Relationships between stand growth and structural diversity in spruce-dominated forests in New Brunswick, Canada

Canadian Journal of Forest Research

Volumn 39, Issue 10, 2009, Pages 1835-1847

  Lei, Xiangdong ^a   Wang, Weifeng ^b   Peng, Changhui ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^b RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF FORESTRY   (China)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DEVELOPMENTAL STAGE; DIVERSITY INDEX; FOREST GROWTH; FOREST STAND; PARTIAL CUTTING; POSITIVE EFFECTS; RAPID GROWTH; RESOURCE USE; SECOND-ORDER POLYNOMIAL; SIZE DIFFERENCE; STAND GROWTH; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STRUCTURAL DIVERSITY; TREE SPECIES; UNEVEN-AGED STANDS;

BIODIVERSITY; EMPLOYMENT;

FORESTRY;

BIODIVERSITY; CONIFEROUS FOREST; FOREST MANAGEMENT; GROWTH MODELING; GROWTH RATE; MORTALITY; RECRUITMENT (POPULATION DYNAMICS); RESOURCE USE; STAND STRUCTURE;

BIODIVERSITY; EMPLOYMENT; FORESTS; GROWTH; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

CANADA; NEW BRUNSWICK; NORTH AMERICA;

PICEA;

EID: 70350142938     PISSN: 00455067     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/X09-089     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Buckland, S.T., Burnham, K.P., and Augustin, N.H. 1997. Model selection: an integral part of inference. Biometrics, 53(2): 603-618. doi:10.2307/2533961.
2. Buongiorno, J., Dahir, S., Lu, H.C., and Lin, C.R. 1994. Tree size diversity and economic returns in uneven-aged forest stands. For. Sci. 40(1): 83-103.
3. Cardinale, B.J., Wright, J.P., Cadotte, M.W., Carroll, I.T., Hector, A., Srivastava, D.S., Loreau, M., and Weis, J.J. 2007. Impacts of plant diversity on biomass production increase through time because of species complementarity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 104(46): 18123-18128. doi:10.1073/pnas.0709069104. PMID:17991772.
4. Caspersen, J.P., and Pacala, S.W. 2001. Successional diversity and forest ecosystem function. Ecol. Res. 16(5): 895-903. doi:10. 1046/j.1440-1703.2001.00455.x.
5. Chase, J.M., and Leibold, M.A. 2002. Spatial scale dictates the pro-ductivity-biodiversity relationship. Nature (London), 416(6879): 427-430. doi:10.1038/416427a. PMID:11919631.
6. Edgar, C.B., and Burk, T.E. 2001. Productivity of aspen forests in northeastern Minnesota, U.S.A., as related to stand composition and canopy structure. Can. J. For. Res. 31(6): 1019-1029. doi:10.1139/cjfr-31-6-1019.
7. Erskine, P.D., Lamb, D., and Bristow, M. 2006. Tree species diver-sity and ecosystem function: can tropical multi-species planta-tions generate greater productivity? For. Ecol. Manage. 233(2-3): 205-210. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2006.05.013.
8. Firn, J., Erskine, P.D., and Lamb, D. 2007. Woody species diver-sity influences productivity and soil nutrient availability in tropi-cal plantations. Oecologia (Berl.), 154(3): 521-533. doi:10.1007/ s00442-007-0850-8.
9. Franklin, J.F., Spies, T.A., Pelt, R.V., Carey, A.B., Thornburgh, D.A., Berg, D.R., Lindenmayer, D.B., Harmon, M.E., Keeton, W.S., and Shaw, D.C. 2002. Disturbances and structural development of natural forest ecosystems with silvicultural implications, using Douglas-fir forests as an example. For. Ecol. Manage. 155(1-3): 399-423. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00575-8.
10. Fridley, J.D. 2002. Resource availability dominates and alters the relationship between species diversity and ecosystem productiv-ity in experimental plant communities. Oecologia (Berl.), 132(2): 271-277. doi:10.1007/s00442-002-0965-x.
11. Gove, J.H., Patil, G.P., and Taillie, C. 1995. A mathematical programming model for maintaining structural diversity in uneven-aged forest stands with implications to other formulations. Ecol. Modell. 79(1-3): 11-19. doi:10.1016/0304-3800(94)00044-I.
12. Graham, M.H. 2003. Confronting multicollinearity in ecological multiple regression. Ecology, 84(11): 2809-2815. doi:10.1890/ 02-3114.
13. Harper, K., Boudreault, C., DeGrandpré, L., Drapeau, P., Gauthier, S., and Bergeron, Y. 2003. Structure, composition, and diversity of old-growth black spruce boreal forest of the Clay Belt region in Quebec and Ontario. Environ. Rev. 11(Suppl 1): S79-S98. doi:10.1139/a03-013.
14. Huston, M.A. 1980. Soil nutrients and tree species richness in Costa Rican forests. J. Biogeogr. 7(2): 147-157. doi:10.2307/ 2844707.
15. Huston, M.A., Aarssen, L.W., Austin, M.P., Cade, B.S., Fridley, J.D., Garnier, E., Grime, J.P., Hodgson, J., Lauenroth, W.K., Thompson, K., Vandermeer, J.H., and Wardle, D.A. 2000. No consistent effect of plant diversity on productivity. Science (Washington, D.C.), 289(5483): 1255. doi:10.1126/science.289.5483. 1255a. PMID:10979839.
16. Kant, S. 2002. The marginal cost of structural diversity of mixed uneven-aged hard maple forests. Can. J. For. Res. 32(4): 616-628. doi:10.1139/x02-001.
17. Kuuluvainen, T., Penttinen, A., Leinonen, K., and Nygren, M. 1996. Statistical opportunities for comparing stand structural heterogeneity in managed and primeval forests: an example from boreal spruce forest in southern Finland. Silva Fenn. 30(2-3): 315-328.
18. Laanisto, L., Urbas, P., and Partel, M. 2008. Why does the unimodal species richness-productivity relationship not apply to woody species: a lack of clonality or a legacy of tropical evolu-tionary history? Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 17(3): 320-326. doi:10. 1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00375.x.
19. Lexerød, N.L., and Eid, T. 2006. An evaluation of different dia-meter diversity indices based on criteria related to forest man-agement planning. For. Ecol. Manage. 222(1-3): 17-28. doi:10. 1016/j.foreco.2005.10.046.
20. Liang, J., Buongiorno, J., and Monserud, R.A. 2005. Growth and yield of all-aged Douglas-fir -western hemlock forest stands: a matrix model with stand diversity effects. Can. J. For. Res. 35(10): 2368-2381. doi:10.1139/x05-137.
21. Liang, J., Buongiorno, J., Monserud, R.A., Kruger, E.L., and Zhou, M. 2007. Effects of diversity of tree species and size on forest basal area growth, recruitment, and mortality. For. Ecol. Man-age. 243(1): 116-127. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.02.028.
22. Littell, R.C., Milliken, G.A., Stroup, W.W., and Wolfinger, R.D. 1996. SAS system for mixed models. SAS Institute Inc.
23. Cary, N.C., Lugo, A.E. 1992. Comparison of tropical tree plantations with secondary forests of similar age. Ecol. Monogr. 62(1): 1-41. doi:10. 2307/2937169.
24. MacArthur, R.H., and MacArthur, J.W. 1961. On bird species di-versity. Ecology, 42(3): 594-599. doi:10.2307/1932254.
25. Magurran, A.E. 2004. Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell Publishers, Malden, Mass.
26. McElhinny, C., Gibbons, P., Brack, C., and Bauhus, J. 2005. Forest and woodland stand structural complexity: its definition and measurement. For. Ecol. Manage. 218(1-3): 1-24. doi:10.1016/ j.foreco.2005.08.034.
27. McRoberts, R.E., Winter, S., Chirici, G., Hauk, E., Pelz, D.R., Mo-ser, W.K., and Hatfield, M.A. 2008. Large-scale spatial patterns of forest structural diversity. Can. J. For. Res. 38(3): 429-438. doi:10.1139/X07-154.
28. Mitchell-Olds, T., and Shaw, R.G. 1987. Regression analysis of natural selection: statistical inference and biological interpreta-tion. Evolution, 41(6): 1149-1161. doi:10.2307/2409084.
29. Mittelbach, G.G., Steiner, C.F., Scheiner, S.M., Gross, K.L., Rey-nolds, H.L., Waide, R.B., Willig, M.R., Dodson, S.I., and Gough, L. 2001. What is the observed relationship between species richness and productivity? Ecology, 82(9): 2381-2396.
30. Noss, R.F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conserv. Biol. 4(4): 355-364. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1990.tb00309.x.
31. O'hara, K.L., Hasenauer, H., and Kindermann, G. 2007. Sustain-ability in multi-aged stands: an analysis of long-term plenter systems. Forestry, 80(2): 163-181. doi:10.1093/forestry/cpl051.
32. Ouzennou, H., Pothier, D., and Raulier, F. 2008. Adjustment of the age-height relationship for uneven-aged black spruce stands. Can. J. For. Res. 38(7): 2003-2012. doi:10.1139/X08-044.
33. Pacala, S., and Tilman, D. 2002. The transition from sampling to complementarity. In The functional consequences of biodiversity: empirical progress and theoretical extensions. Edited by A.P. Kinzig, S.W. Pacala, and D. Tilman. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. pp. 151-166.
34. Pommerening, A. 2002. Approaches to quantifying forest structures. Forestry, 75(3): 305-324. doi:10.1093/forestry/75.3.305.
35. Porter, K.B., MacLean, D.A., Beaton, K.P., and Upshall, J. 2001. New Brunswick permanent sample plot database (pspdb version 1.0): user's guide and analysis. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Atlantic Forestry Centre, Fredericton, N.B.
36. Pretzsch, H. 1996. Strukturvielfalt als ergebnis waldbaulichen handels. Allg. Forst Jagd-Ztg. 166: 213-221.
37. Pretzsch, H. 1997. Analysis and modeling of spatial stand structures. Methodological considerations based on mixed beech-larch stands in lower Saxony. For. Ecol. Manage. 97(3): 237-253. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(97)00069-8.
38. Ralston, R., Buongiorno, J., Schulte, B., and Fried, J. 2003. Non-linear matrix modeling of forest growth with permanent plot data: the case of uneven-aged Douglas-fir stands. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 10(5): 461-482. doi:10.1111/1475-3995.00422.
39. Rosenzweig, M.L., and Abramsky, Z. 1993. How are diversity and productivity related? In Species diversity in ecological commu-nities: historical and geographical perspectives. Edited by R.E. Ricklefs and D. Schluter. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill. pp. 52-65.
40. SAS Institute Inc. 2002. SAS user's guide, version 9 edition. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, N.C.
41. Spies, T.A. 1998. Forest structure: a key to the ecosystem. North-west Sci. 72(2): 34-36.
42. Staudhammer, C.L., and LeMay, V.M. 2001. Introduction and evaluation of possible indices of stand structural diversity. Can. J. For. Res. 31(7): 1105-1115. doi:10.1139/cjfr-31-7-1105.
43. Tilman, D. 1999. The ecological consequences of changes in bio-diversity: a search for general principles. Ecology, 80(5): 1455-1474. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1455:TECOCI].2. 0.CO;2.
44. Tilman, D., Lehman, C.L., and Thomson, K.T. 1997. Plant diversity and ecosystem productivity: theoretical considerations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 94(5): 1857-1861. doi:10.1073/pnas.94.5.1857. PMID:11038606.
45. Troumbis, A.Y., and Memtsas, D. 2000. Observational evidence that diversity may increase productivity in Mediterranean shrublands. Oecologia (Berl.), 125(1): 101-108. doi:10.1007/PL00008880.
46. Varga, P., Chen, H.Y.H., and Klinka, K. 2005. Tree-size diversity between single-and mixed-species stands in three forest types in western Canada. Can. J. For. Res. 35(3): 593-601. doi:10.1139/ x04-193.
47. Vilà, M., Vayreda, J., Gracia, C., and Ibáñez, J.J. 2003. Does tree diversity increase wood production in pine forests? Oecologia (Berl.), 135(2): 299-303.
48. Vilá, M., Vayreda, J., Comas, L., Ibañez, J.J., Mata, T., and Obón, B. 2007. Species richness and wood production: a positive association in Mediterranean forests. Ecol. Lett. 10(3): 241-250. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01016.x. PMID:17305807.
49. Waide, R.B., Willig, M.R., Steiner, C.F., Mittelbach, G., Gough, L., Dodson, S.I., Juday, G.P., and Parmenter, R. 1999. The rela-tionship between productivity and species richness. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 30(1): 257-300. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.30.1.257.
50. Wardle, D.A., Zackrisson, O., Hornberg, G., and Gallet, C. 1997. The influence of island area on ecosystem properties. Science (Washington, D.C.), 277(5330): 1296-1299. doi:10.1126/science.277.5330.1296.
51. Whittaker, R.J., and Heegaard, E. 2003. Comment: what is the ob-served relationship between species richness and productivity? Ecology, 84(12): 3384-3390. doi:10.1890/02-3128.