METHODOLOGY

The study has four major parts on its methodology; clearing treatments, planting,
cleaning, and the measurement and analyses.

As for the clearing part, six 50m x 100m experimental area are laid out in the four
locations on an east-west axis in the forest. Randomly two 5000m2 areas per location which
constitutes 8 replicates, were allocated to each of the three clearing treatments. The three clearing
treatments include understory slashing and complete felling, clearing by machine, understory
slashing and felling followed by burning.

On the other hand, as for the planting part, 20 seedlings were planted on 100m2 plots in
the center of 23 of the experimental patch clear cuts and on the nearby control plot found near
the forest canopy. These seedlings were then referred as “cohort 0”. On the next year another
cohort of 20 seedlings were planted using the same spacing as the latter, in a 4m extension
around each central plot on all 24 clearings and on the control plots and then referred to as
“cohort 1”.

The areas are then subjected to cleaning after a year cohort 0 was planted the time when
cohort 1 is to be planted. The cleaning includes removal of vines and all stems in the central
plots excluding the mahogany seedlings near ground level.

Lastly, for the measurement and analyses, the height of mahogany was measured at
intervals, the quantity or number of shoot borer attacks, and the number of vines in each tree. To
analyze the effect of clearing treatment and cleaning on the rates of survival and growth, and
degree of attack by damaging agents General Linear Models procedures for complete block
designs and Tukey pairwise comparisons were vitally used.

The methodology seemed to lack important considerations that might be a factor that
causes the results. For example, the area is characterized to be a production forest of timber
species but it was not clear as to what species were planted in the experimental areas before the
experiment was conducted or if it was planted by mahogany already.

Also, we are aware that climatic consideration is an important factor yet no data or
analyses regarding its effect to the growth of the seedlings was presented. Another factor that
lacks data and analyses in the experiment is the edaphic characterization of the area as a whole or
a comparison between plots or sample areas. Although located in one production forest, edaphic
characterization may be different especially when we talk about a cleared area and an area under
a canopy which litters may affect the composition of the soil.

Although major characterization was given in the site description, these factors were
neglected in the analysis part. Although not a major concern for the study yet these variables
may affect the results (growth of the seedlings and attack of damaging pests) and should be
added as an experimental factor and be analyzed appropriately.