Comparing growth and fine root distribution in monocultures and mixed plantations of hybrid poplar and spruce

Journal of Forestry Research

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 247-254

  Benomar, Lahcen ^a   DesRochers, Annie ^a   Larocque, Guy R ^b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC EN ABITIBI TÉMISCAMINGUE   (Canada)

^b LAURENTIAN FORESTRY CENTRE   (Canada)

Author keywords

fine root; mixed species; monoculture; P. maximowiczii balsamifera; Picea glauca; Populus balsamifera trichocarpa; spacing

Indexed keywords

ABOVEGROUND BIOMASS; CLONE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONCENTRATION (COMPOSITION); GROWTH RATE; MONOCULTURE; NUTRIENT USE; SOIL NUTRIENT; SPACING;

CANADA; QUEBEC [CANADA];

PICEA; PICEA ABIES; PICEA GLAUCA; POPULUS; POPULUS BALSAMIFERA; POPULUS MAXIMOWICZII;

EID: 84876941513     PISSN: 1007662X     EISSN: 19930607     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11676-013-0348-7     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Aarssen LW. 1983. Ecological combining ability and competitive combining ability in plants: Toward a general evolutionary theory of coexistence in systems of competition. Am Nat, 122(6): 707-731.
2. Amoroso MM, Turnblom EC. 2006. Comparing productivity of pure and mixed Douglas-fir and western hemlock plantations in the Pacific Northwest. Can J For Res, 36(6): 1484-1496.
3. Bauhus J, Khanna PK, Menden N. 2000. Aboveground and belowground interactions in mixed plantations of Eucalyptus globulus and Acacia mearnsii. Can J For Res, 30(12): 1886-1894.
4. Benomar L, DesRochers A, Larocque GR. 2011. Changes in specific leaf area and photosynthetic nitrogen-use efficiency associated with physiological acclimation of two hybrid poplar clones to intraclonal competition. Can J For Res, 41(7): 1465-1476.
5. Benomar L, DesRochers A, Larocque GR. 2012. The effects of spacing on growth, morphology and biomass production and allocation in two hybrid poplar clones growing in the boreal region of Canada. Trees Struct Func, 26(3): 939-949.
6. Binkley D, Senock R, Bird S, Cole TG. 2003. Twenty years of stand development in pure and mixed stands of Eucalyptus saligna and nitrogenfixing Facaltaria moluccana. For Ecol Manag, 182 (1-3): 93-102.
7. Bolte A, 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 Forest Res, 125(1): 15-26.
8. Burdon RD. 2001. Genetic diversity and disease resistance: Some considerations for research, breeding, and deployment. Can J For Res, 31(4): 596-606.
9. Casper BB, Jackson RB. 1997. Plant competition underground. Annu Rev Ecol Syst, 28(1): 545-570.
10. Cavard X, Bergeron Y, Chen HYH, Paré D. 2010. Mixed-species effect on tree aboveground carbon pools in the east-central boreal forests. Can J For Res, 40(1): 37-47.
11. Chen HYH, Klinka K. 2003. Aboveground productivity of western hemlock and western red cedar mixed-species stands in southern coastal British Columbia. For Ecol Manag, 184 (1-3): 55-64.
12. Chen HYH, Klinka K, Mathey AH, Wang X, Varga P, Chourmouzis C. 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(7): 1227-1237.
13. Cui XY. 1997. Spacial patterns of fine root abundance in mixed larch-ash plantation. J Forestry Res, 8(4): 206-210.
14. Ewel JJ, Mazzarino MJ. 2009. Competition from below for light and nutrients shifts productivity among tropical species. Proc Natl Acad Sci, 105(48): 18836-18841.
15. FAO. 2001. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000. Main Report. FAO Forestry Paper. No 140 Rome, Italy.
16. Felton A, Lindbladh M, Brunet J, Fritz Ö. 2010. Replacing coniferous monocultures with mixed-species production stands: An assessment of the potential benefits for forest biodiversity in northern Europe. For Ecol Manag, 260(6): 939-947.
17. Forrester DI, Bauhus J, Cowie AL, Vanclay JK. 2006. Mixed-species plantations of Eucalyptus with nitrogen-fixing trees: A review. For Ecol Manag, 233(2-3): 211-230.
18. Gartner TB, Cardon ZG. 2004. Decomposition dynamics in mixed-species leaf litter. Oikos, 104(2): 230-246.
19. Grams TEE, Andersen CP. 2007. Competition for resources in trees: physiological versus morphological plasticity. Prog Bot, 68(4): 356-381.
20. Hartley MJ. 2002. Rationale and methods for conserving biodiversity in plantation forests. For Ecol Manag, 155: 81-95.
21. Hooper DU, Chapin FS, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, Lavorel S. 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr, 75: 3-35.
22. Howe GT, Shindler B, Cashore B, Hansen E, Lach D, Armstrong W. 2005. Public influences on plantation forestry. J For, 103(2): 90-94.
23. Jose S, Williams R, Zamora D. 2006. Belowground ecological interactions in mixed-species forest plantations. For Ecol Manag, 233(2-3): 231-239.
24. Jozsa LA, Middleton GR. 1997. Les caractéristiques déterminant la qualité du bois: nature et conséquences pratiques. Forintek Canada Corp. Québec, Canada. 42 p.
25. Kabzems R, Linnell NA, Farnden C. 2007. Growing trembling aspen and white spruce intimate mixtures: Early results (13-17 years) and future projection. J Ecosyst Manag, 8(1): 1-14.
26. Kelty MJ. 2006. The role of species mixtures in plantation forestry. For Ecol Manag, 233(2-3): 195-204.
27. Knoke T, Ammer C, Stimm B, Mosandl R. 2009. Admixing broadleaved to coniferous tree species: a review on yield, ecological stability and economics. Eur J For Res, 127(2): 89-101.
28. Lanner RM. 1985. On the insensitivity of height growth to spacing. For Ecol Manag, 13(3-4): 143-149.
29. Légaré S, Paré D, Bergeron Y. 2004. The responses of black spruce growth to an increased proportion of aspen in mixed stands. Can J For Res, 34(2): 405-416.
30. Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P, Bengtsson J, Grime J. P, Hector A, Hooper DU, Huston MA, Raffaelli D, Schmid B, Tilman D, Wardle A. 2001. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science, 294: 804-809.
31. Man R, Lieffers VJ. 1999. Are mixtures of aspen and white spruce more productive than single species stands? For Chron, 75(3): 505-513.
32. McCracken AR, Dawson WM. 1997. Growing clonal mixtures of willow to reduce effect of Melampsora epitea var. epitea. Eur J For Pathol, 27(5): 319-329.
33. Menalled FD, Kelty MJ, Ewel JJ. 1999. Canopy development in tropical tree plantations: A comparison of species mixtures and monocultures. For Ecol Manag, 104(1-3): 249-263.
34. Nichols JD, Bristow M, Vanclay JK. 2006. Mixed-species plantations: Prospects and challenges. For Ecol Manag, 233: 383-390.
35. Ordoñez JC, van Bodegom PM, Witte J-PM, Wright IJ, Reich PB, Aerts R (2009) A global study of relationships between leaf traits, climate and soil measures of nutrient fertility. Glob Ecol Biogeogr, 18(2): 137-149.
36. Roberds JH, Bishir JW. 1997. Risk analyses in clonal forestry. Can J For Res, 27(3): 425-432.
37. Rothe A, Binkley D. 2001. Nutritional interactions in mixed species forests: a synthesis. Can J For Res, 31: 1855-1870.
38. Schmid I, Kazda M. 2002. Root distribution of Norway spruce in monospecific and mixed stands on different soils. For Ecol Manag, 159(1-2): 37-47.
39. Sumida A, Ito H, Isagi Y. 1997. Trade-off between height growth and stem diameter growth for an evergreen Oak, Quercus glauca, in a mixed hardwood forest. Funct Ecol, 11(3): 300-309.
40. Ter-Mikaelian MT, Parker WC. 2000. Estimating biomass of white spruce seedlings with vertical photo imagery. New For, 20(2): 145-162.
41. Wang QC. 2002. Spatial distribution of fine roots of larch and ash in the mixed plantation stand. J Forestry Res, 13(4): 265-269.