Jackson Site
Colletti Site
Three-foot Site
Penn Swamp Site
Bass River Site
Belleplain Sites
Stockton's Regeneration Project |
|
|
There were adequate numbers of white-cedar regeneration on the site, although the seedling and cuttings planted by Dr. Kuser were more prominent in some areas. Dr. Kuser's experiment had shown deer collars offering cedar adequate protection from deer must be at least 48 inches high and 12 inches in diameter. There were more cedar germinating on the unfenced area because it is slightly lower and hence wetter. The fenced area contained the most cedar in the 0.3 to 1.3 meter height class.
The deer density in the Colletti area are high enough to offer dramatic proof of the major reason for cedar regeneration failures on most sites in New Jersey. Even at 900 feet above the Colletti site, the area surrounded by the electric fence stands out with its high cedar density. The Hinder, while offering less but still adequate protection from deer, was too expensive and time consuming to use on any large scale. The effect of not using herbicide can be seen in the data which show no cedar in the non-herbicided area have survived the competition to grow over 1.3 meters in height.
We will remeasure this site in 2000, perhaps 2005, and 2010.
The Three-foot site was the last site added to the research, hence more time was needed to fully assess the treatment effectiveness. Since applying the herbicide a second time (the first application wasn't fully effective), the results have been very dramatic with a 'carpet' of new cedar germinants as high as 3.5 million per hectare in the electric fence in 1995!
Unfortunately there are many sites that, like Three-foot, have been illegally logged and/or disturbed but its good to know that we now have the techniques to bring cedar back to these areas.
We will remeasure this site in 2000, perhaps 2005, and 2010.
The Penn Swamp site has offered counter evidence to the effects of slash on cedar regeneration. Heretofore it was assumed slash had a long term negative effect on cedar regeneration. This research has shown that after the first year normal slash levels do not statistically affect the subsequent survival and growth of cedar. The reasons for this are still being investigated and it is hoped by the conclusion of these experiments in October 1996 some mechanisms for these results will be known.
Once again, any area outside the deer fence was stripped bare of cedar by deer. The line between fence and no fence (and no cedar!) is dramatic.
We will remeasure this site in 2000, perhaps 2005, and 2010.
The Bass River site has been exciting with its unusual clay lenses forming a bowl to catch and hold precipitation. It has served as a closed system that is offering insights into the relationship between hydrology and cedar. In the areas not inundated with water, cedar is germinating and growing successfully.
The unpredictability of sowing cedar seed was amply demonstrated on the site with at least two of the four separate seedlings yielding no results. The future of this little 'wet island' will be carefully monitored for more vital information on cedar and water.
We will remeasure this site in 2000, perhaps 2005, and 2010.
In terms of regenerating white-cedar, the food-patch site is patchy at best. The non-food-patch site has seen very limited success with the last planting of cuttings having a 60% survival rate. The knowledge gained, particularly about seeding, transplanting seedlings and cuttings, and hydrologic/soil interactions has been great. In the aerial view of the non-food-patch, a beautiful white-cedar plantation started in the 1930's can be seen. Why these trees survived and most of ours didn't can be summed up by one word: drought. Planting seedlings or cuttings that are at least one foot tall are a must on mineral soils such as found on Belleplain.
