2015
DOI: 10.5849/forsci.13-180
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Early Regeneration and Structural Responses to Patch Selection and Structural Retention in Second-Growth Northern Hardwoods

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…, D'Amato et al. ). However, in larger gaps, the superior height growth rates of intolerant species (Beaudet and Messier , Walters et al.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…, D'Amato et al. ). However, in larger gaps, the superior height growth rates of intolerant species (Beaudet and Messier , Walters et al.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Other factors affecting the composition and density of seedling populations in NH forests include a scarcity of decaying wood and mineral soil substrates required by small seeded species (e.g., paper birch, yellow birch, hemlock) (D'Amato et al. , Willis et al. ) and a lack of local seed sources (Caspersen and Saprunoff ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…), and is a preferred regeneration site for many species of tree and shrub (Harmon and Franklin , D'Amato et al. ). Prior research in older forests has highlighted the potential for long‐term disruption to dead wood recruitment and accumulation as a result of active management (Duvall and Grigal , Debeljak , Silver et al.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Based on the literature (for example, [52][53][54] and [41]), we chose variables that have been shown to influence regeneration dynamics. Predictor variables included in the model were percent leaf litter, percent browse, Direct Site Factor (DSF, obtained through analysis of hemispheric photographs), and Curtis relative-density (RD) structure index [55].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although all three treatments in the FEMDP shared structural retention as an objective, they differed in harvest approach, for example in the degree of uniform vs. variable density tree marking, silvicultural gap size and configuration, and amount of live and dead tree retention [6,9,41]. The treatments included two conventional uneven-aged prescriptions, single-tree selection (STS) and group selection (GS), which retain post-harvest structure at the high end of the range of retention parameters typical for selection harvesting in the region ( Table 2).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%