Effect of species proportion definition on the evaluation of growth in pure vs. Mixed stands

Forest Systems

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 547-559

  Sterba, Hubert ^a   Del Rio, Miren ^b,c   Brunner, Andreas ^d   Condes, Sonia ^e  

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

^b Departamento de Silvicultura y Gestión de Sistemas Forestales INIACIFOR   (Spain)

^c Universidad de Valladolid   (Spain)

^d NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Norway)

^e Technical University of Madrid   (Spain)

Author keywords

Fagus sylvatica L; Mixing effects; Overyielding; Pinus sylvestris L; Proportion by area; Quercus pyrenaica Wild; Stand Density Index

Indexed keywords

EID: 84928812256     PISSN: 21715068     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5424/fs/2014233-06051     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Bravo-Oviedo A, Pretzsch H, Ammer C, Andenmatten E, Antón C, Barbati A, Barreiro S, Brang P, Bravo F, Brunner A, Coll L, Corona M, Den Ouden J, Drössler L, Ducey MJ, Kaynas BY, Legay M, Löf M, Lesinski J, Mason B, Meliadis M, Manetti M.C, Morneau F, Motiejunaite J, O’Reilly C, Pach M, Ponette Q, Del Río M, Short I, Skovsgaard JP, Souidi Z, Spathelf P, Sterba H, Stojanovic D, Strelcova K, Svoboda M, Valsta L, Verheyen K, Zlatanov T, 2014. European mixed forests: definition and perspectives. Forest systems 23(3): 518-533.
2. Condés S, Del Rio M, Sterba H, 2013. Mixing effect on volume growth of Fagus sylvatica and Pinus sylvestris is modulated by stand density. Forest Ecology and Management 292: 86-95.
3. Forrester DI, 2014. The spatial and temporal dynamics of species interactions in mixed-species forests: from pattern to process. Forest Ecology and Management 312: 282-292.
4. Gamfeldt L, Snäll T, Bagchi R, Jonsson M, Gustafsson L, Kjellander P, Ruiz-Jaén M.C, Fröberg M, Stendahl J, Philipson CD, 2013. Higher levels of multiple ecomixture services are found in forests with more tree species. Nature communications 4: 1340.
5. Griess VC, Knoke T, 2011. Growth performance, windthrow, and insects: meta-analyses of parameters influencing performance of mixed-species stands in boreal and northern temperate biomes. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 41: 1141-1159.
6. Groot A, Adhikary S, Sharma M, Luckai N, Bell FW, Larocque GR, 2014. Effect of species composition on the production rate and efficiency of young Picea glauca-Populus tremuloides forests. Forest Ecology and Management 315: 1-11.
7. Kelty MJ, 1992. Comparative productivity of monocultures and mixed-species stands. In: The ecology and silviculture of mixed-species forests (Kelty MJLBC, Oliver CD, eds). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (The Netherlands). pp: 125-141.
8. Kennel R, 1965. Untersuchungen über die Leistung von Fichte und Buche im Rein-und Mischbestand. Sauerländer.
9. Légaré S, Paré D, Bergeron Y, 2004. The responses of black spruce growth to an increased proportion of aspen in mixed stands. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 34: 405-416.
10. Perot T, Picard N, 2012. Mixture enhances productivity in a two-species forest: evidence from a modeling approach. Ecological Research 27: 83-94.
11. Pretzsch H, 2005. Stand density and growth of Norway spruce [Picea abies (L.) Karst.] and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.): evidence from long-term experimental plots. European Journal of Forest Research 124: 193-205.
12. Pretzsch H, 2009. Forest dynamics, growth and yield. A review, analysis of the present state, and perspective. Springer.
13. 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. Annals of Forest Science 67: 1-12.
14. 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. European Journal of Forest Research 128: 183-204.
15. Pretzsch H, Schütze G, Uhl E, 2013. Resistance of European tree species to drought stress in mixed versus pure forests: evidence of stress release by inter specific facilitation. Plant Biology 15: 483-495.
16. Prodan M, 1959. Umrechnung von Massen in Flächenanteile. Forstarchiv 30: 110-113.
17. Reineke LH, 1933. Perfecting a stand-density index for even-aged forests. Journal of Agricultural Research 46: 627-638.
18. Río M, Sterba H, 2009. Comparing volume growth in pure and mixed stands of Pinus sylvestris and Quercus pyrenaica. Annals of Forest Science 66: 502-502.
19. Sterba H, 1987. Estimating potential density from thinning experiments and inventory data. Forest Science 33: 1022-1034.