United States Department of Agriculture

Forest 

Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

Research Paper

PNW-RP-601 September 

2014

Reforestation Systems Compared 

on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year 

Results

William I. Stein
Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution 

	 	 Pacific Northwest Research Station

 P.O. Box 3890 

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Author 

William I. Stein is a scientist emeritus, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3200 SW 

Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331. Most photographs are by the author; exceptions are noted.

Pesticide Precautionary Statement

This publication reports research involving pesticides. It does not contain recommendations for their use, nor does it imply that the uses discussed 

here have been registered. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate state or federal agencies, or both, before they 

can be recommended.

CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable plants, and fish or other wildlife—if they are not handled or applied 

properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended practices 

for the disposal of surplus pesticides and pesticide containers.

Cover:

Aerial view of 10-year-old stands on the Upperten study site (dotted line) that 

averaged the lowest tree survival and growth. Rows of live trees are clearly visible in the burn and spray-and-burn treatment areas (upper left), and less so in the 

spray area (lower right), but no rows are visible in the control area (center) covered 

by dense and tall competing vegetation. (Photo courtesy of USDA Forest Service, 

Siuslaw National Forest.)
i

Abstract

Stein, William I. 2014. Reforestation systems compared on coastal clearcuts: 

10-year results. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-601. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 123 p.

In a large factorial study replicated in six locations, responses of five Douglas-fir 

(Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) and two western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.) stock types, tubed and untubed, were observed when planted 

after each of four site preparation treatments with and without later release. In 10 

years, more Douglas-fir seedlings survived than did western hemlock seedlings, 

69.6 vs. 57.7 percent, averaged much taller, 543.7 vs. 416.6 cm, and larger in diameter, 8.2 vs. 5.2 cm. Survival of tubed seedlings averaged 82.2 percent, untubed 

50.5 percent. Seedling survival, height, and diameter averaged highest in areas 

prepared by preburn spraying followed by broadcast burning and later release. 

Large Douglas-fir stock (2+1 and large 2+0) outgrew medium or small stock. 

Stems clipped near ground line in the first 3 years, largely by mountain beavers 

(Aplodontia rufa), comprised two-thirds of all mortality.

In repeated examinations, vegetative cover was measured along linear transects, stem density and height on milacre plots, and live biomass by destructive 

sampling. Live vegetative cover averaged 52 percent before site preparation. Rapid 

establishment of pioneering herbaceous species after site preparation soon erased 

temporary reductions in total cover. The woody shrub component of total cover was 

reduced from 23.7 to 9.8 percent by broadcast burning and from 28.0 to 2.5 percent 

by preburn spraying and broadcast burning. By the third examination, woody shrub 

cover was double as much in control areas as in the spray-and-burn treatments, 42.0 

vs. 20.4 percent. Spraying herbicide for release caused only a minor reduction in 

woody shrub cover. By the 10th year, woody shrub cover averaged 47.9 percent in 

the control but only 32.1 percent in the spray-and-burn treatment. More tree cover 

after spray-and-burn than for other site preparation treatments appears attributable 

to lower competition of woody shrubs throughout the decade. Red alder (Alnus 

rubra Bong.) and salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis Pursh) were the most abundant 

competitors.

Keywords: Reforestation, Pacific Northwest, Coast Range, clearcutting, 

Douglas-fir, western hemlock, red alder, salmonberry, site preparation, broadcast 

burning, herbicide spraying, planting, stock types, seedling survival and growth, 

mesh tubes, natural regeneration, mountain beaver, vegetative competition, release 

spraying.
ii

Summary

From the late 1940s onward, much effort has been expended on improving the 

reforestation of clearcuts in the Pacific Northwest. By 1975, the need for a comprehensive side-by-side quantitative comparison of reforestation techniques then in use 

was clearly evident. Which combinations of site preparation, stock type, protection, and release were most effective, and how great were the differences in stand 

development over time?

Thus, a very large effort to compare reforestation techniques was jointly undertaken by the Pacific Northwest Research Station and the Siuslaw National Forest. 

Over 4 years, replications of a factorial study were installed on six large clearcuts 

located along a north-south distance of about 100 miles, 5 to 16 miles inland from 

the Pacific coast. This report provides a comprehensive summary of what was 

produced by different combinations of reforestation techniques, during their first 

decade, in terms of tree survival and growth under varying amounts of vegetative 

competition. 

The study was designed to solve salient problems encountered in coastal forests 

of the Pacific Northwest. These forests thrive in a long growing season at low to 

mid elevations in a generally cool and moist climate. Such conditions are excellent for fostering tree growth as well as fast and dense development of competing 

vegetation. In clearcutting operations, steep slopes are cable-yarded and much slash 

remains when older stands are harvested, leaving wildfire hazards, fast growth of 

pioneering and residual vegetation, and limited access for planting. Many areas 

have resident mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa) populations; hares, deer, and 

elk also feed on fast-developing, lush vegetation as well as on any tree seedlings 

present. The most common harvesting sequence is to clearcut, broadcast burn, plant 

protected nursery stock, and later, if necessary, apply a release treatment. Was this 

entire reforestation sequence necessary or even desirable? 

The replicated factorial design included comparison of five Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) and two western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla 

(Raf.) Sarg.) stock types, tubed and untubed, planted in each of four site preparation 

choices—control, burn only, spray only, and spray and burn.

The six clearcuts used in the study had formerly supported mixed stands primarily of Douglas-fir and red alder (Alnus rubra Bong.). All six sites were judged 

to be brush-threat areas, as indicated by the understory vegetation present. The 

clearcuts represented topographic and vegetative conditions commonly found in the 
iii

Coast Ranges of Oregon and Washington. One quarter of each clearcut received one 

of the site preparation treatments. Six plots, each containing seven rows of tubed 

trees and seven rows not tubed, were planted in each quarter and arranged so that 

three plots could be given an herbicide release treatment later.

Nursery stock of seed sources appropriate to the site were planted on each 

area. This involved designating a year or more ahead which year-old stocks then 

growing in the nursery were suitable, then growing container stock from seed of 

the same sources. Three sizes of 2+0 Douglas-fir were sorted from bundles of stock 

after these had been routinely processed in the packing shed. Sites were planted 

in February or March along pre-staked rows, and generally tubed the same day. A 

single planter planted all 14 rows in the plot.

Average shoot length, root length, stem diameter, oven-dry weight of shoots and 

roots, and shoot-root ratio were determined from samples of the nursery stock. Size 

of the nursery stock planted differed widely by site, among stock types and even 

within a stock type. Tree survival and growth were determined periodically and 

development of vegetative competition was measured by means of linear transects 

for percentage of cover, milacre plots for species height and stem density, and 

biomass samples for weight of dry matter produced.

Ten years after planting, two-thirds of the trees were still alive. Survival averaged 82.2 percent for tubed trees and 50.5 percent for untubed trees. Two-thirds 

of all seedling mortality was the result of clipping, mainly by mountain beavers. 

Most clipping occurred in the first 3 years after planting. Large tubed Douglas-fir 

stock planted after spray-and-burn site preparation and later released survived best 

and gained the most height and diameter growth. All types of Douglas-fir stock 

substantially outgrew western hemlock stock. Figure 1 illustrates the gain and cubic 

volume produced when tree survival, height, and diameter data are combined and 

expressed as a percentage of the control treatment.

Before site preparation, total live vegetative cover averaged 52 percent on the 

study sites. The reduction caused by site preparation proved temporary as pioneering herbaceous species soon brought total cover to high levels in all treatments. 

But marked reductions in the woody shrub component from 23.7 to 9.8 percent by 

broadcast burning and from 28.0 to 2.5 percent by preburn spraying and broadcast 

burning had a lasting effect. By the 10th year, woody shrub cover averaged 47.9 

percent in the control, only 32.1 percent in the spray-and-burn treatment. Conifer 

cover at 10 years was highest where woody shrub cover was lowest, and where site 

preparation had been most intense—the spray-and-burn treatment.
iv

Study results amply demonstrate that different reforestation combinations yield 

different densities and heights in the resulting conifer stands. Information from 

the study quantitatively supplements what reforestation practitioners had already 

known from observing results of many field plantings. Results also confirm that the 

effects of initial stock size carry forward at least a decade.

Every reforestation technique tested has applicability somewhere. What 

technique combinations to apply in a given situation, depends on management 

objectives and the conditions on a specific area. Statistically significant differences 

have been demonstrated for several practices tested, but some gains are small 

and as a practical matter might not be worth the effort required or cost involved. 

Study results add to the guidelines available; what choices to use still rest with the 

informed practitioner prescribing for individual sites.

Figure 1—Relative volume per acre at 10 years, control vs. treatment.
v

Contents 1 Introduction 2 Methods 2 Factorial Design 3 Area Descriptions 7 Site Preparation 9 Planting

10 Seedling Protection

12 Plantation Release

12 Data Collection

14 Data Summaries and Analyses

15 Conifer Development

15 Initial Seedling Size

20 Survival

24 Tree Mortality and Damage

31 Tubing for Seedling Protection

32 Height Growth

39 Damage Effects

43 Tree Diameter

49 Stand Analysis

51 Stocking

54 Vegetation Dynamics

54 Cover

61 Species Found

68 Live Biomass

72 Vegetation Density and Height

80 Discussion and Application

82 Statistical Comparisons

82 Seedling Protection

84 Size of Nursery Stock

87 Site Preparation

90 Release 91 Choosing Treatment Combinations

93 Acknowledgments

95 Units of Measure

96 Literature Cited

101 Appendix
vi

List of Tables

6 Table 1—Location and description of Coastal Reforestation Systems Study sites, 

 Siuslaw National Forest

8 Table 2—Treatment history of each study site

9 Table 3—Spray formulation and rate used for site preparation on each site

17 Table 4—Average shoot length, root length, and stem diameter of the nursery 

 stock planted

18 Table 5—Average dry weight of shoots and roots and shoot:root ratio of the 

 nursery stock planted

21 Table 6—Average 10-year survival of untubed and tubed trees by site

21 Table 7—Average 10-year survival of trees by site preparation and site

22 Table 8—Average 10-year survival of trees by species, protection, stock type, 

 and site 

24 Table 9—Average 10-year survival of trees not released and released by site

25 Table 10—Causes of seedling mortality by species and year

28 Table 11—Causes of seedling mortality by site, protection, site preparation, 

 and stock type

32 Table 12—Third- and fifth-year position and condition of plastic mesh tubes

 on live trees

34 Table 13—Average height of untubed and tubed 10-year-old trees by site

35 Table 14—Average height of 10-year-old trees by site and site preparation

36 Table 15—Average height of 10-year-old trees by site, species, protection, 

 and stock type

38 Table 16—Average height of 10-year-old trees by site and release treatment

40 Table 17—Count and average height of undamaged and damaged 10-year-old 

 trees by site and species

43 Table 18—Average tree height at year 0 and 10 by site and slope location

44 Table 19—Growth deformities observed on live 10-year-old trees

44 Table 20—Average diameter at breast height of 10-year-old trees by protection 

 and site 

46 Table 21—Average diameter at breast height of 10-year-old trees by site and 

 site preparation

47 Table 22—Average diameter at breast height of 10-year-old trees by site, species, 

 protection, and stock type

48 Table 23—Average diameter at breast height of 10-year-old trees by site and 

 release treatment

50 Table 24—Volume per acre at age 10 for stands resulting from different 

 treatments

52 Table 25—Average height and diameter of the largest 90, 75, and 50 percent 

 of 10-year-old trees in site preparation and release treatments
vii

53 Table 26—Average stocking of planted and naturally established trees by 

 site preparation and release treatments

58 Table 27—Average surface cover over 10 years by site and examination

62 Table 28—Species and groups tallied along line transects

64 Table 29—Species comprising major fractions of vegetative cover during 

 the decade by site preparation and release treatments

70 Table 30—Average dry weight of live vegetation at each examination by site 

 preparation and release treatments

74 Table 31—Number of stems and average height for species found on milacre 

 plots in pre- and post-release examinations

75 Table 32—Stems per species group by examination, site preparation, and 

 release treatments

76 Table 33—Number and average height of main species on milacre plots 

 by examination, site preparation, and release treatments

86 Table 34—Average initial height and rank of stock types and 10th-year status

Appendix

101 Table 35—Seed origin, production nursery, and lifting date for planting stock 

 used in the study

102 Table 36—Damages observed on 10-year-old trees by site, species, and stock type

104 Table 37—Average height of 10-year-old trees by site, site preparation, stock 

 type, and release

107 Table 38—Percentage of total cover for species found on line transects by site, 

 examination, site preparation, and release treatments
This Page Left Blank Intentionally
1

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Introduction

From the late 1940s onward, much effort has been expended on improving reforestation of clearcuts in the Pacific Northwest. Research by public agencies and private 

sources led to upgrades in the quality of nursery stock, while many trials of varying 

scope and intensity widened the array of proven field techniques. Most information 

resulted from short-term studies of limited scope. By 1975, the need was clearly 

evident for a comprehensive side-by-side quantitative comparison of the various 

techniques being used. Which combinations of site preparation, stock type, protection, and release were most effective, and how great were the differences in stand 

development over time?

Thus, a very large effort to compare reforestation techniques was jointly undertaken by the Pacific Northwest Research Station and the Siuslaw National Forest. 

Over four years, from 1975 to 1978, replications of a factorial study were installed 

on six large clearcuts located over a north-south distance of about 100 mi, from 5 to 

16 mi inland from the Pacific coast. Limited information produced by the study has 

been available in several reports and publications (Stein 1984, 1990). This report 

provides more comprehensive insights on what different reforestation technique 

combinations produced during the first decade of reforestation in terms of tree 

survival and growth under varying amounts of vegetative competition.

The key study objective was to develop quantitative comparisons of the site 

preparation, planting stock, animal protection, and release options that might be 

used in combination to reforest sites in the Coast Ranges of Oregon and Washington. Many reforestation studies have dealt with one particular phase of reforestation 

or another; few have measured how site preparation method, planting stock size, 

and other controllable reforestation factors interrelate to influence tree establishment and early growth. This study aimed to measure such interrelationships. The 

array of data produced by the study provides a substantial basis for technical and 

economic guidelines on reforestation of clearcuts near the coast.

Early in the 1980s, a comparison study of site preparation methods as well as 

another study that compared release methods were installed on the Siuslaw National 

Forest as part of a nationwide endeavor to compare chemical and other methods 

of vegetation control. Those studies included several techniques already being 

compared in this study. Results of both the site preparation and release study have 

been published (Stein 1995, 1999), thus providing an opportunity to compare results 

gained from this study with those of similar, but less extensive studies.

A short, comprehensive description of climate, soil, and vegetative conditions 

in coastal forests was provided in an earlier publication (Stein 1995). Only a few 
2

research paper pnw-rp-601

highlights are repeated here to provide the reader some insights on coastal forest 

conditions that often hinder prompt and adequate reforestation.

In the Pacific Northwest, coastal forests thrive in a long growing season at 

low- to mid-elevations in a generally cool and moist climate. Soils derived from 

sandstone are relatively deep and productive for conifers, primarily Douglas-fir 

(Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) 

(Raf.) Sarg.). Several hardwoods and tall shrub species also thrive, particularly near 

streams and water channels. Cable yarding is the most common harvesting system 

where much of the terrain consists of short, steep slopes. Much slash remains when 

dense, older stands are harvested, posing an increased risk of wildfire, fast growth 

of pioneering and residual vegetation, and limited surface access for regeneration. 

Many areas have resident mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa) populations and these 

rodents as well as Roosevelt elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti) and black-tailed deer 

(Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) feed on fast-developing, lush vegetation as 

well as on any tree seedlings present. The most common regeneration sequence was 

to clearcut, broadcast burn, plant, and protect nursery stock initially and perhaps 

apply a release treatment several years later. Some foresters questioned whether the 

entire sequence in such a reforestation system was necessary or even desirable.

Methods

Factorial Design

One complete replication of the study was installed on each of six clearcuts. Each 

clearcut was divided into four nearly equal quarters, and one of four site preparation treatments—untreated control, herbicide spray only, broadcast burn only, or 

spray and burn—was applied to each quarter. Six plots, each containing 14 rows 

of planted nursery stock, were arranged in each quarter so that half the plots could 

later be given an aerial spray for release (fig. 2). In most instances, rows in each plot 

were laid out across the contour.

Buffer strips 20 to 30 ft wide across the contour separated adjacent plots. Buffers were 50 ft wide up and down hill between the bottom of one plot and the top of 

the next. Rows of nursery stock were planted at the usual field spacing (9 × 9 or 10 

× l0 ft). At 10 × 10 spacing, each plot was about 140 ft wide and 200 ft long—nearly 

two-thirds of an acre in size. Buffers and areas not allocated to plots were planted 

with appropriate stock in the same season as the study trees.

Five types of Douglas-fir nursery stock and two of western hemlock were 

planted in each plot. Each type of nursery stock was allotted randomly to two 

rows—one row was tubed with tall plastic mesh tubing to protect trees from 

deer, elk, rabbits, and mountain beavers, and the other was not. Twenty trees 
3

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

were planted in each row; when non-plantable spots were encountered, rows were 

extended into the buffer strip below the plot sufficiently to accommodate 20 trees. 

A separate random row arrangement of stock and protection level was designated 

for each of the 24 plots located on one clearcut. The same random allocation was 

used on all study sites.

Area Descriptions

Six freshly logged clearcuts were chosen as study sites (fig. 3). These areas, widely 

distributed over the Siuslaw National Forest, represent the range of conditions 

commonly found in the Oregon Coast Range. The location and descriptive details 

Figure 2—Typical site layout showing area divided for site preparation and release treatments with 

tree plots arranged in each subdivision.
4

research paper pnw-rp-601

Figure 3—Topographic and surface appearance of study sites during installation phases: (A) Pitchfork, fall 1975: (left) sprayed in 

August; (right) control; (B) Beaver, spring 1977: unburned half, planted; (C) Upperten, August 1976: broadcast burning; unburned 

study area front and right; (D) Randall, July 1977: (left and center) burned; (right) unburned; (E) Poposchultz, summer 1980: distant 

view; lighter vegetation marks burned area; (F) Bay’s Wolfe, July 1979: control, planted.

F

Edmund Lohmeyer
5

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

for each site are listed in table 1. A short narrative description of each site follows to 

record the variety of topographic surrounding that sheltered from or exposed study 

areas to strong coastal winds.

The Pitchfork site, located several miles southwest of Denzer Bridge, is deep 

within the Coast Range. The site stretches from the southwest to the east side of 

a finger ridge extending southeastward from a main ridge of Cannibal Mountain 

to the north. The area is sheltered from strong winds on the south and west by 

the ridges of Yachats Mountain (1,050 to 1,228 ft in elevation) and to the north by 

Cannibal Mountain (elevation 1,946 ft). Drainage down canyon is to the east. From 

the lower of two ridgetop landings in the clearcut, the ground drops steeply between 

several benches and then more gradually near the stream at the lower edge. Dissection across the contour is minor and gentle. Uppermost study plots are located 

below the first steep pitch from the landing. Deer and elk frequent the area; elk use 

appears predominant.

The Beaver site is located downslope from a main ridge (elevation 1,000 ft) 

trending northwestward that curves within the section to descend toward the 

southwest. Thus, the area, located on the upper, south side of a short, prominent 

southwest drainage, is open to strong storm winds. Severe blowdown has occurred 

on the ridgetop since the study started, and near gale winds were experienced 

several times on the area. The ocean is visible from upper parts of the site. The 

slope is steeper near the ridgetop than in the midsection of the clearcut. Dissection 

across the slope is gentle with the exception of one deep draw, and the south quarter 

of the area is basin-like. Study plots start near the ridge road and extend only part 

way down in the clearcut (fig. 2). Deer use on the area is common; elk infrequent.

The Upperten site is on the southeast slope of a side ridge that extends southwest from Klickitat Ridge, a main northwest-southeast oriented ridge to the north. 

The site is in the upper, sheltered basin of Tenmile Creek, surrounded by higher 

ridges in all directions except for the actual winding stream drainage to the south. 

Surrounding peaks include Klickitat Mountain to the northeast (elevation 2,307 

ft), Cummins Peak to the west (2,475 ft), and Saddle Mountain to the south (2,297 

ft). Moderate slopes on the area are reasonably uniform except for the drainage of 

a small stream on the north side. Dissection across the contour is moderate, with a 

pronounced draw and ridge within the area (see cover photo). Study plots span the 

area between upper and lower roads. The site is within a protected elk management 

area and adjacent to a power line right-of-way. Elk use is regular and heavy; grazing cattle have also been seen, and deer frequent the area.

The Randall site is the furthest inland of the six study sites. It is located 

almost entirely on a north to northwest slope, gentle at the top and very steep in 
6

research paper pnw-rp-601 Table 1—Location and description of Coastal Reforestation Systems Study sites, Siuslaw National Forest

Study site

Descriptor Pitchfork Beaver Upperten Randall Poposchultz Bay’s Wolfe

Ranger district Alsea Waldport Waldport Alsea Mapleton Hebo

Township and range 14S, 10W 12S, 11W 15S, 11W 12S, 9W 19S, 11W 3S, 9W

Section 27, N 1⁄2 23, SE 1⁄4 25, SW 1⁄4 14, SW 1⁄4 14, NE 1⁄4 22–23, N 1⁄2Area (ac) 79 82 73 45 128 122Elevation range (ft) 400–750 600–900 850–1,250 1,000–1,400 500–750 640–880

Distance to ocean (air miles) 11 5 8 16 9 10

Aspect (degrees of azimuth):

Control 180 200–260 90–120 340–90 210–220 345Spray 100–160 200–320 110–180 290–360 190–210 265–280Burn 225 200–220 120–145 290–350 100–180 285Spray and burn 205 200–340 170 10–320 140–200 115–340

Slope (percent):

Control 35 10–60 45–65 15–50 25–30 25Spray 25–45 30–60 0–45 50–55 20–35 10–55Burn 35 15–60 35–50 60 20–50 20–25Spray and burn 35 15–25 40–55 45–70 10–50 10–60

Topography Alternately steep 

and gentle

Slope moderates 

downhill

Steep draws 

and ridges

One main draw 

to north 

Moderate slopes 

with benches

Moderate slopes 

with draws

Soil typea Slickrock Tolovana-Reedsport Hembre Preacher-BohannonSlickrock Slickrock Klootchie, Lebam

Texture Gravelly loam Medial silt loam Silt loam Slickrock loam Gravelly loam Medial silt loam

a Source: National Resources Conservation Service, National Cooperative Soil Survey, Web Soil Survey, January 2012.
7

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

a short midsection. Higher ridges rise to 1,484 ft to the southwest, and elevation 

drops to less than 500 ft in a narrow valley within a mile to the northeast. Dissection across the contour is moderate except for one major draw. Study plots occupy 

most of the area except for the slopes leading into the central draw. Deer frequent 

the area regularly; elk infrequently.

The Poposchultz site is located primarily on the south side of a rounded ridge 

between forks of the Maple Creek drainage. Higher ridges occur within 1 to 4 mi to 

the south (Mount Popocatepetl, elevation 1,020 ft), east (Goodwin Peak, 1,826 ft), 

and north (1,130 ft). Stream bottoms less than one-half mile away to the south and 

west are under 100 ft in elevation. Because of its westward exposure within sight of 

the ocean, the higher parts of the area are exposed to frontal winds. The area is generally a mixture of short steep slopes, benches, and gentle terrain, with the steepest 

slopes facing toward the east. Dissection is variable and includes some slumps and 

concave terrain. Study plots are located from the ridgetop southward, but run on a 

bias across the contour. Deer use is common; elk use less frequent.

The Bay’s Wolfe site slopes primarily westward toward Wolfe Creek which 

flows southwestward. An intervening ridge system to the southwest (Buzzard 

Butte, elevation 1,684 ft) blocks direct exposure to the ocean, and 1,000 ft or higher 

ridge systems are located to the west, north, and east. The southern part of the study 

area has a knoll and saddle topography; the rest slopes reasonably uniformly from 

the upper road westward. Dissection across the contour is moderate. Study plots are 

located from the road straight down slope except in the saddle and knoll where they 

are bounded by upper and lower roads. Deer use on the area is common, elk use 

more limited.

Site Preparation 

Study replications were installed on one or two sites per year. Although the same 

site preparation treatments were applied on each area, some variation in techniques 

was inherent owing to the site and season, the administration of work, the crews or 

contractors involved, and many other factors. Research personnel assisted in site 

selection and study layout. All site treatments and contracts were carried out under 

the direction of ranger district personnel.

The most suitable clearcut of several available in each geographic location at 

the time was selected for the study. Suitability considerations included adequate 

size, uniformity of topography, high competitive shrub potential, possibility of 

limiting the slash burn, and logging completed recently or likely to be completed in 

time. All clearcuts selected had supported mixed stands of alder and conifers, and 

residuals of woody shrubs were common. Logs were removed from all study areas 

by cable systems.
8

research paper pnw-rp-601

The four site preparation treatments were applied to quarters of a clearcut or to 

quarters of the study area delineated within a very large clearcut. Site treatments 

were assigned at random as much as possible, but topographic position sometimes 

dictated which half of the area was to be slash-burned. Slash burning was limited 

successfully; less than an acre of slash was burned unintentionally (Upperten). The 

date treatments were applied in each study area are listed in table 2. 

Table 2—Treatment history of each study site

Treatment period

Study site Logged Sprayed Burned Planted Released

Pitchfork 1974–75 8/1/75 9/18/75 3/9–18/76 10/7–8/78

Beaver 2/76–6/76 6/7/76 8/28/76 2/10–18/77 10/13/79

Upperten 1974–76 6/5/76 8/22/76 2/2–8/77 10/6/78

Randall 1976 5/29/77 7/15/77 2/22–24/78 10/9/80

Poposchultz 7/76–12/76 5/27–28/77 7/24/77 2/24–3/2/78 9/29/80

Bay’s Wolfe 11/76–2/77 6/9/77 and 5/78 10/13/78 3/12–27/79 9/23/80

Descriptive information about each treatment includes:

Control—

Slash and live vegetation on control areas were not treated after logging. None of 

the study sites was YUM (yarded unmerchantable material) yarded; hence, unmerchantable logs and tops of alder and conifers were common, even abundant, on 

the areas. In at least one instance (Randall), unmerchantable live alders that had 

developed along an adjacent older road and skid road were slashed after logging 

had been completed. Such slashing was done where needed, not just in the quarter 

designated as the control.

Spray only—

A broad-spectrum herbicide spray was aerially applied in the growing season. 

Formulations involving trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T) were state-of-the-art 

when the study started and were used on all six study areas, on the last three by 

specific authorization. Similar formulations were used on all study sites, but there 

were minor variations owing to time and local practice. Spray rate varied from 10 

to 20 gallons per acre. The spray formulations are shown on a common basis in 

table 3.

Burn only—

Slash and live vegetation were broadcast-burned when conditions were dry enough 

for a good burn, and smoke management requirements could be met. Good clean 
9

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

burns were obtained on Pitchfork, Upperten, and Poposchultz. A good burn was 

also obtained on Beaver, but some dead carcasses of tall salmonberry remained. 

Burning did not kill some shrub clumps and grassy spots on the north slope at 

Randall. Slash burning was not accomplished the first season that Bay’s Wolfe 

was available. Thus, vegetation developed an additional year at Bay’s Wolfe before 

treatment. Results of burning in the second autumn were highly variable, and much 

rapidly developing salmonberry escaped unscathed.

Spray and burn— 

One quarter of each study site was sprayed before it was burned. The same formulation and timing were used for the preburn spray as were used on the quarter 

that was only sprayed. Burning of slash followed spraying by 7 to 19 weeks (table 

2). Both quarters to be burned on a study area were completed on the same day. 

Good burns were obtained on spray-and-burn quarters at Pitchfork, Upperten, and 

Poposchultz. At Beaver and Randall, spray-and-burn quarters received somewhat 

better burns than the quarters only burned. At Bay’s Wolfe, the spray-and-burn 

quarter received a second preburn spray before it was slash-burned in the second 

year after logging. A clean burn resulted, in marked contrast to the result on the 

quarter that was only burned.

Planting

The trees planted on each study site were grown from seed of sources judged suitable for that site. In some instances, stock of the same origin was suitable for more 

than one of the sites. The seed origin and the nursery at which each lot of stock was 

produced are listed in the appendix (table 35).

Table 3—Spray formulation and rate used for site preparation on 

each site

Acid equivalent per acre Solution per acrea

Study site Picloram 2,4-D 2,4,5-T Wetting agent Total

- - - - - - - Pounds - - - - - - - - - - - Gallons - - - - 

Pitchfork 0.5 — 3.0 0.15 20

Beaver 0.5 2.0 2.0 0.46 15

Upperten 0.5 2.0 2.0 0.75 15

Randall 0.5 2.0 2.0 0.05 15

Poposchultz 0.5 2.0 2.0 0.01 10

Bay’s Wolfe 0.5 2.0 2.0 0.05 10

1.0 4.0 — 0.10 20 a All chemicals were dissolved in water except at Pitchfork where 0.5 gallon of diesel was 

included.
10

research paper pnw-rp-601

Every effort was made to obtain stock of the same or of similar origin for the 

seven classes of stock used at an individual site, short of growing all stock specifically for the area. The general approach was to identify 1 year ahead of planting the 

production lots to be used. Plans were built around first-year Douglas-fir seedlings 

already being grown for use on the area. The 2+0 Douglas-fir stock would be 

obtained one season later from this lot. Whenever available, seed of the same source 

was also allocated for production of the container Douglas-fir. Douglas-fir 2+0 

stock of the same or of a similar source was also identified for production of 2+1 

stock. When possible, seed for production of western hemlock container seedlings 

was also matched with bare-root western hemlock already growing in production 

beds. The bare-root western hemlocks for all but one site were plug+1 stock—

grown the first year in a container and the second year in a transplant bed.

Container stock was produced in several kinds of container. The container 

type in which the stock was grown is indicated in parentheses in table 35. There 

was no intent to directly compare container effects, but initial size of the container 

seedlings reflects the regime and container in which they were grown. Large, 

medium, and small bare-root Douglas-fir stock was obtained by sorting nurseryprocessed bundles of 2+0 Douglas-fir into size classes. Because the average size of 

the seedlings produced varied from year to year, the average size of each class of 

2+0 Douglas-fir stock also varied from year to year. The actual and relative sizes of 

stock used at each study site are presented in the “Conifer Development” section.

At each site, trees were planted by either a Forest Service or contractor crew. 

The usual planting requirements were practiced such as care of planting stock, 

microsite clearing, and planting technique. Trees were planted at the usual spacing prescribed for the site—10 × 10 ft at Pitchfork and 9 × 9 ft on the other five 

sites. Row ends and planting spots in each row were prestaked, generally with 

color-coded stakes. Stock for each row was packaged and labeled in advance to 

avoid confusion in the field. Usually, a single planter planted all 14 rows in a plot 

to minimize planter effects (fig. 4). If the planter encountered non-plantable area 

at or near the staked point, he was instructed to pull the stake and extend the row 

at the downhill end enough to accommodate all 20 trees. Planting on all sites was 

completed in February or March of the scheduled year.

Seedling Protection

Half the rows of tree seedlings, as designated randomly before planting, were 

protected with tubing. Commercially produced mesh tubing was used for Douglasfir, nominally 30 or 36 inches tall and two to three inches in diameter (fig. 5). 

Six-inch-diameter tubes were made up for western hemlock by each ranger district 
11

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Figure 4—All 14 rows in a prestaked plot were planted by the same planter.

Edmund Lohmeyer

Figure 5—Plastic mesh tubing was installed on trees given protection (left photo), usually on the day they were planted. Edmund Lohmeyer
12

research paper pnw-rp-601

from rolls of mesh with the same diamond pattern as those purchased. Tubes were 

supported by 4-foot-long wooden stakes—some were lath and others were cut narrower and thicker. Twist ties were used to hold the tube to the stake. Whether tubes 

were supported by one or two stakes and by two or three ties differed according to 

district preferences.

Rows of trees designated for protection were to be tubed as soon as possible 

after planting. This meant the tree should be tubed on the same day it was planted. 

In some circumstances tubing was delayed for one or more days. In one recorded 

instance, trees in several rows at Bay’s Wolfe required replanting because clipping 

damage was inflicted on trees where tubing was delayed to the third day.

Plantation Release

One-half the area subjected to each site preparation treatment was later aerially 

sprayed with glyphosate (fig. 6). The release spray was applied in early autumn 

when vegetation was nearing the end of its third growing season. This meant that 

on two study areas—Upperten and Bay’s Wolfe—the release spray was applied 

when tree seedlings were completing their second growing season, not their third. 

From a study design standpoint, it appeared more important to apply the release 

spray to vegetation at the same stage of development at all locations rather than 

to trees of comparable age when both objectives could not be fulfilled simultaneously. Planting had to be delayed one year on Bay’s Wolfe till slash was burned. On 

Upperten, logging over an extended period permitted vegetation development to be 

more advanced on the unburned part of the area than on the burned part.

Glyphosate was applied at a rate of 1 quart in 9.75 gallons of water per acre. It 

was applied to half the area of every treatment even though release was not necessarily needed after some site preparation treatments.

Data Collection

Periodic examinations were made to monitor the development and fate of tree 

seedlings. The first examination, an observation for appearance, initial height, 

apparent vigor, biotic damage, and microsite condition, was made by early summer of the first season. A key purpose of the initial examination was to determine 

if seedlings appeared healthy. Most seedlings on all sites were healthy. Heights of 

surviving seedlings were measured to the nearest centimeter after the first, third, 

fifth, seventh, and tenth growing seasons. Field crews were instructed to measure 

seedlings as they found them without changing tube position or vegetative competition. Damage of consequence observed on seedlings was recorded and attributed to 

cause where possible. The status of each seedling relative to competing vegetation 

was also rated at each examination.
13

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Figure 6—Bands of browned vegetation in April after release spraying the previous autumn: 

(A) Beaver; (B) Bay’s Wolfe. 

An estimate of vegetative cover on each study area was obtained by examination of 40 vegetation transects—10 in each site treatment, thus five in each release 

treatment. Cover and composition were determined for the first time before site 

preparation and periodically afterward on all six sites. The initial sampling of 

vegetation occurred before tree plots were installed. Hence, vegetation transects 

and tree plots do not fully coincide as to area covered.
14

research paper pnw-rp-601

Vegetative cover was determined repeatedly along the same 50-ft-long line 

transects oriented downhill. All transects represent slope distances as measured by 

a tape stretched as horizontal as possible. Increments of vegetation were measured 

to the nearest 0.1 ft as they occurred within a half-inch band below and above the 

stretched-out tape. Slash increments not covered by vegetation were measured at 

each examination and also increments of bare ground from the third examination 

onward. Tree, shrub, and major herbaceous species were recorded by species or 

species groups. The rest of the herbaceous species were lumped as miscellaneous 

herbaceous.

Stem counts were made on three milacre plots located 10 ft from and at right 

angle to the 0-, 25-, and 50-ft points along each transect line. All woody vegetation 

and ferns whose main stems were rooted in the milacre were counted. Height was 

measured from ground line to where the top bulk of a species’ crown occurred.

During vegetation measurements, biomass samples were also collected. Center 

stakes for biomass plots were located 5 ft to the left and at right angle to the 10-, 

25-, and 40-ft point along each transect line. In consecutive examinations, destructive samples were taken in round-the-clock order starting with the two o’clock position 2 ft from the staked center point. Live vegetation encompassed by a circular 

hoop that enclosed an area of 2 ft2 was cut and placed in separate bags for woody, 

herbaceous or tree material. When vegetation overhanging the sample column could 

not be reached, a comparable amount of the same species was collected nearby.

Data Summaries and Analyses

This study has spanned the era from manually recording data on field sheets to 

data entry entirely into electronic files. All tree and vegetation data were initially 

recorded manually on field sheets. Early on, a systematic protocol was devised for 

checking tree data. Individual field sheets were visually scanned line by line to 

remedy inconsistencies and omissions. After electronic entry, data were checked 

against field sheets again line by line, and needed corrections were made.

Statistical tests are focused on 10-year stand development. Did tree survival and 

growth differ among technique combinations tested, and if so, how much?

The study has a split-split-split-plot structured on a randomized complete block 

design. Sites are presumed to be random effects and all treatments are fixed effects. 

Analyses were made in SAS PROC MIXED with preplanned contrasts included. 

The dependent variables for l0th-year tree data—survival, height, and diameter—

were individually subjected to analysis of variance, after data from the three tree 

plots in each eighth of a study site were combined. 
15

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Type 3 tests of fixed effects had this form and outcome:

Tree

Fixed effects Degrees of freedom Survival Height Diameter

Numerator Denominator - - - - - - - - Pr > F - - - - - - - - 

Site preparation 3 15 0.066 0.195 0.293

Seedling protection 1 20 <.001 <.001 <.001

Site × protection 3 20 .975 .856 .807

Stock types 6 240 <.001 <.001 <.001

Site × stock types 18 240 .404 .999 .973

Protection × stock types 6 240 .874 .781 .893

Site × protection 

× stock types

18 240 .819 .999 .998

Release 1 280 .026 <.001 <.001

Site × release 3 280 .052 <.001 <.001

Protection × release 1 280 .056 .099 .247

Site × protection 

× release

3 280 .506 .128 .252

Stock × release 6 280 .864 .594 .487

Site × stock × release 18 280 .996 .821 1.000

Protection × stock 

× release

6 280 .563 .793 .905

Site × protection 

× stock × release

18 280 .839 .994 .997

An array of contrasts were also tested, each having 1 and 240 degrees of freedom. 

Descriptive data observed on individual trees such as cause and timing of 

mortality, damage on live trees, and condition of cages were summed to identify 

factors that influenced 10-year stand development.

Similarly, data on vegetative cover, biomass, and height of species are indicative of the different levels of competition that trees were subjected to during the 

decade of stand development. Vegetation data are not tied to specific tree plots; they 

indicate the average vegetative competition within each eighth of every study site. 

Hence, correlation analyses do not appear germane or necessary.

P-values are included in text statements founded on statistical tests. P-values up 

to P = 0.3 are given, as readers may value any indication of trends in a very large 

study where only some of the many variables could be controlled and tested.

Conifer Development 

Initial Seedling Size

Initial size of seedlings used in the study was determined by sampling trees from 

each type of stock planted. A representative sample was drawn from two or three 

bundles or bags of each lot when lots were subdivided into color-coded packages 
16

research paper pnw-rp-601

prior to planting or at completion of planting. Generally, a larger sample was 

taken than needed and later randomly reduced to the actual number measured and 

weighed.

After thorough washing in the laboratory, 25 trees from each stock type and 

site were measured individually for shoot length, root length, and stem diameter; 

then oven-dried at 70 °C for 48 hours for determination of shoot- and root-dry 

weight. Shoot:root ratios were later calculated from the shoot- and root-dry weights. 

Shoot length was measured in centimeters and tenths from the base of the terminal 

bud to the root collar. The root collar was defined as located 1 cm below the cotyledonal scars. Stem diameter was measured to the nearest millimeter at the root 

collar. Lengths were determined on stretched out roots; enough tension was applied 

to reduce but not eliminate curves and kinks. Roots of some container seedlings 

were not measured; for these, the length of the container has been listed as the 

nominal root length.

Size of nursery stock planted varied among study sites as well as between stock 

types (tables 4 and 5; fig. 7). Considering averages for all stock types combined, 

differences were relatively minor among study sites in shoot length and stem 

diameter of the stock planted. Average shoot length ranged from 25.0 to 29.1 cm and 

stem diameter from 4.2 to 4.9 mm. Stock size differences were two-fold or greater 

between sites for average shoot dry weight, 3.3 to 8.2 g, and root dry weight, 1.5 to 

3.7 g, and intermediate for shoot:root ratio, 1.6 to 2.6, and root length, 20.6 to 27.3 

cm. Seedlings planted at Pitchfork averaged larger in all attributes except shoot:root 

ratio than seedlings planted at other study sites.

The range in average size between the largest and smallest type of stock was 

generally more than double—shoot length, 18.9 to 39.1 cm; root length, 17.8 to 29.5 

cm; stem diameter, 2.4 to 7.0 mm; shoot dry weight, 0.9 to 11.3 g; root dry weight, 

0.4 to 5.8 g; and shoot:root ratio, 1.6 to 3.3. Even small bare-root Douglas-fir stock 

averaged larger than container Douglas-fir or western hemlock stock, except in 

shoot length. The average shoot:root ratio was low even for large 2+0 Douglas-fir 

but somewhat high for bare-root hemlock.

On all sites, the averages for large, medium, and small 2+0 Douglas-fir stock 

reflect the shoot length differences that were the primary criterion on which they 

were sorted. The difference in shoot length between adjacent sizes averaged about 

10 cm. Except for root length, the other attributes have the same downward gradation between the three sizes of 2+0 Douglas-fir stock. As roots were trimmed 

during packing, one could expect smaller and perhaps less consistent differences in 

root length among the three 2+0 Douglas-fir stock types.

On three of the six study sites (Pitchfork, Randall, and Bay’s Wolfe), average 

shoot length of 2+1 Douglas-fir stock was shorter than for large 2+0 Douglas-fir 
17

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Table 4—Average shoot length, root length, and stem diameter of the nursery stock planted 

Study site Range of sizes

Species and stock type Pitchfork Beaver Upperten Randall Poposchultz Bay’s Wolfe

Average and standard error Minimum Maximum

Shoot length: Centimeters

Douglas-fir:

Transplant 2+1 41.2 41.5 37.6 31.6 39.0 31.3 37.0 ± 0.6 21.0 54.0Large 2+0 47.0 35.7 37.2 38.3 35.9 40.5 39.1 ± 0.6 25.1 67.0Medium 2+0 35.5 26.0 27.3 27.0 27.0 28.8 28.6 ± 0.4 20.0 46.0Small 2+0 25.4 17.7 19.9 15.0 15.0 20.1 18.9 ± 0.4 8.9 31.0Container 18.9 16.9 16.9 17.3 18.1 29.7 19.7 ± 0.5 10.2 38.2

Western hemlock:

Bare root 22.5 20.9 30.9 — — 32.3 26.6 ± 0.8 13.5 45.5Container 12.4 19.0 25.3 20.6 21.7 21.3 20.1 ± 0.6 8.7 43.0

All types 29.0 25.4 27.9 25.0 26.1 29.1 27.2 ± 0.3 8.7 67.0

Root length: Centimeters

Douglas-fir:

Transplant 2+1 33.7 32.8 23.4 33.8 30.4 23.1 29.5 ± 0.6 15.5 62.9Large 2+0 38.6 31.6 35.1 24.3 20.1 20.3 28.3 ± 0.8 8.0 61.0Medium 2+0 32.3 30.8 29.8 25.1 25.1 21.4 27.4 ± 0.5 13.5 49.0Small 2+0 34.4 24.8 21.4 21.4 21.4 21.5 24.1 ± 0.5 11.6 57.0Container 16.0 16.0 16.0 25.2 24.5 21.7 19.9 ± 0.4 16.0 42.5

Western hemlock:

Bare root 25.3 23.1 24.7 — — 20.5 23.4 ± 0.6 11.0 42.0Container 11.0 25.0 16.0 21.5 17.9 15.6 17.8 ± 0.4 11.0 26.6

All types 27.3 26.3 23.8 25.2 23.2 20.6 24.4 ± 0.2 8.0 62.9

Stem diameter: Millimeters

Douglas-fir:

Transplant 2+1 7.8 7.6 7.5 6.3 7.8 5.1 7.0 ± 0.15 3.0 11.8

Large 2+0 9.5 6.3 5.5 5.8 5.1 6.0 6.4 ± 0.16 3.1 12.2

Medium 2+0 6.0 4.6 4.4 4.3 4.3 5.0 4.8 ± 0.08 3.3 7.8Small 2+0 5.3 3.4 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.7 4.0 ± 0.09 2.2 7.5

Container 1.8 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.9 3.0 2.6 ± 0.04 1.2 3.5

Western hemlock:

Bare root 2.3 3.1 4.4 — — 3.7 3.4 ± 0.11 1.2 6.9Container 1.3 2.0 2.7 3.1 2.7 2.6 2.4 ± 0.06 1.1 4.6

All types 4.9 4.2 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.4 ± 0.07 1.1 12.2
18

research paper pnw-rp-601 Table 5—Average dry weight of shoots and roots and shoot:root ratio of the nursery stock planted Study site Range of sizes Species and stock type Pitchfork Beaver Upperten Randall Poposchultz Bay’s Wolfe Average and standard error Minimum Maximum Shoot dry weight: Grams Douglas-fir: Transplant 2+1 15.0 12.3 12.7 8.0 14.4 5.3 11.3 ± 0.50 1.7 30.7 Large 2+0 24.2 7.4 5.9 5.3 5.1 7.4 9.2 ± 0.64 1.3 41.8 Medium 2+0 8.7 3.7 3.5 2.5 2.5 4.3 4.2 ± 0.21 1.4 14.2

Small 2+0 7.0 1.5 2.2 1.6 1.6 2.2 2.7 ± 0.20 0.5 14.0Container 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.1 2.0 1.1 ± 0.04 0.2 2.9

Western hemlock:

Bare root 1.4 1.4 3.4 — — 2.6 2.2 ± 0.16 0.4 8.9Container 0.4 0.6 1.3 1.4 0.8 1.0 0.9 ± 0.05 0.2 3.2

All types 8.2 4.0 4.3 3.3 4.3 3.5 4.6 ± 0.18 0.2 41.8

Root dry weight: Grams

Douglas-fir:

Transplant 2+1 8.1 6.6 5.2 5.0 7.5 2.7 5.8 ± 0.25 1.1 14.4

Large 2+0 9.2 3.8 2.2 2.8 2.6 2.9 3.9 ± 0.24 1.0 14.0Medium 2+0 3.8 2.3 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.9 2.1 ± 0.10 0.7 6.7Small 2+0 3.3 1.1 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.6 ± 0.09 0.5 5.9Container 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.9 0.6 ± 0.03 0.2 1.8

Western hemlock:

Bare root 0.4 0.7 1.5 — — 0.6 0.8 ± 0.08 0.1 6.2Container 0.2 0.2 0.5 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 ± 0.03 0.1 2.0

All types 3.7 2.2 1.8 2.1 2.4 1.5 2.3 ± 0.08 0.1 14.4

Shoot:root ratio, dry weight basis: Ratio

Douglas-fir:

Transplant 2+1 1.9 1.9 2.5 1.6 1.9 2.0 2.0 ± 0.04 1.0 3.9

Large 2+0 2.7 2.0 2.8 1.9 1.9 2.6 2.3 ± 0.05 0.9 5.1Medium 2+0 2.3 1.6 2.3 1.7 1.7 2.3 2.0 ± 0.05 1.1 3.6Small 2+0 2.1 1.4 2.1 1.1 1.1 1.7 1.6 ± 0.04 0.7 3.0Container 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.5 2.0 2.3 1.9 ± 0.05 0.9 4.3

Western hemlock:

Bare root 3.8 2.3 2.7 — — 4.4 3.3 ± 0.13 1.3 8.5Container 2.0 2.8 2.6 1.5 2.5 3.0 2.4 ± 0.07 0.4 4.5

All types 2.4 2.0 2.4 1.6 1.8 2.6 2.1 ± 0.03 0.4 8.5
19

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Figure 7—Relative size of stock planted at Pitchfork (A) and Beaver (B): stock types from left—

Douglas-fir bare-root 2+1; 2+0 large, medium, small; container; western hemlock bare-root 1+1, and 

container seedling.
20

research paper pnw-rp-601

stock. Douglas-fir 2+1 stock was also smaller than large 2+0 stock in several other 

size attributes at Pitchfork and Bay’s Wolfe. On five of the six sites, shoot:root ratio 

was slightly lower for 2+1 Douglas-firs than for large 2+0 Douglas-firs.

These generalizations about stock characteristics need to be kept in mind as 

seedling survival and growth results are evaluated:

1. In general, stock used on the six study sites differed in size, but least in shoot 

length and stem diameter, the attributes most commonly observed.

2. There was a large range in average size among stock types. The stock types 

ranked in the same order reasonably consistently with Douglas-fir 2+1 and 

large 2+0 stock largest, and container Douglas-fir and all western hemlock 

stock substantially smaller.

3. The difference between the minimum and maximum value for each size 

attribute indicates that each stock type had a wide range of individual tree 

sizes within it.

Survival

Two-thirds of the 40,263 trees1 planted in the study were alive 10 years later (table 

6). Tree survival differed greatly between sites, however. At Poposchultz, 82.5 

percent of the trees were alive at 10 years, but only 51.2 percent at Upperten.

Protection provided by mesh tubing significantly aided tree survival, 82.2 vs. 

50.5 percent (P < 0.001). Among sites, the range in average survival was much 

less for protected trees, 91.7 to 70.8 percent than for unprotected trees, 75.2 to 32.5 

percent (table 6).

For the entire study, the three site preparation treatments strongly tended to aid 

tree survival (P = 0.066), but results were not consistent at individual sites (table 7). 

For example, at Randall, tree survival was practically the same in all treatments, 

67.7 percent in the control and 68.4, 68.4, and 71.6 in the other three. At Pitchfork, 

Poposchultz, and Bay’s Wolfe, tree survival in the control equaled or exceeded 

survival in one of the site preparation treatments.

Ten-year survival of Douglas-fir stock averaged significantly greater (P < 

0.001) than for western hemlock stock, 69.6 vs. 57.7 percent. Western hemlock 

survival averaged consistently lower than Douglas-fir on all sites (table 8).

1

 The balanced design totaled 40,320 trees. At the first examination in midsummer after 

planting, 57 trees were missing. The vacant spots and vicinity provided no evidence that 

they had been planted or if seedlings had already been removed. The number of seedlings 

missing ranged from 0 to 14 per site. These 57 doubtful cases have been excluded from 

mortality summaries. Thus, trees planted totaled 40,263—there were 28,762 Douglas-firs 

and 11, 501 western hemlocks; 20,272 uncaged trees, 19,991 caged; 10,069 site preparation–control, 10,063 burn, 10,080 spray, and 10,071 spray and burn. The differences in 

trees per treatment are minuscule relative to the total number involved.
21

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Table 6—Average 10-year survival of untubed and tubed trees by site

Site Untubed Tubed Total and average

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Pitchfork 1,856 55.3 2,932 87.3 4,788 71.3

Beaver 1,758 51.8 2,707 81.9 4,465 66.6

Upperten 1,120 32.5 2,312 71.1 3,432 51.2

Randall 1,552 46.3 3,080 91.7 4,632 69.0

Poposchultz 2,527 75.2 3,018 89.8 5,545 82.5

Bay’s Wolfe 1,419 42.3 2,376 70.8 3,795 56.5

 Total and average 10,232 50.5 16,425 82.2 26,657 66.2

Table 7—Average 10-year survival of trees by site preparation and site 

Site Control Burn Spray Spray and burn Total and average

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Pitchfork 1,116 66.4 1,318 78.6 1,063 63.3 1,291 76.9 4,788 71.3

Beaver 934 55.6 1,059 63.4 1,271 75.7 1,201 71.7 4,465 66.6

Upperten 617 36.9 1,015 60.4 880 52.7 920 54.9 3,432 51.2

Randall 1,137 67.7 1,149 68.4 1,144 68.4 1,202 71.6 4,632 69.0

Poposchultz 1,396 83.1 1,483 88.3 1,244 74.1 1,422 84.6 5,545 82.5

Bay’s Wolfe 693 41.3 666 39.7 1,110 66.1 1,326 78.9 3,795 56.5

 Total and average 5,893 58.5 6,690 66.5 6,712 66.7 7,362 73.1 26,657 66.2
22

research paper pnw-rp-601

Table 8—Average 10-year survival of trees by species, protection, stock type, and site

Site

Species and stock type Pitchfork Beaver Upperten Randall Poposchultz Bay’s Wolfe All sites

Douglas-fir:

Transplant 2+1 Number 777 780 542 753 854 584 4,290

Percent 80.9 81.6 56.7 78.4 89.0 60.9 74.6

Untubed 327 329 182 292 411 227 1,768

Tubed 450 451 360 461 443 357 2,522

Large 2+0 Number 753 734 598 680 835 633 4,233

Percent 78.6 76.5 62.4 70.9 87.0 65.9 73.6

Untubed 301 294 220 226 392 255 1,688

Tubed 452 440 378 454 443 378 2,545

Medium 2+0 Number 736 680 572 678 823 566 4,055

Percent 76.7 70.9 59.6 70.6 85.7 59.0 70.4

Untubed 291 264 201 234 380 217 1,587

Tubed 445 416 371 444 443 349 2,468

Small 2+0 Number 736 612 484 633 779 542 3,786

Percent 76.7 64.0 50.4 65.9 81.1 56.5 65.8

Untubed 318 217 173 191 366 197 1,462

Tubed 418 395 311 442 413 345 2,324

Container Number 637 561 466 638 803 553 3,658

Percent 66.4 58.7 48.8 67.0 83.6 57.6 63.7

Untubed 240 227 128 194 376 209 1,374

Tubed 397 334 338 444 427 344 2,284

 Total Number 3,639 3,367 2,662 3,382 4,094 2,878 20,022

Percent 75.9 70.4 55.6 70.6 85.3 60.0 69.6

Untubed 1,477 1,331 904 1,137 1,925 1,105 7,879

Tubed 2,162 2,036 1,758 2,245 2,169 1,773 12,143

Western hemlock:

Bare root Number 568 530 436 606 732 527 3,399

Percent 59.2 55.3 45.6 63.1 76.3 55.0 59.1

Untubed 182 192 147 204 315 189 1,229

Tubed 386 338 289 402 417 338 2,170

Container Number 581 568 334 644 719 390 3,236

Percent 60.5 59.3 35.0 67.2 74.9 40.8 56.3

Untubed 197 235 69 211 287 125 1,124

Tubed 384 333 265 433 432 265 2,112

 Total Number 1,149 1,098 770 1,250 1,451 917 6,635

Percent 59.8 57.3 40.3 65.1 75.6 47.9 57.7

Untubed 379 427 216 415 602 314 2,353

Tubed 770 671 554 835 849 603 4,282
23

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Overall, survival of Douglas-fir container stock averaged significantly lower 

(P < 0.001) than for the four bare-root stock types combined 63.7 vs. 71.1 percent 

(table 8). However, on four of the six sites, survival of Douglas-fir container stock 

differed little from small-size bare-root stock. Survival of small and medium-size

2+0 Douglas-firs was significantly lower than for large 2+0 stock, 68.1 vs. 73.6 

percent (P < 0.001). Western hemlock bare-root stock tended to survive a bit better 

than hemlock container stock (P = 0.105). Without exception, survival of tubed 

trees of every stock type was higher on all sites—averaging 21.3 percent higher 

for Douglas-fir and 29.1 percent higher for western hemlock. For both species, 

mortality was highest in the first three years, and declined by smaller increments in 

subsequent years (fig. 8).

Survival trends were consistent among treatments as indicated by nonsignificant differences in interaction tests between protection and site preparation, 

site preparation and stock types, and between protection, site preparation, and stock 

types (see “Data Summaries and Analyses” section).

Spraying vegetation the second or third year after planting significantly aided 

tree survival although the actual averages were close, 66.9 vs. 65.5 percent (P = 

0.026) (table 9). After release, survival of Douglas-firs continued to be higher than 

for western hemlocks on all sites, but species response to release varied among sites 

(fig. 9). There were also significant interactions between protection and release (P 

= 0.056) and between site preparation and release (P = 0.052). This seems almost 

Figure 8—Survival trend for Douglas-firs and western hemlocks, untubed and tubed, years 0 to 10.
24

research paper pnw-rp-601

Table 9—Average 10-year survival of trees not released and released 

by site

Site No release Release Total and average

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Pitchfork 2,386 71.1 2,402 71.5 4,788 71.3

Beaver 2,317 69.2 2,148 64.0 4,465 66.6

Upperten 1,670 49.8 1,762 52.6 3,432 51.2

Randall 2,266 67.5 2,366 70.6 4,632 69.0

Poposchultz 2,782 82.8 2,763 82.2 5,545 82.5

Bay’s Wolfe 1,766 52.6 2,029 60.5 3,795 56.5

 Total and average 13,187 65.5 13,470 66.9 26,657 66.2

Figure 9—Trees alive at 10 years by site, species, and release treatment.

inevitable as one site preparation treatment reduced varying amounts of residual 

vegetation more than another, thus fostering unequal vegetative cover for release to 

affect.

Tree Mortality and Damage

One third of all trees planted died over the 10-year period (33.8 percent). In periodic 

examinations, observers recorded a cause of death for nearly three-fourths of all 

dead seedlings, 9,915 of 13,606 (table 10). Stem clipping near ground line was the 

main cause of mortality, 8,927 seedlings, comprising 65.6 percent of all mortality. 
25

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Table 10—Causes of seedling mortality by species and yearSpecies Year

No 

damage

Clipped, 

unknown

Clipped, 

mountain 

beaver

Pulled 

up Browsed Trampled

Bark 

chewed Gopher

Foliage 

disease

Insects, 

terminal 

bud

Insects, 

foliage Unknown

Tube 

injury

Chain sawed

All 

causes

a

Number of seedlings

Douglas-fir: 0 146 172 1,307 187 24 12 1 20 1,869

1 315 279 1,013 26 129 1 1 64 1 1,829

3 271 194 2,111 133 1 2 1 128 4 2,8455 318 161 385 24 2 7 2 1 141 10 1,0517 296 35 102 17 3 2 18 30 503

10 369 13 49 1 4 2 4 1 6 15 50 514

Subtotal 1,715 854 4,967 214 331 21 15 2 2 1 2 377 60 50 8,611

Western hemlock: 0 363 92 714 21 15 7 1 26 1,239

1 372 299 593 9 121 4 1 1 88 1,488

3 67 151 924 33 1 1 90 1 1,268

5 101 70 148 10 1 52 4 386

7 115 32 49 7 1 4 13 7 228

10 135 7 27 4 1 7 7 21 209

Subtotal 1,153 651 2,455 30 190 14 12 0 1 1 2 269 19 21 4,818

Total 2,868 1,505 7,422 244 521 35 27 2 3 2 4 646 79 71 13,429Percent 21.1 11.1 54.5 1.8 3.8 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 4.7 0.6 0.5 100.0b

a 177 dead seedlings not included owing to insufficient identity in database.b Percentage of mortality based on total number dead, 13,429 plus 177 = 13,606.
26

research paper pnw-rp-601

Of this total, observers attributed mortality of 4,967 Douglas-firs and 2,455 western 

hemlocks directly to clipping by mountain beavers. An additional 854 Douglas-firs 

and 651 western hemlocks were allotted to the clipped unknown column; most 

likely many of these were also clipped by mountain beavers, but rabbits or other 

agents could have contributed. Nearly ninety-percent (87.9 percent) of all clipping 

damage occurred by the third examination. Sufficient time had elapsed by then to 

indicate if a stem clipped earlier near ground line was dead or had grown a new 

shoot. Of course, such tender new regrowth could again be clipped.

Mortality and damage from clipping by mountain beavers and other agents 

continued even as the stand became older and taller. In fact, 12.1 percent of all 

mortality from clipping occurred after the third year, 745 Douglas-firs and 313 

western hemlocks. In addition to stem severance, some seedlings did not survive 

partial or total burial by mountain beaver and others were undermined enough to 

cause growth impairment or mortality (fig 10).

Douglas-fir seedlings sustained less mortality from clipping than western 

hemlock 20.2 vs. 27.0 percent of the total number planted (see footnote 1) for each 

species (table 10).

Both untubed and tubed seedlings sustained mortality from clipping. Of course, 

tubed trees sustained much less such mortality than untubed trees, but the number 

that died was substantial, 1,243 vs. 7,684 (table 11). Clipping of tubed trees occurred 

when the tube was undermined, when the tube was tipped or knocked off, especially where elk were active, or when large tubes on western hemlocks opened up. 

Terminal shoots were also clipped when they extended out of the side or top of the 

tube. Few tubed trees were pulled up, 17 vs. 227 untubed; trampled, 9 vs. 26; and 

mortality from browsing was less for tubed trees, 149 vs. 372.

Seedling mortality from clipping was highest on three sites—Upperten 

2,400; Randall 1,789; Bay’s Wolfe 1,713—and markedly lower on Poposchultz, 

566 (table 11). Pulled-up seedlings were found in quantity only on Pitchfork, 151, 

and Upperten, 75, where elk herds hung out nearby. Trampling occurred almost 

exclusively on Pitchfork, 27 seedlings, and mortality from browsing was greater on 

Upperten than on the other five units combined, 389 vs. 132 seedlings.

Regarding site preparation, more seedling mortality from clipping occurred in 

control areas (2,691) than in areas given a site preparation treatment, with lowest 

incidences in the spray-and-burn areas, 1,653 (table 11). But seedling mortality from 

pulling was highest in the spray-and-burn areas, 95, as was trampling, 17. Mortality from browsing occurred nearly three times as often in burned areas than in the 

other two treatments, 382 vs. 139.
27

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Figure 10—Mountain beavers, common foragers in coastal forests, inflict 

multiple forms of damage on conifer seedlings: (A) mountain beaver; (B) 

clipped near ground line; (C) fully buried; (D) undermined; (E) foliage 

clipped repeatedly. US Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region
28

research paper pnw-rp-601 Table 11—Causes of seedling mortality by site, protection, site preparation, and stock type Site treatment No damage Clipped unknown Clipped, mountain beaver Pulled up Browsed Trampled Bark chewed Gopher Foliage disease Insects, terminal bud Insects, foliage Unknown Tube injury Chain sawed All causes a Number of seedlings Site: Pitchfork 323 76 992 151 19 27 13 0 0 0 0 310 17 0 1,928 Beaver 626 504 887 10 55 1 2 0 1 0 1 116 8 0 2,211 Upperten 361 496 1,904 75 389 2 5 0 0 1 1 29 7 0 3,270 Randall 225 235 1,554 5 5 1 1 0 1 1 0 14 3 0 2,045

Poposchultz 426 156 410 2 34 2 3 0 0 0 1 13 4 71 1,122Bay’s Wolfe 907 38 1,675 1 19 2 3 2 1 0 1 164 40 0 2,853

Total 2,868 1,505 7,422 244 521 35 27 2 3 2 4 646 79 71 13,429

Protection:

Untubed 1,242 1,091 6,593 227 372 26 15 1 2 2 0 340 3 38 9,952Tubed 1,626 414 829 17 149 9 12 1 1 0 4 306 76 33 3,477

Total 2,868 1,505 7,422 244 521 35 27 2 3 2 4 646 79 71 13,429

Site preparation:

Control 965 537 2,154 60 86 4 4 0 0 1 2 238 33 47 4,131Burn 696 253 1,970 50 187 6 8 0 0 0 2 147 24 24 3,367Spray 641 502 1,858 39 53 8 6 2 2 1 0 171 14 0 3,297Spray and burn 566 213 1,440 95 195 17 9 0 1 0 0 90 8 0 2,634

Total 2,868 1,505 7,422 244 521 35 27 2 3 2 4 646 79 71 13,429

Stock type:

DF Transplant2+1 281 109 865 54 58 3 4 0 0 0 0 48 7 8 1,437DF Large 2+0 352 146 843 41 54 5 4 1 0 0 0 47 11 8 1,512

DF Medium 2+0 341 157 939 50 73 4 2 1 0 1 0 73 13 8 1,662DF Small2+0 341 221 1,140 42 72 3 3 0 0 0 1 90 13 17 1,943DF Container 400 221 1,180 27 74 6 2 0 2 0 1 119 16 9 2,057

WH Bare root 590 351 1,100 18 92 3 6 0 0 0 2 151 7 8 2,328WH Container 563 300 1,355 12 98 11 6 0 1 1 0 118 12 13 2,490

Total 2,868 1,505 7,422 244 521 35 27 2 3 2 4 646 79 71 13,429

a177 dead seedlings not included owing to insufficient identity in database.

DF = Douglas-fir; WH = western hemlock.
29

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Seedlings of all sizes died from clipping, with mortality among smaller seedlings 

tending to be greater:

Stock type Clipped Pulled

Number of seedlings

2+1 Douglas-fir 974 54

2+0 large Douglas-fir 989 41

2+0 medium Douglas-fir 1,096 50

2+0 small Douglas-fir 1,361 42

Container Douglas-fir 1,401 27

Bare-root western hemlock 1,451 18

Container western hemlock 1,655 12

Compared to mortality by clipping, other identified causes of seedling mortality among stock types were minor. In limited areas, elk pulled up, trampled, or 

laid on seedlings soon after they were planted (fig. 11). More large seedlings than 

small died from elk damage, range among stock types 57 to 21. Pulling most likely 

resulted during feeding, when roots were not yet anchored sufficiently to withstand 

an upward yank. More western hemlocks than Douglas-firs died from browsing, but 

totals ranged from only 54 to 98 among the seven stock types. Comparing damage as a proportion of seedlings planted, more Douglas-fir than western hemlock 

seedlings were pulled or trampled 0.82 vs. 0.38 percent, but the reverse was true 

for browsing, 1.15 vs. 1.65 percent (table 10). Both species sustained some mortality 

owing to entanglement in or tipping of the protective tube; the proportion was not 

markedly different for Douglas-fir 0.21 vs. 0.17 percent for western hemlock.

Many seedlings alive at 10 years overcame damage some time during the 

decade. An attempt to sum cumulative damage sustained by live seedlings resulted 

in much greater numbers than the total of 26,657 live seedlings. That summation reflected the way observations were made and recorded. At each of the six 

examinations, an entry for cause of damage was entered for every damaged live 

seedling. Although only recent damage was to be recorded, the same damage might 

be recorded at successive examinations. Then, the same damage might be continuing—browsing, for example. Another complication: if a different kind of damage 

appeared on the seedling in successive examinations, the young tree might get 

another entry in the damage column. These three possibilities, and perhaps others, 

assured that many damaged seedlings accumulated multiple damage entries. The 

summation for the decade showed that browsing became the foremost cause of 

damage, clipping was second, tube injury third, and bark chewing followed.
30

research paper pnw-rp-601

Figure 11—Damage by elk appears more destructive to newly planted trees than later browsing: (A) trees 

pulled up; (B) tubes knocked down or damaged; (C) multiple damages in bedding area; (D) moderate browsing.
31

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Any one of the examinations provides a snapshot in time on the damages 

observed at that examination. At the 10th-year examination, the main damage 

categories on 26,657 live trees were:

Damage Trees

Number

None 23,681

Tube injury 922

Browsed 670

Bark chewed 600

Clipped 429

Whipped 236

Porcupine 39

All others 80

 Total 26,657

A scattering of stems, some 5 ft tall or more, were used as “feeding stations.” 

The terminal shoot and side limbs were severed, and later regrowth was clipped 

again. Such “feeding stations” appeared more often to be western hemlocks then 

Douglas-firs, but these limited instances were not separately identified within the 

damage categories.

Obviously, by the 10th year, most live trees were no longer subject to mortality 

agents most common to young seedlings (app. table 36).

Tubing for Seedling Protection

Stiff mesh tubing is often used to protect newly planted conifer seedlings from foraging animals. Its use to protect half the trees in this study provided an opportunity 

to observe the fate of tubing over time. Thus, installed tubing was visually rated for 

position and condition on trees alive in the third- and fifth-year examinations.

At the third examination, 73 percent of tubes enclosing Douglas-firs were still 

upright; by the fifth examination, 63 percent were upright (table 12). By the third 

examination, 15 percent of Douglas-fir seedlings were growing through the mesh 

of the tube, and that increased to 20 percent by the fifth examination. Leaning 

tubes increased substantially from the third to the fifth examination, but numbers 

in the knockdown and off-the-tree categories hardly changed. By the fifth examination, Upperten had 274 less upright tubes than Pitchfork, the next lowest (1,031 vs. 

1,305). Over two-thirds of all tubes knocked off of Douglas-firs by the fifth examination occurred at Upperten.

Only 31 percent of the larger tubes used with western hemlock were still 

upright at the third examination; by the fifth examination, 13 percent. Tubes found 
32

research paper pnw-rp-601

off the tree numbered 518 at the third examination, 718 by the fifth examination. 

Despite use of a much larger tube, a greater percentage of western hemlocks were 

growing through the tube mesh than of Douglas-fir, 65 vs. 20 percent by the fifth 

examination.

To liberate protected trees, it is considered desirable that tubing disintegrate. 

The mesh tubing used was purported to do so. But 79 percent of tubes on Douglasfir and 51 percent of those on hemlock were still intact at the fifth examination 

(table 12). Very few tubes on Douglas-fir showed crumbling or disintegration at the 

third examination, but 6 percent did on western hemlock. By the fifth examination, 

17 percent of tubes around Douglas-firs and 36 percent of those around hemlocks 

were crumbling or disintegrating. Nearly twice as many tubes in stages of disintegration were found at Beaver and Upperten than on Pitchfork, respectively 1,349, 

1,166, and 593. A surprisingly low number, 89, were in such stages on the northerly 

slope at Randall.

Height Growth

Total height was measured in centimeters for all 26,657 trees alive in the 10th

year. The height for all trees averaged 512.1 cm (16.8 ft). Trees averaged tallest at 

Poposchultz, 643.5 cm, and shortest at Upperten, only 55.9 percent as tall, 359.4 cm 

(table 13).

Table 12—Third- and fifth-year position and condition of plastic mesh tubes on 

live trees

Species

Tube Douglas-fir Western hemlock Total

Number observed by year

Position: 3rd 5

th 3rd 5th 3rd 5th

Upright 9,934 8,216 1,552 611 11,486 8,827

Leaning < 30% 579 1,036 136 90 715 1,126

Leaning > 30% 269 440 88 58 357 498

Knocked down 203 201 142 151 345 352

Off of tree 620 615 518 718 1,138 1,333

Tree through mesh 2,036 2,623 2,493 3,012 4,529 5,635

Total 13,641 13,131 4,929 4,640 18,570 17,771

Condition:

Intact 13,039 10,373 4,201 2,383 17,240 12,756

Crumbling 58 2,200 176 1,606 234 3,806

Disintegrated 3 9 119 64 122 73

Off or gone 539 548 433 587 972 1,135

Total 13,639 13,130 4,929 4,640 18,568 17,770
33

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Tubed trees averaged significantly taller than untubed trees (P < 0.001), but 

actually averaged only 8.5 inches taller at 10 years, 520.4 vs. 498.8 cm. Both tubed 

and untubed trees were tallest at Poposchultz and shortest at Upperten. Height 

growth had about the same trajectory on all sites (fig. 12). Total height nearly 

doubled between the seventh and 10th year for both tubed and untubed trees with the 

shortest ones on Upperten gaining relative more than those on other sites.

Site preparation tended to aid height growth (P = 0.195). On average, the burn 

and the spray-and-burn treatments tended to foster height growth more than spray 

alone, but the latter still averaged greater than for the control (table 14). But there 

were several exceptions to the general trend. At Pitchfork, the average height in the 

sprayed areas averaged less than in the controls, 431.2 vs. 501.1 cm. At Upperten, 

neither the burn nor the spray treatment differed much from the control. And at 

Bay’s Wolfe, trees in both the burn and the spray-and-burn treatments averaged less 

height than in the control treatment.

Initial stock size influenced average height of Douglas-firs at 10 years (table 

15). Container-grown Douglas-firs averaged significantly shorter than the combined 

average of the four bare-root stocks (P < 0.001); they averaged 72.5 cm (2.4 ft) 

shorter than large 2+0, the tallest bare-root stock, 509.0 vs. 581.5 cm.

At 10 years, average tree height differed significantly among all four sizes of 

bare-root Douglas-fir stock—large 2+0 taller than 2+1 (P = 0.105); medium 2 + 0 

taller than small 2+0 (P = 0.005), and large 2+0 taller than small plus medium 2+0 

(P < 0.001) (fig. 13). But there were several inconsistencies on a site-by-site basis; 

for example, trees from large 2+0 stock slightly exceeded height of those from 2+1 

stock except at Beaver. Average height of tubed trees exceeded average height of 

untubed trees in 38 of the 42 stock type pairs. Heights of untubed trees averaged 

slightly taller than tubed trees for 2+1 transplants, and small and medium 2+0 

Douglas-firs at Bay’s Wolfe, and for container hemlock at Beaver (table 15).

Average height of all western hemlocks was significantly less (P < 0.001) at 

10 years than for all Douglas-firs, 416.6 cm vs. 543.7 cm, an average difference 

of 127.1 cm (4.17 ft). Average heights of bare-root and container types of western 

hemlock did not differ significantly, 409.8 cm vs. 423.7 cm. On three sites, average 

height of hemlock from bare-root sources was greater than for container stock and 

the reverse was true on the other three sites.

Trees averaged significantly taller (P < 0.001) on areas given an aerial spraying for release, 529.2 vs. 494.6 cm (table 16). The release effect was very minor on 

Poposchultz however, 644.5 vs. 642.5 cm.
34

research paper pnw-rp-601

Table 13—Average height of untubed and tubed 10-year-old trees by site

Site Untubed Tubed Total and average

Number Centimeters

Standard 

error Number Centimeters

Standard 

error Number Centimeters

Standard 

error

Pitchfork 1,856 484.9 4.5 2,932 510.3 3.5 4,788 500.5 2.8

Beaver 1,758 420.5 4.1 2,707 449.2 3.2 4,465 437.9 2.5

Upperten 1,120 319.7 4.5 2,312 378.6 3.4 3,432 359.4 2.8

Randall 1,552 551.3 5.5 3,080 589.5 3.5 4,632 576.7 3.0

Poposchultz 2,527 618.1 3.7 3,018 664.8 3.4 5,545 643.5 2.5

Bay’s Wolfe 1,419 485.2 5.5 2,376 478.9 4.4 3,795 481.2 3.4

 Total and average 10,232 498.8 2.1 16,425 520.4 1.6 26,657 512.1 1.3

Figure 12—Average height of trees by site, year, and protection.
35

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Table 14—Average height of 10-year-old trees by site and site preparation

Site preparation

Site Control Burn Spray Spray and burn Total and average

Number Centimeters

Standard 

error Number Centimeters

Standard 

error Number Centimeters

Standard 

error Number Centimeters

Standard 

error Number Centimeters

Standard 

error

Pitchfork 1,116 501.1 5.5 1,318 513.6 4.6 1,063 431.2 6.6 1,291 543.6 5.1 4,788 500.5 2.8

Beaver 934 355.8 5.1 1,059 392.1 4.2 1,271 476.4 4.7 1,201 501.4 5.0 4,465 437.9 2.5

Upperten 617 351.7 7.1 1,015 349.1 4.6 880 359.7 5.8 920 375.5 5.2 3,432 359.4 2.8

Randall 1,137 526.8 5.7 1,149 605.4 6.1 1,144 573.7 6.0 1,202 599.4 5.8 4,632 576.7 3.0

Poposchultz 1,396 530.7 4.3 1,483 729.3 4.3 1,244 567.1 4.9 1,422 731.7 4.0 5,545 643.5 2.5

Bay’s Wolfe 693 475.3 8.8 666 436.6 8.3 1,110 554.7 6.3 1,326 445.2 4.9 3,795 481.2 3.4

Total and average 5,893 471.4 2.6 6,690 525.3 2.7 6,712 500.3 2.5 7,362 543.4 2.4 26,657 512.1 1.3
36

research paper pnw-rp-601

Table 15—Average height of 10-year-old trees by site, species, protection, and stock type (continued)

Site

Species and 

stock type Pitchfork Beaver Upperten Randall Poposchultz Bay’s Wolfe All

Douglas-fir:

Transplant 2+1 Number 777 780 542 753 854 584 4,290

Average (cm) 608.4 495.1 410.7 622.9 660.2 485.2 558.9

Standard error 5.5 5.4 6.1 6.5 5.5 7.4 2.8

Untubed 595.6 481.3 365.5 611.4 649.9 499.0 553.5

Tubed 617.7 505.2 433.5 630.2 669.8 476.4 562.7

Large 2+0 Number 753 734 598 680 835 633 4,233

Average (cm) 611.5 476.8 417.2 634.6 724.6 576.9 581.5

Standard error 5.3 5.6 5.8 6.7 5.7 7.1 2.9

Untubed 585.0 453.0 382.4 611.8 703.3 567.5 564.0

Tubed 629.1 492.7 437.4 646.0 743.5 583.3 593.2

Medium 2+0 Number 736 680 572 678 823 566 4,055

Average (cm) 554.8 444.0 401.4 569.3 701.0 532.0 543.5

Standard error 5.7 5.7 6.2 7.1 5.7 7.9 3.0

Untubed 544.4 421.1 339.3 535.1 682.4 533.1 528.0

Tubed 561.6 458.5 435.0 587.3 716.9 531.4 553.4

Small 2+0 Number 736 612 484 633 779 542 3,786

Average (cm) 515.2 406.6 379.8 578.5 657.3 501.4 518.2

Standard error 6.1 6.1 6.5 7.2 5.9 8.0 3.1

Untubed 495.6 376.3 313.0 526.8 631.1 520.2 497.6

Tubed 530.1 423.2 417.0 600.8 680.5 490.6 531.1

Container Number 637 561 466 638 803 553 3,658

Average (cm) 433.2 396.6 343.2 605.5 649.9 533.8 509.0

Standard error 6.0 6.8 6.3 7.2 6.0 7.6 3.3

Untubed 398.3 359.5 303.5 545.7 623.7 524.1 484.7

Tubed 454.3 421.8 358.2 631.6 673.0 539.8 523.6

Total Number 3,639 3,367 2,662 3,382 4,094 2,878 20,022

Average (cm) 548.7 448.3 392.7 602.9 679.0 527.0 543.7

Standard error 2.8 2.7 2.8 3.1 2.6 3.5 1.4

Untubed 529.8 425.2 345.0 570.3 658.5 530.0 528.2

Tubed 561.6 463.4 417.3 619.4 697.1 525.1 553.8
37

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Table 15—Average height of 10-year-old trees by site, species, protection, and stock type (continued)

Site

Species and 

stock type Pitchfork Beaver Upperten Randall Poposchultz Bay’s Wolfe All

Western hemlock:

Bare root Number 568 530 436 606 732 527 3,399

Average (cm) 351.6 395.0 259.4 481.5 535.5 354.9 409.8

Standard error 7.7 9.0 8.1 9.6 7.4 9.6 3.8

Untubed 324.5 376.4 222.6 476.6 485.4 342.7 389.7

Tubed 364.4 405.5 278.1 484.0 573.3 361.7 421.2

Container Number 581 568 334 644 719 390 3,236

Average (cm) 344.0 416.4 223.9 528.9 551.7 314.4 423.7

Standard error 7.5 8.3 8.4 9.3 7.8 11.4 4.1

Untubed 296.3 429.7 195.1 521.1 493.2 304.1 411.3

Tubed 368.4 406.9 231.4 532.6 590.6 319.3 430.3

Total Number 1,149 1,098 770 1,250 1,451 917 6,635

Average (cm) 347.7 406.0 244.0 505.9 543.5 337.7 416.6

Standard error 5.4 6.1 5.9 6.7 5.4 7.4 2.8

Untubed 309.9 405.8 213.8 499.2 489.1 327.3 400.0

Tubed 366.4 406.2 255.8 509.2 582.1 343.1 425.7

Figure 13—Average height of Douglas-fir by site, year, and stock type.
38

research paper pnw-rp-601

Spraying to release developing young trees had a positive effect in all four site 

preparation treatments (P < 0.001). The average height gain was least in the burn 

treatments, only 5.7 cm, and most in the spray only site preparation treatments, 

66.8 cm: 

Average tree heights

Site preparation No release Release Difference

Centimeters

Control 457.8 484.4 26.6

Burn 522.5 528.2 5.7

Spray 466.0 532.8 66.8

Spray and burn 523.6 563.0 39.4

 Average 494.6 529.2 34.6

All types of stock averaged some gain from release spraying (fig. 14). In only 4 

of 28 pairs was average height of a stock type less in released areas than in unreleased areas—for 2+1 Douglas-fir in control areas, for medium and small Douglasfirs and bare-root hemlocks in burn areas (app. table 37).

There were no significant interactions in average height among protection, site 

preparation, and stock type treatments, but significant interactions with the release 

treatment. Notable interactions included site preparation and release (P < 0.001); 

protection and release (P = 0.099); and site preparation, protection and release 

(P = 0.128).

Table 16—Average height of 10-year-old trees by site and release treatment

Site No release Release Total and average

Number Centimeters

Standard 

error Number Centimeters

Standard 

error Number Centimeters

Standard 

error

Pitchfork 2,386 481.4 4.0 2,402 519.4 3.7 4,788 500.5 2.8

Beaver 2,317 418.3 3.4 2,148 459.0 3.7 4,465 437.9 2.5

Upperten 1,670 353.9 4.1 1,762 364.6 3.7 3,432 359.4 2.8

Randall 2,266 532.7 4.1 2,366 619.0 4.1 4,632 576.7 3.0

Poposchultz 2,782 642.5 3.5 2,763 644.5 3.6 5,545 643.5 2.5

Bay’s Wolfe 1,766 464.0 5.2 2,029 496.3 4.5 3,795 481.2 3.4

 Total and average 13,187 494.6 1.8 13,470 529.2 1.8 26,657 512.1 1.3
39

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Damage Effects

Damage observed on live trees at each examination was recorded by cause. A 

summary of tree damage by cause and the resulting average height of these trees 

is informative, despite the inherent subjective variations in assessing damage by 

observers of different skills and levels of observation. Degree of damage was not 

recorded; it had to appear more than trivial.

Considering damage evident from all causes on live 10-year-old trees, many 

more western hemlocks were damaged than Douglas-firs (table 17). Only 6.6 percent of all surviving Douglas-firs were visibly damaged compared to 24.8 percent 

of all western hemlocks. In terms of growth effects, heights of damaged Douglas-fir 

trees lowered total average height of the stand based on undamaged trees by only 

543.7 vs. 556.7 cm. The difference was much greater for western hemlocks, 416.6 

vs. 478.4 cm. Note that undamaged western hemlocks still averaged much less 

height growth than undamaged Douglas-firs.

Five factors caused most damage to Douglas-fir trees: serious distortion of 

growth through the mesh due to tube displacement, 589 trees (fig. 15); browsing 

by deer and elk, 256 trees; whipping of leaders from overtopping by alders or tall 

brush, 187 trees; bark chewing of various sorts, 101 trees; and clipping of terminals 

or side branches by mountain beaver, 99 trees. Damaged Douglas-firs averaged 

less height growth than undamaged trees except for those damaged by porcupines, 

where damaged trees averaged taller than undamaged trees, 601.8 cm vs. 556.7 

cm. The apparent explanation is that porcupines climbed into taller-than-average 

Douglas-firs.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

5 7 10 5 7 10 5 7 10 5 7 10 5 7 10 5 7 10

Pitchfork Beaver Upperten Randall Poposchultz Bay's Wolfe

Average height (centimeters)

Site and year

No release

Release

Figure 14—Average height of Douglas-fir by site, year, and release treatment.
40

research paper pnw-rp-601 Table 17—Count and average height of undamaged and damaged 10-year-old trees by site and species Site Species and damage agent Pitchfork Beaver Upperten Randall Poposchultz Bay’s Wolfe All sites Number Centimeters Number Centimeters Number Centimeters Number Centimeters Number Centimeters Number Centimeters Number Centimeters Douglas-fir: None 3,215 563.8 3,191 458.0 2,342 416.1 3,242 612.0 4,036 680.4 2,668 535.4 18,694 556.7 Clipped, unknown 1 51.0 4 49.5 0 0 0 0 2 315.0 4 128.8 11 126.7 Clipped, mountain beaver 31 342.7 15 67.9 11 97.6 34 334.8 0 0 8 126.6 99 253.7

Browsed 17 165.2 7 86.9 194 158.5 22 113.8 4 145.3 12 122.9 256 151.3

Trampled 4 20.5 0 0 0 0 1 433.0 0 0 0 0 5 103.0Bark chewed 45 357.1 9 243.6 44 350.5 0 0 3 47.0 0 0 101 334.9

Foliage disease 1 177.0 0 0 0 0 1 600.0 1 421.0 2 472.0 5 428.4Insects, terminal bud 1 395.0 1 649.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 598.0 3 547.3Insects, foliage 0 0 2 247.5 1 300.0 0 0 2 753.0 1 559.0 6 476.7Unknown 24 335.9 6 327.0 5 115.6 1 534.0 1 610.0 0 0 37 317.4

Tube injury 300 486.0 51 334.1 65 350.6 57 484.1 44 660.4 72 426.4 589 463.5

Whipped 0 0 81 293.1 0 0 15 501.9 1 805.0 90 438.9 187 382.8

Porcupine 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 500.3 0 0 20 647.5 29 601.8

Total 3,639 548.7 3,367 448.3 2,662 392.7 3,382 602.9 4,094 679.0 2,878 527.0 20,022 543.7

Western hemlock:

None 601 393.2 962 432.8 328 371.8 1,074 545.8 1,357 556.6 665 405.2 4,987 478.4

Clipped, unknown 1 150.0 15 39.8 0 0 0 0 1 70.0 9 42.6 26 46.2

Clipped, mountain 

beaver

94 187.0 21 42.7 35 97.9 85 176.4 3 215.0 55 144.5 293 155.3

Browsed 19 88.9 5 80.8 322 150.7 5 153.4 3 75.0 60 101.2 414 139.3

Trampled 4 107.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 107.3

Bark chewed 359 337.7 4 180.8 49 200.4 19 262.2 45 270.7 23 189.1 499 307.2

Gopher 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 205.0 0 0 0 0 2 205.0Foliage disease 1 272.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 272.0Insects, foliage 0 0 1 422.0 0 0 1 740.0 1 473.0 0 0 3 545.0Unknown 13 291.2 0 0 1 90.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 276.9

Tube injury 57 317.8 51 290.8 35 116.3 60 384.5 39 497.6 91 168.4 333 284.7

Whipped 0 0 39 297.7 0 0 3 342.0 2 200.0 5 459.6 49 312.9

Porcupine 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 172.0 0 0 9 425.1 10 399.8

Total 1,149 347.7 1,098 406.0 770 244.0 1,250 505.9 1,451 543.5 917 337.7 6,635 416.6

Grand total 4,788 500.5 4,465 437.9 3,432 359.4 4,632 576.7 5,545 643.5 3,795 481.2 26,657 512.1
41

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

The same five factors caused the most damage to western hemlock, although 

the rankings were slightly different. For hemlock, bark chewing topped the list, 499 

trees, followed by browsing, 414 trees, tube injury, 333 trees, clipping by mountain 

beavers, 293 trees, and whipping, 49 trees. These injuries all reduced average height 

of western hemlocks.

Mountain beavers and other agents clipped side branches and terminals of 110 

Douglas-firs and 319 western hemlocks, sometimes leaving only living stubs 1 ft 

tall. The greater number of western hemlock clipped than Douglas-fir seems to 

demonstrate that western hemlocks are preferred by mountain beavers, but their 

smaller size and growth form might also be pertinent factors.

In limited instances, bull elk caused severe damage to several adjacent trees, 

particularly to western hemlocks (fig. 16). Apparently using his antlers, a bull 

damaged several trees in a row of hemlocks. Side branches were broken off or badly 

mauled and several hemlocks 10 ft tall or more appeared to have been ridden part 

way to the ground. Little or no damage was seen on Douglas-firs in adjacent rows. 

The apparent difference is that Douglas-firs were larger and had wider crowns, and 

had limbs in lower whorls that were more numerous, stiffer, and larger in diameter. 

They apparently offered more resistant to antlers than did the narrow-crowned 

western hemlocks.

Figure 15—Restrictions inflicted by tubing can distort growth and even cause stem breaks.
42

research paper pnw-rp-601

A look at tree height by slope position did not reveal any clear trends (table 18). 

Plot location was used to allocate trees to slope position. On Pitchfork and Bay’s 

Wolfe, trees averaged taller on the upper slope, but the reverse was true for Beaver and Randall. On the other two sites, trees averaged somewhat taller on the 

midslopes.

Initial heights of seedlings averaged lowest at Beaver and Upperten and so 

did 10-year heights (table 18). But trees at Pitchfork and Randall, averaging tallest 

initially, did not average tallest at 10 years. Instead, at Poposchultz seedlings of 

intermediate initial height averaged much taller than all others at 10 years.

Different kinds of stem deformities seemed numerous in the developing 10-year 

old stands. Thus, as part of the 10th-year examination, deformities were tallied by 

kind. Slightly more than one-fifth of all live trees had some kind of physical factor 

Figure 16—Damage to western hemlock from antler rubbing by elk 

at Pitchfork.
43

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

that was rated a departure from an undamaged, vertical, single-stemmed tree. 

Deformity incidents differed little between Douglas-firs and western hemlocks, 21.1 

vs. 23.9 percent (table 19). Adding the categories together, leader damage was by 

far the most common deformity—2,269 instances for Douglas-fir, 499 for western 

hemlock, representing 53.6 percent of all damage to Douglas-firs and 31.5 percent 

for western hemlocks. Forked stems, most likely the result of past leader damage, 

was the next most abundant deformity—22.1 percent for Douglas-firs and 50.8 

percent for western hemlocks.

Most damage to Douglas-fir leaders was observed at Poposchultz, 557 instances 

and the least at Bay’s Wolfe, 145 instances. On the other four units, leader damage ranged from 330 to 449 instances. Number of forked stems ranged from 61 on 

Beaver to 344 on Upperten. Many more leaning stems were found at Pitchfork and 

Beaver (112,127) than on the other sites.

Leader damage to western hemlock was more numerous on Beaver (119) and 

Upperten (184) than on the other four sites (40 to 62). Surprisingly, Poposchultz had 

many more forked stems (238) than found on other sites.

Tree Diameter

By the 10th year, 94 percent of study trees had a measurable diameter at breast 

height (DBH), 25,025 of 26,657. The average diameter ranged from 9.3 cm at 

Poposchultz to 4.9 cm at Upperten (3.7 to 1.9 in) (table 20).

Trees initially protected by tubing averaged significantly larger in diameter 

than those unprotected, 7.7 vs. 7.2 cm (P < 0.001). Among sites, average diameters 

for untubed trees ranged from 4.2 cm at Upperten to 8.8 cm at Poposchultz, a 

greater than two-to-one difference. Tubed trees averaged 5.2 cm to 9.7 cm at the 

same two sites, not quite a two-to-one difference.

Table 18—Average tree height at year 0 and 10 by site and slope location

Slope location

Site and year Lower Middle Upper All slopes

Centimeters

Year 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10

Pitchfork 25.1 487.4 24.2 489.2 24.7 524.3 24.7 500.5

Beaver 21.9 487.2 21.3 444.6 21.9 390.2 21.7 437.9

Upperten 19.5 358.3 17.3 368.1 17.6 352.2 18.2 359.4

Randall 25.0 630.1 25.4 591.2 24.8 509.4 25.1 576.7

Poposchultz 24.2 648.3 22.8 656.3 24.8 625.9 23.9 643.5

Bay’s Wolfe 22.8 358.4 23.9 498.1 25.2 531.5 24.0 481.2
44

research paper pnw-rp-601

Table 19—Growth deformities observed on live 10-year-old 

trees

Species

Observed deformity Douglas-fir

Western 

hemlock Total

Number

Dead terminal bud 69 10 79

No leader 116 95 211

Dead leader 112 36 148

Double leader 552 132 684

Lateral as leader 918 121 1,039

Multiple leaders 502 105 607

Late flush 15 0 15

Double flush 105 1 106

Forked stem 934 804 1,738

Dieback 218 126 344

Stem leans 309 56 365

Stem tipped 76 46 122

Stem split 20 18 38

Crown chlorotic 286 34 320

Undamaged 15,790 5,051 20,841

 Total 20,022 6,635 26,657

Total damaged 4,232 1,584 5,816

Percent damaged 21.1 23.9 21.8

Table 20—Average diameter at breast height of 10-year-old trees by protection and site

Site Untubed Tubed Total and average

Number Centimeters Number Centimeters Number Centimeters

Pitchfork 1,731 7.5 2,774 7.9 4,505 7.7

Beaver 1,642 6.6 2,565 7.3 4,207 7.0

Upperten 912 4.2 2,009 5.2 2,921 4.9

Randall 1,477 7.7 2,982 8.7 4,459 8.3

Poposchultz 2,477 8.8 2,980 9.7 5,457 9.3

Bay’s Wolfe 1,338 5.9 2,138 6.3 3,476 6.1

 Total and average 9,577 7.2 15,448 7.7 25,025 7.5
45

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

For the whole study, tree diameters averaged less for areas without site preparation than for those that received site preparation, 6.8 vs. 7.6, 7.5 and 8.0 cm (table 

21). If the null hypothesis of no difference is true, then the observed magnitude of 

difference is P = 0.293. Departures from the trend occurred on Pitchfork and mostly 

notably at Bay’s Wolfe, where average tree diameter was much less in the sprayand-burn treatment than in the control, 4.7 vs. 6.8 cm. In contrast, at Poposchultz, 

the average diameter in the two burn treatments was much higher than in the other 

two treatments.

Diameter of western hemlock trees averaged significantly less than for Douglas-fir trees, 5.2 vs. 8.2 cm (P < 0.001) (table 22). Among sites, average diameters 

for Douglas-fir ranged from 5.3 cm at Upperten to 10.2 at Poposchultz, for western 

hemlock from 2.9 to 6.4 (fig. 17).

Diameters of bare-root Douglas-fir stock averaged significantly larger than

for container stock 8.3 vs. 7.4 cm (P < 0.001), but not significantly larger between 

the two types of western hemlock stock, 5.0 vs. 5.3 cm (table 22). The 2+1 Douglasfir stock exceeded the average diameter of the three 2+0 stock types, 8.7 vs. 8.2 

(P < 0.003). Diameter of large 2+0 Douglas-fir stock averaged significantly larger 

(P < 0.001) than the average diameter of medium and small 2+0 stock, 8.8 vs. 7.9 

cm and the latter two also differed from each other (P < 0.002). Average diameter 

of container Douglas-fir stock was close to or even exceeded several averages for 

bare-root stock (fig. 18).

Tubed trees averaged larger in diameter than untubed trees in 40 of the 42 

individual site-stock type pairs (table 22). At Bay’s Wolfe, untubed small 2+0 

Douglas-firs were larger than tubed trees and medium 2+0 averages were equal. 

At Beaver, untubed container hemlocks were larger and at Randall the tubed and 

untubed container hemlocks averaged the same diameter.

Diameters of released trees (species combined) averaged significantly larger 

than for those not released, 7.8 vs. 7.2 cm (P < 0.001). The trend was consistent for 

all sites except Poposchultz where the two averages were the same, 9.3 cm (table 

23). On every site, Douglas-fir benefited from release, although the gain was very 

small on Upperten (fig. 19). Western hemlock also benefited from release, but 

results were more variable among sites.

A look at the tallest and largest diameter tree on each site provides insight not 

provided by averages. The salient finding is that the largest trees developed in varying combinations of species, stock type, and treatment. Four of the six tallest trees 
46

research paper pnw-rp-601

Table 21—Average diameter at breast height of 10-year-old trees by site and site preparation

Site preparation

Site Control Burn Spray Spray and burn Total and average

Number Centimeters Number Centimeters Number Centimeters Number Centimeters Number Centimeters

Pitchfork 1,053 7.7 1,272 7.7 939 7.0 1,241 8.4 4,505 7.7

Beaver 849 5.6 1,005 6.0 1,206 7.7 1,147 8.3 4,207 7.0

Upperten 501 4.7 877 4.7 733 4.9 810 5.3 2,921 4.9

Randall 1,078 7.7 1,106 8.3 1,115 8.5 1,160 8.8 4,459 8.3

Poposchultz 1,367 7.1 1,475 10.5 1,203 8.2 1,412 11.0 5,457 9.3

Bay’s Wolfe 597 6.8 566 6.0 1,046 7.6 1,267 4.7 3,476 6.1

 Total and 

 average

5,445 6.8 6,301 7.6 6,242 7.5 7,037 8.0 25,025 7.5

Figure 17—Average diameter at breast height of 10-year-old trees by species and site.

Figure 18—Average diameter at breast height of 10-year-old Douglas-firs by site and stock type.
47

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Table 22—Average diameter at breast height (DBH) of 10-year-old trees by site, species, protection, and 

stock type

Site

Species and stock type Pitchfork Beaver Upperten Randall Poposchultz Bay’s Wolfe All

Douglas-fir:

Transplant 2+1:

 Number 764 772 510 745 848 566 4,205

 DBH in centimeters All 9.8 8.4 5.6 9.7 10.7 6.2 8.7

 Untubed 9.5 8.1 4.8 9.2 10.4 6.1 8.5

 Tubed 10.1 8.6 6.0 10.0 11.0 6.4 8.9

Large 2+0:

 Number 750 723 562 679 834 628 4,176 

 DBH in centimeters All 9.9 7.7 5.7 9.7 10.9 7.4 8.8

 Untubed 9.3 7.1 4.9 9.0 10.5 7.2 8.3

 Tubed 10.4 8.2 6.1 10.0 11.3 7.5 9.1

Medium 2+0:

 Number 719 658 529 658 820 550 3,934

 DBH in centimeters All 8.9 7.5 5.3 8.6 10.5 6.6 8.1

 Untubed 8.7 7.0 4.3 7.6 10.0 6.6 7.8

 Tubed 9.1 7.8 5.9 9.1 11.0 6.6 8.4

Small 2+0:

 Number 710 588 435 620 772 523 3,648 

 DBH in centimeters All 8.2 6.7 5.1 8.6 9.6 6.1 7.6 

 Untubed 7.8 5.8 4.0 7.2 9.0 6.2 7.1

 Tubed 8.4 7.2 5.7 9.2 10.0 6.0 7.9

Container:

 Number 607 524 418 620 795 545 3,509 

 DBH in centimeters All 6.8 6.3 4.5 9.2 9.4 6.5 7.4 

 Untubed 6.0 5.5 3.8 8.0 8.9 6.3 6.9

 Tubed 7.3 6.9 4.8 9.7 9.9 6.6 7.8

Total:

 Number 3,550 3,265 2,454 3,322 4,069 2,812 19,472 

 DBH in centimeters All 8.8 7.4 5.3 9.2 10.2 6.6 8.2

 Untubed 8.4 6.9 4.4 8.3 9.8 6.5 7.8

 Tubed 9.1 7.8 5.7 9.6 10.7 6.7 8.4

Western hemlock:

Bare root:

 Number 480 445 279 537 703 401 2,845 

 DBH in centimeters All 3.8 5.6 3.1 5.7 6.2 4.3 5.0

 Untubed 3.1 5.2 2.7 5.5 5.2 3.6 4.5

 Tubed 4.1 5.8 3.3 5.8 6.9 4.8 5.3

Container:

 Number 475 497 188 600 685 263 2,708 

 DBH in centimeters All 3.8 5.8 2.6 6.1 6.7 4.1 5.3

 Untubed 3.3 5.9 1.9 6.1 5.5 3.3 5.0

 Tubed 4.0 5.7 2.8 6.1 7.4 4.6 5.5

Total:

 Number 955 942 467 1,137 1,388 664 5,553 

 DBH in centimeters All 3.8 5.7 2.9 5.9 6.4 4.2 5.2

 Untubed 3.2 5.6 2.5 5.8 5.3 3.5 4.8

 Tubed 4.0 5.7 3.0 6.0 7.1 4.7 5.4
48

research paper pnw-rp-601

Table 23—Average diameter at breast height of 10-year-old trees by site and 

release treatment

Site No release Release Total and average

Number Centimeters Number Centimeters Number Centimeters

Pitchfork 2,209 7.5 2,296 8.0 4,505 7.7

Beaver 2,160 6.6 2,047 7.5 4,207 7.0

Upperten 1,398 4.8 1,523 5.0 2,921 4.9

Randall 2,165 7.4 2,294 9.2 4,459 8.3

Poposchultz 2,733 9.3 2,724 9.3 5,457 9.3

Bay’s Wolfe 1,584 5.8 1,892 6.4 3,476 6.1

 Total and average 12,249 7.2 12,776 7.8 25,025 7.5

Figure 19—Average diameter at breast height of 10-year-old Douglas-firs by site and release treatment.
49

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

started in containers and two of these were western hemlocks. Tallest tree per site at 

10 years, its diameter and treatment history:

Site Height Diameter Stock type and treatment

Centimeters

Pitchfork 999 13.2 Large 2+0 Douglas-fir, tubed, control, no 

release

Beaver 1110 16.3 Container western hemlock, tubed, spray and 

burn, release

Upperten 890 12.3 Container Douglas-fir, tubed, spray, no release

Randall 1063 14.5 Container Douglas-fir, tubed, burn, release

Poposchultz 1188 18.0 Large 2+0 Douglas-fir, untubed, burn, release

Bay’s Wolfe 1035 13.6 Container western hemlock, tubed, spray, no 

release

Largest diameter tree per site, its height and treatment history:

Pitchfork 714 20.1 2+0 medium Douglas-fir, untubed, spray and 

burn, no release

Beaver 843 19.2 Bare-root western hemlock, untubed, spray, 

release

Upperten 844 14.9 Large 2+0 Douglas-fir, tubed, control, no 

release

Randall 990 20.5 Large 2+0 Douglas-fir, untubed, spray, release

Poposchultz 905 20.9 Large 2+0 Douglas-fir, tubed, burn, no release

Bay’s Wolfe 777 16.7 2+1 Douglas-fir, tubed, spray, release

Among the six sites, the tallest tree occurred in all four site preparation treatments as well as in both protection and release treatments. Regarding largest diameter trees, a different but similar mix of stock types and treatments are represented.

Stand Analysis 

In foregoing sections, stand statistics for average survival, height, and diameter 

have been reported by protection, site preparation, stock type, and release treatments. Although each average describes one feature of the 10-year-old stands, an 

integration is needed to gain a full understanding of treatment effects. Such integration was made by using average height and DBH to estimate average volume per 

tree for each treatment based on the formula for volume of a cone.2

2

 Use of diameter at breast height (DBH) as the base of the cone was necessary because no 

diameter was available at the ground line from which height was measured. The resulting 

volume data are lower than actual volumes, but are on a comparable basis for treatment 

comparisons.
50

research paper pnw-rp-601

An assumed full stand of 400 trees per acre was reduced by the average percent survival per treatment. The resulting number of live trees per acre was then 

multiplied by the average volume per tree to arrive at average cubic volume per 

acre at 10 years. Assuming full stocking of 400 trees per acre seemed reasonable 

and convenient. An integration could be made just as readily using a different full 

stocking basis.

Tubed trees averaged taller in height and larger in diameter, and many more 

survived, resulting in almost twice as much volume as untubed trees at 10 years 

(table 24, fig. 1). The spray-and-burn site preparation treatment shows a similar 

gain over the control, 1.00 to 1.99. The burn and the spray treatments produced 

about half again as much volume as the control. Release spraying yielded about 

one-fourth more volume than trees not released. Thus, every treatment yielded a 

substantial volume gain relative to no treatment.

At 10 years, stand closure is well underway and many of the smaller trees will 

soon be crowded out. Thus, primary interest focuses on the larger trees, those likely 

to be the stand components in the future. How large are they at 10 years and how 

did they respond to the treatments tested in this study? A comparison has been 

made based on the tallest 90, 75, and 50 percent of the trees in each treatment. 

Table 24—Volume per acre at age 10 for stands resulting from different treatments 

Stand characteristic

Treatment

Average 

height

Average 

DBH

Average 

volume per 

tree Survival

Trees 

per acre

Volume 

per acre

Relative 

volume

Centimeters Centimeters

Cubic 

centimeters Percent Number

Cubic 

meters

Protection:

Untubed 498.8 7.2 6 769.6 50.5 202 1.367 1.00

Tubed 520.4 7.7 8 097.9 82.2 329 2.658 1.94

Site preparation:

Control 471.4 6.8 5 706.6 58.5 234 1.335 1.00

Burn 525.3 7.6 7 943.4 66.5 266 2.113 1.58

Spray 500.3 7.5 7 367.5 66.7 267 1.967 1.47

Spray and burn 543.4 8.0 9 104.8 73.1 292 2.659 1.99

Release:

No release 494.6 7.2 6 712.6 65.5 262 1.759 1.00

Release 529.2 7.8 8 429.1 66.9 268 2.259 1.28

DBH = Diameter at breast height.
51

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

In both the released stands and those not released, the tallest half of the trees 

averaged just over 1.6 m taller and 3.0 cm larger in diameter than averages for the 

full stand (table 25). For both height and diameter, trees given a release treatment 

averaged larger than those not released; height growth averaged about one-third 

m greater and DBH 0.7 cm larger. Concerning rankings, the spray-and-burn site 

preparation treatment maintained highest position in all comparisons and the 

control the lowest except for one—in average tree height for the tallest 50 percent 

not released, the spray treatment was lowest with trees in the control treatment not 

much taller.

Stocking

Tree distribution and density were determined on five sites when study stands were 

13 years old. Each of the eight site preparation-release combinations per unit was 

sampled. Most subunits were sampled by 22 or more 1/250 acre circular plots (7.45-

ft. radius). Using this size plot, actual stocking is compared to a fully stocked stand 

of 250 well-spaced trees per acre. After planted trees were tallied, each plot was 

searched for established, readily visible natural reproduction, but not for very small 

seedlings that might be present. 

Stocking of planted trees averaged 81.5 percent for all site preparation-release 

areas combined, and nearly 5 percent less, 76.8 percent, for areas not released (table 

26). Additional plots stocked by naturally established conifers, 4.0 percent, and by 

hardwoods, 3.4 percent, increased total stocking to 84.2 percent in areas without 

release. In released areas, naturally established conifers increased stocking by 3.2 

percent, hardwoods by only 0.6 percent for a total of 85.3 percent.

In both no release and release areas, stocking of planted trees averaged lower in 

the control than in site-prepared areas (table 26). Stocking of naturally established 

conifers also averaged lower in the control treatment than elsewhere, but the reverse 

was true for hardwoods. In all treatments, the combined stocking of naturally 

regenerated conifers and hardwoods was much lower than for planted trees. And of 

course, the naturals varied greatly in height and diameter from conifers as short as 

1 ft to others that matched planted tree height and diameter. Many hardwoods were 

taller than plantation trees; the tallest alder and cherry were estimated to be 50 ft.

Among the five sites, stocking of planted trees ranged from the lowest, 47.4 

percent for the control-no release area at Upperten to a high of 96.0 percent for all 

three site preparation-release treatments at Poposchultz. Stocking of planted trees 

in all but 9 of the 40 treatment-release combinations was higher than 70 percent. 

Six of those with less than 70 percent stocking were in control areas; one each was 

in burn-release and spray-release areas at Beaver and Upperten and the third in the 
52

research paper pnw-rp-601

Table 25—Average height and diameter of the largest 90, 75, and 50 percent of 10-year-old trees in site 

preparation and release treatments

Stand fraction 

Site preparation All Tallest 90 percent Tallest 75 percent Tallest 50 percent

Mean 

Centimeters Rank

Mean 

Centimeters Rank

Mean 

Centimeters Rank

Mean 

Centimeters Rank

Total height: 

No release:

Control 457.8 4 499.4 4 552.6 4 633.7 3

Burn 522.5 2 564.6 2 614.3 2 693.6 2

Spray 466.0 3 506.9 3 554.9 3 625.3 4

Spray and burn 523.6 1 565.9 1 617.2 1 700.2 1

Average 494.6 534.2 584.7 663.2

Release:

Control 484.4 4 522.4 4 565.7 4 628.7 4

Burn 528.2 3 573.1 3 627.3 2 717.8 2

Spray 532.8 2 576.9 2 627.0 3 699.3 3

Spray & Burn 563.0 1 605.4 1 653.6 1 729.0 1

Average 529.2 569.5 618.4 693.7

Diameter at breast height: 

No release:

Control 6.5 4 7.1 4 8.0 4 9.4 4

Burn 7.5 2 8.2 2 9.1 2 10.5 2

Spray 6.8 3 7.5 3 8.3 3 9.6 3

Spray and burn 7.7 1 8.4 1 9.4 1 11.1 1

Average 7.2 7.8 8.7 10.2

Release:

Control 7.1 4 7.8 4 8.6 4 10.0 4

Burn 7.7 3 8.5 3 9.4 3 11.0 3

Spray 8.1 2 8.8 2 9.7 2 11.2 2

Spray and burn 8.3 1 9.0 1 9.9 1 11.5 1

Average 7.8 8.5 9.4 10.9
53

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

spray-no release area at Beaver. Naturally established conifers raised conifer stocking in five of these nine treatment combinations above 70 percent, leaving only four 

treatment combinations—both control treatments in Upperten, and the control-no 

release and burn-release treatments in Beaver under 70 percent stocking. Counting 

hardwood stocking on plots devoid of conifers brought only one of these four, the 

burn-release treatment at Beaver, above 70 percent stocking.

Distribution of trees within individual treatment combinations ranged from 

good to excellent. A tally of voids, defined as three or more consecutive unstocked 

plots, revealed only 15 voids among the 1,003 plots sampled. There were only two 

voids of five consecutive unstocked plots, one each in no-release and release areas 

of the control in Upperten. There were four voids of four plots each, two in controlno release areas of Upperten and Randall, the other two in spray-no release areas 

of Beaver and Poposchultz. There were nine voids with three unstocked plots in a 

row—six in control areas, one in a spray-release area and two in spray and burn–no 

release areas. Number of voids totaled 7 for Upperten, 3 for Beaver, 3 for Pitchfork, 

and 1 each for Randall and Poposchultz.

At 13 years, planted trees on study sites averaged more than 300 per acre, based 

on numbers tallied in survey plots and expressed on a per acre basis. With naturally 

Table 26—Average stocking of planted and naturally established trees by site 

preparation and release treatments

Planted Natural Total Only

Site preparation Release trees Conifers Hardwoods stocking naturals

- - - - - - - - - - - - Percentage of stocking - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Control 0 63.5 10.9 28.5 75.2 36.5

1 74.0 15.7 11.0 78.0 25.2

Burn 0 81.7 24.6 17.5 88.1 38.8

1 83.3 27.0 4.0 89.7 31.0

Spray 0 73.7 22.0 12.7 83.1 31.4

1 85.8 16.5 5.5 90.6 20.5

Spray and burn 0 90.0 20.0 10.0 91.7 29.2

1 82.8 18.9 4.9 82.8 21.3

Average 0 76.8 19.2 17.6 84.2 34.1

1 81.5 19.5 6.4 85.3 24.5
54

research paper pnw-rp-601

established conifers and hardwoods included, averages per acre were essentially the 

same for no-release and release areas, 348 and 349:

Natural regeneration

Site preparation Release Planted Conifer Hardwood Total

Trees per acre

Control 0 245 9 29 283

1 289 12 6 307

Burn 0 319 18 34 371

1 347 24 6 377

Spray 0 284 30 6 320

1 337 16 6 359

Spray and burn 0 417 4 0 421

1 348 2 0 350

 Average 0 316 15 17 348

1 330 14 5 349

The number of planted trees was lowest in the control-no release treatment and 

highest in the spray-and-burn no-release treatment. Nearly all naturally regenerated 

conifers were Douglas-firs. The natural conifers tallied for all treatments totaled: 

Douglas-fir 54, Sitka spruce 2, western hemlock 1. The tally for hardwoods: red 

alder 35, cascara buckthorn 9, cherry 1. Fewer naturally established conifers were 

found in the spray-and-burn than in the other treatments. Hardwoods occurred in 

the same three treatments, but were notably less in release areas than in no-release 

areas.

Vegetation Dynamics

Cover

Development of vegetative cover was measured along transect lines eight times during the study. The vegetation present shortly before site preparation was measured 

on all six sites, designated as the “0” year. A repeat examination later the same year 

soon after broadcast burning was possible only on Randall, Poposchultz and Bay’s 

Wolfe. Thus, examination one data represents only these three sites. All sites are 

represented by pre- and post-release and subsequent examinations.

In aggregate, the full complement of transects totaled 12,000 ft of slope distance per examination, or 2,000 ft per site, 3,000 ft per site preparation treatment 

and 1,500 per release treatment (fig. 20). Examination one data has half that basis.

Slash increments not covered by vegetation were measured at every examination, and in most examinations, so were increments of bare ground. Because these 
55

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Figure 20—Schematic of vegetation transect locations at Pitchfork; typical arrangement within site 

preparation and release segments.
56

research paper pnw-rp-601

increments have no layering effect they were used to determine total initial cover 

of vegetation (total length of transect lines, 100 percent, less percent slash and bare 

ground equals percent total vegetative cover). Cover for individual species was 

calculated as a percent of the total length of all cover.

Vegetation data for all examinations were summed for release and no-release 

transects even though release treatment applies only to the fourth examination 

onward. This choice was more than a summation convenience; it also made it possible to compare vegetation summaries from the same sample areas before and after 

release spraying.

Before site preparation, study sites averaged 52 percent live vegetative cover 

(fig. 21). Assorted slash covered an additional 38 percent of the surface and about 

10 percent of the surface area was bare ground. Broadcast burning half of each site 

and spraying another quarter reduced the live vegetation average about 22 percent 

and the slash surface by 13 percent (table 27). Bare surface increased to 45 percent. 

Later release spraying half of each study area caused only a minor decrease in live 

vegetation cover, and equally minor increases in uncovered slash and bare ground 

(release between third and fourth examination). Rapid development of annual species and residual and new woody species increased average vegetative cover to 78 

percent or more from the third examination onward.

Before site preparation, live vegetative cover ranged from 38 percent at Beaver 

to 64 percent at Bay’s Wolfe (table 27). By the second examination, vegetative cover 

had increased, ranging from 3.2 percent gain at Pitchfork to 21 percent gain at 

Beaver and Randall.

Initial live vegetative cover averaged higher on areas designated as controls or 

for spraying only than for those to be broadcast burned:

Total live cover at examination

Site preparation 0 1 2 3

Percent

Control 60.4 57.3 55.8 82.4

Burn 43.6 20.4 65.4 77.7

Spray 55.6 56.6 48.8 81.3

Spray and burn 42.0 5.9 55.9 75.4

The largest difference in total initial cover, 18 percent, was between the control 

and spray-and-burn treatment. Data for examinations 0 to 3 indicate spraying 

reduced total live cover very little. At 10 years, total live cover averaged 95 percent 

or more in all treatments (fig. 22, table 27).
57

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Figure 21—Surface cover trends over 10 years; averages for all sites combined.

Figure 22—Cover development in each site preparation treatment over 10 years: trees, woody, 

herbaceous, and total live cover.
58

research paper pnw-rp-601

Table 27—Average surface cover over 10 years by site and examination

Examination

Site Surface 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Percent

Pitchfork Live vegetation 41.1 — 44.3 80.2 68.5 89.9 88.5 94.8

Slash 45.9 — 26.3 7.9 10.4 5.3 4.5 2.1

Bare ground 13.0 — 29.4 11.9 21.1 4.8 7.0 3.1

Beaver Live vegetation 38.4 — 59.1 72.7 77.0 88.8 95.3 96.9

Slash 50.0 — 37.7 11.8 8.8 6.1 2.5 1.3

Bare ground 11.6 — 3.2 15.5 14.2 5.1 2.2 1.8

Upperten Live vegetation 52.2 — 57.6 69.9 61.0 82.2 94.0 94.1

Slash 40.4 — 27.0 9.8 16.9 11.0 4.5 3.2

Bare ground 7.4 — 15.4 20.3 22.1 6.8 1.5 2.7

Randall Live vegetation 61.5 31.7 82.1 87.7 86.7 86.5 97.3 98.2

Slash 23.8 23.8 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.8 1.6 0.6

Bare ground 14.7 44.5 12.7 7.1 8.1 5.7 1.1 1.2

Poposchultz Live vegetation 54.7 23.1 71.3 85.9 88.9 88.1 97.1 99.4

Slash 45.3 21.8 9.9 9.9 8.5 10.3 2.4 0.2

Bare ground 0 55.1 18.8 4.2 2.6 1.6 0.5 0.4

Bay’s Wolfe Live vegetation 63.9 36.6 72.5 78.9 85.8 91.7 98.4 92.0

Slash 24.1 29.6 17.3 12.9 11.0 8.0 1.2 8.0

Bare ground 12.0 33.8 10.2 8.2 3.2 0.3 0.4 0.0

 Average a Live vegetation 52.0 30.5 64.5 79.2 78.0 87.9 95.1 95.9

Slash 38.3 25.1 20.6 9.6 10.1 8.1 2.8 2.6

Bare ground 9.8 44.5 15.0 11.2 11.9 4.1 2.1 1.5 a

 Some groups of three surface conditions do not round to 100 percent.

Initial cover of woody shrubs was reduced in all site preparation treatments:

Woody cover at examination

Site preparation 0 1 2 3 Ranking

Percent

Control 26.9 17.3 31.1 42.0 4

Burn 23.7 9.8 21.6 27.1 2

Spray 20.3 15.9 17.7 28.1 3

Spray and burn 28.0 2.5 11.8 20.4 1

A 9.6-percent reduction in woody cover in control areas from the first to the 

second examination was not anticipated and exceeds the reduction observed in 

sprayed areas, 4.4 percent. Woody cover was reduced from 23.7 percent to 9.8 

percent in burned areas and from 28.0 to 2.5 percent in spray-and-burn areas. By 
59

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

the third examination, woody cover had increased in all treatments, with the control 

areas averaging 42.0 percent and the spray-and-burn areas half as much, 20.4 

percent.

At 10 years, these differing amounts of tree cover appear attributable to the 

woody cover differences measured in the third examination:

Live cover at 10 years

Site preparation Total Woody Trees Conifers Ranking

Percent

Control 97.2 47.9 23.0 12.0 4

Burn 98.5 39.7 27.7 18.8 2

Spray 96.4 40.8 23.7 18.2 3

Spray and burn 96.7 32.1 34.0 23.5 1

Although total vegetative cover differed little between site treatments at 10 

years, there were still notable differences in woody shrub cover and the cover 

gained by trees. The rankings for shrub cover remained the same, but tree cover 

ranked just the opposite. The cover by all trees and by conifers was highest where 

woody cover was lowest.

Herbaceous species were an important cover component in all site preparation treatments. They increased in all site treatments, peaking at 40 percent in the 

control by the first examination, and reaching around 50 percent by the third to 

fifth examinations in the other three site preparation treatments (fig. 22). By the 

seventh exam, herbaceous cover had declined to around 30 percent as successional 

trends set in.

Spraying glyphosate for release produced a minor and variable effect on total 

vegetative cover (fig. 23). Total cover for the examination just before and after 

release in each site preparation averaged:

Release effect on total cover

Site preparation Exam 3 Exam 4

Percent

Control 80.7 71.8

Burn 77.5 79.0

Spray 79.8 73.7

Spray and burn 75.0 71.8
60

research paper pnw-rp-601

Figure 23—Influence of release on amount and composition of cover in each site preparation 

treatment.
61

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Release spraying reduced the total cover in three treatments, but not in the burn 

treatment.

Spraying reduced the woody component of the vegetation cover in all treatments. Some release effects still appear evident at 10 years when compared to 

woody cover percentage for adjacent areas not released:

Release effect on woody cover

Release No release

Site preparation Exam 3 Exam 4 Exam 7 Exam 7

Percent

Control 43.5 33.3 47.2 48.6

Burn 32.3 29.1 39.0 40.5

Spray 28.8 21.0 35.8 45.8

Spray and burn 22.7 19.9 30.7 33.6

Woody vegetation cover was much lower in spray-and-burn areas than 

elsewhere.

By the 10th year, total tree cover differed little between areas not released and 

released but substantially among site preparation treatments:

Total tree cover Conifer cover

Site preparation No release Release No release Release

Percent

Control 22.8 23.1 11.0 13.1

Burn 27.4 28.0 18.7 18.9

Spray 21.5 25.8 14.9 21.4

Spray and burn 34.5 33.6 23.4 23.6

Total tree cover as well as conifer cover were higher on areas prepared by 

broadcast burning than for the control. Only in areas site prepared by spraying did 

conifer and total tree cover benefit appreciably from a release spray.

Species Found

Forty-six individual species or species groups were found along line transects 

(table 28). Woody shrub and tree species were individually identified and tallied 

except for blue and red elderberry (Sambucus spp), Oregon grape (Berberis spp.), 

and cherry (Prunus spp.). Several herbaceous species were tallied by genus groups 

including thistles (Cirsium spp.), fireweeds (Epilobium spp.), grass (Gramineae

spp.) lotus (Lotus spp.) lupines (Lupinus spp.), candy flower (Montia spp.), and 

senecio (Senecio spp.). Annual plants of infrequent occurrence were tallied under 
62

research paper pnw-rp-601

Table 28—Species and groups tallied along line transects (continued)

Scientific namea Abbreviation Common name

Abies grandis (Dougl. ex D. Don) Lindl. ABGR Grand fir

Acer circinatum Pursh ACCI Vine maple

Acer macrophyllum Pursh ACMA Bigleaf maple

Adiantum pedatum L. ADPE Maidenhair fern

Alnus rubra Bong. ALRU Red alder

Athyrium filix-femina (L.) Roth ATFI Lady-fern

Baccharis pilularis DC. BAPI Chaparral broom

Berberis spp. BESP Oregongrape

Blechnum spicant (L.) Roth BLSP Deer-fern

Cirsium spp. CISP Thistle

Corylus comuta var. californica (A. DC.) Sharp COCO California hazel

Dicentra formosa (Andr.) Walp. DIFO Bleedingheart

Digitalis purpurea L. DIPU Foxglove

Epilobium spp. EPSP Fireweed

Gaultheria shallon Pursh GASH Salal

Gramineae spp. GRSP Grass

Herbaceous HEMI Miscellaneous herbaceous

Holodiscus discolor (Pursh) Maxim. HODI Ocean-spray

Libocedrus decurrens Torr. LIDE Incense cedar

Lotus spp. LOSP Deervetch

Lupinus spp. LUSP Lupine

Menziesia ferruginea Smith MEFE False azalea

Montia spp. MOSP Candy flower

Physocarpus malvaceus (Greene) Kuntze PHMA Ninebark

Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr. PISI Sitka spruce

Polystichum munitum (Kaulf.) Presl POMU Sword-fern

Prunus spp. PRSP Cherry and plum

Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco PSME Douglas-fir

Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn. PTAQ Bracken-fern

Rhamnus purshiana DC. RHPU Cascara buckthorn

Rhododendron macrophyllum RHMA Pacific rhododendron

Ribes bracteosum Dougl. RIBR Stink currant

Ribes sanguineum Pursh RISA Red flowering currant

Rosa gymnocarpa Nutt. ROGY Little wood rose

Rubus laciniatus Willd. RULA Evergreen blackberry

Rubus leucodermis Dougl. RULE Black raspberry or blackcap

Rubus parviflorus Nutt. RUPA Thimbleberry

Rubus procerus Muell. RUPR Himalayan blackberry

Rubus spectabilis Pursh RUSP Salmonberry
63

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

a miscellaneous herbaceous designation. In summarizing woody and herbaceous 

cover, all perennial vines were classed as woody, all ferns as herbaceous.

Though in its niche every species exerts competitive influence on vegetation 

development, our primary focus was on those species whose occurrence is common enough to be major competition during tree establishment. To identify those 

species, the percentage cover for each species and species group found along 40 

transect lines on each of six sites and in seven or eight examinations was summed. 

The aggregated percentage totaled more than 1,000 percent for two tree species, 

five woody shrubs, and five herbaceous groups. Only four more species totaled in 

the 500 to 1,000 percent range. The cover development of these 16 species following 

site preparation and release treatments is given primary attention.

Nine tree species were found along the transect lines; only Douglas-fir and 

western hemlock had been planted. The other seven established naturally, but 

among these only red alder became a widespread dominant. Sitka spruce, cherry 

species, and cascara buckthorn were found on several sites, but bigleaf maple, grand 

fir, and incense cedar were found only in a single treatment, sometimes in only one 

examination (app. table 38).

Conifer cover essentially developed from planting onward, whereas red alder 

was a minor cover component from the start in 6 of 24 treatment quarters (app. 

table 38). By 10 years, red alder cover averaged highest where not released in the 

spray-and-burn treatments, 21.6 percent, and only slightly less in several other treatments (table 29). Spraying for release seems to have slowed red alder development 

as its cover averaged lower in released areas than in areas not released.

At 10 years, Douglas-fir cover averaged about 20 percent in control treatments 

and nearly twice that much in the spray-and-burn treatments (table 29). Next highest 

cover of Douglas-fir was in the burn treatments and was nearly equaled in release 

areas of the spray treatments. Cover of western hemlock averaged much higher with 

release than without except in the spray-and-burn treatment.

Table 28—Species and groups tallied along line transects (continued)

Scientific namea Abbreviation Common name

Rubus ursinus Cham. & Schlecht. RUVI Trailing blackberry

Sambucus spp. SASP Elder

Senecio spp. SESP Groundsel

Symphoricarpos albus (L.) S.F. Blake SYAL Common snowberry

Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg. TSHE Western hemlock

Vaccinium ovatum Pursh VAOV Evergreen huckleberry

Vaccinium parvifofium Smith VAPA Red huckleberry a

 Scientific nomenclature used throughout study records. Several species have since been renamed.
64

research paper pnw-rp-601 Table 29—Species comprising major fractions of vegetative cover during the decade by site preparation and release treatments Control Burn Rankinga Species Release 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Percent Trees: 6 PSME 0 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.7 3.4 9.1 20.7 0 0 0.1 0.5 1.2 5.4 19.3 36.3 1 0 0 0.1 0.4 1.1 2.9 11.8 19.0 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.2 3.3 18.7 32.2 10 ALRU 0 0 0 0 0.8 2.2 7.2 16.1 19.1 0.5 0 0.2 1.1 2.0 6.4 11.5 17.2 1 0 0 0 0.5 1.2 3.7 9.2 16.4 0.6 1.6 3.6 4.9 4.7 7.8 14.8 16.5 16 TSHE 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.9 0 0 0 0.2 0.3 0.4 1.0 1.0

1 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.2 2.5 5.7 0 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.6 2.6 4.8

Woody shrubs: 1 RUSP 0 11.3 4.1 16.7 23.0 25.3 31.0 34.0 31.4 12.9 1.2 9.9 14.6 18.4 21.5 28.6 30.9

1 15.7 2.1 20.5 28.6 13.3 22.9 26.4 30.3 20.9 2.9 17.5 27.8 20.0 23.0 29.7 36.0

7 GASH 0 2.1 1.4 3.0 11.8 13.8 17.0 20.5 21.5 3.3 0 1.5 5.5 9.4 11.0 14.5 18.1

1 1.5 0.9 1.0 4.5 8.4 9.9 15.3 13.7 2.5 0 2.0 4.5 7.7 7.8 11.1 12.9

9 RUVI 0 2.2 0.5 7.7 8.1 9.0 8.5 12.2 13.2 0.3 0 0.3 1.2 1.8 3.6 6.9 8.0

1 3.5 2.2 5.8 7.9 6.4 10.3 14.7 16.0 0 0.1 0.9 2.0 2.9 4.9 6.5 6.1

11 RUPA 0 0 0 0.6 3.3 4.1 4.7 8.1 7.6 0 0 0.8 3.2 5.0 7.3 12.0 12.6

1 0 0 0.7 2.8 1.6 4.4 7.4 9.2 0.3 0 1.3 4.2 2.6 6.3 10.2 12.8

12 ACCI 0 4.0 0.4 4.7 4.7 6.3 7.5 9.3 13.8 2.3 0.7 0.4 0.8 0.6 1.5 1.7 1.3

1 6.6 2.0 7.9 8.8 7.6 6.8 8.1 7.8 3.9 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3 1.1 1.6

Herbaceous species:2 GRSP 0 4.3 4.9 11.7 12.9 12.6 10.0 8.5 9.7 2.6 2.6 7.3 36.4 37.1 29.4 26.2 18.4

1 3.9 3.0 10.1 12.8 11.4 13.3 12.8 7.8 4.2 5.2 12.0 29.4 36.6 30.5 33.8 21.1

3 POMU 0 11.3 3.4 9.6 14.2 15.0 16.6 19.8 23.6 8.2 3.1 5.6 10.6 11.8 14.1 18.4 19.9

1 7.4 1.1 6.6 8.9 11.2 13.1 15.6 16.3 4.2 2.1 2.7 4.4 5.3 6.3 9.9 12.8

4 HEMI 0 7.6 1.7 9.7 4.9 4.6 7.6 9.0 7.2 7.4 0.3 8.7 10.6 8.4 16.0 23.5 11.0

1 3.5 1.0 8.3 6.5 9.9 10.0 16.7 12.5 3.1 1.0 6.0 5.3 8.9 14.1 16.9 14.5

5 PTAQ 0 7.4 4.4 12.0 21.0 21.8 18.4 14.5 8.4 1.0 0 2.6 5.1 4.1 5.2 5.7 5.9

1 8.0 5.2 9.3 12.7 9.7 9.0 9.3 8.2 0.2 0 3.6 4.7 3.3 3.3 5.8 4.5

8 SESP 0 5.5 0.5 7.6 3.2 5.3 7.8 1.3 0.4 7.8 0 20.2 5.8 6.0 7.1 5.1 1.4

1 4.6 1.6 5.4 5.4 10.3 12.0 1.5 0.2 10.2 1.4 9.5 7.4 8.7 11.5 3.5 2.0

13 EPSP 0 2.4 2.0 5.9 4.2 1.4 0.8 0 0 0 0.5 7.2 8.1 5.8 1.1 0.2 0.2

1 3.1 3.4 6.3 3.9 0.7 1.3 0.2 0 0.1 0.8 7.1 5.9 1.4 1.2 0 0

14 DIPU 0 0 0 0.4 2.0 2.4 3.6 1.4 3.6 0 0 0.1 1.5 2.1 4.3 1.1 1.7

1 0 0 0.6 1.7 0.2 4.5 2.4 3.7 0 0 1.9 2.0 0.2 4.6 2.8 4.2

15 MOSP 0 5.6 1.3 3.1 0 0.1 0 0 0.3 10.2 0 3.4 0 0 0 0 0.1

1 2.8 0.3 1.2 0 0.1 0 0.2 0.1 9.3 1.2 1.5 0 0 0 0 0.1
65

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Table 29—Species comprising major fractions of vegetative cover during the decade by site preparation and release treatments (continued) 

Spray Spray and burn

Rankinga Species Release 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Percent

Trees:6 PSME 0 0 0 0 0.4 1.2 3.9 11.5 22.4 0 0 0.1 0.7 1.6 5.4 24.0 37.7

1 0 0 0.1 0.7 0.8 4.3 15.8 30.2 0 0 0.1 0.7 1.9 7.6 24.6 39.4

10 ALRU 0 0.3 0 0 0.1 0.2 2.5 7.3 12.8 0 0 0 0.3 1.4 7.6 17.4 21.6

1 0 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.8 3.3 8.5 0.1 0 0.1 1.5 1.4 8.7 16.9 18.4

16 TSHE 0 0 0 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.5 3.1 7.4 0 0 0 0.3 0.4 1.9 5.2 8.0

1 0 0 0 0.2 0.8 3.2 7.4 13.7 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 2.8 6.5

Woody shrubs: 1 RUSP 0 10.2 3.2 13.8 21.7 22.5 25.4 28.9 32.1 17.8 0 4.2 11.3 11.8 14.8 20.8 26.5

1 11.3 5.9 15.8 27.6 14.8 22.9 31.8 29.5 13.8 0 5.8 12.6 7.8 8.1 11.4 16.7

7 GASH 0 1.0 1.0 0.8 2.9 6.2 11.1 17.7 20.8 0.6 0 0.5 1.3 1.7 3.5 5.9 6.2

1 1.2 0.2 0.6 1.7 4.9 8.0 11.2 12.8 0.7 0 1.2 2.6 4.6 6.8 11.0 14.8

9 RUVI 0 2.5 0 0.2 3.0 4.5 8.3 17.7 16.6 0 0 0.3 0.7 1.1 2.1 5.6 5.6

1 0.4 0 0.3 1.0 1.4 4.4 9.8 12.4 0.1 0 0.8 2.4 3.3 4.3 12.2 13.3

11 RUPA 0 0 0 0.1 1.1 1.1 2.2 7.2 10.0 0 0 0.2 3.8 7.1 8.5 20.3 19.1

1 0 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.6 2.7 6.7 9.2 0 0 0.4 4.2 3.5 3.4 12.9 7.9

12 ACCI 0 4.2 1.2 2.8 2.4 3.0 2.4 4.1 5.2 14.1 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.6 1.1 1.0

1 1.4 0.3 2.4 3.2 2.1 2.4 4.0 3.8 3.5 0 1.7 1.2 1.2 2.2 2.5 2.2

Herbaceous species: 2 GRSP 0 5.4 6.0 18.8 20.3 17.4 15.8 18.6 12.8 0.2 0 3.6 37.8 43.2 30.3 33.3 17.9

1 2.8 2.6 8.2 14.5 14.1 11.4 17.5 13.0 2.4 0.1 1.0 28.4 32.6 31.3 29.5 22.7

3 POMU 0 6.3 3.8 8.6 9.9 10.1 11.7 17.6 19.2 9.0 0 3.6 5.5 7.7 8.7 11.1 14.8

1 8.3 4.6 11.4 17.1 19.8 19.0 27.6 29.8 9.7 0.3 2.1 3.2 4.5 4.6 8.8 9.5

4 HEMI 0 4.1 2.3 6.5 3.7 5.4 9.0 13.6 12.1 1.0 0 2.0 4.6 7.3 17.6 24.0 17.9

1 3.8 0.8 4.7 6.4 6.1 7.9 14.0 17.8 2.3 0.1 3.5 6.3 8.9 18.0 19.6 24.1

5 PTAQ 0 7.6 7.8 17.7 27.0 23.8 16.4 15.0 10.3 0 0 0.7 3.2 4.2 5.1 5.3 2.8

1 4.8 2.8 9.5 19.7 11.5 11.4 8.9 6.1 2.1 0 2.3 6.7 4.1 3.2 5.8 2.7

8 SESP 0 3.6 0.2 5.6 4.5 10.1 9.7 1.5 0.3 0.9 0 11.6 9.9 6.4 12.5 5.0 1.1

1 1.5 0 4.9 4.1 15.4 14.7 0.5 1.0 2.1 0.2 14.8 6.7 11.6 15.1 6.0 1.0

13 EPSP 0 0.1 1.2 2.2 5.0 3.7 1.7 0.2 0 0 0 9.4 8.4 3.9 1.4 2.6 0

1 0 0.6 2.4 4.7 1.2 2.6 0.2 0 0.2 0 11.2 6.9 1.9 1.3 1.6 0.1

14 DIPU 0 0 0 1.0 2.3 1.1 5.9 2.5 5.2 0 0 0.1 2.2 2.4 4.8 2.7 3.3

1 0 0 0.4 1.0 0.5 9.0 5.5 6.5 0 0 0.0 2.5 0.8 10.6 3.4 2.9

15 MOSP 0 3.5 0.1 2.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 9.1 0 9.7 0.2 0 0 0 0

1 6.8 0.2 4.8 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.1 4.9 0 6.8 0.1 0 0 0 0

a Ranked on basis of aggregated cover from highest downward.See table 28 for species codes.
66

research paper pnw-rp-601

Salmonberry was the most prominent cover component in all site preparation 

treatments at the start of the study, ranging from 10.8 to 16.9 percent cover (table 

29). Though reduced to 5.9 percent or less by site preparation (first examination), 

by the 10th year its cover averaged more than 30 percent in all treatments except the 

spray-and-burn treatment (fig 24). In the latter treatment, salmonberry cover averaged about five percent lower than in other no-release areas, and just over half as 

much as in release areas of the other treatments. Although average cover of salmonberry was reduced substantially by release spraying—reductions between the third 

and fourth examinations—its recovery appears unhampered to become similar to 

10th-year coverage in no-release areas except in the spray-and-burn treatments.

Another woody shrub, salal, was present at low levels initially, declined in 

cover in all treatments during site preparation and then increased to noteworthy 

levels by year 10. Though no dip in salal cover is shown after release treatment, 

release areas averaged less salal cover than no-release areas except in the spray-andburn treatment, where averages were reversed. Salal coverage at 10 years ranged 

from 12.8 to 14.8 percent in release areas of the four site treatments and 18.1 to 21.5 

for no-release areas in all but the spray-and-burn treatment where it averaged only 

6.2 percent.

Figure 24—Salmonberry, the most prominent woody shrub, rapidly formed a tall, dense cover 

3 years after broadcast burning on the Beaver site.
67

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

The other three woody species differed in response to treatment. Trailing 

blackberry cover was reduced by site preparation and attained highest coverage 

in the control and spray treatments, around 15 percent. A slight dip resulting from 

release seems evident only in the control treatment. Thimbleberry was hardly 

present initially, was reduced by release spraying, and gained highest coverage, 20.3 

percent, in the no-release areas of the spray-and-burn treatment. Vine maple cover 

initially averaged highest in no-release areas of the spray-and-burn treatment, was 

markedly reduced by site preparation and also some by release treatment. It reached 

top coverage at 10 years in the no-release control areas, 13.8 percent, and only 1.0 

percent in the no-release spray-and-burn treatment where initially its cover had 

been 14.1 percent.

Grass was the most common herbaceous species and its coverage was second 

only to salmonberry. Grass cover peaked around the third or fourth examination, 

and varied substantially among site treatments—lowest in control areas (12.9 

percent) and highest in spray-and-burn no-release areas (43.2 percent). It retained 

substantial coverage even in the 10th year, slightly under 9 percent in the control to 

around 20 percent in the burn and spray-and-burn no-release treatments.

Sword-fern, the third most prominent species, was present in all treatments 

at the start of the study, averaging from 6.2 to 9.4 percent of total cover. Though 

reduced during the site preparation interval even in the control, its coverage shows 

a steady increase with 10th year averages ranging from 12.2 to 24.5 percent. Site 

preparation reduced sword-fern cover, but reduction by release spraying is not evident. Initial differences in average cover between no-release and release areas were 

maintained except in the spray-and-burn treatment with the most drastic reduction 

and least recovery.

As an aggregation of various species, the miscellaneous herbaceous category 

provided important coverage. Site preparation reduced cover of these species, but 

their cover increased to peak by the sixth examination, reaching around 24 percent 

in burn, and spray-and-burn no-release treatments. By the 10th year, miscellaneous 

cover tended to be somewhat higher in released areas.

In contrast to sword-fern, bracken-fern varied more, including some reduction 

following release treatment. Though somewhat inconsistent, bracken-fern coverage 

peaked about mid-decade. Its initial presence was lowest in the burn and spray-andburn treatments. The average gain in cover was much lower in the spray-and-burn 

than in the other three site preparation treatments.

Groundsel and fireweed peaked during the decade and provided little cover by 

the 10th year. In particular, fireweed peaked from 6 to 11 percent cover soon after 

site preparation. Peak coverage of groundsel was more variable, occurring at the 
68

research paper pnw-rp-601

second to fifth examination with the highest cover, 20.2 percent, in no-release burn 

areas.

Purple foxglove was not present before site preparation. It gained coverage 

through most of the decade, peaking at the fifth examination with 10.6 percent the 

highest in released spray-and-burn areas. Candy flower cover trended just the opposite of purple foxglove. Generally, highest cover of candy flower was found before 

site preparation and the percentage tended downward from then on except in the 

spray-and-burn treatment where it reached 9.7 percent at the second examination.

Live Biomass

Each examination included collection of all live vegetation found within a set of 

circular plots, each encompassing a 2 ft2

 area. All vegetation occurring within the 

sample, including any over-hanging the plot, was collected. If study trees were 

within the plot, they were left intact and an equivalent tree sample was collected 

nearby. The same substitution was made when other vegetation was unreachable.

Center points around which successive samples were taken were located at a 

right angle to, and 5 ft from, the 10-, 25- and 40-ft mark along each transect line. 

A point straight uphill from the sample center point was designated as 12 o’clock 

and samples were collected clockwise at 2, 4, and 6 o’clock etc., in successive 

examinations.

Three samples were taken per transect line so in each examination (except 0 

and 1) each release treatment was represented by 15 samples, each site preparation 

treatment by 30, and each site by 120, or 720 for all sites combined. Examination 

1 included only three sites, so year 1 data are based on Randall, Poposchultz, and 

Bay’s Wolfe. The initial examination had several occurrences where less than 15 

samples were taken; data compilation was adjusted as necessary. At each sample 

point the collected live above-ground vegetation was bagged separately as herbaceous, woody shrub, or tree material. After oven-drying, woody and tree material 

larger than one-fourth inch in diameter was separated out and weighed as a subset 

within the category.

Before site preparation (examination 0), live biomass averaged much less on 

areas designated for control or spray treatment than for those to be burned or 

sprayed and burned (see tabulation on page 56), a direct contrast to live cover data. 

Biomass averages for no-release and release areas combined varied more than 3 to 1 

before site preparation:
69

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

 Biomass per acre by examination

Site preparation 0 1 2

Kilograms

Control 1171 206 1327

Burn 2664 88 495

Spray 847 134 513

Spray and burn 2661 17 283

By the second examination, the control areas averaged more than twice as 

much total live biomass as in burned areas and over four times as much as in areas 

sprayed and burned.

Site preparation greatly reduced woody biomass to become the smaller component of total live vegetation. Before site preparation, woody biomass greatly 

exceeded herbaceous biomass in control and spray-and-burn areas, was nearly an 

equal component in spray site preparation areas, and was a smaller component in 

burn areas (table 30). After site preparation (second examination), the control areas 

still averaged less herbaceous than woody biomass (472 vs. 846 kg), but woody 

biomass averaged substantially less than herbaceous biomass in the other three site 

preparation treatments, 321 vs. 97 in burn areas, 320 vs. 169 in spray areas and 257 

vs. 25 in spray-and-burn areas.

Spraying glyphosate for release in the fall (between the third and fourth 

examination) reduced vegetative biomass in every site preparation treatment. The 

effect differed among treatments as shown by a before and after comparison of total 

biomass averages:

Total biomass per acre by site preparation and release treatment:

Control Burn Spray Spray and burn

Release 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

Kilograms

Exam 3 1181 1023 749 804 976 1052 670 706

Exam 4 1151 867 835 642 930 714 516 418

Exam 5 1653 1140 1062 1070 1338 936 927 914

Exam 7 2622 1961 2022 2278 2160 1870 1721 2670

Total live biomass in the fourth examination averaged about 160 kg less than in 

the third examination in the release areas of the control and burn treatments, 288 

kg less in the spray-and-burn treatments and 338 kg less where only spray had been 

used for site preparation. Areas in three of the four site preparation treatments not 

given release also showed some reduction in biomass in the fourth examination, the 

largest reduction being in spray-and-burn treatments, averaging 154 kg. By the fifth 
70

research paper pnw-rp-601 Table 30—Average dry weight of live vegetation at each examination by site preparation and release treatments Kind of vegetation Kind of vegetation Herbaceous total Woody shrubs Trees Total Herbaceous total Woody shrubs Trees Total Treatment and exam Release Total >1/4” Total >1/4” Total >1/4” Treatment and exam Release Total >1/4” Total >1/4” Total >1/4” Kilograms per acre Kilograms per acre Control: Burn: 0 0 372.3 487.2 3.1 15.2 0 874.7 3.1 0 0 1 634.8 986.0 415.6 .9 0 2 621.7 415.6 1 296.0 1 171.2 1.9 .5 0 1 467.7 1.9 1 1 592.3 1 104.6 415.7 9.7 1.6 2 706.6 417.3 1 0 93.0 193.5 132.6 0 0 286.4 132.6 1 0 24.5 7.7 1.4 2.0 .9 34.3 2.3

1 86.9 35.8 1.5 3.6 0 126.3 1.5 1 31.5 19.9 5.5 91.0 81.5 142.3 87.0

2 0 534.9 291.8 58.3 2.2 0 828.9 58.3 2 0 335.5 79.2 0 1.4 0 416.1 0

1 408.9 1 399.3 52.3 16.3 0 1 824.4 52.3 1 305.5 114.3 7.5 153.8 47.0 573.5 54.5

3 0 555.9 485.4 43.4 140.0 49.9 1 181.2 93.3 3 0 555.8 190.1 16.2 2.9 0 748.8 16.2

1 512.4 432.8 28.1 77.5 23.7 1 022.8 51.8 1 427.0 358.7 24.2 18.6 0 804.3 24.2

4 0 420.0 653.0 41.7 78.4 23.6 1 151.4 65.3 4 0 332.4 485.1 41.4 17.4 2.2 834.9 43.6

1 365.4 380.5 31.6 121.1 48.8 867.1 80.4 1 247.3 348.1 63.9 46.6 12.4 642.0 76.3

5 0 455.3 902.0 132.7 295.5 61.4 1 652.8 194.1 5 0 412.2 526.5 22.2 123.6 27.1 1 062.3 49.3

1 418.4 555.3 79.9 166.7 50.1 1 140.4 130.0 1 326.6 559.9 108.8 183.6 21.9 1 070.1 130.7

6 0 353.9 999.2 264.8 240.7 98.6 1 593.9 363.4 6 0 353.1 588.5 114.0 358.0 169.3 1 299.6 283.3

1 285.4 824.6 158.5 291.3 171.2 1 401.3 329.7 1 250.7 925.0 104.1 875.4 509.8 2 051.1 613.9

7 0 321.7 1 524.5 470.9 775.5 294.4 2 621.6 765.3 7 0 258.9 1 060.0 200.9 702.6 350.3 2 021.6 551.2

1 282.2 1 172.1 293.4 506.7 224.9 1 961.0 518.3 1 112.8 1 055.4 279.1 1 110.2 635.6 2 278.3 914.7

Spray: Spray and burn:

0 0 330.3 137.3 1.2 2.5 0 470.2 1.2 0 0 326.3 2 024.9 862.0 0 0 2 351.2 862.0

1 542.3 669.4 116.5 11.2 0 1 222.9 116.5 1 385.1 2 585.7 853.8 0 0 2 970.8 853.8

1 0 104.7 81.5 41.1 1.9 0 188.1 41.1 1 0 0 33.6 2.0 0 0 33.6 2.0

1 35.5 43.5 21.6 0 0 79.0 21.6 1 .3 0 0 0 0 .3 0

2 0 410.3 139.6 8.9 32.6 3.4 582.5 12.3 2 0 275.4 17.9 0 0 0 293.4 0

1 228.9 198.9 29.5 14.9 0 442.6 29.5 1 238.0 32.4 0 1.5 0 272.0 0

3 0 576.6 393.0 31.4 6.3 0 976.0 31.4 3 0 552.3 117.5 6.5 .4 0 670.2 6.5

1 620.6 402.0 18.0 29.3 .5 1 051.8 18.5 1 490.5 211.1 19.8 4.6 0 706.2 19.8

4 0 434.0 466.7 64.7 28.9 1.0 929.6 65.7 4 0 335.1 163.0 5.1 17.9 .5 516.1 5.6

1 343.0 352.2 50.6 18.3 1.7 713.6 52.3 1 203.3 176.7 12.8 38.1 3.5 418.1 16.3

5 0 420.0 820.5 221.6 97.7 58.2 1 338.2 279.8 5 0 431.5 382.4 54.9 113.0 24.3 926.9 79.2

1 510.8 399.1 62.7 25.7 6.1 935.6 68.8 1 436.0 376.4 44.3 101.7 20.5 914.0 64.8

6 0 379.9 1 013.1 469.2 90.5 17.2 1 483.5 486.4 6 0 316.3 529.9 46.2 156.8 31.3 1 003.0 77.5

1 306.3 678.9 152.6 42.9 .6 1 028.1 153.2 1 248.1 449.5 55.3 434.7 195.3 1 132.2 250.6

7 0 216.3 1 384.5 543.3 559.4 181.9 2 160.3 725.2 7 0 175.8 735.0 122.3 810.3 304.0 1 721.1 426.3

1 416.1 1 134.4 372.8 319.7 109.9 1 870.2 482.7 1 194.5 543.6 47.7 1 932.0 1 244.6 2 670.1 1 292.3
71

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

examination, total biomass was about equal in no-release and release areas of burn 

or spray-and-burn treatments, but still less in release areas of the control and spray 

treatments, and the differences continued to the seventh examination. In the burn 

and spray-and-burn treatments, release spraying seems to have had an opposite 

long-term effect—for these, total live biomass in release areas was greater in the 

seventh examination than in areas not released.

Spraying for release reduced herbaceous biomass in the fourth examination 

more than it reduced woody biomass, averaging 223 vs. 37 kg less for the four site 

preparation treatments (table 30):

Biomass changes after release

Control Burn Spray Spray and burn

Site preparation Herbaceous Woody Herbaceous Woody Herbaceous Woody Herbaceous Woody

Kilograms

Exam 3 512 433 427 359 621 402 491 211

Exam 4 365 381 247 348 343 352 203 177

Reduction 147 52 180 11 278 50 288 34

Exam 5 418 555 327 560 511 399 436 376

Exam 7 282 1172 113 1055 416 1134 195 544

Herbaceous biomass increased between the fourth and fifth examination in 

released areas of all site preparation treatments, but then markedly declined by 

the seventh examination. In contrast, woody biomass was only slightly reduced by 

release spraying and gained substantially thereafter to over 1000 kilograms per acre 

in all site preparation treatments except spray and burn. Woody vegetation clearly 

was affected by the release spraying; swaths of browned foliage on dominant salmonberry were visual evidence that woody species experienced at least a temporary 

setback (fig. 6).

Tree biomass developed slowly, with both first appearance and seventh examination quantities differing by site preparation and release treatments (table 30). 

Widely spaced trees probably caused more sample variability than did other, more 

uniformly distributed vegetation. But, trends and 10th-year results still seem most 

informative. In the two burn site preparation treatments, tree biomass at 10 years in 

release areas exceeded that in no-release areas. For the spray-and-burn treatment, 

the biomass in the released areas averaged more than twice as much. In contrast, in 

the spray only treatment, tree biomass at the second examination was greater in norelease areas and was substantially greater at the 10th year, despite a big reduction in 

the third examination. Only in the release areas of the spray-and-burn treatment did 

tree biomass exceed more than half the total biomass, 72.4 percent.
72

research paper pnw-rp-601

Woody and tree biomass greater than one-fourth-inch in diameter after oven 

drying was considered a rough demarcation for biomass no longer palatable as 

browse. In all treatments except spray-and-burn, some woody biomass larger than 

one-fourth inch was present from the first sampling onward. For the spray-and-burn 

treatment there is a noticeable gap between the first and third examinations. Tree 

biomass larger than one-fourth inch generally showed a steady progression from the 

third and fourth examination onward. In the 10th year, biomass greater than onefourth inch diameter averaged 26 percent of the total biomass in the release areas of 

the control and spray treatments, 40 percent in the burn treatment, and 48 percent 

in the spray-and-burn treatment.

Vegetation Density and Height

Stem counts of trees, woody shrubs, and ferns were made on milacre plots adjacent 

to each line transect. Milacres were located at a right angle to and 10 ft away from 

the 0, 25, and 50 foot-mark along each transect line. Number of milacres per site 

and treatment were the same as already enumerated for biomass samples.

Height of each species found on a milacre was based on the average height of 

crown rather than on a midpoint of the tallest and shortest stem. A single height 

value was recorded for each species on a milacre, whereas the stem count included 

multiple stems and perhaps more than one plant of the same species.

A difference in summary techniques should be kept in mind when evaluating 

data for individual species. The number of stems per species and calculation of its 

average height are based on the combined total of stems measured in release and 

no-release segments of all four site preparation treatments. Data for the main species, however, are presented separately for no-release and release areas in each site 

preparation treatment. Comments for individual species are based on how a species 

developed from its initial presence before site preparation to year 10.

Evaluating effects of release spraying involves some uncertainties. The number 

of stems and average height just before and after release are the primary basis, but 

what happened in the adjacent no-release area can reinforce or confuse the evaluation. At least three factors may have reduced height or hindered height growth: 

(1) a likely setback from release spraying, (2) height changes caused by browsing 

animals, particularly for such favored species as red huckleberry and elder, and (3) 

competition from other species developing nearby. Thus, the author’s comments 

about release effects on average height of individual species are best estimates. The 

uniformity of response to release in several site preparation treatments strengthens 

the estimate.
73

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Eight tree species were found and measured on milacre plots (table 31). The 

planted species, Douglas-fir and western hemlock, constituted 81 percent of the tree 

count total at the third examination, but only 66 percent at the seventh examination. 

Red alder, the main volunteer species, doubled in numbers and averaged one-third 

taller than Douglas-fir and twice as tall as western hemlock at 10 years. Cherry and 

cascara buckthorn, desired components for wildlife, were also present in quantity. 

Three species, bigleaf maple, Sitka spruce and incense cedar were only incidental 

occurrences.

Trees constituted a very minor portion of the total number of stems per acre 

(table 32). Tree numbers peaked about the fifth or sixth examination and declined 

by the seventh examination, except in the areas given spray site preparation and no 

release.

Only a few red alders were present before site preparation, but it established 

in all treatments afterward (table 33). Red alder averaged tallest, 26.4 ft. in control 

areas with no release. The second tallest alder average, 23.2 ft, was in burn areas 

with no release. Alders were most numerous in spray-and-burn areas, and the only 

instance where they averaged taller in release areas. At ten years, red alders averaged taller than the Douglas-firs in all treatments.

Cherry was found from the fourth examination onward. It was most numerous 

and tallest on burned areas.

Responses of Douglas-fir and western hemlock to site preparation and release 

should be viewed under conifer development where the data bases are much larger.

Twenty-one woody shrub species were found on milacre plots, but only nine 

were reasonably common components of the dominant shrub cover (tables 31 and 

33). The number of shrub stems per acre changed greatly over the decade from a 

low of 6,080 initially in the spray-and-burn-release treatment to a high of 66,378 in 

the fourth examination of the control-no release treatment (table 32). In all instances 

but the spray-and-burn-release treatment, the shrub count peaked before the end of 

the decade.

Both site preparation and release effects are evident in stem counts of woody 

shrubs, and results vary among treatments (table 32). In the control-no-release 

treatment, the initial numbers were somewhat higher than in the release segment, 

peaked the highest of all in the fourth examination and then declined to 6,089 

stems less than in the release segment by the seventh examination. In the burn 

treatment, the release segment had more than twice as many stems as the no-release 

segment initially, both segments were reduced 70 percent or more by burning, and 

the release segment was reduced again by release spraying, yet by the 10th

 year, 
74

research paper pnw-rp-601

Table 31—Number of stems and average height for species found on milacre plots in pre- and postrelease examinations

Examination

3 4 7

Common name Abbr. Stems

Average 

height Stems

Average 

height Stems

Average 

height

Number Feet Number Feet Number Feet

Trees:

Douglas-fir PSME 181 3.02 258 3.85 235 12.53

Red alder ALRU 43 5.74 59 9.06 89 18.89

Western hemlock TSHE 47 1.62 61 2.50 64 9.05

Cherry PRSP 30 1.35 34 4.34

Cascara buckthorn RHPU 10 3.57 18 3.59 26 4.99

Sitka spruce PISI 4 4.13

Bigleaf maple ACMA 1 1.10

Incense cedar LIDE 2 1.95

Woody shrubs:

Salmonberry RUSP 379 2.77 382 2.43 431 4.13

Thimbleberry RUPA 255 1.17 261 1.37 315 3.02

Trailing blackberry RUVI 161 216 358

Salal GASH 128 0.88 137 0.87 194 1.77

Vine maple ACCI 95 2.50 94 3.21 92 4.50

Elder, red or blue SASP 102 2.93 126 2.95 72 4.63

Red huckleberry VAPA 64 1.89 107 1.90 64 3.14

Oregongrape BESP 18 0.80 29 1.00 35 1.40

Evergreen huckleberry VAOV 36 3.55

Blackcap RULE 2 2.40

Ocean-spray HODI 3 1.20 8 3.47 21 3.80

California hazel COCO 5 6.81 8 5.15 9 8.42

False azalea MEFE 4 0.44 2 2.55 10 2.55

Himalayan blackberry RUPR 5

Chaparral broom BAPI 2 2.70 3 3.30

Stink currant RIBR 2 3.35 3 3.83

Evergreen blackberry RULA 8

Little wood rose ROGY 2 1.85 2 4.00

Red flowering currant RISA 5 5.00

Pacific rhododendron RHSP 1 2.30 1 2.40 1 3.80

Common snowberry SYAL 2 1.35

Ferns:

Sword-fern POMU 423 2.20 450 2.15 524 2.49

Bracken-fern PTAQ 203 2.79 196 2.63 161 3.82

Deer-fern BLSP 10 1.30

Lady-fern ATFI 11 2.01

Maidenhair fern ADPE 1 0.60 a Listed by highest number downward in each group.
75

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Table 32—Stems per species group by examination, site preparation, and release treatments

Species group

Ferns Woody shrubs Trees Total Site preparation 

and examination No release Release No release Release No release Release No release Release

Number of stems per acre

Control:

0 14,919 9,359 14,796 13,658 22 3,506 29,737 26,522

1 16,911 10,800 12,333 14,578 0 0 29,244 25,378

2 22,978 18,289 24,089 37,911 567 989 47,634 57,189

3 40,155 36,011 47,467 49,733 867 845 88,489 86,589

4 45,555 35,500 66,378 36,944 900 1,255 112,834 73,700

5 60,622 56,184 53,322 52,300 2,000 1,417 115,945 109,900

6 65,433 59,389 52,367 45,400 789 1,133 118,589 105,923

7 73,556 56,689 43,600 49,689 778 1,022 117,933 107,400

Burn:

0 5,867 3,667 9,300 19,234 33 811 15,200 23,712

1 7,733 6,845 1,955 5,845 0 556 9,689 13,245

2 16,544 12,011 18,011 25,334 433 667 34,989 38,012

3 22,844 13,033 21,155 33,033 633 889 44,633 46,955

4 26,078 19,400 23,556 26,567 1,034 1,056 50,667 47,023

5 46,555 28,000 33,744 34,778 1,745 1,478 82,044 64,256

6 40,911 30,267 40,389 43,444 1,045 923 82,345 74,633

7 39,511 32,178 36,777 38,878 812 934 77,100 71,989

Spray:

0 13,382 11,915 12,067 8,008 0 11 25,448 19,934

1 14,889 27,533 14,445 11,578 156 0 29,489 39,111

2 27,078 36,289 17,756 14,111 245 267 45,078 50,667

3 31,600 41,311 32,456 33,555 444 367 64,500 75,233

4 35,289 51,311 44,211 27,833 733 678 80,234 79,822

5 44,700 75,733 46,422 33,756 1,000 967 92,122 110,456

6 44,511 76,600 53,778 43,611 978 700 99,267 120,912

7 55,900 88,567 43,078 37,056 1,089 745 100,067 126,367

Spray and burn:

0 9,361 12,859 6,530 6,080 33 84 15,924 19,023

1 0 1,311 67 200 0 0 67 1,511

2 10,711 10,034 9,700 14,034 323 333 20,734 24,400

3 18,233 19,734 19,300 32,278 734 1,122 38,267 53,134

4 17,325 19,378 19,872 22,856 1,553 1,122 38,750 43,356

5 32,089 28,733 29,722 26,111 2,056 1,756 63,867 56,600

6 30,300 29,322 33,522 39,711 2,367 2,011 66,189 71,044

7 31,700 43,300 30,367 41,844 1,211 1,100 63,278 86,245
76

research paper pnw-rp-601 Table 33—Number and average height of main species on milacre plots by examination, site preparation, and release treatments Treatment and examination Control Burn Speciesa Release 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No. Feet No. Feet No. Feet No. Feet No. Feet No. Feet No. Feet No. Feet No. Feet No. Feet No. Feet No. Feet No. Feet No. Feet No. Feet No. Feet Trees: PSME 0 15 1.1 22 2.7 26 3.6 33 6.7 25 8.6 21 11.4 30 1.1 36 3.1 42 4.3 51 6.7 39 8.8 33 11.0 1 16 1.1 20 2.5 35 3.3 43 5.7 39 10.5 33 15.7 2 2.2 22 1.4 18 2.7 31 3.7 44 6.7 25 10.0 30 11.4 ALRU 0 1 0.5 1 3.0 9 5.0 8 7.3 18 12.4 10 13.3 9 26.4 1 3.5 3 5.2 9 16.1 8 11.7 9 17.6 8 23.2 1 2 3.1 3 6.1 4 8.4 5 13.4 7 10.0 10 13.6 11 19.0 3 0.5 3 2.5 3 4.1 7 9.6 7 14.4 12 14.7 8 17.7 14 14.4 TSHE 0 4 0.9 3 1.1 2 1.7 4 2.3 4 2.4 5 3.2 3 0.7 3 1.5 6 2.25 5 7.5 6 8.2 6 9.3 1 4 0.9 5 1.6 5 2.7 5 4.8 5 10.1 5 12.5 6 0.9 5 1.9 7 2.4 7 5.2 5 6.2 4 7.9

PRSP 0 2 1.7 2 5.4 6 1.3 18 2.0 10 2.9 5 6.8

1 5 1.8 3 1.7 4 1.7 5 1.7 10 2.3 5 3.7 5 3.6

Woody shrubs:

RUSP 0 34 2.6 18 1.5 46 2.6 51 3.6 53 3.3 64 3.8 64 4.6 59 5.0 43 1.8 5 2.3 54 1.3 49 2.2 60 2.3 67 2.5 63 4.5 66 4.3

1 31 2.3 17 1.5 57 2.4 51 3.2 42 2.7 54 2.6 55 3.5 49 3.5 54 3.0 13 2.0 56 1.4 51 2.7 53 2.5 57 2.4 52 3.4 50 4.6

RUPA 0 9 0.8 12 0.7 36 1.7 33 2.5 43 2.4 45 3.0 35 3.4 3 1.2 25 0.8 38 1.2 42 1.8 56 2.0 56 3.3 45 3.4

1 3 1.1 1 0.6 22 1.1 32 1.4 29 1.5 39 1.7 44 2.5 43 3.3 7 0.7 26 0.9 29 1.3 32 1.2 48 1.7 44 2.5 40 3.0

RUVI 0 9 5 24 36 38 47 45 43 8 10 13 13 34 29 32

1 13 18 26 31 41 51 53 56 4 9 20 22 32 36 38

GASH 0 10 0.9 8 0.8 10 0.8 21 1.2 21 1.2 25 1.4 29 2.0 28 2.7 15 0.9 10 0.8 13 0.7 14 0.9 18 0.8 19 1.5 19 1.9

1 11 0.9 8 0.6 8 0.5 15 1.3 20 0.9 29 1.0 33 1.2 31 1.5 14 1.2 15 0.5 17 0.8 18 0.8 17 1.0 19 1.6 21 1.8

ACCI 0 18 1.7 6 1.0 26 2.7 26 4.5 25 5.1 30 4.7 24 7.8 25 8.3 13 1.6 1 3.2 5 1.7 6 2.1 5 2.6 10 2.4 8 4.2 6 5.3

1 17 0.9 7 0.9 20 2.0 22 3.8 20 4.0 21 3.2 21 4.4 20 5.2 14 1.7 4 1.1 12 1.3 4 1.5 5 2.0 5 1.2 7 2.1 5 1.6

SASP 0 1 0.5 8 2.6 6 3.2 6 3.8 2 5.6 5 4.5 4 6.7 10 2.0 19 1.8 19 2.8 18 3.6 20 3.1 15 3.2 9 3.7

1 4 0.9 2 1.7 8 1.9 7 4.2 12 2.4 7 3.7 8 6.4 4 8.3 16 2.2 2 1.2 23 2.5 16 3.6 26 3.3 19 2.9 20 4.4 14 6.5

VAPA 0 5 2.2 1 0.4 6 2.9 16 2.6 16 2.6 10 3.4 11 3.6 10 4.0 3 3.2 7 0.9 8 1.8 17 2.2 6 1.9 8 2.2 6 2.7

1 3 2.0 2 0.8 7 1.4 14 1.5 16 1.4 14 2.5 14 4.2 16 4.0 6 2.1 7 1.0 1 1.8 18 1.0 7 1.8 8 2.3 6 1.7

BESP 0 4 0.5 6 1.3 3 1.1 5 1.2 7 1.2 7 1.6 7 1.1 4 0.5 1 0.4 1 0.6 2 1.2 4 1.1 3 1.8 3 1.9

1 5 0.8 5 1.2 4 1.1 5 1.0 7 1.3 7 1.8 7 1.3 3 0.9 4 0.4 3 0.7 5 0.9 5 1.3 6 1.4 2 1.4

VAOV 0 5 1.1 4 1.2 11 1.9 15 1.6 12 3.6 2 0.7 1 0.3 3 3.2 5 1.3 3 3.1

1 5 1.2 8 1.5 10 2.9 6 1.8 2 3.1 3 1.5 1 4.7

Ferns:

POMU 0 51 2.3 24 1.8 56 2.5 65 2.5 64 2.5 67 2.6 72 3.0 68 1.1 55 2.2 12 2.2 55 1.5 57 2.0 60 1.9 65 2.1 65 2.3 63 2.5

1 40 2.1 13 1.7 48 2.0 52 2.48 55 2.4 56 2.4 66 2.6 64 2.7 51 2.0 13 1.7 34 1.5 40 2.1 45 2.0 51 2.0 56 2.2 61 2.2

PTAQ 0 10 3.0 11 2.3 25 2.6 32 2.7 34 3.2 35 3.8 36 4.2 30 5.0 6 3.2 12 1.8 15 2.9 17 2.8 17 2.9 25 3.2 17 4.2

1 15 2.7 20 2.0 29 2.7 28 2.8 26 2.3 28 3.3 23 3.0 23 3.6 5 2.7 12 2.3 19 2.8 17 2.6 17 2.3 18 2.9 11 3.5
77

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Table 33—Number and average height of main species on milacre plots by examination, site preparation, and release treatments (continued)

Treatment and examination

Spray Spray and burn

Speciesa Release 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

No. Feet No. Feet No. Feet No. Feet No. Feet No. Feet No. Feet No. Feet No. Feet No. Feet No. Feet No. Feet No. Feet No. Feet No. Feet No. Feet

Trees:

PSME 0 13 1.3 19 3.8 30 3.9 38 6.6 27 7.7 33 12.1 22 1.5 25 3.3 28 4.8 47 6.5 33 10.2 29 12.5

1 14 1.4 19 3.0 37 3.5 45 6.0 33 9.6 30 13.8 14 1.2 22 3.1 29 3.9 34 7.6 27 12.1 26 12.3

ALRU 0 1 8.0 3 3.0 5 4.5 11 21.1 11 14.3 12 18.4 8 1.1 12 3.0 17 4.8 17 12.7 17 15.6

1 1 3.4 3 3.1 6 6.9 2 9.5 4 15.7 1 0.5 5 0.3 8 1.5 10 2.4 13 5.2 15 10.4 14 19.9

TSHE 0 7 0.9 7 1.3 10 2.8 12 5.4 9 8.1 11 9.1 7 0.8 10 2.1 11 2.4 22 6.0 13 9.4 12 12.2

1 6 2.2 7 3.8 13 4.3 10 8.4 9 9.8 4 0.9 8 1.3 13 2.2 15 3.8 11 5.9 12 6.3

PRSP 0 2 0.8 1 1.4 2 1.8 1 1.8 13 1.6 14 2.1 12 3.1 5 5.7

1 1 1.2 2 1.7 3 1.8 4 1.3 3 1.0 14 1.7 5 3.4 8 4.9

Woody shrubs:

RUSP 0 31 2.6 16 2.8 39 2.6 50 2.9 50 2.7 53 2.9 52 3.5 55 3.7 46 3.4 1 0.2 46 0.7 38 2.0 47 2.0 56 2.1 51 2.8 54 3.6

1 36 2.2 20 1.9 46 2.1 51 3.3 42 2.3 52 3.1 52 4.0 57 4.6 37 2.0 34 0.9 38 2.1 35 1.7 50 1.6 47 3.2 41 3.5

RUPA 0 4 0.6 23 0.6 27 1.0 32 1.5 34 2.5 29 3.5 24 0.3 39 0.8 40 1.3 53 1.4 48 3.0 41 2.4

1 2 0.9 27 1.3 24 1.1 31 1.8 38 2.5 36 3.0 25 0.9 31 0.9 34 0.6 48 1.2 46 2.3 46 2.3

RUVI 0 13 7 16 26 38 52 57 49 1 4 8 17 30 44 37

1 12 1 4 11 24 36 54 48 6 13 16 23 38 53 55

GASH 0 8 1.1 15 0.5 20 0.7 28 0.8 28 0.9 35 1.1 39 1.6 41 1.8 6 1.8 9 0.6 8 0.6 7 0.8 11 0.7 12 1.5 13 1.6

1 16 0.9 3 0.6 3 0.4 13 1.3 13 1.0 14 1.2 16 1.4 16 1.6 12 0.9 2 0.4 17 0.5 13 0.6 16 0.6 18 0.8 24 1.1 25 1.4

ACCI 0 16 3.7 7 1.2 12 1.7 11 2.0 13 2.4 15 3.5 12 4.7 12 4.2 11 5.7 5 0.5 1 1.7 2 1.5 4 1.4 2 2.3 1 1.3

1 8 1.8 1 0.5 11 1.9 17 2.0 18 2.1 18 2.9 18 3.9 16 5.1 8 1.2 7 1.5 8 1.5 6 3.8 10 1.3 7 1.3 7 2.0

SASP 0 3 2.4 3 4.7 9 2.6 6 3.8 11 3.9 10 4.7 7 2.9 3 3.8 3 1.7 18 0.3 21 1.3 22 1.5 17 1.3 16 1.9 19 1.6

1 4 2.2 1 0.6 9 0.8 6 3.5 4 2.7 7 3.8 4 4.3 2 5.5 3 2.1 17 0.6 21 1.7 27 1.2 23 1.2 18 3.3 17 1.7

VAPA 0 2 3.2 2 1.2 3 1.4 11 2.2 11 2.8 8 3.5 8 2.4 5 4.1 6 7.4 3 1.6 8 1.6 8 1.8 10 2.4 9 2.0

1 1 6.5 1 3.0 2 2.6 7 2.0 10 2.3 4 2.7 3 4.7 6 2.9 4 2.7 4 0.8 4 1.7 11 1.1 6 2.0 9 2.0 6 3.1

BESP 0 1 0.9 2 0.8 4 1.0 3 0.7 5 0.9 6 1.3 4 1.3 4 1.4 4 0.7 4 0.4 4 0.8 4 1.0 6 1.2 7 1.9 8 1.9

1 2 1.2 1 0.3 3 1.0 4 0.6 1 1.1 4 1.0

VAOV 0 1 1.0 2 0.7 2 0.7 5 3.9 6 4.0 5 5.7 1 1.4 4 2.3 3 1.3 2 1.8

1 3 3.8 2 3.4 2 1.8 6 3.9 6 2.6 3 5.1 4 1.1 2 0.5 5 1.9 3 1.8 4 2.1

Ferns:

POMU 0 41 1.7 19 1.9 43 1.9 52 2.4 54 2.4 59 2.2 58 2.7 58 2.7 49 2.1 44 1.2 49 1.7 49 1.7 50 1.9 60 2.2 65 2.0

1 49 1.9 30 1.8 66 2.2 67 2.5 70 2.4 73 2.3 74 2.8 74 3.0 54 2.0 3 1.0 40 1.1 41 1.9 53 1.8 54 1.7 62 1.8 71 1.8

PTAQ 0 17 2.1 22 2.2 35 2.2 39 3.1 38 3.0 35 3.3 30 3.4 27 4.5 4 2.6 8 1.3 14 2.3 16 2.5 19 2.9 21 4.7 15 4.5

1 17 2.3 12 2.1 29 2.3 34 3.1 29 2.7 30 3.0 29 3.6 21 3.1 5 2.7 2 0.8 10 1.3 22 2.5 19 1.9 20 2.1 20 3.7 17 2.2

a Species are listed from most abundant downward in each group.
78

research paper pnw-rp-601

the numbers still slightly exceeded those in the no-release segment. Site preparation by spraying did not reduce stem counts in the first and second examinations, 

but later release spraying reduced the stem count which ended up 6,022 less than 

without release at year 10. In the spray-and-burn treatment, site preparation greatly 

reduced the initial numbers which were reasonably equal initially; then the release 

spray reduced the stem count by 9,422, yet the stem count in the release segment 

exceeded that in the no-release segment by 11,477 stems at year 10.

Salmonberry was the most abundant woody shrub and very competitive in 

height, averaging 4.13 ft by year 10 (tables 31 and 33). Salmonberry was present 

initially in all site preparation and release treatments, was substantially reduced 

during site preparation (first examination) even in the control, and also reduced in 

average height in six of eight instances. Release spraying generally reduced both 

stem count and average height, but recovery effects varied: 

Spraying effects on salmonberry

Examination 3 4 7

Site preparation

No

release Release

No

release Release

No

release Release

Stem count

Control 51 51 53 42 59 49

Burn 49 51 60 53 66 50

Spray 50 51 50 42 55 57

Spray and burn 38 38 47 35 54 41

Average height in meters

Control 3.6 3.2 3.3 2.7 5.0 3.5

Burn 2.2 2.7 2.3 2.5 4.3 4.6

Spray 2.9 3.3 2.7 2.3 3.7 4.6

Spray and burn 2.0 2.1 2.0 1.7 3.6 3.5

Average height of salmonberry at 10 years reached a maximum of 5.0 ft in the 

no-release areas of the control treatment, and 4.6 ft in release areas of the burn and 

the spray treatments. Although well represented initially, spray-and-burn site preparation greatly reduced subsequent stem numbers and average height of salmonberry 

with effects still evident in year 10.

Thimbleberry was the second most prominent woody shrub. Stem counts for 

thimbleberry were about 120 less than for salmonberry in the third, fourth, and 

seventh examinations and its average height was over 1 m shorter. Before site 

preparation, thimbleberry was not present in two of the four treatments, but soon 

afterwards it developed well in both release and no-release areas of all treatments 
79

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

(table 33). Release spraying appears to have had variable but minor effects on stem 

counts and some reductions in average height. As with salmonberry, average height 

of thimbleberry at the 10th year was lowest in the spray-and-burn treatment.

Trailing blackberry, the third most numerous woody shrub, is a vine whose 

height was not measured. The height above ground at which it might be found 

depends on whatever it grows upward on. Trailing blackberry was present before 

site preparation in all treatments and increased afterwards. Stem counts were not 

reduced by release spraying; in fact, at the 10th year, stem counts were equal to or 

higher in release areas than in no-release areas.

The relatively short evergreen shrub, salal, doubled its average height from the 

fourth to the seventh examination to 1.77 ft (table 31). In the control treatment with 

no release, it averaged 2.7 ft tall, but in all other treatments it averaged less than 2.0 

ft (table 33). Release spraying did not affect stem count but reduced average height 

of salal in the control and the spray site preparation treatments. Again, the shortest 

10th year height was in the release segments of spray-and-burn areas.

Vine maple did not thrive after site preparation. In the control without release 

an initial stem count of 18 increased to 30 at the fifth examination but reduced to 25 

by the seventh examination, with a 10th-year average height of 8.3 ft. In five of eight 

site treatment-release combinations, vine maples were fewer in number at the 10th

year than initially and heights averaged from 1.5 to 5.3 ft. Its development in the 

spray-and-burn treatment was notably lower than elsewhere. In several treatments, 

release spraying appears to have had a delayed effect on vine maple height growth.

Response of elder to site preparation and release seemed to differ from most 

other species. At the 10th year, stem counts were still low and so were most heights. 

Release spraying strongly reduced elder heights except in the control. Tenth-year 

heights were variable; in two instances they were less than initially, in three cases 

heights appeared to increase normally whereas the other three were intermediate. 

Again, average heights were much lower in the spray-and-burn treatment than 

elsewhere. Elder is often heavily browsed, which may account for low numbers and 

more than usual height variability.

Red huckleberry was present initially in low numbers and showed gains in all 

treatments at 10 years. Average height was reduced after release spraying in all 

treatments except for site preparation by spraying. Unlike several other species, red 

huckleberry development in the spray-and-burn treatment was reasonably similar to 

development in the other treatments.

Oregongrape and evergreen huckleberry were initially represented by low 

numbers in all treatments. Stem counts of Oregongrape show several gains; average heights were greater after release spraying in all site preparation treatments 
80

research paper pnw-rp-601

except the control. Although present early on in several treatments, evergreen 

huckleberry was consistently present only from the fifth examination onward. It 

averaged tallest for both release and no-release segments in areas sprayed for site 

preparation.

Five species of fern were tallied on milacres, but only two, sword-fern and 

bracken-fern, were abundant. The two were present in quantity before site preparation and increased over the decade. In number per acre, fern fronds often equaled or 

even exceeded woody shrub stems per acre (table 32).

In all site preparation treatments, sword-fern fronds greatly outnumbered 

bracken-fern fronds both initially and in the 10th year (table 33). With few exceptions, site preparation temporarily reduced the number of fronds and the average 

height of both species. As with other species, reductions resulting from site preparation were greater in spray-and-burn than in other treatments. Release spraying 

reduced the average height of both species, but sword-fern gained in number of 

fronds. Stem counts and average heights at the 10th year were generally lower in 

release areas than in no-release areas. Decreased numbers of bracken-fern fronds 

from the sixth to the seventh examination may indicate the onset of crowding and 

overtopping.

Discussion and Application

Since this study was started, major shifts in conservation endeavors, forest management objectives, and reforestation practices have occurred. Current endeavors 

are often focused on trying any method but clearcutting and broadcast burning to 

attain forest renewal and sustainability objectives. The author believes this study 

contributes substantially to the science of silviculture and quantitatively reinforces 

accepted reforestation practices that were compared and are still in use today.

The reported results amply demonstrate that the key objective of this study 

has been achieved. Quantitative data show that various combinations of seedling 

protection, site preparation, stock type, and release differently influence tree and 

vegetation development during the first decade. The foregoing pages presented the 

key findings surrounded by many supporting details. A brief synopsis, including 

range of treatment averages, seems useful to help focus the ensuing discussion:
81

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

1. Tree response to treatments:

Treatment Survival Height Diameter

Percent Centimeters

Untubed vs. tubed 50.5–82.2 498.8–520.4 7.2–7.7

Significance P < 0.00l P < 0.001 P < 0.001

Control vs. site preparation 58.5–73.1 471.4–543.4 6.8–8.0

Significance P = 0.066 P = 0.195 P=0.293

Small vs. large Douglas-fir stock 63.7–74.6 509.0–581.5 7.4–8.8

Significance P < 0.001 P < 0.001 P < 0.001

No release vs. release 65.5–66.9 494.6–529.2 7.2–7.8

Significance P = 0.026 P < 0.001 P < 0.001

2. At 10 years, tree survival, height and diameter all averaged highest in areas 

prepared by preburn spraying followed by broadcast burning (tables 7, 14, and 21).

3. Two-thirds of all tree mortality was to the result of stem clipping; most occurred 

in the first 3 years (tables 10 and 11).

4. Large planting stock averaged higher survival, height, and diameter growth than 

medium or small stock (tables 8, 15, 22, and 34).

5. Even after the best site preparation, tree height of every stock type benefited 

from release spraying (table 37).

6. Line transect, biomass, and milacre data all show that woody shrub cover was 

reduced by site preparation and release, averaging lowest for the decade in sprayand-burn areas (fig. 23; tables 30 and 32).

In seeking guidance from this study, everyone needs to be aware that none of 

the study results reflect the maximum gain possible. Every site preparation–release 

combination average is based on:

1. Untubed and tubed trees—half of each initially

2. Two species with different growth characteristics—initial ratio, five Douglas-firs 

and two western hemlocks

3. Five different Douglas-fir stock types with the best two perhaps contributing 

nearly half to Douglas-fir averages

Despite these leveling effects, significant differences in stand development 

were demonstrated among the reforestation techniques tested. Study results merit 

discussion from two viewpoints—additions to silvicultural science and practical 

application.
82

research paper pnw-rp-601

Statistical Comparisons

The statistical basis of study results deserves particular attention. This study was 

planned as a split-split-split-plot structure on a randomized complete block design. 

As in all experiments, it is desirable to minimize all variability (background noise) 

except for those factors being compared. In large field experiments, there are 

many sources that contribute uncontrolled variability. The more variability, the 

less chance that observed differences and trends will prove significant in statistical 

tests.

Many sources of uncontrollable or partially controllable variability existed in 

this study. Within and among six large, widely distributed study areas are such 

variable components as topography, soil, climate, and amount and composition of 

residual vegetation. Despite the best efforts, the site preparation and release methods applied were only similar, not identical, which might yield variable effects. As a 

practical necessity, different sources and sizes of planting stock had to be used and 

crews with different skill levels did the planting and tubing. Then there are wildlife 

effects, particularly foraging pressures by differing populations of mountain beaver, 

deer, elk, and other animals.

Despite all of the inherent variability, highly significant differences shown by 

statistical tests provide credence that results really differed among the levels of each 

factor tested. Differences in tree size and vegetative composition by year 10 are the 

product of the combined effects of the four factors tested—site preparation, stock 

type, protection, and release.

Seedling Protection

In some coastal clearcuts, protecting young seedlings from foraging animals, 

particularly mountain beavers, transcends the importance of all other manageable 

site factors. The full beneficial effects of site preparation, planting stock size and 

quality, and release cannot be realized if seedling numbers are decimated in the 

early years. Both direct and indirect methods have been used to reduce the damage 

likely from mountain beavers.

In this study, protecting individual seedlings with plastic mesh tubes was 

the chosen method. Tubing became an accepted practice after several variations 

of plastic mesh had been compared (Campbell 1969, Campbell and Evans 1975, 

Crouch 1980). Mortality of unprotected seedlings in this study averaged 49 percent 

(range 25 to 67 percent) by the 10th year, whereas mortality of protected seedlings 

averaged 18 percent (table 6). Over half of this mortality was attributed directly 

to clipping by mountain beavers. Most likely, a portion of the clipped unknown 

category might also be chargeable to mountain beavers. High levels of clipping 
83

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

mortality by mountain beavers have also been reported in other studies (Borrecco 

and Anderson 1980, Hartwell and Johnson 1983, Stein 1995).

Information on mountain beavers was thoroughly summarized by Cafferata 

(1992). Mountain beavers are stout burrowing rodents found in moist forest conditions westward of the Cascade Mountains, especially in the Coast Ranges. They 

forage near their burrows on the variety of vegetation available including conifers 

(Crouch 1968, Martin 1971). Their damaging effects on planted seedlings, saplings, 

and young trees were observed and reported many years ago (Couch 1925, Krygier 

1958, Munger 1943); their damage to freshly planted seedlings became forcefully 

evident as planting of coastal clearcuts became routine.

In this study, tubing increased average seedling survival at 10 years by 32 

percent, height by 21.6 cm, and diameter by 0.5 cm. These are clear gains in development of conifer stands, but several shortcomings should also be recognized. First 

of all, tubing was not 100-percent effective in preventing mortality and seedling 

damage by mountain beavers. About 11 percent of mortality attributed directly to 

mountain beavers occurred to tubed seedlings. Some clipping of tubed seedlings 

resulted from inadequate tube installation and tube tipping or knockdown by elk 

and deer, but much of it was from clipping or undermining during beaver burrowing activity. Foraging damage attributed to mountain beavers also reduced 

the 10-year growth of live Douglas-firs—average height 253.7 cm for 99 beaverbrowsed trees, less than half the species average for undamaged trees, 556,7 cm 

(table 17). Height impairment was even greater for 293 beaver-damaged western 

hemlocks, only 32.5 percent as tall as undamaged hemlocks. Finally, there is the 

threat of further damage as the conifer stands close and understory forage shades 

out. Bark chewing already observed on Douglas-firs and western hemlocks may 

indicate that this progression has started with damage likely to continue in the 

young stands as has been observed elsewhere (Borrecco and Anderson 1980, Cafferata 1992, Neal and Borrecco 1981).

Studies continue on ways to protect planted seedlings from mountain beaver 

foraging. Where protected seedlings were exposed to captive mountain beavers 

in field pens, 11 of 20 barrier products proved effective (Runde and others 2008). 

In another study, mountain beaver population dynamics were determined from 

preharvest to seedling planting, and also the foraging effects after chemical site 

preparation (Arjo 2010). Prevention of mountain beaver damage to conifer seedlings 

by habitat manipulation is a desirable but elusive goal. 

Although it provides effective protection, tubing itself has several drawbacks in 

addition to the cost of tubes and installation. For a variety of reasons—tube position, direction of shoot development, etc.—some seedlings are hampered in egressing the tube, causing reduced growth, severe deformation, and even a few deaths. 
84

research paper pnw-rp-601

In this study, death of 79 seedlings and injury to 922 live seedlings was attributed 

to tube restrictions (tables 11 and 17). Finally, what effects do intact durable tubes 

have on sapling growth? The mesh tubes did not disintegrate as anticipated (table 

12). Well-positioned mesh tubes stretch as tree stems enlarge, but the mesh is strong 

enough to cause a compression pattern on the exterior basal bark. Does this pressure interfere enough to impinge on liquid movement in the cambium and hence 

limit growth?

Tubing provided a physical barrier to protect individual seedlings. There are 

other ways to protect seedlings from mountain beavers including chemicals, habitat 

manipulation, and direct population control. When tubing is the protective choice, 

several modifications might prove helpful. Foremost is using a shorter tube. A 

shorter tube would be easier to install, keep upright, and provide less of an object 

for deer and elk to knock down, or to trash with antlers. Seedlings need protection 

from basal clipping by mountain beavers or hares, which usually results in death. A 

few inches difference in tube length is not likely to deter mountain beavers if they 

choose to climb. A few inches less tube may help seedling egress, but also hastens 

exposure of new growth to browsing. Seedlings can usually withstand repeated 

browsing if their lower stem and side shoots are protected. There seem to be good 

reasons for testing tube length and other modifications to discover the most appropriate tube and anchorage configurations.

Size of Nursery Stock

By the mid-1970s, limited evidence from several field trials indicated that large 

nursery stock could yield higher survival and growth than small stock (Edgren 

1977, Smith and Walters 1965, Walters and Kozak 1965, Zaerr and Lavender 

1976). Wildlife damage might be reduced by use of extra-large stock (Hartwell 

1973). Greater flexibility in nursery practices for production of both bare-root and 

container stock brought questions about stock type to the forefront. The need to 

compare responses of several stock types after different site preparation treatments 

became self-evident.

Since then, more results have been reported for stock comparisons that varied 

widely in scope and geographic location. Most field tests indicated that larger stock 

performed better than smaller stock (Arnott 1981, Arnott and Pendl 1994, Edgren 

1977, Helgerson and others 1992, Howard and Newton 1984, Iverson and Newton 

1980, Newton and others 1993, van den Driessche 1992) but sometimes an intermediate size did best or there were no important differences (Arnott and Burdett 1988, 
85

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Hobbs and others 1989). Stock comparisons ranged from use of a single seed source 

with very carefully described production procedures to stock comparisons from 

unspecified seed sources planted on many sites.

Stock comparisons made in the Coastal Reforestation study differ uniquely in 

concept from comparisons made in other studies. They represent a broad sampling 

of the stock produced and planted at the time in large reforestation programs. On 

each site, the seven stock types used were from seed sources judged appropriate for 

that site but not all were grown in the same production facility (table 35). At each 

site, the 2+0 bare-root Douglas-fir stock types were from the same seed source and 

nursery because the large, medium, and small 2+0 stock was sorted out of the same 

bundles. On three sites, 2+0 and 2+1 Douglas-fir stocks were also from the same 

seed source but not from the same nurseries. Two bare-root and container western 

hemlock stocks were from the same seed source, but of course production methods 

differed.

Each of the seven stock types planted on one site were tested in a variety 

of conditions—two protection, four site preparation and two release options. In 

essence, each stock was tested in 16 replications on one site. In terms of stock 

comparisons, each site could be considered a separate study with its own mix of 

stock types.

Differences owing to average initial size of Douglas-fir seedlings are still 

evident 10 years later. The 2+1 transplant and large 2+0 stock types were similar 

in all initial size characteristics measured and clearly averaged larger initially than 

the other three Douglas-fir stock types (tables 4 and 5). Ten years later, they averaged significantly higher than the other three types in survival, height, and stem 

diameter (tables 34 and 37). Medium size 2+0 Douglas-fir stock still held a strong 

mid-position at 10 years. Small 2+0 bare-root and container Douglas-firs averaged 

notably lower results than the other stock types. Though there are some minor 

shifts among averages, the ranking of types remained remarkably consistent over 10 

years.

The 2+0 Douglas-fir size comparisons made in this study can be viewed from 

an entirely different perspective. Different response by size of seedling within a 

bundle clearly demonstrates different potential among seedlings ready for planting. 

Although damaged seedlings and those that did not meet sorting standards had 

been removed, the range of sizes and growth potential within a sorted stock was 

still highly variable. How much of this physical size and physiological variability 

was induced by nursery practices and how much was controlled by genetic factors 

transmitted within the individual seed? Better understanding of the genetic component is necessary before nursery stock is too rigidly sorted for size.
86

research paper pnw-rp-601

Pinto and others (2011) have produced a most insightful article pointing out 

shortcomings of past stock type trials and how to improve future trials. It seems 

useful to evaluate the design and practices used in the Coastal Reforestation study 

with criteria they advocate. All criteria they listed appear to have been met in comparing 2+0 Douglas-fir sizes sorted from the same bundles except repeated tests 

of the same array. Their criteria do not mention comparing stock types in different 

conditions, a necessary step to demonstrate their broad usefulness. The authors 

place heavy emphasis on knowing precisely how the stock was produced. This 

is good information to gather when making definitive trials, but was beyond the 

scope possible in this study. It is important to note that use of the same seed source 

and nursery techniques may not produce the same bare-root stock in successive 

years owing to seasonal variation in weather. To a lesser extent, weather may also 

cause variation in container production. What balance is needed between gathering 

precise production information versus replicating tests that include variations in 

production methods?

Rightfully, Pinto and others (2011) place heavy emphasis on comparing stock 

types produced from the same seed source. A follow-up cautionary note seems 

appropriate. Seed lots having the same source designation may still differ physically 

and genetically. In the Pacific Northwest, Douglas-fir seed collected from natural 

stands is labeled by breeding zone and elevation. Studies have shown that clinal 

variation exists within breeding zones; differences are evident between slopes and 

locations within the same elevation band (Campbell 1979, Silen and Mandel 1983). 

Also, seed crops vary from year to year and so do collection efforts. Thus, though 

Table 34—Average initial height and rank of stock types and 10th-year status

Initial shoot 

length

10th-year status Species and 

stock type Survival Height Diameter at breast height

Centimeters Rank Percent Rank Centimeters Rank Centimeters Rank

Douglas-fir:

Transplant 2+1 37.0 2 74.6 1 558.9 2 8.7 2

Large 2+0 39.1 1 73.6 2 581.5 1 8.8 1

Medium 2+0 28.6 3 70.4 3 543.5 3 8.1 3

Small 2+0 18.9 5 65.8 4 518.2 4 7.6 4

Container 19.7 4 63.7 5 509.0 5 7.4 5

Western hemlock:

Bare root 26.6 1 59.1 1 409.8 2 5.0 2

Container 20.1 2 56.3 2 423.7 1 5.3 1
87

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

labeled the same, the seed lot collected one year may come from a different withinzone location the next year. The same concern may apply to a lesser degree for seed 

produced in seed orchards. Confronted with the unknown variation inherent in a 

seed lot, it seems prudent to use a broadly based, well-mixed lot or even more than 

one lot in comparing stock types.

Site Preparation

Seedling survival, height, and diameter all averaged lowest in the control and 

highest in the spray-and-burn treatment. Response variability among sites was 

sufficient, however, so that statistical tests only indicate trends, not definitive 

differences—P = 0.066, 0.195, and 0.293 for seedling survival, height, and diameter, 

respectively. When the three measures of seedling response were aggregated, all 

three site preparation treatments produced much more tree volume than the control 

(fig. 1).

Response to site preparation departed most from the general trend on the Bay’s 

Wolfe site. Seedling survival in the burn treatment was 1.6 percent lower than in the 

control, and seedling height averaged much lower in both the burn and the sprayand-burn treatments—control 475.3 vs. 436.6 and 445.2 cm. Seedling diameters 

also averaged lower—control 6.8 cm vs. 6.0 in the burn treatment and a remarkably 

low 4.7 cm in the spray-and-burn treatment (tables 7, 14, and 21). Injury to live 

seedlings does not provide an answer. Seedlings damaged from all causes ranked 

fourth at Bay’s Wolfe, 462, compared to a high of 972 at Pitchfork and a low of 152 

at Poposchultz (table 17).

Less tree survival and growth in the spray-and-burn and burn treatments than 

in the control at Bay’s Wolfe appear attributable to development of much more 

woody cover there than elsewhere. In the burn treatment, salmonberry and thimbleberry cover combined totaled 86 percent at the third examination and increased 

to 197 percent by the 10th year compared to the control with 50 percent and 154 

percent (app. table 38). In the spray-and-burn treatment, red alder cover increased 

rapidly from the fifth examination onward to 200 percent cover in the 10th year. 

Red alder was next highest in the burn treatment, 88 percent. Site preparation by 

burning plus release spraying failed to keep woody shrubs in check in the burn 

treatment. In the spray-and-burn area, reduction of woody shrub cover to very low 

levels made possible later alder establishment from the nearby seed sources. On 

Bay’s Wolfe, vegetative cover had an extra year to develop because slash burning 

could not be done the first year the site was available.

Site preparation by broadcast burning has long been used to reduce slash and 

the residual vegetation that hinders or prevents establishment of tree seedlings. The 
88

research paper pnw-rp-601

multiple beneficial and adverse effects of slash burning were summed up years ago 

by Isaac (1963). More recently the accumulated information on the multiple effects 

of natural and controlled burning was published in a large book (Walstad and others 

1990). The evolution of site preparation techniques in the Pacific Northwest has 

been described by Newton and Stein (2007).

Though site preparation by broadcast burning or herbicide spraying are 

established and widely used reforestation practices, quantitative side-by-side 

comparisons of these methods in coastal forests are uncommon. The results of this 

complex study adds to the information provided by several other comparisons, 

including long term revegetation on burned and unburned plots (Morris 1970); 

tree and vegetation competition relationships measured in Nelder plots (Cole and 

Newton 1987); Douglas-fir growth after different weed control regimes (Newton 

and Preest 1988); or spot spraying versus paper mulching (Tung and others 1986); 

Douglas-fir response to burn and no burn effects in a retrospective study within 

a salal-dominated ecosystem (Vihnanek and Ballard 1988); and Douglas-fir and 

vegetative responses after six site preparation treatments in coastal Oregon (Stein 

1995). Hooven and Black (1978) determined the effects of spray and burn vs. no 

burn on the vegetation and wildlife community in a brush field west of Corvallis, 

Oregon. Borrecco and others (1979) determined vegetation and mammal responses 

after applying herbicides to reduce vegetative competition. All the studies cited 

above report improved survival or growth of Douglas-fir after temporary reduction and changed composition of the vegetation. But only the study comparing six 

site preparation methods has a design similar enough to allow direct comparisons. 

In that study, broadcast burning without any preburn treatment produced the best 

results. All three slash burning treatments tested in that study reduced woody cover 

to about 2 percent; then it increased to 94 percent or more by the 10th year (tree 

cover included).

In contrast, woody shrub cover in this study varied from 2.5 to 15.9 percent 

immediately after site preparation and averaged less than 71 percent in any treatment by the 10th year (trees included). The spray-and-burn treatment reduced woody 

shrub cover the most, from 28.0 to 2.5 percent, and it only reached 30.7 percent at 

10 years with release or 33.6 percent without release. Adding tree and woody shrub 

cover together, in 10 years the woody component in this study averaged 70.9, 67.4, 

64.4, and 66.1 percent for the control, burn, spray, and spray-and-burn treatments, 

respectively (combined release and no release data). Despite the markedly different 

increases in woody cover in the two studies, the beneficial effects of site preparation by broadcast burning are amply demonstrated (fig. 25).
89

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Figure 25—Sprayed and broadcast-burned area at Pitchfork in (A) February 1976 and (B) 10 years 

later.
90

research paper pnw-rp-601

The primary purpose for applying an herbicide before broadcast burning, commonly called “brown and burn,” is to gain a cleaner burn when much live vegetation is already present. Usually the chemical applied only desiccates the leaves, 

but an herbicide that reduces resprouting might be more helpful. In the 1995 study, 

slash burning alone reduced woody cover to very low levels; in this study it did not. 

Hence the spray-and-burn treatment yielded better results. 

Nearly complete vegetation control is now favored when maximum survival 

and growth of a conifer stand is the management objective. This involves keeping 

the newly planted seedlings free from both annual and woody competition for about 

2 years. Results of several studies demonstrated the desirability of complete vegetation control. Growth of unprotected, large 2+1 Douglas-firs was more rapid after 

spraying competing vegetation than for protected trees despite browsing by deer 

(Gourley and others 1990). In another study, the best growth of 2+0 Douglas-fir 

seedlings occurred when competing vegetation was fully controlled with herbicides 

during the year trees were planted (Newton and Preest 1988). The rapid expansion 

of herbicide technology has made achievement of weed-free plantations possible 

and is summed up by this statement, “By 1990, herbicides and technology were 

available for selective removal of all major weed species in forest plantations” 

(Newton and Stein 2007). Improvements in herbicide technology are now updated 

annually in the Pacific Northwest Weed Management Handbook; the forestry section was most recently updated by Newton and others (2012).

Chemical and manual weed control alternatives have been tested in several 

long-term studies (McDonald and others 1994, McDonald and Fiddler 1999, Stein 

1999). The results provide some useful site preparation or release alternatives, 

particularly when use of herbicides is restricted. In general, manual methods are 

labor intensive and costly, but they provide several effective means of reducing 

shrub competition with trees.

Release

A release treatment is desirable when vegetative competition threatens to overtop 

the desired crop of tree seedlings. It is an optional treatment, applied only when 

previous site preparation treatments appear not to have adequately prevented 

competition around crop trees.

At least 10 studies in coastal forests have compared methods of releasing 

Douglas-fir from competing vegetation. Where tested, keeping the Douglas-firs 

free of all competition for 5 years or more yielded the best results (Harrington and 

others 1995, O’Dea and others 1994). Fortunately, less intensive manual, chemical, 

and combination release methods have improved Douglas-fir growth, but not all 

tests reported gains. 
91

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Glyphosate was one of the chemical treatments compared in three studies. 

After five years, 2+1 Douglas-firs kept weed-free with glyphosate for 2 years 

had twice as much biomass as unweeded controls (Gourley and others 1990). In 

a six-treatment comparison, neither glyphosate nor three other single application 

treatments resulted in significant differences from the control when Douglas-firs 

reached 10 years of age. Apparently, the vegetative competition did not become 

severe enough for these release treatments to be beneficial (Harrington and others 1995). In a six-year study, a single application of glyphosate doubled the stem 

volume relative to the control, but was less effective than five other treatments 

(Stein 1999).

In the Coastal study, only two release treatments were compared: none, and 

aerial spraying of glyphosate in the fall. The release spraying reduced the cover 

of woody vegetation and its span of recovery varied. The cover reduction was 

sufficient to improve significantly the survival, height, and diameter of the planted 

seedlings. In terms of relative volume, release increased volume over the control by 

28 percent (fig. 1).

Gains in conifer growth realized in this study by release spraying most likely 

are not the maximum growth possible. At least two compromises were necessary 

to serve the factorial design. Release spraying was applied at the same time on 

all four site preparation treatments per site. Because vegetative competition was 

reduced more by one site preparation treatment than another, trees in some treatments needed release immediately, later, or sometimes not at all. Thus, tree size 

gain resulting from release might be lowest after the most effective site preparation. 

A similar compromise might prevail owing to vegetative differences between study 

sites. Sites were sprayed in the third year of vegetation development, but density of 

cover and thus timing of release spraying might not have been optimal on all sites. 

The release results in this study indicate what is possible and practical; the averages 

reflect spraying in different years and by different field crews.

Choosing Treatment Combinations

Two key factors govern the choice of reforestation techniques to use on a given 

site—management objectives for the site and the specific conditions existing on 

the area. Is the objective to maximize conifer development on the area or is a less 

stringent objective sufficient—perhaps even a mixed stand of conifers and hardwoods? Prospective vegetative competition, animal damage, and other factors differ 

greatly depending on the kind of stand being harvested. Harvesting a closed stand 

of relatively young trees may leave little slash, vegetative understory or mountain 

beaver presence compared to conditions found after harvesting a mixed, older stand 

of conifers and hardwoods with intermingled brush-filled openings.
92

research paper pnw-rp-601

Key decisions regarding needed reforestation efforts should be made before 

the existing stand is harvested. Will broadcast burning of slash be necessary or 

what other means can be used to reduce fire hazard and ensure sufficient access for 

planting? What level of vegetative competition is already established in the stand 

and how evident are mountain beaver activities? Is the area steep enough to limit 

yarding method, subsequent access, and choice of reforestation techniques? Can 

harvesting be completed quickly or will competing vegetation, especially shrubs, 

have a growing season or more to develop? Answers to these questions and others can quickly make evident the logical mix of reforestation practices needed to 

achieve the desired future stand.

Some level of site preparation, type of planting stock, and degree of tree protection is still needed today as in the past to promptly reforest coastal clearcuts after 

harvest. A natural tendency would be to use the most complete site preparation, 

largest stock, and best protection method, but that approach might often be more 

intensive and costly than necessary. The varying management objectives and site 

conditions require careful selection among treatment options, which today are much 

more numerous than the practices common when this study was started.

Despite smoke management and other restrictions, site preparation by broadcast 

burning is still a viable but more costly choice today. Machine piling of slash, even 

on steep slopes, has become an attractive alternative that allows more flexibility 

within an area than is possible with broadcast burning. Piled slash can be burned 

later under safer weather conditions, or left unburned, although such piles might 

provide a haven for small animals that damage young seedlings. Another option is 

to burn slash concentrations only at landings, if slash cover elsewhere in the unit is 

moderate and does not impose access that is too formidable for tree planting. 

As demonstrated by study results, preburn spraying fosters cleaner burns 

and reduced shrub competition. A preburn spray is advisable when residual and 

new vegetation on a harvested site already includes substantial live woody cover. 

Hopefully, the subsequent slash burn provides better access and most importantly, 

a long-lasting reduction in woody shrub cover. Much shrub cover can be eliminated 

during machine piling of slash, but some preplanting vegetation control may still be 

desirable. With methods available today, spraying might be done by ground rather 

than by aerial methods and applied only where needed on the site. Hand spraying 

prior to harvest is advocated in some circumstances (Newton and others 2009).

Spraying understory before harvest might also disperse any mountain beavers 

present. Reduced food supply would force animals to seek forage elsewhere. 

Currently, the threat of damage from mountain beaver foraging is often reduced 

by trapping. There usually is sufficient time between site preparation and tree 
93

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

planting to run trap lines for several weeks, setting traps at easily recognizable 

active burrows. Considering their long-term threat to young stands, reduction of 

the mountain beaver population may better foster stand development than use of 

seedling protectors. 

Several studies have clearly established that large Douglas-fir planting stock 

outperforms smaller stock. But how large must the stock be? Results from this 

study indicate that large 2+0 bare-root stock is sufficient. Nearly the same in height 

and diameter initially, the large 2+0 bare-root stock averaged taller and larger in 

diameter at 10 years than did the 2+1 stock. Even the initially smaller medium 2+0 

stock was not far behind the 2+1 stock in average height at 10 years. A combination 

stock type, plug+1, grown for several months in a container and then outplanted for 

a season’s growth in the nursery, has become a favored choice. It combines shortened, flexible production requirements with high field performance. Plug+1 stock 

or very large container stock is often used where management desires to get maximum early growth. The appropriate size to use must mesh with the site preparation 

planned to achieve the desired stand on the given site.

Several years after successful establishment comes the question—would the 

stand benefit from a release treatment? Much effort has gone into defining when 

release is desirable (Brand 1986, Chan and Walstad 1987, Howard and Newton 

1984, Wagner and Radosevich 1991). The need for release is self-evident when 

many trees are being overtopped. When the need for release is less evident, simple 

evaluation methods such as proximity of woody shrubs of equal height (Wagner 

and Radosevich 1991) or an overtopping index (Howard and Newton 1984) might 

reinforce visual impressions. 

Over the years, various reforestation guidelines have been written in narrative 

or decision-ladder form. Such guidelines identify the decisions to be made. But they 

are no substitute for the experienced silviculturist or reforestation specialist familiar 

with local conditions who tailors the reforestation prescription after viewing conditions on the specific site.

Acknowledgments

Completion of this decade-long study was made possible by the sustained efforts 

and willing cooperation of many staff members of the Siuslaw National Forest and 

the Pacific Northwest Research Station (PNW) plus several involved contractors. 

The comments that follow can only highlight some of the complications involved 

and the key individuals who made things happen.

Ronald Stewart and William Stein prepared the study plan that, after staff 

review, was approved by T.A. Schlapfer, Regional Forester; Robert F. Tarrant, PNW 
94

research paper pnw-rp-601

Station Director; and F. Dale Robertson, Forest Supervisor, Siuslaw National Forest. 

During early stages of field work, Ronald Stewart transferred and primary research 

direction became the author’s responsibility.

After sharing site selection and initial field layout with PNW, the scheduling, 

contracting and application of site preparation treatments, tree planting and release 

were carried out by ranger district staffs, usually directed by the silviculturist and 

assistants. Advance ordering of appropriate nursery stock was a shared responsibility with staff members at forest headquarters. Silviculturists and assistants who 

participated extensively included Rick Alexander, Jim Warner, Kris Allen, Bryan 

Lynch, Tim Trotter, Ed Lohmeyer, John Mason, Jill Brinkman, Mike Frazier, John 

Nesbitt, John Echhardt, Sue Bolen, Charles Bolen, and Rex Wheeler. On the supervisor’s staff, Howard Wessbecker and Tom Turpin were heavily involved. These 

individuals and others with more limited involvement deserve praise and thanks for 

their intensive efforts and often for personal interest and effort far beyond the usual 

work expended in reforesting these clearcuts.

Research staff members were responsible for plot and line layout and the collection of tree and vegetation data. Early on they were aided by district personnel 

in staking planting spots, and several district individuals participated in early tree 

examinations. I am particularly indebted to crew leaders and several repeat crew 

members who provided continuity in successive tree and vegetation measurements. 

Crew leaders present through several years included Howard Weatherly, Valerie 

Banner, Cat Woods, Michael Ringer, and Dan Mikowski. Valuable repeat helpers included Charles Tully, Charles Acton, Joan Caldwell, Denise Potts, Michael 

Carpinelli, plus several dozen other helpers of long and short duration.

Don Temple, assigned by the Siuslaw National Forest to assist in data summation, weathered much of the tedium in getting data transferred from field sheets 

to electronic form. He made many partial summaries of data for early reports 

on specific areas. In recent months, Paul Anderson, leader of the Landscape and 

Ecosystems Management Team, assisted and made available Valerie Banner for the 

final formatting of tree and vegetation data and production of summary tables and 

graphs. Statistical analysis methodology was initially prescribed by John Hazard, 

and recent consultation was provided by Patrick Cunningham. I also thank Gary

W. Blanchard, Starker Forests, Inc.; Patrick G. Cunningham, Richard E. Miller,

and Andrew Youngblood, USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station; and Stuart 

R. Johnston, USDA Forest Service, Siuslaw National Forest, for their review of an 

earlier draft of this manuscript.
95

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

My heartfelt thanks to all who helped in any way toward completion of this 

study. With much help, including extended efforts converting my script to electronic form by my wife Dorothy and son Randolph, I have sorted and summed the 

mountains of data and selected the key points to present. Any errors, either factual 

or of omission naturally are my responsibility. I hope study results provide you, the 

reader, added guidance for reforesting sites in the Coast Ranges and elsewhere.

Units of Measure

Metric units were used in measuring trees in this study but English units were used 

in measuring vegetative cover. Most data have been summarized and reported in 

the same units as measured, with equivalents also given in key statements. For 

reader convenience, equivalents are listed for the units of measure used: 

English to Metric

1 inch = 2.54 centimeters

1 foot = 0.305 meter

1 yard = 0.914 meter 

1 mile = 1.609 kilometers

1 ounce = 28.350 grams

1 acre = 0.405 hectare

1 pound = 0.454 kilogram

1 gallon = 3.785 liters

1 cubic yard = 0.7645 cubic meter

Metric to English

1 centimeter = 0.394 inch

1 meter = 3.281 feet

1 meter = 1.094 yards

1 kilometer = 0.621 mile

1 gram = 0.035 ounce

1 hectare = 2.471 acres

1 kilogram = 2.205 pounds

1 liter = 1.057 quarts

1 cubic meter = 1.308 cubic yards
96

research paper pnw-rp-601

Literature Cited

Arjo, W. 2010. The effects of forestry site preparation on mountain beaver 

demographics and associated damage to tree seedlings. Western Journal of 

Applied Forestry. 25(3): 127–135. 

Arnott, J.T. 1981. Survival and growth of bullet, styroplug and bareroot seedlings 

on mid-elevation sites in coastal British Columbia. The Forestry Chronicle. 57(2): 

65–70.

Arnott, J.T.; Burdett, A.N. 1988. Early growth of planted western hemlock in 

relation to stock type and controlled-release fertilizer application. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research. 18: 710–717.

Arnott, J.T.; Pendl, F.T. 1994. Field performance of several tree species and stock 

types planted in montane forests of coastal British Columbia. Information Report 

BC-X-347. Victoria, BC: Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre. 45 p.

Borrecco, J.E.; Anderson, R.J. 1980. Mountain beaver problems in the forests 

of California, Oregon and Washington. In: Clark, J.P., ed. Proceedings 9th

vertebrate pest conference. Davis, CA: University of California: 135–142.

Borrecco, J.E.; Black, H.C.; Hooven, E.F. 1979. Response of small mammals to 

herbicide-induced habitat changes. Northwest Science. 53 (2): 97–106.

Brand, D.G. 1986. A competition index for predicting vigour of planted Douglasfir in southwestern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 16: 

23–29.

Cafferata, S.L. 1992. Mountain beaver. In: Black, H.C., tech. ed. Silvicultural 

approaches to animal damage management in Pacific Northwest forests. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-287. Portland, OR; U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 231–251. 

Chan, S.S.; Walstad, J.D. 1987. Correlations between overtopping vegetation and 

development of Douglas-fir saplings in the Oregon Coast Range. Western Journal 

of Applied Forestry. 2(4): 117–119. 

Campbell, D.L. 1969. Plastic fabric to protect seedlings from animal damage. In: 

Black, H.C., ed. Wildlife and reforestation in the Pacific Northwest. Symposium 

proceedings. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, School of Forestry: 87–88. 

Campbell, D.L.; Evans, J. 1975. “Vexar” seedling protectors to reduce wildlife 

damage to Douglas-fir. Wildlife Leaflet 508. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 11 p.
97

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Campbell, R.K. 1979. Genecology of Douglas-fir in a watershed in the Oregon 

Cascades. Ecology. 60(5): 1036–1050.

Cole, E.C.; Newton, M. 1987. Fifth-year responses of Douglas-fir to crowding and 

nonconiferous competition. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 17: 181–186.

Couch, L.K. 1925. Rodent damage to young forests. Murrelet. 6(2): 39.

Crouch, G.L. 1968. Clipping of woody plants by mountain beaver. Journal of 

Mammalogy. 49(1): 151–152.

Crouch, G.L. 1980. Plastic cages to protect Douglas-fir seedlings from animal 

damage in western Oregon. Res. Pap. PNW 271. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 6 p.

Edgren, J.W. 1977. Field survival and growth of Douglas-fir by age and size 

of nursery stock. Res. Pap. PNW 217. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 6 p.

Gourley, M.; Vomocil, M.; Newton, M. 1990. Forest weeding reduces the effect of 

deer-browsing on Douglas fir. Forest Ecology and Management. 36: 177–185.

Harrington, T.B.; Wagner, R.G.; Radosevich, S.R.; Walstad, J.D. 1995.

Interspecific competition and herbicide injury influence 10-year responses 

of coastal Douglas-fir and associated vegetation to release treatments. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 76: 55–67.

Hartwell, H.D. 1973. A comparison of large and small Douglas-fir nursery stock 

outplanted in potential wildlife damage areas. DNR Note No. 6. Olympia, WA: 

Washington Department of Natural Resources. 5 p. 

Hartwell, H.D.; Johnson, L.E. 1983. Survival and height of large and small 

Douglas fir seedlings in relation to animal damage six years after planting. DNR 

Note No. 38. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Natural Resources. 19 p.

Helgerson, O.T.; Tesch, S.D.; Hobbs, S.D.; McNabb, D.H. 1992. Effects of 

stocktype, shading, and species on reforestation of a droughty site in southwest 

Oregon. Northwest Science. 66(2): 57–61.

Hobbs, S.D.; Crawford M.S.; Yelczyn, B.A. 1989. Early development of three 

Douglas-fir stocktypes on a droughty skeletal soil. Western Journal of Applied 

Forestry. 4(1): 21–24.
98

research paper pnw-rp-601

Hooven, E.F.; Black, H.C. 1978. Prescribed burning aids reforestation of Oregon 

Coast Range brushlands. Research Paper 38. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State 

University, School of Forestry. 14 p.

Howard, K.M.; Newton, M. 1984. Overtopping by successional coast-range 

vegetation slows Douglas-fir seedlings. Journal of Forestry. 82(3): 178–180.

Isaac, L.A. 1963. Fire—a tool, not a blanket rule in Douglas-fir ecology. 

Proceedings: Second Annual Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference. Tallahassee, 

FL: Tall Timbers Research Station. 2: 1–17.

Iverson, R.D.; Newton, M. 1980. Large Douglas-fir seedlings perform best on 

Oregon coastal sites. Technical Note No. 55. Lebanon, OR: International Paper 

Company, Western Forest Research Center. 9 p.

Krygier, J.T. 1958. Survival and growth of thirteen tree species in coastal Oregon. 

Res. Pap. No. 26. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 20 p.

Martin, P. 1971. Movements and activities of the mountain beaver (Aplodontia 

rufa). Journal of Mammalogy. 52(4): 717–723.

McDonald, P.M.; Fiddler, G.O. 1999. Ecology and development of Douglas-fir 

seedlings and associated plant species in a Coast Range plantation. Res. Pap. 

PSW-RP-243. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station. 18 p.

McDonald, P.M.; Fiddler, G.O.; Harrison, H.R. 1994. Repeated manual release 

in a young plantation: effect on Douglas-fir seedlings, hardwoods, shrubs, 

forbs, and grasses. Res. Pap. PSW-RP-221. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 11 p.

Morris, W.G. 1970. Effects of slash burning in overmature stands of the Douglasfir region. Forest Science. 16 (3): 258–270.

Munger, T.T. 1943. Vital statistics for some Douglas-fir plantations. Journal of 

Forestry. 41: 53–56. 

Neal, F.D.; Borrecco, J.E. 1981. Distribution and relationship of mountain beaver 

to openings in sapling stands. Northwest Science. 55(2): 79–86.

Newton, M.; Cole, E.C.; White, D.E. 1993. Tall planting stock for enhanced 

growth and domination of brush in the Douglas-fir region. New Forests. 7: 

107–121. 
99

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Newton, M.; Cole, E.C.; Barry, J.W. 2009. “Waving wand” broadcast hand 

application of herbicides: technical basis and usage. Contributions in Education 

and Outreach No. 2. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, College of Forestry. 

28 p.

Newton, M.; Kelpsas, B.; Landgren, C. 2012. Forestry and hybrid poplars. In: 

Peachey, ed. 2012. Pacific Northwest Weed Management Handbook. Corvallis, 

OR: Oregon State University Extension Service: K1–K20.

Newton, M.; Preest, D.S. 1988. Growth and water relations of Douglas fir 

(Pseudotsuga menziesii) seedlings under different weed control regimes. Weed 

Science. 36: 653–662.

Newton, M.; Stein, W.I. 2007. Site preparation and control of competing 

vegetation. In: Curtis, R.O.; DeBell, D.S.; Miller, R.E.; Newton, M.; St. Clair, 

B.J.; Stein, W.I. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-696. Silvicultural research and 

the evolution of forest practices in the Douglas-fir Region. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 

41–49.

O’Dea, M.; Cole, E.; Newton, M. 1994. The effects of herbaceous and shrub 

competition on Douglas-fir seedlings. Western Society of Weed Science. 47: 

29–34. 

Pinto, J.R.; Dumroese, R.K.; Davis, A.S.; Landis, T.D. 2011. Conducting 

seedling stocktype trials: a new approach to an old question. Journal of Forestry. 

109(5): 293–299. 

Runde, D.E.; Nolte, D.L.; Arjo, W.M.; Pitt, W.C. 2008. Efficacy of individual 

barriers to prevent damage to Douglas-fir seedlings by captive mountain beavers. 

Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 23(2): 99–105.

Silen, R.R.; Mandel, N.L. 1983. Clinal genetic growth variation within two 

Douglas-fir breeding zones. Journal of Forestry. 81(4): 216–220, 227. 

Smith, J. H.G.; Walters, J. 1965. Influence of seedling size on growth, survival, 

and cost of growing Douglas-fir. Research note 50. Vancouver, BC: University of 

British Columbia. 7 p.

Stein, W.I. 1984. The coastal reforestation systems study—five-year results. 140 p.

Unpublished report. On file with: Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3200 SW 

Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331. 
100

research paper pnw-rp-601

Stein, W.I. 1990. The coastal reforestation systems study: comparing alternatives. 

In: Hamilton, E., comp. Vegetation management: an integrated approach. 

Proceedings of the fourth annual vegetation management workshop. FRDA 

Report 109. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Forests and Lands, Research Branch: 

61–62.

Stein, W.I. 1995. Ten-year development of Douglas-fir and associated vegetation 

after different site preparation on Coast Range clear cuts. Res. Pap. PNWRP-473. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 115 p.

Stein, W.I. 1999. Six-year growth of Douglas-fir saplings after manual or herbicide 

release from coastal shrub competition. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-500. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 55 p.

Tung, C.-H.; Batdorff, J.; DeYoe, D.R. 1986. Survival and growth of Douglas-fir 

seedlings with spot-spraying, mulching, and root-dipping. Western Journal of 

Applied Forestry. 1: 108–111.

van den Driessche, R. 1992. Absolute and relative growth of Douglas-fir seedlings 

of different sizes. Tree Physiology. 10: 141–152. 

Vihnanek, R.E.; Ballard, T.M. 1988. Slashburning effects on stocking, growth, 

and nutrition of young Douglas-fir plantations in salal-dominated ecosystems of 

eastern Vancouver Island. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 18: 718–722. 

Wagner, R.G.; Radosevich, S.R. 1991. Neighborhood predictors of interspecific 

competition in young Douglas-fir plantations. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research. 21: 821–828. 

Walstad, J.D.; Radosevich, S.R.; Sandberg, D.V. eds. 1990. Natural and 

prescribed fire in Pacific Northwest forests. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State 

University Press. 317 p.

Walters, J.; Kozak, A. 1965. Effects of seedling size on survival and growth 

of plantations with particular reference to Douglas-fir. Research Paper 72. 

Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia. 26 p.

Zaerr, J.B.; Lavender, D.P. 1976. Size and survival of 2-0 Douglas-fir seedlings. 

Research Paper 32. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Forest Research 

Laboratory. 6 p. 
101

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

AppendixTable 35—Seed origin, production nursery, and lifting date for planting stock used in the study

Study site

Species and source Pitchfork Beaver Upperten Randall Poposchultz Bay’s Wolfe

Douglas-fir 2+1:

Seed code 205-12-061-035-1.5 205-12-061-050-1.0 205-12-061-050-1.5 205-12-252-030-1.0 205-12-062-040-1.0 205-12-252-030-1.0Nursery Woodstock Woodstock Woodstock Silver Mountain Silver Mountain Prendel CreekLifted 2/9/1976 1/15/1977 1/15/1977 2/17/1978

Douglas-fir 2+0:

Seed code 205-12-061-030-1.0 205-12-061-050-1.0 205-12-061-050-1.5 205-12-061-050-1.0 205-12-062-040-1.0 205-12-053-010-1.5Nursery Humboldt Humboldt Humboldt Humboldt Humboldt Humboldt

Lifted 1/23/1976 1/4/1978

Douglas-fir, container:

Seed code 205-12-053-010-1.0 205-12-053-010-1.0-66 205-12-053-010-1.0-66 205-12-252-030-1.0 205-12-062-020-1.0 205-12-053-010-1.5Nursery Beaver Creek Beaver Creek Beaver Creek Dean Creek Dean Creek Dean Creek

(RLP 26) (RLP 26) (RLP 26) (RLS 27) (RLS 27) (RLS 27)

Lifted 2/2/1976 1/11/1978

Western hemlock, 

bare root:

Seed code 263-12-252-030-1.5 263-12-061-050-1.5 263-12-061-050-1.5 263-12-062-020-1.5a 263-12-062-020-1.5 263-12-252-030-2.0

Nursery Humboldt Woodstock Woodstock Silver Mountain Silver Mountain Humboldt

(plug 1) (plug 1) (plug 1) (plug 1) (plug 1)

Lifted 1/26/1976 1/26/1978 1/26/1978

Western hemlock, 

container:

Seed code 263-12-252-030-1.0 263-12-053-010-1.5-66 263-12-053-010-1.5-66 263-12-252-030-1.0 263-12-062-020-1.5 263-12-053-010-1.0

Nursery Beaver Creek Beaver Creek Beaver Creek Beaver Creek Beaver Creek Dean Creak

(Styro-2) (RLS 27) (RLP 26) (RLS 27) (RLP 26) (RLP 26)

Lifted 2/2/1976 2/10/1977 2/2/1977 1/26/1978 1/26/1978

a Six hundred bare-root hemlock of seed code 263-12-061-050-1.5 included; lifted 2/15/78.
102

research paper pnw-rp-601 Table 36—Damages observed on 10-year-old trees by site, species, and stock type (continued) Site, species, and stock type No change Clipped, unknown Clipped, mountain beaver Browsed Trampled Bark chewed Gopher Foliage disease Insects, terminal bud Insects, foliage Unknown Tube injury Whipped Porcupine All causes Number of seedlings Pitchfork: 3,816 2 125 36 8 404 2 1 37 357 4,788 Douglas-fir 3,215 1 31 17 4 45 1 1 24 300 3,639 Transplant 2+1 703 2 1 12 6 53 777 Large 2-0 672 3 2 4 5 67 753

Medium 2-0 659 5 3 9 4 56 736

Small 2-0 641 8 3 1 9 1 1 4 68 736Container 540 1 13 8 3 11 5 56 637

Western hemlock 601 1 94 19 4 359 1 13 57 1,149

Bare root 313 58 6 3 156 1 10 21 568Container 288 1 36 13 1 203 3 36 581

Beaver: 4,153 19 36 12 13 1 3 6 102 120 4,465

Douglas-fir 3,191 4 15 7 9 1 2 6 51 81 3,367

Transplant 2+1 745 1 1 1 1 2 9 20 780

Large 2-0 710 1 2 1 5 15 734

Medium 2-0 640 1 3 1 4 1 2 15 13 680

Small 2-0 575 1 2 4 2 1 15 12 612

Container 521 1 8 1 2 7 21 561

Western hemlock 962 15 21 5 4 1 51 39 1,098

Bare root 459 7 12 3 3 1 28 17 530Container 503 8 9 2 1 23 22 568

Upperten: 2,670 46 516 93 1 6 100 3,432

Douglas-fir 2,342 11 194 44 1 5 65 2,662

Transplant 2+1 489 2 29 7 1 14 542

Large 2-0 535 1 37 7 3 15 598

Medium 2-0 512 1 40 7 12 572

Small 2-0 412 2 45 15 10 484

Container 394 5 43 8 2 14 466

Western hemlock 328 35 322 49 1 35 770

Bare root 205 21 160 29 1 20 436

Container 123 14 162 20 15 334
103

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Table 36—Damages observed on 10-year-old trees by site, species, and stock type (continued)Site, species, and stock type

No 

change

Clipped, 

unknown

Clipped, 

mountain 

beaver Browsed Trampled

Bark 

chewed Gopher

Foliage 

disease

Insects, 

terminal 

bud

Insects, 

foliage Unknown

Tube 

injury Whipped Porcupine

All 

causes

Number of seedlings

Randall: 4,316 119 27 1 19 2 1 1 1 117 18 10 4,632

Douglas-fir 3,242 34 22 1 1 1 57 15 9 3,382

Transplant 2+1 717 10 4 15 2 5 753

Large 2-0 659 7 10 3 1 680

Medium 2-0 647 7 4 1 12 5 2 678

Small 2-0 603 4 4 1 15 5 1 633Container 616 6 10 1 5 638

Western hemlock 1,074 85 5 19 2 1 60 3 1 1,250

Bare root 514 45 5 10 2 1 26 2 1 606

Container 560 40 9 34 1 644

Poposchultz: 5,393 3 3 7 48 1 3 1 83 3 5,545

Douglas-fir 4,036 2 4 3 1 2 1 44 1 4,094

Transplant 2+1 841 2 1 10 854

Large 2-0 823 1 1 10 835

Medium 2-0 809 1 2 1 9 1 823

Small 2-0 764 1 2 1 11 779

Container 799 4 803

Western hemlock 1,357 1 3 3 45 1 39 2 1,451

Bare root 680 1 3 2 30 1 13 2 732

Container 677 1 15 26 719

Bay’s Wolfe: 3,333 13 63 72 23 2 1 1 163 95 29 3,795

Douglas-fir 2,668 4 8 12 2 1 1 72 90 20 2,878

Transplant 2+1 540 1 1 2 18 16 6 584Large 2-0 590 1 2 1 12 27 633Medium 2-0 514 1 1 6 1 16 21 6 566Small 2-0 509 1 4 1 16 10 1 542Container 515 1 1 1 1 1 10 16 7 553

Western hemlock 665 9 55 60 23 91 5 9 917

Bare root 399 3 29 23 12 55 3 3 527Container 266 6 26 37 11 36 2 6 390

Grand total 23,681 37 392 670 9 600 2 6 3 9 51 922 236 39 26,657
104

research paper pnw-rp-601 Table 37—Average height of 10-year old trees by site, site preparation, stock type, and release (continued) Site Treatment Release Stock type Pitchfork Beaver Upperten Randall Poposchultz Bay’s Wolfe All sites Centimeters Control: No release Douglas-fir transplant 2+1 567.1 375.0 441.3 616.5 581.8 508.6 526.7 Douglas-fir large 2+0 607.9 340.7 350.2 584.9 616.0 599.0 535.8 Douglas-fir medium 2+0 538.9 321.1 374.1 539.0 563.2 569.0 497.6 Douglas-fir small 2+0 482.9 319.1 303.1 518.4 563.6 482.5 470.3

Douglas-fir container 383.9 254.6 247.7 531.1 559.0 592.6 456.7Western hemlock bare root 355.4 223.7 256.0 364.7 375.4 274.7 319.6Western hemlock container 290.1 280.6 146.5 506.4 360.2 247.0 340.4

Average 481.7 310.8 311.7 529.2 523.8 489.6 457.8

Release Douglas-fir transplant 2+1 591.4 396.2 401.5 535.1 565.8 463.5 503.8

Douglas-fir large 2+0 637.4 461.1 400.1 579.2 622.2 560.4 552.1Douglas-fir medium 2+0 573.0 420.8 403.2 513.6 586.0 568.4 519.6Douglas-fir small 2+0 510.2 351.6 402.1 568.1 566.8 475.3 492.6Douglas-fir container 452.4 369.7 369.1 567.9 548.1 535.2 489.5Western hemlock bare root 420.3 386.3 362.6 400.0 412.3 305.4 389.1Western hemlock container 401.8 393.4 317.2 490.5 452.8 251.8 410.1

Average 519.5 400.1 386.8 524.5 537.6 462.4 484.4

Control average 501.1 355.8 351.7 526.8 530.7 475.3 471.4

Burn: No release Douglas-fir transplant 2+1 625.3 446.4 406.5 658.6 704.7 468.1 568.3

Douglas-fir large 2+0 620.8 435.7 429.3 645.4 804.1 511.1 591.2

Douglas-fir medium 2+0 592.6 396.7 426.1 555.4 765.0 480.4 553.5Douglas-fir small 2+0 544.0 376.3 414.1 553.4 718.1 451.3 534.3Douglas-fir container 430.4 374.6 337.0 608.5 728.5 478.5 510.7Western hemlock bare root 374.1 308.5 261.6 543.5 621.5 291.9 418.7Western hemlock container 403.3 385.3 253.4 561.7 607.3 201.8 446.2

Average 522.3 393.3 368.2 591.6 712.4 428.2 522.5

Release Douglas-fir transplant 2+1 608.2 459.6 404.8 676.2 764.0 476.4 582.1

Douglas-fir large 2+0 613.6 437.7 387.1 709.2 860.1 566.7 609.9
105

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Table 37—Average height of 10-year old trees by site, site preparation, stock type, and release (continued)

Site

Treatment Release Stock type Pitchfork Beaver Upperten Randall Poposchultz Bay’s Wolfe All sites

Centimeters

Douglas-fir medium 2+0 566.1 383.8 329.1 612.3 808.2 442.4 548.6Douglas-fir small 2+0 514.7 358.7 384.8 613.8 761.3 406.5 530.2Douglas-fir container 422.0 346.7 319.6 656.0 763.5 473.5 523.9Western hemlock bare root 355.6 342.5 200.1 479.1 581.3 359.3 404.9

Western hemlock container 371.9 352.4 199.4 579.9 646.2 296.0 448.5

Average 504.5 390.5 330.8 619.6 746.3 442.8 528.2

Burn average 513.6 392.1 349.1 605.4 729.3 436.6 525.3

Spray: No release Douglas-fir transplant 2+1 441.0 548.6 407.5 540.0 570.4 505.0 509.8

Douglas-fir large 2+0 438.1 504.4 419.9 545.7 597.6 632.1 530.8Douglas-fir medium 2+0 379.6 485.3 405.2 434.0 628.0 598.8 492.9Douglas-fir small 2+0 311.0 424.2 368.6 482.0 546.1 597.9 459.3Douglas-fir container 321.2 424.3 337.3 508.3 541.8 626.4 473.1Western hemlock bare root 244.9 444.3 246.3 420.8 475.8 383.8 382.7Western hemlock container 238.1 444.2 217.1 361.5 544.6 348.2 380.4

Average 346.9 473.0 356.0 472.3 559.2 541.0 466.0

Release Douglas-fir transplant 2+1 677.1 551.6 418.0 677.1 587.2 555.2 587.3

Douglas-fir large 2+0 603.4 540.6 407.5 715.0 622.9 657.5 596.9Douglas-fir medium 2+0 549.3 462.6 420.4 641.7 608.8 605.1 551.4Douglas-fir small 2+0 536.7 442.4 395.8 642.9 583.1 575.8 534.6Douglas-fir container 452.8 401.4 362.0 689.3 540.5 610.1 524.0Western hemlock bare root 335.5 449.7 294.5 640.0 531.3 447.4 454.5Western hemlock container 291.5 478.8 232.2 673.2 538.7 400.6 444.3

Average 506.1 480.1 363.0 668.6 574.4 567.9 532.8

Spray average 431.2 476.4 359.7 573.7 567.1 554.7 500.3

Spray and burn: No release Douglas-fir transplant 2+1 670.1 543.9 384.8 573.6 760.8 430.2 575.6

Douglas-fir large 2+0 645.0 502.7 439.4 591.7 824.7 442.5 586.2

Douglas-fir medium 2+0 617.3 497.4 432.7 585.7 825.7 413.0 578.7
106

research paper pnw-rp-601

Table 37—Average height of 10-year old trees by site, site preparation, stock type, and release (continued)

Site

Treatment Release Stock type Pitchfork Beaver Upperten Randall Poposchultz Bay’s Wolfe All sites

Centimeters

Douglas-fir small 2+0 555.6 446.0 362.9 568.8 752.8 410.0 526.1Douglas-fir container 472.9 445.0 364.6 600.7 740.6 439.4 521.5Western hemlock bare root 372.2 375.4 245.9 398.5 668.0 337.4 422.6

Western hemlock container 360.3 386.7 189.0 415.9 676.3 305.6 411.2

Average 540.3 466.8 362.6 534.5 753.2 398.4 523.6

Release Douglas-fir transplant 2+1 662.9 583.3 426.9 689.4 731.8 482.7 602.3

Douglas-fir large 2+0 693.1 555.7 461.2 688.7 794.1 595.9 633.2Douglas-fir medium 2+0 589.3 538.9 412.8 641.1 762.0 528.8 589.4Douglas-fir small 2+0 597.3 487.2 383.4 662.8 714.2 518.9 574.8Douglas-fir container 487.4 482.7 381.9 694.5 739.9 505.8 554.5Western hemlock bare root 340.4 520.3 250.8 586.3 585.2 371.8 460.8Western hemlock container 368.4 560.5 238.1 633.8 601.1 344.8 492.0

Average 547.1 535.2 389.2 657.4 708.6 485.3 563.0

Spray and burn average 543.6 501.4 375.5 599.4 731.7 445.2 543.4

Average of treatments 500.5 437.9 359.4 576.7 643.5 481.2 512.1
107

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Table 38—Percentage of total cover for species found on line transects by site, examination, site preparation, and release treatments

Site preparation and examination

Site, species, Control Burn Spray Spray and burn

and release 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7

Pitchfork:

ACCI 24.9 27.8 25.9 28.6 44.2 44.4 59.0 13.5 0.3 1.4 0.4 0.4 1.8 0.2 7.7 4.4 3.5 3.2 5.8 8.1 8.9 23.4 0.3 1.1 0.5 1.0 0.8 0.2

No release 15.4 15.6 9.4 14.1 27.6 24.8 34.2 4.4 . . . . . . 1.8 0.3 0.6 1.3 1.7 1.2 1.5 7.2 . . . . 0.4 .

Release 9.4 12.3 16.5 14.5 16.6 19.6 24.8 9.1 0.3 1.4 0.4 0.4 1.8 0.2 5.9 4.1 3.0 1.9 4.1 6.9 7.4 16.2 0.3 1.1 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.2

ALRU . . 0.3 . 1.4 7.0 12.4 1.5 . 0.8 . . 2.5 2.2 . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 8.0 7.6

No release . . 0.3 . 1.4 7.0 12.4 1.5 . . . . 2.5 0.7 . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 8.0 7.6

Release . . . . . . . . . 0.8 . . . 1.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

BESP 3.6 5.6 9.4 12.9 17.8 21.5 27.5 0.9 0.3 6.6 7.4 13.8 22.8 22.3 0.1 . . . 0.5 0.5 0.3 1.4 0.2 4.0 7.8 6.6 15.6 16.1

No release 2.2 2.8 2.8 5.7 6.9 10.2 14.6 0.2 0.1 4.4 4.9 8.9 14.4 13.6 0.1 . . . 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.8 0.1 3.5 5.6 4.8 10.7 11.9Release 1.4 2.8 6.6 7.2 11.0 11.3 12.9 0.7 0.2 2.2 2.5 4.9 8.4 8.7 . . . . . . . 0.6 0.1 0.5 2.2 1.8 4.8 4.2

CISP . . 1.7 . . . . . . 12.7 0.4 0.8 3.5 0.2 . . . . 0.2 0.6 . . 0.2 4.8 0.5 0.1 4.1 1.9

No release . . 1.0 . . . . . . 7.0 0.2 0.3 1.5 0.2 . . . . 0.2 0.6 . . . 3.0 0.3 0.1 2.7 1.8Release . . 0.7 . . . . . . 5.8 0.2 0.6 2.0 . . . . . . . . . 0.2 1.8 0.2 . 1.4 0.1

COCO . 3.6 . 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 . . . . . .

No release . 3.6 . 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 . . . . . .Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 . . . . . .DIFO . 0.3 . . . . . . 0.5 . . . . . 31.0 0.6 . . . . . . 2.5 . . . . .No release . . . . . . . . 0.3 . . . . . 31.0 0.2 . . . . . . 0.6 . . . . .Release . 0.3 . . . . . . 0.3 . . . . . . 0.4 . . . . . . 1.9 . . . . .DIPU . 1.5 14.1 7.9 19.1 4.2 3.2 . . . 1.0 5.0 3.4 5.1 . 8.5 14.4 6.8 37.3 7.4 5.6 . 0.5 16.8 5.5 29.4 8.2 6.8

No release . 0.3 8.0 7.9 11.4 1.9 1.4 . . . 0.9 2.9 0.5 0.7 . 6.0 9.9 4.7 18.5 2.8 2.3 . 0.3 6.2 4.9 8.4 4.7 3.4

Release . 1.3 6.1 . 7.7 2.3 1.8 . . . 0.2 2.1 2.9 4.4 . 2.6 4.5 2.0 18.8 4.6 3.3 . 0.2 10.6 0.7 21.0 3.5 3.4

EPSP . 3.7 8.0 1.0 . . . . 1.5 4.4 0.8 0.2 0.2 . . . 4.1 0.3 . . . . 3.0 8.0 1.2 . 0.4 .No release . 0.6 3.2 0.9 . . . . . 0.3 0.8 0.1 . . . . 2.5 0.3 . . . . 0.6 4.7 1.2 . . .

Release . 3.1 4.8 0.1 . . . . 1.5 4.1 . 0.2 0.2 . . . 1.6 . . . . . 2.4 3.3 . . 0.4 .

GASH 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.1 0.4 1.1 0.6 . . . . . . . 0.0 0.3 . . 0.2 0.4 0.5 . . . . . . .No release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.2 . . . 0.2 0.1 . . . . . . .Release 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.1 0.4 1.1 0.6 . . . . . . . . 0.0 . . 0.2 0.1 0.4 . . . . . . .GRSP 1.7 6.8 48.2 48.4 78.3 25.2 42.7 0.4 0.1 68.4 93.3 128.4 20.6 113.2 0.9 10.9 57.2 59.7 62.3 43.9 86.5 0.5 1.6 74.7 76.0 165.3 44.0 124.8

No release 0.8 2.7 19.2 19.3 32.0 13.0 16.2 0.2 0.1 43.2 56.6 69.2 3.7 55.6 0.5 7.0 30.5 36.8 39.1 23.4 46.7 0.3 0.6 35.9 42.1 74.1 22.2 58.4

Release 0.9 4.1 29.1 29.1 46.3 12.2 26.5 0.2 . 25.2 36.7 59.2 16.9 57.6 0.4 3.9 26.7 22.9 23.2 20.5 39.8 0.2 1.1 38.8 33.9 91.2 21.9 66.4

HEMI 4.8 9.0 6.6 16.0 2.3 16.4 6.6 5.7 10.6 5.2 10.2 1.7 98.7 10.1 3.8 1.7 2.5 6.0 3.9 18.0 11.2 15.8 4.0 5.8 7.5 1.4 78.8 50.0

No release 3.5 5.2 1.0 2.6 1.0 3.5 0.7 4.1 7.0 3.7 0.1 0.8 62.6 2.8 3.5 1.0 0.7 0.4 2.0 10.0 4.5 2.9 2.3 3.4 2.1 0.6 43.6 11.6

Release 1.4 3.8 5.6 13.3 1.4 12.8 5.9 1.6 3.5 1.4 10.1 0.9 36.1 7.3 0.3 0.8 1.8 5.5 1.9 8.0 6.7 13.0 1.8 2.5 5.4 0.9 35.2 38.4

HODI . . . . 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .No release . . . . 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
108

research paper pnw-rp-601 Table 38—Percentage of total cover for species found on line transects by site, examination, site preparation, and release treatments (continued) Site preparation and examination Site, species, Control Burn Spray Spray and burn and release 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pitchfork (continued): MOSP 4.5 . . . 0.2 . . 1.5 . . . . . . 6.6 1.0 . . 0.2 . . 4.9 0.3 . . . . . No release 1.8 . . . 0.2 . . 0.5 . . . . . . 3.0 0.8 . . 0.2 . . 1.4 0.1 . . . . . Release 2.7 . . . . . . 1.0 . . . . . . 3.6 0.1 . . . . . 3.6 0.2 . . . . . No vegetation . . 24.2 30.6 9.7 12.8 5.7 . . 28.0 50.9 15.7 15.2 5.5 . . 11.5 19.3 7.5 7.6 8.4 . . 31.2 68.2 5.8 20.6 5.3 No release . . 13.2 15.0 7.0 7.1 2.0 . . 12.6 22.6 5.7 5.7 0.8 . . 5.2 7.6 2.2 4.8 5.8 . . 13.2 32.2 5.1 10.0 4.3 Release . . 11.0 15.6 2.8 5.6 3.7 . . 15.4 28.3 10.0 9.5 4.7 . . 6.3 11.7 5.3 2.8 2.6 . . 18.0 36.0 0.7 10.6 1.0

POMU 11.4 24.4 42.5 33.5 43.6 53.5 45.7 15.7 1.7 8.9 8.0 11.0 13.3 12.7 9.1 16.5 20.7 17.2 21.5 29.9 23.1 28.9 2.5 6.7 9.2 9.2 9.5 11.5

No release 6.9 15.7 24.6 18.9 26.8 31.8 29.2 8.6 1.2 7.0 4.8 7.7 9.1 8.4 4.0 8.6 5.7 4.2 6.6 8.3 6.2 15.0 1.1 5.4 5.6 4.4 4.7 7.5

Release 4.4 8.7 17.9 14.6 16.9 21.6 16.5 7.1 0.5 1.9 3.2 3.4 4.2 4.3 5.1 8.0 15.0 13.0 14.9 21.6 16.9 14.0 1.5 1.3 3.6 4.8 4.8 4.0PRSP . . . . 0.8 0.9 0.2 . . . . 0.1 . . . . . . . . 0.1 . . . . 0.2 0.9 .No release . . . . 0.4 0.2 0.2 . . . . 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.4 .

Release . . . . 0.4 0.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 . . . . . 0.4 .PSME . . 0.4 0.4 7.6 23.9 55.0 . 0.1 0.2 0.5 3.4 28.8 62.9 . . 0.2 1.0 8.9 25.6 37.4 . 0.3 2.1 1.6 10.2 46.3 81.7

No release . . . . 6.3 15.2 36.8 . . . 0.0 2.3 20.9 42.0 . . . 0.4 2.2 9.2 11.8 . 0.2 0.4 0.7 2.1 16.2 36.3

Release . . 0.4 0.4 1.3 8.6 18.2 . 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.1 7.9 20.9 . . 0.2 0.6 6.7 16.4 25.6 . 0.2 1.7 1.0 8.1 30.2 45.4

PTAQ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.8 67.4 88.0 67.2 62.7 42.2 33.0 . . . . . . .

No release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.6 43.0 41.1 37.0 25.0 19.3 . . . . . . .Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.8 25.8 44.9 26.0 25.8 17.2 13.7 . . . . . . .RHPU 0.8 2.8 4.0 9.7 12.8 30.8 34.0 1.8 1.2 . 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.2 0.9 1.4 3.1 2.1 0.6 1.0 2.2 0.5 . . . . . .

No release 0.3 2.6 1.6 7.4 12.8 26.9 29.2 0.1 . . . 0.2 . . . 0.2 . . . 0.2 0.8 0.1 . . . . . .

Release 0.5 0.2 2.4 2.4 . 3.9 4.9 1.7 1.2 . 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.2 0.9 1.2 3.1 2.1 0.6 0.8 1.4 0.4 . . . . . .

ROGY 0.7 1.0 . . 2.2 0.8 1.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Release 0.7 1.0 . . 2.2 0.8 1.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RULE . 1.0 . . . . . . 1.9 . . . . . . 0.6 . . . . . . 1.5 . . . . .

No release . 0.1 . . . . . . 1.4 . . . . . . 0.2 . . . . . . 0.3 . . . . .Release . 0.9 . . . . . . 0.5 . . . . . . 0.4 . . . . . . 1.2 . . . . .RUPA . . 0.1 . 0.6 . . . 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.7 1.3 0.9 . . . 0.1 . 0.1 0.1 . 1.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.3

No release . . . . 0.6 . . . 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.7 0.9 . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.4 . 0.1 . 0.3

Release . . 0.1 . . . . . . . 0.5 . 0.6 . . . . 0.1 . 0.1 0.1 . 1.1 . 0.4 . 0.1 .RUSP 2.9 4.6 2.9 2.9 2.6 6.4 8.8 5.2 0.9 . 0.2 0.1 1.0 . 0.7 1.0 5.0 1.6 3.1 6.6 8.1 2.6 0.1 . 0.1 0.2 . .

No release 2.9 4.6 2.2 2.9 2.6 6.4 8.1 1.0 0.2 . 0.2 0.1 0.9 . . . . . . . . 2.1 0.0 . . . . .

Release . . 0.6 . . . 0.7 4.1 0.7 . . . 0.1 . 0.7 1.0 5.0 1.6 3.1 6.6 8.1 0.5 0.0 . 0.1 0.2 . .

RUVI 1.8 18.1 20.4 23.2 23.9 45.0 48.3 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.3 4.2 4.1 16.6 0.8 10.6 12.1 26.2 48.0 56.4 0.5 . 1.8 1.1 1.7 10.2 11.3

No release 1.0 12.3 12.4 17.0 15.5 27.4 27.6 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.5 . 1.7 2.0 14.1 0.8 8.8 9.8 19.0 29.7 33.8 0.1 . 0.4 0.4 0.2 1.4 3.1

Release 0.8 5.9 8.0 6.1 8.4 17.5 20.6 0.1 . 0.1 0.2 0.3 2.5 2.2 2.5 . 1.8 2.4 7.2 18.3 22.6 0.4 . 1.4 0.8 1.5 8.8 8.2

SASP . 0.7 . . 0.8 0.2 0.2 . 3.8 7.5 7.3 2.8 1.2 0.4 . 0.0 . . . . . . 1.4 2.0 1.7 0.6 0.6 0.2

No release . 0.4 . . 0.8 0.2 0.2 . 1.1 2.9 1.8 1.5 0.2 . . . . . . . . . 0.1 1.1 0.7 . 0.3 .

Release . 0.3 . . . . . . 2.7 4.6 5.5 1.3 1.0 0.4 . 0.0 . . . . . . 1.3 0.9 1.1 0.6 0.3 0.2
109

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Table 38—Percentage of total cover for species found on line transects by site, examination, site preparation, and release treatments (continued)

Site preparation and examination

Site, species, Control Burn Spray Spray and burn

and release 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7

Pitchfork (continued):

SESP 15.9 31.0 33.8 7.5 43.7 12.1 1.5 9.4 26.9 66.8 26.0 45.5 25.6 4.5 10.8 6.6 0.5 8.1 23.3 9.4 0.2 8.8 17.3 51.7 21.0 47.9 37.4 4.2No release 3.0 12.3 14.9 6.4 17.2 4.2 1.3 5.6 12.7 28.3 16.6 19.4 12.3 2.3 4.8 2.4 0.5 1.9 10.0 6.6 . 2.1 8.8 29.4 10.4 23.8 15.8 1.4

Release 12.9 18.8 18.9 1.1 26.5 7.9 0.2 3.7 14.2 38.5 9.4 26.2 13.3 2.2 6.1 4.2 . 6.2 13.3 2.7 0.2 6.7 8.5 22.3 10.6 24.1 21.6 2.8

Slash 85.6 71.3 19.6 19.2 6.4 2.2 2.2 109.5 27.0 18.6 23.2 16.4 12.4 2.5 66.1 84.4 16.7 29.8 9.9 15.1 9.2 106.3 27.8 8.2 10.9 10.0 6.0 2.8

No release 56.5 49.6 15.0 9.4 4.2 0.5 1.5 48.9 11.3 6.0 10.0 7.0 4.4 2.2 29.5 41.7 9.4 14.8 3.2 8.4 5.3 63.8 18.1 3.6 5.1 5.9 2.4 0.4

Release 29.1 21.8 4.6 9.7 2.2 1.6 0.8 60.6 15.7 12.7 13.2 9.5 7.9 0.3 36.7 42.7 7.3 15.0 6.7 6.7 4.0 42.5 9.6 4.6 5.9 4.1 3.7 2.5

TSHE . 0.4 0.9 1.4 6.7 11.2 17.4 . . 0.6 1.3 2.2 10.6 11.8 . 0.1 . . . . 0.5 . 0.0 0.4 . 1.4 9.6 22.2

No release . . . . . . . . . 0.6 1.1 1.4 1.0 2.1 . 0.1 . . . . 0.5 . 0.0 0.4 . 0.6 4.4 7.4

Release . 0.4 0.9 1.4 6.7 11.2 17.4 . . . 0.2 0.8 9.6 9.7 . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 5.2 14.8VAOV . . . 0.4 . . . . . . 0.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.3 . .No release . . . 0.4 . . . . . . 0.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 . .Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 . . .VAPA 1.0 2.5 . 1.5 0.2 1.4 0.8 3.6 . . . . 0.6 2.3 . . . . . 0.2 . 2.2 . . 0.1 . 0.5 0.8

No release 0.7 1.9 . . . . . 3.6 . . . . 0.6 2.3 . . . . . 0.2 . 1.1 . . . . 0.5 0.8

Release 0.3 0.6 . 1.5 0.2 1.4 0.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 . . 0.1 . . .

 Total 160 216 264 246 325 321 374 169 77 231 235 250 269 262 169 206 238 234 274 264 292 198 65 220 213 292 302 348
110

research paper pnw-rp-601 Table 38—Percentage of total cover for species found on line transects by site, examination, site preparation, and release treatments (continued) Site preparation and examination Site, species, Control Burn Spray Spray and burn and release 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 Beaver: ABGR . . . . . . . . 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No release . . . . . . . . 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ACCI . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Release . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ALRU . . . . . 1.3 3.1 . . 1.0 . 2.3 5.6 14.2 . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 5.4 11.2 No release . . . . . 1.3 3.1 . . . . . . 3.4 . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 3.6 7.4 Release . . . . . . . . . 1.0 . 2.3 5.6 10.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 3.8

EPSP . . 11.6 0.8 9.3 . . . . 5.8 5.4 7.1 0.8 0.6 . . 18.4 3.7 9.2 . . . . 2.4 6.0 6.8 0.2 0.6

No release . . 5.3 0.7 3.9 . . . . 5.1 4.6 2.1 0.8 0.6 . . 5.9 3.0 2.6 . . . . 1.1 5.6 2.6 0.2 .

Release . . 6.2 0.1 5.4 . . . . 0.6 0.8 5.0 . . . . 12.5 0.8 6.6 . . . . 1.3 0.4 4.2 . 0.6

GASH 2.7 12.3 32.8 56.0 70.3 97.7 106.5 32.0 20.5 57.2 99.7 106.5 142.2 165.2 10.2 5.8 19.0 53.6 85.8 116.7 129.3 7.6 8.7 23.0 36.4 56.1 87.0 98.2

No release 1.4 9.9 26.8 36.5 47.6 58.1 62.5 16.8 8.8 32.4 54.6 62.1 78.5 91.1 3.6 2.9 9.3 25.4 40.0 54.3 63.2 3.4 3.0 8.0 10.1 21.2 35.1 35.6

Release 1.3 2.4 6.0 19.6 22.8 39.6 44.0 15.2 11.7 24.9 45.2 44.4 63.6 74.1 6.6 2.9 9.7 28.2 45.8 62.4 66.2 4.2 5.7 15.0 26.3 34.9 51.9 62.6

GRSP . 0.7 . 0.2 0.4 . . . . 3.8 2.5 . . . . 1.0 1.7 2.3 1.2 . . . . 8.8 7.4 2.8 0.6 .

No release . 0.7 . . . . . . . 3.8 2.5 . . . . 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.3 . . . . 5.6 5.5 1.2 . .

Release . . . 0.2 0.4 . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 1.4 0.9 . . . . 3.3 1.9 1.6 0.6 .

HEMI . . . 0.4 3.8 3.4 0.9 0.8 0.8 5.6 . 20.2 14.4 0.2 . . . 0.5 8.9 9.6 6.4 . . 1.3 0.4 9.0 8.2 3.4

No release . . . 0.2 2.2 1.7 0.5 . 0.4 5.2 . 12.4 8.8 0.2 . . . . 3.2 2.4 0.6 . . 0.3 0.4 2.6 0.9 .

Release . . . 0.2 1.5 1.7 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.4 . 7.8 5.6 . . . . 0.5 5.7 7.2 5.8 . . 1.0 . 6.4 7.3 3.4LOSP . . . . . . 0.7 . . . . . . 0.9 . . . . . . 0.8 . . . . . . 0.2

No release . . . . . . 0.7 . . . . . . 0.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 . . . . . . 0.8 . . . . . . 0.2

MEFE . . . 0.8 . 0.3 1.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1

No release . . . 0.8 . 0.3 1.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1

MOSP . . . 0.4 . 0.4 . 0.8 6.1 . . . . . . 6.8 0.6 0.3 . 0.3 . 0.3 3.0 0.3 . . . .No release . . . . . . . 0.7 3.4 . . . . . . 4.9 0.4 0.3 . . . . 2.1 . . . . .

Release . . . 0.4 . 0.4 . 0.1 2.7 . . . . . . 1.9 0.2 . . 0.3 . 0.3 0.9 0.3 . . . .No vegetation . . 27.5 25.9 7.8 3.5 5.1 . . 20.2 11.9 6.1 0.7 0.1 . . 30.7 25.9 3.8 5.0 1.8 . . 45.8 49.9 23.0 8.7 7.3

No release . . 12.4 4.4 1.6 1.3 3.3 . . 14.4 4.6 1.2 . . . . 18.0 15.4 1.7 1.4 1.0 . . 23.4 17.4 7.5 0.5 .

Release . . 15.1 21.5 6.2 2.2 1.8 . . 5.8 7.3 5.0 0.7 0.1 . . 12.7 10.4 2.1 3.6 0.8 . . 22.4 32.4 15.5 8.2 7.3

PISI . . . . . . 0.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 2.6

No release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5

Release . . . . . . 0.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 2.1

POMU 15.3 25.4 30.9 40.2 39.6 48.7 57.4 5.2 4.8 5.9 8.5 12.6 10.4 14.4 5.7 13.1 16.2 16.0 21.0 32.7 31.5 6.2 0.6 3.4 5.6 6.6 8.6 7.3

No release 6.4 11.8 19.2 19.7 16.0 19.7 22.6 1.7 4.8 5.9 8.5 12.2 10.4 13.7 2.5 4.4 6.2 6.5 9.1 19.0 16.8 2.3 0.3 1.3 1.8 4.2 3.8 4.6

Release 8.9 13.6 11.7 20.5 23.6 29.0 34.8 3.5 . . . 0.4 . 0.7 3.3 8.7 10.0 9.5 12.0 13.7 14.7 3.9 0.3 2.1 3.8 2.3 4.8 2.7

PRSP . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 . 0.6 . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.3 0.3

No release . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Release . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 . 0.6 . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.3 0.3
111

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Table 38—Percentage of total cover for species found on line transects by site, examination, site preparation, and release treatments (continued)

Site preparation and examination

Site, species, Control Burn Spray Spray and burnand release 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7

Beaver (continued):

PSME . 0.3 0.0 0.7 3.0 10.5 19.2 . 0.3 0.4 2.5 7.0 15.0 28.9 . . 1.3 3.1 7.4 18.9 35.5 . . 1.2 0.5 10.2 28.0 55.5

No release . 0.3 . . 0.3 0.4 4.2 . . 0.4 2.5 5.6 11.4 19.4 . . 0.9 1.8 4.4 7.6 16.7 . . 1.2 0.5 7.9 23.1 39.5Release . . 0.0 0.7 2.7 10.1 15.0 . 0.3 . . 1.4 3.7 9.4 . . 0.4 1.3 2.9 11.3 18.8 . . . . 2.4 4.9 16.0

PTAQ . 0.7 1.2 3.3 8.9 6.3 6.4 1.0 23.3 31.1 26.9 23.7 20.2 23.7 1.0 0.2 0.6 1.4 0.8 . . 2.0 2.1 14.5 9.2 18.1 25.0 9.6

No release . 0.7 1.2 3.3 8.9 6.1 6.4 . 3.9 7.0 11.6 14.6 12.4 18.2 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.4 0.8 . . . 0.4 2.9 7.6 12.5 13.4 7.1

Release . . . . . 0.2 . 1.0 19.4 24.0 15.3 9.2 7.8 5.6 0.9 . . . . . . 2.0 1.7 11.6 1.6 5.6 11.6 2.6

RHPU . . . . . . . 0.2 . . 1.6 . . . 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Release . . . . . . . 0.2 . . 1.6 . . . 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .RIBR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 . . . . . . . . .No release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 . . . . . . . . .RUPA . . 2.0 1.0 3.4 4.2 8.6 . 0.5 2.8 5.0 14.1 14.8 23.8 . . 0.7 1.6 6.4 8.0 4.2 . . 0.9 2.8 8.7 9.1 9.6No release . . 1.5 1.0 2.8 1.7 6.7 . 0.5 2.0 3.8 8.0 8.0 14.2 . . 0.4 0.6 2.8 3.6 2.3 . . 0.7 2.4 7.5 5.4 5.6

Release . . 0.5 . 0.6 2.5 1.9 . . 0.8 1.2 6.0 6.8 9.6 . . 0.3 1.0 3.6 4.4 1.9 . . 0.2 0.4 1.2 3.7 4.0

RUSP 47.5 72.0 125.1 104.2 123.5 110.0 88.4 70.7 55.3 95.0 100.6 98.6 90.8 97.3 19.6 31.0 103.7 106.0 121.2 99.2 83.8 58.6 30.6 79.2 71.9 83.4 88.6 93.4

No release 23.6 29.7 53.4 56.2 49.6 40.4 29.7 36.0 18.1 33.6 41.8 36.6 29.9 31.4 17.4 20.9 53.1 62.5 64.3 56.4 55.5 29.6 12.6 43.2 50.1 55.6 63.4 65.0

Release 23.9 42.2 71.7 48.0 73.9 69.6 58.7 34.6 37.2 61.4 58.9 62.0 61.0 65.9 2.3 10.1 50.6 43.5 56.8 42.8 28.3 29.0 18.1 36.1 21.8 27.8 25.2 28.4RUVI . . 0.6 0.8 . 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.6 1.7 2.5 5.1 2.8 1.6 . . . . 0.6 0.1 0.8 . . 0.7 2.0 2.5 2.1 2.2

No release . . 0.6 0.6 . 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.6 1.0 1.1 2.8 0.4 1.4 . . . . 0.4 . 0.4 . . . 0.1 0.4 . .Release . . . 0.2 . . . . . 0.8 1.4 2.3 2.4 0.3 . . . . 0.2 0.1 0.4 . . 0.7 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.2

SASP . . . . 0.5 0.2 0.6 . . . . . . . . . 0.8 0.8 . . 0.8 . . . . . . .Release . . . . 0.5 0.2 0.6 . . . . . . . . . 0.8 0.8 . . 0.8 . . . . . . .SESP . 27.2 0.3 6.5 . . 0.6 . 63.3 1.2 7.1 0.2 . . . 19.6 2.4 16.1 . 0.4 4.0 . 25.5 8.5 7.2 . . .

No release . 18.8 . 1.0 . . . . 43.0 1.2 0.7 0.2 . . . 11.2 1.4 2.0 . . . . 15.1 5.6 1.0 . . .

Release . 8.4 0.3 5.5 . . 0.6 . 20.3 . 6.4 . . . . 8.3 1.0 14.0 . 0.4 4.0 . 10.4 3.0 6.1 . . .

Slash 86.2 77.6 12.1 13.5 5.3 2.7 2.9 108.0 39.6 23.5 10.6 3.8 2.6 1.6 143.0 129.8 32.1 26.4 20.0 4.7 3.8 62.8 54.5 26.6 20.2 19.4 9.8 2.4No release 38.5 39.6 6.6 3.3 3.1 1.6 2.6 30.8 18.9 16.5 8.0 2.4 2.6 1.6 58.6 70.0 13.4 12.5 10.3 3.3 1.2 35.0 24.9 16.4 12.2 7.6 5.3 .

Release 47.7 38.1 5.5 10.2 2.2 1.1 0.3 77.2 20.8 7.0 2.6 1.5 . . 84.4 59.9 18.7 14.0 9.8 1.4 2.6 27.8 29.6 10.2 8.0 11.8 4.5 2.4

TSHE . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.2 1.0 2.7 4.3 11.4 . . 1.4 2.7 8.4 10.0 24.6 . 0.2 0.3 0.6 2.8 15.4 28.6

No release . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.4 3.2 . . 1.4 2.1 5.8 7.0 14.1 . . 0.3 0.6 2.8 9.1 15.2

Release . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 2.5 2.9 8.2 . . . 0.6 2.5 3.0 10.5 . 0.2 . . . 6.4 13.4VAOV . . 0.8 1.8 . . . . . 2.0 . . 0.3 1.8 . . 2.7 1.6 2.5 2.5 2.8 . . 1.3 0.4 . 0.2 .

No release . . . 0.2 . . . . . 2.0 . . 0.3 1.8 . . 0.3 0.2 . . . . . 0.1 . . . .

Release . . 0.8 1.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 1.4 2.5 2.5 2.8 . . 1.2 0.4 . 0.2 .

VAPA 2.4 4.5 2.8 2.4 4.2 4.0 9.1 1.5 2.4 2.5 18.4 6.6 7.8 10.9 3.6 0.1 . . 0.8 2.0 3.1 11.7 2.8 0.4 6.1 1.1 2.3 1.2

No release 1.8 0.4 2.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.6 . 2.4 2.5 16.1 6.4 7.8 10.9 2.4 0.1 . . 0.4 2.0 2.0 8.2 . 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.4

Release 0.7 4.1 0.6 1.2 2.9 2.6 6.5 1.5 . . 2.4 0.2 . . 1.2 . . . 0.3 . 1.1 3.5 2.8 . 5.7 0.9 1.9 0.9

 Total 154 221 248 259 280 293 312 220 218 260 304 317 333 397 183 207 232 262 298 310 333 149 128 219 226 252 300 334
112

research paper pnw-rp-601 Table 38—Percentage of total cover for species found on line transects by site, examination, site preparation, and release treatments (continued) Site preparation and examination Site, species, Control Burn Spray Spray and burn and release 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 Upperten: ACCI 16.6 10.9 13.9 16.1 7.7 14.1 15.2 15.8 1.0 1.3 0.3 2.2 1.2 1.8 14.7 4.6 7.1 3.6 9.0 10.7 11.9 7.1 2.1 . 0.9 0.1 . 0.1 No release 4.6 5.8 13.1 13.6 6.3 14.0 14.3 7.1 1.0 0.8 0.3 2.2 1.2 1.8 13.5 2.3 1.8 0.8 2.1 1.8 2.1 4.5 1.6 . 0.5 . . . Release 12.0 5.1 0.8 2.5 1.4 0.2 1.0 8.7 . 0.6 . . . . 1.2 2.3 5.3 2.8 6.9 8.9 9.8 2.6 0.5 . 0.4 0.1 . 0.1 ALRU 0.3 . . . 6.0 9.6 12.5 . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 12.4 13.5 . . . . . . . No release . . . . 6.0 9.0 10.4 . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 7.4 7.5 . . . . . . . Release 0.3 . . . . 0.6 2.1 . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 5.0 6.0 . . . . . . . BESP 0.4 . . . . . . 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.6 2.6 2.2 2.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No release 0.4 . . . . . . 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Release . . . . . . . . 0.1 1.0 0.6 2.6 2.2 2.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CISP . . . 0.5 0.1 . . . . 5.9 4.0 1.1 0.8 1.5 . . . 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.3 . . 1.0 0.1 1.4 7.6 0.8No release . . . . 0.1 . . . . 2.2 2.6 0.6 0.7 1.2 . . . 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.3 . . 0.8 . 0.2 4.7 0.3

Release . . . 0.5 . . . . . 3.8 1.3 0.5 0.1 0.3 . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.1 1.2 3.0 0.4

COCO 6.9 2.9 9.3 10.8 16.0 23.0 27.0 . 1.2 . . . . . . 1.1 1.2 . 2.6 4.6 4.8 1.0 1.3 . 1.2 0.4 . .

No release . 2.7 6.8 8.3 8.7 8.8 11.0 . 1.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 . . . . . .

Release 6.9 0.2 2.4 2.5 7.3 14.2 16.0 . . . . . . . . 1.1 1.2 . 2.6 4.6 4.8 . 1.3 . 1.2 0.4 . .DIFO 0.6 . . . . . 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .No release . . . . . . 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Release 0.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .DIPU . . 0.6 1.2 6.2 11.7 12.1 . . 1.0 3.4 11.7 4.0 9.6 . . . 0.7 16.2 17.2 17.0 . . 1.5 2.0 7.3 8.4 12.8

No release . . 0.6 1.2 3.4 3.3 0.4 . . 1.0 3.4 10.1 3.2 7.4 . . . 0.7 6.8 5.3 7.2 . . 1.2 2.0 4.2 4.8 8.3

Release . . . . 2.9 8.4 11.7 . . . . 1.6 0.7 2.2 . . . . 9.4 11.9 9.8 . . 0.2 . 3.2 3.6 4.5

EPSP . 2.9 19.0 4.8 1.3 0.2 . . 13.4 47.5 29.0 2.4 0.2 0.4 . 1.0 28.7 17.7 16.3 0.8 . . 13.6 67.6 14.8 7.2 23.5 0.2

No release . 1.8 9.0 4.6 . . . . 9.9 37.3 26.8 2.4 0.2 0.4 . 0.6 17.8 17.2 7.4 0.8 . . 9.5 42.4 13.2 4.0 15.2 0.2Release . 1.0 10.0 0.2 1.3 0.2 . . 3.5 10.2 2.2 0.1 . . . 0.4 10.9 0.5 8.9 . . . 4.1 25.2 1.6 3.2 8.2 .

GASH . . . . . 0.2 0.5 2.0 0.2 2.2 1.3 2.2 2.6 3.2 . . . 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.1 . 0.1 . 0.3 1.2 1.4 0.4

No release . . . . . 0.2 0.3 2.0 . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 0.2 0.1 . . . . . . .Release . . . . . . 0.2 . 0.2 2.2 1.3 2.2 2.6 3.2 . . . 0.4 . . . . 0.1 . 0.3 1.2 1.4 0.4

GRSP 2.4 2.6 5.1 6.0 30.5 45.4 11.5 . 0.7 11.2 53.2 62.8 112.5 30.1 16.8 23.4 30.7 31.1 25.9 52.8 16.0 . 0.7 35.1 56.3 94.8 136.9 30.9

No release 2.4 2.2 4.2 2.9 9.7 13.4 3.8 . . 3.0 20.6 30.4 55.3 25.4 12.0 20.8 24.3 17.9 11.7 31.3 7.6 . . 9.6 27.0 49.7 74.8 15.3

Release . 0.4 0.9 3.1 20.8 32.0 7.7 . 0.7 8.2 32.6 32.5 57.2 4.8 4.7 2.5 6.4 13.2 14.2 21.5 8.4 . 0.7 25.5 29.3 45.1 62.1 15.6

HEMI 6.1 1.8 . 6.6 2.3 12.3 12.6 0.3 5.0 21.8 19.0 17.6 37.7 74.4 21.4 5.2 1.8 12.5 21.6 30.3 30.1 . 2.5 12.6 21.1 34.4 28.5 93.8

No release 5.2 1.8 . 0.3 1.8 6.2 1.7 . 3.2 6.6 13.0 11.6 14.5 29.4 5.2 4.9 1.4 9.1 18.8 25.6 25.3 . 2.4 7.6 13.0 19.0 12.0 40.8Release 1.0 . . 6.3 0.6 6.2 10.9 0.3 1.8 15.2 6.1 5.9 23.2 45.0 16.2 0.2 0.4 3.4 2.8 4.6 4.8 . 0.1 5.0 8.1 15.4 16.5 53.0

HODI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .LOSP . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 . 17.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9No release . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 . 2.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7Release . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 . 15.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2

LUSP . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 . 0.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .No release . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 . 0.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Release . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
113

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Table 38—Percentage of total cover for species found on line transects by site, examination, site preparation, and release treatments (continued)

Site preparation and examination

Site, species, Control Burn Spray Spray and burn

and release 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7

Upperten (continued):

MOSP . . . . . . 0.1 . 2.8 . . . . 0.1 . . . 0.3 . 0.1 . . 1.2 0.4 . . . .No release . . . . . . . . 2.8 . . . . 0.1 . . . . . 0.1 . . 1.0 0.4 . . . .Release . . . . . . 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 . . . . 0.2 . . . . .No vegetation . . 19.8 36.6 7.9 3.7 3.2 . . 70.8 54.4 25.0 3.3 3.6 . . 24.0 31.3 13.6 4.7 7.5 . . 48.0 54.5 7.6 0.2 7.6

No release . . 5.2 8.4 2.4 0.2 0.4 . . 25.4 23.9 8.7 . 0.7 . . 5.6 11.2 6.2 3.4 4.6 . . 22.6 25.5 1.5 0.2 3.3

Release . . 14.6 28.2 5.5 3.5 2.8 . . 45.4 30.5 16.3 3.3 3.0 . . 18.4 20.0 7.4 1.3 2.9 . . 25.4 29.0 6.0 . 4.3

POMU 52.4 26.0 30.2 31.9 40.2 55.9 52.7 9.7 9.9 17.0 21.6 25.0 43.9 48.9 27.7 44.6 47.8 55.4 54.7 82.6 78.3 29.8 11.8 14.4 23.5 23.1 36.8 34.5

No release 30.0 17.4 17.3 14.8 21.4 35.0 36.9 7.2 5.1 11.4 11.6 17.2 31.4 34.4 12.8 19.4 18.8 20.9 20.8 31.2 32.4 12.8 5.8 7.8 12.3 12.1 15.6 18.6

Release 22.3 8.6 12.9 17.1 18.8 20.9 15.8 2.6 4.8 5.6 10.0 7.8 12.5 14.6 14.8 25.1 29.0 34.5 33.9 51.5 45.9 17.0 5.9 6.6 11.2 11.0 21.3 15.8

PRSP . . . . 0.6 . . . . . . . 0.2 0.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .No release . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Release . . . . 0.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .PSME . 0.3 0.3 0.4 1.8 5.1 9.2 . 0.2 0.4 . 4.7 22.9 46.1 . 0.3 0.4 1.5 4.8 14.8 26.7 . 0.5 0.9 1.3 2.3 10.6 30.6

No release . 0.1 . . 0.9 2.8 3.3 . . 0.2 . 1.4 8.3 18.7 . . . . 0.2 1.5 4.1 . 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.5 6.5 17.4

Release . 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.8 2.3 5.9 . 0.2 0.2 . 3.4 14.6 27.4 . 0.3 0.4 1.5 4.6 13.3 22.6 . 0.1 0.4 1.0 1.8 4.1 13.2PTAQ 3.7 24.6 18.4 23.4 15.3 24.7 12.5 . 2.4 3.6 3.4 10.0 25.2 19.6 . 0.2 0.7 0.4 3.4 . 1.4 . 1.2 4.5 1.7 6.6 10.4 10.9

No release 3.7 18.3 12.3 20.3 11.2 16.8 7.7 . 0.0 . . . . . . 0.2 0.7 0.4 3.4 . 1.4 . . . . . . .

Release . 6.3 6.1 3.1 4.1 7.9 4.8 . 2.4 3.6 3.4 10.0 25.2 19.6 . . . . . . . . 1.2 4.5 1.7 6.6 10.4 10.9

RHPU . . . 0.1 . 0.2 1.1 . . . . 0.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .No release . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Release . . . 0.1 . 0.2 1.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ROGY . . . . . . . 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .No release . . . . . . . 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RUPA 0.1 1.6 4.2 0.8 6.9 8.8 11.4 0.1 1.2 4.9 3.8 5.5 8.5 10.6 . . . . 0.2 3.8 8.0 . 0.1 1.7 0.6 0.6 1.6 0.4

No release 0.1 . 1.8 0.3 6.2 5.8 6.9 0.1 0.6 2.0 2.6 4.7 7.1 8.2 . . . . . 1.0 5.1 . . 0.2 . 0.3 0.4 0.3

Release . 1.6 2.4 0.5 0.7 3.0 4.5 . 0.6 2.8 1.2 0.8 1.4 2.4 . . . . 0.2 2.8 2.9 . 0.1 1.5 0.6 0.4 1.1 0.2

RUSP 74.0 74.5 78.7 51.1 110.3 128.1 140.4 12.6 2.4 4.3 5.2 10.6 11.8 25.6 33.9 27.1 43.6 37.1 60.7 77.2 89.4 38.6 2.6 5.8 5.4 11.4 19.0 30.6

No release 22.8 29.4 33.0 44.7 71.9 84.0 92.4 5.4 2.2 2.9 4.5 9.3 10.4 23.3 19.0 15.0 25.7 34.5 43.5 47.7 54.8 18.0 1.0 3.7 5.3 10.0 16.2 23.4

Release 51.2 45.1 45.6 6.4 38.4 44.2 48.0 7.2 0.2 1.4 0.6 1.3 1.5 2.3 14.8 12.1 17.9 2.6 17.2 29.5 34.5 20.6 1.6 2.1 0.1 1.3 2.9 7.2

RUVI 9.5 42.5 9.6 15.2 13.9 16.8 10.2 . 2.0 6.3 12.0 18.6 24.1 25.6 . . . . 2.0 9.6 13.2 . 1.8 1.7 7.0 17.4 34.5 30.9

No release 6.7 27.2 5.3 11.4 5.5 5.7 2.7 . 0.2 0.4 0.8 6.3 9.7 10.7 . . . . 0.2 3.3 5.6 . 0.4 0.1 0.5 5.8 15.2 12.5

Release 2.7 15.4 4.3 3.8 8.4 11.1 7.5 . 1.9 5.9 11.2 12.2 14.4 14.9 . . . . 1.8 6.4 7.6 . 1.3 1.6 6.5 11.6 19.3 18.4SASP . 0.5 . . 0.1 0.8 . . 0.6 . 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.4 . . . . . . . . 0.3 . . . . .No release . 0.5 . . 0.1 0.8 . . 0.2 . 0.3 . 0.4 . . . . . . . . . 0.1 . . . . .Release . . . . . . . . 0.4 . 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 . . . . . . . . 0.2 . . . . .SESP 8.2 3.6 0.6 26.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 . 12.6 1.2 12.4 2.6 18.0 1.1 1.9 11.7 4.8 11.5 1.2 1.3 1.1 . 49.2 7.4 18.7 1.2 15.4 1.1

No release 7.1 2.9 . 1.1 . . . . 9.6 0.7 3.3 0.4 16.9 0.7 1.9 8.1 1.3 0.2 1.2 1.3 1.0 . 23.4 5.2 2.3 0.3 9.3 0.9

Release 1.1 0.7 0.6 25.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 . 3.0 0.5 9.1 2.2 1.1 0.4 . 3.7 3.5 11.3 . . 0.1 . 25.8 2.2 16.4 0.9 6.1 0.2

Slash 54.2 58.3 18.4 30.8 20.5 7.2 4.9 113.2 28.9 18.6 20.7 16.8 9.8 3.5 46.6 87.7 20.6 46.0 23.7 9.8 8.0 108.8 40.8 21.1 37.8 27.2 9.1 9.6

No release 36.9 29.5 9.7 11.0 5.6 0.7 0.4 55.5 17.2 11.2 13.0 8.9 4.1 0.9 22.1 39.6 7.3 14.6 8.4 3.3 1.2 62.0 24.3 11.6 22.8 15.4 3.4 4.2

Release 17.3 28.8 8.8 19.8 15.0 6.5 4.5 57.8 11.7 7.3 7.6 7.9 5.6 2.6 24.6 48.1 13.4 31.4 15.3 6.5 6.8 46.8 16.4 9.5 15.0 11.8 5.7 5.4
114

research paper pnw-rp-601

Table 38—Percentage of total cover for species found on line transects by site, examination, site preparation, and release treatments (continued)

Site preparation and examination

Site, species, Control Burn Spray Spray and burn

and release 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7

Upperten (continued):

TSHE . 0.1 . . . 0.3 0.2 . . 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.8 0.7 . . . 0.2 . . 2.0 . . . . . . .No release . 0.1 . . . 0.3 . . . 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.5 . . . 0.2 . . 2.0 . . . . . . .Release . . . . . . 0.2 . . . . 0.2 0.2 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .VAOV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.7 . . . . . . . . . . .Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.7 . . . . . . . . . . .VAPA 1.0 1.5 . 0.1 . . . . . . 5.1 . . 0.9 . . . 1.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 2.8 . . 0.4 . . .No release 1.0 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 1.2 . . . . . .

Release . 1.3 . 0.1 . . . . . . 5.1 . . 0.9 . . . 1.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.6 . . 0.4 . . .

 Total 236 255 228 262 288 368 338 154 85 219 250 232 330 330 163 207 212 252 266 334 330 188 130 224 248 244 344 299
115

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Table 38—Percentage of total cover for species found on line transects by site, examination, site preparation, and release treatments (continued)

Site preparation and examination

Site, species, Control Burn Spray Spray and burn

and release 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Randall:

ACCI . . . . . . . . 2.8 . 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.9 . 0.5 1.1 1.0 0.3 1.2 1.6 1.4 68.7 5.4 9.1 5.7 5.9 12.9 14.9 15.7

No release . . . . . . . . 1.4 . 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.8 . 0.5 1.1 1.0 0.3 1.2 1.6 1.4 68.7 5.4 1.3 1.5 1.0 1.7 2.0 3.8Release . . . . . . . . 1.4 . . . 0.2 0.4 . 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . 7.8 4.2 4.9 11.2 12.9 11.9ADPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5

No release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5

ALRU . . 0.1 6.0 16.0 32.0 53.4 76.3 3.8 3.2 2.4 2.4 1.1 22.0 49.3 95.7 . . . 0.5 1.6 9.7 32.0 78.7 . . . 0.2 . 0.4 4.8 14.5

No release . . . 3.4 10.6 16.1 26.2 40.0 0.4 . . 0.3 1.1 17.7 32.9 66.2 . . . . 0.7 6.6 18.6 44.6 . . . . . 0.4 4.8 14.5

Release . . 0.1 2.7 5.4 15.9 27.2 36.3 3.4 3.2 2.4 2.0 . 4.3 16.4 29.5 . . . 0.5 0.9 3.1 13.5 34.1 . . . 0.2 . . . .

ATFI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3

Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3

BESP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 1.5 1.0 2.8 5.1 . . . . . . . 0.2

No release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 1.5 1.0 2.6 4.8 . . . . . . . 0.2

Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.3 . . . . . . . .

CISP . . . . 0.2 2.3 0.2 1.0 . . . 2.9 2.6 4.5 1.6 1.5 . . . . . . 0.6 . . . 0.3 2.7 0.8 1.8 1.9 .

No release . . . . . 0.2 . 0.4 . . . 1.4 1.0 3.1 0.3 . . . . . . . 0.6 . . . 0.3 2.7 0.8 0.1 0.3 .

Release . . . . 0.2 2.1 0.2 0.5 . . . 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 1.6 .

COCO . . . . . . . . 0.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Release . . . . . . . . 0.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DIFO . . . . . . 0.6 1.0 1.3 . 0.1 . . . 0.7 4.4 . . 6.1 0.9 . . . . . . 1.6 0.2 . 0.2 0.2 3.6

No release . . . . . . 0.6 0.7 1.3 . 0.1 . . . 0.5 2.6 . . 0.3 0.5 . . . . . . 0.2 . . 0.2 . 1.1

Release . . . . . . . 0.4 . . . . . . 0.2 1.8 . . 5.8 0.4 . . . . . . 1.4 0.2 . . 0.2 2.4

DIPU . . 4.3 7.5 6.4 20.8 6.9 23.8 . . 11.8 17.6 6.4 32.2 14.3 17.9 . . . 1.8 1.2 24.5 14.4 18.0 . . . 7.6 10.5 48.5 17.2 12.2No release . . 2.0 3.2 5.5 6.1 3.5 17.7 . . 0.4 7.2 5.4 8.5 2.6 1.8 . . . 0.1 0.3 2.8 3.7 4.3 . . . 5.5 7.2 14.6 5.4 4.5

Release . . 2.3 4.3 0.9 14.7 3.4 6.1 . . 11.5 10.4 1.0 23.8 11.7 16.1 . . . 1.7 0.9 21.8 10.7 13.8 . . . 2.1 3.3 33.9 11.8 7.8

EPSP . . 0.6 . . 0.4 0.2 . . . 2.2 0.8 0.7 1.7 . . . . 0.6 0.2 0.7 . . . . . 11.3 0.8 3.8 1.2 0.9 .

No release . . 0.6 . . . . . . . 2.1 0.7 0.2 0.2 . . . . . . 0.3 . . . . . 6.7 0.8 2.7 1.1 0.2 .

Release . . . . . 0.4 0.2 . . . 0.2 0.1 0.6 1.5 . . . . 0.6 0.2 0.4 . . . . . 4.6 . 1.1 0.2 0.7 .

GASH . . . . 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 . . . . . . . . 2.0 5.6 2.1 5.4 9.0 9.5 24.5 27.0 . . . . . . . .No release . . . . . 0.2 0.1 0.1 . . . . . . . . 2.0 5.6 1.6 5.0 9.0 9.2 24.5 25.3 . . . . . . . .

Release . . . . 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.4 0.4 . 0.3 . 1.7 . . . . . . . .

GRSP 29.4 22.6 76.2 31.7 21.0 11.6 15.4 29.4 8.5 4.12 30.2 107.8 88.7 87.4 51.3 34.8 20.6 27.8 76.8 51.2 37.9 23.2 24.4 5.9 9.9 0.6 19.2 109.4 91.9 40.8 62.8 47.8

No release 14.7 9.9 33.3 12.3 12.6 6.9 10.3 19.0 4.8 . 4.3 69.2 53.8 38.2 13.7 2.7 17.2 22.0 48.8 33.6 24.0 20.1 12.7 4.0 . . 18.2 75.2 57.6 20.8 25.5 20.5

Release 14.7 12.7 42.9 19.4 8.4 4.7 5.1 10.4 3.8 4.12 25.9 38.6 34.9 49.3 37.6 32.0 3.4 5.8 28.0 17.6 13.9 3.1 11.7 1.9 9.9 0.6 1.1 34.2 34.3 20.0 37.3 27.3

HEMI 3.2 4.1 7.6 7.5 12.6 31.6 56.3 33.2 8.5 1.6 9.9 10.6 25.0 33.6 33.0 24.4 0.7 4.4 5.9 19.8 15.2 27.8 49.7 71.4 . 0.5 14.2 28.0 23.6 35.2 85.5 67.2

No release 2.7 3.0 4.6 0.7 2.8 8.7 12.2 19.8 5.6 . 7.5 8.2 11.3 18.8 22.7 11.2 . . 0.2 1.8 5.9 7.2 18.7 15.7 . . 5.2 7.8 8.1 19.4 52.0 40.6

Release 0.5 1.1 3.0 6.8 9.8 23.0 44.0 13.3 3.0 1.6 2.4 2.4 13.7 14.8 10.3 13.2 0.7 4.4 5.7 18.1 9.3 20.6 31.0 55.7 . 0.5 9.0 20.2 15.5 15.8 33.5 26.6

HODI . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.44 . 1.8 . 0.3 . 0.2 . . . . . 0.2 0.2 . . . . . 0.1 0.7 2.2 2.3

No release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 . . . . . 0.2 0.2 . . . . . 0.1 0.7 2.2 2.3

Release . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.44 . 1.8 . 0.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
116

research paper pnw-rp-601 Table 38—Percentage of total cover for species found on line transects by site, examination, site preparation, and release treatments (continued) Site preparation and examination Site, species, Control Burn Spray Spray and burn and release 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Randall (continued):

LOSP . . . . . . . 15.3 . . . . . . . 0.4 . . . . . . . 2.6 . . . . . . . 2.9

No release . . . . . . . 0.4 . . . . . . . 0.4 . . . . . . . 2.6 . . . . . . . 2.9

Release . . . . . . . 14.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MOSP 15.6 9.8 20.6 . . . 1.2 2.8 53.8 1.76 10.7 . 0.2 . . 0.8 0.1 . 3.1 . 0.1 . 0.5 0.6 0.8 . 13.6 0.4 . . . .

No release 12.9 7.8 18.1 . . . 0.2 2.0 21.2 . 7.8 . . . . 0.2 . . 0.2 . . . 0.5 . 0.6 . 3.8 0.4 . . . .

Release 2.7 1.9 2.4 . . . 1.0 0.7 32.6 1.76 3.0 . 0.2 . . 0.6 0.1 . 2.9 . 0.1 . . 0.6 0.2 . 9.8 . . . . .

No vegetation . . 17.1 14.2 17.6 4.8 0.6 3.4 . . 25.6 10.4 8.8 3.5 2.6 0.1 . . 18.6 20.2 26.3 21.5 2.6 3.7 . . 40.0 11.8 12.0 15.9 2.9 2.3

No release . . 12.3 2.7 0.6 0.5 0.2 1.2 . . 12.8 5.6 1.1 2.0 0.4 . . . 8.4 6.1 6.4 14.8 1.0 1.9 . . 26.3 7.4 4.0 10.4 1.4 0.8

Release . . 4.8 11.5 17.0 4.3 0.4 2.2 . . 12.8 4.7 7.7 1.4 2.2 0.1 . . 10.1 14.1 19.9 6.7 1.6 1.8 . . 13.8 4.4 8.0 5.4 1.6 1.6

POMU 7.6 4.9 0.8 2.2 7.4 9.0 6.8 17.1 14.3 1.68 7.6 9.7 20.3 20.7 30.7 49.7 11.4 12.4 14.6 23.0 31.2 27.2 39.0 55.1 23.5 1.7 12.0 16.7 20.6 27.9 33.7 50.6

No release 7.6 4.9 0.8 2.2 7.4 8.4 5.6 15.1 13.3 . 6.1 8.2 19.2 19.3 25.6 33.3 3.1 5.2 4.8 5.0 6.8 4.6 3.6 10.6 8.9 . 10.6 15.0 18.3 22.4 26.9 34.2

Release . . . . . 0.6 1.2 2.0 1.0 1.68 1.5 1.5 1.1 1.4 5.0 16.4 8.3 7.2 9.8 17.9 24.4 22.6 35.4 44.6 14.6 1.7 1.4 1.8 2.2 5.5 6.8 16.3

PRSP . . . . 0.2 0.5 0.2 . . . . . 0.6 0.7 0.4 1.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 1.6 2.8 2.7

No release . . . . 0.2 . 0.2 . . . . . 0.4 0.7 0.4 1.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.7 1.1 0.3

Release . . . . . 0.5 . . . . . . 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7 0.9 1.8 2.4

PSME . . 0.1 . 3.4 6.1 15.7 32.5 . . 0.5 1.4 3.1 9.6 54.6 92.6 . . . 0.6 2.3 5.7 25.7 60.8 . . 0.1 2.0 5.9 18.2 63.5 101

No release . . . . 1.7 3.0 7.8 13.0 . . 0.5 1.4 2.6 8.4 34.6 45.5 . . . 0.3 1.9 4.0 14.8 26.7 . . . 1.4 3.1 4.4 24.2 40.0

Release . . 0.1 . 1.6 3.1 7.9 19.5 . . . . 0.5 1.2 20.0 47.1 . . . 0.2 0.4 1.7 10.9 34.1 . . 0.1 0.6 2.8 13.8 39.2 60.6PTAQ 83.7 47.8 86.4 144.0 131.4 121.1 93.4 73.9 5.7 . 11.6 22.9 13.2 14.1 12.4 9.3 51.7 50.2 76.2 128.6 103.2 80.0 92.4 63.3 4.1 . 1.2 5.5 1.8 3.2 6.3 4.6

No release 37.0 21.3 44.2 83.6 84.2 75.7 48.1 36.2 5.7 . 11.6 22.8 12.7 14.1 12.2 9.3 40.4 36.4 48.9 79.6 72.4 46.7 59.4 40.2 . . 1.2 5.2 1.8 3.2 6.3 4.2

Release 46.7 26.5 42.2 60.4 47.2 45.4 45.3 37.7 . . . 0.1 0.4 . 0.2 . 11.3 13.8 27.4 49.0 30.8 33.3 33.0 23.2 4.1 . . 0.3 . . . 0.3

RISA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 1.2

Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 1.2

ROGY . . . . 0.6 0.8 3.0 1.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No release . . . . 0.6 0.8 3.0 1.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 . .

No release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 . .

RUPA . . 3.0 15.0 15.8 25.6 34.4 32.1 0.5 . 0.8 4.3 8.7 18.4 35.5 46.8 . . . 5.0 6.9 12.5 32.3 40.9 . . 0.2 9.8 15.2 22.2 60.4 83.9

No release . . 2.0 7.6 11.9 9.6 15.7 13.1 . . . 2.2 8.0 16.3 31.0 28.5 . . . 2.8 4.4 5.6 15.4 19.6 . . 0.2 4.4 11.4 14.4 35.3 55.2

Release . . 1.0 7.4 3.9 16.1 18.6 19.0 0.5 . 0.8 2.1 0.7 2.1 4.5 18.3 . . . 2.1 2.5 7.0 16.9 21.3 . . 0.1 5.4 3.8 7.8 25.1 28.7

RUSP 0.5 0.3 . . 0.8 1.0 3.2 2.8 24.9 13.2 26.4 48.8 26.0 37.9 61.3 68.9 . 0.1 . 0.5 . 0.4 1.8 0.8 . . 5.7 20.8 16.2 7.2 26.3 50.6

No release . 0.3 . . 0.8 1.0 3.1 2.3 1.6 . 2.0 6.8 5.2 11.0 16.7 20.7 . . . . . 0.2 0.8 0.2 . . 0.1 0.4 1.2 2.2 6.3 15.6

Release 0.5 . . . . . 0.1 0.5 23.3 13.2 24.3 42.0 20.8 26.9 44.6 48.2 . 0.1 . 0.5 . 0.2 1.0 0.5 . . 5.6 20.4 15.0 4.9 20.0 34.9

RUVI 3.5 4.4 14.3 29.5 28.2 48.4 60.2 70.9 0.1 . 4.0 4.2 5.4 6.4 13.8 17.1 . . 0.3 1.0 4.4 5.3 13.7 26.7 . . . 0.5 0.6 3.5 12.8 16.8

No release 0.3 0.5 4.8 16.0 14.9 22.1 25.2 29.6 0.1 . 0.8 3.9 4.9 4.7 12.0 13.0 . . . 1.0 3.8 3.8 11.0 17.1 . . . 0.2 0.1 1.8 3.9 6.2

Release 3.2 3.9 9.5 13.5 13.3 26.3 35.0 41.2 . . 3.2 0.3 0.6 1.7 1.8 4.2 . . 0.3 . 0.6 1.6 2.7 9.6 . . . 0.4 0.5 1.7 8.9 10.6

SASP . . . . . . . . 8.5 3.24 1.8 8.4 5.3 8.2 27.4 15.6 . . . . 0.4 . 1.1 . . 0.1 0.2 2.9 1.1 0.4 1.8 3.9

No release . . . . . . . . 2.9 . . 1.1 1.6 2.1 6.2 4.0 . . . . . . . . . 0.1 . 0.5 . 0.2 1.0 3.3

Release . . . . . . . . 5.6 3.24 1.8 7.3 3.7 6.2 21.2 11.6 . . . . 0.4 . 1.1 . . . 0.2 2.4 1.1 0.2 0.8 0.6
117

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Table 38—Percentage of total cover for species found on line transects by site, examination, site preparation, and release treatments (continued)

Site preparation and examination

Site, species, Control Burn Spray Spray and burn

and release 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Randall (continued):

SESP 8.4 10.8 10.9 . 0.4 . . 1.0 10.0 8.2 62.4 0.6 10.4 12.7 7.5 4.6 . . 2.4 0.2 0.9 . 0.8 0.1 2.9 1.2 56.0 2.0 15.8 17.1 12.4 0.2

No release 3.5 2.4 9.3 . 0.1 . . 0.7 2.5 . 47.0 0.6 3.6 11.1 1.5 0.6 . . . 0.0 0.2 . 0.8 0.1 . . 17.2 1.6 3.2 8.4 4.6 0.2

Release 4.9 8.4 1.6 . 0.3 . . 0.3 7.5 8.2 15.3 . 6.8 1.6 6.0 4.0 . . 2.4 0.2 0.7 . . . 2.9 1.2 38.7 0.4 12.6 8.7 7.8 .

Slash 49.5 67.3 17.7 14.2 15.1 18.2 4.1 2.6 62.0 38.19 9.6 12.8 11.2 12.5 3.3 . 25.8 50.7 4.9 2.5 5.2 7.4 4.6 . 53.2 34.3 9.5 12.6 10.1 24.4 1.1 1.8

No release 36.9 36.8 10.5 3.5 2.2 9.6 1.6 2.6 39.7 17.25 2.2 3.0 1.9 2.4 0.8 . 10.5 22.0 1.6 0.6 0.3 1.8 . . 21.9 17.1 5.2 4.7 3.8 5.5 0.3 0.2Release 12.6 30.5 7.2 10.7 12.9 8.6 2.5 . 22.3 20.94 7.4 9.8 9.3 10.1 2.6 . 15.3 28.6 3.2 1.9 4.8 5.6 4.6 . 31.3 17.2 4.3 7.9 6.3 18.9 0.8 1.6

SYAL . . . . . . . 0.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No release . . . . . . . 0.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TSHE . . 0.2 0.2 1.1 1.4 3.5 19.1 . . . . . . . 0.2 . . . . 0.6 6.6 21.4 36.6 . . . . . . 2.0 7.7

No release . . . 0.2 0.3 0.8 1.8 11.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.3 1.0 1.5 . . . . . . . 0.5

Release . . 0.2 . 0.8 0.6 1.7 8.2 . . . . . . . 0.2 . . . . 0.5 6.3 20.4 35.1 . . . . . . 2.0 7.2

VAOV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 . .

No release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 . .

VAPA . . . 0.3 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 . . . . . . 0.4 . 0.1 . 0.3 0.4 0.6 2.1 0.6 . 0.4 . 0.2 0.6 0.8 . 1.4

No release . . . . 0.8 0.6 0.3 . 0.2 . . . . . . . . 0.1 . 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 . . . 0.2 0.6 0.8 . 1.4Release . . . 0.3 . . . 0.2 . . . . . . . 0.4 . . . . . 0.2 1.7 0.3 . 0.4 . . . . . .

 Total 201 172 260 272 279 336 360 440 206 76 218 268 238 327 402 488 112 152 213 263 249 265 388 499 163 44 194 240 237 284 417 496
118

research paper pnw-rp-601 Table 38—Percentage of total cover for species found on line transects by site, examination, site preparation, and release treatments (continued) Site preparation and examination Site, species, Control Burn Spray Spray and burn and release 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Poposchultz: ACCI 3.6 3.0 6.0 11.3 13.4 11.5 12.1 16.3 5.2 . . 2.1 1.8 2.1 2.7 2.8 . . . . . . . . 3.4 . 1.6 1.8 1.3 1.2 1.5 1.3

No release 2.1 0.8 2.3 2.3 5.4 5.2 6.3 8.1 1.0 . . 2.1 1.8 2.1 2.7 2.8 . . . . . . . . 1.0 . . . . . . .

Release 1.5 2.2 3.7 9.0 8.0 6.3 5.8 8.2 4.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 . 1.6 1.8 1.3 1.2 1.5 1.3

ACMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 4.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 4.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ALRU . . . . 1.1 13.7 34.4 42.6 0.8 6.5 19.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 2.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 2.9 6.4

No release . . . . 0.5 10.6 25.9 26.4 0.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Release . . . . 0.6 3.1 8.6 16.2 . 6.5 19.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 2.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 2.9 6.4

BAPI . . . . 0.1 0.5 1.1 2.0 . . . . . 2.5 2.8 1.9 . . . . 0.3 1.0 1.2 0.1 . . . . . . . 2.9

No release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 1.0 1.2 0.1 . . . . . . . 2.9Release . . . . 0.1 0.5 1.1 2.0 . . . . . 2.5 2.8 1.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CISP . . 0.6 0.4 0.3 . . . . . . 0.6 1.0 1.4 0.8 1.0 . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 . 0.3 0.0 0.2

No release . . 0.6 . . . . . . . . 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Release . . . 0.4 0.3 . . . . . . . 0.5 0.6 . 0.5 . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 . 0.3 0.0 0.2

DIFO . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Release . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DIPU . . . . . 2.2 0.3 2.6 . . . 2.4 2.7 4.3 0.9 2.5 . . . 2.6 0.8 9.2 4.0 14.0 . . . 2.1 1.1 6.4 2.4 5.5

No release . . . . . 0.6 . 0.2 . . . 0.8 2.7 4.3 . 0.6 . . . 2.6 0.6 6.2 1.4 7.9 . . . 0.1 0.6 1.3 0.9 3.5

Release . . . . . 1.6 0.3 2.4 . . . 1.7 . . 0.9 1.9 . . . . 0.2 2.9 2.5 6.1 . . . 2.0 0.5 5.1 1.5 2.0

EPSP 32.6 20.7 64.8 1.8 0.1 0.2 0.2 . . 0.1 66.4 18.2 . 0.3 . . . 1.0 23.8 0.9 . 0.2 . . 1.1 . 95.0 10.6 0.2 0.6 . .

No release 13.8 7.0 31.3 1.7 . . . . . . 31.2 3.4 . 0.3 . . . 1.0 11.3 . . 0.2 . . . . 39.1 0.9 0.1 0.6 . .

Release 18.8 13.7 33.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 . . 0.1 35.2 14.8 . . . . . . 12.5 0.9 . . . . 1.1 . 55.9 9.7 0.1 . . .

GASH 18.6 13.8 12.1 64.8 75.6 90.7 116 102 1.2 . 0.2 0.9 2.1 3.9 8.9 17.6 0.9 1.4 . 3.0 3.7 18.7 31.6 45.0 0.2 . 1.6 0.6 0.8 4.9 13.1 27.2

No release 11.2 8.6 8.3 44.2 46.0 54.3 64.5 66.2 1.2 . 0.2 0.9 2.1 3.9 8.4 17.2 0.2 0.3 . 3.0 2.7 17.0 26.8 36.3 . . . . . . 0.5 1.5

Release 7.4 5.3 3.8 20.6 29.6 36.4 51.1 35.8 . . . . . . 0.5 0.4 0.7 1.1 . . 1.0 1.7 4.8 8.7 0.2 . 1.6 0.6 0.8 4.9 12.6 25.8

GRSP . . . 19.0 14.2 3.4 3.8 0.4 19.4 6.7 39.6 165.6 170.7 65.5 168.0 54.2 0.0 1.1 8.3 31.9 30.2 23.1 41.3 9.6 0.7 . 1.7 136.3 144.8 41.4 126.4 39.0

No release . . . 8.2 10.0 0.3 0.1 . 2.0 . 14.2 88.4 83.1 38.3 84.0 26.8 . 0.3 0.2 4.2 9.6 10.6 23.3 8.5 0.0 . 1.7 88.8 84.8 23.6 75.0 11.9

Release . . . 10.8 4.2 3.0 3.7 0.4 17.3 6.7 25.4 77.2 87.6 27.2 84.0 27.5 0.0 0.8 8.1 27.8 20.6 12.5 18.0 1.1 0.7 . . 47.5 60.0 17.8 51.4 27.1

HEMI 1.0 . 4.2 17.5 14.1 31.4 24.9 7.7 12.8 . 6.6 9.6 17.8 71.9 27.3 18.2 . 0.3 . 0.1 2.7 12.3 10.3 8.8 0.7 . . 0.2 16.2 107 43.0 12.1

No release . . 2.1 10.0 4.4 12.3 9.2 1.6 5.3 . 2.4 5.2 7.4 35.1 15.3 9.4 . . . 0.1 2.0 5.6 5.7 4.8 0.3 . . . 7.3 50.4 21.8 3.8

Release 1.0 . 2.1 7.5 9.8 19.0 15.7 6.1 7.5 . 4.1 4.4 10.4 36.8 12.0 8.8 . 0.3 . . 0.7 6.7 4.6 4.0 0.4 . . 0.2 8.9 57.0 21.2 8.3

HODI . . . 0.1 . 0.8 0.6 1.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No release . . . . . . 0.2 0.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Release . . . 0.1 . 0.8 0.4 0.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LIDE . . . 0.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Release . . . 0.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LOSP . . . . . . 1.0 4.4 . . . . . . . 3.8 . . . . . . . 0.9 . . . . . . 2.0 1.2

No release . . . . . . 0.8 0.5 . . . . . . . 3.8 . . . . . . . 0.8 . . . . . . 1.6 0.7

Release . . . . . . 0.2 3.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 . . . . . . 0.4 0.5

MEFE . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No release . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
119

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Table 38—Percentage of total cover for species found on line transects by site, examination, site preparation, and release treatments (continued)

Site preparation and examination

Site, species, Control Burn Spray Spray and burn

and release 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Poposchultz (continued):

MOSP . . . . . . . . 45.3 . 2.8 . . . . . 14.1 0.4 . . . . . . 48.9 . 0.8 . . . . .

No release . . . . . . . . 30.8 . 1.6 . . . . . . 0.4 . . . . . . 35.9 . 0.8 . . . . .

Release . . . . . . . . 14.5 . 1.2 . . . . . 14.1 . . . . . . . 13.0 . . . . . . .

No vegetation . . 27.2 13.6 5.2 2.2 1.8 2.2 . . 38.4 2.8 1.8 1.5 . 0.7 . . 19.0 12.1 9.7 8.6 1.1 . . . 65.5 5.4 4.0 0.4 0.9 0.4

No release . . 15.0 6.8 2.0 1.3 1.0 1.3 . . 24.4 1.5 1.8 1.2 . 0.7 . . 12.6 8.4 9.3 8.4 1.1 . . . 41.5 1.3 0.4 0.4 . 0.2

Release . . 12.2 6.8 3.2 0.9 0.8 0.9 . . 14.0 1.3 . 0.3 . . . . 6.4 3.7 0.4 0.2 . . . . 24.0 4.2 3.6 . 0.9 0.1

POMU 18.2 11.5 13.0 22.5 31.2 31.1 26.9 42.4 16.1 . 1.6 4.9 4.4 7.2 15.4 23.2 10.0 15.8 11.4 22.1 26.4 30.5 39.4 54.2 11.1 . 2.8 2.2 0.6 1.6 7.4 16.3

No release 11.0 8.5 7.1 14.8 18.9 19.6 15.6 25.4 7.0 . 1.0 2.2 2.0 1.9 2.6 5.8 1.4 9.1 6.0 12.1 10.2 12.4 15.9 24.2 5.0 . 1.2 0.4 0.2 0.6 3.4 8.0

Release 7.2 3.0 5.8 7.7 12.3 11.5 11.3 17.0 9.0 . 0.6 2.7 2.3 5.4 12.8 17.4 8.6 6.7 5.4 10.0 16.1 18.1 23.5 30.0 6.1 . 1.6 1.9 0.4 1.0 4.0 8.3

PRSP . . . . . . . 0.1 . . . 0.8 0.2 0.8 1.0 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.2 0.3 .

No release . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 0.2 0.5 1.0 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.2 0.3 .

Release . . . . . . . 0.1 . . . . . 0.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PSME . . 0.3 1.3 2.7 8.5 22.4 41.9 . . . 1.0 1.8 25.0 90.4 148 . . . 3.4 2.5 13.9 30.2 60.4 . . 0.3 0.7 5.7 17.7 87.3 128

No release . . 0.3 1.0 1.9 5.6 12.2 13.7 . . . 1.0 1.8 13.8 38.4 82.1 . . . 0.5 1.8 7.2 14.2 30.9 . . 0.2 0.2 4.5 13.2 52.8 66.7

Release . . . 0.3 0.8 2.9 10.2 28.2 . . . . . 11.1 52.0 66.4 . . . 2.9 0.7 6.7 16.0 29.5 . . 0.1 0.5 1.2 4.5 34.4 61.7

PTAQ 5.0 9.8 15.6 38.2 30.0 18.6 18.3 5.7 0.2 . . 1.2 1.1 3.1 11.8 9.8 6.7 13.1 17.8 61.6 38.6 19.8 8.5 1.1 6.2 . 11.1 26.7 26.0 16.5 15.3 5.3

No release 3.5 5.2 9.0 28.5 22.2 14.3 15.9 . 0.2 . . 0.8 0.5 2.3 9.9 7.8 4.9 10.3 14.0 37.4 26.5 10.6 5.4 1.1 . . 2.4 7.6 11.7 13.7 9.2 3.5

Release 1.5 4.6 6.5 9.6 7.8 4.4 2.4 5.7 0.1 . . 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.8 2.0 1.8 2.8 3.8 24.3 12.1 9.2 3.0 . 6.2 . 8.7 19.1 14.2 2.8 6.1 1.8

RHMA . . . 0.9 1.7 2.2 2.2 3.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 2.4 . . . . . . . .

Release . . . 0.9 1.7 2.2 2.2 3.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 2.4 . . . . . . . .

RHPU . . . 1.3 0.3 2.0 0.3 9.4 5.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 . . . . . . . . . .

No release . . . . . . . 1.3 2.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Release . . . 1.3 0.3 2.0 0.3 8.2 3.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 . . . . . . . . . .

RIBR . . . . . 0.3 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No release . . . . . 0.3 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RULA . . . . . . . 1.1 . . . . . . 0.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No release . . . . . . . 1.1 . . . . . . 0.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RULE . . . . . . . . 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No release . . . . . . . . 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RUPA . . 0.9 6.1 6.8 8.2 14.6 12.3 0.2 . . 1.8 1.8 3.4 8.7 7.4 . . . . . 0.7 0.5 2.0 . . . 1.3 0.5 1.6 2.4 2.8

No release . . . 3.4 5.0 2.7 5.2 5.2 . . . 0.2 0.5 1.9 4.8 5.3 . . . . . . . 0.3 . . . 0.7 0.3 1.0 2.2 2.5

Release . . 0.9 2.8 1.8 5.4 9.4 7.1 0.2 . . 1.6 1.2 1.5 4.0 2.1 . . . . . 0.7 0.5 1.6 . . . 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.2

RUPR . . . . . 1.0 . 2.0 . . . . . . 6.3 1.3 . . . . . . . 12.7 . . . . . . . .

No release . . . . . 0.7 . 0.8 . . . . . . 5.0 1.3 . . . . . . . 9.9 . . . . . . . .

Release . . . . . 0.2 . 1.2 . . . . . . 1.4 . . . . . . . . 2.8 . . . . . . . .

RUSP 6.5 15.8 24.1 35.3 22.5 10.7 7.6 11.8 38.9 . 3.2 14.3 9.6 20.5 40.6 75.2 61.6 37.2 85.0 86.8 49.2 59.1 100.6 112.7 86.9 . 17.9 37.4 24.2 35.3 57.6 76.5No release 3.3 8.2 8.2 12.7 9.3 5.8 3.5 4.9 22.7 . 1.0 7.6 3.6 14.2 28.5 40.6 23.7 14.4 37.6 32.0 18.4 14.4 30.0 46.8 56.2 . 10.8 20.2 14.2 20.7 37.8 51.1

Release 3.2 7.5 16.0 22.6 13.2 4.9 4.0 6.9 16.2 . 2.2 6.7 6.0 6.4 12.1 34.7 37.9 22.8 47.4 54.8 30.9 44.8 70.6 65.9 30.7 . 7.1 17.2 10.0 14.6 19.8 25.4

RUVI 19.1 12.1 5.6 35.9 23.4 26.0 34.7 44.0 1.4 0.3 0.7 4.0 4.2 14.8 33.2 35.8 0.8 0.2 2.2 10.8 14.1 36.1 68.5 65.4 0.3 . 4.5 11.6 13.8 11.8 44.1 51.8

No release 5.1 2.5 1.8 14.2 9.8 8.1 14.3 17.2 1.3 . 0.4 1.5 3.4 7.5 17.6 20.8 0.7 0.1 0.6 6.3 8.8 21.1 46.8 37.7 . . 1.1 1.0 3.7 3.1 10.2 11.6

Release 14.0 9.6 3.9 21.6 13.6 17.9 20.4 26.8 0.2 0.3 0.4 2.6 0.8 7.2 15.6 15.0 0.1 0.0 1.6 4.4 5.3 15.0 21.7 27.7 0.3 . 3.4 10.6 10.1 8.8 33.8 40.2
120

research paper pnw-rp-601

Table 38—Percentage of total cover for species found on line transects by site, examination, site preparation, and release treatments (continued)

Site preparation and examination

Site, species, Control Burn Spray Spray and burn

and release 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Poposchultz (continued):

SASP . 0.6 0.2 0.2 . 1.0 0.1 0.4 0.7 . . 0.1 0.2 . 0.8 3.1 2.5 5.0 5.6 11.0 11.8 12.4 8.5 15.9 3.2 . 3.5 4.1 3.2 2.0 2.8 5.6

No release . . . . . . 0.1 . 0.6 . . . . . . . . 2.6 3.3 7.8 7.9 4.2 3.4 5.3 1.5 . 3.5 4.1 3.2 2.0 2.8 5.6

Release . 0.6 0.2 0.2 . 1.0 . 0.4 0.1 . . 0.1 0.2 . 0.8 3.1 2.5 2.4 2.4 3.2 3.8 8.1 5.1 10.6 1.7 . . . . . . .

SESP 7.7 1.3 . 3.2 11.4 7.3 . . 55.9 . 8.2 6.1 20.4 41.9 . 9.8 10.2 1.2 5.5 14.6 54.2 37.4 . 1.4 5.9 . 0.2 13.6 28.5 19.4 0.3 6.8

No release 7.7 0.3 . 0.5 1.8 1.1 . . 33.5 . 7.8 3.7 9.8 9.5 . 4.6 9.5 1.2 3.1 5.9 23.3 14.8 . 0.6 3.5 . 0.2 6.4 17.1 8.0 . 3.9

Release . 1.0 . 2.7 9.6 6.2 . . 22.3 . 0.3 2.4 10.6 32.4 . 5.2 0.7 . 2.4 8.8 30.9 22.7 . 0.8 2.4 . . 7.2 11.4 11.5 0.3 2.9

Slash 40.6 40.1 24.0 17.1 13.4 17.3 3.6 0.9 116 40.9 17.5 26.4 16.7 25.8 10.6 . 76.6 60.3 22.5 17.6 20.5 22.0 0.7 0.4 129.3 33.5 15.2 18.1 17.7 17.5 3.9 0.3

No release 19.5 19.9 13.5 9.8 6.0 10.1 1.2 . 62.1 13.6 5.5 9.4 7.0 10.0 2.0 . 36.6 23.4 12.0 13.2 11.3 15.2 0.7 0.4 66.1 . 6.2 5.5 6.7 8.0 1.0 0.3

Release 21.1 20.2 10.6 7.3 7.4 7.2 2.4 0.9 54.2 27.4 12.0 16.9 9.7 15.8 8.6 . 40.0 36.9 10.5 4.4 9.2 6.8 . . 63.2 33.5 9.0 12.6 11.0 9.5 2.8 .

TSHE . . . . . . 1.8 5.4 . . . . . . . 10.0 . . 0.2 1.6 4.8 13.7 31.4 62.6 . . . 1.2 2.7 7.7 16.9 22.4

No release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.3 1.1 3.1 10.6 25.9 . . . 0.9 2.0 7.7 16.7 22.4

Release . . . . . . 1.8 5.4 . . . . . . . 10.0 . . . 1.3 3.7 10.6 20.8 36.7 . . . 0.3 0.6 . 0.2 .

VAOV 3.0 4.3 1.0 . 15.3 19.8 26.2 35.4 1.0 . . . . 0.8 2.4 5.1 3.0 1.4 0.6 3.3 6.4 4.7 6.5 13.8 6.8 . 1.8 . . 2.2 3.6 10.2

No release 1.1 1.6 0.8 . 5.7 6.8 8.7 16.0 1.0 . . . . 0.8 2.4 5.1 1.3 0.4 0.6 3.3 2.6 1.0 4.0 8.4 . . 0.2 . . 1.0 1.3 3.9

Release 1.9 2.7 0.2 . 9.6 13.0 17.5 19.4 . . . . . . . . 1.7 1.0 . . 3.8 3.7 2.5 5.4 6.8 . 1.6 . . 1.1 2.3 6.2

VAPA 0.6 . . 14.8 6.5 5.4 9.8 11.8 0.4 . . 0.9 0.7 . . . 0.5 0.2 . 2.3 2.1 2.2 1.3 1.9 . . . 2.7 3.2 0.7 1.7 3.0

No release . . . 6.0 3.0 3.3 7.0 9.0 . . . 0.9 0.7 . . . 0.5 0.2 . 0.5 2.1 2.2 1.3 1.8 . . . 0.8 0.8 . . .

Release 0.6 . . 8.8 3.6 2.1 2.8 2.9 0.4 . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 . . . 0.1 . . . 1.8 2.4 0.7 1.7 3.0

 Total 157 133 200 306 289 316 365 410 322 54 204 284 279 317 457 439 187 138 202 286 278 326 387 485 305 34 223 278 295 298 436 425
121

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Table 38—Percentage of total cover for species found on line transects by site, examination, site preparation, and release treatments (continued)

Site preparation and examination

Site, species, Control Burn Spray Spray and burn

and release 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Bay’s Wolfe:

ACCI 18.8 11.6 31.1 30.4 25.6 22.4 33.6 38.8 . 4.7 2.9 2.4 2.8 5.2 10.2 11.8 11.3 8.4 20.9 21.5 23.6 12.6 27.8 31.8 3.1 . . 1.1 1.2 1.8 4.1 2.4No release 2.0 1.8 4.6 3.6 4.9 5.8 10.6 26.1 . 4.2 0.7 1.4 1.4 4.2 5.4 2.2 10.0 6.8 13.0 10.8 15.6 9.5 19.9 26.3 3.1 . . 1.1 1.2 1.8 4.1 2.4

Release 16.8 9.8 26.4 26.8 20.7 16.6 23.0 12.7 . 0.5 2.2 0.9 1.4 1.0 4.7 9.6 1.3 1.6 7.9 10.7 8.0 3.1 7.9 5.5 . . . . . . . .

AFTI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 . . . . . . . .

Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 . . . . . . . .

ALRU . . . 2.0 3.6 12.1 46.1 66.2 . . 1.2 11.8 19.6 41.4 80.5 87.7 2.1 . . 0.7 0.2 1.3 19.1 35.3 0.4 . 0.5 10.3 16.6 94.4 184.8 200.0

No release . . . 1.4 2.4 9.2 27.2 22.3 . . 1.2 6.0 11.1 20.9 33.8 32.6 2.1 . . 0.7 0.2 0.8 17.8 24.6 . . . 1.6 8.4 43.2 88.0 100.0

Release . . . 0.6 1.2 3.0 18.9 43.9 . . . 5.7 8.4 20.4 46.8 55.1 . . . . . 0.5 1.3 10.7 0.4 . 0.5 8.8 8.2 51.2 96.8 100.0

BESP . . . . . . . 0.6 . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.2 0.8 1.5 2.0 0.8 2.0 . . . . . . . .

No release . . . . . . . 0.6 . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.2 0.8 1.5 2.0 0.8 1.8 . . . . . . . .

Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 . . . . . . . .

CISP 1.3 1.2 . 5.4 4.6 6.5 3.2 . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 0.7 . . 0.3 . . . . 3.4 2.5 0.5 . .

No release . . . . . 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7 0.7 . . 0.3 . . . . 1.2 0.6 0.1 . .

Release 1.3 1.2 . 5.4 4.6 6.4 3.2 . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 . . . . . . . . 2.2 1.9 0.4 . .

COCO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 2.7 . . . 0.2 . . . .

No release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 2.7 . . . . . . . .

Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 . . . .

DIFO . . . . . . . 0.7 . . . . . . . . . 2.1 . . . . . 0.2 . . 0.2 . . . . 2.8No release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 . . . . . 0.2 . . . . . . . .

Release . . . . . . . 0.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 . . . . 2.8DIPU . . . . . 0.2 0.3 2.0 . . . . . 0.2 0.8 0.3 . . . 1.4 0.5 2.4 5.0 15.7 . . . . 0.2 0.6 0.4 .

No release . . . . . 0.2 . 2.0 . . . . . . 0.1 . . . . 1.4 0.5 1.2 1.8 9.8 . . . . . 0.3 0.1 .

Release . . . . . . 0.3 . . . . . . 0.2 0.7 0.3 . . . . . 1.2 3.2 5.9 . . . . 0.2 0.4 0.3 .

EPSP 0.8 11.4 1.2 8.4 6.0 1.3 0.4 . 0.5 7.8 2.2 7.4 7.3 2.4 . . 0.9 10.2 2.2 6.4 7.2 0.4 1.8 . . . 0.4 2.3 8.8 . . .

No release 0.8 4.8 1.0 6.2 2.4 0.7 0.1 . . 2.8 0.2 1.9 2.6 1.8 . . 0.9 6.4 1.4 4.1 1.8 . 0.3 . . . 0.2 0.5 0.8 . . .

Release . 6.7 0.1 2.2 3.6 0.6 0.3 . 0.5 4.9 2.0 5.4 4.7 0.6 . . . 3.8 0.8 2.3 5.4 0.4 1.5 . . . 0.1 1.8 8.0 . . .

GASH . . . . . . . 2.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No release . . . . . . . 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Release . . . . . . . 1.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GRSP 15.6 24.9 44.6 50.2 54.2 15.3 38.2 20.6 12.6 35.7 45.4 38.1 34.2 15.8 7.5 5.2 10.8 22.9 41.5 36.0 27.6 27.9 54.4 36.8 4.5 0.2 4.2 32.6 78.0 24.7 6.0 1.5

No release 8.1 19.4 31.6 33.4 30.8 10.8 14.3 19.0 8.9 15.6 25.4 10.7 6.4 0.6 0.2 0.2 2.6 14.0 35.2 28.2 15.2 13.1 21.1 9.9 0.9 . 1.3 11.8 42.0 12.8 2.2 1.5

Release 7.5 5.6 13.0 16.8 23.5 4.5 23.9 1.6 3.7 20.1 20.0 27.4 27.8 15.1 7.3 5.0 8.2 8.9 6.4 7.8 12.4 14.8 33.3 26.9 3.6 0.2 3.0 20.9 36.0 11.9 3.9 .

HEMI 51.3 12.0 85.2 36.8 37.3 34.3 41.0 57.4 34.5 6.2 55.5 43.0 32.0 35.7 31.4 25.8 21.4 13.6 54.4 36.2 32.1 27.0 48.1 51.0 3.7 . 12.2 17.0 28.5 26.2 17.2 25.6

No release 34.0 7.3 44.5 17.7 17.1 19.5 21.1 18.9 29.3 1.8 31.6 34.7 18.8 17.1 17.1 13.0 15.9 13.6 32.7 18.0 15.2 17.4 19.7 21.0 3.0 . 2.3 8.4 12.7 13.6 13.5 10.5

Release 17.3 4.8 40.8 19.1 20.2 14.8 19.9 38.5 5.2 4.3 24.0 8.3 13.2 18.6 14.3 12.8 5.5 . 21.7 18.1 16.9 9.5 28.4 30.0 0.7 . 10.0 8.6 15.8 12.5 3.7 15.1

HODI . . . . . . . 0.1 . . . . . . 0.3 0.1 . . . . . . 1.7 0.6 . . . . . 1.1 1.8 3.4

No release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 0.6 . . . . . 1.1 1.4 3.4Release . . . . . . . 0.1 . . . . . . 0.3 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 .
122

research paper pnw-rp-601 Table 38—Percentage of total cover for species found on line transects by site, examination, site preparation, and release treatments (continued) Site preparation and examination Site, species, Control Burn Spray Spray and burn and release 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bay’s Wolfe (continued):

LOSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 . . . . . . . .

Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 . . . . . . . .

LUSP . . . 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 . . . . . . . 2.9 . . . .

No release . . . 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 . . . . . . . 0.2 . . . .

Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 . . . . . . . 2.7 . . . .

MEFE . . . . . . 0.4 0.5 . . . . 1.2 0.7 0.9 1.3 . . . 0.1 . 0.4 . . . . . 1.2 . . . .

No release . . . . . . . 0.5 . . . . 1.2 0.7 0.9 1.3 . . . 0.1 . 0.4 . . . . . 1.2 . . . .

Release . . . . . . 0.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MOSP 29.9 . 5.1 . 0.3 . . . 15.8 5.5 6.4 . . . . . 40.6 1.6 30.4 1.2 0.2 . . . 29.0 . 80.0 0.6 . . . .

No release 18.7 . 0.4 . 0.3 . . . 8.3 . 4.6 . . . . . 17.9 0.4 6.6 . . . . . 17.0 . 50.2 0.6 . . . .

Release 11.2 . 4.8 . . . . . 7.5 5.5 1.8 . . . . . 22.7 1.2 23.8 1.2 0.2 . . . 12.1 . 29.8 . . . . .

No veg. 23.4 49.6 11.8 8.2 3.6 2.0 1.0 . 10.0 22.1 4.9 2.9 2.7 . . . 24.3 46.0 18.0 17.5 12.5 0.3 2.0 . 38.1 152.9 46.8 36.8 7.0 . . .

No release 3.5 17.9 5.0 3.6 0.4 0.5 . . 0.4 5.8 1.2 . 1.0 . . . 16.1 18.7 10.8 6.8 3.8 0.3 1.0 . 16.1 76.6 23.4 22.0 1.9 . . .

Release 19.9 31.8 6.8 4.6 3.2 1.4 1.0 . 9.6 16.2 3.7 2.9 1.7 . . . 8.2 27.2 7.2 10.7 8.7 . 1.0 . 22.0 76.3 23.4 14.9 5.0 . . .PHMA . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Release . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PISI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 1.3 2.4 . . . . . . . 0.2 . . . . . . . .

No release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 1.2 2.0 . . . . . . . 0.2 . . . . . . . .

POMU 7.1 10.5 7.7 9.8 12.8 14.8 20.4 24.2 13.6 29.4 24.4 43.8 40.1 46.1 56.1 47.1 23.5 22.0 19.3 32.2 33.2 28.9 47.0 51.3 12.3 . 4.7 8.6 13.6 11.6 23.8 25.4

No release 5.8 7.2 4.9 6.8 10.3 7.5 10.8 12.6 11.5 18.7 15.5 29.2 24.8 26.5 31.3 23.8 13.9 8.4 8.1 11.4 12.0 16.5 27.4 24.7 9.9 . 2.6 3.0 7.7 8.4 12.4 15.7

Release 1.3 3.3 2.8 2.9 2.5 7.3 9.7 11.6 2.1 10.7 8.9 14.6 15.4 19.6 24.8 23.3 9.6 13.7 11.2 20.8 21.2 12.3 19.6 26.6 2.4 . 2.1 5.6 5.9 3.2 11.4 9.7

PRSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PSME . . 0.3 1.7 3.3 11.2 47.7 80.6 . . 0.2 0.8 1.0 2.7 16.2 32.3 . . 0.5 0.5 1.5 8.2 48.4 94.5 . . 0.3 1.4 6.4 19.2 55.8 65.6

No release . . . 0.2 0.4 4.5 16.2 53.3 . . 0.2 . 0.5 0.9 2.2 10.3 . . 0.3 0.5 1.3 5.4 21.6 44.0 . . 0.2 0.4 0.8 4.3 21.0 26.4

Release . . 0.3 1.4 2.9 6.7 31.5 27.3 . . . 0.8 0.4 1.8 13.9 22.0 . . 0.2 . 0.2 2.8 26.7 50.5 . . 0.2 1.0 5.6 14.9 34.8 39.2

PTAQ . . 0.8 0.3 0.6 . . 0.9 . . . . . . . 0.1 . . 1.1 0.8 1.0 . . . . . 2.5 8.3 11.2 5.6 9.1 2.5

No release . . . 0.2 0.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 0.7 1.0 . . . . . . 3.3 4.4 1.2 2.6 1.7

Release . . 0.8 0.1 . . . 0.9 . . . . . . . 0.1 . . . 0.2 . . . . . . 2.5 5.0 6.8 4.4 6.5 0.8

RHPU . . . 0.2 . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.3 3.3 . . . . . . 0.4 3.7 . . . . 0.1 0.4 1.8 4.5

No release . . . 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 2.1 . . . . . . . .

Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.3 3.3 . . . . . . . 1.6 . . . . 0.1 0.4 1.8 4.5

RIBR . . . . . . 0.4 . . . . . . 0.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No release . . . . . . 0.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RISP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
123

Reforestation Systems Compared on Coastal Clearcuts: 10-Year Results

Table 38—Percentage of total cover for species found on line transects by site, examination, site preparation, and release treatments (continued)

Site preparation and examination

Site, species, Control Burn Spray Spray and burn

and release 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Bay’s Wolfe (continued):

RUPA . 0.2 2.4 8.8 9.7 9.8 30.6 36.2 1.3 . 9.8 30.5 25.9 39.7 64.6 62.6 . 0.4 0.4 5.1 1.7 9.7 38.8 59.9 . . 1.5 33.9 43.9 38.2 125.7 65.1

No release . . 1.7 5.4 6.2 6.4 20.0 13.8 . . 3.2 12.5 15.2 12.2 20.7 18.5 . . 0.4 3.1 1.7 4.7 23.2 32.8 . . 0.6 16.2 28.4 27.9 78.4 51.0

Release . 0.2 0.7 3.4 3.4 3.4 10.7 22.4 1.3 . 6.6 18.0 10.7 27.5 44.0 44.1 . 0.4 . 2.0 . 5.0 15.7 27.1 . . 0.9 17.7 15.6 10.2 47.3 14.1

RUSP 30.8 20.7 47.8 67.5 50.3 75.8 107.2 118.2 50.6 11.3 76.2 92.2 89.0 99.8 144.2 134.2 13.3 17.5 33.9 56.4 29.5 45.4 79.1 74.8 3.2 . 3.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.6 8.2

No release 15.4 15.9 28.4 36.6 37.8 55.4 66.8 51.2 10.9 7.3 35.9 36.7 55.1 58.0 85.0 69.5 0.9 4.8 9.4 19.4 19.5 29.9 38.8 35.4 0.9 . 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.0 3.9

Release 15.4 4.8 19.4 30.8 12.5 20.4 40.4 67.0 39.7 4.0 40.3 55.5 33.8 41.7 59.3 64.7 12.4 12.8 24.5 36.9 10.0 15.5 40.3 39.4 2.3 . 2.4 . 0.1 . 0.6 4.3

RUVI . . . . 1.4 0.7 4.8 2.2 . 0.2 . 2.1 3.4 5.7 2.6 0.2 . . . 2.0 4.9 6.3 25.1 11.7 . . 0.1 2.2 1.8 1.5 2.8 .

No release . . . . 0.2 0.1 0.4 2.2 . . . . 0.2 . 0.1 . . . . 2.0 4.9 5.5 15.5 5.3 . . 0.1 2.2 1.8 1.4 2.5 .

Release . . . . 1.2 0.6 4.4 . . 0.2 . 2.1 3.2 5.7 2.5 0.2 . . . . . 0.8 9.6 6.4 . . . . . 0.2 0.3 .

SASP . . 4.4 8.4 6.9 2.4 10.2 13.9 9.9 . 8.7 8.3 10.4 7.7 18.6 31.9 0.7 . 2.2 7.2 5.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 . . 6.4 24.6 14.6 2.4 9.4 19.8

No release . . 3.1 3.6 4.1 . 0.8 11.5 4.7 . 4.7 5.1 6.4 5.6 10.8 18.0 0.7 . 1.9 5.2 5.2 0.4 0.8 0.8 . . 2.6 13.1 7.7 2.2 3.8 5.4Release . . 1.2 4.7 2.8 2.4 9.4 2.4 5.2 . 4.0 3.2 4.1 2.2 7.8 13.9 . . 0.3 1.9 . 0.8 0.5 0.6 . . 3.8 11.5 7.0 0.3 5.6 14.4SESP 20.4 . 5.0 13.6 41.6 67.5 4.2 0.5 32.9 . 4.6 3.3 12.0 8.8 0.3 . 7.6 . 17.3 29.4 61.6 84.6 . 0.6 0.8 . 10.5 16.1 17.1 80.2 . .

No release 11.5 . 2.2 3.7 21.2 28.3 3.4 0.5 5.2 . 0.8 0.3 1.8 1.8 . . 5.5 . 9.0 18.1 32.6 32.2 . . . . 4.8 11.2 4.6 34.6 . .

Release 8.9 . 2.9 9.9 20.4 39.2 0.8 . 27.7 . 3.8 3.0 10.1 7.0 0.3 . 2.1 . 8.3 11.4 29.0 52.4 . 0.6 0.8 . 5.7 4.9 12.5 45.6 . .

Slash 23.1 54.8 33.0 22.0 27.0 17.5 5.7 19.8 46.0 77.9 31.7 32.2 24.2 11.7 2.3 22.2 38.3 59.2 36.8 18.8 18.1 8.8 1.4 10.3 85.4 44.9 37.1 29.9 18.8 26.0 . 11.9

No release 8.9 24.4 10.2 7.2 7.5 5.0 2.5 15.3 32.7 46.6 24.2 26.6 16.1 8.3 2.3 16.0 13.1 22.8 12.3 9.9 5.0 3.4 0.5 7.3 37.7 19.4 14.8 14.2 9.7 11.2 . 4.0Release 14.2 30.3 22.7 14.8 19.5 12.5 3.2 4.5 13.3 31.2 7.6 5.6 8.1 3.4 . 6.2 25.2 36.4 24.5 8.9 13.0 5.5 0.9 3.0 47.8 25.5 22.3 15.8 9.0 14.8 . 7.9

TSHE . . 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.5 1.5 3.2 . 0.4 . 0.4 0.5 0.4 5.6 0.8 . . 0.2 0.4 0.4 . 0.1 0.6 . . . . . 0.4 3.9 5.5

No release . . 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.5 1.5 0.3 . . . 0.1 0.5 0.4 2.9 0.4 . . 0.1 0.4 0.4 . 0.1 0.6 . . . . . . 0.7 2.1

Release . . . . . . . 2.9 . 0.4 . 0.3 . . 2.7 0.4 . . 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 3.2 3.4

VAOV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 . . . . . . 0.2 0.0 . . . . . . . . .

No release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 . . . . . . 0.2 . . . . . . . . . .

Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 . . . . . . . . .

VAPA 0.8 . 0.7 1.2 1.2 0.6 1.4 2.1 2.1 . 1.2 3.2 0.8 2.7 0.6 4.0 2.0 . 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.4 1.6 3.0 . . 0.4 0.2 . 0.2 . 1.4

No release . . 0.6 0.5 0.8 . . 2.0 2.1 . 1.2 3.2 0.8 2.7 0.6 4.0 1.7 . . 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.4 1.3 . . 0.4 0.2 . 0.2 . 1.4

Release 0.8 . 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.6 1.4 0.1 . . . . . . . . 0.3 . 0.2 . 0.2 . 1.2 1.7 . . . . . . . .

 Total 223 197 281 275 290 295 398 491 230 201 275 322 307 328 445 473 197 204 281 277 263 268 406 489 180 198 211 234 271 335 448 446
This Page Left Blank Intentionally
Non-Discrimination Policy 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, 

employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, 

age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, 

marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual’s 

income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in 

employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all 

prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) 

To File an Employment Complaint 

If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency’s EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case 

of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at http://www.ascr.usda.

gov/complaint_filing_file.html. 

To File a Program Complaint 

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA

Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/

complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the 

form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. 

Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 

20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at program.intake@usda.gov. 

Persons with Disabilities 

Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service 

at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish). 

Persons with disabilities, who wish to file a program complaint, please see information 

above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means 

of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please 

contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

For any other information dealing with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 

issues, persons should either contact the USDA SNAP Hotline Number at (800) 221-5689, 

which is also in Spanish or call the State Information/Hotline Numbers. 

All Other Inquiries

For any other information not pertaining to civil rights, please refer to the listing of the 

USDA Agencies and Offices for specific agency information. 
U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Pacific Northwest Research Station

1220 SW 3rd Ave., Suite 1400 

P.O. Box 3890 

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300