Spatiotemporal differences in tree spatial patterns between alluvial hardwood and mountain fir–beech forests: do characteristic patterns exist?

Abstract

Questions What are the differences between the tree spatial patterns (TSP) of various recruit and mortality waves in alluvial hardwood forests and mountain fir–beech forests? Are there any statistically significant differences between the mean TSP of these forest types? Are these differences stable over time? Location Alluvial floodplain forests at the confluence of the Morava and Dyje rivers, and mountain fir–beech forests in the Outer Western Carpathians, Czech Republic. Methods In both forest types, seven 2‐ha rectangular plots were analysed. The pair correlation function g(r) was used to describe tree density variability of trees with DBH ≥ 10 cm. The analyses were carried out for data sets from the 1970s, 1990s and 2000s. A bootstrap method was used to test for significant differences between the mean values of g(r) from alluvial forests and from fir–beech forests. Results Recruits in mountain fir–beech forests revealed consistent clustering to at least 5 m. In alluvial hardwood forests, recruits also showed random distribution as well as occasional regular distribution at distances over 20 m. Bootstrap significance tests revealed significant differences between the mean values of g(r) for alluvial forests and fir–beech forests. Alluvial floodplain forests showed statistically significant stronger clustering up to a distance of 4 m in all study periods. At distances over 20 m, mountain fir–beech forests demonstrated stronger clustering. In the 1970s, this was statistically significant only at a distance of 32 m, but in the 2000s, it was at intervals of 22–30 and 34–38 m. Conclusions The methods of data analysis in this study enabled us to find significant features of TSP at finer resolution than the common resulting trichotomy of univariate analysis: clustering, randomness and regularity. We believe that, on the basis of detailed spatial analyses, it is possible to create a TSP model that reflects the typical features of particular forest types.

Spatial pattern of relict beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) forests in the Sudetes of the Czech Republic and Poland

“…In the Boubín Virgin Forest, at the beginning of measurements Šebková et al (2011) also described a dominant random structure that gradually turned to an aggregated structure. Similar results were reported by Janik et al (2013), who documented a tendency towards mostly an aggregated structure in mixed stands in the Western Carpathians.…”

“…This type of snag distribution was also indicated from beech woods in Germany (von Oheimb et al 2005) and from fir-beech stands in the Western Carpathians (Janik et al 2013). The clumpiness of small-diameter stumps can be explained by regeneration in groups and their subsequent self-thinning while the random distribution of large-diameter stumps is a result of the mortality of individual trees caused by reaching physical maturity (Rouvinen, Kouki 2002).…”

Ungulate Impact on Natural Regeneration in Spruce-Beech-Fir Stands in Černý důl Nature Reserve in the Orlické Hory Mountains, Case Study from Central Sudetes

“…Comparable findings about the recruit distribution in spruce-fir-beech stands in the Trčkov National Nature Reserve in the Orlické Mountains were reported by Vacek et al [27]. Similar results were obtained by Šebková et al [56] in mixed forests of the Boubín virgin forest in the Horni Vltavice district of the Šumava and Janik et al [57] in mixed fir stands in the Western Carpathians. The research being reported here found that the naturally aggregated pattern in the fenced area was created by a large number of fir recruits, whereas outside the fenced area a limited number of fir recruits (caused by repeated browsing damage with high mortality rates) has led to a random spatial pattern.…”

Fine-Scale Vertical Stratification and Guild Composition of Saproxylic Beetles in Lowland and Montane Forests: Similar Patterns despite Low Faunal Overlap

“…While the number of species declined with height in the canopy of the montane forest, there was no difference among the three sampled heights in the canopy of lowland forest, and the data even suggested an opposite pattern. All of this might be explained by the more complex vertical structure of the lowland forest, which shows more specific tree layers and therefore a higher variability of habitats [ 61 ]. In the same way, the stronger vertical stratification in tropical forests in comparison temperate forests has been attributed to their more complex vertical structure [ 11 ].…”