![]() ![]() |
![]() |
UFDC Home | Federal Depository Libraries of Florida & the Caribbean | UF Government Documents Collection | Internet Archive | | Help |
Material Information
Record Information
|
Table of Contents |
Front Cover
Front Cover 1 Front Cover 2 Introduction Page 1 Sources of materials examined Page 2 Results Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Tables and figures Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 |
Full Text |
No. i1907
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE FOREST PRODUCTS LABORATORY Madison 5, Wisconsin In Cooperation with the University of Wisconsin HEALING TIME IR PIUNIFO DOUOLA-I-II September 1951 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2013 http://archive.org/details/heaprOOfore T1 ~ -A'A J- .oes', P r u c'. s ~ U. T,>222~2 * ~ 221~ 2.' 2 1. O1'10y' u n tK ~U) A -~~~~ I, r.L.'-;2 W ".t WthBi-- L" '( *2d I (2.12.'U i. .. % ,i- L t of 2. d-L- A h a, obtEL-nedI i,, 'u T1 .r -t'. r w~4 +'I n~ 'i .-,V r tree,, r wri Ol h~Cymt- anX~ o.t2 td Yl o v n, ;*.BUl and 1 ia rL i f~q no an t m, rr- i' iau rcn~ -; n; n22 r2u c.vi dr. n:. wa,3 und in In r :cu L,, thau. rl2* 2. ui22k wc.)( , to inf et-on Iy dk, ,ay finaril Th(. treesL. had n nruncd. Or a-, .o'r .v' ul*-2 3 and wore0 1,2 :-u 0,o ,,- t--- d 2' 2 2.C1 '2.C.6ilc ~ t;r- ~ro2 :11A~ 'Ain--, of :ar I done7 In o n wJ...oc d. C~h w cst r,, an Iq nrnn atd Lir ix~l2 i- d cy i+cr,2' clc,, '-r C2 i~n~r.h 'l~on of F ct lai.1 y La.a~u of; ianvt i1.: s ant r 0.2.:.The work aL: v,-)r.n .1 a(; t 7"'I c t- L~.1 for w2,~a ;.th reward to 22.2. Jo X rx 2 ')1 20, t was 722 ~n 2 ~s;as d,,.tcrm ncd 'L o a'LL2 unnal~a a' o 2 .I 2 - 1.t N adic on it m.+ri o %,-t theK lUnavrl- ti 2 Ha;.nI. Knots J.n S, > r22 wth I .12 '] r2. IA t. H '.1 7 2's Lub~ :ource s of IMater-ial Examined Ku-el 'rc1: In th-- fall :Df 195" a stand- Jmprrovement project of thinninC and 1 -LninG 33- yar ~ ~ ~ ~ ol ,lsfr ;oige ado s Jthe qualJ7ty III wac LjcCun in the KugEcl arc : ara on the-: Olym 4c iTational Forest near the I niC _er Eancer Station. This sta-, was of natural se,.-nd-,rrc.h believed Lo have dcvclo!_ ed after a fiLre a~~iaey50 years ago. Permanent sa~eplot's were established by th.re Pacific _ior.hwec"! S-tatlon in thet. iinned stands whi c-11, though predominantly eve-as0,contained tr-ees from 30 -to 50 -cars old. Com ,tition had develo-Ded c he til-,, el, thinnin,, and ha" resulted in s-me decrease in diameter growth. ilie ~ w ext 2-ded. only abc ,at one-third .f -."he distance do-, "he stems. Thr rrthe dead limbs e_-tended virt,_-a_117 to the CrouLnd. T'_e pru~ninE o ,cratic7,. r'~~ only dead branches and did._; not- e_::tend inothe live crown. TLrlzn r -'o hg of reach wras done with an ax, and abov .D thl s, to 20 feet from -712 Croundl, wit- a saw. Frori ec1d 1_ of thesee pruned trees, one Lolt to i.n-Lude one wbrf. branches was talkcn at an- average of 5 _fet a ove -ro und --t reprcsen ax isng From each of cof -th, same trees, a olt-s was taken a--' an average he-ight of 12 foet to r -r ,n aw p)r-u-nngz. _W Lr d R- v cr In thc 1,!nt Lr of 1 440- a t io zt- d of 18-foct prun~nC. ,n srmal i~cle Douglas- fl r on tho la.ind Ti i %-r District- oi' fth. Glfiord -nh~ t.< --l 1,'crest was under- tu.ken the Z~ Iac-_ fic 17, rthlwcst ~ai~.Theo -1ru-nn work wao done by CCCI labor. T 141s 1. water stand was puare Doug1P.s-flr about Jyears old which had -,.)Gen es-tab- 1 h( ~na-tural reseedin- soon after a burnLa. '1itc-qualit1-1 measurements J- thc, v*_ nit%, indicated a ,oor site HII. T_--es d, si mnatod as crou trees for jannin avcra :(,d about 15 fo_ to the li ' C-'ri ;w h n -rumcd. r le cro- ns of scomc o' h lcss ca. Jiocd dclninuant. b, - r-ar. a~t-ouj. 1( f, t abt_ ve, yrod ib nural libshcddi-ng 1-ad occ'urrod. Limb d~fsi -c ration was n,,tcd ft3 b, n [Lgji1-)e exsc-,-t on the loicr 41 fecot of the Loic, wh Gr 4--.;s 4 .dn- 'ac nearlyieun'Pt wh Ilc tho brancl( -i._ wcrc in poroccss of a rluin~r -)f the lewer 1imbo -Wcs (Ion(. h a Acoo club, while for h -f ols 01 saw-- w -r,:? usck k. The Hebo -)run-ng clu .' Is ussentially a heavy ,,r -d i~o~eshod (-, thc- end a ri c c o-f 1/14-inchl th -ck sLee 1. The limobs ar(- r.A1 ly onu or more blow- a. or ne--ar t-11ei r 1)a se. om 1 o the tree- cn W ind v-Cr ar-a a 'Loll to i-clude onu whorl ( ~~a:a an avc ra 7c of' 4 fc- 'I L',ovC -roun,)d wa,- t -kc:, t 'D rc-r,-sent pr-uning -I '-I T' 'ui. Frorm a h -) t- h+ r c-.-, a _olt w,-s --akcn at an average 12I'A Ct f, v--ound -to rc!- rc-c-t saw lvin Je 2 o7 1' ohn; H( -:re. 1)o ?run*,_, Cila-. Journal i or stry- 'vol 3~ b. JUJy Thc bolts wc~(, iand1 f7 -1 r-, i 'd 1--: ~ 2. '~ ii:2 .' 2 t ncr17 vcrt 7cal, ratdji -ir~2 4 r~ k. I; I-L CI %S~ r' knot r'i tt w i qu i-, d ~. ;. ~ '~'' 7227 W. *;7~ ~-. ~4 7~2~ :rt, l' U, -rt"~ni ~cLi. c*,,q atr,'7.ar.'n ui t:- I. 7,2 1VI. 7 '~1U 'd nut :r>;a Df c) nt rcw* .'r .:r, nd. U iU i 2.2.I .2' ~2 T C ilL ro 7s -(cio- sho wVd r,7 ;2t c 7 n n '' th. i 1 2 2> 2 j 20'7 C 0. 1 S r +, ' t:~~ 'trUA. I.( 4,2.7 VI. .IA kn n t i : f< r -d 'c 1- c.' 1-- 1( cl, ,al; d =,1- whcn ci ar 1 wc' -, r du'o tl ~- di stab c-nd. r. WOd .'.11'.ra2N'1~.2 22irn; '7. 01thc 719 wh-x rci c-ar wooid wa 1),-in .;- >,21. I 127i To L11t'tmorc 7 r t'I1d~'rc~..c,{ " olm <"1 1 17.1u to 'i a c -'.12 2.-2 'i 12~ ~ WcodU r tIn.-,u a l :'C7(u l. ' W~.7k ~',r huna 'th(- t7 h I n IK 27 t27 .'*r (21,aly a" n I ,D-t;a' ';a" r..- 7 rC' 2 r";d u. L :1-'r a:2 .!2rc 1: ot7 Ln2: r.'7 "n- '7 U -2 .9 Li 2721i -ful 27. X7 :LCI''.i 1' '17 U n it tolr T--:1 f 't 1u 9 217a'I: .. 1 iv1T W r72' -n d tw't7.' .7 L 4 .I'' 1,1 1- ) a '. A :run LiV. ( r'. 'n r'Ua -nu 2 r n' t'"" rA 1'.'.L! '1.7 1 V 2 L 2. 2 27' 1,i a Rt- o Ii '4, the healing, period is the important factor. These trees probably were no-,.- pruned severely enough to cause a setback of any kind from loss of green branches. Furthermore the Kugel Creek stand was thinned when pruned, a factor reflected only in the period of growTth subsequent to pruning. The average rates of growth, expressed as rings per inch, for the knots healed over in each year following pruning are given in table 2. These values show that there is a relation between healing time and growth rate. The greater the number of rings to the inch, the slower was the healing. The relationship is more ap,--parent in the Kugel Creek ma-terial, especially w hen the unhealed knots are considered. That there arc still other underlying causes for differences in healing rates between the two areas is brought out by the saw-.pruned material from Kugel Creek. It was 6 years before any of these kn~ots were overgrowna by clear wood although the growth rate for these first-healed knots was close to that for the first-healed knots in all the other columns of table 2. This leads to a consideration of stub length left after pruning. Table 3 shows the effect of this variable. Under similar conditions of p~r-,u-ing the knots with longer stubs took longer to heal. Both ax- and saw-- rtuned material from Kugel Creek had longer stubs and took longer to heal before clear wood was produced than did the material from Wind River (fig. 1). While working conditions and skill of the non in pruning may have some influ- ence on the length of stub left, i't appears that the bark thickness accounted for the longer stubs at Kugel Creek. Tile operator of a pruning tool, especi- ally a sa T is restricted by the bark in his attempt to get close to wood of the bole of -the tree and leave a short stub. At comparable heights at the time of felling it was found that bark thickness, while variable, average from 0.1 to 0.2 inch -thicker at Kugel Creek than at 'vind River. Stub length is undoubtedly affected by the typ~e of tool used in pruning. No comparison of tools is made here, however, because different tools were used at the different heights in each stand and the stands were growing under quite different conditions and were of different age classes. The effect of knot diameter is given in table 4, which shows no apparent relationship between time to heal and knot size. On the average;, the healed knots were as large, or larger, than the unhealed knots in most cases. Further- morc' the knots which healed over in 3 or 4 years were usually just as large as those which healed later or not at all. Only from saw-pruned dead branches at Wind River arc the unhealed knots of appreciably greater diameter than the healed. The greater influence of other factors than knot diameter is further shown in figures 2: ',5 and 4. Both knots in figure 2, from different trees, were the result of dead branches pruned 13 years previous to examination. Because of thu more rapid diameter-growth rate of tree A, clear wood was produced after 10 years as comnpared to tree B, which had no clear wood after 15 years. The knot in tree D was 0.2 inch in diameter and that in tree A', was 1.2 inches. Also, it should be noted that both the bark thickn~ess and length of the stub wore greater in tree A than in t'1ree B. The thick bark probably accounted for the longer stub in A, 0.9 inch, as compared to the 0.4-inch stub in B. Ropet. !1(-. 1%,'-4- No dccay was found to ha,:c entoricd thi. trunk wood from ar,-! 2 tF ,rIumA branches. A little rot was noted in the outer 1,art of s-::, -) I thcrra~i( stubs, but its progress aT,-par(,ntly was; stcp~ ud wh(3l tht- u W(Xru h i vL iu A Minute o--cning, visibL2 with a handI luns, had d 2.,loi%2d betw(-cn wo()ed of tihe, branch andi t .at -f th(- trunk beyond thc. rinb! a', Wic,- thc cran(,h di (1. I u every (-asc this jj,, riin- had lb cn flillcd wit.1 a th al;Q:~t around tho, branc',. Tkual ,d-ovcr stuLxs aisD had -a layc r .f iitt'h acr-s-,; th cut or s.: ends, This si -udy ,--vcs results of prunin tr(-, 3". -ry. or x mcre Ina Cndr- tion of the dato- indicatol- somcwha- creatcr muat~s:ight be ; aincd by prunin- when the tr,-:es wc -possibly no morc than half as old as the trees studied. ThI advantuf- s include: (1) -A' s.-allor knotty core. I2 'c rtr bran :h' stub 3 due t(Io thinncr lbar' .. (5)) lKnto of the (Incaccd portions of branches 1,m:nint- bcfoCrc th'ey die. ()Quic!.:_ r healinf- over vmundo bc O.-u o-; th". reasonL; 1-vun '-- 2 n ()LesS work in pruninz s inck 'Uranc-,(s will bc :-mllcr at tImo of cuttin,-. Furtlher cxrmnsare ncodcd --n ;-oun ,r tr sto smbstanti&Lu t,: points, Table l.--Distribution of healed and unh.aled !nots in pruned Douplas-fir Zrouped according to area s~led, method of pruning and con- dition of branches at time of pruning Arean : Years required for healing :Knots :Total prunin : : not :knots method, and:-------------------------------------------------- healed: condition : 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : 8 : 9 :10 :11 :12 :13: of branches: : : : : : : : : : : : : : - - - - - - -:- ---- --- -, -, - -, - : : :: :: :-: : :: : Number of knots Wi nd River : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Sa-w: : : : : : : : : : : :: Dead : 0 : 0 : : 0 : 1 : : : 4 : 4 :...:...:...:..: 4 : 18 Live : O : 0 : 2 : 2 : 4 :15 : 9 : 6 : 0 :...:...:.,,:..: 10 : 48 Both : 0 : : 3 : 2 : 5 :1 :10 :10 : 4 :...:...:...:.: 14 : 66 ::: :: : ::: :: ::: : Hcbo Club: : : : : : : : : : : : : Dead : 0 : 0 : 1 : 4 :11 : : 7 : 6 : 5 :...:...:...:..: 8 : 49 Live : 0 : 0 : 1 : 2 : 1 : 2 : 1 : : 2 :...:...:...:..: 2 : 14 Both : 0 : 0 : 2 : 6:12 : 9 : 8 : 9 : 7 :...:...:...:.: 10 : 63 Kugel Creek: : : : : : : : : : : : : : Saw : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Dead : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : I : 5 : 3 :13 : 4 : 9 : 2 : 2: 15 : 52 :: :: :: :: :: ::: : Ax Dead : 0 : 0 : 1 : 1 : 2 : 5 : 7 : 6 : 6 : : 7 : 3 : 3: 2 : 82 :et. :::: ::::::::: : lict. No. ftlt9()7 Tablc 2.-Diameotcr growth rate after pruning~ f Douglas-fir,_ for hv al(d and unh,.alt-d knots kroujl-cd a( cord1in t rcaM9j~ ,. of @ running, and condition of' br~ncli(, at timt ; of .-run~n,- Healing Growth rato tim c. --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - At Wind Rivc.r At Kug(,1 (,rc-k %aw -rue : Hcbo-club pruned "Jaw-rn ~xiud Dcbad Livc. Both Dcad :Live Both D~c~ad 1)(- ad Ycars ---n -Rin -s :Rings - nll. i nch i), ur Sinch :IAingo :Ring~s :E-,.r.--s : Fin,-,s -,;r :~u 1)-,r :incKi :inch :inch S10 11 S14 :12 S15 :... * Ce .e .* 0 0 8 : 10 10 : 10 10 : 11 10 10 13 14 15 11 13 14 7: LO 9: 12 20 12 C.. *Ce.*C*c eec.o, * cc. C.eecc.* 8 : ...~..,.....: 7 10 10 11 11 12 11 6 10 14 13 1~0 31 inch 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12 15 rich 1 : # . 0 0 : . 0 0 : 0 : 0 0 . . : 0 0 0 & 0 : 0 0 0 0 : 0 0 0 . 41 . & : 0 0 0 * . Rept. No. P11-907 _T__ _~~ ____ __ Table 3.--Length of stub left in pruning Douglas-fir branches grouped by area sampledmethod of pruning, condition of branch when pruned, and time required to heal Eealing : Stub length time ------------------------------------------------------------------ : At Wind River : At Kugel Creek :--P----------------C------------ ------------------- : Saw-pruned : Hebo-club pruned : Saw-pruned : Ax-pruned :-------------------- -----------------D :t: Do-d :-Dea : Dead Live : Both : Dead : Live : Both : Dead Dead ........ : -: -- : -- : : ...... Years : Inch : Inch : Inch : Inch : Inch : Inch : Inch : Inch : 0.2 : .6 : .4 4 " : .7 : :......: :......: 0.i .2 .2: .4 .4: .5: r eetog oeee + o oe . e 0 0 : * *10 0 . eeeee~e re a o gbo e Oo e oeeoa 0 0 0eeeee0 0 o*oeee oeoooereeeee oo0 ee : 0.4 : : .2 : .4 .4 o 0.1 .2 .3 .4 .4 .5 .3 4 o,. oe e o 1 0e 4 41e oe 04 0.0 : 0.2 :......o .....: 0.6 .6 .5 .4 .7 .9 .8 .9 .9 .8 .9 .2 .2 .2 .3 .3 .3 + ~, .2 :.0 3 *'04 o3: .3 .3 .4 41 r te 419o 0.7 .6 .6: ,C; .7 7: .6 : 6 : .6 : , : .9 .5 : .7 : Unhealed: Rcpt. No. R1El07 Ta-~bleI~.- t diwmct(:r naralll to -ith of' tr :>jrr nli-'r :Tht3~ruj a~~ .cL.rca ui rZ, j r_,i condit ion of t runch -, nrun~c aind t imc r, r ,i to iiu Knot diamctcr At W-Lnd ldiver 1 c>~A r(,,k Saw-pruncd 1-Ttjb-club pruncd ,a-prlni. Ax-jruni-,d -, Live : Both Doad : Livc : Boti L~d Years In-l- 1-- Inch Inch 2 6 7 10 11 12 135 1 'C .6 C- 9) 9*9.9*. 99* Se. 9.9999 999999. 9 C- '- I. .0 .6 p. .8 **999 .9.... .99... '-7 9, 0." .7 '-7 o.4{ S. .5 * Inch * *9S.49. * *9*99* * C, * .8 * .7: * .6: * 999999- * ., 99*.* * *99999 * 9#** 9* * ( * 9-i. i.e~ 9*999*. 999999 0.6 .4 9) .5 9 * I 9*999 9. 9****** 99*999. * *.99 999999999999 **.* 999*9*999 9*****9*9*9** *999999999999 * 1.1 .7 * .5 -1 .6 .7 .6 * 7 91 9~ * .7 'I 9~) * 96 C- .2 .5 leapt. :.RL 7 Healin-: t ime , O Figure I.-Theos cumulative carves show the percentage of prnmed branches that had been overgrown by clear wood at the end of each year after the pruning date. This point in healing was being reached sooner in the Wind River than on the Kugel Creek trees, apparently because longer stubs were left on the Kugel Creek trees rather than because of the pruning method or the condition of the branches when pruned, ZM 85291 F LI/VE PRUNVEO 4 -I - - -~, t I WIND R1 VER -- I1 iv -~ 12 /3 YEARS AFTER PRUNN L EGEAID: SAW PROVED -HE80 CL U8 PROVNED ---X PROVED Q) ) LQ4 50 30[- 20 - 0L 0 C Figure 2 --Both of th -se knots were .10ad when prun -ith a sae 15 year& before the tree was f elLei In A ,-omparative ly rapid dianter gr-,w?;t. cov ,,red thct 0 C )-ir h liorg st,,'b with clear wood 'n the eleventh year af'er prun-ing I.- B, a k7,,ot of smaller diameter having a shorter stub (0.4 inh), but from- a tree with slower growth rate, had not been overgrown nor would it have been overgrown for several additional years, The thicker bark on A may ar:-oiunt for the longer stub, Zm 85292 F Figure 3o--Pruned branch showing covering of cut surface by growth of the last year. Shorter branch stubs or pruning while the branch was alive presumably would have saved several years in accomplishing this result.. ZA 85102 F ipoNo. R!907 45 02 F Fiire 4-,-Fom~ iar, c,,f woor~ud l~ arore b- am;: b cay be jc.iayei )y 'iori s of pitch a; bark zm, 84563 F zti S4 S 63r 12 1 1 1 31 1 14 1 1 1,51 1 1 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA ii11 1 1 1 11 III III N 1i i l 1 1I I l l ll 3 1262 08927 3444 |