Size-symmetric versus size-asymmetric competition and growth partitioning among trees in forest stands along an ecological gradient in central Europe

Canadian Journal of Forest Research

Volumn 40, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 370-384

  Pretzsch, Hans ^a   Biber, Peter ^a  

^a TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ASYMMETRIC COMPETITION; CENTRAL EUROPE; COMPETITION INDEX; DATA COVER; DOMINATING TREE; ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS; ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS; FERTILE SITES; FOREST STAND; GROWTH MODELS; GROWTH REACTIONS; INDIVIDUAL TREE GROWTH MODELS; INDIVIDUAL TREE MODEL; LONG-TERM EXPERIMENTS; NORWAY SPRUCE; PICEA ABIES (L.) KARST; PINUS SYLVESTRIS; QUERCUS PETREA; RESOURCE LIMITATIONS; SCOTS PINE; SITE CONDITIONS; SITE QUALITY; SYMMETRIC COMPETITION; TREE COMPETITION;

FORESTRY;

COMPETITION;

CONIFEROUS TREE; DECIDUOUS TREE; ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS; GROWTH MODELING; GROWTH RATE; INTERSPECIFIC COMPETITION; LIGHT AVAILABILITY; RESOURCE SCARCITY; STAND STRUCTURE;

COMPETITION; FORESTRY; FORESTS; MODELS; QUALITY CONTROL; TREES;

CENTRAL EUROPE;

PETREA; PICEA ABIES; PINUS SYLVESTRIS; QUERCUS; QUERCUS PETRAEA;

EID: 77049116557     PISSN: 00455067     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/X09-195     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Bates, D., Maechler, M., and Dai, B. 2008. lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-28. Available from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.
2. Bella, I.E. 1971. A new competition model for individual trees. For. Sci. 17(3): 364-372.
3. Biging, G.S., and Dobbertin, M. 1992. A comparison of distancedependent competition measures for height and basal area growth of individual conifer trees. For. Sci. 38(3): 695-720.
4. Biging, G.S., and Dobbertin, M. 1995. Evaluation of competition indices in individual tree growth models. For. Sci. 41: 360-377.
5. Cannell, M.G.R., and Grace, J. 1993. Competition for light: detection, measurement, and quantification. Can. J. For. Res. 23(10): 1969-1979. doi:10.1139/x93-248.
6. Condés, S., and Sterba, H. 2008. Comparing an individual tree growth model for Pinus halepensis Mill. in the Spanish region of Murcia with yield tables gained from the same area. Eur. J. For. Res. 127(3): doi:10.1007/s10342-007-0201-7.
7. Fahrmeir, L., Kneib, Th., and Lang, St. 2007. Regression. Modelle, methoden und anwendungen. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, and New York.
8. Grimm, V. 1999. Ten years of individual-based modelling in ecology: what have we learned and what could we learn in the future? Ecol. Model. 115(2-3): 129-148. doi:10.1016/S0304-3800(98)00188-4.
9. Hanewinkel, M., and Pretzsch, H. 2000. Modelling the conversion from even-aged to uneven-aged stands of Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst.) with a distance-dependent growth simulator. For. Ecol. Manag. 134(1-3): 55-70. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00245-5.
10. Hara, T. 1993. Mode of competition and size-structure dynamics in plant communities. Plant Species Biol. 8(2-3): 75-84. doi:10.1111/j.1442-1984.1993.tb00059.x.
11. Hasenauer, H., Kindermann, G., and Steinmetz, P. 2006: The tree growth model MOSES 3.0. In Sustainable forest management: growth models for Europe. Edited by H. Hasenauer. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, and New York. pp. 64-70.
12. Hegyi, F. 1974. A simulation model for managing jack-pine stands. In Growth models for tree and stand simulation. Edited by J. Fries. Royal College of Forest, Stockholm, Sweden. pp. 74-90.
13. Hugershoff, R. 1936. Die mathematischen Hilfsmittel des Kulturingenieurs und Biologen. II. Teil: Herleitung von gesetzmäßigen Zusammenhängen. Dresden 1936, Manuskriptdruck.
14. Keller, W. 1995. Zur Oberhöhenberechnung in Mischbeständen aus standortkundlicher Sicht. Proc Dt Verb Forstl Forschungsanst, Sek Ertragskd, in Joachimsthal. pp. 52-60.
15. Koenker, R. 2009. quantreg: Quantile regression. R package version 4.30. Available from http://www.r-project.org.
16. Ledermann, T., and Sterba, H. 2006: Evaluating management regimes and their impact on commercial timber supply using an individual-tree growth model and scenario analysis. In Sustainable forest management: growth models for Europe. Edited by H. Hasenauer. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, and New York. pp. 195-209.
17. Mailly, D., Turbis, S., and Pothier, D. 2003. Predicting basal area increment in a spatially explicit, individual tree model: a test of competition measures with black spruce. Can. J. For. Res. 33(3): 435-443. doi:10.1139/x02-122.
18. Martin, G.L., and Ek, A.R. 1984. A comparison of competition measures and growth models for predicting plantation red pine diameter and height growth. For. Sci. 30(3): 731-743.
19. Monserud, R.A., and Sterba, H. 1999. Modeling individual tree mortality for Austrian forest species. For. Ecol. Manag. 113(2-3): 109-123. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00419-8.
20. Müller, I., Schmid, B., and Weiner, J. 2000. The effect of nutrient availability on biomass allocation patterns in 27 species of herbaceous plants. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 3(2): 115-127. doi:10.1078/1433-8319-00007.
21. Nagel, J. 1999. Konzeptionelle überlegungen zum schrittweisen aufbau eines waldwachstumskundlichen simulationssystems für Nordwestdeutschland. Schr Forstl Fak Univ Göttingen u Niedersächs Forstl Versuchsanst 128, JD Sauerländer's Verlag, Frankfurt am Main.
22. Newnham, R. 1964. The development of a stand model for Douglasfir. Ph.D. thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.
23. Palahí, M., Pukkala, T., Miina, J., and Montero, G. 2003. Individual-tree growth and mortality models for Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) in north-east Spain. Ann. For. Sci. 60(1): 1-10. doi:10.1051/forest:2002068.
24. Pinheiro, J., and Bates, D. 2000. Mixed-effects models in S and SPLUS. Springer, New York.
25. Pretzsch, H. 1997. Analysis and modeling of spatial stand structures. Methodological considerations based on mixed beech-larch stands in Lower Saxony. For. Ecol. Manag. 97(3): 237-253. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(97)00069-8.
26. Pretzsch, H. 2009. Forest dynamics, growth and yield. From measurement to model, Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg.
27. Pretzsch, H., and Biber, P. 2005. A re-evaluation of Reineke's rule and stand density index. For. Sci. 51: 304-320.
28. Pretzsch, H., Biber, P., and Dursky, J. 2002. The single tree based stand simulator SILVA. Construction, application and evaluation. For. Ecol. Manag. 162(1): 3-21. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00047-6.
29. Prodan, M. 1965. Holzmesslehre. J.D. Sauerländer's Verlag, Frankfurt am Main.
30. Pukkala, T. 1989. Methods to describe the competition process in a tree stand. Scand. J. For. Res. 4(1-4): 187-202. doi:10.1080/02827588909382557.
31. Pukkala, T., and Kolström, T. 1987. Competition indices and the prediction of radial growth in scots pine. Silva Fenn. 21(1): 55-67.
32. R Development Core Team. 2008. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. Available from http://www.R-project.org.
33. Reineke, L.H. 1933. Perfecting a stand-density index for even-aged forests. J. Agric. Res. 46: 627-638.
34. Schmid, S., Zingg, A., Biber, P., Bugmann, H. 2005. Evaluation of the forest growth model SILVA along an elevational gradient in Switzerland. Eur. J. For. Res. 125(1): 43-55.
35. Schober, R. 1975. Ertragstafeln wichtiger Baumarten. JD Sauerländer's Verlag, Frankfurt am Main.
36. Schwinning, S., and Weiner, J. 1998. Mechanisms determining the degree of size asymmetry in competition among plants. Oecologia (Berl.), 113(4): 447-455. doi:10.1007/s004420050397.
37. Thomas, S.C., and Weiner, J. 1989. Growth, death and size distribution change in an Impatiens pallida population. J. Ecol. 77(2): 524-536. doi:10.2307/2260767.
38. van Kuijk, M., Anten, N.P.R., Oomen, R.J., van Bentum, D.W., and Werger, M.J.A. 2008. The limited importance of size-asymmetric light competition and growth of pioneer species in early secondary forest succession in Vietnam. Oecologia (Berl.), 157(1): 1-12. doi:10.1007/s00442-008-1048-4.
39. Weiner, J. 1990. Asymmetric competition in plant populations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 5(11): 360-364. doi:10.1016/0169-5347(90)90095-U.
40. Weiner, J., and Thomas, S.C. 1986. Size variability and competition in plant monocultures. Oikos, 47(2): 211-222. doi:10.2307/3566048.
41. Weiner, J., Stoll, P., Muller-Landau, H., and Jasentuliyana, A. 2001. The effects of density, spatial pattern, and competitive symmetry on size variation in simulated plant populations. Am. Nat. 158(4): 438-450. doi:10.1086/321988. PMID:18707338.
42. Wichmann, L. 2001. Annual variations in competition symmetry in even-aged Sitka spruce. Ann. Bot. (Lond.), 88(1): 145-151. doi:10.1006/anbo.2001.1445.
43. Wichmann, L. 2002. Competition symmetry. Chap. 7. In Modelling the effects of competition between individual trees in forest stands. Ph.D. thesis, Unit of Forestry, Copenhagen, Denmark. pp. 67-77.
44. Wu, H.-I., Sharpe, P.J.H., Walker, J., and Penridge, L.K. 1985. Ecological field theory: a spatial analysis of resource interference among plants. Ecol. Model. 29(1-4): 215-243. doi:10.1016/0304-3800(85)90054-7.
45. Wykoff, W.R., Crookston, N.L., and Stage, A.R. 1982. User's guide to the stand prognosis model. U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-133.