Productivity of mixed stands of Norway spruce and birch affected by population dynamics: A model analysis

Ecological Modelling

Volumn 106, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 77-91

  Jõgiste, Kalev ^a  

^a ESTONIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Estonia)

Author keywords

Mixed stand; Model analysis; Population dynamics

Indexed keywords

MIXED FOREST; POPULATION DYNAMICS; POPULATION MODEL; PRODUCTIVITY;

ESTONIA;

EID: 0343202405     PISSN: 03043800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3800(97)00183-X     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Agestam, E., 1985. En produktionsmodell för blandbestånd av tall, gran och björk i Sverige. Summary: A growth simulator for mixed stands of pine, spruce and birch in Sweden. Department of Forest Yield Research, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Rep. No 15, p. 150 (In Swedish with English summary).
2. Aplet G.H., Laven R.D., Smith F.W. Patterns of community dynamics in Colorado Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir forest. Ecology. 69:1988;312-319.
3. Aplet G.H., Smith F.W., Laven R.D. Stemwood biomass and production during spruce-fir stand development. J. Ecol. 77:1989;70-77.
4. Amateis R.L., Burkhart H.E., Walsh T.A. Diameter increment and survival equations for loblolly pine trees growing in thinned and unthinned plantations on cutover, site-prepared lands. South. J. Appl. For. 13:1989;170-174.
5. Assman, E., 1970. The Principles of Forest Yield Study. Pergamon, Oxford, p. 506.
6. Biging G.S., Dobbertin M. Evaluation of competition indices in individual tree growth models. For. Sci. 41:1995;360-377.
7. Bormann, F.H., Likens, G.E., 1979. Patterns and Processes in a Forested Ecosystem. Springer, New York, p. 253.
8. Frivold, L.H., 1982. Bestandsstruktur og produksjon i blandingsskog av bjørk (Betula verrucosa Ehrh., B. pubescens Ehrh.) og gran (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) i Sydøst-Norge. Summary: Stand structure and yield of mixed stands of birch (Betula verrucosa Ehrh., B. pubescens Ehrh.) and spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.). in South East Norway. Sci. Rep. Agricultural University of Norway, 61 (18), 108 (in Norwegian with English summary).
9. Harcombe P.A., Harmon M.E., Greene S.E. Changes in biomass and production over 53 years in a coastal Picea sitchensis-Tsuga heterophylla forest approaching maturity. Can. J. For. Res. 20:1990;1602-1610.
10. Harper, J.L., 1977. Population Biology of Plants. Academic Press, London, p. 892.
11. Huang S., Titus S.J. An individual tree diameter increment model for white spruce in Alberta. Can. J. For. Res. 25:1995;1455-1465.
12. Kelty M.J. Productivity of New England hemlock/hardwood stands as affected by species composition and canopy structure. For. Ecol. Manage. 28:1989;237-257.
13. Kelty, M.J., 1992 Comparative productivity of monocultures and mixed-species stands. In: Kelty, M.J., Larson, B.C., Oliver, C.D. (Eds.), The Ecology and Silviculture of Mixed-Species Forests, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 125-142.
14. Koivisto P. Growth and yield tables. Commun. Inst. For. Fenn. 51(8):1959;49.
15. Laasasenaho J. Taper curve and volume functions for pine, spruce and birch. Commun. Inst. For. Fenn. 108:1982;74.
16. Lemmon P.E., Schumacher F.X. Volume and diameter growth of ponderosa pine trees as influenced by site index, density, age and size. For. Sci. 8:1962;236-249.
17. Liu J., Ashton P.S. Individual-based simulation models for forest succession and management. For. Ecol. Manage. 73:1995;157-175.
18. Lõhmus, E., 1984. Eesti metsakasvukohatüübid. (Estonian forest site types). Eesti NSV Agrotööstuskoondise Info-ja Juurutusvalitsus, Tallinn, p. 121 (In Estonian).
19. Loucks, O.L., Ek, A.R., Johnson, W.C., Monserud, R.A., 1981. Growth, aging and succession. In: Reichle, D.E. (Ed.), Dynamic Properties of Forest Ecosystems, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 37-85.
20. Mielikäinen, K., 1985. Koivusekoituksen vaikutus kuusikon rakenteeseen ja kehitykseen. Summary: Effect of an admixture of birch on the structure and development of Norway spruce stands. Commun. Inst. For. Fenn. 133, 79 (In Finnish with English summary).
21. Monserud R.A., Sterba H. A basal area increment model for individual trees growing in even- and uneven-aged forests in Austria. For. Ecol. Manage. 80:1996;57-80.
22. Munro, D.D., 1974. Forest growth models - a prognosis. In: Fries, J. (Ed.), Growth Models for Tree and Stand Simulation. Royal College of Forestry, Stockholm, Res. Note 30, 7-21.
23. Oliver, C.D., Larson, B.C., 1990. Forest Stand Dynamics. McGraw-Hill, New York, p. 467.
24. Padari, A., 1994. Kõrguse ja diameetri seose valikust. Summary: Principles of selecting height/diameter curves. Trans. Estonian Agricultural University, 173, 134-143. (In Estonian with English summary).
25. Paré D., Bergeron Y. Above-ground biomass accumulation along a 230 year chronosequence in the southern portion of the Canadian boreal forest. J. Ecol. 83:1995;1001-1007.
26. Peet, R.K., 1981. Changes in biomass and production during secondary forest succession. In: West, D.C. Shugart, H.H., Botkin, D.B. (Eds.), Forest Succession. Concepts and Applications, Springer, New York, pp. 324-338.
27. Peet, R.K., 1992. Community structure and ecosystem function. In: Glenn-Lewin, D.C., Peet, R.K., Veblen, T.T. (Eds.), Plant Succession. Theory and Prediction, Chapman and Hall, London, pp. 103-151.
28. Peet R.K., Christensen N.L. Succession: a population process. Vegatation. 43:1980;131-140.
29. Pretzsch, H., 1992. Modelling growth of Bavarian mixed stands of Fagus sylvatica and Picea abies on the data base of long-term sample plots. In: Preuhsler, T. (Ed.), Research on Growth and Yield with Emphasis on Mixed Stands, Proc. Sessions of S4.01, Mensuration, Growth and Yield, at the IUFRO Centennial Meeting, Berlin/Eberswalde, Germany, 31 August-4 September, pp. 37-46.
30. Pukkala T., Kolström T. Effect of spatial pattern on the growth of a Norway spruce stand. A simulation model. Silva Fenn. 25:1991;117-131.
31. Pukkala T., Vettenranta J., Kolström T., Miina J. Productivity of mixed stands of Pinus sylvestris and Picea abies. Scand. J. For. Res. 9:1994;143-153.
32. Quicke H.E., Meldahl R.S., Kush J.S. Basal area growth of individual trees: a model derived from a regional longleaf pine growth study. For. Sci. 40:1994;528-542.
33. Shugart, H.H., 1984. A Theory of Forest Dynamics. The Ecological Implications of Forest Succession Models. Springer, New York, p. 278.
34. Teck, R.M., Hilt, D.E., 1991. Individual-Tree Diameter Growth Model for the Northeastern United States. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-649, p. 11.
35. Tham, Å., 1988. Yield prediction after heavy thinnings of birch in mixed stands of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) and birch (Betula pendula Roth and Betula pubescens Ehrh.). Department of Forest Yield Research, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Rep. No 23, p. 36.
36. Tham Å. Prediction of individual tree growth in managed stands of mixed Picea abies (L.) Karst. and Betula pendula Roth and Betula pubescens. Scand. J. For. Res. 4:1989;491-512.
37. Tham Å. Crop plans and yield predictions for Norway spruce and birch mixtures. Stud. For. Suec. 195:1994;21.
38. Valsta L. Stand management optimizations based on growth simulators. Finn. For. Res. Inst. Res. Pap. 453:1993;51.
39. Wykoff W.R. A basal area increment model for individual conifers in the Northern Rocky Mountains. For. Sci. 36:1990;1077-1104.