Competition and facilitation between tree species change with stand development

Oikos

Volumn 120, Issue 11, 2011, Pages 1683-1695

  Cavard, Xavier ^a   Bergeron, Yves ^a   Chen, Han Y H ^b   Paré, David ^c   Laganière, Jérôme ^c   Brassard, Brian ^b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC EN ABITIBI TÉMISCAMINGUE   (Canada)

^b LAKEHEAD UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c LAURENTIAN FORESTRY CENTRE   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BOREAL FOREST; CLAY SOIL; COMPETITION (ECOLOGY); CONIFEROUS TREE; FACILITATION; GROWTH RATE; NUTRIENT AVAILABILITY; SOIL NUTRIENT; SPECIES DIVERSITY; STAND STRUCTURE;

CANADA; QUEBEC [CANADA];

CONIFEROPHYTA; PICEA; PICEA MARIANA; PINUS BANKSIANA; POPULUS TREMULOIDES;

EID: 80055071238     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.19294.x     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Amoroso M. M. and Turnblom E. C. 2006. Comparing productivity of pure and mixed Douglas-fir and western hemlock plantations in the Pacific Northwest. Can. J. For. Res. 36: 1484-1496.
2. Béland M. and Bergeron Y. 1996. Height growth of jack pine (Pinus banksiana) in relation to site types in boreal forests of Abitibi, Quebec. Can. J. For. Res. 26: 2170-2179.
3. Bergeron J.-F. 1996. Domaine de la pessière noire à mousses. - In: Manuel de foresterie. Les Presses de l'Université Laval, pp. 223-238.
4. Binkley D. et al. 2003. Twenty years of stand development in pure and mixed stands of Eucalyptus saligna and nitrogen-fixing Facaltaria moluccana. For. Ecol. Manage. 182: 93-102.
5. Bolte A. and Villanueva I. 2006. Interspecific competition impacts on the morphology and distribution of fine roots in European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) and Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.). Eur. J. For. Res. 125: 15-26.
6. Brassard B. W. et al. 2011. Differences in fine root productivity between mixed- and single-species stands. Funct. Ecol. 25: 238-246.
7. Bristow M. et al. 2006. Growth and species interactions of Eucalyptus pellita in a mixed and monoculture plantation in the humid tropics of north Queensland. For. Ecol. Manage. 233: 285-294.
8. Brooker R. W. et al. 2008. Facilitation in plant communities: the past, the present, and the future. J. Ecol. 96: 18-34.
9. Brown A. H. F. 1992. Functioning of mixed-species stands at Gisburn, N.W. England. - In: Cannell M. G. R. et al. (eds), The ecology of mixed-species stands of trees. Blackwell, pp. 125-150.
10. Callaway R. M. 1995. Positive interactions among plants. Bot. Rev. 61: 306-349.
11. Callaway R. M. and Walker L. R. 1997. Competition and facilitation: a synthetic approach to interactions in plant communities. Ecology 78: 1958-1965.
12. Callaway R. M. et al. 2002. Positive interactions among alpine plants increase with stress. Nature 417: 844-848.
13. Canham C. D. et al. 2006. Neighborhood analyses of canopy tree competition along environmental gradients in new England forests. Ecol. Appl. 16: 540-554.
14. Cavard X. et al. 2010. Mixed-species effect on tree aboveground carbon pools in the east-central boreal forests. Can. J. For. Res. 40: 37-47.
15. Chen H. Y. H. et al. 2003. Are mixed-species stands more productive than single-species stands: an empirical test of three forest types in British Columbia and Alberta. Can. J. For. Res. 33: 1227-1237.
16. Côté L. et al. 2000. Dynamics of carbon and nitrogen mineralization in relation to stand type, stand age and soil texture in the boreal mixedwood. Soil Biol. Biochem. 32: 1079-1090.
17. Crawford R. M. M. et al. 2003. Paludification and forest retreat in northern oceanic environments. Ann. Bot. 91: 213-226.
18. del Rio M. and Sterba H. 2009. Comparing volume growth in pure and mixed stands of Pinus sylvestris and Quercus pyrenaica. Ann. For. Sci. 66: 502.
19. Environment Canada. 2007. Canadian climate normals 1971-2000. <>. - Environ. Can., Natl Meteorol. Service, Downsview, ON.
20. Environment Canada. 2010. Canadian daily climate data. - Environ. Can., Natl Meteorol. Service, Downsview, ON.
21. Erickson H. E. et al. 2009. Tree growth at stand and individual scales in two dual-species mixture experiments in southern Washington State, USA. Can. J. For. Res. 39: 1119-1132.
22. Fenton N. et al. 2005. Paludification in black spruce (Picea mariana) forests of eastern Canada: potential factors and management implications. For. Ecol. Manage. 213: 151-159.
23. Filipescu C. N. and Comeau P. G. 2007. Competitive interactions between aspen and white spruce vary with stand age in boreal mixedwoods. For. Ecol. Manage. 247: 175-184.
24. Forrester D. I. et al. 2007. Productivity of three young mixed-species plantations containing N2-fixing Acacia and non-N2-fixing Eucalyptus and Pinus trees in southeastern Australia. For. Sci. 53: 426-434.
25. Gartner T. B. and Cardon Z. G. 2004. Decomposition dynamics in mixed-species leaf litter. Oikos 104: 230-246.
26. Green D. S. and Hawkins C. D. B. 2005. Competitive interactions in sub-boreal birch-spruce forests differ on opposing slope aspects. For. Ecol. Manage. 214: 1-10.
27. Grime J. P. 1977. Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. Am. Nat. 111: 1169-1194.
28. Grissino-Mayer H. D. 2001. Evaluating crossdating accuracy: a manual and tutorial for the computer program COFECHA. Tree-Ring Res. 57: 205-221.
29. Hein S. and Dhote J. F. 2006. Effect of species composition, stand density and site index on the basal area increment of oak trees (Quercus sp.) in mixed stands with beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in northern France. Ann. For. Sci. 63: 457-467.
30. Hendershot W. H. and Duquette M. 1986. A simple barium chloride method for determining cation exchange capacity and exchangeable cations. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 50: 605-608.
31. Kaitaniemi P. and Lintunen A. 2010. Neighbor identity and competition influence tree growth in Scots pine, Siberian larch and silver birch. Ann. For. Sci. 67.
32. Kelty M. J. 1992. Comparative productivity of monocultures and mixed-species stands. - In: Kelty M. J. et al. (eds), The ecology and silviculture of mixed-species forests. Kluwer, pp. 125-141.
33. Kelty M. J. 2006. The role of species mixtures in plantation forestry. For. Ecol. Manage. 233: 195-204.
34. Laganière J. et al. 2009. Linking the abundance of aspen with soil faunal communities and rates of belowground processes within single stands of mixed aspen-black spruce. Appl. Soil Ecol. 41: 19-28.
35. Laganière J. et al. 2010. How does a tree species influence litter decomposition? Separating the relative contribution of litter quality, litter mixing and forest floor conditions. Can. J. For. Res. 40: 465-475.
36. Lambert M. C. et al. 2005. Canadian national tree aboveground biomass equations. Can. J. For. Res. 35: 1996-2018.
37. Lamlom S. H. and Savidge R. A. 2003. A reassessment of carbon content in wood: variation within and between 41 North American species. Biomass Bioenergy 25: 381-388.
38. Lanner R. M. 1985. On the insensitivity of height growth to spacing. For. Ecol. Manage. 13: 143-148.
39. Légaré S. et al. 2005. Effect of aspen (Populus tremuloides) as a companion species on the growth of black spruce (Picea mariana) in the southwestern boreal forest of Quebec. For. Ecol. Manage. 208: 211-222.
40. Légaré S. et al. 2004. The responses of black spruce growth to an increased proportion of aspen in mixed stands. Can. J. For. Res. 34: 405-416.
41. Légaré S. et al. 2005. Influence of aspen on forest floor properties in black spruce-dominated stands. Plant Soil 275: 207-220.
42. Longpré M. H. et al. 1994. Effect of companion species on the growth of jack pine (Pinus banksiana). Can. J. For. Res. 24: 1846-1853.
43. Maestre F. T. et al. 2009. Refining the stress-gradient hypothesis for competition and facilitation in plant communities. J. Ecol. 97: 199-205.
44. Messier C. et al. 2009. Resource and non-resource root competition effects of grasses on early- versus late-successional trees. J. Ecol. 97: 548-554.
45. Moraes de Jesus R. and Brouard J. S. 1989. Eucalyptus-Leucaena mixture experiment. I. Growth and yield. Int. Tree Crops J. 5: 257-269.
46. Pinheiro J. C. and Bates D. M. 2000. Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. - Springer.
47. Prescott C. E. et al. 2000. Decomposition of broadleaf and needle litter in forests of British Columbia: influences of litter type, forest type and litter mixtures. Can. J. For. Res. 30: 1742-1750.
48. Régnière J. and St-Amant R. 2007. Stochastic simulation of daily air temperature and precipitation from monthly normals in North America north of Mexico. Int. J. Biometeorol. 51: 415-430.
49. Rothe A. and Binkley D. 2001. Nutritional interactions in mixed species forests: a synthesis. Can. J. For. Res. 31: 1855-1870.
50. Rothe A. et al. 2002. Influence of tree species composition on soil and soil solution properties in two mixed spruce-beech stands with contrasting history in southern Germany. Plant Soil 240: 47-56.
51. Rothe A. et al. 2003. Do admixed broadleaves improve foliar nutrient status of conifer tree crops? For. Ecol. Manage. 172: 327-338.
52. Senici D. et al. 2010. Spatiotemporal variations of fire frequency in central boreal forest. Ecosystems 13: 1227-1238.
53. Simard S. and Vyse A. 2006. Tradeoffs between competition and facilitation: a case study of vegetation management in the interior cedar-hemlock forests of southern British Columbia. Can. J. For. Res. 36: 2486-2496.
54. Soil Classification Working Group 1996. The Canadian system of soil classification. - Agric. Agri-Food Can. Publ. 1646.
55. Ste-Marie C. et al. 2007. The contrasting effects of aspen and jack pine on soil nutritional properties depend on parent material. Ecosystems 10: 1299-1310.
56. Strong W. L. and La Roi G. H. 1983. Root-system morphology of common boreal forest trees in Alberta, Canada. Can. J. For. Res. 13: 1164-1173.
57. Vandermeer J. 1989. The ecology of intercropping. - Cambridge Univ. Press.
58. Veillette J. J. 1994. Evolution and paleohydrology of glacial Lakes Barlow and Ojibway. Quat. Sci. Rev. 13: 945-971.
59. Wang J. R. and Kimmins J. P. 2002. Height growth and competitive relationship between paper birch and Douglas-fir in coast and interior of British Columbia. For. Ecol. Manage. 165: 285-293.