , 400 3,700 97

13-1 45 III 2,900 1,200 4, 200 93

Grand'Mere Norway spruce . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 II 4,900 500 5 , 500 149

White spruce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 - 2 , 640 320 2,960 80

*Years since planting.

23

.-W W LL

.-::I: (!)

W ::I:

.-Z c::r Z � 0 Q

80�-------'r--------.---------.--------�--�----r-------�

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Q U A L I

T Y

C L A S S

Numbers relate plots to table 2.

"" .... Indicates Grand'M e re manure

plots (2 measurements). O+--------L------�L-----__ J_ ______ � ________ � ______ �

o 10 AGE AT

20 30 40 50 STUMP HEIGHT-YEARS

60

Figure 9. Height-age relationships of planted Norway spruce in Quebec and in Britain. Curves are from British Forestry Commission yield tables, 1953.

24

I-W W IJ..

l-I (.!) W I

I-Z <t Z � 0 0

80+-------�--------�--------�--------�--------�------�

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

-13·1

elO'1

4�2 9" _ -S'IO

.1-1

Numbers relate plots to Table 2. * Indicates Grand' Mere manu re

plots. (2 measurements.)

0+-------�------�--------4_------_+--------+_------� o 10 20

TOT A L 30

AGE 40 50

YEA R S 60

Figure 10. Height-age relationships of planted Norway spruce in Quebec and on two good Bpruce sites in southern Finland. ( Curves from Vuokila 1956).

25

80.-------,_------�------�--------r_------,_------�

70

I-w60 w lJ..

I 50

I-I <.9 w I

I­Z « Z

40

30

� 20 o o

10

0 0 I 0

CJ) CJ) <t ...J U lLJ !:: CJ)

LEG END Norway Spruce Plantations .............. .. . ........ 0 White Spruce Manured Plots at Grand'Mere

(MacArthur 19571 . ... . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . f White Spruce - Best Plantations at Grand'Mere-

Not Manured (Gagnon a MacArthur 1959) . .. . . . D White Spruce-Maximum Growth Rate-Forest

Section B-4 (Stiell 1958) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A-White Spruce in New Hampshire (Rock 1960) . . . . . •

0��----�------��------4-------�--------+-------� o 10 20

T OT A L 30

A GE 40 50 60

YEARS

Figure 1 1 . Height-age relationships of Norway spruce and white spruce. Curves are for natural white spruce in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Forest Region (Linteau 1957).

26

Plots 3-1 and 3-2 are in stands which were thinned in 1958 and plot 13-1 is in a stand which had been gradually cleaned and thinned from below during the period 1950-59. Volumes removed, estimated from stump measurements, and yield data for the thinned plots are given in Table 4 which also includes data from an earlier study at Grand'Mere (MacArthur 1957). The white spruce data are from the best plantation studied in Quebec to date by Forest Research Branch but better stands may exist.

Height

Because of the range in age between plots, and the presence on many of species other than Norway spruce, the upper height-age relationship is stressed as the best criterion of growth available from the data. This measure can also be used to compare the Quebec plantations with those in Britain and Finland. It is important to note that no correction has been made for reductions in Norway spruce height caused by white pine weevil injury.

Height-age data for Quebec plantations are plotted on graphs for the four British Quality classes (Figure 9) and the distribution of the plotted points sug­gests that height growth in Quebec has been much the same as in Britain. A similar comparison with plantations on two good natural spruce sites in southern Finland (Figure 10) again indicates similar growth. In Figure 11 the Quebec Norway spruce plantations are compared with the best natural and planted white sprm�e on record and Norway spruce appears to be at least as good as, and possibly better than white.

In the one plantation where Norway and white spruce had been planted in mixture the former was appreciably taller but was in turn surpassed by red pine (Table 5). The soil was fresh dune sand more suited to pine than spruce (Plot 7-2). Scots pine was out-grown by Norway spruce on dry loamy sand in a mixed plantation where both species appeared to be quite healthy although rather slow growing (Plot 1-5.) Conversely on moist clay and clay loam Scots pine exceeded Norway spruce in height growth. Both were superior to white pine (Plots 6- 1 and 6-2) but white pine had been affected by blister rust and weevil.

TABLE 5. COMPARATIVE UPPER HEIGHT MEASUREMENTS FROM MIXED PLANTATIONS (in feet)

Plot number and age since planting

Species 1-5 (35) 6-1 (33) 6-2 (33) 6-3 (31)

Norway spruce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . , .. 47 48 51 48

White spruce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Scots pine ... . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 57 53 51

White pine . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 50 46

Red pine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Reproduction

7-2 (34)

46

41

48

Under seed-bearing stands natural regeneration was virtually absent. Close examination usually disclosed a few recently germinated seedlings but none had persisted for more than one or two seasons. When undisturbed blocks of soil from under a dense stand were sown with Norway spruce seed in the greenhouse

27

tv 00

Figure 12. Adjacent plantations of Norway spruce (left) and white pine (right) both under heavy weevil attack. The spruce appears to recover more rapidly.

germination and growth for six months were at least as good as on a nursery soil control. Consequently the possibility that Norway spruce litter might be toxic to its seedlings was ruled out. Plentiful natural regeneration that had persisted for a number of years was found only on patches of bare unshaded mineral soil near stand borders and within the range of seedfall. On the other hand some such seedbeds were completely unoccupied. Red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) cut down large quantities of cones before the seed is released and collect them in heaps here and there in the plantations. Wind dispersal of seed is thus greatly reduced and most of the seed reaches the ground under the stand where, if it is not eaten by birds and rodents, lack of light prevents its development.

Layering, or rooting of basal branches in contact with the soil, was observed in three poorly stocked plantations. The phenomenon is of little importance but is interesting because it also occurs in Europe in open stands.5

White Pine Weevil Damage Trees in all plantations and crown classes had been damaged and the

presence of the weevil could be verified anywhere by inspection of recently killed leaders. Recent damage was observed on trees 50 to 60 feet tall. Height growth, and to some extent stand development, had clearly been affected over a long period of time but on most plots the trees had made adequate to excellent height growth nevertheless. Even where the amount of stem deformation indicated pro­longed infestation, and where sawlog quality had been greatly reduced, growth in total volume was fairly high.

The ability to grow through a weevil infestation was marked. Holst (1955) has pointed out that spruce shoots from side buds on the leader and recovers more rapidly, and with less deformation, than white pine. An example of this in adjacent plantations of Norway spruce and white pine is shown in Figure 12. The potential seriousness of the weevil was exemplified by two small areas at Grand'Mere where weevil damage had practically cancelled height growth. This was an exceptional case and elsewhere at Grand'Mere damage was much less evident.

Counts of weevil damage indicate that it has been general with 50 per cent of the trees having been weevilled at least once. Damage levels fluctuate widely within plantations suggesting that weevil populations may be to some extent controlled by factors other than provenance or susceptibility. All crown class were attacked to roughly the same degree (Table 6) but it is not known whether the present dominants and codominants are inherently less susceptible or reached their present position in the stand as a result of damage to other trees.

TABLE 6. GENERAL SUMMARY OF WEEVIL DAMAGE BY CROWN CLASSES

(basis: 23 fifth-acre and 5 tenth-acre plots=5.2 acres)

• Crown Class Dominant Codom- Inter- Suppressed Total inant mediate

Number of trees . . .... . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . 879 1,094 1 , 132 735 3,840

Per cent of total. .... . ... . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. 23 29 29 19 100

Per cent weevilled . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 72 78 81 82 78

Average number of attacks per weevilled tree .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 2 . 2 2 . 3 2 . 5 2 . 8 2 . 5

29

Leaders killed by weevil injury may afterwards be partially overgrown resulting in ports of entry for wood-destroying fungi. However a heavily wee­villed plantation recently thinned revealed no decay in the purchaser's scale of the wood6•

Miscellaneous Damage In older plantations some important types of damage such as hare browsing,

competition from grass and brush, and frost injury are difficult to assess. There were indications in some stands that competition from broad-leaved volunteers had affected early development but exactly how the damage had occurred could not be determined. At Va.Icartier Forest Experiment Station it appeared that frost pocket effects had eliminated part of one plantation early in its existence. No other evidence of serious frost damage was found during this study.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Provenance

Almost nothing is known for certain of the provenance of the older Norway spruce plantations in Quebec. Their range in age, wide geographic distribution, and establishment by a number of independent agencies suggest that a number of different provenances are represented. Some stands may be direct descendants of New England plantations. The first wave of planting from 1921 to 1928 resulted in 235 · or more acres of plantations. Seed from these was later used to establish 1,000 acres of second generation plantations by 1958 and, although the rate of planting was reduced by fear of white pine weevil damage, the acreage of second generation plantations continued to increase. Thus the better first generation plantations were, and are, being confidently used as seed sources while still in their first rotation. To make the most of this large scale unplanned trial of an exotic, second generation plantations should be identified as to parent stand, and twig pubescence of first generation stands should be carefully studied to determine their true origin as closely as possible. In this study reference to experiments with known provenances might be helpful.

Soil and Site While planting on a wide variety of sites has yielded some poor results it

also has provided an opportunity to assess the adaptability of the species. In Quebec the best growth occurs on fresh to moist loams and sandy loams and good growth has also occurred on fresh sands and well-drained clays. The species seems to tolerate wide ranges of soil texture and nutrient regime but to be sensitive to excessive or retarded drainage. Although capable of growing well on rich sites it suffers in competition with the hardwood volunteers common on such sites and may be seriously retarded or even killed.

Ideally Norway .spruce should be planted on fresh to moist loams and sandy loams. This would allow a considerable margin for error either way. On richer sites it would not be a good choice unless it could be kept free of hardwood competition. It should never be planted on dry sandy ridges or in wet or swampy hollows.

r,Personal communication from Mr. H. Anspach, Canadian International Paper Company, Grenyille, Que.

30

Growth

Growth variation between plantations reflects a wide range of sites but on the better sites growth was comparable with rates in British and Finnish planta­tions. Similar height growth in the Quebec, British and Finnish plantations, despite reduction in height in Quebec by weevil damage, indicated that the Quebec plantations have been highly successful. Although Norway spruce is technically an exotic in Britain it has been planted since the sixteenth century and is not far from its natural range. On the other hand planting sites are probably no better than in Quebec to judge by Hiley's (1956) remarks concerning their poor quality. The Finnish plantations should represent a correct matching of species and site and equality with them is taken to indicate good performance.

Volume estimates indicate that in successful plantations the mean annual increment for the 40 years following planting may be as high as 100 cubic feet per acre without salvage of mortality. Early thinnings would, in some situations at least, increase financial returns. In the better plantations thinning for pulp­wood at 30 to 40 years would provide a substantial early return and selected trees could be kept on for sawlog production.

Comparisons of planted Norway spruce with planted and natural white spruce in Quebec suggest that the former is more adaptable and faster growing. This is in agreement with opinions from New England and New Brunswick. In the rough comparison possible in Quebec, Norway spruce has outgrown white spruce on a variety of soils but none of the comparisons was really decisive. In eastern Canada white spruce rarely forms pure stands in nature and one might suspect that it is not at its best in pure plantations. In the writer's opinion, based solely on limited observation, white spruce grows better in mixture with Norway spruce than in a pure stand.

Damage Experience with exotics has shown that they may be subject to extensive,

and sometimes disastrous, damage by insects or diseases not present in their original habitats. White pine weevil damage to Norway spruce in Quebec, and in North America generally, is an example of this. The most serious effect of weevil injury is the degrading of a large proportion of the trees for sawlog pro­duction. Except in extreme cases pulpwood production does not appear to have been appreciably affected although crooks might slightly increase handling costs. Early removal of badly damaged trees might maintain, and perhaps even raise, the resistance level in second generation plantations and the inclusion of at least some of the larger trees in the thinnings would increase early returns. Growth could be concentrated on the better stems for sawlog production and these trees would serve for a time as seed producers. Damage might be reduced in future by use of natural or created resistant strains or by the use of insecticides.

Other than the white pine weevil no serious enemies of Norway spruce have been reported in North America to date. The recently discovered branch and stem canker disease is not peculiar to Norway spruce nor has it yet been shown to be a real danger to healthy stands.

Future Role

The results of this and other studies of Norway spruce in eastern North America suggest that it might play an important role in the reforestation of the 2,000 square miles of abandoned farm land in central Quebec. Its rapid growth, adaptability to variation in site, seeming ability to outgrow native spruces on

31

old farm land, and its volume production despite weevil damage all enhance its value for pulpwood and saw log production. There are enough successful planta­tions to provide large quantities of seed, cone collection and seed extraction are relatively easy, and large healthy planting stock is easy to produce and plant. Ladouceur and Grandtner ( 1961) probably had the foregoing in mind when they recommended that fast-growing species such as Norway spruce be used wherever feasible in reforesting abandoned farm land. In the region to be reforested there are large areas of site similar to those now occupied by successful plantations.

Recommenda tions Despite promising results, over a wide geographic area and a period of up

to 45 years, Norway spruce must still be regarded as being on trial in Quebec ; no stand has yet completed a full rotation. If it is to be fully and successfully exploited research along certain lines is needed.

Better knowledge of the relationship between growth and soil factors would be of great value in future planting. Information on rates of growth, stand development and the effects of treatments would also improve chances of using the species profitably. All such studies should take in at least some of the widely dispersed second generation stands as well as the older ones. Older plantations should be followed carefully in order to have early information on new danger from insects, diseases, or other factors, particularly when thinnings begin and as stands approach maturity.

A better understanding of the relationship between Norway spruce and the white pine weevil is needed if damage is to be avoided or reduced in future. Effects of weevil damage on trees of different crown classes and types, influence of intensity of attack on height and volume growth, the effect of ground cover in Norway spruce plantations on the weevil life cycle, danger of decay resulting from weevil injury, and methods of weevil control are all questions in need of clarification.

As forestry, particularly in plantations, becomes inevitably more com­petitive and intensive the choice of species or races for planting will call for more and more precision. Observations and study of the many existing plantations should provide some of the information necessary for proper choices but further testing of known provenances is also needed if Norway spruce is to be used. A few selected provenances have already been planted in observation plots in Quebec but this work could probably be expanded to advantage. It is felt that past results in plantations and the nature of the main reforestation problem com­bine to justify an interest in Norway spruce and further study of it.

32

SUMMARY

A study of the older Norway spruce plantations ranging from 30 to 45 years in age and widely distributed in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Forest Region in Quebec was made in 1959. Data were collected in 12 plantations from a total of 23 fifth-acre and five tenth-acre plots. All stands were planted during the 1914-1928 period and some of them have contributed seed for the more recent establishment of some 1,000 acres of second generation plantations.

With one exception the provenances planted in Quebec are unknown but Sweden and Germany are the most likely general regions of origin. Some of the Quebec stands may be direct descendants of plantations in New England. Taxonomic study, (analysis of twig pubescence) promises to provide interesting leads regarding pr.ovenance, but for practical purposes highly successful planta­tions may be accepted as good seed sources.

Most of the plantations are on abandoned farmland or otherwise disturbed soils. Sand dunes, sand plains, sandy river terraces, till slopes, and clay plains are the land forms occupied. Soil texture ranges from medium sand to clay. The best growth occurred on fresh to moist loams and sandy loams, but good growth also occurred on sands and clays where moisture conditions were specially favour­able. Generally Norway spruce appears to be less sensitive than native spruces to variations in site except in its moisture requirements.

Height growth of Norway spruce in Quebec was similar to growth in British and Finnish plantations. It exceeded the best white spruce plantations in Quebec for which data are available and equalled or surpassed natural white spruce stands in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Forest Region.

In good to medium stands commercial volumes of pulpwood (25 to 35 cords per 1wre) were produced in 30 to 40 years. All yields could have been increased by thinning to salvage mortality.

The white pine weevil is the only serious enemy of Norway spruce reported to date in North America. It has caused widespread and occasionally crippling damage but usually, in Quebec at least, the trees have grown through infestations without much loss in volume although sawlog quality has been lowered. The literature suggests that early removal of weevil-susceptible (bushy-crowned) trees from stands intended for seed production would help to maintain, and per­haps increase, resistance in the next generation. Significant increases in resistance are only likely to be achieved by use of resistant strains, either natural or pro­duced by selection and breeding.

The rapid growth, and apparent adaptability of Norway spruce to varia­tions in site quality, justify serious consideration of it for planting in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Forest Region where the bulk of the abandoned farmland is found. If the species is to be safely exploited it is suggested that the following need further study.

1 . Growth and yield of existing plantations in relation to soil and site and the effects of cultural treatment on stand development.

2. All aspects of the relationship between Norway spruce and the white pine weevil.

3. Performance of second generation plantations and, insofar as possible, their identification with parent stands.

4 . Response of selected provenances to growing conditions in Quebec, partic­ularly in the zone of abandoned farmland.

5. Development of diseases in the older plantations when thinnings begin and as the stands approach maturity.

33

SOMMAIRE

L'auteur a effectue en 1959 une etude des plantations les plus agees (30 a 45 ans) d'epinette de Norvege situees ya et la dans la region forestiere des Grands­Lacs et du Saint-Laurent dans la province de Quebec. Les donnees proviennent de 23 places-echantillons d'un cinquieme d'acre et de cinq places d'un dixie me d'acre etablies dans 12 plantations. Tous ces peuplements furent planMs durant la periode 1914 a 1928 et quelques-uns d'entre eux ont produit des semences qui ont servi a 1'etablissement plus recent d'environ 1,000 acres de plantations de la seconde generation.

Sauf dans un cas, les provenances planMes au Quebec sont inconnues, mais la Suede et l' Allemagne sont les pays d'origine les plus probables. Quelques-uns des peuplements du Quebec pourraient provenir directement des plantations de la Nouvelle-Angleterre. Les etudes taxonomiques (analyses de la pubescence des rameaux) pourront eventuellement conduire a des developpements inMressants concernant les provenances a utiliser, mais en pratique les plantations qui ont reussi peuvent etre considerees comme de bonnes sources de semences.

La majoriM des plantations sont etablies sur des terres de culture abandon­nees ou sur d'autres sols perturbes. Les dunes, plaines sableuses, terrasses fluviatiles sableuses, pentes morainiques, platieres argileuses sont les principales formations geomorphologiques occupees. Les sols varient en texture de puis les sables moyens jusqu'a 1'argile. La plus forte croissance est associee aux limons frais a humides et aux limons sableux, mais les plantations sur sable et sur argile, la ou l'humidiM etait favorable, ont aussi produit de bons accroissements. D'une fayon generale, 1'epinette de N orvege semble moins sensible que les epinettes indigenes aux variations des facteurs de milieu, sauf en ce qui concerne ses exigences en humidiM.

La croissance en hauteur de 1'epinette de Norvege au Quebec a eM semblable a celIe des plantations de Grande-Bretagne et de Finlande. Elle a eM plus forte que celIe des meilleures plantations d'epinette blanche effectuees au Quebec pour lesquelles on possede des donnees, et elle s'est revelee egale ou superieure a la croissance des peuplements naturels d'epinette blanche dans la region fo­restiere des Grands-Lacs et du Saint-Laurent.

Les peuplements planMs sur les stations bonnes a moyennes ont produit 25 a 35 cordes a 1'acre de bois a pate en 30 a 40 ans. La production aurait pu encore eire augmenMe par la pratique d'eclaircies qui auraient permis de recuperer la mortaliM.

Le charenyon du pin blanc est Ie seul ennemi serieux de l'epinette de Norvege qui ait eM rapporM jusqu'a present en Amerique du Nord. Cet insecte a cause des dommages occasionnels et etendus, mais generalement au Quebec du moins, les arb res ont subi les periodes d'infestation sans trop de pertes en volume bien que la qualiM des sciages ait ete diminuee. On suggere, dans la documentation sur Ie sujet, que l'extraction precoce des arbres susceptibles de dommages par Ie charenyon-ceux qui possedent une cime dense-dans les peuplements destines a la production des semences pourrait contribuer a maintenir et peut-etre a accroitre la resistance dans la generation suivante. II appert aussi qu'une augmen­tation sensible de la resistance ne peut provenir que de 1'emploi de races resistantes soit naturelIes, soit produites par la selection ou les croisements genetiques.

La croissance rapide de 1'epinette de Norvege et son adaptabiliM apparente a des stations de qualiM diverse justifient qu'on apporte une consideration serieuse a cette essence dans Ie reboisement des terres de culture abandonnees

34

dont la plus grande partie se trouve dans la region foresti?lre des Grands-Lacs et du Saint-Laurent. Afin d'assurer une exploitation effective, les principaux points suivants devraient faire l'objet de recherches :

1 . La croissance et Ie rendement des plantations existantes en liaison avec les facteurs de la station et du sol, et les effets des traitements culturaux sur Ie developpement du peuplement.

2 . Tous les aspects des relations entre l'epinette de Norvege et Ie charen90n du pin blanc.

3 . Le rendement des plantations de la seconde generation et, lorsque c'est possible, leur identification avec les peuplements-meres.

4 . La reaction de provenances choisies aux conditions de croissance qui existent . au Quebec, particulierement dans la zone des terres de culture abandonnees.

5 . Le progres des maladies dans les plus vieilles plantations OU des eclaircies commencent a etre effectuees et aussi lorsque les peuplements parviennent a maturite.

35

CI.' 0:>

APPENDIX I

Summary of measurements for all plots arranged from left in ascending order of mean annual height growth of dominants above breast height

Plantation

Plot ... . . . .... ....... . .... . ..... . ... . . . . . ... . . . .... . . ..... ..... . . .. Years since planting .. . ... . .... . . . .. . ... . . . . ... . .. . .. . . . ....... . . . .. Total age ..... . . . .. . . . . . . . . ........... . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ..... . .. Survival per cent ... . . . . . . . ....... .............. . .................. Trees per acre-Norway spruce ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... .. . .. . . . .. Trees per acre-other . . . . .... . . ... . . . . . ...... .... . .... ........ . . . .. Upper height (feet) · .. . . . . ..... . . . . .. . . . . . . .... . ..... .... ... . ... . . . . Breast height age (dominants) .. ...... . . . . .... . ..... . . ....... . . . ... M.A.!.-height of dominants above b.h . . .. . . . ......... . . ... . . . .. . .. Basal area (square feet)-Norway spruce .... . . . ... . ................ Basal area (square feet)-other .. . . ... . ..... ..... . . .. . . .. . ... . . . . . .. Average diameter (inches) . ..................... . .................. Average height (feet) .............................................. Total volume (cubic feet)-Norway spruce .. . ...... . . . .......... ... Total volume (cubic feet)-other ... . . . . ... . ...... . .. . . . . . .... . . .... Per cent dominants of total. ....... . . . . . . .... ......... . . . ..... . . ... Quality class" ................. . .. . ..................... . . . ........ M.A.!. volume (cubic feet) ..... . .......... . .... ....... . ... . . . .. .. . .

- - -------

'Upper height = average height of 100 largest trees per acre. " Quality class from British Forestry Commission yield tables. tThinnings included.

1 ---

1-1 35 39 37

500 100

35 29

1 . 0 55 12

4 . 4 29

820 190

20 IV 29

8 ---

8-10 35 39 68

1 , 180 30 39 29

1 . 2 106

3 4 . 0

30 1 , 620

44 16

IV 48

10 9 13 --- --- ---

10-1 9-1 13-1 41 34 45 45 38 49

- - 68 400 940 340 150 150 40

49 39 54 36 27 38

1 . 2 1 . 3 1 . 3 92 125 110 26 10 15

6 . 5 4 . 9 7 . 6 45 34 48

2 , 070 2 , 060 2, 560 560 150 360

18 32 29 IV IV III 64 65 92t

8 2 4 1 1 --- --- --- --- ---

8-6 2-1 4-2 1-4 1-3 39 38 34 36 35 43 42 38 40 39

- - 69 69 46 1 , 140 1 , 020 1 , 760 1 , 160 860

70 30 150 - -44 46 40 44 47 31 31 26 28 30

1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 4 1 . 4 1 . 4 128 152 114 156 168

7 5 18 - -4 . 5 5 . 2 3 . 4 5 . 0 6 . 0

32 38 30 36 42 2 , 180 2 , 900 1 , 790 2 , 740 3 , 400

120 100 320 - -17 20 18 19 24

III III III III III 59 79 62 76 97

---- ------

1 1 ---

1 1-2 37 41 64

750 230

46 29

1 . 4 116

30 5 . 3

4 1 2 , 250

600 23

III 77

C>.:l �

APPENDIX I

Summary of measurements for all plots arranged from left in ascending order of mean annual height growth of dominants above breast height (continued)

Plantation

Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Years since planting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . Total age . . ... . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Survival per cent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trees per acre-Norway spruce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trees per acre-other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Upper height (feet) *. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Breast height age (dominants) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . ... . . . M.A.!.-height of dominants above b.h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basal area (square feet)-Norway spruce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basal area (square feet)-other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average diameter (inches) . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . ... . . . .. . ... . . . . . . .... Average height (feet) . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total volume (cubic feet)-Norway spruce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total volume (cubic feet)-other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Per cent dominan ts of total . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quality class" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M.A.!. volume (cubic feet) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

--_. ---_._.- --- -- --

'U pper height = average height of 100 largest trees per acre. " Quality class from British Forestry Commission yield tables. tThinnings included

6

6-1 33 37 50

180 460

48 30

1 . 4 35

135 5 . 9

45 770

2 , 780 24 II

108

1 ---

1-2 35 39 56

1 , 010 -

45 28

1. 5 151

-5 . 2

39 2 , 830

-19

III 81

1 4 --- ---

1-5 4-1 35 33 39 37 50 59

920 1 , 380 410 85

47 45 29 27

1 . 5 1 . 5 108 154

65 17 4 . 7 4 . 5

42 38 2 , 090 2 , 830 1 , 300 360

13 26 III III

97 97

3 6 8 4 6 7 --- --- --- --- --- ----

3-2 6-3 8-4 4-3 6-2 7-2 38 31 40 33 33 34 42 35 44 37 37 38 48 39 - 61 44 69

380 140 590 1 , 590 160 480 - 340 40 70 450 390

55 48 54 43 51 46 33 28 32 24 29 25

1 . 5 1 . 5 1 . 6 1. 6 1 . 6 1 . 7 95 28 127 142 26 60

- 124 5 26 139 94 6 . 8 6 . 0 6 . 3 4 . 0 5 . 5 4 . 8

53 46 46 35 46 40 2 , 340 620 2 , 800 2 , 430 570 1 , 170

- 2 , 600 90 610 2 , 890 2 , 080 25 38 31 14 29 27 II II III III II III 98t 104 72 92 105 96

8 ----

8-.5 39 43

-800

10 .56 31

1. 7 150

1 5 . 9

49 3 , 410

10 22 II 87

APPENDIX I

Summary of measurements for all plots arranged from lett in ascending order of mean annual height growth of dominants above breast height (concluded)

Plantation

Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Years since planting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Survival per cent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trees per acre-Norway spruce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

� D�e�sr ��i�h�e

(fe�\��r : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Breast height age (dominants) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M.A.!.-height of dominants above b.h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basal area (square feet)-Norway spruce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basal area (square feet)-other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average diameter (inches) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average height (feet) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total volume (cubic feet)-Norway spruce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total volume (cubic feet)-other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Per cent dominants of total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quality class'*, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M.A.!. volume (cubic feet) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

·Upper height = average height of 100 largest trees per acre. " Quality class from British Forestry Commission yield tables. tThinnings included.

3

3-3 40 44 37

560

60 33

1 . 7 182

7 . 8 60

4 , 980

43 II

124

12

12-1 35 39 71

860 10 53 29

1 . 7 185

1 6 . 3

47 4 , 100

10 21 II

1 17

1 2 3 3

12-2 3-5 3-4 35 38 38 39 42 42 56 - -

660 760 680 - - -58 62 62 30 31 31

1 . 8 1 . 8 1 . 8 190 182 175 - - -7 . 3 6 . 6 6 . 8

49 57 57 4, 470 4 , 780 4 , 650

- - -26 25 34

I I I 128 126 122

3

3-1 38 42

640

61 30

1 . 9 140

6 . 3 52

3 , 390

23 III 103t

CI:l <0

-----

Diameter Class

1 2 3

Total

4 5 6 7 8 9

10 1 1

Total, all classes

Total, 4 in. and up

Total, basal area in square feet

Number

20 60

390

470

400 215

80 20 -

---

1 , 185

715

-

APPENDIX II

Per acre stand and stock tables for representative plots

-------- ------

Plot 8-10 Plot 4-2 Plot 2-1 Age = 35 Age = 34 Age = 38

Total Height Total Height Total Volume feet Number Volume feet Number Volume

- 7 30 - 10 5 -12 14 440 88 19 40 8

234 23 610 427 28 210 126

246 - 1 , 080 515 - 255 134

520 30 440 616 34 210 294 473 34 190 456 37 200 480 280 38 40 148 40 135 513 104 41 10 52 4 1 1 15 644 - - - - - 70 532 - - - - - 30 300 - - - - - - -- - - - - - -

1 , 623 - 1 , 760 1 , 787 - 1 , 015 2 , 897

1 , 377 - 680 1 , 272 - 760 2 , 763

- 105 . 6 - - 1 1 4 . 4 - -

--

Plot 8-5 Age = 39

Height Total Height feet Number Volume feet

- - - -16 20 4 12 25 85 42 20

- 105 46 -

33 150 210 31 37 125 338 43 41 180 810 50 45 125 800 52 47 85 740 54 49 20 226 56 - 10 145 58 - 5 92 60

- 805 3 , 407 -- 700 3 , 361 -

151 . 5 - - 150 . 5

� o

Diameter Class

1 2 3

Total

4 5 6 7 8 9

10 1 1

Total, all classes

Total, 4 in. and up

Total, basal area in square feet

APPENDIX II

Per acre stand and stock tables for representative plots (continued)

Plot 12-1 Plot 3-5 Age = 35 Age = 38

Total Height Total Height Number Volume feet Number Volume feet

- - - - - -- - - - - -45 32 31 20 18 38

45 32 - 20 18 -

115 184 40 120 228 48 205 554 43 43 464 52 170 714 46 140 686 55 160 944 48 135 945 58

75 615 51 85 816 60 70 756 53 90 1 , 107 61 15 212 56 15 231 62

5 88 58 15 286 63

860 4 , 099 - 765 4 , 781 -

815 4 , 067 - 745 4 , 763 -

- - 184 . 7 - - 182 . 1

Plot 12-2 Age = 35

Total Height Number Volume feet

- - -5 1 1 6

1 5 1 0 31

20 1 1 -

65 104 40 75 202 43

135 567 46 105 620 48 100 820 51

60 648 53 50 705 56 45 796 58

655 4 , 473 -

635 4 , 462 -

- - 189 . 5

..,. I-'

Diameter Class

1 2 3

Total

4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11

Total, all classes

Total, 4 in. and up

Total, basal area in square feet

APPENDIX II

Per acre stand and stock tables for representative plots (continued)

Plot 8-10 Plot 4-2 Plot 2-1 Age = 35 Age = 34 Age = 38

Total Height Total Height Total Number Volume feet Number Volume feet · . Number Volume

20 - 7 30 - 10 5 -60 12 14 440 88 19 40 8

390 234 23 610 427 28 210 126

470 246 - 1, 080 515 - 255 134

400 520 30 440 616 34 210 294 215 473 34 190 456 37 200 480

80 280 38 40 148 40 135 513 20 104 41 10 52 41 115 644 - - - - - - 70 532 - - - - - - 30 300 - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

1, 185 1 , 623 - 1, 760 1 , 787 - 1, 015 2 , 897

715 1 , 377 - 680 1 , 272 - 760 2 , 763

- - 105 . 6 - - 114 . 4 - -

Plot 8-5 Age = 39

Height Total Height feet Number Volume feet

- - - -16 20 4 12 25 85 42 20

- 105 46 -

33 150 2 1 0 3 1 3 7 125 338 43 41 180 8 10 50 45 125 800 52 47 85 740 54 49 20 226 56 - 10 145 58 - 5 92 60

- 805 3 , 407 -- 700 3 , 361 -

151 . 5 - - 150 . 5

fI:>. tv

--

Diameter Class

1 2 3

Total

4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11

Total, all classes

Total, 4 in. and up

Total, basal area in square feet

APPENDIX II

Per acre stand and stock tables for representative plots (concluded)

---------------

Plot 12-] Plot 3-5 Age = 35 Age = 38

Total Height Total Height Number Volume feet Number Volume feet

- - - - - -- - - - - -45 32 3 1 20 18 38

45 32 - 20 18 -

115 184 40 120 228 48 205 554 43 43 464 52 170 714 46 140 686 55 160 944 48 135 945 58

75 615 51 85 816 60 70 756 53 90 1, 107 61 15 212 56 15 231 62

5 88 58 15 286 63

860 4 , 099 - 765 4 , 781 -

815 4 , 067 - 745 4 , 763 -

- - 184 . 7 - - 182 . 1

Plot 12-2 Age = 35

Total Height Number Volume feet

- - -5 1 16

15 10 31

20 11 -

65 104 40 75 202 43

135 567 46 105 620 48 100 820 51

60 648 53. 50 705 56 45 796 58

655 4 , 473 -

635 4 , 462 -

- - 189 . 5

REFERENCES

ARMSON, K. A. 1959. An example of the effect of past use on fertility levels and growth of Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst.) University of Toronto, Faculty of Forestry Tech. Report. No. 1 .

ASHMAN, R . 1 . 1958. The possibilities o f Norway spruce i n Maine. Proc. 5th Northeast. For. Tree Improv. ConL pp. 43-45.

BALDWIN, H. 1. 1949. Height growth of Norway spruce plantations. New Hampshire Forestry and Recreation Dept., Fox For. Note 38.

BELYEA, H. C. 1924. Comparative height growth of three planted conifers. Jour. For. 22: 389-391. BRITISH FORESTRY COMMISSION. 1952. Growth and yield of conifers in Great Britain. Bull.

No. 10. Lond. CARLAW, JAMES B. 1958. Report of the committee on improvement of spruce. Proc. 6th Northeast.

For. Tree Improv. Conf. pp. 37-40. CHAPAIS, J. C. 1891 . The Canadian foresters' illustrated guide. 199 pp. J. A. Langlois, Stationer,

Quebec, P.Q. CRAIGHEAD, F. C. 1950. Insect enemies of eastern forests. II + 679 pp. U.S. Dept. of Agric.,

Misc. Pub. No. 651. U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash. 25, D.C. CUNNINGHAM, G. C. 1953. Growth and development of coniferous plantations at Grand'Mere,

P.Q. Canada, Dept. of Resources and Development, Forestry Branch, For. Res. Div., Silv. Res. Note No. 103.

DOMINION FOREST SERVICE. 1944. Interpolated volume tables (total volume) for use in compila­tion of sample plot data. Canada, Dept. of Mines and Resources, Misc. Series No. 3.

EHRHART, E. 0., and C. P. SHULL. 1940. Experimental cutting in Norway spruce plantations. Pa. Dept. of Forests and Waters. Service Bull. 2.

FRANTZ, H. R. 1955. High spruce. Jour. For. 53(8) : 518 GREEN, ALAN W., and LEE Roy GREEN. 1959. Fast-starting species best in some Iowa plantations.

U.S. For. Serv., Cen. States For. Exp. Sta. Note No. 133. HAWLEY, R. C., and H. J. LUTZ. 1943. Establishment, development, and management of conifer

plantations in the Eli Whitney Forest, New Haven, Conn. Yale University School of Forestry Bull. No. 53.

HEIMBURGER, C., and M. J. HOLST. 1955. Notes from a trip to the southern United States, January 1953. For. Chron. 31 (1) .

HETZEL, J. E. 1941. Forest plantations in northwestern Pennsylvania. Allegheny For. Exp. Sta. Occasional Paper 3.

HILEY, W. E. 1956. Economics of plantations. 216 pp. Faber and Faber Ltd., London, England. HOLST, M. J. 1955. Breeding for weevil resistance in Norway spruce. Z. Forstgenet 4 (2) :33-37. HOSLEY, N. W. 1936. Norway spruce in the northeastern United States, a study of existing

plantations. Harvard Forest Bull. No. 19. HOUGH, A. F. 1943. Norway spruce for pulpwood. Jour. For. 41 (1). HUGHES, E. L., and O. L. LOUCKS. 1962. Rapid growth of Norway and some native spruces in

New Brunswick. Pulp and Paper Magazine of Canada, Woodlands Review, March 1962.

JAMESON, J. S. 1956. Planting of conifers in the Spruce Woods Forest Reserve, Manitoba 1904-1929. Canada, Dept. Northern Affairs and National Resources, Forestry Branch, For. Res. Div., Tech. Note No. 28.

JORGENSEN, E., and J. D. CAFLEY. 1961 . Branch and stem cankers of white and Norway spruce in Ontario. For. Chron. 37 (4).

KOSTLER, JOSEPH. 1956. Silviculture. XVI + 416 pp. Oliver & Boyd, London. KRAJICEK, J. E. 1955. A good Norway spruce plantation in Iowa. Cen. States For. Exp. Sta.

Note No. 90. LADOUCEUR, G., and M. GRANDTNER. 1961. Les terres a reboiser du Quebec meridional. Fonds

de Recherches forestieres de I'Universite Laval. Bull. N°. 4. LINDQUIST, B. 1948. The main varieties of Picea abies (L.) Karst in Europe with a contribution

to the theory of a forest vegetation in Scandinavia during the last Pleistocene glaciation. Acta Horti I3eI'giani XIV. Stockholm.

43

LINTEAU, A. 1957. Experimental fertilizing at Grand'Mere, P.Q. Canada, Dept. of Northern . Affairs and National Resources, Forestry Branch, For. Res. Div., File Report No. 1385.

LITTLEFIELD, E. W. 1942. Forest planting in New York. New York State Conservation Dept. Bull. 2.

LOGAN, K. T. 1951. Development of one-year-old Norway spruce and white spruce planted beneafu. a girdled mixedwood stand. Canada, Dept. of Res. and Div., For. Res. Div., Silv. Leaflet No. 53.

MACARTHUR, J. D. 1957. The effects of manure on a white and Norway spruce plantation at Grand'Mere, R.Q. Canada, Dept. of Northern Affairs and National Resources, Forestry Branch, For. Res. Div., Tech. Note No. 64.

----1959. Growth of jack, red and Scots pine and white spruce plantations, 1922 to 1956 at Grand'Mere, Que. Woodlands Review, Pulp and Paper Magazine of Canada, Vol. 60. Convention.

McLEOD, J. W. 1956. Plantations of the Acadia Forest Experiment Station. Canada, Dcpt. of Northern Affairs and National Resources, Forestry Branch, For. Res. Div., Tech. Note No. 31.

MINCKLER, L. S. 1940. Early planting experiments in the spruce-fir type of the southern Ap­palachians. Jour. For. 38(8) : 651-54.

MULLOY, G. A. 1935. Exotic trees in Canada. Canada, Dept. of the Interior. (Paper presentcd to the Fourth British Empire Forestry Conference) .

OUELLETTE, G . B . , and G. BARD. 1962. Observations o n a canker and resinosis o f white and Norway spruce. Dept. of For., Canada, For. Ent. and Path. Br. Bi-monthly Prog. Rep. 18(2).

PAINE, L. A. 1960. Nutrient deficiencies and climatic factors causing low volume production and active deterioration in white spruce. Studies in Forest Pathology XXII. Canada, Dept. of Agric., For. Biol. Div., Pub. 1067.

PARROT, L. 1960. De la variabilite genetique de la densite du bois chez l'epicea (Picea excelsa Link.) Annales de l'Ecole Nationale des Eaux et Forets, Tome XVII, Fascicule 3.

ROCK, DAVID A. 1960. Growth of planted white and Norway spruce. New Hampshire Forestry and Recreation Commission. Fox. For. Note No. 78.

RUDOLPH, P. O. 1950. Forest plantations in the Lake States. U.S. Dept. Agric. Tech. Bull No. 1010.

RUDOLPH, P. O., and P. E. SLABAUGH.' 1958. Growth and development of 12 seed sources of Norway spruce in Lower Michigan (15-year results). Lake States For. Exp. Sta. Tech. Note No. 537.

SANTON, J. B. Hl63. Analysis of pubescence in Norway spruce provenances. Canada, Dept. of For., For. Res. Br., Unpub. report.

SHEPARD, H. B. 1921. Choice of species for use in plantations of pulp and paper companies in the north. Jour. For. 19 : 519-525.

SPURR, S. H. 1956. Plantation success in the Harvard Forest as related to planting site and cleaning, 1907-47. Jour. For. 54(9) : 577-579.

STEVENSON, DONALD A., and R. A. BARTOO. 1940. Coniferous forest plantings in control Pennsyl­vania. Pa. State College, School of Agric. and Exp. Sta. Bull. 394.

STIELL, W. M. 1958. Pulpwood plantations in Ontario and Quebec. C.P.P.A. Woodlands Section Index 1770 (F-2).

U.S. FOREST SERVICE. 1948. Woody-plant seed manual. U.S. Dept. of Agric. Misc. Pub. No. 654. ----1961a. Planting sites in the northeast. Northeast. For. Exp. Sta. Paper No. 157. ---1961b. Tree planting in the Allegheny Section. Northeast. For. Exp. Sta. Paper No. 158. VUOKILA, YRJO . 1956. Etela-Suomen hoidettujen kuusikoiden kehityksesta. (On the development

of managed spruce stands in Southern Finland). Comm. Inst. For. Fenn. 48.1 . WRIGHT, JONATHAN W . 1956. Cultivated spruces i n the Philadelphia area. Morris Arboretum

Bull. 7 (4).

44