2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2008.01.043
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Individual tree growth response to variable-density thinning in coastal Pacific Northwest forests

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

9
53
2

Year Published

2011
2011
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 82 publications
(64 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
9
53
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Growth differences between edge and interior trees were correlated with the measured CI i ( Figure 4); this relationship has been reported in the literature [26,29,68]. Edge trees in younger stands of DS showed the lowest competition values, and it was the studied shelterwood with the highest growth response.…”
Section: Edge Effectsupporting
confidence: 81%
“…Growth differences between edge and interior trees were correlated with the measured CI i ( Figure 4); this relationship has been reported in the literature [26,29,68]. Edge trees in younger stands of DS showed the lowest competition values, and it was the studied shelterwood with the highest growth response.…”
Section: Edge Effectsupporting
confidence: 81%
“…Several studies (Castagneri et al, 2008;Contreras et al, 2011) have reported that SdrAng can describe a greater proportion of the investigated variation in growth models. Also, Heg demonstrated superior performance to non-spatial CIs in many stud- any superiority of spatial indices to non-spatial ones (Soares & Tomé, 1999;Stadt et al, 2007;Roberts & Harrington, 2008). The superiority of size-ratio CIs of SdrAng and Heg that used the d as indicator of size was probably because of the actual correlation between the subject tree's diameter increment and its d (Holmes & Reed, 1991); however, the strength of competitive stress explained by such correlations might be unclear (Brand & Magnussen, 1988;Larocque, 2002).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast, diameter growth of larger trees was still higher than those of smaller trees, but increased less or not at all after thinning, unless densities surrounding the trees were very open [15,29]. The spatial variability created, e.g., by including gaps, was also reflected in diameter growth responses, with trees adjacent to gaps showing higher increases in growth [15,30]. Thus, our results suggest that typical thinning treatments are not efficient at achieving tree sizes typically found in old-growth stands (e.g., [31]).…”
Section: Tree and Stand Growth Responsesmentioning
confidence: 99%