European mixed forests: Definition and research perspectives

Forest Systems

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 518-533

  Bravo Oviedo, Andres ^a,b   Pretzsch, Hans ^c   Ammer, Christian ^d   Andenmatten, Ernesto ^e   Barbati, Anna ^f   Barreiro, Susana ^g   Brang, Peter ^h   Bravo, Felipe ^b,i   Coll, Lluis ^j,k   Corona, Piermaria ^l   Den Ouden, Jan ^m   Ducey, Mark J ⁿ   Forrester, David I ^o   Giergiczny, Marek ^p   Jacobsen, Jette B ^q   Lesinski, Jerzy ^r   Löf, Magnus ^s   Mason, Bill ^t   Matovic, Bratislav ^u   Metslaid, Marek ^v   Morneau, François ^w   Motiejunaite, Jurga ^x   O’Reilly, Conor ^y   Pach, Maciej ^r   Ponette, Quentin ^z   Del Rio, Miren ^a,b   Short, Ian ^aa   Skovsgaard, Jens Peter ^s   Soliño, Mario ^a,b   Spathelf, Peter ^ab   Sterba, Hubert ^ac   Stojanovic, Dejan ^u   Strelcova, Katarina ^ad   Svoboda, Miroslav ^ae   Verheyen, Kris ^af   Von Lüpke, Nikolas ^ag   Zlatanov, Tzvetan ^ah   more..

^a Instituto Nacional de Investigacion y Tecnologia Agraria y Alimentaria   (Spain)

^b Universidad de Valladolid   (Spain)

^c TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY OF GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

^e Inst Nac de Tecnol Agropecuaria   (Argentina)

^f UNIVERSITY OF TUSCIA   (Italy)

^g INSTITUTO SUPERIOR DE AGRONOMIA   (Portugal)

^h SWISS FEDERAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE WSL   (Switzerland)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF VALLADOLID   (Spain)

^j CENTRE TECNOLÒGIC FORESTAL DE CATALUNYA   (Spain)

^k UNIVERSITAT AUTÒNOMA DE BARCELONA   (Spain)

^l ISTITUTO NAZIONALE DELLA NUTRIZIONE   (Italy)

^m WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

ⁿ Department of Natural Resources and the Environment ^*  (United States)

^o UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

^p UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW   (Poland)

^q Department of Food and Resource Economics Centre for Macroecology Evolution and Climate   (Denmark)

^r UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE IN KRAKOW   (Poland)

^s SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^t FOREST RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^u UNIVERSITY OF NOVI SAD   (Serbia)

^v ESTONIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Estonia)

^w Maison forestière de la Tête de Maisey   (France)

^x Institute of Botany of Nature Research Centre   (Lithuania)

^y School of Agriculture and Food Science Agriculture and Food Science   (Ireland)

^z UCL Earth and Life Institute Environmental Sciences   (Belgium)

^aa ASHTOWN FOOD RESEARCH CENTRE   (Ireland)

^ab Fachhochschule Eberswalde   (Germany)

^ac UNIVERSITY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND LIFE SCIENCES   (Austria)

^ad TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY IN ZVOLEN   (Slovakia)

^ae CZECH UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES PRAGUE   (Czech Republic)

^af GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^ag NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE OF BIOECONOMY RESEARCH   (Norway)

^ah FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Bulgaria)

more..

Author keywords

Admixtures of species; COST Action; EuMIXFOR; Mixed species forests

Indexed keywords

EID: 84928779795     PISSN: 21715068     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5424/fs/2014233-06256     Document Type: Article

References (109)

1. 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: 1484-1496.
2. Ammer C, Mosandl R, 2007. Which grow better under the canopy of Norway spruce – Planted or sown seedlings of European beech? Forestry 80: 385-395.
3. Ammer S, Weber K, Abs C, Ammer C, Prietzel J 2006. Factors influencing the distribution and abundance of earthworm communities in pure and converted Scots pine stands. Appl Soil Ecol 33: 10-21.
4. Assmann E, 1970. The principles of forest yield study. Studies in the organic production, structure, increment and yield of forest stands. Oxford, Pergamon Press. 506 pp.
5. Bakhtiari F, Lundhede N, Gibbons J, Strange N, Jacobsen JB, 2014. How should biodiversity be presented in valuation studies? Testing for embedding and information bias. Paper presented at the Fifth World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists 2014, Istanbul, Turkey. June 28-July 2, 2014.
6. Barbati A, Corona P, Marchetti M, 2007. A forest typology for monitoring sustainable forest management: the case of European forest types. Plant Biosystems 141(1): 93-103.
7. Barbati A, Marchetti M, Chirici G, Corona P, 2014. European Forest Types and Forest Europe SFM indicators: tools for monitoring progress on forest biodiversity conservation. For Ecol Manage 321:145-157.
8. Bartelink HH, Osthoorn AFM, 1999. Introduction: mixed forests in western Europe. In: Management of mixedspecies forest: silviculture and economics (Osthoorn AFM, Bartelink HH, Gardiner JJ, Pretzsch H, Hekhuis HJ, Franc AM, eds). IBN Scientific Contributions 15. Wageningen, The Netherlands. pp: 9-16.
9. Bayer D, Seifert S, Pretzsch H, 2013. Structural crown properties of Norway spruce [Picea abies (L.) Karst.] and European beech [Fagus sylvatica (L.)] in mixed versus pure stands revealed by terrestrial laser scanning. Trees 27(4): 1035-1047.
10. Begon M, Townsend CR, Harper JL, 2006. Ecology: From Individuals to Ecosystems. Blackwell Publishing, 4th ed. 738 pp.
11. Bertness MD, Callaway RM, 1994. Positive interactions in communities. Trends Ecol Evol 9: 191-193.
12. Blombäck P, Poschen P, Lövgren M, 2003. Employment trends and prospects in the European Forest Sector. ECE/TIM/DP/29 Geneva Timber and Forest Discussion Papers. New York and Geneva. 37 pp.
13. Boyden S, Binkley D, Senock R, 2005. Competition and facilitation between Eucalyptus and nitrogen-fixing Falcataria in relation to soil fertility. Ecology 86: 992-1001.
14. Brassard BW, Chen HYH, Bergeron Y, Paré D, 2011. Differences in fine root productivity between mixed- and single-species stands Funct Ecol 25(1): 238-246.
15. Callaway RM, Walker LR, 1997. Competition and facilitation: a synthetic approach to interactions in plant communities. Ecology, 78: 1958-1965.
16. Campbell D, Vedel SE, Thorsen BJ, Jacobsen JB, 2014. Heterogeneity in the WTP for recreational access – Distributional aspects. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 57: 1200-1219.
17. Chauvat M, Titsch D, Zaytsev AS, Wolters V, 2011. Changes in soil faunal assemblages during conversion from pure to mixed forest stands. For Eco Manage 262(3): 317-324.
18. Condés S, Rio Md, Sterba H, 2013. Mixing effect on volume growth of Fagus sylvatica and Pinus sylvestris is modulated by stand density. For Ecol Manage 292: 86-95.
19. Corona P, Chirici G, McRoberts RE, Winter S, Barbati A, 2011. Contribution of large-scale forest inventories to biodiversity assessment and monitoring. For Eco Manage 262(11): 2061-2069.
20. Council of the European Union, 1999. Regulation EEC 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations.
21. de Bello F, Lepš J, Lavorel S, Moretti M, 2007. Importance of species abundance for assessment of trait composition: an example based on pollinator communities. Community Ecol 8: 163-170.
22. Dean TJ, Baldwin VC, 1996. The Relationship between Reineke’s Stand-Density Index and Physical Stem Mechanic. For Eco Manage 81: 25-34.
23. Davies CE, Moss D, Hill MO, 2004. EUNIS Habitat Classification Revised 2004. Report to the European Topic Centre on Nature Protection and Biodiversity, European Environment Agency. October 2004. 307 pp. http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/upload/EUNIS_2004_report.pdf.
24. De Schrijver A, Geudens G, Wuyts K, Staelens J, Gielis L, Verheyen K, 2009. Nutrient cycling in two continuous cover scenarios for forest conversion of pine plantations on sandy soil. I. Nutrient cycling via aboveground tree biomass. Can J For Res 39(2): 441-452.
25. Dieler J, Pretzsch H, 2013. Morphological plasticity of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in pure and mixedspecies stands. For Eco Manage 295: 97-108.
26. Ducey MJ, Astrup R, Pretzsch H, Seifert S, Larson BC, Coates KD, 2013. Comparison of forest inventory and canopy attributes derived from two terrestrial LIDAR systems. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 79(3): 245-257.
27. Ducey MJ, Knapp R, 2010. A stand density index for complex mixed species forests in the northeastern United States. For Eco Manage 260(9): 1613-1622.
28. Edwards D, Jay M, Jensen FS, Lucas B, Marzano M, Montagné C, Peace A, Weiss G, 2012. Public preferences for structural attributes of forests: towards a pan-European perspective. Forest Policy and Economics 19: 12-19.
29. EEA, 2006. European forest types. Categories and types for sustainable forest management and reporting. European Environment Agency, Technical report, No 9/2006.111 pp.
30. Epron D, Nouvellon Y, Mareschal L, MoreiraeMoreira R, Koutika L-S, Geneste B, Delgado-Rojas JS, Laclau J-P, Sola G, Gonçalves JLdM, Bouillet J-P, 2013. Partitioning of net primary production in Eucalyptus and Acacia stands and in mixed-species plantations: two case-studies in contrasting tropical environments. For Eco Manage 301: 102-111.
31. European Commission, 2013. COM (2013) 659. A new EU forest strategy: for forests and the forest-based sector.
32. European Comission and EuroStat 2013. Agriculture, forestry and fishery statistics, 2013 ed. Publications Office of the EU, Luxembourg. 249 pp.
33. FAO, 2000. Forest Resources of Europe, CIS, North America, Australia, Japan and New Zealand. Main Report. Geneva Timber and Forest Study Papers, No 17, UN, New York and Geneva. 457 pp.
34. FAO, 2011. State of the World’s Forests 2011. 164 pp.
35. Fonseca F, De Figueiredo T, Martins A, 2011. Survival and early growth of mixed forest stands installed in a Mediterranean Region: effects of site preparation intensity. For Eco Manage 262(10): 1905-1912.
36. Forest Europe, UNECE and FAO, 2011. State of Europe’s Forests 2011. Status & trends in sustainable forest management in Europe. 337 (MCPFE. Forest Europe Liasion Unit Oslo: 2011).
37. Forrester DI, 2014. The spatial and temporal dynamics of species interactions in mixed-species forests: from pattern to process. For Eco Manage 312: 282-292.
38. Forrester DI, Albrecht AT, 2014. Light absorption and lightuse efficiency in mixtures of Abies alba and Picea abies along a productivity gradient. For Eco Manage 328: 94-102.
39. Forrester DI, Bauhus J, Cowie AL, 2006. Carbon allocation in a mixed-species plantation of Eucalyptus globulus and Acacia mearnsii. For Eco Manage 233: 275-284.
40. Forrester DI, Kohnle U, Albrecht AT, Bauhus J, 2013. Complementarity in mixed-species stands of Abies alba and Picea abies varies with climate, site quality and stand density. For Eco Manage 304: 233-242.
41. Halme P, Toivanen T, Honkanen M, Kotiaho JS, Mönkkönen M, Timonen J, 2010. Flawed meta-analysis of biodiversity effects of forest management. Conservation Biology 24(4): 1154-1156.
42. Hanley N, Wright RE, Adamowicz V, 1998. Using choice experiments to value the environment: design issues, current experience and future prospects. Environ Resource Econo 11(3-4): 413-428.
43. Jacob M, Leuschner C, Thomas FM, 2010. Productivity of temperate broad-leaved forest stands differing in tree species diversity. Ann For Sci 67: 503.
44. Jacob A, Hertel D, Leuschner C, 2013. On the significance of belowground overyielding in temperate mixed forests: separating species identity and species diversity effects. Oikos 122(3): 463-473.
45. Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ, 2003. A Danish example of optimal thinning strategies in mixed-species forest under changing growth conditions caused by climate change. For Eco Manage 180: 375-388.
46. Jacobsen JB, Boiesen JH, Thorsen BJ, Strange N, 2008. What’s in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus “Iconised” species when valuing biodiversity. Environmental and Resource Economics 39(3): 247-263.
47. Jactel H, Nicoll, BC, Branco M, González-Olabarría JR, Grodzki W, Långström B, Moreira F et al., 2009. The Influences of forest stand management on biotic and abiotic risks of damage. Ann For Sci 66(7): 701.
48. Kelty MJ, 1992. Comparative productivity of monocultures and mixed-species stands. In: The ecology and silviculture of mixed-species forests (Kelty MJ, Larson BC, Oliver CD, eds). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 287 pp.
49. Knoke T, Ammer C, Stimm B, Mosandl R 2008. Admixing broadleaved to coniferous tree species: a review on yield, ecological stability and economics. Eur J For Res 127: 89-101.
50. Kolström M, Lindner M, Vilén T, Maroschek M, Seidl R, Lexer MJ, Netherer S, Kremer A, Delzon S, Barbati A, Marchetti M, Corona P, 2011. Reviewing the science and implementation of climate change adaptation measures in European forestry. Forests 2: 961-982.
51. Körner C, 2005. An introduction to the functional diversity of temperate forest trees. In: Forest diversity and function. Temperate and boreal systems (Schere-Lorenzen MC, Körner C, Schulze E-D, eds). Berlin, Springer. pp: 13-40.
52. Langhammer A, 1971. Noen glim fra blandigsskogen. Tidskr for Skogbruk 79: 302-314.
53. Larocque GR, Luckai N, Adhikary SN, Groot A, Bell FW, Sharma M, 2013. Competition theory-science and application in mixed forest stands: review of experimental and modelling methods and suggestions for future research. Environ Rev 21: 71-84.
54. Larson BC, 1992. Pathways of development in mixed-species stands. In: The ecology and silviculture of mixedspecies forests 1 (Kelty MJ, Larson BC, Oliver CD, eds). Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp: 3-10.
55. Lanz A, Alberdi I, Barbati A, Barsoum N, Brändli U-B, Chirici G, Cienciala E et al., 2010. A Sample of COST Action E43 Reference Definitions” In: National forest inventories. Pathways for common reporting (Tommpo E, Gschwantner T, LawrenceTM, McRobertsRE, eds). Berlin, Springer. 612 pp.
56. Lei P, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Bauhus J, 2012. Belowground facilitation and competition in young tree species mixtures. For Eco Manage 265: 191-200
57. Leikola M, 1999. Definition and classification of mixed forests, with a special emphasis on boreal forests. In: Management of mixed-species forest: silviculture and economics (Olsthoorn AFM, Bartelink HH, Gardiner JJ, Pretzsch H, Hekhuis HJ, Franc A, eds). Wageningen: DLO Institute of Forestry and nature research. pp: 20-28.
58. Long JN, Daniel TW, 1990. Assessment of growing stock in uneven-aged stands. West J Appl For 5: 93-96.
59. Loreau M, Hector A, 2001. Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 412, 72-76.
60. Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P, Bengtsson J, Grime JP, Hector A, Hooper DU, Huston MA, Raffaelli D, Schmid B, Tilman D, Wardle DA, 2001. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science 294: 804-808.
61. Mason WL, Connolly T, 2014. Mixtures with spruce species can be more productive than monocultures: evidence from the Gisburn experiment in Britain. Forestry 87(2): 209-217
62. Meinen C, Hertel D, Leuschner C, 2009a. Biomass and morphology of fine roots in temperate broad-leaved forests differing in tree species diversity: is there evidence of below-ground overyielding? Oecologia 161(1): 99-111.
63. Meinen C, Leuschner C, Ryan NT, Hertel D, 2009b. No evidence of spatial root system segregation and elevated fine root biomass in multi-species temperate broad-leaved forests Trees 23(5): 941-950.
64. Metz J, Seidel D, Schall P, Scheffer D, Schulze E, Ammer C, 2013. Crown modeling by terrestrial laser scanning as an approach to assess the effect of aboveground intra- and interspecific competition on tree growth. For Eco Manage 310: 275-288.
65. MCFPE, 2003. Europe’s forests in the spotlight. MCPFE Liason Unit, Vienna, Austria. 7 pp.
66. Morin X, Fahse L, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Bugmann H, 2011. Tree species richness promotes productivity in temperate forests through strong complementarity between species. Ecol Lett 14: 1211-1219.
67. Nielsen AB, Olsen SB, Lundhede T, 2007. An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landsc Urban Plan 80(1-2): 63-71.
68. Oliver CD, Larson BC, 1990. Forest stand dynamics. New York, McGraw-Hill. 467 pp.
69. Paquette A, Messier C, 2011. The effect of biodiversity on tree productivity: from temperate to boreal forests. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 20(1): 170-180.
70. Petritan IC, Von Lüpke B, Petritan AM, 2011. Effects of root trenching of overstorey Norway spruce (Picea abies) on growth and biomass of underplanted beech (Fagus sylvatica) and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) saplings. Eur J For Res 130(5): 813-828
71. Paillet Y, Bergès L, Hjältén J, Ódor P, Avon C, Bernhardt- Römermann M, Bijlsma R-J, De Bruyn L, Fuhr M, Grandin U, Kanka R, Lundin L, Luque S, Magura T, Matesanz S, Mészáros I, Sebastiá M-T, Schmidt W, Standovár T, Tóthmérész B, Uotila A, Valladares F, Vellak K, Virtanen R, 2010. Biodiversity differences between managed and unmanaged forests: meta-analysis of species richness in Europe. Conservation Biology 24: 101-112.
72. Pommerening A, Murphy ST, 2004. A Review of the history, definitions and methods of continuous cover forestry with special attention to afforestation and restocking. Forestry 77(1): 27-44.
73. Poorter H, Niklas KJ, Reich PB, Oleksyn J, Poot P, Mommer L, 2012. Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: meta-analyses of interspecif ic variation and environmental control. New Phytol 193: 30-50.
74. Pretzsch H, Schütze G, 2009. Transgressive overyielding in mixed compared with pure stands of Norway spruce and European beech in Central Europe: evidence on stand level and explanation on individual tree level. Eur J For Res 128: 183-204.
75. Pretzsch H., Block J, Dieler J, Dong PH, Kohnle U, Nagel J, Spellmann H, Zingg A, 2010. Comparison between the productivity of pure and mixed stands of Norway spruce and European beech along an ecological gradient. Ann For Sci 67: 1-12.
76. Pretzsch H, Bielak K, Block J, Bruchwald A, Dieler J, Ehrhart H-P, Kohnle U, Nagel J, Spellmann H, Zasada M, Zingg A, 2013. Productivity of mixed versus pure stands of oak [Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl. and Quercus robur L.] and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) along an ecological gradient. Eur J For Res 132(2): 263-280.
77. Pretzsch H, Rötzer T, Matyssek R, Grams TEE, Häberle KH, Pritsch K, Kerner R, Munch J-C, 2014. Mixed Norway spruce [Picea abies (L.) Karst] and European beech [Fagus sylvatica (L.)] stands under drought: from reaction pattern to mechanism, Trees-Struct Funct, accepted.
78. Puettmann KJ, Hibbs DE, Hann DW, 1992. The dynamics of mixed stands of Alnus rubra and Pseudotsuga menziesii: extension of size-density analysis to species mixture. J Ecol 80 (3): 449-458.
79. Puettmann KJ, Coates KD, Messier C, 2009. A critique of silviculture managing for complexity. Washington DC, Island Press.
80. Reineke LH, 1933. Perfecting a stand-density-index for even-age forests. J Agric Res 46: 627-638.
81. Reyes-Hernández V, Comeau PG, Bokalo M, 2013. Static and dynamic maximum size-density relationships for mixed Trembling aspen and White spruce stands in Western Canada. For Ecol Manage 289: 300-311.
82. Riera P, Signorello G, Thiene M, Mahieu P-A, Navrud S, Kaval P, Rulleau B, Mavsar R, Madureira L, Meyerhoff J et al., 2012. Non-market valuation of forest goods and services: Good practice guidelines. J Forest Econ 18(4): 259-270.
83. Río Md, Sterba H, 2009. Comparing volume growth in pure and mixed stands of Pinus sylvestris and Quercus pyrenaica. Ann For Sci 66: 502.
84. Río Md, Schütze G, Pretzsch H, 2014. Temporal variation of competition and facilitation in mixed species forests in Central Europe. Plant Biol 16: 166-176.
85. Rivoire M, Moguedec G, 2011. A generalized self-thinning relationship for multi-species and mixed-size forests. Ann For Sci 69(2): 207-219.
86. Schall P, Lödige C, Beck M, Ammer C, 2012. Biomass allocation to roots and shoots is more sensitive to shade and drought in European beech than in Norway spruce seedlings. For Ecol Manage 266: 246-253.
87. Scherer-Lorenzen M, Körner C, Schulze E-D, 2005. The functional significance of forest diversity: a synthesis. In: Forest diversity and function (Scherer-Lorenzen M, Körner C, Schulze ED, eds). Springer, Berlin, Germany. pp: 377-389.
88. Schou E, 2012. Optimisation of tree species composition at the forest level under price and climate change uncertainty and risk of wind throw for even-aged stands, using port- folio theory. In: Transformation to near-natural forest management, climate change and uncertainty (Schou E, ed). PhD Dissertation, Forest & Landscape, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
89. Schütz J-P, 2001. Opportunities and strategies of transforming regular forests to irregular forests. For Eco Manage 151(1-3): 87-94.
90. Seidel D, Leuschner C, Müller A, Krause B, 2011. Crown plasticity in mixed forests – Quantifying asymmetry as a measure of competition using terrestrial laser scanning. For Eco Manage 261(11): 2123-2132.
91. Slazak A, Freese D, Da Silva Matos E, Hüttl RF, 2010. Soil organic phosphorus fraction in pine-oak forest stands in Northeastern Germany. Geoderma 158(3-4): 156-162.
92. Smith DM, Larson BC, Kelty MJ, Ashton PNS, 1997. The practice of silviculture. New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
93. Spiecker H, 2003. Silvicultural management in maintaining biodiversity and resistance of forests in Europe – Temperate zone. J Environ Manage 67(1): 55-65.
94. Spies T, 1997. Forest Stand Structure, Composition, and Function. In: Creating a forestry for the 21st Century (Kohm KA, Franklin JF, eds). Island Press, Washington DC, USA. pp: 11-30.
95. Stenger A, Harou P, Navrud S, 2009. Valuing environmental goods and series derived from the forests. J Forest Econ 15(1-2): 1-14
96. Sterba H, 1987. Estimating potential density from thinning experiments and inventory data. For Sci 33(4): 1022-1034.
97. Sterba H, Monserud RA, 1993. The maximum density concept applied to uneven-aged mixed-species stands. For Sci 39(3): 432-452.
98. Straub C, Stepper C, Seitz R, Waser LT, 2013. Potential of UltraCamX stereo images for estimating timber volume and basal area at the plot level in mixed European forests. Can J For Res 43(8): 731-741.
99. Tomppo E, Gschwantner T, Lawrence M, McRoberts RE (eds), 2010. National Forest Inventories. Pathways for common reporting. Springer, Berlin, Germany. 612 pp.
100. Tomppo E, Schadauer K. 2012. Harmonization of national forest inventories in Europe: advances under COST Action E43. For Sci 58(3): 191-200.
101. Toumey JW, Korstian CF, 1947. Foundations of silviculture upon an ecological basis. John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA. 468 pp.
102. Tyrväinen L, Silvennoinen H, Kolehmainen O, 2003. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 1: 135-149.
103. Vandermeer JH, 1989. The ecology of intercropping. Cambridge University Press, UK. pp: 237.
104. Vandermeer J, 1989. The ecology of intercropping. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 237 pp.
105. Varela E, Mavsar R, Jacobsen JB. 2013. Preferencias sociales en la gestión de pinares de Pinus halepensis en Catalunya: ¿quién se beneficia de la gestión forestal? Actas del 6º Congreso Forestal Español. Vitoria, Spain. 16 pp.
106. Vilà M, Carrillo-Gavilán A, Vayreda J, Bugmann H, Fridman J, Grodzki W, Haase J, Kunstler G, Schelhaas M, Trasobares A, 2013. Disentangling biodiversity and climatic determinants of wood production. PLOS ONE 8 (art. e53530).
107. Wagner S, Nocentini S, Huth F, Hoogstra-Klein M, 2014. Forest management approaches for coping with the uncertainty of climate change: trade-offs in service provisioning and adaptability. Ecol Soc 19(1): 32.
108. Weiskittel A, Gould P, Temesgen H. 2009. Sources of variation in the self-thinning boundary line for three species with varying levels of shade tolerance. For Sci 55(1): 84-93.
109. Woodall CW, Miles PD, Vissage JS, 2005. Determining maximum stand density index in mixed species stands for strategic-scale stocking assessments. For Eco Manage 216(1-3): 367-377.