Competition between plantation Eucalyptus nitens and Acacia dealbata weeds in northeastern Tasmania

Hunt, Mark; Battaglia, Michael; Davidson, Neil J.; Unwin, Greg

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2006.05.017

Cited by 40 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Numerous studies have focused on plant competition (e.g. Fetene 2003;Hunt et al 2006;Berger et al 2008;Manning et al 2009), because it is a key process affecting plant populations and communities (Berger et al 2008). Competition-density (C-D) is an effect explaining the common finding that average plant size decreases when stand density increases.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Density effects on the growth of self-thinning Eucalyptus urophylla stands

Xue

Pan

Zhang

et al. 2011

Trees

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Density effects on the growth of self-thinning Eucalyptus urophylla stands were examined for 7 years. Tree height and stem diameter at breast height were measured during the experimental period. Stems, branches, leaves, bark and roots of 45 E. urophylla trees were sampled in three different density stands in order to establish their biomass equations. Change trends of the biological time s and density q were described used corresponding equations. The stem weight ratio increased and leaf weight ratio decreased, whereas those of branch, bark and root were relatively steady from 2 years after the planting. The competition-density (C-D) effect equation of mean organ weight w o was derived by combining the allometric power relationship between mean tree weight w and w o with the C-D effect equation of self-thinning stands. The equations of the C-D effect for w and q and for w o and q were used to describe the C-D effects in tree and organs during course of self-thinning, respectively, and showed a good fit to the data. Leaf biomass of different density stands reached a more or less constant level with time elapse. High density produced the greatest biomass and stem biomass, so that it is the best choice in silvicultural practice.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Density effects on the growth of self-thinning Eucalyptus urophylla stands

Xue

Pan

Zhang

et al. 2011

Trees

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other benefits, including soil C sequestration (Resh et al 2002), improved nutrient cycling, reduced risk of pest damage, and a larger range of products, have been reported (Forrester et al 2004;Kelty 2006). Whilst the influence of a stratified canopy on light interception is well documented in mixedspecies plantations (Hunt et al 2006), the ability of different species to improve the capture of belowground resources remains unclear (Bauhus et al 2000;Kelty 2006;Bakker et al 2006;Leuschner et al 2001;Kueffer et al 2007). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamics of fine root distribution after establishment of monospecific and mixed-species plantations of Eucalyptus grandis and Acacia mangium

Silva¹,

Gonçalves²,

Coelho³

et al. 2009

Plant Soil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introducing N-fixing species in the understorey of fast-growing plantations might be an attractive option to improve soil N status. Intensive fine root sampling was performed in a complete randomized block design to investigate the ability of Eucalyptus grandis and Acacia mangium seedlings in monospecific stands and mixed-species plantations to take up complementary resources from niche exploration of soil layers. The same soil layers were explored by the two species down to a depth of 2 m in monospecific stands. Whilst the development of E. grandis fine roots was not affected by A. mangium trees in mixed-species plantations, A. mangium fine roots were excluded from the upper soil layer from 18 months after planting onwards, despite the paramount importance of that horizon for tree nutrition in highly weathered soils, and were only found deeper and close to A. mangium trees 30 months after planting.

show abstract

“…However, in many situations mixed species systems offer no change, or a reduced productivity compared to monocultures (Cavard et al 2010;Chen et al 2003;Erickson et al 2009;Forrester et al 2005;Hunt et al 2006) and it is acknowledged that a mechanistic understanding of the underlying processes is required to enable better predictive ability for situations where mixtures can be successful (Forrester et al 2005;Manson et al 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The positive effects from species interactions can however be limited to specific ecological contexts, developmental stages and planting densities (Amoroso and Turnblom 2006). Reduced productivity in mixtures has often been associated with asymmetric competition between species as plantations develop (Cavard et al 2010;Hunt et al 2006;Chen et al 2003). Whilst studies investigating neighbourhood effects have identified the inter-specific competitive effects in mixtures (Canham et al 2004;Bristow et al 2006), others have found the size of neighbours, rather than species identity, as the largest source of variation in individual tree diameter and height (Erickson et al 2009;Potvin and Dutilleul 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%