Effect of forest management on alpha diversity of ground vegetation in boreal forests: A model approach

Boreal Environment Research

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 45-54

  Kolström, Marja ^a   Pitkänen, Sari ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0346874318     PISSN: 12396095     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Attiwill P.M. 1994a. The disturbance of forest ecosystems: the ecological basis for conservative management. For. Ecol Manage. 63: 247-300.
2. Attiwill P.M. 1994b. Ecological disturbance and the conservative management of eucalyptus forests in Australia. For. Ecol Manage. 63: 301-346.
3. Botkin D. B. 1993. Forest dynamics. An ecological model, Oxford University Press, New York, 309 pp.
4. Butterfield R. P. 1995. Promoting biodiversity: advances in evaluating native species for reforestation. For. Ecol. Manage. 75: 111-121.
5. Ellenberg H. 1988. Vegetation ecology of central Europe, Fourth edition, Cambridge University Press, Avon, 731 pp.
6. Esseen P.A., Ehnström B., Ericson L. & Sjöberg K. 1992. Boreal forests - The focal habitats of Fennoscandia. In: Hansson L. (ed.), Ecological principles of nature conservation. Applications in temperate and boreal environments, Elsevier, London, pp. 252-325.
7. Graae B. J. & Heskjær V. S. 1997. A comparison of understorey vegetation between untouched and managed deciduous forest in Denmark. For. Ecol. Manage. 96: 111-123.
8. Halpern, C. B. & Spies T. A. 1995. Plant species diversity in natural and managed forests of the Pacific Northwest. Ecol. Appl. 5: 913-934.
9. Hastie T. & Tibshirani R. 1986. Generalised Additive Models. Statist. Sci. 1: 297-318.
10. Ilvessalo Y. 1952. Metsikkölajien esiintyminen Suomen metsissä. Summary in English: Occurrence of the different kinds of wood stands in the Finnish forests. Comm. Inst. For. Fenniae 39: 1-27.
11. Kellomäki S., Väisänen H., Hänninen H., Kolström T., Lauhanen R., Mattila U. & B. Pajari. 1992. SIMA: A model for forest succession based on the carbon and nitrogen cycles with application to silvicultural management of the forest ecosystem. Silva Carelica 22: 1-85.
12. Kolström M. 1998. Ecological simulation model for studying diversity of stand structure in boreal forests. Ecol. Modelling 111: 17-36.
13. Krebs C. J. 1989. Ecological methodology, Harper & Row, Cambridge, 654 pp.
14. Kuusipalo J. 1985a. On the use of tree stand parameters in estimating light conditions below the canopy. Silva Fenn. 19: 185-196.
15. Kuusipalo J. 1985b. An ecological study of upland forest site classification in southern Finland. Acta For. Fenn. 192: 1-77.
16. Lahti T. & Väisänen R. A. 1987. Ecological gradients of boreal forests in South Finland: an ordination test of Cajander's forest site type theory. Vegetatio 68: 145-156.
17. Larcher W. 1983. Physiological plant ecology, Corrected printing of the second edition, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 303 pp.
18. Larsen J. B. 1995. Ecological stability of forests and sustainable silviculture. For. Ecol. Manage. 73: 85-96.
19. Luonnonläheinen metsänhoito. 1994. Metsänhoitosuositukset, Metsäkeskus Tapion julkaisu 6/1994, Helsinki, 72 pp.
20. McCullagh P & Nelder J. A. 1989. Generalised Linear Models, Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability 37, Chapman and Hall, London, 511 pp.
21. Metsäntutkimuslaitos 1985a. Valtakunnan metsien 8. inventointi. Pysyvien koealojen kenttätyön ohjeet. The Finnish Forest Research Institute. 79 pp.
22. Metsäntutkimuslaitos 1985b. Valtakunnan metsien 8. inventointi. Biologien työohjeet VMI8:n pysyviä koealoja varten. The Finnish Forest Research Institute. 42 pp.
23. Nieppola J. 1992. Long-term vegetation changes in stands of Pinus sylvestris in southern Finland. J. Veg. Sci. 3: 475-484.
24. Nieppola J. & Carleton T. J. 1991. Relations between understorey vegetation, site productivity, and environmental factors in Pinus sylvestris L. stands in southern Finland. Vegetatio 93: 57-72.
25. Økland R. H. & Bendiksen E. 1985. The vegetation of the forest-alpine transition in the Grunningsdalen area, Telemark, S. Norway. Sommerfeltia 2: 1-224.
26. Økland R. H. & Eilertsen O. 1993. Vegetation-environment relationships of boreal coniferous forests in the Solhomfjell area, Gjerstad, S. Norway. Sommerfeltia 16: 1-254.
27. Økland T. 1996. Vegetation-environment relationships of boreal spruce forests in ten monitoring reference areas in Norway. Sommerfeltia 22: 1-349.
28. Packham J. R., Harding D. J. L., Hilton G. M. & Stuttard R. A. 1992. Functional Ecology of Woodlands and Forests, Chapman & Hall, London, UK, 407 pp.
29. Pausas J. G. 1994. Species richness patterns in the understorey of Pyrenean Pinus sylvestris forest. J. Veg. Sci. 5: 517-524.
30. Pausas J. G., Austin M. P. & Noble I. R. 1997. A forest simulation model for predicting Eucalypt dynamics and habitat quality for arboreal marsupials. Ecol. Appl. 7: 921-933.
31. Peet R. K. 1974. The measurement of species diversity. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5: 285-307.
32. Pitkänen S. 1997. Correlation between stand structure and ground vegetation: an analytical approach. Plant Ecology 131: 109-126.
33. Pitkänen S. 1998. Diversity of ground vegetation in managed boreal forests in relation to the properties of the tree stand and site. Dissertation, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forestry.
34. Pitkänen S. 1999. The use of diversity indices to assess diversity of ground vegetation in managed boreal forests. For. Ecol. Manage. 112: 123-139. [In press.]
35. Rescia A. J., Schmitz M. F., Martín de Agar P., de Pablo C. L., Atauri J. A. & Pineda F. D. 1994. Influence of landscape complexity and land management on woody plant diversity in northern Spain. J. Veg. Sci. 5: 505-516.
36. Rey Benayas J. M. 1995. Patterns of diversity in the strata of boreal montane forests in British Columbia. J. Veg. Sci. 6: 95-98.
37. Shugart H. H. 1984. A theory of forest dynamics. The ecological implications of forest succession models, Springer-Verlag, New York, 278 pp.
38. Tonteri T. 1994. Species richness of boreal understorey forest vegetation in relation to site type and successional factors. Ann. Zool. Fennici 31: 53-60.
39. Tonteri T., Hotanen J.-P. & Kuusipalo J. 1990. The Finnish forest site type approach: ordination and classification studies of mesic forest sites in southern Finland. Vegetatio 87: 85-98.
40. Tóthmérész B. 1995. Comparison of different methods for diversity ordering. J. Veg. Sci. 6: 283-290.
41. Uuttera J., Maltamo M. & Hotanen J.-P. 1997. The structure of forest stands in virgin and managed peatlands: a comparison between Finnish and Russian Karelia. For. Ecol Manage. 96: 125-138.
42. Whittaker R. H. 1972. Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon 21: 213-251.
43. Wilson M. V. & Shmida A. 1984. Measuring beta diversity with presence-absence data. J. Ecol. 72: 1055-1064.
44. Zobel K., Zobel M. & Peet R. K. 1993. Change in pattern diversity during secondary succession in Estonian forests. J. Veg. Sci. 4: 489-498.