Silviculture for Plantations Silviculture for Plantations and Restoration in Braziland Restoration in Brazil

Jose Luiz Stapejlstape@ncsu.edu

FOR 414 – World ForestryMarch 2009

NC STATE UNIVERSITY

TopicsTopics

- Eucalyptus forests in Brazil

- From Empirical to Process-Based Forest Research

- Atlantic Forest Restoration: Using Plantation’s Concepts

World Forests, FAO 2000

Brazil = 8.511.965 km2, Almost 50% Forest

ClimateClimateMean Annual Temp Mean Annual Temp

= 15 to 29= 15 to 29ººCC60 to 8460 to 84ººF F

Rain Rain = 700 to 2500 mm/yr= 700 to 2500 mm/yr

28 to 98 in/yr 28 to 98 in/yr

Elevation 90% < 800 m Elevation 90% < 800 m < 2600 ft< 2600 ft

So, why plantations?

Brazilian PopulationBrazilian Population

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000

Year

Popu

latio

n (M

illio

ns)

30 % Urban

80 % Urban

10 % Urban

European ImmigrationEuropean Immigration

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000

Year

Pris

tine

Are

as (%

)

Atlantic Forest

(7%)

Savanna(50%)

Amazon(86%)

Impact on the BiomesImpact on the Biomes

São Paulo State DeforestationSão Paulo State Deforestation

Dr. Navarro and friends in a 1925 PictureDr. Navarro and friends in a 1925 Picture

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

Year

Accu

mul

ated

Pla

nted

Are

a (1

000

ha)

Eucalyptus

Others

Pinus

Seeds sources: Sao Paulo State Forests, USP Forests, Australia, USA, Central America Countries

BRAZIL CONTEXTBRAZIL CONTEXT-- 6 Mha 6 Mha Eucalyptus, Pinus, Acacia, TectonaEucalyptus, Pinus, Acacia, Tectona-- 44--fold Increase in Productivity (40 yrs) fold Increase in Productivity (40 yrs)

1960s1960s

6 Mg ha6 Mg ha--11 yy--11 160 ft160 ft33 acac--11 yy--11

ActualActual

25 Mg ha25 Mg ha--11 yy--11 700 ft700 ft33 acac--11 yy--11

-- ShortShort--Rotation, Wood PlotRotation, Wood Plot--Level StudiesLevel Studies-- Yield Models: SiteYield Models: Site--SpeciesSpecies--Specific (SI, BA)Specific (SI, BA)

Typical Imported Seeds Plantation - 1970

The Same Area Today E.grandis Clone

Slash Slash ManagementManagement

(No Burn)(No Burn)

SubsoilersSubsoilers

35 kg P/ha (31 lb P/ac)

No Fertilization

Eucalyptus grandisEucalyptus grandis x x urophyllaurophylla 1.5 year1.5 year--oldold

The Same Area Today E.grandis Clone

30 to 40% Genetics

60 to 70% Silviculture

-- Inadequate ClimatesInadequate Climates

-- Inadequate SoilsInadequate Soils

-- Not Tested ClonesNot Tested Clones

-- WNPP < 500 g mWNPP < 500 g m--22yryr--11

Extreme (Low) ValuesExtreme (Low) Values

-- Adequate ClimatesAdequate Climates

-- Adequate SoilsAdequate Soils

-- Local Selected Clones Local Selected Clones

-- FertilizationFertilization

-- Weeds and Pests ControlWeeds and Pests Control

-- WNPP up to 4000 g mWNPP up to 4000 g m--22yryr--11

4 years4 years--oldold

==++

EnvironmentEnvironment

GeneticsGenetics

ManagementManagement

1 year 6 to 8 years

Tropical plantation ecosystemTropical plantation ecosystem

Empirical Approach Restricts Extrapolations Empirical Approach Restricts Extrapolations Across Spatial and Temporal Scales:Across Spatial and Temporal Scales:

- Environmental and Management Changes

Global CyclesResource

SustainabilityWood

Short LongTemporal Scale

Spat

ial S

cale

Smal

l

L

arge

-- Process-Based Models- Production Ecology Plot-Level Studies Trials

- Sustainability and Resource Use- Global Cycles: C, Water, Nutrients

C sequestration: 345 million ha tropics

Evapotranspiration (mm yr-1)

Net

Prim

ary

Prod

uctio

n (g

C m

-2yr

-1)

Forest

Woodlands

Grasslands

Schimel et al. 1996

Brazil Eucalyptus

Plantations

World Ecosystems

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

ft3 ac-1 y-1

Rainfall

Blue = Wetter

Yellow = Drier

To Characterize the Production Ecology of To Characterize the Production Ecology of Clonal Clonal EucalyptusEucalyptus Plantations:Plantations:

Transect 14 stands of Transect 14 stands of E.grandis E.grandis x x urophylla urophylla along along a geographic gradienta geographic gradient

. Biomass regression for above. Biomass regression for above-- and belowground and belowground

. Specific edaphic attributes. Specific edaphic attributes

Sampling:Sampling:

Rainfall (mm yr-1)800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

MA

I (M

g ha

-1 y

r-1)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

35

46

1110

1413

1

7

8 9

2

12

MAI = - 7.1 + 0.022 Rainfallr2 = 0.80, P < 0.0001

Site Index (m, at age 5)14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32

Roo

t:Abo

vegr

ound

Rat

io (R

:A)

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

35

46

1110

14 13

1 78

9

2

12

R:A = 0.495 - 0.012 SIr2 = 0.55, P = 0.002

MAI:MAI:No edaphic effect (Fertilized Forests)No edaphic effect (Fertilized Forests)

Root:Above PartitioningRoot:Above Partitioning ::Ratio Decreased With ProductivityRatio Decreased With Productivity

Rainfall Dominant Growth FactorRainfall Dominant Growth Factor+ 2.2 Mg ha+ 2.2 Mg ha--11 yy--11 per 100 mm yper 100 mm y--11

Results:Results: 800

150ft3 ac-1 y-1

Rainfall (mm yr-1)600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Vap

or P

ress

ure

Def

icit

(kP

a)

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

3

54

611 10

1413

1

7

8

9

2

12

VPD = 0.95 + 430 / Rainfallr2 = 0.72, P < 0.001

average VPD (kPa)1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7

WU

E (

kg m

-3)

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

3

5

4

6

1110

14

13

1

78

9

2

12

r2 = 0.33, P = 0.03

ResourceResource--UseUse--Efficiency:Efficiency:

LightLight-- and Nand N--useuse--efficiency Increased with Rainfall (Productivity): efficiency Increased with Rainfall (Productivity): Higher stomatal conductance and aboveground allocationHigher stomatal conductance and aboveground allocation

Rainfall (mm yr-1)600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

LUE

(g M

J-1),

WU

E (k

g m

-3)

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0 NU

E (kg kg

-1)

0

200250300350400450

NUEr2 = 0.34 (P = 0.02)

LUEr2 = 0.46 (P < 0.01)

WUEr2 = 0.37 (P = 0.02)

Water Use Efficiency = Water Use Efficiency = ff (1/ VPD)(1/ VPD)

BEPP Experimental NetworkBEPP Experimental NetworkBrasil Eucalyptus Produtividade PotentialBrasil Eucalyptus Produtividade Potential

www.ipef.br/bepp/

6

34

5

12

Capricórnio

Equador

7

8

6

34

5

12

Capricórnio

Equador

7

8

6

34

5

12

Capricórnio

Equador

7

8

BEPP BEPP –– Main ObjectivesMain Objectives

•• To estimate the To estimate the potential productivitypotential productivity and and efficiencyefficiencyuse of resources of use of resources of Eucalyptus Eucalyptus genotypesgenotypes in Brazilin Brazil

•• To determine the To determine the C fixation, allocation and storageC fixation, allocation and storageof of EucalyptusEucalyptus plantations under plantations under water, nutrient and water, nutrient and dominancedominance manipulationsmanipulations

•• To test how stand structure and dominance To test how stand structure and dominance influence productioninfluence production

•• To develop information for management To develop information for management applications to increase wood production and applications to increase wood production and sustain the environmentsustain the environment

BASIC TREATMENTS

FertilizationFertilization IrrigationIrrigation PlantingPlanting CodeCode

PotentialPotential IrrigatedIrrigated UniformUniform FIUFIU

PotentialPotential IrrigatedIrrigated Heterog.Heterog. FIHFIH

PotentialPotential NoNo UniformUniform FNUFNU

TraditionalTraditional IrrigatedIrrigated UniformUniform TIUTIU

TraditionalTraditional NoNo UniformUniform TNUTNU

2.82.8 5.85.8

gs – per CloneJan 2007

DPV (kPa)

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

gs (m

mol

/m²/s

)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

ARABSCCOPVERIPBCENVCP

Fine root distribution

Partial Results…

Day of Year

213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222

Wat

er U

se (L

Day

-1)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

FNUFIU

• Irrigated trees has 20% higher transpiration

• They growth 20 to 30% more wood

• WUE of Irrigated Plots equal ou higher than Rainfed Plots

Forest - Center

MAI = m³/ha/yr

Also Centered in Water

Liters/ctch/yr

Trad + F + I + FI

IMA

(m³/h

a/an

o)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

3840

50 52

ft3 ac-1 y-1

532560

700 728

Genetics Genetics + +

Bad SilvicultureBad Silviculture

Genetics Genetics + +

Good SilvicultureGood Silviculture

= 100.000 ha

ForestForestPlantationsPlantations

WOOD PRODUCTS INDUSTRY (2002)

Product UN1000

Production DomesticConsumption

SourcePlanted(1) Native(2)

Pulp t 8.020 5.020 100% -

Paper t 7.800 6.879 100% -

Charcoal mdc 26.200 26.200 68% 32%

Sawnwood m3 22.300 20.000 35% 65%

Plywood m3 2.600 900 60% 40%

MDF m3 845 716 100% -

Particleboard m3 1.800 1.800 100% -

OSB m3 90 80 100% -

Fiberboard m3 507 295 100% -

EGP m3 285 220 100% -

Mouldings m³ 490 50 40% 60%

Doors um 6.300 4.700 70% 30%

Floors M2 22,50 15,20 50% 50%

Blocks / Blanks m3 430 360 100% -(1) Industrial roundwood: 110 millions m³

(2) Industrial roundwood: 66 millions m³

Pristine Forest42%

Regenerated Forest18%

Grassland20%

Agriculture9%

Others10%

Plantations1%0.7%

0

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

9.000

2005 2010 2015 2020

1.0

00

ha

Pinus Eucalyptus

Brazil’s Plantation Projections

2003 – 790,000 ac

2004 – 1,148,000 ac

2005 – 1,366,000 ac

2006 – 1,548,000 ac

Plantation Plantation -- ConclusionConclusion

•• Brazil has a high potential to produce multipurpose Brazil has a high potential to produce multipurpose wood from different species with high productivity wood from different species with high productivity and using less landand using less land

•• Plantations must be continuously study to be Plantations must be continuously study to be correctly managed for the longcorrectly managed for the long--term sustainabilityterm sustainability

Effects of silvicultural practices on productivity of Atlantic Forest restoration plantation

OVERAL CONTEXT

- 20,000 vascular plants (6,000 endemic)

- 190 reptile species (60 endemic)

- 250 mammals species (55 endemic)

Atlantic Forest Formation

• One of the world’s greatest centers of tropical biodiversity

On these areas:

• Lives 67% of the population

• 80% GDP is generated

Atlantic Forest Area

• Highly threatened by deforestation and degradation

Source: http://mapas.sosma.org.br/

Original extent

Remaining areas (less than 10%)

The Atlantic Forest degradation

coffee plantations

sugar cane plantations

Pasture

Abandoned marginal lands that cannot be rehabilitated for either agricultural or

intensive commercial forestry production (Engel & Parrotta, 2001).

Actual Situation

• Lands with high levels of degradation

Nowadays…

Restoration activities only focus on species composition and fauna/flora interactions.

Silvicultural activities like fertilization and weed control are restrict and with low investments.

These methods don't allow us to evaluate the potential productivity of Brazilian native trees on restoration areas.

Restoration methods to overcome the environmental stress are needed.

Ecophysiological approach about restorationEcophysiological approach about restoration……

Main focus on canopy variables and processes that control forest growth:

To better understand what affect native forest plantation growth

and…

...be able to recommend the best models for Atlantic forest

restoration based on ecophysiological processes.

••Leaf Area Index Leaf Area Index

••Light Use Efficiency Light Use Efficiency

••Nitrogen content on leaves Nitrogen content on leaves

Experimental Design• Factorial = 3 factors with 2 levels (23)

• 5 hectares

• 4 blocks

• 8 treatments

Measurements

• Diameter and height every 6 months since planting (January of 2004)

• Allometric equations for each specie to calculate biomass

•LAI with hemispherical pictures

Experimental Design

• Factorial = 3 factors with 2 levels (23)

PioneersNot pioneers

1) Species Composition Factor (20 different species):

50:50: 50% (pioneers) and 50% (not pioneers)

67:33: 67% (pioneers) and 33% (not pioneers)

Experimental design: 3 factors with 2 levels (23)

2) Spacing Factor:

3x1: 3 x 1 m = 3,333 plants hectare -1

3x2: 3 x 2 m = 1,666 plants hectare -1

Pioneers

Not Pioneers

Plots have the same size in the field.

Experimental design: 3 factors with 2 levels (23)

3) Silviculture Factor:

Usual: 1 fertilization, weed control only on rows

Intensive: 4 fertilizations (0, 6, 12 and 18 months), total weed

control, soil pH corrections

Results

Age (m onths)12 24 36 42

0

2

4

6

8

1050:50

67:33

WN

PP (M

g ha

-1ye

ar -1

)

50:50 = 1.17

67:33 = 1.10

Light Use Efficiency - 50:50 = 67:33 = 0.24 g MJ-1

Composition Factor More pioneer species (fast growing trees) does not increased WNPP…

Leaf Area Index36 months

Plant Spacing Factor

Age (months)12 24 36 42

0

2

4

6

8

103x1

3x2W

NPP

(Mg

ha -1

year

-1)

Age (months)12 24 30 36 42

0

5

10

15

20

3x1

3x2

Greater LAI on 3x1m (0.98) than on 3x2m (0.71) lead to higher wood biomass stock at 42 months

Competition after 36 months among planted trees

Both levels of spacing factor showed the same LUE:

• 3x1m: 0.25 g MJ-1

• 3x2m: 0.23 g MJ-1

Woo

d B

iom

ass (

Mg

ha -1

)A

B

Age (Months)12 24 36 42

0

2

4

6

8

10IntensiveUsual

Intensive = 1.8

Usual = 0.8

Leaf Area Index36 months

WN

PP (M

g ha

-1ye

ar -1

)

Management Factor

10-fold increase in LUE only by the effect of intensive management (0.04 versus 0.46 g MJ-1)

Increase of 3.6-fold

High stress level

Weed competition (Water and Nutrients)

Intensive Fertilization

No weed competition

36 months

Spacing (m)3x1 3x2

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5Usual

Intensive

Interaction - Silviculture x Spacing

Plant spacing has distinct responses to environmental stress levels.

LUE

(Mg

TJ -1

)

3x2m plant spacing depends on intensive silvicultural practices to express its maximum productivity

Reduction of the environmental stress

No weedHigh water competition among trees

Leaf Area Index (m2m-2)

0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0

WN

PP (M

g ha

-1 s

emes

ter-1

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Canopy Nitrogen (g m-2)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

WN

PP

(Mg

ha-1

sem

este

r-1 )

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

WNPP = 0.79 * N + 0.49R2 = 0.70P = 0.01

WNPP = 3.13 * IAF - 0.0044R2 = 0.96P < 0.0001

Canopy status

Intensive plotsLAI x WNPP

[N] x WNPP

Individually LAI and [N] can predict growth

0

2

4

6

8

0,00,5 1,0 1,5 2,0

02

46

WN

PP (M

g ha

-1 s

em. -

1 )

LAI (m2 m-2)

N (g m -2) WNPP = 0.51 + 1.91*LAI + 0.31 * N * LAIR2 = 0.99P < 0.0001

Canopy status

Great tool to evaluate the quality of restoration and to manage the

plantation to optimize growth

Intensive plots

The nutritional status of the canopy improve the capacity to predict growth

MO CF AL SD ML MT AP AM AC TI FB IR PA JA JT DE CE JE LA CB

Woo

d bi

omas

s (k

g)

0

5

10

15

20

25Usual

Intensive

“Pioneers” “Not pioneers”

36 months

Conclusions- A 50:50 proportion of pioneers and non-pioneers is indicated to increasing the biodiversity without decreasing productivity.

- The 3x2m spacing showed the similar productivity of 3x1m after 36 months, but demanding intensive silviculture (C4 grass control).

- The “Plantation Technology” increased growth, LAI and LUE, highlighting the potential of Brazilian species for restoration, and commercial, purposes.

Best model to increase biodiversity, reduce costs and achieve high growth rates: 50:50%, 3x2m and

intensive management

WaterWater

WaterWater

WaterWater

Intact LRIntact LR

To be restoredTo be restored

Legal Reserve (20 Legal Reserve (20 –– 80%)80%)

Permanent Preservation

Permanent Preservation

EucalyptusEucalyptus

riverriver

-- Water ResourcesWater Resources-- BiodiversityBiodiversity

Dezembro de 2006

Thanks