Distinguishing microsite and competition processes in tree growth dynamics: An a priori spatial modeling approach

American Naturalist

Volumn 169, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 647-661

  Fajardo, Alex ^a,c   McIntire, Eliot J B ^b,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA   (United States)

^c CENTRO DE INVESTIGACIÓN EN ECOSISTEMAS DE LA PATAGONIA CIEP   (Chile)

^d UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Competitive interactions; Forest stand development; Microsite effects; Patagonia; Ponderosa pine; Semivariograms

Indexed keywords

ASSESSMENT METHOD; COMPETITION (ECOLOGY); CONIFEROUS TREE; HETEROGENEITY; INTERSPECIFIC COMPETITION; MODELING; STAND DYNAMICS;

ARTICLE; CHILE; ECOSYSTEM; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; PONDEROSA PINE; THEORETICAL MODEL; TREE;

CHILE; ECOSYSTEM; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PINUS PONDEROSA; TREES;

EID: 34047263305     PISSN: 00030147     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/513492     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Adler, F. R. 1996. A model of self-thinning through local competition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 93: 9980-9984.
2. Amigo, J., and C. Ramírez. 1998. A bioclimatic classification of Chile: woodland communities in the temperate zone. Plant Ecology 136: 9-26.
3. Anderson, D. R., W. A. Link, D. H. Johnson, and K. P. Burnham. 2001. Suggestions of presenting the results of data analysis. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:373-378.
4. Bachacou, J., and N. Decourt. 1976. Study on the competition in regular plantations using variograms. Annales des Sciences Forestières 33:177-198.
5. Barclay, H. J., and C. R. Layton. 1990. Growth and mortality in managed Douglas fir: relation to a competition index. Forest Ecology and Management 36:187-204.
6. Basu, S., R. F. Gunst, E. A. Guertal, and M. I. Hartfield. 1997. The effects of influential observations on sample semivariograms. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics 2:490-512.
7. Biging, G. S., and M. Dobbertin. 1995. Evaluation of competition indices in individual tree growth models. Forest Science 41:360-377.
8. Bonan, G. B. 1988. The size structure of theoretical plant populations: spatial patterns and neighborhood effects. Ecology 69:1721-1730.
9. Borcard, D., and P. Legendre. 2002. All-scale spatial analysis of ecological data by means of principal coordinates of neighbour matrices. Ecological Modelling 153:51-68.
10. Borcard, D., P. Legendre, C. Avois-Jacquet, and H. Tuomisto. 2004. Dissecting the spatial structure of ecological data at multiple scales. Ecology 85:1826-1832.
11. Bradshaw, G. A., and T. A. Spies. 1992. Characterizing canopy gap structure in forests using wavelet analysis. Journal of Ecology 80: 205-215.
12. Bullock, B. P., and H. E. Burkhart. 2005. An evaluation of spatial dependency in juvenile loblolly pine stands using stem diameter. Forest Science 51:102-108.
13. Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection and multimodal inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New York.
14. Chalmers, A. F. 1999. What is this thing called science? Hackett, Indianapolis.
15. Chamberlin, T. C. 1965. The method of multiple working hypotheses. Science 148:754-759.
16. CONAMA. 1998. Aysén reserva de vida. Texto de apoyo para la educación ambiental regional. Corporación Nacional Medioambiental, Santiago, Chile.
17. Courbaud, B., F. Goreaud, P. Dreyfus, and F. R. Bonnet. 2001. Evaluating thinning strategies using a tree distance dependent growth model: some examples based on the CAPSIS software "unevenaged spruce forests" schedule. Forest Ecology and Management 145:15-28.
18. Dale, M. R. T. 1999. Spatial pattern analysis in plant ecology. Cambridge University Press, New York.
19. Damgaard, C., J. Weiner, and H. Nagashima. 2002. Modelling individual growth and competition in plant populations: growth curves of Chenopodium album at two densities. Journal of Ecology 90:666-671.
20. Diggle, P. J. 1983. Statistical analysis of spatial point patterns. Academic Press, New York.
21. Duncan, R. P. 1989. An evaluation of errors in tree age estimates based on increment cores in Kahikatea (Dacrycarpus dacrydiodes). New Zealand Natural Science 16:31-37.
22. Firbank, L. G., and A. R. Watkinson. 1987. On the analysis of competition at the level of the individual plant. Oecologia (Berlin) 71: 308-317.
23. Ford, E. D. 1984. The dynamics of plantation growth. Pages 17-52 in G. D. Bowen and E. K. S. Nambiar, eds. Nutrition of plantation forests. Academic Press, London.
24. Fortin, M.-J., and M. R. T. Dale. 2005. Spatial analysis: a guide for ecologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
25. Fox, J. C., P. K. Ades, and H. Bi. 2001. Stochastic structure and individual-tree growth models. Forest Ecology and Management 154:261-276.
26. Franco, M., and J. L. Harper. 1988. Competition and the formation of spatial pattern in spacing gradients: an example using Kochia scoparia. Journal of Ecology 76:959-974.
27. Gavrikov, V., and D. Stoyan. 1995. The use of marked point processes in ecological and environmental forest studies. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 2:331-344.
28. Goreaud, F., and R. Pélissier. 2003. Avoiding misinterpretation of biotic interactions with the intertype K12-function: population independence vs. random labeling hypotheses. Journal of Vegetation Science 14:681-692.
29. Goreaud, F., B. Courbaud, and F. Collinet. 1999. Spatial structure analysis applied to modeling of forest dynamics: a few examples. Pages 155-172 in A. Amaro and M. Tomé, eds. Empirical and process based models for forest tree and stand growth simulation. Novas Tecnologias, Oeiras, Portugal.
30. Gratzer, G., C. D. Canham, U. Dieckmann, A. Fisher, Y. Iwasa, R. Law, M. J. Lexer, et al. 2004. Spatio-temporal development of forests: current trends in field methods and models. Oikos 107:3-15.
31. Grime, J. P. 2001. Plant strategies, vegetation processes, and ecosystem properties. Wiley, Chichester.
32. Gurevitch, J., S. M. Scheiner, and G. A. Fox. 2002. The ecology of plants. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.
33. Haase, P. 2002. SPPA (Spatial Point Pattern Analysis) statistical program. http://haasep.homepage.t-online.de/.
34. Hara, T. 1984. A stochastic model and the moment dynamics of the growth and size distribution in plant populations. Journal of Theoretical Biology 109:173-190.
35. Harper, J. L. 1977. Population ecology of plants. Academic Press, London.
36. Hilborn, R., and S. C. Stearns. 1982. On inference in ecology and evolutionary biology, the problem of multiple causes. Acta Biotheoretica 31:145-164.
37. Hunt, R. 1990. Basic growth analysis. Plant growth analysis for beginners. Unwin Hyman, London.
38. Isaaks, E. H., and R. M. Srivastava. 1989. An introduction to applied geostatistics. Oxford University Press, New York.
39. Jeltsch, F., and K. A. Moloney. 2002. Spatially explicit vegetation models: what have we learned? Progress in Botany 63:326-343.
40. Keitt, T. H., and D. L. Urban. 2005. Scale-specific inference using wavelets. Ecology 86:2497-2504.
41. Kint, V., M. van Meirvenne, L. Nachtergale, G. Geudens, and N. Lust. 2003. Spatial methods for quantifying forest stand structure development: a comparison between nearest-neighbor indices and variogram analysis. Forest Science 49:36-49.
42. Kleb, H. R., and S. D. Wilson. 1997. Vegetation effects on soil resources heterogeneity in prairie and forest. American Naturalist 150:283-298.
43. Korol, R. L., S. W. Running, and K. S. Milner. 1995. Incorporating intertree competition into an ecosystem model. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 25:413-424.
44. Larocque, G. R. 2002. Examining different concepts for the development of a distance-dependent competition model for red pine diameter growth using long-term stand data differing in initial stand density. Forest Science 48:24-34.
45. Law, R., D. W. Purves, D. J. Murrell, and U. Dieckmann. 2001. Causes and effects of small-scale spatial structure in plant populations. Pages 21-44 in J. Silvertown and J. Antonovics, eds. Integrating ecology and evolution in a spatial context. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.
46. Legendre, P. 1993. Spatial autocorrelation: trouble or new paradigm? Ecology 74:1659-1673.
47. Lotwick, C. G., and B. W. Silverman. 1982. Methods for analyzing spatial processes of several types of points. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 44:406-413.
48. Magnussen, S. 1994. A method to adjust simultaneously for spatial microsite and competition effects. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 24:985-995.
49. Oliver, C. D. 1981. Forest development in North America following major disturbances. Forest Ecology and Management 3:153-168.
50. Pacala, S. W. 1997. Dynamics of plant communities. Pages 532-555 in M. J. Crawley, ed. Plant ecology. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.
51. Pacala, S. W., and D. H. Deutschmann. 1995. Details that matter: the spatial distribution of individual trees maintains forest ecosystem function. Oikos 74:357-365.
52. Peltzer, D. A., and S. D. Wilson. 2001. Variation in plant responses to neighbors at local and regional scales. American Naturalist 157: 610-625.
53. Pfister, C. A., and F. R. Stevens. 2003. Individual variation and environmental stochasticity: implications for matrix model predictions. Ecology 84:496-510.
54. Pickett, S. T. A., and P. S. White. 1985. The ecology of natural disturbances and patch dynamics. Academic Press, Orlando, FL.
55. Raynaud, X., and P. W. Leadley. 2005. Symmetry of belowground competition in a spatially explicit model of nutrient competition. Ecological Modelling 189:447-453.
56. Reed, D. D., and H. E. Burkhart. 1985. Spatial autocorrelation of individual tree characteristics in loblolly pine stands. Forest Science 31:575-587.
57. Reynolds, J. H., and E. D. Ford. 2005. Improving competition representation in theoretical models of self-thinning: a critical review. Journal of Ecology 93:362-372.
58. R Development Core Team. 2004. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org.
59. Ribeiro, P. J., Jr., and P. J. Diggle. 2001. geoR: a package for geostatistical analysis. R-NEWS 1:15-18.
60. Ripley, B. D. 1977. Modeling spatial patterns. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 39:172-212.
61. Schwinning, S., and J. Weiner. 1998. Mechanisms determining the degree of size asymmetry in competition among plants. Oecologia (Berlin) 113:447-455.
62. Shi, H., and L. Zhang. 2003. Local analysis of tree competition and growth. Forest Science 49:938-955.
63. Smith, D. M., B. C. Larson, M. J. Kelty, and P. M. S. Ashton. 1997. The practice of silviculture: applied forest ecology. Wiley, New York.
64. Stoll, P., and J. Weiner, 2000. A neighborhood view of interactions among individual plants. Pages 11-27 in U. Dieckmann, R. Law, and J. A. J. Metz, eds. The geometry of ecological interactions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
65. Stoll, P., J. Weiner, and B. Schmid. 1994. Growth variation in a naturally established population of Pinus sylvestris. Ecology 75:660-670.
66. Stoll, P., J. Weiner, H. Muller-Landau, E. Müller, and T. Hara. 2002. Size symmetry of competition alters biomass-density relationships. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 269:2191-2195.
67. Thomas, S. C., and J. Weiner. 1989. Including competitive asymmetry in measures of local interference in plant populations. Oecologia (Berlin) 80:349-355.
68. Tilman, D. 1988. Plant strategies and the dynamics and structure of plant communities. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
69. Turkington, R., and L. W. Aarssen. 1984. Local-scale differentiation as a result of competitive interactions. Pages 107-127 in R. Dirzo and J. Sarukhán, eds. Perspectives on plant population ecology. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.
70. Turner, M. G. 1989. Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20:171-197.
71. ver Hoef, J. M., and N. A. C. Cressie. 2001. Spatial statistics: analysis of field experiments. Pages 289-307 in S. M. Scheiner and J. Gurevitch, eds. Design and analysis of ecological experiments. Oxford University Press, New York.
72. Wagner, R. G., and S. R. Radosevich. 1998. Neighborhood approach for quantifying interspecific competition in coastal Oregon forests. Ecological Applications 8:779-794.
73. Weiner, J. 1984. Neighbourhood interference amongst Pinus rigida individuals. Journal of Ecology 72:183-195.
74. _. 1990. Asymmetric competition in plant populations. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 5:360-364.
75. Weiner, J., P. Stoll, H. Muller-Landau, and A. Jasentuliyana. 2001. The effects of density, spatial pattern, and competitive symmetry on size variation in simulated plant populations. American Naturalist 158:438-450.
76. Wilson, S. D., and J. Gurevitch. 1995. Plant size and spatial pattern in natural population of Myosotis micrantha. Journal of Vegetation Science 6:847-852.
77. Wimberly, M. C., and B. B. Bare. 1996. Distance-dependent and distance-independent models of Douglas-fir and western hemlock basal area growth following silvicultural treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 89:1-11.
78. Wyszomirski, T., I. Wyszomirska, and I. Jarzyna. 1999. Simple mechanisms of size distribution dynamics in crowded and uncrowded virtual monocultures. Ecological Modelling 115:253-273.
79. Yastrebov, A. B. 1996. Different types of heterogeneity and plant competition in monospecific stands. Oikos 75:89-97.
80. Yoda, K., T. Kira, and K. Hozumi. 1957. Intraspecific competition among higher plants. IX. Further analysis of the competitive interaction between adjacent individuals. Journal of the Institute of Polytechnics, Osaka City University, Series D 8:161-178.
81. Zimmerman, D. L., and D. A. Harville. 1991. A random field approach to the analysis of field-plot experiments and other spatial experiments. Biometrics 47:223-239.