Rotation-end comparisons for two Eucalyptus regeneration regimes (coppice versus replant) on four contrasting sites in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Rotation-end comparisons for two Eucalyptus regeneration regimes (coppice versus replant) on four contrasting sites in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Rotation-end comparisons for two Eucalyptus regeneration regimes (coppice versus replant) on four contrasting sites in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa Keith M Little, Jacob Crous, Dean da Costa This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6671276/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 11 Oct, 2025 Read the published version in New Forests → Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract With the focus on maximising timber yield on a sustainable basis from a static land base, rather than on a reduction in costs alone, the question of whether to replant or coppice has become increasingly important. Although past research in South Africa has compared coppice growth and wood properties with genetically similar planted material, this data was collected on limited sites and/or species, or over successive rotations. Four trials were established in 1999–2000 in South Africa with either E. grandis x E. camaldulensis , E. grandis x E. urophylla , E. macarthurii or E. nitens , where genetically similar trees and coppice were compared over the same rotation and site. In the E. nitens and E. macarthurii trials, improved material were also compared to the genetically similar, albeit unimproved coppice. As the regeneration regimes were tested under identical site and climatic conditions, a direct comparison could be made between the two. Rotation-end data included stocking, merchantable volume, timber and pulp yield, and profit. Although treatment responses were site and/or species specific, irrespective of method of method of re-establishment, stocking was the main factor that determined treatment ranking. Timber density and screened pulp yield was higher in coppice than in the replant treatments, although this was only significant for the two clones grown within the two sub-tropical sites. Regeneration via coppicing was cheaper relative to re-planting, but the harvesting costs associated with felling coppiced stands was higher, with all treatments returning a positive internal rate of return (using a nett present value of 6%). Eucalyptus coppice tree improvement volume pulp yield regeneration costs Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Introduction Globally, various eucalypts are commercially grown and provide a significant contribution towards the world’s production of timber (Lee et al. 2024). Regeneration of recently felled eucalypt plantations in South Africa (SA) relies on either replanting (seedlings or clonal material), or the management of stump sprouts (coppice shoots) (Blake 1983; Little and Gardner 2003). From the late 1980’s, research was conducted within the warm-temperate region of SA on the management of Eucalyptus grandis coppice shoots to optimise timber production (Stubbings and Schönau 1980; Schönau 1991). This produced recommendations regarding the selective thinning of coppice shoots to meet the target stocking, optimum for that site. Mortality of the planted crop and (or) stumps once felled, meant that the required stocking was often less than the number of living stumps, assuming one coppice stem is left per stump. To compensate for this mortality, and to reach the required stocking, two well-matched coppice shoots are left on those stumps adjacent to any missing or dead stumps. Continued research into coppice management within SA has either re-confirmed past results, or led to a refinement of specific silvicultural practices such as weed control, fertilization, age of reduction operations, control of secondary coppice regrowth (Schönau et al. 1981; Bredenkamp 1991; Little and du Toit 2003; Little 2004 2008; Roberts et al. 2016a), and damage to remaining coppice stems during reduction operations (Little and Oscroft 2010). Additional coppice research in SA has focused on coppice regeneration following fire (Oscroft and Little 2008), site and harvesting impacts on coppicing potential (Little et al. 2002; Schewegman 2017), harvesting costs associated with coppiced stands (Schwegman 2017; Ramantswana et al. 2017), timber quality (Zbonak et al. 2007), improved taper functions for coppice volume prediction (Morley and Little 2012), and the killing of eucalypt stumps if the site is to be replanted (Little and Eccles 2000; Little 2003; Little and van den Berg 2006, 2007; Roberts et al. 2016b). Improved site-species matching to minimise pest and disease losses, coupled with genetic selection, resulted in the extensive replanting of traditional short rotation Eucalyptus grandis growing areas with alternative, improved species (and clonal hybrids) from the late 1990’s onwards (Morris 2022). Although the ability for some of these eucalypts to produce coppice shoots has been tested (Little et al. 2002; Little and Gardner 2003, 2021; Crous and Burger 2015), rotation-end productivity of other commonly grown eucalypts using recommendations based on Eucalyptus grandis of seedling parent stock still needed to be determined. This was particularly important for those eucalypts grown in either the cool-temperate and sub-tropical regions of South Africa, as opposed to the warm-temperate regions for which the original recommendations were generated. Continued genetic improvement, together with refinements in site-species matching, have raised questions as to whether the reduced costs associated with regeneration via coppice can be off-set by the expected yield increases associated with replanting genetically superior material. Although past research in SA has compared eucalypt coppice growth with genetically similar planted material in terms of growth and wood quality (Schönau 1980; Zbonack et al. 2007), and regeneration costs (Crous and Burger 2015), this data has been collected on limited sites and/or over successive rotations, and as such direct comparisons could not always be made. Four trials were established in 1999/2000 in South Africa in two climatic regions with either E. grandis x E. camaldulensis , E. grandis x E. urophylla (sub-tropical) and E. macarthurii or E. nitens (cool-temperate). Within each of these trials, genetically similar trees and coppice were compared over the same rotation and on the same site. In the E. nitens and E. macarthurii trials, improved material were also compared to the genetically similar, albeit unimproved coppice. As the two regeneration regimes were tested under identical site and climatic conditions, a direct comparison in terms of rotation-end tree growth variables and the cost-benefits could be made between the two. Materials and methods Site, species selection and trial layout Four sites were selected within the commercial forest growing regions of KwaZulu-Natal (South Africa), two each in a cool-temperate and a sub-tropical region. Site characteristics in terms of location, soils, climate and risk are summarised (Table 1 ). Commercially grown species, most appropriate for the conditions at each site at the time the trials were established were used. Table 1 Site characteristics for four Eucalyptus trials comparing performance of coppice with planted material. Region Forest zone KwaZulu-Natal - Midlands KwaZulu-Natal - Midlands KwaZulu-Natal - Zululand KwaZulu-Natal - Zululand Magisterial district, Plantation Umvoti, Tweefontein Estcourt, Draycott Enseleni, Eteza Lower Umfolozi, Mavuya Latitude and Longitude 29 o 15.807” S; 30 o 13.097” E 29 o 04.777” S; 29 o 37.386” E 28 o 28.438” S; 32 o 08.088” E 28 o 31.756” S; 32 o 11.316” E Altitude (m a.s.l.) 1 520 1 496 75 30 Long-term mean annual rainfall (mm) 1 200 800 897 990 Long-term mean annual temperature ( o C) 13.6 15.2 21.8 21.8 Climate classification CSIR Köppen-Geiger a Cwb Warm temperate climate with dry winters and warm summers Cwb Warm temperate climate with dry winters and warm summers Cfa Warm temperate humid climate with hot summers Cfa Warm temperate humid climate with hot summers SA Forest climate classes b Moist, cool-temperate Dry, cool-temperate Dry, sub-tropical Moist, sub-tropical Selected topsoil physical and chemical properties (0–15 cm) Taxonomy (FAO) Rhodic Ferralsol Xanthic Acrisol Haplic Arenosol Haplic Arenosol Taxonomy (SA) c Hutton (2200) Clovelly (2200) Yellow Fernwod (1210) Yellow Fernwood (1210) Depth (m) 0.60 0.80 + 1.5 + 1.5 Texture clay clay sand sand OC (WB) (%) 6.42 3.60 0.31 0.30 Total N (%) 0.37 0.22 0.04 0.04 P (ppm) 6.40 4.97 0.88 0.88 Extractable K (meq 100 g − 1 ) 0.19 0.35 0.03 0.03 Spacing (stems per hectare - sph) Targeted 3 x 1.5 m (2 222 sph) 3 x 2 m (1 666 sph) 3 x 2.5 m (1 333 sph) 2.74 x 2.74 m (1 332 sph) Actual 3.17 x 1.52 m (2 079 sph) 3.11 x 2.06 m (1 563 sph) 3.02 x 2.53 m (1 304 sph) 2.69 x 2.65 m (1 396 sph) Species planted E. macarthurii E. nitens E. grandis x E. camaldulensis E. grandis x E. urophylla Drought Risk b > 850 mm 74% 55% 58% 79% < 650 mm 6% 10% 19% 6% Potential productivity b Growing conditions Risk of snow damage Risk of drought/snow damage Risk of drought Optimum Estimated mean annual increment 22 m 3 ha − 1 yr − 1 18–22 m 3 ha − 1 yr − 1 17–18 m 3 ha − 1 yr − 1 38–42 m 3 ha − 1 yr − 1 a Kottek et al. (2006) b Smith et al . (2005a,b) c Soil Classification Working Group (1991) Within the sub-tropical region of SA, clonal hybrids of Eucalyptus grandis x E. camaldulensis were tested at Eteza plantation, and Eucalyptus grandis x E. urophylla at Mavuya plantation. The specific hybrids selected were the most commonly planted in the Zululand region, with E. grandis x E. camaldulensis (GC540) planted in drier areas, and E. grandis x E. urophylla (A380) in moister areas (Table 1 ). At Eteza, an alternative hybrid combination (GC785) was also tested in addition to GC540. Eucalyptus nitens and Eucalyptus macarthurii were tested at Draycott and Tweefontein plantations respectively, both of which are within a cool-temperate region. These eucalypts were specifically chosen, as at the time of the initiation of this study, they represented the most advanced of the species in the Cold Tolerant Eucalypt breeding programme conducted by the Institute for Commercial Forestry Research (ICFR) (Swain and Gardner 2003). Seed representing improved and unimproved material was selected as follows: Improved genetic material: The three best performing families from South African E. nitens and E. macarthurii tree improvement trials, situated at sites most similar to these proposed, were identified. Seed from these families had been collected from the ICFR E. nitens and E. macarthurii Breeding Seed Orchards (BSO) at Jessievale (Swain and Gardner 2003). Unimproved genetic material: The Tweefontein site was originally planted with unimproved E. macarthurii material from the New South Wales (NSW) provenance in Australia and the Draycott site with unimproved E. nitens from the Tallaganda provenance (NSW). Seed from the same source used for the original crops was used to grow seedlings that were planted as unimproved material at these trials. At each site, well stocked, uniform stands were selected prior to the harvesting of the parent crop (referred to as 1R -1st rotation). Within each stand, an area (ca. 1 hectare) was selected where the trees would be re-planted with the same genetic material (referred to as 2R – 2nd rotation) as the parent crop (all sites), as well as improved genetic material (Eteza, Draycott and Tweefontein). The replanted and coppiced plot sizes at Eteza and Mavuya consisted of 8 x 7 trees, with the inner 6 x 5 trees measured. Limited availability of unimproved E. nitens and E. macarthurii seed (and hence seedling numbers) restricted the size of the replanted treatment plots to 6 x 6 trees at Draycott and Tweefontein, with the inner 4 x 4 trees measured. All treatments were replicated four times within their respective areas. The rest of the area around the trial was managed as a coppice stand. Within this area and adjacent to the trial, four plots (with the same plot dimensions as the trial) were demarcated following the final stem reduction, with the coppice measured to allow for a comparison between commercial and research coppice management. Management of the coppiced plots At Mavuya and Eteza, and prior to felling, the plots to be coppiced were demarcated, with the diameters at breast height (Dbh at 1.3 m in cm) and heights (Ht in m) of the standing trees measured (referred to as 1R-planted). At all sites, care was taken during the felling and timber extraction operations to minimise damage to the remaining stumps. After timber extraction, post-harvest residues were removed from the stumps so as not to hinder coppice shoot development. Based on current commercially acceptable practices, the coppice shoots were reduced in a stepwise manner. The first reduction (when the coppice shoots were 3–4 m in height) was to two stems stump − 1 , and the second (when 7–8 m in height) to the original stocking. Management of the replanted plots For a direct comparison to be made between replanting and coppice management regimes, the ideal would be if the trees were planted as soon as possible after felling. This is not always possible as the felling and timber extraction schedules do not always coincide with the optimum planting period for that site, which is seasonally driven to improve survival. As far as was possible this period was kept to the minimum (8 months at Tweefontein to less than a month at Mavuya – Appendix 1 ). At all four sites, and once the trees were felled and the timber removed, a block within the stand (ca. 1 hectare) was prepared for replanting. This included marking for pitting, clearing of harvest residue in the area to be pitted, and the manual preparation of planting pits. A broadcast, pre-plant spray with glyphosate (360 g a.i. @ 4 L ha − 1 ) was applied prior to planting. Each seedling (or rooted clonal plant) was planted with 1 L of water, applied as a drench before placement of the seedling. No fertilizer was applied. These replanted blocks received regular weeding until the trees were established, after which no further silvicultural input was required. Tree growth measurements Diameter at breast height (Dbh) and height (Ht) were measured on an annual basis. Using the Dbh measurements, the basal area per hectare (BA in m 2 ha − 1 ) was calculated from stocking obtained for the respective treatment plots. For the accurate determination of merchantable volume at rotation end, trees free from defects for each treatment were selected to cover the full range in terms of the mean Dbh distribution. When felled, stump height, total tree height and stem height to a minimum under bark stem diameter of 5 cm were determined, as were under bark diameter measurements at 0.65 m, 1.3 m and 1.5 m intervals from the base of the tree up the stem. Individual volumes for each section per tree were first calculated (formula for a truncated cone), then summed, and together with the corresponding Dbh and Ht values, separate Schumacher and Hall (1933) volume models for each treatment were calculated. These volumes, together with the stocking for relevant treatment plots, were utilised to calculate the total “merchantable wood volume” (V in m 3 ha − 1 ) per treatment per site. To allow for a comparison of growth between treatments and sites over the duration of the rotations, the mean annual increment (MAI) and periodic annual increment (PAI) were calculated using the BA measurements (Fig. 1 and Appendix 2 ). Although the MAI represents the average annual increase in BA over the rotation, the PAI was used to assess BA growth between measurements. As the planted trees were established after the stand was felled, their age was less than that of the coppiced treatments. To allow for a more direct comparison over the same period of growth and within each site, the MAI for the planted trees were adjusted using the age of the coppiced crop ( Appendix 2 ). To further explore the influence of stocking on tree performance, non-linear regressions were carried out between merchantable volume (response variable) and stocking (explanatory variable), and with site as the grouping factor ( Appendix 3 ). Wood and pulping properties For the determination of density and screened pulp yield, three trees per treatment plot were selected, using the tree closest to the plot average, and one on either side of the mean (3 trees per treatment plot x 4 replicates = 12 trees per treatment per site. For density determination, 3 cm wide discs were taken at 1.5 m intervals up the length of the sampled trees to a top-end underbark diameter of 5 cm. These were used to determine whole tree density per tree using the TAPPI test method: T258 om-89. The product of the merchantable volume per hectare (m 3 ha − 1 ) and the density (kg m − 3 ) divided by 1 000 gives an indication of the timber yield per hectare (tons ha − 1 ). Using the same trees, a 1 x 1.2 m billet per tree was taken from 0.3 m above ground-level for the determination of screened pulp yield. The billets were chipped using a guillotine-style laboratory chipper to produce chips of a uniform size, with one composite sample made by combining the three trees per treatment plot (four composite samples per treatment per site). Samples were pulped in an electrically heated, batch type, rotating digester using the Kraft process. After removal from the digester, the pulp samples were screened through a 10 mesh screen onto a 60 mesh receiving screen by means of a water jet. The screened pulp yield (which excludes any pulping rejects) is the mass of pulp produced per mass of oven dry wood, expressed as a percentage. This gives an indication of the amount of pulp produced relative to the amount of wood pulped. Using the data obtained from the screened pulp yield (%) and timber yield (tons ha − 1 ) the pulp yield per hectare (tons ha − 1 ) was calculated. Economic assessments Economic assessments were based on methodology used by Whittock et al. (2004), Guedes et al. (2011) and Crous and Burger (2015) whereby the coppiced rotation (2R-coppiced) was compared to a replanted rotation (2R-planted) following the first planted rotation (1R-planted). A simple cash flow model was developed for the various regeneration options using a Net Present Value (NPV) of 6%, followed by the calculation of the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) (Uys 1990). This economic analysis was conducted for each site separately, with all rotation ages kept constant at either eight or nine years (site-dependent). Generic costs a were used, namely US $ 765.78 ha − 1 for establishment, US $ 481.50 ha − 1 for maintenance and weeding of planted trees; US $ 435.43 ha − 1 for first coppice reduction and control of secondary coppice regrowth, and US $ 261.19 ha − 1 for second coppice reduction and further control of secondary coppice regrowth. General annual costs (also referred to as fixed plantation costs) were estimated at US $ 116.12 ha − 1 . A harvester cost of US $ 143.25 per machine hour was used (Di Fulvio et al. 2024) and an additional US $ 12.22 or US $ 16.78 wwt − 1 added for short-haul, loading and transport for the two sub-tropical and two cool-temperate sites respectively (Mavuya and Eteza are closer to the pulp-mills than Draycott and Tweefontien). Based on tree size measurements and percentage of double to single coppice stems at each site, the harvester productivity for planted stems and single and double coppice stems was calculated using equations developed by Ramantswana et al. (2017) for a cut-to-length single stem harvesting head mounted on a tacked excavator carrier. A timber price of US $ 59.81 wwt − 1 delivered at the mill was used to calculate potential income (Forest Economic Services 2022). Daily labour rate was calculated as twice the minimum wage (US $ 1.61 hr − 1 ) over nine hours. To further explore the relationship between harvesting costs, timber production and profit, the harvesting costs and timber production were regressed against the nett income using individual plot mean data and plotted using the same x-axis ( Appendix 4 and Fig. 4 ). ( a Footnote: A ZAR to US$ conversion was used of 0.05847 on the date the financial calculations were made 30/09/2024) Statistical analysis Due to the arrangement of the coppiced and replanted blocks, a one-way analysis of variance was carried out to test for treatment effects ( Appendix 2 ). Only if the F -value was significant ( p < 0.05) were treatment differences further investigated using the least significant differences test ( lsd ). Prior to carrying out any analyses the assumptions underlying a valid analysis of variance were tested. Where the data were not normally distributed, either the Mann-Whitney or Kruskal-Wallis tests were conducted for comparing two or more independent groups respectively. Both these tests are non-parametric procedures that are equivalent to a one-way Anova, but do not rely on an assumption that the data are normally distributed. All analyses were carried out using Genstat for Windows 24th Edition (VSN International 2024). Results and Discussion Tree performance Tree growth and performance varied between the four locations and was a combination of species and level of genetic improvement, site, and to a lesser extent, management regime. Although all four eucalypts were matched to the site, the actual productivity in terms of the MAI of the best performing planted material was lower than the predicted productivity for the two sub-tropical sites (Eteza: predicted = 17–18 m 3 ha − 1 yr − 1 ; actual = 14.4 m 3 ha − 1 yr − 1 ; Mavuya: predicted = 38–42 m 3 ha − 1 yr − 1 ; actual = 26.6 m 3 ha − 1 yr − 1 ), but were similar for the two cool-temperate sites (Tweefontein: predicted = 22 m 3 ha − 1 yr − 1 ; actual = 23.5 m 3 ha − 1 yr − 1 ; Draycott: predicted = 18–22 m 3 ha − 1 yr − 1 ; actual = 22.9 m 3 ha − 1 yr − 1 ) (Table 1 ; Appendix 2 ). South Africa is regarded as a water scarce country (497 mm yr − 1 ), and although plantations are only grown in regions where the mean annual rainfall exceeds 800 mm yr − 1 (Morris 2022), the occurrence and quantity of this rainfall over rotation has a large influence on the growth of that stand (Crous and Burger 2015). The total and mean annual rainfall for the duration of the 2R planted/coppiced crops were obtained from weather stations in close proximity to the four trials (Table 2 ), with similar values obtained for Mavuya and Eteza. In contrast, Tweefontein received less rainfall than what was predicted (-150 mm yr − 1 ), with 167 mm yr − 1 more rainfall received at Draycott. Table 2 Treatment means for the rotation-end tree-growth variables that were measured in four Eucalyptus trials comparing performance of coppiced with planted material. Significant difference between treatments were only detected for density and screened pulp yield at Mavuya and Teza. Trial (species) Regeneration Method and material a Age when felled Mean annual rainfall over rotation (mm yr − 1 ) Stocking Merchantable volume (m 3 ha − 1 ) Mean annual increment (m 3 ha − 1 yr − 1 ) Density (kg m 3 ) Timber Yield (tons ha − 1 ) Screened Pulp Yield (%) Pulp Yield (tons ha − 1 ) Stems ha − 1 Stumps ha − 1 Actual growing period Adjusted for coppice rotation Tweefontein ( E. macarthurii ) Coppice: 2R – unimproved 9 y 1040 1982 1722 159 17.6 - 483.0 77.5 46.0 35.7 Commercial coppice: 2R – unimproved 9 y 1040 1903 1258 152 16.8 - - - - - Planted: 2R – unimproved 8 y 4 m 1059 1769 - 165 19.9 18.3 478.8 79.1 45.6 44.1 Planted: 2R – improved 8 y 4 m 1059 1915 - 213 25.6 23.5 469.8 99.3 44.0 35.9 Draycott ( E. nitens ) Coppice: 2R – unimproved 8 y 5 m 976 1612 1197 237 28.2 - 515.6 121.8 49.7 60.5 Commercial coppice: 2R – unimproved 8 y 5 m 976 1280 811 186 22.2 - - - - - Planted: 2R – unimproved 8 y 2 m 958 1333 - 170 20.8 20.3 514.3 87.3 50.0 43.4 Planted: 2R –improved 8 y 2 m 958 1473 - 192 23.4 22.9 504.8 97.3 47.9 46.4 Mavuya ( E. grandis x E. urophylla ) Planted: 1R – A380 7 y 4 m 960 1331 - 193 26.3 - - - - - Coppice: 2R – A380 8 y 1 m 992 1420 1222 205 25.4 - 476.9a 97.6 49.7a 48.4 Commercial coppice: 2R – A380 8 y 1 m 992 1175 1030 171 21.2 - - - - - Planted: 2R – A380 8 y 992 1396 - 214 26.7 26.6 455.8b 97.5 47.1b 45.9 Eteza ( E. grandis x E. camaldulensis ) Planted: 1R – GC540 9 y 845 1250 - 128 14.3 - - - - - Coppice: 2R – GC540 7 y 8 m 894 1304 1076 115 14.9 - 521.1a 59.7 48.9a 29.2 Commercial coppice: 2R – GC540 7 y 8 m 894 1305 989 115 14.9 - - - - - Planted: 2R – GC540 7 y 7 m 900 1239 - 105 13.8 13.7 513.3a 54.2 47.4c 25.7 Planted: 2R - GC785 7 y 7 m 900 1250 - 110 14.5 14.4 471.7b 52.1 48.1b 25.1 a 1R and 2R refer to consecutive rotations that were monitored as part of this trial series and not to the first or second time that trees were planted on these sites. MAI and PAI At all four sites the MAI and PAI of the coppice treatment was initially higher than that of the planted treatments (Fig. 1 ), which can be associated with the more rapid growth of the coppice shoots benefitting from an established root system and existing nutrient resources within the stump. According to Evans (1982), coppice does not raise the site productive potential, but accelerates early growth, which would indicate a Type 1 rather than a Type 2 growth response (Snowdon 2002). Snowdon (2002) described a Type 1 growth response as an initial, albeit temporary increase in growth rate of a treatment (regeneration via coppice compared to replanting) that reduces the time needed for the stand to reach a given stage of maturity or stand development, but which is not sustained in the long-term. In contrast, Type 2 growth responses are maintained over the whole rotation, often resulting in a higher actual productivity obtained than what was predicted. At Tweefontein and Eteza, the peak PAI was reached earlier than that of the planted treatment, in contrast to Draycott and Mavuya where the peak PAI of the two regeneration regimes were reached at a similar age. Due to the all-year-round growing conditions that occur within the sub-tropical region of SA (rain dependent), the maximum MAI occurred earlier for both management regimes (1.8–2.2 yrs) compared to the two cool-temperate sites (3.3–4.3 yrs), where reduced growth occurs in the drier, cooler winter months (Fig. 1 ). Volume Although there were differences in merchantable volume at rotation-end for the coppice versus planted different treatments within each site, they were not significant (Tables 2 ; Appendix 2 ; Fig. 2 ). In addition, the mean annual increment was not significant when adjusted to take into consideration differences in the rotation lengths between the coppiced versus replanted treatments. This also included a lack of significant differences between the unimproved and improved seedlings/cuttings that were tested at Tweefontein, Draycott and Eteza. Similarly, there were no significant difference at the two sub-tropical sites where trees (1R-planted) were measured prior to felling in the coppiced, or replanted trees (2R-coppice/planted) (Table 2 ). Survival The targeted spacing and planting density for the four sites was a function of past planting densities, site quality and end-use, with Draycott (1 666 sph; 3 x 2 m), Eteza (1 333 sph; 3 x 2.5 m); and Mavuya (1 332 sph; 2.74 x 2.74 m), planted for pulpwood, and Tweefontein (2 222 sph; 3 x 1.5 m) planted for a combination of mining timber, poles and/or pulpwood. At all four sites the actual planting distances were greater, which corresponded to a lower planting density (Tweefontein: 2079 sph; Draycott: 1 563 sph; Eteza: 1 304 sph; Mavuya: 1 396 sph). Survival of the planted material was higher for the clonal hybrids in the two sub-tropical trials (Eteza = 95 and 95.8%; Mavuya = 100%), when compared to the seedlings in the two cool-temperate regions, with the survival of the improved better than the unimproved (Tweefontein: Improved = 92%; Unimproved = 85%; Draycott: Improved = 94%; Unimproved = 85%). Amongst other factors, higher survival of clonal hybrids could be associated with the planting of genetically identical clonal plants compared to the more genetically diverse seedlings, and the lower incidence of soil borne pests (white grubs and cutworm) that occur in the sub-tropical regions with lower percentages of clay and organic carbon, that can have a negative impact on establishment survival. By comparison, the warm and cool-temperate regions have higher organic carbon levels and the reduced establishment period (the period when most mortality occurs) in the cool-temperate region compared to the sub-tropical, where winter frosts and dry periods prevail. Although not tested, it can be speculated that the reduced mortality of the improved relative to the unimproved seedlings could be ascribed to reduced genetic diversity associated with selecting of surviving trees with more desirable growth and wood properties. The number of living stumps following felling (2R-coppice) was lower in all four trials compared to the planted material (2R-planted), despite the selection sites where overall survival of the 1R planted trees was higher (Fig. 2 ; Appendix 2 ). Some additional mortality is expected following felling, often associated with a combination of the inherent ability of that eucalypt species/hybrid to coppice, age of the tree, site productivity, timing of felling, damage to the stumps during the felling and extraction of timber, and post-felling practices (burning of the slash, or failure to remove the harvest residues off the stump). Although the above factors were taken into consideration when managing the coppice plots, there was a further 13.3% and 7.8% reduction in survival at Eteza and Mavuya, the two sites where the survival of the 1R-planted crop was measured prior to felling. Following the final coppice reduction operation, the ability to retain two stems per stump on those adjacent to missing/dead stumps meant that the stem stocking for the coppice plots was higher than the stump stocking, as well as the stem stocking for the 1R/2R-planted treatments. This also meant that the final stem stocking of within the coppice plots approximated that of the targeted stocking, which is one of the benefits associated with coppicing well stocked stands over that of replanting, especially where the level of genetic improvement is similar and/or the correct species is planted on the site. To further explore the influence of stocking on tree performance, a non-linear regression was carried out between merchantable volume (response variable) and stem stocking (explanatory variable), using site as the grouping factor ( Appendix 3 ). Although the two regeneration regimes were not considered separately in the analyses (coppice versus replanting), the regression accounted for 62% of the variance within the analyses ( F prob <0.001; s.e. = 32.7). Overall, the accumulated analysis of variance indicated that merchantable volume was most strongly related to stocking (51.2%) and site (33.4%), which supports the outcomes of research on regeneration regimes that indicates a positive relationship between stocking and volume production, irrespective of method of re-establishment (Evans 1992, Crous and Burger 2015). At all sites, stump survival was further reduced in the commercial coppice plots established within the stand adjacent to the trials (Fig. 2 ; Appendix 2 ). As the felling and extraction of timber was the same across the whole stand in which trials were located, this difference in additional mortality is likely due to practices that occurred post-harvesting and included factors such as the delay in the removal of harvest residues from the stumps which caused a reduction in coppice growth that were of poor form and/or attachment; a delay in carrying out reduction operations causing reduced growth of the remaining stem, together with a higher degree of windthrow post-reduction; as well as a lack of adequate care taken during reduction operations, resulting in damage to the remaining stems, which either reduced growth and/or resulted in windthrow. In a review of the potential of intensive silviculture to increase productivity of short and longer rotation hardwood and conifer plantations in New Zealand, Mead (2005) found growth improvements of 15–25% in research studies compared to those in the field, with quality control providing an opportunity for improved production. Wood density and screened pulp yield Amongst other factors, the wood properties of eucalypts can be linked to species (and level of genetic improvement) and environment (site, climate, silviculture), both of which can influence growth rates, resulting in further differences in wood density and screened pulp yield (Rocha et al. 2019). Wood density is regarded as an important characteristic associated with higher pulp-wood production, which together with higher volume growth maximizes production on a unit area basis (Miranda et al. 2001; Marinda and Pereira 2015; Magaton et al. 2009; Rocha et al. 2019). In all four trials the coppiced trees resulted in a 1.7 to 3.4% higher wood density than the planted material, but this was only significant in the two sub-tropical trials (Table 2 ). Although care was taken when selecting trees around the mean for wood property determination, the ability to detect significant differences in the two sub-tropical sites could be associated with a decrease in genetic variability of the clonal material (thus allowing for an increased ability for the detection of treatment differences). For example, the residual variance was greater than the treatment variance for the two cool-temperate sites, with the opposite occurring for the two sub-tropical sites ( Appendix 2 ). Clarke (2001) found similar reduction in wood property variability when comparing clonal versus more genetically diverse trees raised from seed. Published research comparing the wood density of coppiced versus planted crops provides variable results, with Zbonak et al. (2007) indicating a higher wood density in six planted eucalypt compared to coppiced crops (albeit over subsequent rotations and on different sites), whereas Schönau (1991) indicated no significant differences in wood density for planted and coppiced E. grandis across three sites in SA. Possible reasons for the higher wood density obtained for the coppice plots in the four trials could be related to a combination of the reduced mid- to late-rotation growth rates, and reduced presence of juvenile wood (not assessed in these trials) associated with the growth of stems from existing root stock. Cirilo et al. (2024) compared wood quality of 10 coppiced and planted Eucalyptus genotypes and found that trees grown under a coppice regime generally produced more heartwood. In a study of wood density of 153 angiosperm and gymnosperm species in Chile, Fajardo (2021) found a significant and positive relationship between reduced growth rate and increased wood density. Schönau (1991), however noted that although the density of the coppice crop is closely related to that of its plant crop, this relationship is affected by the unaccounted variations in site and genetic characteristics, as well as differences in coppice management and growth rate, with the latter showing the greatest influence (reduced timber density the faster the tree growth). Similarly, early wood production was found to be significantly higher in trees originating from seed than in coppice shoots in a study comparing growth and wood anatomy of coppiced and seeded sessile oak (France) (Girardclos et al. 2018). In contrast to the current study, Hardiyanto et al. (2022) recorded improved growth of Eucalyptus pellita coppice compared to seedlings (Indonesia) over six years, together with a lower wood density, possible linked to the higher rates of growth. As for wood density, in all four trials the coppiced trees produced a 2.2 to 3.9% higher screened pulp yield than the planted material, although this was only significant in the two sub-tropical trials (Table 2 ). A higher timber density may result in a higher screened pulp yield as a consequence of the extraction of more pulp from a given amount of wood; however, Santos et al. (2012), du Plessis (2012) and Ramos et al. (2024) indicate that this relationship is not always clear. In a review of literature over a 20-year period related to the influence of basic density and chemical composition of wood for the pulp industry, Ramos et al. (2024) found that unbleached pulp yield showed a tendency to remain constant with the variation in the basic density for eucalypts, especially as the operational conditions of the pulping processes were adjusted to a kappa number of between 17–18. In a study comparing the influence of planting density on E. grandis performance and wood properties, du Plessis (2012) found that although basic wood density was highly correlated with planting density, it had a low correlation with pulp yield. Ramos et al. (2012) showed that the pulp yields of Acacia melanoxylon trees from four sites in Portugal were not correlated with wood density. du Plessis (2012) recommends that all aspects of importance, such as volume growth, basic wood density and pulp yield are combined into one meaningful productivity index. Costs All costs associated with establishment and tending were included for the two regeneration regimes, with regeneration via coppice resulting in an average reduction of US $ 474 ha − 1 over replanting across the four sites. In contrast, the harvesting costs were on average US $ 2.9 wwt − 1 higher for coppice compared to replanted. Harvesting productivity, more importantly mechanised harvesting, and hence costs, are influenced by stocking, stem volume, as well as the presence of double stems within the coppiced plots. In general, there was a higher stem density in the coppiced plots, of which 13 to 25% were double stems (site dependent). In addition, Schönau (1991) and Ramantswana et al. (2017) both showed higher stump and kerf wastage associated with the presence of double coppiced stems, with this taken into consideration when determining the harvesting costs. Similar findings in terms of the establishment, tending and harvesting costs for different regeneration regimes have been found, for example Whittock et al. (2003), Guedes et al. (2011), Crous and Burger (2015) and Schwegman (2017). The difference between the present value of cash inflow and outflow was calculated for each site using a NPV of 6% when calculated over two consecutive rotations (1R-planted followed by 2R-coppiced or 2R-planted) (Fig. 3 ). The results were site-specific, with coppicing generally better, or equivalent to other treatments except for improved E. macarthurii at Tweefontein. On all sites the commercial coppice was not as good as in research trials, with lower tree productivity coupled with higher harvesting costs, resulting in a negative NPV at Eteza and Tweefontein, the exception being the improved E. macarthurii that was planted, where the merchantable volume was the best of all the treatments on that site (albeit not significantly different). The IRR of an investment is the interest rate at which the NPV of costs of the investment equals the NPV of the benefits, with all treatments returning a positive IRR (Fig. 3 ). The more productive sites of Mavuya and Draycott returned the highest IRR, with coppicing resulting in a similar, or higher IRR than replanting, except at Tweefontein where re-planting with improved genetics the preferred option. These results confirm the outcomes obtained by Crous and Burger (2015) and Guedes et al. (2011), where they established that if the yield of the coppice stand is similar to, or better than that of a replanted stand, coppicing is preferred. However, where there is a yield improvement to be gained through improved site x species selection or improved genetics, replanting is preferred. Crous and Burger (2015) suggested that a 10% improvement in yield would justify replanting, whereas Guedes et al. (2011) found that a 20% improvement in yield, following replanting, would provide the best risk-return ratio. Of all the treatments within the four trials, only that of the improved E. macarthurii planted at Tweefontein resulted in a 34% increase in yield over that of the coppice crop. To further explore the link between nett income, and timber production and harvesting costs across the four sites for the two regeneration regimes, the harvesting costs and timber production were regressed against the nett income and plotted using the same X-axis (Fig. 4 ). As expected, an increase in nett income was associated with increased timber production and reduced harvesting costs, regardless of whether the treatment plot was coppiced or replanted. Of interest was that all the treatments plots (with the exception of improved E. macarthurii ) for the two less productive sites (Eteza and Tweefontien) occurred to the left of the timber production and harvesting costs intersection point, with the more productive sites (Mavuya and Draycott and the improved E. macarthurii from Tweefontein) to the right. Conclusions There were differences in growth and productivity associated with species and/or site, with the initial growth of coppice more rapid than replanted material, but this was not sustained to rotation-end. Although stocking was an important factor that determined treatment ranking within any specific trial, there was a positive relationship between stocking and volume production, irrespective of method of re-establishment. The timber density and screened pulp yield was higher in coppice than in the replant treatments, although this was only significant for the two clones grown on the two sub-tropical sites. In general, coppice performance within the commercial plots was lower than that achieved in the research plots, indicating an opportunity for improved production through improved silviculture and quality control. Regeneration via coppicing was cheaper relative to re-planting, but the harvesting costs associated with felling coppiced stands was higher. All treatments returned a positive IRR (using a NPV of 6%), with the more productive sites of Mavuya and Draycott returning the highest IRR. In general, coppicing resulted in a similar, or higher IRR than replanting, except at Tweefontein where the preferred option would be re-planting with improved E. macarthurii . Although the two regeneration regimes are comparable, the decision to coppice or replant must be made on a site-specific basis taking into consideration factors such as stocking prior to felling, the coppicing ability of the eucalypt, and expected production gains associated with improved genetic planting stock. If coppicing is to be considered a viable and productive option, the timing, type and quality of harvesting, and post-harvesting coppice management operations must ensure that the actual yields approximate to the expected yields. Declarations Acknowledgements This trial series was implemented, managed and maintained by the Institute for Commercial Forestry Research (ICFR) on behalf of South African Forest Industry, through funding obtained from Forestry South Africa (FSA). Mondi, Sappi, NCT and Masonite (at the time of trial implementation) are thanked for making compartments available for the trials, and for providing labour whenever required. ICFR technical staff are thanked for their assistance over the duration of the trials, in particular Denis Oscroft (Zululand), and Xolani Colvelle (Midlands). Author contributions K.L., J.C. and D. da. C. contributed to study conception and design. Data collection was undertaken by K.L. with support from ICFR and others and data analysis completed by K.L. and J.C. All authors contributed to the preparation of the draft manuscript and have read and approved the final manuscript. Funding Open access funding provided by research funds generated by K.L. whilst employed by Nelson Mandela University. Data availability Data is provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. References Blake TJ (1983) Coppice systems for short rotation intensive forestry: the influence of cultural, seasonal and plant factors. Australian Forest Research 13(13):279–291. Bredenkamp BV (1991) Results of an Eucalyptus grandis coppice reduction trial in Zululand. CSIR Report No: FOR 38. CSIR, Pretoria, South Africa. Cirilo NRM, de Almeida MNF, dos Santos VB, de Souza AJ, da Conceição, GJ, da Silva JGM, Protázio LB, Arantes BS, Campoe OC, Hakamada RE, de Medeiros Neto PN, Castor Neto TC, Guillemot J, Vidaurre GB (2024) Impact of coppice and high stem management on Eucalyptus wood quality. European Journal of Wood and Wood Products 82(6):1841–1854. Clarke CR (2001) Are Eucalyptus clones advantageous for the pulp mill? Southern African Forestry Journal 190(1):61 − 6. Crous J, Burger L (2015) A comparison of planting and coppice regeneration of Eucalyptus grandis × Eucalyptus urophylla clones in South Africa. Southern Forests 77(4):277–285. Di Fulvio F, Acuna M, Ackerman P, Ackerman S, Spinelli R, Abbas D, Kaakkurivaara N, Sánchez-García S, Guerra SP (2024) Benchmarking operational conditions, productivity, and costs of harvesting from industrial plantations in different global regions. International Journal of Forest Engineering . 35(2):225 − 50. du Plessis M (2012) A fibre optimisation index developed from a material investigation of Eucalyptus grandis for the Kraft pulping process. PhD Dissertation. University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa. Evans J (1992) Plantation forestry in the tropics: tree planting for industrial, social, environmental, and agroforestry purposes (2nd Edition). Oxford University Press, USA pp. 261–265. Fajardo A (2021) Wood density relates negatively to maximum plant height across major angiosperm and gymnosperm orders. American Journal of Botany 109(2):250–258. Forest Economic Services (2022) Detailed Analysis and Cost Benchmark Report - South Africa (including Regions). Forest Economic Services, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. Girardclos O, Dufraisse A, Dupouey J-L, Coubray S, Ruelle J, Rathgeber CBK (2018) Improving identification of coppiced and seeded trees in past woodland management by comparing growth and wood anatomy of living sessile oaks ( Quercus petraea ). Quaternary International 463(B):219–231. Guedes IC de L, Coelho Júnior LM, Donizette de Oliveira A, de Mello JM, de Rezende JLP, Silva CP de C (2011) Economic analysis of replacement regeneration and coppice regeneration in Eucalyptus stands under risk conditions Cerne 17(3):393–401. Hardiyanto EB, Inail MA, Mendham DS, Thaher E, Sitorus BK (2022) Eucalyptus pellita Coppice vs. Seedlings as a Re-Establishment Method in South Sumatra, Indonesia. Forests 13:1–8. Kottek M, Grieser J, Beck C, Bruno R, Rubel F (2006) World Map of the Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification Updated. Meteorologische Zeitschrift 15(3):259–263. Lee SH, Lum WC, Antov P, Krišťák L, Lubis MA, Fatriasari W (2024) Eucalyptus: Engineered Wood Products and Other Applications. Springer, Singapore. Little KM, Eccles NS (2000) Control of Eucalyptus grandis cut-stumps of single-stem origin. Southern African Forestry Journal 187(1):45–49. Little KM (2003) Killing Eucalyptus grandis cut stumps after multiple coppice rotations. Southern African Forestry Journal 199(1):7–13. Little KM, Gardner RAW (2003) Coppicing ability of 20 Eucalyptus species grown at two high-altitude sites in South Africa. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 33(2):181–189. Little KM, Gardner RAW (2021) Relative performance of coppice versus seedlings of 16 eucalypt taxa over two rotations in northern coastal Zululand, South Africa. Southern Forests 82(2):99–110. Little KM, van den Berg G, Fuller G (2002) Coppicing potential of Eucalyptus nitens : Results from a field survey Southern African Forestry Journal 193(1):1–38. Little KM (2004) Final results from an Eucalyptus dunnii coppice trial ICFR Bulletin Series 02/2004 . Institute for Commercial Forestry Research, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. Little KM, du Toit B (2003) Management of Eucalyptus grandis coppice regeneration of seedling parent stock in Zululand, South Africa. Australian Forestry 66(2):108–112. Little KM, van den Berg G (2006) First rotation Eucalyptus macarthurii cut stump control in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Southern African Forestry Journal 207:15–20. Little KM, van den Berg G (2007) Comparison of different herbicides for single stem Eucalyptus macarthurii cut stump control Journal of Tropical Forest Science 19(1):13–17. Little KM (2008) Final results from a Eucalyptus grandis x Eucalyptus camaldulensis coppice trial. Scientia Forestalis 76:85–90. Little K, Oscroft D (2010) Coppice growth as influenced by damage occurring during reduction operations and control of secondary coppice regrowth. ICFR Technical Note 02/2010 . Institute for Commercial Forestry Research, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. Magaton ADAS, Colodette JL, de Fátima Gomes Gouvêa A, Gomide JL (2009) Eucalyptus wood quality and its impact on Kraft Pulp production and use. TAPPI Journal 8(8):32–39. Mead DJ (2005) Opportunities for improving plantation productivity. How much? How quickly? How realistic? Biomass and Bioenergy 28(2):249–266. Miranda I, Almeida MH, Pereira H (2001) Provenance and site variation of wood density in Eucalyptus globulus Labill. At harvestage and its relation to a non-destructive early assessment. Forest Ecology and Management 149(1–3):235–240. Miranda I, Pereira H (2015) Variation of wood and bark density and production in coppiced Eucalyptus globulus trees in a second rotation. iForest Biogeosciences and Forestry 9(2):1–6. Morley TA, Little KM (2012) Comparison of taper functions between two planted and coppiced eucalypt clonal hybrids, South Africa. New Forests 43(2):129–141. Morris AR (2022) Changing use of species and hybrids in South African forest plantations. Southern Forests 84(3):193–205. Oscroft DG, Little KM (2008) The ability of eucalypts to regenerate via coppice following the September 2005 fires in Zululand, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. ICFR Technical Note 02/2008 . Institute for Commercial Forestry Research, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. Ramantswana M, Mc Ewan A, Spinelli R (2017) The effect of coppice management on stump volume recovery in mechanized operations. Annals of Forest Science 74(3):1–9. Ramos RD, Longue Junior D, Gomes FJB, Medeiros NCG (2024) Influence of basic density and chemical composition of wood for the pulp industry: a case study. Ciência Florestal 34(3):1–20. Roberts JC, Little KM, Light ME (2016a) The use of glyphosate for the management of secondary coppice regrowth in a Eucalyptus grandis x E. urophylla coppice stand in Zululand, South Africa. Southern Forests 78(3):217–223. Roberts JC, Little KM, Light ME (2016b) A comparison of the cost-effectiveness of different Eucalyptus macarthurii cut-stump control management options for the regeneration of a Eucalyptus dunnii stand in Mpumalanga, South Africa. Southern Forests 80(3):1–8. Rocha MFV, Veiga TRLA, Soares BCD, de Araújo ACC, Carvalho AMM, Hein PRG (2019) Do the growing conditions of trees influence the wood properties? Floresta e Ambiente 26(3):1–16. Santos A, Anjos O, Amaral ME, Gil N, Pereira H, Simões R (2012) Influence on pulping yield and pulp properties of wood density of Acacia melanoxylon . Journal of Wood Science 25:479–486. Schönau APG (1980) Timber density of planted parent trees and first generation coppice of Eucalyptus grandis . Wattle Research Institute Report for 1979–1980. Institute for Commercial Forestry Research, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. Schönau APG (1991) Growth, Yield and Timber Density of Short Rotation Coppice stands of Eucalyptus grandis . South African Forestry Journal 156(1):12–22. Schönau APG, Boden DI, Herbert MA, Brice Bruce AP (1981) Fertilizing coppice. Wattle Research Institute Report for 1980–1981. Institute for Commercial Forestry Research, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, pp. 57. Schumacher FX, Hall FDS (1933) Logarithmic expression of timber-tree volume. Journal of Agricultural Research 47:719–734. Schwegman K, Little KM, McEwan A, Ackerman S (2017) Harvesting and extraction impacts on Eucalyptus grandis x E. urophylla coppicing potential and rotation-end volume in Zululand, South Africa. Southern Forests 80(1):1–7. Schwegman K (2017) Integration of Eucalyptus coppice regeneration with mechanical harvesting in South Africa. MSc Dissertation. Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University. Port Elizabeth, South Africa. Smith CW, Pallett RN, Kunz RP, Gardner RAW, du Plessis M (2005a) A strategic forestry site classification for the summer rainfall region of southern Africa based on climate, geology and soils. ICFR Bulletin 03/2005 . Institute for Commercial Forestry Research, Pietermaritzburg. Smith CW, Gardner RAW, Pallett RN, Swain T, du Plessis M, Kunz RP (2005b) A site evaluation for site:species matching in the summer rainfall regions of southern Africa. ICFR Bulletin 04/2005 . Institute for Commercial Forestry Research, Pietermaritzburg. Snowdon P (2002) Modelling Type 1 and Type 2 growth responses in plantations after application of fertilizer or other silvicultural treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 163(1–3):229–244. Soil Classification Working Group (1991) Soil Classification—A Taxonomic System for South Africa . Memoirs on the Agricultural Natural Resources of South Africa No. 15. Department of Agricultural Development, Pretoria. Stubbings JA, Schönau APG (1980) Management of short rotation coppice crops of Eucalyptus grandis Hill ex Maiden. Southern African Forestry Journal 115:38–46. Swain TL, Gardner RAW (2003) A summary of current knowledge of cold tolerant eucalypt species (CTE's) grown in South Africa. ICFR Bulletin 03/2003 . Institute for Commercial Forestry Research, Pietermaritzburg. Uys HJE (1990) A new form of Internal Rate of Return. Southern African Forestry Journal 154(1):24–26. VSN International (2024) Genstat for Windows 24th Edition . VSN International, Hemel Hempstead, UK. Whittock SP, Greavesa BL, Apiolazab LA (2004) A cash flow model to compare coppice and genetically improved seedling options for Eucalyptus globulus pulpwood plantations Forest Ecology and Management 191:267–274. Zbonak A, Bush T, Grzeskowiak V (2007) Comparison of tree growth, wood density and anatomical properties between coppiced trees and parent crop of six Eucalyptus genotypes. In Eucalypts and Diversity Balancing Productivity and Sustainability. Proceedings of the IUFRO conference, Durban, South Africa, 22–26 Oct. pp. 1–10. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Appendix.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 11 Oct, 2025 Read the published version in New Forests → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 14 Jul, 2025 Reviews received at journal 08 Jul, 2025 Reviews received at journal 07 Jul, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 10 Jun, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 08 Jun, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 03 Jun, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 02 Jun, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 16 May, 2025 First submitted to journal 15 May, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6671276","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":466061440,"identity":"09fccda9-7a41-4a9e-b53e-bf63ba7ca4d5","order_by":0,"name":"Keith M Little","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nelson Mandela University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Keith","middleName":"M","lastName":"Little","suffix":""},{"id":466061441,"identity":"b8f0a3eb-d475-443e-8e35-e9933ce4858e","order_by":1,"name":"Jacob Crous","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Sappi Southern Africa Ltd, Sappi Shaw Research Centre","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jacob","middleName":"","lastName":"Crous","suffix":""},{"id":466061442,"identity":"2ef40f17-39fe-47f3-8122-9c0806128979","order_by":2,"name":"Dean da Costa","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Mondi South Africa","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dean","middleName":"da","lastName":"Costa","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-05-15 09:53:14","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6671276/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6671276/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-025-10120-x","type":"published","date":"2025-10-11T15:56:58+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":84090270,"identity":"ba56c850-f9d7-46b2-b136-1f631846f48c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-06 16:04:14","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":217957,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDevelopment of basal area increment (MAI and PAI) over time in four \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus\u003c/em\u003e trials comparing performance of coppiced with planted material.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6671276/v1/41ef02fe3297ef20104c6f1c.jpg"},{"id":84090271,"identity":"0fd977e8-cfa9-487f-95b1-42bb6190bee8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-06 16:04:14","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":258021,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRotation-end merchantable volume in four \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus\u003c/em\u003etrials comparing performance of coppiced with planted material.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6671276/v1/30e3c4cf8b1f743e92e46a7c.jpg"},{"id":84090282,"identity":"0bfab2f1-3866-4871-a2e2-97b1eda23f15","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-06 16:04:14","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":152098,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eInternal rate of return (using a NPV of 6% - indicated by vertical line) in four \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus\u003c/em\u003e trials comparing performance of coppiced with planted material.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6671276/v1/7021b3efcc15134278702d4f.jpg"},{"id":84090275,"identity":"a83767de-1235-4e60-a70e-6044a7652df0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-06 16:04:14","extension":"jpg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":81426,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRelationship between harvesting costs (Y1-axis) and timber production (Y2-axis) on nett Income (X-axis) in four \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus\u003c/em\u003etrials comparing performance of coppiced with planted material. The two data points that are circled refer to the improved \u003cem\u003eE. macarthurii\u003c/em\u003e seedlings planted at Tweefontein.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6671276/v1/735ac3f2c18e5494922c3298.jpg"},{"id":93419461,"identity":"8c0661e0-2dd1-4a50-a1a4-4d2cd2d44653","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-13 16:01:47","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1991939,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6671276/v1/b5f0ce32-69be-4877-81cd-71a476e84081.pdf"},{"id":84090269,"identity":"504b9465-522c-4664-bcc6-b08f3146c31a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-06 16:04:13","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":34615,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Appendix.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6671276/v1/c78a2c5cd53eee95291c68e2.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Rotation-end comparisons for two Eucalyptus regeneration regimes (coppice versus replant) on four contrasting sites in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eGlobally, various eucalypts are commercially grown and provide a significant contribution towards the world\u0026rsquo;s production of timber (Lee et al. 2024). Regeneration of recently felled eucalypt plantations in South Africa (SA) relies on either replanting (seedlings or clonal material), or the management of stump sprouts (coppice shoots) (Blake 1983; Little and Gardner 2003). From the late 1980\u0026rsquo;s, research was conducted within the warm-temperate region of SA on the management of \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus grandis\u003c/em\u003e coppice shoots to optimise timber production (Stubbings and Sch\u0026ouml;nau 1980; Sch\u0026ouml;nau 1991). This produced recommendations regarding the selective thinning of coppice shoots to meet the target stocking, optimum for that site. Mortality of the planted crop and (or) stumps once felled, meant that the required stocking was often less than the number of living stumps, assuming one coppice stem is left per stump. To compensate for this mortality, and to reach the required stocking, two well-matched coppice shoots are left on those stumps adjacent to any missing or dead stumps. Continued research into coppice management within SA has either re-confirmed past results, or led to a refinement of specific silvicultural practices such as weed control, fertilization, age of reduction operations, control of secondary coppice regrowth (Sch\u0026ouml;nau et al. 1981; Bredenkamp 1991; Little and du Toit 2003; Little 2004 2008; Roberts et al. 2016a), and damage to remaining coppice stems during reduction operations (Little and Oscroft 2010).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditional coppice research in SA has focused on coppice regeneration following fire (Oscroft and Little 2008), site and harvesting impacts on coppicing potential (Little et al. 2002; Schewegman 2017), harvesting costs associated with coppiced stands (Schwegman 2017; Ramantswana et al. 2017), timber quality (Zbonak et al. 2007), improved taper functions for coppice volume prediction (Morley and Little 2012), and the killing of eucalypt stumps if the site is to be replanted (Little and Eccles 2000; Little 2003; Little and van den Berg 2006, 2007; Roberts et al. 2016b).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImproved site-species matching to minimise pest and disease losses, coupled with genetic selection, resulted in the extensive replanting of traditional short rotation \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus grandis\u003c/em\u003e growing areas with alternative, improved species (and clonal hybrids) from the late 1990\u0026rsquo;s onwards (Morris 2022). Although the ability for some of these eucalypts to produce coppice shoots has been tested (Little et al. 2002; Little and Gardner 2003, 2021; Crous and Burger 2015), rotation-end productivity of other commonly grown eucalypts using recommendations based on \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus grandis\u003c/em\u003e of seedling parent stock still needed to be determined. This was particularly important for those eucalypts grown in either the cool-temperate and sub-tropical regions of South Africa, as opposed to the warm-temperate regions for which the original recommendations were generated.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eContinued genetic improvement, together with refinements in site-species matching, have raised questions as to whether the reduced costs associated with regeneration via coppice can be off-set by the expected yield increases associated with replanting genetically superior material. Although past research in SA has compared eucalypt coppice growth with genetically similar planted material in terms of growth and wood quality (Sch\u0026ouml;nau 1980; Zbonack et al. 2007), and regeneration costs (Crous and Burger 2015), this data has been collected on limited sites and/or over successive rotations, and as such direct comparisons could not always be made.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFour trials were established in 1999/2000 in South Africa in two climatic regions with either \u003cem\u003eE. grandis\u003c/em\u003e x \u003cem\u003eE. camaldulensis\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eE. grandis\u003c/em\u003e x \u003cem\u003eE. urophylla\u003c/em\u003e (sub-tropical) and \u003cem\u003eE. macarthurii\u003c/em\u003e or \u003cem\u003eE. nitens\u003c/em\u003e (cool-temperate). Within each of these trials, genetically similar trees and coppice were compared over the same rotation and on the same site. In the \u003cem\u003eE. nitens\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eE. macarthurii\u003c/em\u003e trials, improved material were also compared to the genetically similar, albeit unimproved coppice. As the two regeneration regimes were tested under identical site and climatic conditions, a direct comparison in terms of rotation-end tree growth variables and the cost-benefits could be made between the two.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSite, species selection and trial layout\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFour sites were selected within the commercial forest growing regions of KwaZulu-Natal (South Africa), two each in a cool-temperate and a sub-tropical region. Site characteristics in terms of location, soils, climate and risk are summarised (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Commercially grown species, most appropriate for the conditions at each site at the time the trials were established were used.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSite characteristics for four \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus\u003c/em\u003e trials comparing performance of coppice with planted material.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eForest zone\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKwaZulu-Natal - Midlands\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKwaZulu-Natal - Midlands\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKwaZulu-Natal - Zululand\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKwaZulu-Natal - Zululand\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMagisterial district, Plantation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUmvoti, Tweefontein\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEstcourt, Draycott\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnseleni, Eteza\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLower Umfolozi, Mavuya\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLatitude and Longitude\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e29\u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003e 15.807\u0026rdquo; S; 30\u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003e 13.097\u0026rdquo; E\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e29\u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003e 04.777\u0026rdquo; S; 29\u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003e 37.386\u0026rdquo; E\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28\u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003e 28.438\u0026rdquo; S; 32\u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003e 08.088\u0026rdquo; E\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28\u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003e 31.756\u0026rdquo; S; 32\u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003e 11.316\u0026rdquo; E\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAltitude (m a.s.l.)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 520\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 496\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e75\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLong-term mean annual rainfall (mm)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 200\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e800\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e897\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e990\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLong-term mean annual temperature (\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003eo\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cb\u003eC)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" morerows=\"1\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eClimate classification\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCSIR K\u0026ouml;ppen-Geiger\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCwb\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWarm temperate climate with dry winters and warm summers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCwb\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWarm temperate climate with dry winters and warm summers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCfa\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWarm temperate humid climate with hot summers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCfa\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWarm temperate humid climate with hot summers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSA Forest climate classes\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoist, cool-temperate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDry, cool-temperate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDry, sub-tropical\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoist, sub-tropical\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" morerows=\"7\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\" rowspan=\"8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSelected topsoil physical and chemical properties (0\u0026ndash;15 cm)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTaxonomy (FAO)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRhodic Ferralsol\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eXanthic Acrisol\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHaplic Arenosol\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHaplic Arenosol\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTaxonomy (SA)\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ec\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHutton (2200)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClovelly (2200)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYellow Fernwod (1210)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYellow Fernwood (1210)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDepth (m)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e+\u0026thinsp;1.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e+\u0026thinsp;1.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTexture\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eclay\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eclay\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003esand\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003esand\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOC (WB) (%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal N (%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.37\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eP (ppm)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.97\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.88\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.88\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eExtractable K (meq 100 g\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" morerows=\"1\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSpacing (stems per hectare - sph)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTargeted\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 x 1.5 m (2\u0026nbsp;222 sph)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 x 2 m (1\u0026nbsp;666 sph)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 x 2.5 m (1\u0026nbsp;333 sph)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.74 x 2.74 m (1\u0026nbsp;332 sph)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eActual\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.17 x 1.52 m (2 079 sph)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.11 x 2.06 m (1 563 sph)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.02 x 2.53 m (1 304 sph)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.69 x 2.65 m (1 396 sph)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSpecies planted\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eE. macarthurii\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eE. nitens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eE. grandis\u003c/em\u003e x \u003cem\u003eE. camaldulensis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eE. grandis\u003c/em\u003e x \u003cem\u003eE. urophylla\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" morerows=\"1\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDrought Risk\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;850 mm\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e74%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e55%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e58%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e79%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;650 mm\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" morerows=\"1\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePotential productivity\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGrowing conditions\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRisk of snow damage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRisk of drought/snow damage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRisk of drought\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOptimum\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEstimated mean annual increment\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22 m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18\u0026ndash;22 m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17\u0026ndash;18 m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e38\u0026ndash;42 m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"8\"\u003e\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003eKottek et al. (2006)\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"8\"\u003e\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003eSmith \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. (2005a,b)\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"8\"\u003e\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003eSoil Classification Working Group (1991)\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithin the sub-tropical region of SA, clonal hybrids of \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus grandis\u003c/em\u003e x \u003cem\u003eE. camaldulensis\u003c/em\u003e were tested at Eteza plantation, and \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus grandis\u003c/em\u003e x \u003cem\u003eE. urophylla\u003c/em\u003e at Mavuya plantation. The specific hybrids selected were the most commonly planted in the Zululand region, with \u003cem\u003eE. grandis\u003c/em\u003e x \u003cem\u003eE. camaldulensis\u003c/em\u003e (GC540) planted in drier areas, and \u003cem\u003eE. grandis\u003c/em\u003e x \u003cem\u003eE. urophylla\u003c/em\u003e (A380) in moister areas (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). At Eteza, an alternative hybrid combination (GC785) was also tested in addition to GC540.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus nitens\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus macarthurii\u003c/em\u003e were tested at Draycott and Tweefontein plantations respectively, both of which are within a cool-temperate region. These eucalypts were specifically chosen, as at the time of the initiation of this study, they represented the most advanced of the species in the Cold Tolerant Eucalypt breeding programme conducted by the Institute for Commercial Forestry Research (ICFR) (Swain and Gardner 2003). Seed representing improved and unimproved material was selected as follows:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eImproved genetic material: The three best performing families from South African \u003cem\u003eE. nitens\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eE. macarthurii\u003c/em\u003e tree improvement trials, situated at sites most similar to these proposed, were identified. Seed from these families had been collected from the ICFR \u003cem\u003eE. nitens\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eE. macarthurii\u003c/em\u003e Breeding Seed Orchards (BSO) at Jessievale (Swain and Gardner 2003).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnimproved genetic material: The Tweefontein site was originally planted with unimproved \u003cem\u003eE. macarthurii\u003c/em\u003e material from the New South Wales (NSW) provenance in Australia and the Draycott site with unimproved \u003cem\u003eE. nitens\u003c/em\u003e from the Tallaganda provenance (NSW). Seed from the same source used for the original crops was used to grow seedlings that were planted as unimproved material at these trials.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt each site, well stocked, uniform stands were selected prior to the harvesting of the parent crop (referred to as 1R -1st rotation). Within each stand, an area (ca. 1 hectare) was selected where the trees would be re-planted with the same genetic material (referred to as 2R \u0026ndash; 2nd rotation) as the parent crop (all sites), as well as improved genetic material (Eteza, Draycott and Tweefontein). The replanted and coppiced plot sizes at Eteza and Mavuya consisted of 8 x 7 trees, with the inner 6 x 5 trees measured. Limited availability of unimproved \u003cem\u003eE. nitens\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eE. macarthurii\u003c/em\u003e seed (and hence seedling numbers) restricted the size of the replanted treatment plots to 6 x 6 trees at Draycott and Tweefontein, with the inner 4 x 4 trees measured. All treatments were replicated four times within their respective areas. The rest of the area around the trial was managed as a coppice stand. Within this area and adjacent to the trial, four plots (with the same plot dimensions as the trial) were demarcated following the final stem reduction, with the coppice measured to allow for a comparison between commercial and research coppice management.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eManagement of the coppiced plots\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt Mavuya and Eteza, and prior to felling, the plots to be coppiced were demarcated, with the diameters at breast height (Dbh at 1.3 m in cm) and heights (Ht in m) of the standing trees measured (referred to as 1R-planted). At all sites, care was taken during the felling and timber extraction operations to minimise damage to the remaining stumps. After timber extraction, post-harvest residues were removed from the stumps so as not to hinder coppice shoot development. Based on current commercially acceptable practices, the coppice shoots were reduced in a stepwise manner. The first reduction (when the coppice shoots were 3\u0026ndash;4 m in height) was to two stems stump\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e, and the second (when 7\u0026ndash;8 m in height) to the original stocking.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eManagement of the replanted plots\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor a direct comparison to be made between replanting and coppice management regimes, the ideal would be if the trees were planted as soon as possible after felling. This is not always possible as the felling and timber extraction schedules do not always coincide with the optimum planting period for that site, which is seasonally driven to improve survival. As far as was possible this period was kept to the minimum (8 months at Tweefontein to less than a month at Mavuya \u0026ndash; \u003cb\u003eAppendix 1\u003c/b\u003e). At all four sites, and once the trees were felled and the timber removed, a block within the stand (ca. 1 hectare) was prepared for replanting. This included marking for pitting, clearing of harvest residue in the area to be pitted, and the manual preparation of planting pits. A broadcast, pre-plant spray with glyphosate (360 g a.i. @ 4 L ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e) was applied prior to planting. Each seedling (or rooted clonal plant) was planted with 1 L of water, applied as a drench before placement of the seedling. No fertilizer was applied. These replanted blocks received regular weeding until the trees were established, after which no further silvicultural input was required.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTree growth measurements\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDiameter at breast height (Dbh) and height (Ht) were measured on an annual basis. Using the Dbh measurements, the basal area per hectare (BA in m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e) was calculated from stocking obtained for the respective treatment plots. For the accurate determination of merchantable volume at rotation end, trees free from defects for each treatment were selected to cover the full range in terms of the mean Dbh distribution. When felled, stump height, total tree height and stem height to a minimum under bark stem diameter of 5 cm were determined, as were under bark diameter measurements at 0.65 m, 1.3 m and 1.5 m intervals from the base of the tree up the stem. Individual volumes for each section per tree were first calculated (formula for a truncated cone), then summed, and together with the corresponding Dbh and Ht values, separate Schumacher and Hall (1933) volume models for each treatment were calculated. These volumes, together with the stocking for relevant treatment plots, were utilised to calculate the total \u0026ldquo;merchantable wood volume\u0026rdquo; (V in m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e) per treatment per site.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo allow for a comparison of growth between treatments and sites over the duration of the rotations, the mean annual increment (MAI) and periodic annual increment (PAI) were calculated using the BA measurements (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cb\u003eAppendix 2\u003c/b\u003e). Although the MAI represents the average annual increase in BA over the rotation, the PAI was used to assess BA growth between measurements. As the planted trees were established after the stand was felled, their age was less than that of the coppiced treatments. To allow for a more direct comparison over the same period of growth and within each site, the MAI for the planted trees were adjusted using the age of the coppiced crop (\u003cb\u003eAppendix 2\u003c/b\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo further explore the influence of stocking on tree performance, non-linear regressions were carried out between merchantable volume (response variable) and stocking (explanatory variable), and with site as the grouping factor (\u003cb\u003eAppendix 3\u003c/b\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eWood and pulping properties\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the determination of density and screened pulp yield, three trees per treatment plot were selected, using the tree closest to the plot average, and one on either side of the mean (3 trees per treatment plot x 4 replicates\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12 trees per treatment per site. For density determination, 3 cm wide discs were taken at 1.5 m intervals up the length of the sampled trees to a top-end underbark diameter of 5 cm. These were used to determine whole tree density per tree using the TAPPI test method: T258 om-89. The product of the merchantable volume per hectare (m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e) and the density (kg m\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;3\u003c/sup\u003e) divided by 1 000 gives an indication of the timber yield per hectare (tons ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e). Using the same trees, a 1 x 1.2 m billet per tree was taken from 0.3 m above ground-level for the determination of screened pulp yield. The billets were chipped using a guillotine-style laboratory chipper to produce chips of a uniform size, with one composite sample made by combining the three trees per treatment plot (four composite samples per treatment per site). Samples were pulped in an electrically heated, batch type, rotating digester using the Kraft process. After removal from the digester, the pulp samples were screened through a 10 mesh screen onto a 60 mesh receiving screen by means of a water jet. The screened pulp yield (which excludes any pulping rejects) is the mass of pulp produced per mass of oven dry wood, expressed as a percentage. This gives an indication of the amount of pulp produced relative to the amount of wood pulped. Using the data obtained from the screened pulp yield (%) and timber yield (tons ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e) the pulp yield per hectare (tons ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e) was calculated.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEconomic assessments\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEconomic assessments were based on methodology used by Whittock et al. (2004), Guedes et al. (2011) and Crous and Burger (2015) whereby the coppiced rotation (2R-coppiced) was compared to a replanted rotation (2R-planted) following the first planted rotation (1R-planted). A simple cash flow model was developed for the various regeneration options using a Net Present Value (NPV) of 6%, followed by the calculation of the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) (Uys 1990). This economic analysis was conducted for each site separately, with all rotation ages kept constant at either eight or nine years (site-dependent). Generic costs\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e were used, namely US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e 765.78 ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e for establishment, US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e 481.50 ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e for maintenance and weeding of planted trees; US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e 435.43 ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e for first coppice reduction and control of secondary coppice regrowth, and US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e 261.19 ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e for second coppice reduction and further control of secondary coppice regrowth. General annual costs (also referred to as fixed plantation costs) were estimated at US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e 116.12 ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e. A harvester cost of US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e 143.25 per machine hour was used (Di Fulvio et al. 2024) and an additional US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e12.22 or US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e16.78 wwt\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e added for short-haul, loading and transport for the two sub-tropical and two cool-temperate sites respectively (Mavuya and Eteza are closer to the pulp-mills than Draycott and Tweefontien). Based on tree size measurements and percentage of double to single coppice stems at each site, the harvester productivity for planted stems and single and double coppice stems was calculated using equations developed by Ramantswana et al. (2017) for a cut-to-length single stem harvesting head mounted on a tacked excavator carrier. A timber price of US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e 59.81 wwt\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e delivered at the mill was used to calculate potential income (Forest Economic Services 2022). Daily labour rate was calculated as twice the minimum wage (US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e 1.61 hr\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e) over nine hours.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo further explore the relationship between harvesting costs, timber production and profit, the harvesting costs and timber production were regressed against the nett income using individual plot mean data and plotted using the same x-axis (\u003cb\u003eAppendix 4\u003c/b\u003e and Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e(\u003c/b\u003e \u003csup\u003e \u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/sup\u003e \u003cb\u003eFootnote: A ZAR to US$ conversion was used of 0.05847 on the date the financial calculations were made 30/09/2024)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStatistical analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDue to the arrangement of the coppiced and replanted blocks, a one-way analysis of variance was carried out to test for treatment effects (\u003cb\u003eAppendix 2\u003c/b\u003e). Only if the \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e-value was significant (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) were treatment differences further investigated using the least significant differences test (\u003cem\u003elsd\u003c/em\u003e). Prior to carrying out any analyses the assumptions underlying a valid analysis of variance were tested. Where the data were not normally distributed, either the Mann-Whitney or Kruskal-Wallis tests were conducted for comparing two or more independent groups respectively. Both these tests are non-parametric procedures that are equivalent to a one-way Anova, but do not rely on an assumption that the data are normally distributed. All analyses were carried out using Genstat for Windows 24th Edition (VSN International 2024).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results and Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTree performance\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTree growth and performance varied between the four locations and was a combination of species and level of genetic improvement, site, and to a lesser extent, management regime. Although all four eucalypts were matched to the site, the actual productivity in terms of the MAI of the best performing planted material was lower than the predicted productivity for the two sub-tropical sites (Eteza: predicted\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;17\u0026ndash;18 m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e; actual\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14.4 m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e; Mavuya: predicted\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;38\u0026ndash;42 m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e; actual\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;26.6 m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e), but were similar for the two cool-temperate sites (Tweefontein: predicted\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;22 m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e; actual\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;23.5 m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e; Draycott: predicted\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;18\u0026ndash;22 m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e; actual\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;22.9 m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e) (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cb\u003eAppendix 2\u003c/b\u003e). South Africa is regarded as a water scarce country (497 mm yr\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e), and although plantations are only grown in regions where the mean annual rainfall exceeds 800 mm yr\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e (Morris 2022), the occurrence and quantity of this rainfall over rotation has a large influence on the growth of that stand (Crous and Burger 2015). The total and mean annual rainfall for the duration of the 2R planted/coppiced crops were obtained from weather stations in close proximity to the four trials (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e), with similar values obtained for Mavuya and Eteza. In contrast, Tweefontein received less rainfall than what was predicted (-150 mm yr\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e), with 167 mm yr\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e more rainfall received at Draycott.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTreatment means for the rotation-end tree-growth variables that were measured in four \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus\u003c/em\u003e trials comparing performance of coppiced with planted material. Significant difference between treatments were only detected for density and screened pulp yield at Mavuya and Teza.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"13\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c11\" colnum=\"11\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c12\" colnum=\"12\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c13\" colnum=\"13\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTrial\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(species)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegeneration Method and material\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge when felled\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean annual rainfall over rotation\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(mm yr\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStocking\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMerchantable volume\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean annual increment\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDensity\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(kg m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTimber Yield\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(tons ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScreened Pulp Yield\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePulp Yield\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(tons ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStems ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStumps ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eActual growing period\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdjusted for coppice rotation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTweefontein\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(\u003cem\u003eE. macarthurii\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoppice:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2R \u0026ndash; unimproved\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9 y\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1040\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1982\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1722\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e159\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e483.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e77.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e46.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e35.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommercial coppice: 2R \u0026ndash; unimproved\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9 y\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1040\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1903\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1258\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e152\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlanted:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2R \u0026ndash; unimproved\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8 y 4 m\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1059\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1769\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e165\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e478.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e79.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e45.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e44.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlanted:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2R \u0026ndash; improved\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8 y 4 m\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1059\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1915\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e213\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e469.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e99.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e44.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e35.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDraycott\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(\u003cem\u003eE. nitens\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoppice:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2R \u0026ndash; unimproved\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8 y 5 m\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e976\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1612\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1197\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e237\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e515.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e121.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e49.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e60.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommercial coppice:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2R \u0026ndash; unimproved\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8 y 5 m\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e976\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1280\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e811\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e186\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlanted:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2R \u0026ndash; unimproved\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8 y 2 m\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e958\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1333\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e170\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e514.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e87.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e43.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlanted:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2R \u0026ndash;improved\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8 y 2 m\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e958\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1473\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e192\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e504.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e97.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e47.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e46.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMavuya\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(\u003cem\u003eE. grandis\u003c/em\u003e x \u003cem\u003eE. urophylla\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlanted:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1R \u0026ndash; A380\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7 y 4 m\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e960\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1331\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e193\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoppice:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2R \u0026ndash; A380\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8 y 1 m\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e992\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1420\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1222\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e205\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e476.9a\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e97.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e49.7a\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e48.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommercial coppice: 2R \u0026ndash; A380\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8 y 1 m\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e992\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1175\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1030\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e171\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlanted:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2R \u0026ndash; A380\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8 y\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e992\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1396\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e214\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e455.8b\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e97.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e47.1b\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e45.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEteza\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(\u003cem\u003eE. grandis\u003c/em\u003e x \u003cem\u003eE. camaldulensis\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlanted:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1R \u0026ndash; GC540\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9 y\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e845\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1250\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e128\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoppice:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2R \u0026ndash; GC540\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7 y 8 m\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e894\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1304\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1076\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e115\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e521.1a\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e59.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e48.9a\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e29.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommercial coppice: 2R \u0026ndash; GC540\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7 y 8 m\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e894\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1305\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e989\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e115\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlanted:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2R \u0026ndash; GC540\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7 y 7 m\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e900\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1239\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e105\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e513.3a\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e54.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e47.4c\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlanted:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2R - GC785\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7 y 7 m\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e900\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1250\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e110\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e471.7b\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e52.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e48.1b\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"13\"\u003e\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e1R and 2R refer to consecutive rotations that were monitored as part of this trial series and not to the first or second time that trees were planted on these sites.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eMAI and PAI\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt all four sites the MAI and PAI of the coppice treatment was initially higher than that of the planted treatments (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e), which can be associated with the more rapid growth of the coppice shoots benefitting from an established root system and existing nutrient resources within the stump. According to Evans (1982), coppice does not raise the site productive potential, but accelerates early growth, which would indicate a Type 1 rather than a Type 2 growth response (Snowdon 2002). Snowdon (2002) described a Type 1 growth response as an initial, albeit temporary increase in growth rate of a treatment (regeneration via coppice compared to replanting) that reduces the time needed for the stand to reach a given stage of maturity or stand development, but which is not sustained in the long-term. In contrast, Type 2 growth responses are maintained over the whole rotation, often resulting in a higher actual productivity obtained than what was predicted.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt Tweefontein and Eteza, the peak PAI was reached earlier than that of the planted treatment, in contrast to Draycott and Mavuya where the peak PAI of the two regeneration regimes were reached at a similar age. Due to the all-year-round growing conditions that occur within the sub-tropical region of SA (rain dependent), the maximum MAI occurred earlier for both management regimes (1.8\u0026ndash;2.2 yrs) compared to the two cool-temperate sites (3.3\u0026ndash;4.3 yrs), where reduced growth occurs in the drier, cooler winter months (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eVolume\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough there were differences in merchantable volume at rotation-end for the coppice versus planted different treatments within each site, they were not significant (Tables\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cb\u003eAppendix 2\u003c/b\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, the mean annual increment was not significant when adjusted to take into consideration differences in the rotation lengths between the coppiced versus replanted treatments. This also included a lack of significant differences between the unimproved and improved seedlings/cuttings that were tested at Tweefontein, Draycott and Eteza. Similarly, there were no significant difference at the two sub-tropical sites where trees (1R-planted) were measured prior to felling in the coppiced, or replanted trees (2R-coppice/planted) (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSurvival\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe targeted spacing and planting density for the four sites was a function of past planting densities, site quality and end-use, with Draycott (1 666 sph; 3 x 2 m), Eteza (1 333 sph; 3 x 2.5 m); and Mavuya (1 332 sph; 2.74 x 2.74 m), planted for pulpwood, and Tweefontein (2 222 sph; 3 x 1.5 m) planted for a combination of mining timber, poles and/or pulpwood. At all four sites the actual planting distances were greater, which corresponded to a lower planting density (Tweefontein: 2079 sph; Draycott: 1 563 sph; Eteza: 1 304 sph; Mavuya: 1 396 sph).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSurvival of the planted material was higher for the clonal hybrids in the two sub-tropical trials (Eteza\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;95 and 95.8%; Mavuya\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;100%), when compared to the seedlings in the two cool-temperate regions, with the survival of the improved better than the unimproved (Tweefontein: Improved\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;92%; Unimproved\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;85%; Draycott: Improved\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;94%; Unimproved\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;85%). Amongst other factors, higher survival of clonal hybrids could be associated with the planting of genetically identical clonal plants compared to the more genetically diverse seedlings, and the lower incidence of soil borne pests (white grubs and cutworm) that occur in the sub-tropical regions with lower percentages of clay and organic carbon, that can have a negative impact on establishment survival. By comparison, the warm and cool-temperate regions have higher organic carbon levels and the reduced establishment period (the period when most mortality occurs) in the cool-temperate region compared to the sub-tropical, where winter frosts and dry periods prevail. Although not tested, it can be speculated that the reduced mortality of the improved relative to the unimproved seedlings could be ascribed to reduced genetic diversity associated with selecting of surviving trees with more desirable growth and wood properties.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe number of living stumps following felling (2R-coppice) was lower in all four trials compared to the planted material (2R-planted), despite the selection sites where overall survival of the 1R planted trees was higher (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cb\u003eAppendix 2\u003c/b\u003e). Some additional mortality is expected following felling, often associated with a combination of the inherent ability of that eucalypt species/hybrid to coppice, age of the tree, site productivity, timing of felling, damage to the stumps during the felling and extraction of timber, and post-felling practices (burning of the slash, or failure to remove the harvest residues off the stump). Although the above factors were taken into consideration when managing the coppice plots, there was a further 13.3% and 7.8% reduction in survival at Eteza and Mavuya, the two sites where the survival of the 1R-planted crop was measured prior to felling. Following the final coppice reduction operation, the ability to retain two stems per stump on those adjacent to missing/dead stumps meant that the stem stocking for the coppice plots was higher than the stump stocking, as well as the stem stocking for the 1R/2R-planted treatments. This also meant that the final stem stocking of within the coppice plots approximated that of the targeted stocking, which is one of the benefits associated with coppicing well stocked stands over that of replanting, especially where the level of genetic improvement is similar and/or the correct species is planted on the site.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo further explore the influence of stocking on tree performance, a non-linear regression was carried out between merchantable volume (response variable) and stem stocking (explanatory variable), using site as the grouping factor (\u003cb\u003eAppendix 3\u003c/b\u003e). Although the two regeneration regimes were not considered separately in the analyses (coppice versus replanting), the regression accounted for 62% of the variance within the analyses (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eprob\u003c/sub\u003e \u0026lt;0.001; s.e. = 32.7). Overall, the accumulated analysis of variance indicated that merchantable volume was most strongly related to stocking (51.2%) and site (33.4%), which supports the outcomes of research on regeneration regimes that indicates a positive relationship between stocking and volume production, irrespective of method of re-establishment (Evans 1992, Crous and Burger 2015).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt all sites, stump survival was further reduced in the commercial coppice plots established within the stand adjacent to the trials (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cb\u003eAppendix 2\u003c/b\u003e). As the felling and extraction of timber was the same across the whole stand in which trials were located, this difference in additional mortality is likely due to practices that occurred post-harvesting and included factors such as the delay in the removal of harvest residues from the stumps which caused a reduction in coppice growth that were of poor form and/or attachment; a delay in carrying out reduction operations causing reduced growth of the remaining stem, together with a higher degree of windthrow post-reduction; as well as a lack of adequate care taken during reduction operations, resulting in damage to the remaining stems, which either reduced growth and/or resulted in windthrow. In a review of the potential of intensive silviculture to increase productivity of short and longer rotation hardwood and conifer plantations in New Zealand, Mead (2005) found growth improvements of 15\u0026ndash;25% in research studies compared to those in the field, with quality control providing an opportunity for improved production.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eWood density and screened pulp yield\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmongst other factors, the wood properties of eucalypts can be linked to species (and level of genetic improvement) and environment (site, climate, silviculture), both of which can influence growth rates, resulting in further differences in wood density and screened pulp yield (Rocha et al. 2019). Wood density is regarded as an important characteristic associated with higher pulp-wood production, which together with higher volume growth maximizes production on a unit area basis (Miranda et al. 2001; Marinda and Pereira 2015; Magaton et al. 2009; Rocha et al. 2019). In all four trials the coppiced trees resulted in a 1.7 to 3.4% higher wood density than the planted material, but this was only significant in the two sub-tropical trials (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Although care was taken when selecting trees around the mean for wood property determination, the ability to detect significant differences in the two sub-tropical sites could be associated with a decrease in genetic variability of the clonal material (thus allowing for an increased ability for the detection of treatment differences). For example, the residual variance was greater than the treatment variance for the two cool-temperate sites, with the opposite occurring for the two sub-tropical sites (\u003cb\u003eAppendix 2\u003c/b\u003e). Clarke (2001) found similar reduction in wood property variability when comparing clonal versus more genetically diverse trees raised from seed. Published research comparing the wood density of coppiced versus planted crops provides variable results, with Zbonak et al. (2007) indicating a higher wood density in six planted eucalypt compared to coppiced crops (albeit over subsequent rotations and on different sites), whereas Sch\u0026ouml;nau (1991) indicated no significant differences in wood density for planted and coppiced \u003cem\u003eE. grandis\u003c/em\u003e across three sites in SA. Possible reasons for the higher wood density obtained for the coppice plots in the four trials could be related to a combination of the reduced mid- to late-rotation growth rates, and reduced presence of juvenile wood (not assessed in these trials) associated with the growth of stems from existing root stock. Cirilo et al. (2024) compared wood quality of 10 coppiced and planted \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus\u003c/em\u003e genotypes and found that trees grown under a coppice regime generally produced more heartwood. In a study of wood density of 153 angiosperm and gymnosperm species in Chile, Fajardo (2021) found a significant and positive relationship between reduced growth rate and increased wood density. Sch\u0026ouml;nau (1991), however noted that although the density of the coppice crop is closely related to that of its plant crop, this relationship is affected by the unaccounted variations in site and genetic characteristics, as well as differences in coppice management and growth rate, with the latter showing the greatest influence (reduced timber density the faster the tree growth). Similarly, early wood production was found to be significantly higher in trees originating from seed than in coppice shoots in a study comparing growth and wood anatomy of coppiced and seeded sessile oak (France) (Girardclos et al. 2018). In contrast to the current study, Hardiyanto et al. (2022) recorded improved growth of \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus pellita\u003c/em\u003e coppice compared to seedlings (Indonesia) over six years, together with a lower wood density, possible linked to the higher rates of growth.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs for wood density, in all four trials the coppiced trees produced a 2.2 to 3.9% higher screened pulp yield than the planted material, although this was only significant in the two sub-tropical trials (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). A higher timber density may result in a higher screened pulp yield as a consequence of the extraction of more pulp from a given amount of wood; however, Santos et al. (2012), du Plessis (2012) and Ramos et al. (2024) indicate that this relationship is not always clear. In a review of literature over a 20-year period related to the influence of basic density and chemical composition of wood for the pulp industry, Ramos et al. (2024) found that unbleached pulp yield showed a tendency to remain constant with the variation in the basic density for eucalypts, especially as the operational conditions of the pulping processes were adjusted to a kappa number of between 17\u0026ndash;18. In a study comparing the influence of planting density on \u003cem\u003eE. grandis\u003c/em\u003e performance and wood properties, du Plessis (2012) found that although basic wood density was highly correlated with planting density, it had a low correlation with pulp yield. Ramos et al. (2012) showed that the pulp yields of \u003cem\u003eAcacia melanoxylon\u003c/em\u003e trees from four sites in Portugal were not correlated with wood density. du Plessis (2012) recommends that all aspects of importance, such as volume growth, basic wood density and pulp yield are combined into one meaningful productivity index.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCosts\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll costs associated with establishment and tending were included for the two regeneration regimes, with regeneration via coppice resulting in an average reduction of US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e 474 ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e over replanting across the four sites. In contrast, the harvesting costs were on average US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e 2.9 wwt\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e higher for coppice compared to replanted. Harvesting productivity, more importantly mechanised harvesting, and hence costs, are influenced by stocking, stem volume, as well as the presence of double stems within the coppiced plots. In general, there was a higher stem density in the coppiced plots, of which 13 to 25% were double stems (site dependent). In addition, Sch\u0026ouml;nau (1991) and Ramantswana et al. (2017) both showed higher stump and kerf wastage associated with the presence of double coppiced stems, with this taken into consideration when determining the harvesting costs. Similar findings in terms of the establishment, tending and harvesting costs for different regeneration regimes have been found, for example Whittock et al. (2003), Guedes et al. (2011), Crous and Burger (2015) and Schwegman (2017).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe difference between the present value of cash inflow and outflow was calculated for each site using a NPV of 6% when calculated over two consecutive rotations (1R-planted followed by 2R-coppiced or 2R-planted) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). The results were site-specific, with coppicing generally better, or equivalent to other treatments except for improved \u003cem\u003eE. macarthurii\u003c/em\u003e at Tweefontein. On all sites the commercial coppice was not as good as in research trials, with lower tree productivity coupled with higher harvesting costs, resulting in a negative NPV at Eteza and Tweefontein, the exception being the improved \u003cem\u003eE. macarthurii\u003c/em\u003e that was planted, where the merchantable volume was the best of all the treatments on that site (albeit not significantly different). The IRR of an investment is the interest rate at which the NPV of costs of the investment equals the NPV of the benefits, with all treatments returning a positive IRR (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). The more productive sites of Mavuya and Draycott returned the highest IRR, with coppicing resulting in a similar, or higher IRR than replanting, except at Tweefontein where re-planting with improved genetics the preferred option.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese results confirm the outcomes obtained by Crous and Burger (2015) and Guedes et al. (2011), where they established that if the yield of the coppice stand is similar to, or better than that of a replanted stand, coppicing is preferred. However, where there is a yield improvement to be gained through improved site x species selection or improved genetics, replanting is preferred. Crous and Burger (2015) suggested that a 10% improvement in yield would justify replanting, whereas Guedes et al. (2011) found that a 20% improvement in yield, following replanting, would provide the best risk-return ratio. Of all the treatments within the four trials, only that of the improved \u003cem\u003eE. macarthurii\u003c/em\u003e planted at Tweefontein resulted in a 34% increase in yield over that of the coppice crop.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo further explore the link between nett income, and timber production and harvesting costs across the four sites for the two regeneration regimes, the harvesting costs and timber production were regressed against the nett income and plotted using the same X-axis (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). As expected, an increase in nett income was associated with increased timber production and reduced harvesting costs, regardless of whether the treatment plot was coppiced or replanted. Of interest was that all the treatments plots (with the exception of improved \u003cem\u003eE. macarthurii\u003c/em\u003e) for the two less productive sites (Eteza and Tweefontien) occurred to the left of the timber production and harvesting costs intersection point, with the more productive sites (Mavuya and Draycott and the improved \u003cem\u003eE. macarthurii\u003c/em\u003e from Tweefontein) to the right.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThere were differences in growth and productivity associated with species and/or site, with the initial growth of coppice more rapid than replanted material, but this was not sustained to rotation-end. Although stocking was an important factor that determined treatment ranking within any specific trial, there was a positive relationship between stocking and volume production, irrespective of method of re-establishment. The timber density and screened pulp yield was higher in coppice than in the replant treatments, although this was only significant for the two clones grown on the two sub-tropical sites. In general, coppice performance within the commercial plots was lower than that achieved in the research plots, indicating an opportunity for improved production through improved silviculture and quality control. Regeneration via coppicing was cheaper relative to re-planting, but the harvesting costs associated with felling coppiced stands was higher. All treatments returned a positive IRR (using a NPV of 6%), with the more productive sites of Mavuya and Draycott returning the highest IRR. In general, coppicing resulted in a similar, or higher IRR than replanting, except at Tweefontein where the preferred option would be re-planting with improved \u003cem\u003eE. macarthurii\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough the two regeneration regimes are comparable, the decision to coppice or replant must be made on a site-specific basis taking into consideration factors such as stocking prior to felling, the coppicing ability of the eucalypt, and expected production gains associated with improved genetic planting stock. If coppicing is to be considered a viable and productive option, the timing, type and quality of harvesting, and post-harvesting coppice management operations must ensure that the actual yields approximate to the expected yields.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis trial series was implemented, managed and maintained by the Institute for Commercial Forestry Research (ICFR) on behalf of South African Forest Industry, through funding obtained from Forestry South Africa (FSA). Mondi, Sappi, NCT and Masonite (at the time of trial implementation) are thanked for making compartments available for the trials, and for providing labour whenever required. ICFR technical staff are thanked for their assistance over the duration of the trials, in particular Denis Oscroft (Zululand), and Xolani Colvelle (Midlands).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/strong\u003e K.L., J.C. and D. da. C. contributed to study conception and design. Data collection was undertaken by K.L. with support from ICFR and others and data analysis completed by K.L. and J.C. All authors contributed to the preparation of the draft manuscript and have read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e Open access funding provided by research funds generated by K.L. whilst employed by Nelson Mandela University.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e Data is provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e The authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlake TJ (1983) Coppice systems for short rotation intensive forestry: the influence of cultural, seasonal and plant factors. \u003cem\u003eAustralian Forest Research\u003c/em\u003e 13(13):279\u0026ndash;291.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBredenkamp BV (1991) Results of an \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus grandis\u003c/em\u003e coppice reduction trial in Zululand. \u003cem\u003eCSIR Report No: FOR 38.\u003c/em\u003e CSIR, Pretoria, South Africa.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCirilo NRM, de Almeida MNF, dos Santos VB, de Souza AJ, da Concei\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o, GJ, da Silva JGM, Prot\u0026aacute;zio LB, Arantes BS, Campoe OC, Hakamada RE, de Medeiros Neto PN, Castor Neto TC, Guillemot J, Vidaurre GB (2024) Impact of coppice and high stem management on \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus\u003c/em\u003e wood quality. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Wood and Wood Products\u003c/em\u003e 82(6):1841\u0026ndash;1854.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClarke CR (2001) Are \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus\u003c/em\u003e clones advantageous for the pulp mill? \u003cem\u003eSouthern African Forestry Journal\u003c/em\u003e 190(1):61\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;6.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCrous J, Burger L (2015) A comparison of planting and coppice regeneration of \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus grandis\u003c/em\u003e \u0026times; \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus urophylla\u003c/em\u003e clones in South Africa. Southern Forests 77(4):277\u0026ndash;285.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDi Fulvio F, Acuna M, Ackerman P, Ackerman S, Spinelli R, Abbas D, Kaakkurivaara N, S\u0026aacute;nchez-Garc\u0026iacute;a S, Guerra SP (2024) Benchmarking operational conditions, productivity, and costs of harvesting from industrial plantations in different global regions. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Forest Engineering\u003c/em\u003e. 35(2):225\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;50.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003edu Plessis M (2012) A fibre optimisation index developed from a material investigation of \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus grandis\u003c/em\u003e for the Kraft pulping process. PhD Dissertation. University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEvans J (1992) \u003cem\u003ePlantation forestry in the tropics: tree planting for industrial, social, environmental, and agroforestry purposes\u003c/em\u003e (2nd Edition). Oxford University Press, USA pp. 261\u0026ndash;265.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFajardo A (2021) Wood density relates negatively to maximum plant height across major angiosperm and gymnosperm orders. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Botany\u003c/em\u003e 109(2):250\u0026ndash;258.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eForest Economic Services (2022) \u003cem\u003eDetailed Analysis and Cost Benchmark Report - South Africa (including Regions).\u003c/em\u003e Forest Economic Services, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGirardclos O, Dufraisse A, Dupouey J-L, Coubray S, Ruelle J, Rathgeber CBK (2018) Improving identification of coppiced and seeded trees in past woodland management by comparing growth and wood anatomy of living sessile oaks (\u003cem\u003eQuercus petraea\u003c/em\u003e). \u003cem\u003eQuaternary International\u003c/em\u003e 463(B):219\u0026ndash;231.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGuedes IC de L, Coelho J\u0026uacute;nior LM, Donizette de Oliveira A, de Mello JM, de Rezende JLP, Silva CP de C (2011) Economic analysis of replacement regeneration and coppice regeneration in \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus\u003c/em\u003e stands under risk conditions \u003cem\u003eCerne\u003c/em\u003e 17(3):393\u0026ndash;401.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHardiyanto EB, Inail MA, Mendham DS, Thaher E, Sitorus BK (2022) \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus pellita\u003c/em\u003e Coppice vs. Seedlings as a Re-Establishment Method in South Sumatra, Indonesia. \u003cem\u003eForests\u003c/em\u003e 13:1\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKottek M, Grieser J, Beck C, Bruno R, Rubel F (2006) World Map of the K\u0026ouml;ppen-Geiger Climate Classification Updated. \u003cem\u003eMeteorologische Zeitschrift\u003c/em\u003e 15(3):259\u0026ndash;263.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee SH, Lum WC, Antov P, Krišť\u0026aacute;k L, Lubis MA, Fatriasari W (2024) Eucalyptus: Engineered Wood Products and Other Applications. Springer, Singapore.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLittle KM, Eccles NS (2000) Control of \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus grandis\u003c/em\u003e cut-stumps of single-stem origin. \u003cem\u003eSouthern African Forestry Journal\u003c/em\u003e 187(1):45\u0026ndash;49.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLittle KM (2003) Killing \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus grandis\u003c/em\u003e cut stumps after multiple coppice rotations. \u003cem\u003eSouthern African Forestry Journal\u003c/em\u003e 199(1):7\u0026ndash;13.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLittle KM, Gardner RAW (2003) Coppicing ability of 20 \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus\u003c/em\u003e species grown at two high-altitude sites in South Africa. \u003cem\u003eCanadian Journal of Forest Research\u003c/em\u003e 33(2):181\u0026ndash;189.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLittle KM, Gardner RAW (2021) Relative performance of coppice versus seedlings of 16 eucalypt taxa over two rotations in northern coastal Zululand, South Africa. \u003cem\u003eSouthern Forests\u003c/em\u003e 82(2):99\u0026ndash;110.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLittle KM, van den Berg G, Fuller G (2002) Coppicing potential of \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus nitens\u003c/em\u003e: Results from a field survey \u003cem\u003eSouthern African Forestry Journal\u003c/em\u003e 193(1):1\u0026ndash;38.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLittle KM (2004) Final results from an \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus dunnii\u003c/em\u003e coppice trial \u003cem\u003eICFR Bulletin Series 02/2004\u003c/em\u003e. Institute for Commercial Forestry Research, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLittle KM, du Toit B (2003) Management of \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus grandis\u003c/em\u003e coppice regeneration of seedling parent stock in Zululand, South Africa. \u003cem\u003eAustralian Forestry\u003c/em\u003e 66(2):108\u0026ndash;112.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLittle KM, van den Berg G (2006) First rotation \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus macarthurii\u003c/em\u003e cut stump control in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. \u003cem\u003eSouthern African Forestry Journal\u003c/em\u003e 207:15\u0026ndash;20.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLittle KM, van den Berg G (2007) Comparison of different herbicides for single stem \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus macarthurii\u003c/em\u003e cut stump control \u003cem\u003eJournal of Tropical Forest Science\u003c/em\u003e 19(1):13\u0026ndash;17.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLittle KM (2008) Final results from a \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus grandis\u003c/em\u003e x \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus camaldulensis\u003c/em\u003e coppice trial. \u003cem\u003eScientia Forestalis\u003c/em\u003e 76:85\u0026ndash;90.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLittle K, Oscroft D (2010) Coppice growth as influenced by damage occurring during reduction operations and control of secondary coppice regrowth. \u003cem\u003eICFR Technical Note 02/2010\u003c/em\u003e. Institute for Commercial Forestry Research, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMagaton ADAS, Colodette JL, de F\u0026aacute;tima Gomes Gouv\u0026ecirc;a A, Gomide JL (2009) \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus\u003c/em\u003e wood quality and its impact on Kraft Pulp production and use. \u003cem\u003eTAPPI Journal\u003c/em\u003e 8(8):32\u0026ndash;39.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMead DJ (2005) Opportunities for improving plantation productivity. How much? How quickly? How realistic? \u003cem\u003eBiomass and Bioenergy\u003c/em\u003e 28(2):249\u0026ndash;266.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMiranda I, Almeida MH, Pereira H (2001) Provenance and site variation of wood density in \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus globulus\u003c/em\u003e Labill. At harvestage and its relation to a non-destructive early assessment. Forest Ecology and Management 149(1\u0026ndash;3):235\u0026ndash;240.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMiranda I, Pereira H (2015) Variation of wood and bark density and production in coppiced \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus globulus\u003c/em\u003e trees in a second rotation. \u003cem\u003eiForest Biogeosciences and Forestry\u003c/em\u003e 9(2):1\u0026ndash;6.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMorley TA, Little KM (2012) Comparison of taper functions between two planted and coppiced eucalypt clonal hybrids, South Africa. \u003cem\u003eNew Forests\u003c/em\u003e 43(2):129\u0026ndash;141.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMorris AR (2022) Changing use of species and hybrids in South African forest plantations. \u003cem\u003eSouthern Forests\u003c/em\u003e 84(3):193\u0026ndash;205.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOscroft DG, Little KM (2008) The ability of eucalypts to regenerate via coppice following the September 2005 fires in Zululand, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. \u003cem\u003eICFR Technical Note 02/2008\u003c/em\u003e. Institute for Commercial Forestry Research, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRamantswana M, Mc Ewan A, Spinelli R (2017) The effect of coppice management on stump volume recovery in mechanized operations. \u003cem\u003eAnnals of Forest Science\u003c/em\u003e 74(3):1\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRamos RD, Longue Junior D, Gomes FJB, Medeiros NCG (2024) Influence of basic density and chemical composition of wood for the pulp industry: a case study. \u003cem\u003eCi\u0026ecirc;ncia Florestal\u003c/em\u003e 34(3):1\u0026ndash;20.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRoberts JC, Little KM, Light ME (2016a) The use of glyphosate for the management of secondary coppice regrowth in a \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus grandis\u003c/em\u003e x \u003cem\u003eE. urophylla\u003c/em\u003e coppice stand in Zululand, South Africa. Southern Forests 78(3):217\u0026ndash;223.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRoberts JC, Little KM, Light ME (2016b) A comparison of the cost-effectiveness of different \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus macarthurii\u003c/em\u003e cut-stump control management options for the regeneration of a Eucalyptus dunnii stand in Mpumalanga, South Africa. \u003cem\u003eSouthern Forests\u003c/em\u003e 80(3):1\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRocha MFV, Veiga TRLA, Soares BCD, de Ara\u0026uacute;jo ACC, Carvalho AMM, Hein PRG (2019) Do the growing conditions of trees influence the wood properties? \u003cem\u003eFloresta e Ambiente\u003c/em\u003e 26(3):1\u0026ndash;16.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSantos A, Anjos O, Amaral ME, Gil N, Pereira H, Sim\u0026otilde;es R (2012) Influence on pulping yield and pulp properties of wood density of \u003cem\u003eAcacia melanoxylon\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Wood Science\u003c/em\u003e 25:479\u0026ndash;486.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSch\u0026ouml;nau APG (1980) Timber density of planted parent trees and first generation coppice of \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus grandis\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eWattle Research Institute Report for 1979\u0026ndash;1980.\u003c/em\u003e Institute for Commercial Forestry Research, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSch\u0026ouml;nau APG (1991) Growth, Yield and Timber Density of Short Rotation Coppice stands of \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus grandis\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eSouth African Forestry Journal\u003c/em\u003e 156(1):12\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSch\u0026ouml;nau APG, Boden DI, Herbert MA, Brice Bruce AP (1981) Fertilizing coppice. \u003cem\u003eWattle Research Institute Report for 1980\u0026ndash;1981.\u003c/em\u003e Institute for Commercial Forestry Research, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, pp. 57.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchumacher FX, Hall FDS (1933) Logarithmic expression of timber-tree volume. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Agricultural Research\u003c/em\u003e 47:719\u0026ndash;734.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchwegman K, Little KM, McEwan A, Ackerman S (2017) Harvesting and extraction impacts on \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus grandis\u003c/em\u003e x \u003cem\u003eE. urophylla\u003c/em\u003e coppicing potential and rotation-end volume in Zululand, South Africa. \u003cem\u003eSouthern Forests\u003c/em\u003e 80(1):1\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchwegman K (2017) Integration of Eucalyptus coppice regeneration with mechanical harvesting in South Africa. MSc Dissertation. Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University. Port Elizabeth, South Africa.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSmith CW, Pallett RN, Kunz RP, Gardner RAW, du Plessis M (2005a) A strategic forestry site classification for the summer rainfall region of southern Africa based on climate, geology and soils. \u003cem\u003eICFR Bulletin 03/2005\u003c/em\u003e. Institute for Commercial Forestry Research, Pietermaritzburg.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSmith CW, Gardner RAW, Pallett RN, Swain T, du Plessis M, Kunz RP (2005b) A site evaluation for site:species matching in the summer rainfall regions of southern Africa. \u003cem\u003eICFR Bulletin 04/2005\u003c/em\u003e. Institute for Commercial Forestry Research, Pietermaritzburg.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSnowdon P (2002) Modelling Type 1 and Type 2 growth responses in plantations after application of fertilizer or other silvicultural treatments. \u003cem\u003eForest Ecology and Management\u003c/em\u003e 163(1\u0026ndash;3):229\u0026ndash;244.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSoil Classification Working Group (1991) \u003cem\u003eSoil Classification\u0026mdash;A Taxonomic System for South Africa\u003c/em\u003e. Memoirs on the Agricultural Natural Resources of South Africa No. 15. Department of Agricultural Development, Pretoria.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStubbings JA, Sch\u0026ouml;nau APG (1980) Management of short rotation coppice crops of \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus grandis\u003c/em\u003e Hill ex Maiden. \u003cem\u003eSouthern African Forestry Journal\u003c/em\u003e 115:38\u0026ndash;46.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSwain TL, Gardner RAW (2003) A summary of current knowledge of cold tolerant eucalypt species (CTE's) grown in South Africa. \u003cem\u003eICFR Bulletin 03/2003\u003c/em\u003e. Institute for Commercial Forestry Research, Pietermaritzburg.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUys HJE (1990) A new form of Internal Rate of Return. \u003cem\u003eSouthern African Forestry Journal\u003c/em\u003e 154(1):24\u0026ndash;26.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVSN International (2024) \u003cem\u003eGenstat for Windows 24th Edition\u003c/em\u003e. VSN International, Hemel Hempstead, UK.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWhittock SP, Greavesa BL, Apiolazab LA (2004) A cash flow model to compare coppice and genetically improved seedling options for \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus globulus\u003c/em\u003e pulpwood plantations \u003cem\u003eForest Ecology and Management\u003c/em\u003e 191:267\u0026ndash;274.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZbonak A, Bush T, Grzeskowiak V (2007) Comparison of tree growth, wood density and anatomical properties between coppiced trees and parent crop of six \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus\u003c/em\u003e genotypes. In Eucalypts and Diversity Balancing Productivity and Sustainability. Proceedings of the IUFRO conference, Durban, South Africa, 22\u0026ndash;26 Oct. pp. 1\u0026ndash;10.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"new-forests","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"nefo","sideBox":"Learn more about [New Forests](http://link.springer.com/journal/11056)","snPcode":"11056","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/11056/3","title":"New Forests","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Eucalyptus, coppice, tree improvement, volume, pulp yield, regeneration costs","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6671276/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6671276/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eWith the focus on maximising timber yield on a sustainable basis from a static land base, rather than on a reduction in costs alone, the question of whether to replant or coppice has become increasingly important. Although past research in South Africa has compared coppice growth and wood properties with genetically similar planted material, this data was collected on limited sites and/or species, or over successive rotations. Four trials were established in 1999\u0026ndash;2000 in South Africa with either \u003cem\u003eE. grandis\u003c/em\u003e x \u003cem\u003eE. camaldulensis\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eE. grandis\u003c/em\u003e x \u003cem\u003eE. urophylla\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eE. macarthurii\u003c/em\u003e or \u003cem\u003eE. nitens\u003c/em\u003e, where genetically similar trees and coppice were compared over the same rotation and site. In the \u003cem\u003eE. nitens\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eE. macarthurii\u003c/em\u003e trials, improved material were also compared to the genetically similar, albeit unimproved coppice. As the regeneration regimes were tested under identical site and climatic conditions, a direct comparison could be made between the two. Rotation-end data included stocking, merchantable volume, timber and pulp yield, and profit. Although treatment responses were site and/or species specific, irrespective of method of method of re-establishment, stocking was the main factor that determined treatment ranking. Timber density and screened pulp yield was higher in coppice than in the replant treatments, although this was only significant for the two clones grown within the two sub-tropical sites. Regeneration via coppicing was cheaper relative to re-planting, but the harvesting costs associated with felling coppiced stands was higher, with all treatments returning a positive internal rate of return (using a nett present value of 6%).\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Rotation-end comparisons for two Eucalyptus regeneration regimes (coppice versus replant) on four contrasting sites in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-06-06 16:04:09","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6671276/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-07-15T02:53:59+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-07-09T03:14:21+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-07-07T14:02:08+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"68669181463899177309113133879192252817","date":"2025-06-10T16:01:53+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"130105337136570770098875448528124249890","date":"2025-06-08T22:07:18+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-06-03T20:37:35+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-06-02T15:50:34+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-05-16T10:50:39+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"New Forests","date":"2025-05-15T09:41:14+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"new-forests","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"nefo","sideBox":"Learn more about [New Forests](http://link.springer.com/journal/11056)","snPcode":"11056","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/11056/3","title":"New Forests","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"c0c3fd85-e22e-4fda-8330-e73936223399","owner":[],"postedDate":"June 6th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-10-13T15:58:55+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-6671276","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-025-10120-x","journal":{"identity":"new-forests","isVorOnly":false,"title":"New Forests"},"publishedOn":"2025-10-11 15:56:58","publishedOnDateReadable":"October 11th, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-06-06 16:04:09","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s11056-025-10120-x","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-025-10120-x","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6671276","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6671276","identity":"rs-6671276","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}