Cedar Research Working Group Meeting Report
Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, October 22, 2013 Prepared by: Cosmin Filipescu, Dominique Lejour, Ross Benton, Tom Bown, Antoine Lalumière
Introduction “A truckload of hemlock is worth $1,700 while a truckload of cedar poles is worth $10,000.” (comment from the meeting)
Preliminary consultations to establish the Cedar Research Working Group were conducted during the spring and summer of 2013. These consultations indicated a high level of interest and support from numerous stakeholders. It was also recognized that the group should build on the legacy of knowledge generated by several previous initiatives and workshops over the last couple of decades. The inaugural meeting of the Cedar Research Working Group brought together 30 delegates representing federal and provincial governments, universities, FPInnovations, forest industry, business, and consulting communities. The meeting was designed to explore and discuss a variety of topics from regeneration to final products. The meeting took place at the Pacific Forestry Centre (PFC) in Victoria on October 22, 2013. This document synthesizes the group discussions, outcomes and plan of action. The meeting report attempts to capture all relevant details of the first meeting of the Cedar Research Working Group. A formal organizational structure for the Group was also initiated. The meeting was structured (and reported herein) as follows:
Notes:
Outline and list of participants; Brief introduction of participants and their individual expectations; Café style conversation - the group was split into five small groups to discuss several issues relevant to cedar research: o Ecology, Pathology, Climate Change, Forest Health o Silvics, Genetics, Reforestation, Wood Quality o Modeling, Data, Remote Sensing and Sustainability o Industry, Harvesting & Non-timber Products o Marketing, Processing, Technology, and Economics Review and discuss Terms of Reference, followed by decisions on how the group organizes and governs itself; Brainstorming on research priorities.
Unless specifically referenced, in this report cedar, redcedar, WRC or Cw refer to western redcedar (Thuja plicata). Special thanks go to Ross Benton, Tom Bown, Dominique Lejour, Antoine Lalumière and Judi Beck who were instrumental in planning and organizing this meeting.
1
Outline – First Meeting – Cedar Research Working Group – October 22, 2013
9:30 - 9:45
Welcome Safety Background
9:45 - 10:45
Individual check-ins Participant Introductions Expectations
10:45 - 11:00
Break
11:00 - 12:15
Cedar Tree Exercise – All About Cedar Trees
12:15 - 1:15
Lunch
1:15 - 2:30
Terms of Reference - Review and discussion Nominate secretariat
2:30 - 2:45
Break
2:45 - 3:45
Brainstorm on setting research priorities Next steps - Where do we go from here?
3:45 - 4:00
Summary and check-out
2
List of participants – Cedar Research Working Group – PFC, Victoria, October 22, 2013 Name
Institution
Position
Expertise
Email
Cosmin Filipescu
CWFC/CFS/FPI
Research Scientist
Resource
[email protected]
Rona Sturrock
CFS
Research Scientist
Pathology
[email protected]
Pamela Reece
CFS
Researcher (casual)
Pathology
[email protected]
Elizabeth Campbell
CFS
Research Scientist
Ecology
Kendrick Brown
CFS
Research Scientist
Paleoecology
[email protected]
Louise de Montigny
MFLNRO
Research Leader
Silviculture
[email protected]
John Russell
MFLNRO
Research Scientist
Breeding
[email protected]
Paul Morris
FPInnovations
Research Leader
Durability
[email protected]
Rod Stirling
FPInnovations
Senior Scientist
Extractives
[email protected]
Janet Mitchell
FPInnovations
Assoc. Research Leader
Silviculture
[email protected]
Ken Byrne
FPInnovations
Researcher
Harvesting
Ken.Byrne@FPInnovations
Jim Goudie
MFLNRO
Team Lead
Modeling
[email protected]
Sinclair Tedder
MFLNRO
Sr. Bio Economist
Economics
[email protected]
Del Williams
Forest Practices Board
Silviculture
[email protected]
Cindy Prescott
UBC
Manager, Audits and Investigations Professor
[email protected]
Barbara Hawkins
UVic
Professor
Soil ecology, nutrition Physiology
Joe Antos
UVic
Adj. Professor
Ecology
Annette Van Niejenhuis Rob Sandberg
Western Forest Products Teal-Jones
FIA Coordinator
Fertilization
[email protected]
Forester
Operations
[email protected]
Rick Monchak
TimberWest
Operations Forester
Operations
[email protected]
Deirdre Bruce
TimberWest
Forester
Operations
[email protected]
Lisa Meyer
MFLNRO
Seed Orchards
Iola Elder
Sylvan Vale Nursery
Seed Orchard Supervisor Co-owner
Ron Elder
R.J.F. Elder For. Cons.
Consultant
Management
Dave Jones
Xylon
President and CEO
Kelly Crosby
Natural Air Quality Inc
President
Cedar products Cedar oils
Bryce Bancroft
Symetree Consulting
Principal Consultant
Management
Roberta Parish
Azura ForMetrics
Consultant
Modeling
Jordan Benner
SFU
Grad student
Ecology, FN
[email protected]
Juan Aldana
UVic
Grad student
Physiology
[email protected]
3
Nurseries
[email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Brief introduction and expectations by each participant Rona Sturrock. Works on Phellinus and WRC at PFC and would like to know who is interested in Cedar and why and what research questions other may have. Elizabeth Campbell. Works in forest ecology at PFC and disturbance dynamics and is looking for collaboration opportunities. Joe Antos. Plant ecologist at UVic who is interested in the dynamics of cedar as it’s a complex species that grows and rots rapidly, offers new opportunities, and there are many questions on its role in nature, factors affecting amount of sapwood, extractives and 2nd growth. Expectations are sharing of research, possible collaboration and wanting to hear industry’s perspective. John Russell. Works at Cowichan Research station; genomics work with UVic. Would like to know what everyone is doing, formalization of what we already know and what gaps can be identified. Rob Sandberg. Is a forester working for Teal-Jones who is here to collaborate and feels it’s important for industry to provide feedback. Lisa Meyer. Is a seed orchard supervisor (MFLNRO) and is here to learn as much as she can about Cedar. Pamela Reece. Works at PFC with Rona and is looking to make connections and gather information which may help with her literature review. Barbara Hawkins. Professor at UVic Is interested in the unique qualities of Cedar and its growth relationship with mycorrhiza and wants to know who is conducting what research on Cedar. Janet Mitchell. Works at FPInnovations and is interested in finding out about Cedar research and silvicuture and creating connections. Paul Morris. Works at FPInnovations and is interested in the durability of WRC and hopes to identify synergies between research at FPInnovations and the work elsewhere on durability. Rod Stirling. Works at FPinnovations in the durability group and would like to get to know others in the field and ways to maximize the value of research in WRC. Sinclair Tedder. Is an economist with MFLNRO and has done some work with First Nations groups in Port Alberni and wants to know what others are doing and where his research might fit in. Ken Byrne. Works at FPInnovations and is interested in maximizing value from harvesting of Cedar and wants to find out what the research needs are and is looking for feedback and support. Del Williams. Works at the Forest Practices Board and is a silviculturist and forester. He would like to know who is working with Cedar and find out more about their research. Iola Elder. Co-owns and operates Sylvan Vale Nursery, involved in growing cedar. Rick Monchak. Works at TimberWest and feels the market for 2nd growth cedar is very impressive and that First Nations want opportunities for marketing WRC products. Has an interest in growth and yield. Ron Elder. Is a consulting forester who wants to learn more about what is being done and believes that WRC is not at the present being used to its full potential. 4
Bryce Bancroft. Consulting forester, involved in retention and managing for desired characteristics would like to see some forward momentum. Deirdre Bruce. A forester for TimberWest wants to meet people, hear ideas and see where the research is focusing. Kendrick Brown. Scientist at PFC, Has worked in Cedar climate interactions and hopes to meet new potential collaborators and assess research needs. Jim Goudie. Is with the Provincial Inventory branch (MFLNRO) and his work is focused on modeling (TASS, SYLVER). Annette Van Niejenhuis. WFP, Has worked with WRC and Yellow Cypress and is interested in research direction and finding more resources. Kelly Crosby. Works on indoor air quality using WRC oil vapors and is interested in high performance cedar trees. David Jones. Works at Xylon biotechnologies on the extraction of fine chemicals from cedar. Is concerned about global warming, sustainability, loss of biodiversity, increasing certified managed forests and improving on nature. Juan Aldana. UVic grad student with Barbara Hawkins, interested in mechanisms of resistance of WRC to leaf blight and would like to get to know more people working with WRC. Louise de Montigny. Works in growth and yield and silviculture with the Research Practices Branch of MFLNRO and sees the need for collaboration and working with clients to know what’s needed. Would like to review the Terms of Reference in the hopes of moving forward. Jordan Benner. SFU Grad student, has worked in ecosystem management with First Nations partners on the Central Coast of BC. Also forest manager on Quadra Island where there is not a lot of cedar left; expensive techniques of planning out cutblocks around the remaining cedar and there are issues with deer browsing. Cindy Prescott. Joined us on the phone from UBC where she works in ecology and nutrition. Cosmin Filipescu. Ecophysiologist with Canadian Wood Fibre Centre (CFS) and Resource Assessment Program (FPInnovations), works in resource optimization, researches the influence of ecology/silviculture on fibre properties and potential products.
5
Expectations as listed by the participants
To create some direction and opportunities to manage CW for desired characteristics - possible CW zones or priority areas - creation of cedar strategies both for retention and new standards Meeting: worth it; have fun Agreement or modification to the Terms of Reference so we are clear about what we do To learn – who is interested in WRC and why - what are some of the ‘big’ research questions around WRC Share Cw research information - what is happening? – who is leading? – influence Cw research direction - obtain resources for Cw research Know people working on cedar and what they are studying - Explore opportunities for funding/leverage - Establish effective operating plan for cedar working group - Maximize value of current research on cedar Understand key management issues – key research areas/needs – opportunities for collaboration, i.e. government agencies and industry Coordination and communication of the various research problems and projects associated with yellow and red cedar - What are the problems? – How can we fund research to address these problems? – How can we assemble the best team to approach these problems? Lobby group for cedar research - “Formalization” of research needs, perhaps a comprehensive document on what is known, what is currently being studied, and what is lacking Research needs assessment with respect to harvesting systems – testing methods to reduce breakage/save costs associated with harvesting in old and second growth stands – acquire feedback and cooperator support for current project ideas Future health of the forest – Certification and sustainability – Forest management for the future – Improvements on nature Get an overview of current/future cedar research projects and see if there is an opportunity for collaboration with silviculture program Learn about cedar – update on red cedar – explore new research needs – meet new potential collaborators Further the understanding of red cedar ecology as an overall goal that provides info for more effective management – Today; contribute to ideas and plans to foster such a goal Build on the past – Long term sites – Identify what we need to do near to distant future – Determine all of the values, products to cultural Identify synergies between our research at FPInnovations into durability of WRC and other work elsewhere – Opportunity to raise the profile of WRC research and attract funding Create a network of colleagues working close in WRC for the benefit of British Columbians Learn about current research on cedar – Discuss research needs – Learn about the status of Cedar in BC and beyond To know what people are doing and how that may link to my work To hear the different perspectives with regards to cedar management, inventory, health and future research and management – get a good overview of the CW industry and listen to different perspectives.
General Comments on Expectations: Knowledge exchange appeared to be the primary expectation. Collaboration, setting Terms of Reference for the group, identify funding sources, best management practices, and identifying research needs were also high on the list of expectations.
6
Cedar Tree Exercise – All about Cedar trees A learning organization and community of practice (LoCOP) approach was used. Each discussion group was assigned a “waiter” to facilitate and capture notes.
1) Ecology, Pathology, Climate Change, Forest Health Table Comments from Participants (as written):
Abiotic amplitude - large in WRC? Is it limited by competition? Regeneration from layering vs. seed. Temperature and moisture limited. Is shade tolerant but can do well in ‘open’ but gets outcompeted. Role of vesicular- arbuscular mycorrhizae in regen & survival & perhaps susceptible to decay? Regeneration ecology - exact conditions for establishment & early growth? Is it a stress tolerator with innately low growth (relatively) & thus fairly low nutrient requirements? Potential threats from introduced forest pests, pathogens, imports, hybrids introduced crossing with native pathogens Provenance trials ICH & coast, seed zones in the interior. J Russell Does fertilization affect leaf and heartwood chemicals, positive, negative? Understand abiotic amplitude and biotic amplitude > regeneration ecology- post harvestclimate induced cedar decline > range expansion in interior? > fire > new climate habitats > responses to climate change > productivity and growth> fire ecology Pioneering heartwood fungal spp.– detoxifying fungal spp.– early detection of defense genes– Powder worm in the Cdf/xm zone cedars – causing mortality on junipers/cypress in SW U.S. clearcut in the Cdf zone increase powder worm? Regeneration ecology - red cedar decline & climate change - not nutrient demanding – poor competitor relative to w. hemlock - different decay fungi at different sites in the tree? Nitrogen favours WRC? Does WRC often follow alder? Negrave & Van Niejehuis trials Done or ongoing work: cedar leaf blight - ungulates (deer) browsing - what’s missing? - how will the species respond to climate change? Will it expand its range or will it shift it?
Additional notes from the Waiter: This table generated some lively discussion which opened with the following quote “Cedar is a complex species that does not fit typical norms”. General topics discussed are listed below. Regeneration:
cedar has high variability and may be limited by competition but does not respond to competition like other species - suggestion to look at the work of Lori Daniels regeneration and ecology need more research - fire need to understand interior vs. coastal cedar how will climate change affect regeneration; shift, expand or contract the range mosses may be an issue need better understanding of cedar physiology – drought stress – rooting planting with or regenerating with mixed species and best ratios could be a winner with climate change what causes the candelabra tops? 7
Silvicultural requirements for poles Durability vs. growth rate Slow growth does not respond well to rapid growth
Nutrition:
responds to fertilizer but not like other species –nutrition complex may contribute to enriching a site More Calcium and Phosphorus demanding Negrave and Van Niehjenhuis fertilization just with nitrogen
Genetics:
Genetic diversity may be low but adaptive - low diversity was challenged - it was stated it has as much diversity as other species Interior vs. coastal variants more research
Pathology, Pests and Responses:
Rot issues - need to know what is anecdotal vs. scientific fact Kethia leaf blight diversity of pathogen not looked at - responds best to mild humid climate effect of climate change Can pruning be an entry for pathogens? Deer browse issues and protection - high terpenoids a deterrent - resin glands in foliage Do they produce more under stress or high nitrogen, different silviculture - hard to research? Pioneering defense genes need to be better understood Cedar powder worm issues especially with warmer drier climate What introduced pests could damage cedar (pests or pathogens)
Summary of identified research opportunities: (in no particular order)
Better understand interior and coastal populations of WRC Effects of climate change on the range of WRC Regeneration of WRC and effects of fire Continue to research mixed species with WRC Continue research on the complex nutrition of cedar. Research environmental, silvicultural and genetic aspects of cedar oil Pest and pathogen threats, introduced or exacerbated by changing climate
2) Silvics, Genetics, Reforestation, Wood Quality Table Questions, issues, and comments noted by the participants:
Browsing resistance breeding program, also forest health and pests, leaf blight, wood durability, climate change Breed durable populations – broad spectrum of resistance: chemical, toxicity, terpenes Deer resistant – do not like the smell, the toughness (palatability) – a learned behaviour 8
Mixing species to find the level that deer will not be attracted to We may lose volume gain by breeding for other characteristics Cost has been an issue in the past, avoiding Cw decreases the value of our asset, need to reestablish and find the right balance Natural regeneration tends to make it through (slash protection, though spotty) Various silvicultural tools: age, plug size, cuttings; larger stock has increased terpenes (possibly due to fertilization?) Haida – tough time getting cedar established; no local seed, forced to use class A seed Pitt Lake – elk introduced, large population, openings created, leads to mixed species stands (alder comes in) Wood quality issues: crown, pruning, links to sapwood and chemicals (tropolones); is there benefit in pruning? Silviculture and genetics should work together to create resistance How much natural variation there is, and how is it structured spatially? Could indicate a bottleneck if there is no genetic variation (research is conflicting) Cw growth – a class gain (20% on the coast), but Hw will compete, and relegate Cw to understory species Cw could be more adaptive on poor sites where growth similar to Fd – operational trial? TASS sampling – crown, branches, growth rates – not much rot Wood quality = tree quality Oil – could be used in hospitals to kill pathogens
3) Modeling, Data, Remote Sensing and Sustainability Table
TSR – TFL 47 (Rick Monchak) Silviculture vs. inventory label What’s growing vs. what’s being logged By site series – What’s growing at free growing (65% Fd, 2nd spp is Hw, 3rd is Cw) yield tables Logging Hw second-growth – Planting mixed (lots of Cw) If not browsed will Cw retain its height advantage over Hw at ages 60-70? Harvest timing? What metrics to use for timing (volume vs value vs return)? Operational interest in pruning and modeling pruning, extractives, oils, especially if returns from these pay for the pruning. Also yields clear wood. Age 10 free growing, Hw comes up. Age to breast height (reduce?) Private stands – shorter rotations; Public lands – longer rotations Implications for stumpage with respect to poles Poles have very high value – can’t damage stems
LiDAR - Species determination via LiDAR would be tremendously useful to industry LiDAR being used for road layout with large $ savings LiDAR costs will decrease Need to increasingly translate LiDAR info/rationale to cost/benefit (savings)
9
Remote sensing to detect large Cw – predictive models First Nations concern for “monument” Cw (nomenclature soon to become “Large Cultural Cw”), in light of capacity to detect them remotely. Should we be harvesting these at all? Is there value in just knowing they are out there? Is harvesting these trees sustainable? What is the social cost? Heritage cost? Use LiDAR to improve efficiency of forestry, which can help sustainability reduce our overall environmental footprint with more geographically-focused forestry?
TASS III allows multiple cohort mixed species Growth & Yield – Valuation – TASS III has a pole product category TASS III – Cw: The data are there. Time and expertise (people) to work on this are the limiting factors. The model is first and foremost modeling Pl, Sw, Hw, Fd. Only n=60 Cw in TASS calibration. Need more data, but cost is ~$3000/tree in the field, not counting data processing or further model work. High cost of data. Provenance of data affects applicability of models. TASS is programmed in C. – Bridging the gap between computer intensive work and knowledge of biology: ecology, forestry, tree growth, etc… R vs. SAS – costs are an issue (SAS license cost), compare to open source software Software portability is beneficial (R vs. SAS), TASS III?
Sustainability of old growth. What is sustainability? Long-term supply Model long-term management (hundreds of years)? Tenure reform? (Political) Inventory methods – Management of the profile, policy Sustainability – Is it a buzz word? Life cycle analysis of Cw products compared/contrasted with other spp. Carbon + other metrics – Is Cw preferable? Policy issues Rework?
4) Industry, Harvesting & Non-timber Products Table Opportunities exist for small boutique companies to integrate with larger companies. There’s need for products and a need to streamline harvest of whole trees, for primary timber by larger companies, and secondary harvest for production of NTFP’s from “waste” products by smaller companies. But…
Linkages are missing between industry and forest operations and more cooperation is needed between larger harvesting companies and smaller industries. There are concerns about lack of oversight/regulations leading to decimation of some sites.
10
Advantages must be present for all concerned. For example, if a company must be responsible for regulating and overseeing harvest for NTFP’s, then there needs to be something in it for them. Concerns about whole tree harvesting and leaving required biomass in forests and the impact on soil organics. How do we maximize value and production of cedar assets through optimum densities, rotation, and also take into account decay incidence and variability between sites? More research is needed on branches, extractives, etc…we know about boles but not branches. How do we reduce costs to get all products to market? How do we generate added value at the local community level?
What is the market demand and what is the supply (volume) of “waste” material required for various NTFP? I.e.: Cedar oil, biofuels, bark for cultural purposes etc.
5) Marketing, Processing, Technology, and Economics Table Questions, issues, and comments noted by the participants:
How do resource characteristics affect end product performance? Marketing strategies for small producers to reach high value niche markets. Get proper raw materials to the right users. NTFPs to cover the costs of silvicultural techniques and applications. Technologies to improve product attributes, e.g. reduce checking, enhance decay resistance, reduce fungal and extractive staining, and enhance termite resistance. Optimize uses for juvenile wood Enhanced cedars from genetic selection Boost height for pole value increase Poles – pruning slows girth growth, produces taller trees, the bows are left behind for NTFP use What is the main market for Cw (Western Red Cedar)? o Shakes / shingles o Siding o Fencing o Decks o Inside and outside panelling o Major buyer is the USA o Now there is more in Europe – mostly eastern Europe Exterior panels a new market product out of BC What don’t you know about Cw to help market research? o Cw leaf oil for control/eliminations of bed bugs, moths, or viruses Allergies o Plicatic Acid is the element that causes the reaction. The oil extraction process leaves the plicatic acid as a by-product. The cedar oils cannot be synthesized at present. Quantities of Cedar foliage required; o 1000 lbs (~450 kg) of cedar foliage produces 14 – 20 lbs (~6.5 – 9 kg) of cedar oil o Live pruning is required (fresh foliage) – 40% of tree pruned 11
o Need roughly 12 trees to produce 1000 lbs (~450 kg) of leaves o On average it takes about 12 hours for one person to harvest 1000 lbs (~450 kg) Links between forest companies and NTFP producers need to be enhanced / strengthened to supply the materials required.
Additional notes from the Waiter
Cedar has a wide variety of potential products. There are more smaller mills working with cedar particularly in the interior of BC where the marketing is tighter with; o Specialty mills o Specialty markets E.g. butt flared cedar for homes, salvaged stumps for landscape décor. Potential research topic – differences between interior and coastal cedar characteristics There are challenges of finding niches for marketing. How do small operators compete? Cedar products markets tend to be value driven versus the volume driven market of other species. There are potential opportunities to get small mills to collaborate Links need to be more clearly defined between the raw material and finished products particularly with regard to the characteristics desired downstream. Technology development; o More than just wood o Using knowledge of multiple regime for products (interim (mid-rotation) and final) o Filtering money back to producers (for mid-rotation products) Look at options to market vs. other products Alternative manufactured wood products potential research o What can juvenile wood do? o What characteristics are desirable? How about looking at higher density and lower density plantings (stocking)? How about looking at mixed species planting for further value? For poles – the value increases significantly and quickly with length. Pruning promotes length (height) growth. What are the main products? o Siding o Fencing o Decking Building products market in Eastern Europe is developing Potential research: o New markets for pest control (e.g. cedar oil for moth, bed bug, and virus control) o Marketing non-timber forest products (NTFPs) o Developing new medications Proving products are safe (from allergens, etc) e.g. cedar oil; o Known allergens are only in the green stem wood, not in the vegetation. o At present some components of cedar oil(s) cannot be synthesized. There is a need to foster links between the land / forest managers with the users (all the players)
12
Summary of identified research opportunities – Table 5 (in no particular order)
What are the differences between interior and coastal cedar characteristics? How do resource characteristics affect end product performance? Optimize uses for juvenile wood, what can juvenile wood do? What characteristics are desirable? New markets for pest control (e.g. cedar oil for moth, bed bug, and virus control) How can NTFPs be developed to cover the costs of silvicultural techniques and applications. Marketing non-timber forest products (NTFPs) Developing new medications What don’t you know about Cw to help market research? Links between forest companies and NTFP producers need to be enhanced / strengthened to supply the materials required. Marketing strategies for small producers to reach high value niche markets. How do you get proper raw materials to the right users. What technologies can be utilized / developed to improve product attributes. e.g. reduce checking, enhance decay resistance, reduce fungal and extractive staining, and enhance termite resistance.
13
Review of Terms of Reference The afternoon part of the meeting started with a review of proposed Terms of Reference. Group discussions at tables focused on: What’s Good, What’s tricky, What’s missing / need to change? Each table reported main pointers back to the group.
The Good
Broad focus, inclusive group, multi-agency participation Good representation by industry and final users Good organization and effective moderators Team-work and collaborative framework Recognition of need to collaborate Collaboration on funding opportunities – a big advantage
The Tricky
Objectives – could be a bit challenging to define Ownership of data; rules and protocols around use/sharing of data Timing: Fall could be a bit tricky to coordinate meetings Frequency of meetings; and types of meetings to have “Support” – what does that mean exactly More involvement of First Nations (FN) (members to involve their FN contacts) “Confidentiality” – should probably be removed; foresters are open and want to share Deliverables – have a clear process of decision “Timber and non-timber” – could be replaced by “business” How do we involve our American colleagues? Expand beyond BC? “Production” – should we have this in Terms of Reference? Roles and responsibilities – define more clearly Equal representation – not the “squeaky wheel gets all the grease”
The Missing/Change/ Do diff
Develop summary of past research Identify/lobby for funding sources Find an effective way to share data and information (website or blog, Facebook, LinkedIn?) Participation of FN Develop a process to measure success, a qualitative and quantitative survey Have a workshop / conference with presentations Include more industrial members (milling and lumber) Knowledge exchange – make results available to foresters Interior and Coastal Where is Yellow Cedar Communication – establish a distribution list Meeting – at least once a year Goals – what types of goals, time (short-term and longer-term)
14
The ensuing discussion was very lively. Several aspects were discussed further:
Organizational structure – it was noted that formalizing the structure will ensure the longevity of the group, as previous initiatives did not last, partly because of a lack of formal structure Decision-making process: for now simple majority (half plus one) Advisory Committee with members representing: provincial government, federal government, industry, FPInnovations, and universities. The Advisory Committee will meet subsequently and decide on: a Chair, an Alternate Chair, a Secretary, and 2-3 Members at Large. Members of Advisory Committee: Cosmin Filipescu, Annette Van Niejenhuis, Rod Stirling, Louise de Montigny, John Russell, and Jordan Benner It was agreed that the Terms of Reference is a “living” document that will be re-visited as needed Redcedar and yellow cypress: a motion was tabled and passed by majority that the group should start with redcedar only (for now), with an understanding that yellow cedar could be included in the future; it was noted that limited resources may affect ability to deliver on both species First Nations representation: several were invited, none able to attend the first meeting; the Group members will spread the word to encourage FN participation in the future American presence: if funding is the main focus, then maybe remaining strictly a Canadian group is the way to go, but if the goal is sharing of information, then we should be including colleagues from the United States. Could be both about funding and sharing of information? Confidentiality: Are there potential liability issues? Legal liability for losses suffered by companies from sharing of information? Meetings – field tours needed; perhaps combine with CSC Coastal Silviculture Committee (in 2015?), also possible with Southern Interior Silviculture Committee in the future Research Workshop – a colloquium to share knowledge and research results? Produce a Newsletter – once a month, or once every two months – members send relevant information to the secretary who will compile and share with the Group Knowledge exchange – Look into effective ways to make this happen Need to summarize past research – exact process and plan of action to be discussed further Meet next in Spring 2014 – at Cowichan Research Station (exact date TBD – possibly April 2014); Option for overnight with a small cost associated and a half day field trip.
15
Proposed Cedar Research Working Group Terms of Reference October November 2013 Purpose The Cedar Research Working Group is an inclusive group whose members support research in western redcedar. The Group includes researchers from the provincial and federal government agencies, FPInnovationsresearch institutes, universities, and consultants; timber and non-timber industry practitioners and consultants; and First Nations and natural history representatives. Core functions of the group include
Promoting the long-term sustainability and viability of western redcedar production and its associated benefits (economic, social, environmental) Identifying ongoing research priorities, emerging research needs, and knowledge gaps Providing a platform for collaboration and knowledge exchange Developing integrated collaborative research proposals to target various sources of available funding Addressing issues such as application of research into practice and research uptake by final users
Membership The group is initially open to Canadian individuals and organizations working in western redcedar research and/or interested in outreach, communication and application of research results.
Roles and responsibilities of members All members of the Cedar Research Working Group will
Work in a climate of trust and respect based on open and honest communication Respect the confidentiality of information shared amongst the Group members Contribute to the timely and consistent implementation of deliverables as decided by the Group
Secretariat Advisory Committee The Cedar Research Working Group will be co-ordinated by a representative an Advisory Committee who that will be nominated selected as a volunteer chair person to serve a term of one year (with possible renewals). The chair personAdvisory Committee will have 5 or 6 members representing stakeholders: provincial and federal government, industry, research institutes, and universities. The Advisory Committee will nominate a Chair, an Alternate Chair, and a secretary; remaining individuals will be members at large. The Advisory Committee will ensure that the annual meeting and any additional meetings are organized, and that records of meetings together with action items are circulated. 16
Meetings and Reporting The Group will meet at least once annually (in the fall). An annual workshop and/or field tour will be organized and coordinated in conjunction with the annual fall meeting. The frequency of meetings may increase as agreed by the members of the Group. Teleconference meetings may be called to discuss topics important to the Group in between annual meetings. Action items will be circulated withdistributed to the Group members at least one week prior to each meeting. Action items will identify due date and responsibility. Records of every meeting will be shared with the Group.
17
Brainstorming on research priorities The meeting ended with a brainstorming session on research priorities. The following is a list of suggested topics as transcribed from post-it notes written by participants. These topics are not listed in any particular order. There was no or limited discussion of these priorities. A follow-up and in-depth analysis of research priorities will be required at future meetings.
Deer resistance breeding research Browse resistance stock research Produce a reference genome of WRC Continue Growth and Yield modelling: crowns, boles, stands New study looking at cedar oil in trees of different social position and ecosystem Collection and addition of Interior cedar data for TASS model (currently done) Predictive modelling of monumental cedar Research on management and regimes for different end products Develop a database devoted exclusively to information on WRC Know our inventory of Cw on landscape Effects of pruning intensity on growth, yield and wood quality (funded long-term GY experiment) Effects of espacement in mixed Fd/Cw plantations (funded long-term GY experiment) Effects of plantation density on growth of cedar (funded long-term GY experiment) Cedar pruning results: Are trees growing better (ht; diameter) and quality? Pests of Cedar / Cedar regeneration / Inventory / Fire Ecology / Climate change and range expansion, site interaction / Stand Structure dynamics Mixed species stand dynamics Cw/Fd; Mixed species dynamics: ecology, growth, nutrition Determine how regeneration (effective establishment and early survival) relate to disturbance, especially fire Relationships between disturbance regime and wood quality Alternative regeneration systems and links to growth and wood properties Increase the growth of Cw and browse resistance of Cw, while maintaining wood quality, wood properties, and leaf blight resistance How might change of climates affect cedar growth and health? How does second growth cedar differ from old growth in terms of wood quality and durability Drought tolerance / susceptibility to pathogens Decay incidence in Interior vs. Coastal forests; Driving factors for decay: decay fungi, genetics, environmental conditions; Decay associated with pruning: will pruning increase decay?; Dominant decay fungi in interior and coastal WRC; Cull rates due to decay Little work done on decay dynamics in WRC; important topic to investigate; Specific questions: what are the major decayers; how do they get into cedar and when? What’s the current incidence of decay in coastal vs. interior; what are the outcomes re: yields/economic returns Constitutive and induced defence against pioneering detoxifying fungal species in heartwood/sapwood transition zones Silvicultural effects on heartwood formation and secondary extractives Cause of target pattern heartwood in interior cedar (not funded) Effect of fertilizer on durability of cedar heartwood when harvested 18
