Evergreenness and wood density predict height-diameter scaling in trees of the northeastern United States

Forest Ecology and Management

Volumn 279, Issue , 2012, Pages 21-26

  Ducey, Mark J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE   (United States)

Author keywords

Allometric scaling theory; Metabolic scaling; Metabolic theory of ecology; North American forests; Tree growth; Wood specific gravity

Indexed keywords

ALLOMETRIC SCALING; ECOLOGY MODELS; METABOLIC SCALING; MIXED EFFECTS MODELS; NORTH AMERICAN; SCALING EXPONENT; SCALING RELATIONSHIPS; SCALING RULES; SCALING THEORIES; TREE GROWTH; WOOD DENSITY;

ECOLOGY; HARDWOODS; METABOLISM;

FORESTRY;

ALLOMETRY; DIAMETER; EVERGREEN TREE; HEIGHT; METABOLISM; ONTOGENY; PHYLOGENY; PREDICTION; TOLERANCE; WOOD;

DENSITY; ECOLOGY; HARDWOODS; METABOLISM; WOOD MEASUREMENT;

UNITED STATES;

GYMNOSPERMAE; MAGNOLIOPHYTA;

EID: 84862676508     PISSN: 03781127     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2012.04.034     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Anten N.P.R., Scheiving F. The role of wood mass density and mechanical constraints in the economy of tree architecture. Am. Nat. 2010, 175:250-260.
2. Assmann E. The Principles of Forest Yield Study 1970, Trans. S.H. Gardiner, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
3. Baskerville G. Use of logarithmic regression in the estimation of plant biomass. Can. J. For. Res. 1972, 2:49-53.
4. Bates, D., Maechler, M., 2010. lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R Package Version 0.999375-37. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.
5. The Enhanced Forest Inventory and Analysis Program - National Sampling Design and Estimation Procedures. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-80 2005, U.S. Dept. of Ag., Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC. W.A. Bechtold, P.L. Patterson (Eds.).
6. Burnham K.P., Anderson D.R. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference. A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach 2002, Springer, New York.
7. Chave J., Coomes D., Jansen S., Lewis S.L., Swenson N.G., Zanne A.E. Towards a worldwide wood economics spectrum. Ecol. Lett. 2009, 12:351-366.
8. Chou K.-J., Phillips O.L., Gloor E., Monteagudo A., Torres-Lezama A., Martínez R.V. Growth and wood density predict tree mortality in Amazon forests. J. Ecol. 2008, 96:281-292.
9. Coomes D. Challenges to the generality of WBE theory. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2006, 21:593-596.
10. Coomes D.A., Allen R.B. Testing the metabolic scaling theory of tree growth. J. Ecol. 2009, 97:1369-1373.
11. Coomes D.A., Lines E.R., Allen R.B. Moving on from metabolic scaling theory: hierarchical models of tree growth and asymmetric competition for light. J. Ecol. 2011, 99:748-756.
12. Curtis R.O. Height-diameter and height-diameter-age equations for second-growth Douglas-fir. For. Sci. 1967, 13:365-375.
13. Dean T.J., Baldwin V.C. The relationship between Reineke's stand-density index and physical stem mechanics. For. Ecol. Manage. 1996, 81:25-34.
14. Dean T.J., Long J.N. Validity of constant-stress and elastic-instability principles of stem formation in Pinus contorta and Trifolium pratense. Ann. Bot. 1986, 58:833-840.
15. Ducey M.J., Knapp R.A. A stand density index for complex mixed species forests in the northeastern United States. For. Ecol. Manage. 2010, 260:1613-1622.
16. Duursma R.A., Mäkelä A., Reid D.E.B., Jokela E.J., Porte A.J., Roberts S.D. Self-shading affects allometric scaling in trees. Funct. Ecol. 2010, 24:723-730.
17. Enquist B.J., Niklas K.J. Global allocation rules for patterns of biomass partitioning in seed plants. Science 2002, 295:1517-1520.
18. Faraway J.J. Extending the Linear Model 2006, R. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton.
19. Feldpausch T.R., Banin L., Phillips O.L., Baker T.R., Lewis S.L., Quesada C.A., Affum-Baffoe K., Arets E.J.M.M., Berry N.J., Bird M., Brondizio E.S., de Camargo P., Chave J., Djagblety G., Domingues T.F., Drescher M., Fearnside P.M., França M.B., Fyllas N.M., Lopez-Gonzalez G., Hladik A., Higuchi M., Hunter M.O., Iida Y., Salim K.A., Kassim A.R., Keller M., Kemp J., King D.A., Lovett J.C., Marimon B.S., Marimon-Junior B.H., Lenza E., Marshall A.R., Metcalfe D.J., Mitchard E.T.A., Moran E.F., Nelson B.W., Nilus R., Nogueira E.M., Palace M., Patiño S., Peh K.S.-H., Raventos M.T., Reitsma J.M., Saiz G., Schrodt F., Sonké B., Taedoumg H.E., Tan S., White L., Wöll H., Lloyd J. Height-diameter allometry of tropical forest trees. Biogeosciences 2011, 8:1081-1106.
20. Givnish T.J. Plant stems: biomechanical adaptation for energy capture and influence on species distributions. Plant Stems: Physiology and Functional Morphology 1995, 3-49. Academic Press, San Diego. B.L. Gartner (Ed.).
21. Gould S.J., Lewontin R.C. The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptionist programme. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B. 1979, 205:581-598.
22. Greenhill G. Determination of greatest height consistent with stability that a vertical pole or mast can be made, and the greatest height to which a tree of given proportions can grow. Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 1881, 4:65-73.
23. Henry H.A.L., Aarsen L.W. The interpretation of stem diameter-height allometry in trees: biomechanical constraints, neighbor effects, or biased regressions?. Ecol. Lett. 1999, 2:89-97.
24. Jenkins J.C., Chojnacky D.C., Heath L.S., Birdsey R.A. Comprehensive Database of Diameter-based Biomass Regressions for North American Tree Species. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-319 2004, U.S. Dept. Ag., Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA.
25. King D., Loucks O.L. The theory of tree bole and branch form. Radiat. Environ. Biophys. 1978, 15:141-165.
26. King D.A., Davies S.J., Tan S., Md.Noor N.S. Trees approach gravitational limits to height in tall lowland forests of Malaysia. Funct. Ecol. 2009, 23:284-291.
27. Larjavaara M., Muller-Landau H.C. Rethinking the value of high wood density. Funct. Ecol. 2010, 24:701-705.
28. Mäkelä A., Valentine H.T. Crown ratio influences allometric scaling in trees. Ecology 2006, 87:2967-2972.
29. Mascaro J., Litton C.M., Hughes R.F., Uowolo A., Schnitzer S.A. Minimizing bias in biomass allometry: model selection and log-transformation of data. Biotropica 2011, 43:649-653.
30. McMahon T.A. Size and shape in biology. Science 1973, 179:1201-1204.
31. McMahon T.A., Kronauer R.E. Tree structures: deducing the principle of mechanical design. J. Theor. Biol. 1976, 59:443-466.
32. Miles, P.D., Smith, W.B., 2009. Specific Gravity and other Properties of Wood and Bark for 156 Tree Species found in North America. USDA Forest Service, Northern Res. Sta., Res. Note NRS-38.
33. Muller-Landau H.C., Condit R.S., Chave J., Thomas S.C., Bohlman S.A., Bunyavejchewin S., Davies S., Foster R., Gunatilleke S., Gunatilleke N., Harms K.E., Hart T., Hubbell S.P., Itoh A., Kassim A.R., LaFrankie J.V., Lee H.S., Losos E., Makana J.-R., Ohkubo T., Sukumar R., Sun I.-F., Nur Supardi M.N., Tan S., Thompson J., Valencia R., Munoz G.V., Wills C., Yamakura T., Chuyong G., Dattaraja H.S., Esufali S., Hall P., Hernandez C., Kenfack D., Kiratiprayoon S., Suresh H.S., Thomas D., Vallejo M.I., Ashton P.S. Testing metabolic ecology theory for allometric scaling of tree size, growth and mortality in tropical forests. Ecol. Lett. 2006, 9:575-588.
34. Niinemets ü., Valladares F. Tolerance to shade, drought, and waterlogging of temperate northern hemisphere trees and shrubs. Ecol. Monogr. 2006, 76:521-547.
35. Niklas K.J. Influence of tissue density-specific mechanical properties on the scaling of plant height. Ann. Bot. 1993, 72:173-179.
36. Niklas K.J. Interspecific allometries of critical buckling height and actual plant height. Am. J. Bot. 1994, 81:1275-1279.
37. Niklas K.J. Size-dependent allometry of tree height, diameter, and trunk-taper. Ann. Bot. 1995, 75:217-227.
38. Niklas K.J., Spatz H.-C. Growth and hydraulic (not mechanical) constraints govern the scaling of tree height and mass. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) 2004, 101:15661-15663.
39. O'Brien S.T., Hubbell S.P., Spiro P., Condit R., Foster R.B. Diameter, height, crown, and age relationships in eight neotropical tree species. Ecology 1995, 76:1926-1939.
40. Oliver C.D., Larson B.C. Forest Stand Dynamics 1996, John Wiley & Sons, New York. update ed.
41. Poorter L., Bongers L., Bongers F. Architecture of 54 moist-forest tree species: traits, trade-offs, and functional groups. Ecology 2006, 87:1289-1301.
42. Price C.A., Gilooly J.F., Allen A.P., Weitz J.S., Niklas K.J. The metabolic theory of ecology: prospects and challenges for plant biology. New Phytol. 2010, 188:696-710.
43. R Development Core Team, 2010. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org.
44. Russo S.E., Wiser S.K., Coomes D.A. Growth-size scaling relationships of woody plant species differ from predictions of the metabolic ecology model. Ecol. Lett. 2007, 10:889-901.
45. Russo S.E., Jenkins K.L., Wiser S.K., Uriarte M., Duncan R.P., Coomes D.A. Interspecific relationships among growth, mortality and xylem traits of woody species from New Zealand. Funct. Ecol. 2010, 24:253-262.
46. Ryan M.G., Yoder B.J. Hydraulic limits to tree height and tree growth. Bioscience 1997, 47:235-242.
47. Ryan M.G., Phillips N., Bond B.J. The hydraulic limitation hypothesis revisited. Plant Cell Environ. 2006, 29:267-281.
48. Stark S.C., Bentley L.P., Enquist B.J. Response to Coomes & Allen (2009). Testing the metabolic scaling theory of tree growth. J. Ecol. 2010, 99:741-747.
49. Tilman D., HilleRisLambers J., Harpole S., Dybzinski R., Fargione J., Clark C., Lehman C. Does metabolic theory apply to community ecology? It's a matter of scale. Ecology 2004, 85:1797-1799.
50. United States Forest Service (USFS), 2007. Forest Inventory and Analysis, National Core Field Guide, Version 4.0. Field Data Collection Procedures for Phase 2 Plots, vol. I. http://fia.fs.fed.us/library/field-guides-methods-proc/docs/core_ver_4-0_10_2007_p2.pdf.
51. van Gelder H.A., Poorter L., Sterck F.J. Wood mechanics, allometry, and life-history variation in a tropical rain forest tree community. New Phytol. 2006, 171:367-378.
52. West G.B., Brown J.H., Enquist B.J. A general model for the origin of allometric scaling laws in biology. Science 1997, 276:122-126.
53. West G.B., Brown J.H., Enquist B.J. A general model for the structure and allometry of plant vascular systems. Nature 1999, 400:664-667.
54. Wonn H.T., O'Hara K.L. Height: diameter ratios and stability relationships for four northern Rocky Mountain tree species. West. J. Appl. For. 2001, 16:87-94.
55. Woodall C.W., Miles P.D., Vissage J.S. Determining maximum stand density index in mixed species stands for strategic-scale stocking assessments. For. Ecol. Manage. 2005, 216:367-377.
56. Woodall C.W., Perry C.H., Miles P.D. The relative density of forests in the United States. For. Ecol. Manage. 2006, 226:368-372.
57. Woudenberg S.W., Conkling B.L., O'Connell B.M., LaPoint E.B., Turner J.A., Waddell K.L. The Forest Inventory and Analysis Database: Database Description and Users Manual Version 4.0 for Phase 2. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-245 2010, U.S. Dept. Ag., Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ft. Collins, CO.
58. Zianis D., Muukkonen P., Mäkipää R., Mencuccini M. Biomass and stem volume equations for tree species in Europe. Silv. Fenn. Monogr. 2005, 4.