Forecasting production in thinned clonal stands of Tectona grandis in Eastern Amazonia
Abstract
Aim of the study: We investigated the most suitable thinning ages and intensities to maximize productivity and minimize the rotation age of Tectona grandis clonal plantations in the Brazilian Eastern Amazon.
Area of study: Capitão Poço, State of Pará, Eastern Amazonia, Brazil.
Materials and methods: We used diameter, height, and volume data from 72 permanent plots measured on nine occasions. We determined the classification of forest sites using the generalized algebraic difference approach (GADA). Clutter’s segmented model was used to simulate different intensities of basal area reduction, determining the technical ages according to the projected increments.
Main results: The polymorphic site curves generated by the GADA method revealed that there were sites with different productive characteristics. The Clutter model produced compatible projections of basal area and volume that followed the behavior of the productivity classes. The final production was maximized when three thinning intensities (basal area reductions) were applied: 1st thinning (50%), between the ages of 3.5 to 4.2 years; 2nd thinning (50%), between the ages of 6.1 to 7.3 years; and 3rd thinning (25%), between the ages of 10.6 to 12.8 years. Projected rotation ages ranged from 13.9 to 16.6 years earlier than seminal plantings. The simulations increased the net volume by 8.3%, on average, compared to no thinning.
Research highlights: Simulations with three thinnings maximized production compared to the no thinning scenario. The time interval between thinnings was less than five years. The research results can help forest management decision-making and reveal production increases of T. grandis clonal stands in a shorter time.
Downloads
References
Adu-Bredu S, Bi AFT, Bouillet JP, Mé MK, Kyei SY, Saint-André L, 2008. An explicit stem profile model for forked and un-forked teak (Tectona grandis) trees in West Africa. For Ecol Manage 255: 2189-2203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.12.052
Alvares CA, Stape JL, Sentelhas PC, Gonçalves JLM, Sparovek G, 2013. Köppen's climate classification map for Brazil. Meteorol Zeitschrift 22: 711-728. https://doi.org/10.1127/0941-2948/2013/0507
Assmann E, 1970. The principles of forest yield study: Studies in the organic production, structure, increment and yield of forest stands. Pergamon Press, Oxford. 355 pp. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-006658-5.50004-2
Azevedo GB, Oliveira EKB, Azevedo GTOS, Buchmann HM, Miguel EP, Rezende AV, 2016. Modeling production by stand and diameter distribution in Eucalyptus plantations. Sci For 44: 383-392. https://doi.org/10.18671/scifor.v44n110.11
Bermejo I, Cañellas I, San Miguel A, 2004. Growth and yield models for teak plantations in Costa Rica. For Ecol Manage 189: 97-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2003.07.031
Bezerra AF, Milagres FR, Silva ML, Leite HG, 2011. Economic analysis of settlements of Tectona grandis submitted to thinning in Mato Grosso. Cerne 17: 583-592. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-77602011000400018
Campos JCC, Leite HG, 2017. Forest measurement, 5th ed. UFV, Viçosa Minas Gerais. 636 pp.
Cañadas-L A, Andrade-Candell J, Domínguez-A JM, Molina-H C, Schnabel-D O, Vargas-Hernández JJ, Wehenkel C, 2018. Growth and yield models for teak planted as living fences in coastal Ecuador. Forests 9: 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9020055
Cieszewski CJ, 2001. Three methods of deriving advanced dynamic site equations demonstrated on inland Douglas-fir site curves. Can J For Res 31: 165-173. https://doi.org/10.1139/x00-132
Cieszewski CJ, Bailey RL, 2000. Generalized algebraic difference approach: A new methodology for derivation of biologically based dynamic site equations. For Sci 46: 116 -126.
Cieszewski CJ, Strub M. 2008. Generalized algebraic difference approach derivation of dynamic site equations with polymorphism and variable asymptotes from Richards, Weibull, and other exponential functions. For Sci 54: 303-315.
Clutter JL, 1963. Compatible growth and yield models for loblolly pine. For Sci 9: 354-371.
Clutter JL, Fortson JC, Pienaar LV, Brister GH, Bailey RL, 1983. Timber management: A quantitative approach. John Wiley & Sons, NY, London. 334 pp.
Cuong ND, Volker M, Köhl M, 2019. Facilitating objective forest land use decisions by site classification and tree growth modeling: A case study from Vietnam. IForest 12: 542-550.
Elzhov T, Mullen K, Spiess A, Bolker B, 2016. Package "minpack. lm." https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/minpack.lm/index.html
EMBRAPA, 2013. Brazilian soil classification system. Brasília. 353 pp. https://www.embrapa.br/busca-de-publicacoes/-/publicacao/1094001/brazilian-soil-classification-system
García O, Burkhart HE, Amateis RL, 2011. A biologically-consistent stand growth model for loblolly pine in the Piedmont physiographic region, USA. For Ecol Manage 262: 2035-2041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.08.047
Gonçalves JLM, Stape JL, Laclau JP, Bouillet JP, Ranger J, 2008. Assessing the effects of early silvicultural management on long-term site productivity of fast-growing eucalypt plantations: The Brazilian experience. South For 70: 105-118. https://doi.org/10.2989/SOUTH.FOR.2008.70.2.6.534
Graudal L, Moestrup S, 2017. The genetic variation in natural and planted teak forests: Characterisation, use and conservation for the future. In: The global teak study analysis, evaluation and future potential of teak resources; Kollert W, Kleine M (eds). pp: 19-36. Vienna, Austria.
Gregoire T, Schanbenberger O, Barrett JP, 1995. Linear modelling of irregularly spaced, unbalanced, longitudinal data from permanent-plot measurements. Can J For Res 25: 137-156. https://doi.org/10.1139/x95-017
Gujarati, DN, Porter, DC, 2008. Basic Econometrics, 5th ed. McGrawHill, NY. 800 pp.
Haglöf, 2007. Vertex IV and Transponder T3 manual. Sweden. 271 pp. https://www.haglof.jp/download/vertex_iv_me.pdf
Hidayati F, Ishiguri F, Iizuka K, Makino K, Tanabe J, Marsoem SN, et al., 2013. Growth characteristics, stress-wave velocity, and Pilodyn penetration of 15 clones of 12-year-old Tectona grandis trees planted at two different sites in Indonesia. J Wood Sci 59: 249-254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10086-012-1320-4
IBA, 2020. Brazilian tree industry annual report - base year 2019. Assoc Brasleira Árvores 160. http://datafiles/publicacoes/relatorios/relatorio-iba-2020.pdf
IBGE, 2012. Technical manual of the Brazilian vegetation. IBGE, Rio de Janeiro. 271 pp. https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br
INMET, 2020. BDMEP - Meteorological data-base for teaching and research. http://www.inmet.gov.br/portal/index.php?r=estacoes/estacoesConvencionais.
Kanninen M, Pérez D, Montero M, Víquez E, 2004. Intensity and timing of the first thinning of Tectona grandis plantations in Costa Rica: Results of a thinning trial. For Ecol Manage 203: 89-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.07.054
Kollert W, Kleine M (eds), 2017. The global teak study: Analysis, evaluation and future potential of teak resources. IUFRO World series volume 36 the global teak study. 52 pp. https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=XF2018002119
Leite HG, Silva MLM, Binoti DHB, Fardin L, Takizawa FH, 2011. Estimation of inside-bark diameter and heartwood diameter for Tectona grandis Linn. trees using artificial neural networks. Eur J For Res 130: 263-269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-010-0427-7
Leuschner W, 1990. Forest regulation, harvest scheduling, and planning techniques. Wiley-Blackwell, NY. 304 pp.
Medeiros RA, Paiva HN, Leite HG, Salles TT, Araújo Jr CA, Dávila FS, 2017. Technical age for the first thinning of teak stands in different spacings. Sci For 45: 705-716. https://doi.org/10.18671/scifor.v45n116.11
Midgley S, Mounlamai K, Flanagan A, Phengsopha K, 2015. Global markets for plantation teak; implications for growers in LAO PDR. http://laoplantation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/VALTIP-Teak-Market-Report-Midgley-et-al.pdf
Moya R, Gaitán-Álvarez J, Ortiz-Malavassi E, Berrocal A, Fernández-Sólis D, 2020. Equations for predicting heartwood merchantable volume and tradable sawlog in Tectona grandis. J Trop For Sci 32: 379-390. https://doi.org/10.26525/jtfs2020.32.4.379
Mulyadiana A, Trikoesoemaningtyas, Siregar IZ, 2020. Evaluation of early growth performance of 41 clones of teak (Tectona grandis Linn. f.) at four microsites in Purwakarta, Indonesia. J For Res 31: 901-907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-019-00878-0
Novaes DM, Santos ACA, Soares CPB, Paiva HN, Reis GG, Monte MA, et al., 2017. Modeling Tectona grandis tree and stand growth using stem analysis and permanent plot data. Rev Arvore 41(5): e410503. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-90882017000500003
Nunifu TK, Murchison HG, 1999. Provisional yield models of teak (Tectona grandis Linn F.) plantations in northern Ghana. For Ecol Manage 120: 171-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00529-5
Orrego S, Montes C, Restrepo HI, Bullock BO, Zapata M, 2020. Modeling height growth for teak plantations in Colombia using the reducible stochastic differential equation approach. J For Res 32: 1035-1045. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-020-01174-y
Pachas ANA, Sakanphet S, Soukkhy O, Lao M, Savathvong S, Newby JC, et al., 2019. Initial spacing of teak (Tectona grandis) in northern Lao PDR: Impacts on the growth of teak and companion crops. For Ecol Manage 435: 77-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.12.031
Pereira JC, Dias PAS, Mergulhão RC, Thiersch CR, Faria LC, 2016. Clutter's growth and yield model with latent component to predictions of volume in a plantation of Eucalyptus urograndis with data spatially correlated. Sci For 44: 393-403. https://doi.org/10.18671/scifor.v44n110.12
Quintero-Méndez MA, Jerez-Rico M, 2017. Heuristic forest planning model for optimizing timber production and carbon sequestration in teak plantations. IForest 10: 430-439. https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor1733-009
R Core Team, 2022. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/
Robinson AP, Duursma RA, Marshall JD, 2005. A regression-based equivalence test for model validation: Shifting the burden of proof. Tree Physiol 25: 903-913. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/25.7.903
Roveda M, Dias AN, Filho AF, Scavinski V, Castro RR, 2016. Identity test models applied for the construction of site index and curves for production of Eucalyptus grandis. Sci For 44: 115-127. https://doi.org/10.18671/scifor.v44n109.11
Sajjaduzzaman M, Subhan Mollick A, Mitlohner R, Muhammed N, Kamal MT, 2005. Site index for teak (Tectona grandis Linn. F.) in forest plantations of Bangladesh. Int J Agric Biol 7: 547-549. http://www.fspublishers.org/published_papers/78216_..pdf
Seta WGW, Hidayati F, Na'iem M, 2021. Impact of thinning and pruning on tree growth, stress wave velocity, and pilodyn penetration response of clonal teak (Tectona grandis) plantation. Forest Sci Technol 17: 57-66.
Shapiro SS, Wilk MB, 1965. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52: 591. https://doi.org/10.2307/2333709
Souza HJ, Miguel EP, Nascimento RGM, Cabacinha CD, Rezende AV, Santos ML, 2022. Thinning-response modifier term in growth models : An application on clonal Tectona grandis Linn F. stands at the amazonian region. For Ecol Manag 511: 120109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2022.120109
Stape JL, Gonçalves JLM, Gonçalves AN, 2001. Relationships between nursery practices and field performance for Eucalyptus plantations in Brazil: A historical overview and its increasing importance. New For 22: 19-41. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012271616115
Tewari VP, Mariswamy KM, Arunkumar AN, 2013. Total and merchantable volume equations for Tectona grandis Linn. f. plantations in Karnataka, India. J Sustain For 32: 213-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2013.762187
Tewari VP, Alvarez-Gonzalez JG, García O, 2014. Developing a dynamic growth model for teak plantations in India. For Ecosyst 1: 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/2197-5620-1-9
Upadhyay A, Eid T, Sankhayan PL, 2005. Construction of site index equations for even aged stands of Tectona grandis (teak) from permanent plot data in India. For Ecol Manage 212: 14-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.02.058
Valeriano MFO, Miguel EP, Vasconcelos PGA, Nappo ME, Angelo H, Rezende AV, et al., 2020. Are models of volumetric production at the diametric distribution and total stand level mutually compatible? J For Res 31: 1691-1698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-018-0868-2
Copyright (c) 2022 CSIC_INIA
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
© CSIC. Manuscripts published in both the printed and online versions of this Journal are the property of Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, and quoting this source is a requirement for any partial or full reproduction.
All contents of this electronic edition, except where otherwise noted, are distributed under a “Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International” (CC BY 4.0) License. You may read here the basic information and the legal text of the license. The indication of the CC BY 4.0 License must be expressly stated in this way when necessary.
Self-archiving in repositories, personal webpages or similar, of any version other than the published by the Editor, is not allowed.
