Patterns of growth dominance in forests of the Rocky Mountains, USA

Binkley, Dan; Kashian, Daniel M.; Boyden, Suzanne; Kaye, Margot W.; Bradford, John B.; Arthur, Mary A.; Fornwalt, Paula J.; Ryan, Michael G.

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2006.09.001

Cited by 108 publications

(113 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The Gini coefficient of the stem volume growth, G iv , indicates the inequality of the growth allocation between the trees within a stand (Binkley et al, 2006). For this purpose we calculated the mean periodic volume growth of all individual trees in the period 2009-2013.…”

Section: Triplet Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The higher the G v , the stronger the inequality of resource availability and growth distribution between the individuals of the population. The Growth Dominance Coefficient, GDC, combines information about size distribution with the respective growth distribution among the trees in a stand (Binkley, 2004;Binkley et al, 2006). It indicates how trees with different stem volume contribute to the stand growth; whether the contribution to stand growth is proportional to the stem volume of the trees (GDC = 0), whether small trees contribute over-proportionally (GDC < 0), or underproportionally (GDC > 0) in relation to their volume.…”

Section: Triplet Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It indicates how trees with different stem volume contribute to the stand growth; whether the contribution to stand growth is proportional to the stem volume of the trees (GDC = 0), whether small trees contribute over-proportionally (GDC < 0), or underproportionally (GDC > 0) in relation to their volume. Thus the GDC reflects whether the efficiency of tree volume investment is equal for trees of all size, or how it changes with tree size (Binkley et al, 2006).…”

Section: Triplet Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These include methods to quantify the horizontal tree distribution pattern (Clark and Evans, 1954;Cox, 1971), the vertical profile and size distribution (Pretzsch, 1997;Wichmann, 2002), stand density (Reineke, 1933;Sterba, 1981Sterba, , 1987, different development stages (Zenner et al, 2015), species richness and diversity (Hattemer, 1994;Shannon, 1948;Sterba, 2008), the pattern of species intermingling (Pielou, 1977), the morphological tree variability (Pretzsch, 2014) and the inequality of resource and growth distribution between the trees within a population (Binkley, 2004;Binkley et al, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Mixing of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) enhances structural heterogeneity, and the effect increases with water availability

Pretzsch

Rı́o

Schütze

et al. 2016

Forest Ecology and Management

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThe mixing of tree species with complementary ecological traits may modify forest functioning regarding productivity, stability, or resilience against disturbances. This may be achieved by a higher heterogeneity in stand structure which is often addressed but rarely quantified. Here, we use 32 triplets of mature and fully stocked monocultures and mixed stands of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) located along a productivity and water availability gradient through Europe to examine how mixing modifies the stand structure in terms of stand density, horizontal tree distribution pattern, vertical stand structure, size distribution pattern, and variation in tree morphology. We further analyze how site conditions modify these aspects of stand structure. For this typical mixture of a light demanding and shade tolerant species we show that (i) mixing significantly increases many aspects of structural heterogeneity compared with monocultures, (ii) mixing effects such as an increase of stand density and diversification of vertical structure and tree morphology are caused by species identity (additive effects) but also by species interactions (multiplicative effects), and (iii) superior heterogeneity of mixed stands over monocultures can increase from dry to moist sites. We discuss the implications for analyzing the productivity, for modelling and for the management of mixed species stands.

show abstract

Section: Triplet Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Triplet Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Triplet Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Mixing of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) enhances structural heterogeneity, and the effect increases with water availability

Pretzsch

Rı́o

Schütze

et al. 2016

Forest Ecology and Management

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Behind a neutral effect of productivity at stand level, in contrast, may be hidden a higher density of smaller trees which have a lower growth rate so that the mixed stand may come off equal to the pure stand but may differ considerably in size-structure (Binkley et al, 2006). Size-structure dynamics reveals on the one hand the reaction at tree level for trees of different sizes (quality of the mixing effect) and on the other hand the frequency of such individuals in mixed versus pure stands (quantity of the effect); both together (product of change of growth and frequency of such changes) yields the mixing effect at stand level.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Size-structure dynamics of mixed versus pure forest stands

Pretzsch

Schütze

2014

For. syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mixed species forests are presently on the advance as they are widely held to provide many ecosystem functions and services better than pure stands. Recent studies well explored species mixing effects at the individual tree level (Río et al., 2014a,b;Webster & Lorimer, 2003) and at the stand level (Morin et al., 2011;Piotto, 2007). However, the link between individual and stand level, the way how species mixing modifies the growth partitioning between the trees in a stand and their size-structure dynamics, is still hardly understood.Forest dynamics is often conceptualized at stand level by sum and mean values, at the collective level by tree size distributions, or at tree and organ level by the individuals' structure and growth. Each approach reveals special insights, not attainable at the levels abo- AbstractMixed species forests are presently on the advance and widely held to provide many ecosystem functions and services better than pure stands. Recent studies well explored species mixing effects at the individual tree or stand level. However, the link between individual and stand level which is represented by the size-structure dynamics of stands, is still hardly understood.Aim of this study: The objective was to analyse how species mixing modifies the size-structure dynamics of mixed compared with pure forest stands.Area of the study: The study was carried out in Southern Germany. Material and methods:We selected 11long-term experiments comprising 129 plots of un-thinned or just lightly thinned pure and mixed stands of European beech [Fagus sylvatica (L.)] and analysed their size structure dynamics.Main results: Based on the Gini coefficient, skewness and kurtosis we show how mixing with Norway spruce [Picea abies (L.) Karst] and sessile oak [Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.] modifies the size-structure dynamics of European beech. The size distribution of beech in mixture mostly lags behind the pure stand, is more size-asymmetric, and the mortality shifts from the smaller diameter classes further to the taller trees than in pure stands.Research highlights: The revealed changes of the size-structure dynamics of beech in mixed versus pure stands result from a modification of both growth partitioning and self-thinning. We draw conclusions of the reduced size growth and size equality of beech in mixed versus pure stands for forest management planning and perspectives for forest research.

show abstract

Slow carbon and nutrient accumulation in trees established following fire exclusion in the southwestern United States

Kaye

Hart

et al. 2016

Ecological Applications

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing tree density that followed fire exclusion after the 1880s in the southwestern United States may have also altered nutrient cycles and led to a carbon (C) sink that constitutes a significant component of the U.S. C budget. Yet, empirical data quantifying century-scale changes in C or nutrients due to fire exclusion are rare. We used tree-ring reconstructions of stand structure from five ponderosa pine-dominated sites from across northern Arizona to compare live tree C, nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P) storage between the 1880s and 1990s. Live tree biomass in the 1990s contained up to three times more C, N, and P than in 1880s. However, the increase in C storage was smaller than values used in recent U.S. C budgets. Furthermore, trees that had established prior to the 1880s accounted for a large fraction (28-66%) of the C, N, and P stored in contemporary stands. Overall, our century-scale analysis revealed that forests of the 1880s were on a trajectory to accumulate C and nutrients in trees even in the absence of fire exclusion, either because growing conditions became more favorable after the 1880s or because forests in the 1880s included age or size cohorts poised for accelerated growth. These results may lead to a reduction in the C sink attributed to fire exclusion, and they refine our understanding of reference conditions for restoration management of fire-prone forests.

show abstract

Patterns of growth dominance in forests of the Rocky Mountains, USA

Cited by 108 publications

References 31 publications

Mixing of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) enhances structural heterogeneity, and the effect increases with water availability

Mixing of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) enhances structural heterogeneity, and the effect increases with water availability

Size-structure dynamics of mixed versus pure forest stands

Slow carbon and nutrient accumulation in trees established following fire exclusion in the southwestern United States

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About