2004
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2004.07.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Linkages between silviculture and ecology: examination of several important conceptual models

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
51
0
4

Year Published

2009
2009
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 103 publications
(60 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
5
51
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…For some studies, the Bmeans^were calculated from regression lines. Studies that included standing stocks rather than growth were not included unless they were young plantations because standing stock is not necessarily correlated with productivity, particularly not at densities beyond canopy closure [121], and diversity-standing stock relationships can therefore be influenced by a different combination of factors compared with DPRs. The thick lines indicate the studies that accounted for factors that may have been confounded with species richness such as site characteristics, species pools, and stand density, either via the statistical analyses or because they were planted experiments.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For some studies, the Bmeans^were calculated from regression lines. Studies that included standing stocks rather than growth were not included unless they were young plantations because standing stock is not necessarily correlated with productivity, particularly not at densities beyond canopy closure [121], and diversity-standing stock relationships can therefore be influenced by a different combination of factors compared with DPRs. The thick lines indicate the studies that accounted for factors that may have been confounded with species richness such as site characteristics, species pools, and stand density, either via the statistical analyses or because they were planted experiments.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The improvement in the agreement (cross-validated PRSME) between measured and modeled data obtained by including age-related variation in closure ( Figure 5) indicates that increment and biomass are strongly dependent on stand closure (c), as represented in the model. This conclusion is further supported by the result that mean estimated c follows the expected development over time, increasing as stands close after planting and decreasing in response to onset of thinnings and increased risk for disturbances at higher age ( Figure 7) [37]. It could be argued that the improvement in model performance obtained by including variable c could instead have been achieved by letting productivity (p) vary among age cohorts.…”
Section: Large Scale Modelmentioning
confidence: 66%
“…In contrast, our use of c, the density compared to maximum density at the same mean tree biomass (b), provides an invariable basis for evaluating density effects measured over different time spans. This model implies that site conditions affect only the rate of change but not the path of relative density and biomass development of a stand, which has ample empirical support (Long et al, 2004).…”
Section: General Assumptionsmentioning
confidence: 98%