Canadian Forest Service Publications
Integrating Silvicultural Control of Mountain Pine Beetle with Wildlife and Sustainable Forest Management Objectives. 2007. Chan-McLeod, A.C. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, BC. Mountain Pine Beetle Initiative Working Paper 2007-05. 34 p.
Available from: Pacific Forestry Centre
Catalog ID: 26807
CFS Availability: PDF (download)
The objective of this project is to generate information that would guide integrated silvicultural control of mountain pine beetle with wildlife and sustainable forest management objectives. Avian response to eight treatments was evaluated: 1) bark-beetle recovery blocks smaller than 15 ha; 2) megablocks larger than 200 ha; 3) 20% retention in primarily aggregates; 4) 20% retention in primarily dispersed stems; 5) 10% retention in primarily aggregates; 6) 10% retention in primarily dispersed stems; 7) clearcuts; and 8) beetle-infested unharvested controls. Our results indicated that mature forest-dwelling bird species were generally most abundant in controls, intermediate in partial retention treatments, and least abundant in or absent from clearcuts. The grouped retention treatments were sometimes more effective than the dispersed retention treatments in maintaining mature forest-dwelling species, whereas the 20% treatments were sometimes more effective than the 10% treatments. Cutblock size was not a major determinant of resultant bird community. Future partial harvesting strategies must consider the risk of windthrow. Douglas-fir veterans had the lowest risk of windthrow and should be retained in dispersed treatments, whereas hybrid white spruce had the highest risk and should be retained in aggregates. Aggregate patches should be at least one hectare in size to minimize windthrow. We recommend deciduous species be retained whenever possible, as they have high wildlife value but were relatively scarce in the study area. Coarse wood debris volumes were similar in patch and dispersed retention blocks, but averaged approximately 50% lower in controls. Aspen was most susceptible to wind damage, followed by birch, Douglas-fir, spruce, lodgepole pine, and subalpine-fir.