2017
DOI: 10.1038/s41559-016-0063
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Spatial complementarity in tree crowns explains overyielding in species mixtures

Abstract: Deciphering the mechanisms that link biodiversity with ecosystem functions is critical to understanding the consequences of changes in biodiversity. The hypothesis that complementarity and selection effects drive relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem functions is well accepted, and an approach to statistically untangle the relative importance of these effects has been widely applied. In contrast, empirical demonstrations of the biological mechanisms that underlie these relationships remain rare. Her… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

29
327
6
2

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 337 publications
(383 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
29
327
6
2
Order By: Relevance
“…This applies to mixed-species stands where inter-and intra-specific interactions may increase structural hetero geneity (Pretzsch, 2014). Interspecific differences in morphological and physiological traits among coexisting species may enhance complementary mechanisms, such as the filling of canopy space, accumulating leaf area index (LAI), light capture and light use efficiency, all of which can contribute to explaining greater productivity in more diverse forests (Jucker et al, 2015;Larocque et al, 2013;Pretzsch, 2014;Toïgo et al, 2017;Williams et al, 2017). Recent studies have also uncovered evidence that intraspecific differences in allometric scaling of tree crowns in mixed stands were dependent on the competitive environment and competitive species composition in the stand (Forrester et al, 2017b;Pretzsch, 2014), which are directly related to canopy structure.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This applies to mixed-species stands where inter-and intra-specific interactions may increase structural hetero geneity (Pretzsch, 2014). Interspecific differences in morphological and physiological traits among coexisting species may enhance complementary mechanisms, such as the filling of canopy space, accumulating leaf area index (LAI), light capture and light use efficiency, all of which can contribute to explaining greater productivity in more diverse forests (Jucker et al, 2015;Larocque et al, 2013;Pretzsch, 2014;Toïgo et al, 2017;Williams et al, 2017). Recent studies have also uncovered evidence that intraspecific differences in allometric scaling of tree crowns in mixed stands were dependent on the competitive environment and competitive species composition in the stand (Forrester et al, 2017b;Pretzsch, 2014), which are directly related to canopy structure.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, such studies with multitemporal point cloud data analyses are rare, mainly focusing on standard tree dendrometrics or wood volume estimations (Liang et al., 2012; Srinivasan et al., 2014). Our new method is, thus, a very promising approach which should lead to important advances in several aspects of forest ecological research, such as investigations on crown growth, morphology and plasticity (Longuetaud, Piboule, Wernsdörfer, & Collet, 2013; Schröter, Härdtle, & von Oheimb, 2012), canopy structures and canopy packing (Jucker, Bouriaud, Coomes, & Baltzer, 2015; Morin, 2015; Pretzsch, 2014), crown‐related tree interactions and competition (Fichtner, Sturm, Rickert, von Oheimb, & Härdtle, 2013; Lang et al., 2012; Potvin & Dutilleul, 2009; Thorpe, Astrup, Trowbridge, & Coates, 2010), and niche differentiation and spatial complementarity (Ishii & Asano, 2010; Sapijanskas, Paquette, Potvin, Kunert, & Loreau, 2014; Williams, Paquette, Cavender‐Bares, Messier, & Reich, 2017), including changes over time.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The presence of overtopping deciduous competition could also lead to a complementary use of resources [62]. For example, spatial complementarity in tree crowns between cedar and its competitors could optimize light-use efficiency at the stand level and even lead to stem biomass overyielding [63]. Avoiding cedar plantations contiguous to forests providing good winter cover could also contribute to a decreased likelihood of browsing, as could avoiding brushing operations to leave a barrier in the form of competitor species.…”
Section: Management Implicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%