Comparing productivity of pure and mixed Douglas-fir and western hemlock plantations in the Pacific Northwest

Canadian Journal of Forest Research

Volumn 36, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 1484-1496

  Amoroso, M M ^a,b   Turnblom, E C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FORESTRY; THERMAL STRATIFICATION;

DENSITY LEVELS; INTRASPECIFIC COMPETITION; MONOCULTURES;

PLANTS (BOTANY);

COMPARATIVE STUDY; DECIDUOUS TREE; EVERGREEN TREE; MIXED FOREST; MONOCULTURE; PLANTATION FORESTRY; POPULATION DENSITY; PRIMARY PRODUCTION;

DENSITY; PLANTS; STRATIFICATION; TREES;

CONIUM; PSEUDOTSUGA; PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII; TSUGA; TSUGA HETEROPHYLLA;

EID: 33748543996     PISSN: 00455067     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/X06-042     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Abetz, P. 1976. Beiträge zum Baumwachstum. Der h/d-Wert - Mehr als ein Schlankheitsgrad. Forst Holzwirt. 31: 389-393. [In German.]
2. Amoroso, M.M. 2004. Are mixed species stands more productive than single species stands? Douglas-fir and western hemlock plantations in the Pacific Northwest. M.Sc. thesis, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash.
3. Assmann, E. 1970. The principles of forest yield study. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
4. Balieiro, F.C., Fontes, R.L.F., Dias, L.E., Franco, A.A., Campello, E.F.C., and de Faria, S.M. 2002. Accumulation and distribution of aboveground biomass and nutrients in pure and mixed stands of guachapele and eucalyptus. J. Plant Nutr. 25(12): 2639-2654.
5. Bauhus, J., Khanna, P.K., and Menden, N. 2000. Aboveground and belowground interactions in mixed plantations of Eucalyptus globulus and Acacia mearnsii. Can. J. For. Res. 30: 1886-1894.
6. Binkley, D. 1983. Ecosystem production in Douglas-fir plantations: interaction of red alder and site fertility. For. Ecol. Manage. 5: 215-227.
7. Binkley, D. 1992. Mixtures of nitrogen-fixing and non-nitrogen-fixing tree species. In The ecology of mixed species stands of trees. Edited by M.G.R. Cannell, D.C. Malcolm, and P.A. Robertson. Blackwell Scientific, London. pp. 99-113.
8. Brown, A.H.F. 1992. Functioning of mixed-species stands at Gisburn, N.W. England. In The ecology of mixed species stands of trees. Edited by M.G.R. Cannell, D.C. Malcolm, and P.A. Robertson. Blackwell Scientific, London. pp. 99-113.
9. Bruce, D., and DeMars, D.J. 1974. Volume equations for second-growth Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). USDA For. Serv. Res. Note PNW-239.
10. Crowder, M.J., and Hand, D.J. 1990. Analysis of repeated measures. Chapman and Hall. Monogr. Stat. Appl. Prob. 41.
11. DeBell, D.S., Cole, T.G., and Whitesell, C.D. 1997. Growth, development and yield in pure and mixed stands of Eucalyptus and Albizia. For. Sci. 43: 286-298.
12. Flewelling, J.W., and Raynes, L.M. 1993. Variable-shape stem profile predictions for western hemlock. Part I. Predictions from DBH and total height. Can. J. For. Res. 23: 520-536.
13. Garber, S.M., and Maguire, D.A. 2004. Stand productivity and development in two mixed-species spacing trials in the Central Oregon Cascades. For. Sci. 50(1): 92-105.
14. Halloin, L.J. 1987. Soil survey of Clallam County area, Washington. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C., in cooperation with Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington State University, Agriculture Research Center, and Clallam County Commissioners.
15. Harper, J.L. 1977. Population biology of plants. Academic Press, London.
16. Kelty, M.J. 1989. Productivity of New England hemlock/hardwood stands as affected by species composition and canopy structure. For. Ecol. Manage. 28: 237-257.
17. Kelty, M.J. 1992. Comparative productivity of monocultures and mixed species stands. In The ecology and silviculture of mixed-species forests. Edited by M.J. Kelty, B.C. Larson, and C.D. Oliver. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands. pp. 125-141.
18. Kelty, M.J., and Cameron, I.R. 1995. Plot designs for the analysis of species interactions in mixed stands. Commonw. For. Rev. 74(4): 322-332.
19. Khanna, P.K. 1997. Comparison of growth and nutrition of young monocultures and mixed stands of Eucalyptus globulus and Acacia mearnsii. For. Ecol. Manage. 94: 105-113.
20. King, J.E. 1958. Development of a stand of coniferous reproduction and interplanted Douglas-fir. Northwest Sci. 32(1): 1-8.
21. King, J.E. 1966. Site index curves for Douglas-fir in the Pacific Northwest. Weyerhaeuser For. Pap. 8.
22. Larson, B.C. 1986. Development and growth of even-aged stands of Douglas-fir and grand fir. Can. J. For. Res. 16: 367-372.
23. Lewis, J.D., McKane, R.B., Tingey D.T., and Beedlow, P.A. 2000. Vertical gradients in photosynthetic light response within an old-growth Douglas-fir and western hemlock canopy. Tree Physiol. 20: 447-456.
24. Maguire, D.A., Bennett, W.S., Kershaw, J.A., Jr., Gonyea, R., and Chappell, H.N. 1991. Establishment report [unpublished report]. Stand Management Cooperative Silviculture Project field installations. Stand Management Cooperative, College of Forest Resources, University of Washinton, Box 352100, Seattle, WA 98195-2100.
25. Man, R., and Lieffers, V.J. 1999. Are mixtures of aspen and white spruce more productive than single species stands? For. Chron. 75(3): 505-512.
26. Martin, F.C., and Flewelling, J.W. 1998. Evaluation of tree height prediction models for stand inventory. West. J. Appl. For. 13(4): 109-119.
27. Menalled, F.D., Kelty, M.J., and Ewel, J.J. 1998. Canopy development in tropical tree plantations: a comparison of species mixtures and monocultures. For. Ecol. Manage. 104: 249-263.
28. Montagnini, F. 2000. Accumulation in above-ground biomass and soil storage of mineral nutrients in pure and mixed plantations in a humid tropical land. For. Ecol. Manage. 134: 257-270.
29. Montagnini, F., Gonzalez, E., Porras, C., and Reingans, R. 1995. Mixed and pure forest plantations in the humid neotropics: a comparison of early growth, pest damage and establishment costs. Commonw. For. Rev. 74(4): 306-314.
30. Oehlert, G.W. 2000. A first course in design and analysis of experiments. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York.
31. Oliver, C.D., and Larson, B.C. 1996. Forest stand dynamics. McGraw-Hill, New York.
32. Pringle, R.F. 1986. Soil survey of Grays Harbor County Area, Pacific County, and Wahkiakum County, Washington. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C., in cooperation with Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington State University, and Agriculture Research Center.
33. SAS Institute Inc. 1999-2001. SAS for Windows version 8. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, N.C.
34. Scholz, D.M., and Smith, J.H.G. 1975. Comparison of crown dimensions of open grown Douglas-fir, western hemlock and western red cedar. Reforestation Notes, April 1975. Reforestation Division, British Columbia Forest Service, Victoria, B.C.
35. Shainsky, L.J., and Radosevich, S.R. 1992. Mechanisms of competition between Douglas-fir and red alder seedlings. Ecology, 73(1): 30-45.
36. Smith, D.M., Larson, B.C., Kelty M.J., and Ashton, P.M.S. 1997. The practice of silviculture: applied forest ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
37. Vandermeer, J.H. 1989. The ecology of intercropping. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
38. Wang, J.R., Letchford, T., Comeau, P., and Kimmins, J.P. 2000. Above- and below-ground biomass nutrient distribution of a paper birch and subalpine fir mixed-stand in the Sub-Boreal Spruce zone of British Columbia. For. Ecol. Manage. 130: 17-26.
39. Western Regional Climate Center. 2003. Western U.S. climate historical summaries [online]. Western Regional Climate Center, Reno, Nev. Available from http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/CLIMATEDATA. html [accessed 15 January 2003].
40. Wierman, C.A., and Oliver, C.D. 1979. Crown stratification by species in even-aged mixed stands of Douglas-fir - western hemlock. Can. J. For. Res. 9: 1-9.