Growth partitioning in forest stands is affected by stand density and summer drought in sessile oak and Douglas-fir

Forest Ecology and Management

Volumn 334, Issue , 2014, Pages 358-368

  Trouvé, Raphaël ^a,b   Bontemps, Jean Daniel ^a,b   Collet, Catherine ^a,b   Seynave, Ingrid ^a,b   Lebourgeois, François ^a,b  

^a AGROPARISTECH   (France)

^b LERFoB   (France)

Author keywords

Competition; Growth dominance; Size growth relationship; Temperature; Tree growth; Water

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE CHANGE; COMPETITION; PLANTS (BOTANY); SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SOIL MOISTURE; TEMPERATURE; WATER;

BELOWGROUND COMPETITION; CLIMATIC CONDITIONS; ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES; SIZE-GROWTH RELATIONSHIP; SOIL WATER DEFICIT; STAND DEVELOPMENT; SUMMER TEMPERATURE; TREE GROWTH; SIZE GROWTHS;

FORESTRY;

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT; ASYMMETRIC COMPETITION; CLIMATE CHANGE; CONIFEROUS TREE; DECIDUOUS TREE; DROUGHT STRESS; GROWTH RATE; POPULATION DENSITY; SELF THINNING; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SILVICULTURE; STAND DYNAMICS; VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION; COMPETITION (ECOLOGY); DICOTYLEDON; DROUGHT; PARTITIONING; SIMULATION; THINNING;

PSEUDOTSUGA; PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII; QUERCUS PETRAEA; ABIES;

COMPETITION; GROWTH; TEMPERATURE; TREES; WATER;

EID: 84907833499     PISSN: 03781127     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2014.09.020     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Allen C.D., Macalady A.K., Chenchouni H., Bachelet D., McDowell N., Vennetier M., Kitzberger T., Rigling A., Breshears D.D., Hogg E.H., Gonzalez P., Fensham R., Zhang Z., Castro J., Demidova N., Lim J.H., Allard G., Running S.W., Semerci A., Cobb N. A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. Forest Ecol. Manage. 2010, 259:660-684.
2. Angelier, A., 2007. Douglasaies françaises. Office National des Forêts (Eds.), 296p.
3. Aussenac G. Interactions between forest stands and microclimate: Ecophysiological aspects and consequences for silviculture. Ann. Forest Sci. 2000, 57:287-301.
4. Bédénaux M., Sindoux C., Ruchaud F., Bailly A., Crémière L. Un partenariat scientifique original: la coopérative de données sur la croissance des arbres et peuplements forestiers. Rev. For. Fr. 2001, 53:171-177.
5. Berges L., Chevalier R., Dumas Y., Franc A., Gilbert J.M. Sessile oak (Quercus petraea Liebl.) site index variations in relation to climate, topography and soil in even-aged high-forest stands in northern France. Ann. For. Sci. 2005, 62:391-402.
6. Binkley D. A hypothesis about the interaction of tree dominance and stand production through stand development. Forest Ecol. Manage. 2004, 190:265-271.
7. Binkley D., Kashian D.M., Boyden S., Kaye M.W., Bradford J.B., Arthur M.A., Fornwalt P.J., Ryan M.G. Patterns of growth dominance in forests of the Rocky Mountains, USA. Forest Ecol. Manage. 2006, 236:193-201.
8. Binkley D., Stape J.L., Ryan M.G. Thinking about efficiency of resource use in forests. Forest Ecol. Manage. 2004, 193:5-16.
9. Binkley D., Stape J.L., Ryan M.G., Barnard H.R., Fownes J. Age-related decline in forest ecosystem growth: an individual-tree, stand-structure hypothesis. Ecosystems 2002, 5:58-67.
10. Bolker B. Ecological Models and Data in R 2008, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
11. Bolte A., Rahmann T., Kuhr M., Pogoda P., Murach D., Gadow K.V. Relationships between tree dimension and coarse root biomass in mixed stands of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) and Norway spruce (Picea abies[L.] Karst.). Plant Soil 2004, 264:1-11.
12. Bontemps J.D., Bouriaud O. Predictive approaches to forest site productivity: recent trends, challenges and future perspectives. Forestry 2014, 87:109-128.
13. Bradford J.B., D'Amato A.W., Palik B.J., Fraver S. A new method for evaluating forest thinning: growth dominance in managed Pinus resinosa stands. Can. J. Forest Res. 2010, 40:843-849.
14. Bréda N., Granier A., Aussenac G. Effects of thinning on soil and tree water relations, transpiration and growth in an oak forest (Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.). Tree Physiol. 1995, 15:295-306.
15. Carnwath G.C., Peterson D.W., Nelson C.R. Effect of crown class and habitat type on climate-growth relationships of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir. Forest Ecol. Manage. 2012, 285:44-52.
16. Casper B.B., Jackson R.B. Plant competition underground. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1997, 28:545-570.
17. Castagneri D., Nola P., Cherubini P., Motta R. Temporal variability of size-growth relationships in a Norway spruce forest: the influences of stand structure, logging, and climate. Can. J. Forest Res.-Rev. Can. Rech. For. 2012, 42:550-560.
18. Charru M., Seynave I., Morneau F., Bontemps J.D. Recent changes in forest productivity: an analysis of national forest inventory data for common beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in north-eastern France. Forest Ecol. Manage. 2010, 260:864-874.
19. Charru M., Seynave I., Morneau F., Rivoire M., Bontemps J.-D. Significant differences and curvilinearity in the self-thinning relationships of 11 temperate tree species assessed from forest inventory data. Ann. Forest Sci. 2012, 69:195-205.
20. 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.
21. Craine J.M., Dybzinski R. Mechanisms of plant competition for nutrients, water and light. Funct. Ecol. 2013, 27:833-840.
22. D'Amato A.W., Bradford J.B., Fraver S., Palik B.J. Effects of thinning on drought vulnerability and climate response in north temperate forest ecosystems. Ecol. Appl. 2013, 23:1735-1742.
23. Deleuze C., Pain O., DhÔte J.F., Hervé J.C. A flexible radial increment model for individual trees in pure even-aged stands. Ann. For. Sci. 2004, 61:327-335.
24. DhÔte J.F. Modélisation de la croissance des peuplements réguliers de hêtre: dynamique des hiérarchies sociales et facteurs de production. Ann. Forest Sci. 1991, 48:389-416.
25. DhÔte J.F. Hypotheses about competition for light and water in even-aged common beech (Fagus silvatica L.). Forest Ecol. Manage. 1994, 69:219-232.
26. DhÔte J.F., Herve J.C. Productivity changes in four Sessile Oak forests since 1930: a stand-level approach. Ann. Forest Sci. 2000, 57:651-680.
27. Dolezal J., Mazurek P., Klimesova J. Oak decline in southern Moravia: the association between climate change and early and late wood formation in oaks. Preslia 2010, 82:289-306.
28. Dufrêne E., Davi H., François C., Maire G.L., Dantec V.L., Granier A. Modelling carbon and water cycles in a beech forest: Part I: model description and uncertainty analysis on modelled NEE. Ecol. Model. 2005, 185:407-436.
29. Fernández M.E., Gyenge J. Testing Binkley's hypothesis about the interaction of individual tree water use efficiency and growth efficiency with dominance patterns in open and close canopy stands. Forest Ecol. Manage. 2009, 257:1859-1865.
30. Ford E.D. Competition and stand structure in some even-aged plant monocultures. J. Ecol. 1975, 63:311-333.
31. Friedrichs D.A., Buntgen U., Frank D.C., Esper J., Neuwirth B., Loffler J. Complex climate controls on 20th century oak growth in Central-West Germany. Tree Physiol. 2009, 29:39-51.
32. Gebhardt T., Häberle K.-H., Matyssek R., Schulz C., Ammer C. The more the better water relations of Norway spruce stands after progressive thinning. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 2014.
33. Hein S., DhÔte J.F. 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. Forest Sci. 2006, 63:457-467.
34. Huffel G. Les méthodes de l'Aménagement Forestier en France. Annales de l'école nationale des eaux et forêts et de la station de recherches et expériences 1927, 1:1-230.
35. IFN, 2013. Inventaire Forestier National. Le mémento.
36. Jarret, P., 2004. Chênaies atlantiques. Guide de sylvicultures. Office National des Forêts (Eds.), 355p.
37. Koehler A.B., Murphree E.S. A comparison of the Akaike and Schwarz criteria for selecting model order. Appl. Stat.-J. R. Stat. Soc. 1988, 37:187-195.
38. Le Goff N., Ottorini J.M., Ningre F. Evaluation and comparison of size-density relationships for pure even-aged stands of ash (Fraxinus excelsior L.), beech (Fagus silvatica L.), oak (Quercus petraea Liebl.), and sycamore maple (Acer pseudoplatanus L.). Ann. Forest Sci. 2011, 68:461-475.
39. Le Moguédec G., DhÔte J.F. Fagacées: a tree-centered growth and yield model for sessile oak (Quercus petraea L.) and common beech (Fagus sylvatica L.). Ann. Forest Sci. 2012, 69:257-269.
40. Lebourgeois F., Cousseau G., Ducos Y. Climate-tree-growth relationships of Quercus petraea Mill. stand in the Forest of Berce ("Futaie des Clos", Sarthe, France). Ann. Forest Sci. 2004, 61:361-372.
41. Lebourgeois F., Gomez N., Pinto P., Mérian P. Mixed stands reduce Abies alba tree-ring sensitivity to summer drought in the Vosges mountains, western Europe. Forest Ecol. Manage. 2013, 303:61-71.
42. LeGoff N., Ottorini J.M. Root biomass and biomass increment in a beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) stand in North-East France. Ann. Forest Sci. 2001, 58:1-13.
43. Lévesque M., Saurer M., Siegwolf R., Eilmann B., Brang P., Bugmann H., Rigling A. Drought response of five conifer species under contrasting water availability suggests high vulnerability of Norway spruce and European larch. Global Change Biol. 2013, 19:3184-3199.
44. Long J.N., Dean T.J., Roberts S.D. Linkages between silviculture and ecology: examination of several important conceptual models. Forest Ecol. Manage. 2004, 200:249-261.
45. Macfarlane C., White D.A., Adams M.A. The apparent feed-forward response to vapour pressure deficit of stomata in droughted, field-grown Eucalyptus globulus Labill. Plant, Cell Environ. 2004, 27:1268-1280.
46. Martin-Benito D., Del Rio M., Heinrich I., Helle G., Canellas I. Response of climate-growth relationships and water use efficiency to thinning in a Pinus nigra afforestation. Forest Ecol. Manage. 2010, 259:967-975.
47. McDowell N.G., Adams H.D., Bailey J.D., Hess M., Kolb T.E. Homeostatic maintenance of ponderosa pine gas exchange in response to stand density changes. Ecol. Appl. 2006, 16:1164-1182.
48. Meinzer F.C., Woodruff D.R., Eissenstat D.M., Lin H.S., Adams T.S., McCulloh K.A. Above- and belowground controls on water use by trees of different wood types in an eastern US deciduous forest. Tree Physiol. 2013, 33:345-356.
49. Merian P., Bontemps J.D., Berges L., Lebourgeois F. Spatial variation and temporal instability in climate-growth relationships of sessile oak (Quercus petraea Matt. Liebl.) under temperate conditions. Plant Ecol. 2011, 212:1855-1871.
50. Metsaranta J.M., Lieffers V.J. Patterns of inter-annual variation in the size asymmetry of growth in Pinus banksiana. Oecologia 2010, 163:737-745.
51. Oswald H., Pardé J. Le douglas en France: Sylviculture et production. Rev. For. Fr. 1984, 36:56-68.
52. Pacala S.W., Canham C.D., Saponara J., Silander J.A., Kobe R.K., Ribbens E. Forest models defined by field measurements: estimation, error analysis and dynamics. Ecol. Monogr. 1996, 66:1-43.
53. Pérot T., Perret S., Meredieu C., Ginisty C. Quels modèles de croissance pour les peuplements mélangés ? Exemple du mélange Chêne sessile - Pin sylvestre. Rev. For. Fr. 2007, 59:57-84.
54. Piedallu C., Gégout J.-C., Bruand A., Seynave I. Mapping soil water holding capacity over large areas to predict potential production of forest stands. Geoderma 2011, 160:355-366.
55. Piedallu C., Gégout J.-C., Perez V., Lebourgeois F. Soil water balance performs better than climatic water variables in tree species distribution modelling. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 2013, 22:470-482.
56. Pretzsch H. Stand density and growth of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.): evidence from long-term experimental plots. Eur. J. Forest Res. 2005, 124:193-205.
57. Pretzsch H., Biber P. Size-symmetric versus size-asymmetric competition and growth partitioning among trees in forest stands along an ecological gradient in central Europe. Can. J. Forest. Res.-Rev. Can. Rech. For. 2010, 40:370-384.
58. Pretzsch H., Dieler J. The dependency of the size-growth relationship of Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in forest stands on long-term site conditions, drought events, and ozone stress. Trees-Struct. Funct. 2011, 25:355-369.
59. Quintana-Seguí P., Le Moigne P., Durand Y., Martin E., Habets F., Baillon M., Canellas C., Franchisteguy L., Morel S. Analysis of near-surface atmospheric variables: validation of the SAFRAN analysis over France. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 2008, 47:92-107.
60. R Development Core Team, 2012. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN: 3-900051-07-0, <>. http://www.R-project.org.
61. Reineke L.H. Perfecting a stand-density index for even-aged forests. J. Agric. Res. 1933, 46:627-638.
62. Saint-André, L., Laclau, J.P., Bouillet, J.P., Deleporte, P., Miabala, A., Ognouabi, N., Baillères, H., Nouvellon, Y., 2002. Integrative modelling approach to assess the sustainability of the Eucalyptus plantations in Congo. In: Paper to Fourth workshop, IUFRO Working Party S5.01.04, Connection between Forest Resources and Wood Quality: Modelling Approaches and Simulation Software, Harrison Hot Springs. British Columbia, Canada, 8-15.
63. Sardin, T., 2008. Chênaies continentales. Guide des sylvicultures. Office National des Forêts (Eds.), 455p.
64. Schmid M., Pautasso M., Holdenrieder O. Ecological consequences of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) cultivation in Europe. Eur. J. Forest Res. 2014, 133:13-29.
65. Schwarz G. Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann. Stat. 1978, 6:461-464.
66. Schwinning S., Weiner J. Mechanisms determining the degree of size asymmetry in competition among plants. Oecologia 1998, 113:447-455.
67. Sergent A.-S., Rozenberg P., Bréda N. Douglas-fir is vulnerable to exceptional and recurrent drought episodes and recovers less well on less fertile sites. Ann. Forest Sci. 2012, 1-12.
68. Skovsgaard J.P., Vanclay J.K. Forest site productivity: a review of the evolution of dendrometric concepts for even-aged stands. Forestry 2008, 81:13-31.
69. Sohn J.A., Gebhardt T., Ammer C., Bauhus J., Häberle K.-H., Matyssek R., Grams T.E.E. Mitigation of drought by thinning: Short-term and long-term effects on growth and physiological performance of Norway spruce (Picea abies). Forest Ecol. Manage. 2013, 308:188-197.
70. Vidal J.-P., Martin E., Franchistéguy L., Baillon M., Soubeyroux J.-M. A 50-year high-resolution atmospheric reanalysis over France with the Safran system. Int. J. Climatol. 2010, 30:1627-1644.
71. Waring R., Nordmeyer A., Whitehead D., Hunt J., Newton M., Thomas C., Irvine J. Why is the productivity of Douglas-fir higher in New Zealand than in its native range in the Pacific Northwest, USA?. Forest Ecol. Manage. 2008, 255:4040-4046.
72. Waring R.H., Landsberg J.J. Generalizing plant-water relations to landscapes. J. Plant Ecol. 2011, 4:101-113.
73. Wichmann L. Annual variations in competition symmetry in even-aged sitka spruce. Ann. Bot. 2001, 88:145-151.
74. Zang C., Pretzsch H., Rothe A. Size-dependent responses to summer drought in Scots pine, Norway spruce and common oak. Trees 2012, 26:557-569.
75. Zhang J., Oliver W.W. Stand structure and growth of Abies magnifica responded to five thinning levels in northeastern California, USA. Forest Ecol. Manage. 2006, 223:275-283.