Carbon budget for Scots pine trees: Effects of size, competition and site fertility on growth allocation and production

Tree Physiology

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 17-30

  Vanninen, Petteri ^a,b   Mäkelä, Annikki ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

Author keywords

Biomass; Carbon balance; Needle efficiency; Pinus sylvestris; Structure

Indexed keywords

BIOMASS; BIOMASS ALLOCATION; CARBON BUDGET; CARBON FLUX; SOIL FERTILITY; TIME SERIES;

PINUS SYLVESTRIS;

EID: 11444251423     PISSN: 0829318X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/treephys/25.1.17     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Ågren, G.I. 1985. Theory for growth of plants derived from the nitrogen productivity concept. Physiol. Plant. 64:17-28.
2. Ågren, G.I. 1996. Nitrogen productivity or photosynthesis minus respiration to calculate plant growth. Oikos 76:529-535.
3. Assmann, E. 1970. The principles of forest yield study. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 506 p.
4. Bartelink, H.H. 1998. Simulation of growth and competition in mixed stands of Douglas-fir and beech. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands, 222 p.
5. Beets, P.N. and D.S. Pollock. 1987. Accumulation and partitioning of dry matter in Pinus radiata as related to stand age and thinning. N.Z. J. For. Sci. 17:246-271.
6. Brouwer, R. 1962. Distribution of dry matter in the plant. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 10:361-376.
7. Burton, A.J., K.S. Pregitzer and R.I. Hendrick. 2000. Relationships between fine root dynamics and nitrogen availability in Michigan northern hardwood forests. Oecologia 125:389-399.
8. Cajander, A.K. 1949. Forest types and their significance. Acta For. Fenn. 56:1-71.
9. Cannel, M.G.R. and J.H.M. Thornley. 2000. Modelling the components of plant respiration: some guiding principles. Ann. Bot. 85: 45-54.
10. Comeau, P.G. and J.P. Kimmins. 1989. Above- and below-ground biomass and production of lodgepole pine on sites with differing soil moisture regimes. Can. J. For. Res. 19:447-454.
11. Eissenstat, D.M. and K.C.J. Van Rees. 1994. The growth and functioning of fine roots. In Environmental Constraints on the Structure and Productivity of Pine Forest Ecosystems: A Comparative Analysis. Eds. H.L. Gholz, S. Linder and R.E. McMurtrie. Ecol. Bull. 43:76-91.
12. Gholz, H.L. and R.F. Fisher. 1982. Organic matter production and distribution in slash pine plantation ecosystems. Ecology 63: 1827-1839.
13. Helmisaari, H.-S., K. Makkonen, S. Kellomäki, E. Valtonen and E. Mälkönen. 2002. Below- and above-ground biomass, production and nitrogen use in Scots pine stands in eastern Finland. For. Ecol. Manage. 165:317-326.
14. Hubbard, R.M., B.J. Bond and M.G. Ryan. 1999. Evidence that hydraulic conductance limits photosynthesis in old Pinus ponderosa trees. Tree Physiol. 19:165-172.
15. Ilomaki, S., E. Nikinmaa and A. Mäkelä. 2003. Crown rise due to competition drives biomass allocation in silver birch. Can. J. For. Res. 33:2395-2404.
16. Kira, T. and T. Shidei. 1967. Primary production and turnover of organic matter in different forest ecosystems of the western Pacific. Jpn. J. Ecol. 17:70-87.
17. Kolari, P., J. Pumpanen, Ü. Rannik, H. Ilvesniemi, P. Hari and F. Berninger. 2004. Carbon balance of different aged Scots pine forests in southern Finland. Global Change Biol. 10:1106-1119.
18. Korpilahti, E. 1988. Photosynthetic production of Scots pine in the natural environment. Acta For. Fenn. 202:1-71.
19. Landsberg, J.J. and R.H. Waring. 1997. A generalised model of forest productivity using simplified concepts of radiation-use efficiency, carbon balance and partitioning. For. Ecol. Manage. 95:209-228.
20. Lehtonen, A., R. Sievänen, A. Mäkelä, R. Mäkipää, K.T. Korhonen and T. Hokkanen. 2004. Potential litterfall of Scots pine branches in southern Finland. In press.
21. Linder, S. and B. Axelsson. 1982. Changes in carbon uptake and allocation patterns as a result of irrigation and fertilization in a young Pinus sylvestris stand. In Carbon Uptake and Allocation in Subalpine Ecosystems as a Key to Management: Proc. IUFRO Workshop. Ed. R.H. Waring. Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State Univ. Corvallis, OR, pp 38-44.
22. Madgwick, H.A.I., D.S. Jackson and P.J. Knight. 1977. Aboveground dry matter, energy, and nutrient contents of trees in an age series of Pinus radiata plantations. N.Z. J. For. Sci. 7:445-468.
23. Mäkelä, A. 1986. Implications of the pipe model theory on dry matter partitioning and height growth trees. J. Theor. Biol. 123:103-120.
24. Mäkelä, A. 1990. Adaptation of light interception computations to stand growth models. Silva Carel. 15:221-239.
25. Mäkelä, A. 1997. A carbon balance model of growth and self-pruning in trees based on structural relationships. For. Sci. 43:7-24.
26. Mäkelä, A. and P. Vanninen. 1998. Impacts of size and competition on tree form and distribution of above-ground biomass in Scots pine. Can. J. For. Res. 28:216-227.
27. Mäkelä, A., J. Landsberg, A.R. Ek, T.E. Burk, M. Ter-Mikaelian, G.I. Ågren, C.D. Oliver and P. Puttonen. 2000. Process-based models for forest ecosystem management: current state of art and challenges for practical implementation. Tree Physiol. 20:289-298.
28. Mäkelä, A. and H.T. Valentine. 2001. The ratio of NPP to GPP: evidence of change over the course of stand development. Tree Physiol. 21:1015-1030.
29. Malhi, Y., D.D. Baldocchi and P.G. Jarvis. 1999. The carbon balance of tropical, temperate and boreal forests. Plant Cell Environ. 22: 715-740.
30. Messier, C. and E. Nikinmaa. 2000. Effects of light availability and sapling size on the growth, biomass allocation, and crown morphology of understory sugar maple, yellow birch, and beech. Ecoscience 7:345-356.
31. Mohren, G.M.J. 1987. Simulation of forest growth, applied to Douglas-fir stands in the Netherlands. Pudoc, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 184 p.
32. Nikinmaa, E. 1992. Analyses of the growth of Scots pine: matching structure with function. Acta For. Fenn. 235:1-68.
33. Nilsson, U. 1993. Competition in young stands of Norway spruce and Scots pine. Ph.D. Diss. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 33 p.
34. Nishioka, M. 1981. Biomass and productivity of forests in the area of the habitat of the Japanese monkey at Mt. Mino. In Annual Report on Census of Japanese Monkey at Mt. Mino. Educ. Comm. Mino City, Osaka, Japan, pp 149-167.
35. Oker-Blom, P., T. Pukkala and T. Kuuluvainen. 1989. The relationship between radiation interception and photosynthesis in forest canopies: effect of stand structure and latitude. Ecol. Model. 49: 73-87.
36. Penning de Vries, F.W.T. 1974. Substrate utilization and respiration in relation to growth and maintenance in higher plants. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 22:40-44.
37. Persson, H. 1978. Root dynamics in a young Scots pine stand in central Sweden. Oikos 30:508-519.
38. Rayment, M.B., D. Loustau and P.G. Jarvis. 2002. Photosynthesis and respiration of black spruce at three organizational scales: shoot, branch and canopy. Tree Physiol. 22:219-229.
39. Ryan, M.G.R. and R.H. Waring. 1992. Maintenance respiration and stand development in a subalpine lodgepole pine forest. Ecology 73:2100-2108.
40. Ryan, M.G., D. Binkley, J.H. Fownes, C.P. Giardina and R.S. Senock. 2004. An experimental test of the causes of forest growth decline with stand age. Ecol. Monogr. 74:393-414.
41. Santantonio, D. 1989. Dry-matter partitioning and fine-root production in forests - new approaches to a difficult problem. In Biomass Production by Fast-Growing Trees. Eds. J.S. Pereira and J.J. Landsberg. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 57-72.
42. Shinozaki, K., K. Yoda, K. Hozumi and T. Kira. 1964. A quantitative analysis of plant form: the pipe model theory. II. Further evidence of the theory and its application in forest ecology. Jpn. J. Ecol. 14: 133-139.
43. Thornley, J.H.M. 1972. A balanced quantitative model for root:shoot ratios in vegetative plants. Ann. Bot. 36:431-441.
44. Valentine, H.T. 1999. Estimation of the net primary productivity of even-aged stands with a carbon-allocation model. Ecol. Model. 122:139-149.
45. Valentine, H.T., T.G. Gregoire, H.E. Burkhart and D.Y. Hollinger. 1997. A stand-level model of carbon allocation and growth, calibrated for loblolly pine. Can. J. For. Res. 27:817-830.
46. Vanninen, P. 2004. Allocation of above-ground growth in Pinus sylvestris - impacts of tree size and competition. Silva Fenn. 38:155-165.
47. Vanninen, P. and A. Mäkelä. 1999. Fine root biomass of Scots pine stands differing in age and soil fertility in southern Finland. Tree Physiol. 19:823-830.
48. Vanninen, P. and A. Mäkelä. 2000. Allocation of growth between needle and stemwood production in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) trees of different age, size and competitive status. Tree Physiol. 20: 527-533.
49. Vanninen, P., H. Ylitalo, R. Sievänen and A. Mäkelä. 1996. Effects of age and site quality on the distribution of biomass in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). Trees 10:231-238.
50. Viro, P.J. 1955. Investigations on forest litter. Valtioneuvoston kirjapaino. Helsinki. Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja 45: 1-63. In Finnish.
51. Wardlaw, I.F. 1990. The control of carbon partitioning in plants. New Phytol. 116:341-381.
52. Waring, R.H. and N.G. McDowell. 2002. Use of a physiological process model with forestry yield tables to set limits on annual carbon balances. Tree Physiol. 22:179-188.
53. Waring, R.H., J.J. Landsberg and M. Williams. 1998. Net primary production of forests: a constant fraction of gross primary production? Tree Physiol. 18:129-134.
54. Yoder, B.J., M.G. Ryan, R.H. Waring, A.W. Schoettle and M.R. Kaufmann. 1994. Evidence of reduced photosynthetic rates in older trees. For. Sci. 40:513-526.