Assessing Differences in Competitive Effects Among Tree Species in Central British Columbia, Canada

Acquah, Stella Britwum; Marshall, Peter

doi:10.3390/f11020167

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 52 publications

(40 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Problems with models assessing influences of tree size and inter-tree competitive processes… how, when and how effectively trees may compete with each other (Papaik and Canham 2006;Pretzsch and Biber 2010;Pretzsch et al 2012Pretzsch et al , 2018Craine and Dybzinski 2013;Cordonnier and Kunstler, 2015;Guo et al 2017;Cordonnier et al 2018;Pommerening and Meador 2018;Brown et al 2019;Acquah and Marshall 2020;Wu et al 2020;Orman et al 2021).…”

Section: Model Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, of recent times it has become common to use 'Akaike's Information Criterion' (AIC) (and allied criteria) to suggest which of a number of possible models is the most appropriate when fitted to a particular data set; a number of studies of competitive processes have used this method (Miina and Pukkala 2002;Papaik and Canham 2006;Yang et al 2009;Pretzsch 2021). Some studies have used both methods (Pommerening and Maleki 2014;Cordonnier and Kunstler 2015;Kahriman et al 2018;Acquah and Marshall 2020;Bhandari et al 2021) or, indeed, have used other methods altogether (Verzelen et al 2006;Kuehne et al 2019). However, the use of AIC does not provide a test of the statistical significance between model options Anderson 2008, Chap. 3) and so it was not the method favored here.…”

Section: Fitting and Testing The Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some systems relating tree growth rates to tree size have functional forms that assumes this decline occurs (e.g. Papaik and Canham 2006;Yang et al 2009;Acquah and Marshall 2020). A second determinant of the growth of a tree will be its genetic makeup and concomitant physiological capabilities (von Wuehlisch et al 1990); these effects will be more pronounced between trees of different species (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Problems with models assessing influences of tree size and inter-tree competitive processes on individual tree growth: a cautionary tale

West

Ratkowsky

2021

J. For. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In forest growing at any one site, the growth rate of an individual tree is determined principally by its size, which reflects its metabolic capacity, and by competition from neighboring trees. Competitive effects of a tree may be proportional to its size; such competition is termed ‘symmetric’ and generally involves competition below ground for nutrients and water from the soil. Competition may also be ‘asymmetric’, where its effects are disproportionate to the size of the tree; this generally involves competition above ground for sunlight, when larger trees shade smaller, but the reverse cannot occur. This work examines three model systems often seen as exemplars relating individual tree growth rates to tree size and both competitive processes. Data of tree stem basal area growth rates in plots of even-aged, monoculture forest of blackbutt (Eucalyptus pilularis Smith) growing in sub-tropical eastern Australia were used to test these systems. It was found that none could distinguish between size and competitive effects at any time in any one stand and, thus, allow quantification of the contribution of each to explaining tree growth rates. They were prevented from doing so both by collinearity between the terms used to describe each of the effects and technical problems involved in the use of nonlinear least-squares regression to fit the models to any one data set. It is concluded that quite new approaches need to be devised if the effects on tree growth of tree size and competitive processes are to be quantified and modelled successfully.

show abstract