Tree size inequality reduces forest productivity: An analysis combining inventory data for ten European species and a light competition model

PLoS ONE

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2016, Pages

  Bourdier, Thomas ^a,b   Cordonnier, Thomas ^a,b   Kunstler, Georges ^a,b   Piedallu, Christian ^c   Lagarrigues, Guillaume ^a,b   Courbaud, Benoit ^a,b  

^a Cemagref   (France)

^b UNIV GRENOBLE ALPES   (France)

^c AGROPARISTECH   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPETITION; DEVELOPMENTAL STAGE; FOREST; FOREST DYNAMICS; LIGHT INTERCEPTION; MODEL; PRODUCTIVITY; SHADE TOLERANCE; SPECIES; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; TREE GROWTH; ANATOMY AND HISTOLOGY; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EUROPE; LIGHT; RADIATION RESPONSE; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; TREE;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; EUROPE; FORESTS; LIGHT; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; SPECIES SPECIFICITY; TREES;

EID: 84962168775     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151852     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P, Bengtsson J, Grime JP, Hector a, et al. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science. 2001; 294: 804-8. doi: 10.1126/science.1064088 PMID: 11679658
2. Cardinale BJ, Srivastava DS, Duffy JE, Wright JP, Downing AL, Sankaran M, et al. Effects of biodiversity on the functioning of trophic groups and ecosystems. Nature. 2006; 443: 989-92. doi: 10.1038/nature05202 PMID: 17066035
3. Isbell F, Calcagno V, Hector A, Connolly J, Harpole WS, Reich PB, et al. High plant diversity is needed to maintain ecosystem services. Nature. Nature Publishing Group; 2011; 477:199-202. doi: 10.1038/nature10282
4. Gamfeldt L, Snãll T, Bagchi R, Jonsson M, Gustafsson L, Kjellander P, et al. Higher levels of multiple ecosystem services are found in forests with more tree species. Nat Commun. 2013; 4:1340. doi: 10.1038/ncomms2328 PMID: 23299890
5. Hector A, Schmid B, Beierkuhnlein C, Caldeira MC, Diemer M, Dimitrakopoulos PG, et al. Plant diversity and poductivity experiments in European grasslands. Science (80-). 1999; 286:1123-1127. doi: 10.1126/science.286.5442.1123
6. Paquette A, Messier C. The effect of biodiversity on tree productivity: from temperate to boreal forests. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2011; 20:170-180. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00592.x
7. Morin X, Fahse L, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Bugmann H. Tree species richness promotes productivity in temperate forests through strong complementarity between species. Ecol Lett. 2011; 14:1211-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01691.x PMID: 21955682
8. Zhang Y, Chen HYH, Reich PB. Forest productivity increases with evenness, species richness and trait variation: a global meta-analysis. J Ecol. 2012; 100: 742-749. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01944.x
9. DeBoeck HJ, Nijs I, Lemmens CMHM, Ceulemans R. Underlying effects of spatial aggregation (clumping) in relationships between plant diversity and resource uptake. Oikos. 2006; 113: 269-278. doi: 10.1111/j.2006.0030-1299.14257.x
10. Pommerening a. Approaches to quantifying forest structures. Forestry. 2002; 75: 305-324. doi: 10.1093/forestry/75.3.305
11. McElhinny C, Gibbons P, Brack C, Bauhus J. Forest and woodland stand structural complexity: Its definition and measurement. For Ecol Manage. 2005; 218:1-24. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2005.08.034
12. Thomas SC, Weiner J. Including competitive asymmetry in measures of local interference in plant populations. Oecologia. 1989; 80: 349-355. doi: 10.1007/BF00379036
13. Cordonnier T, Kunstler G. The Gini index brings asymmetric competition to light. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst. Elsevier GmbH.; 2015; 17:1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ppees.2015.01.001
14. Schütz JP. Silvicultural tools to develop irregular and diverse forest structures. Forestry. 2002; 75: 329-337. doi: 10.1093/forestry/75.4.329
15. Duduman G. A forest management planning tool to create highly diverse uneven-aged stands. Forestry. 2011; 84: 301-314. doi: 10.1093/forestry/cpr014
16. Smith DM, Larson BC, Kelty MJ, Ashton PM. The practice of silviculture. Applied forest ecology. John Wiley & sons, inc.; 1997.
17. Hardiman BS, Bohrer G, Gough CM, Vogel CS, Curtisi PS. The role of canopy structural complexity in wood net primary production of a maturing northern deciduous forest. Ecology. 2011; 92:1818-27. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21939078 PMID: 21939078
18. Lei X, Wang W, Peng C. Relationships between stand growth and structural diversity in spruce-dominated forests in New Brunswick, Canada. Can J For Res. 2009; 39:1835-1847. doi: 10.1139/X09-089
19. Long JN, Shaw JD. The influence of compositional and structural diversity on forest productivity. Forestry. 2010; 83:121-128. doi: 10.1093/forestry/cpp033
20. Ryan MG, Stape JL, Binkley D, Fonseca S, Loos R a., Takahashi EN, et al. Factors controlling Eucalyptus productivity: How water availability and stand structure alter production and carbon allocation. For Ecol Manage. 2010; 259:1695-1703. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2010.01.013
21. Caspersen JP, Vanderwel MC, Cole WG, Purves DW. How stand productivity results from size-and competition-dependent growth and mortality. PLoS One. Public Library of Science; 2011; 6: e28660. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028660
22. Liang J, Buongiorno J, Monserud Ra. Growth and yield of all-aged Douglas-fir - western hemlock forest stands: a matrix model with stand diversity effects. Can J For Res. 2005; 35: 2368-2381. doi: 10.1139/x05-137
23. Liang J, Buongiorno J, Monserud Ra, Kruger EL, Zhou M. Effects of diversity of tree species and size on forest basal area growth, recruitment, and mortality. For Ecol Manage. 2007; 243:116-127. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2007.02.028
24. Weiner J. Asymmetric competition in plant populations. Trends Ecol Evol (Personal Ed. 1990; 5: 360-364. doi: 10.1016/0169-5347(90)90095-U PMID: 21232393
25. Schwinning S, Weiner J. Mechanisms determining the degree of size asymmetry in competition among plants. Oecologia. 1998; 113: 447-455. doi: 10.1007/s004420050397
26. 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 For Res. 2010; 40: 370-384. doi: 10.1139/X09-195
27. Oliver CD, Larson BC. Forest Stand Dynamics. Wiley NY, editor. 1996.
28. Niinemets Ü, Valladares F. Tolerance to shade, drought, and waterlogging of temperate Northern Hemisphere trees and shrubs. Ecol Monogr. 2006; 76: 521-547. Available: http://www.esajournals.org/doi/full/10.1890/0012-9615(2006)076[0521:TTSDAW]2.0.CO;2
29. Schwinning S. Decomposition Analysis of Competitive Symmetry and Size Structure Dynamics. Ann Bot. 1996; 77: 47-57. doi: 10.1006/anbo.1996.0006
30. Onoda Y, Saluñga JB, Akutsu K, Aiba S, Yahara T, Anten NPR. Trade-off between light interception efficiency and light use efficiency: implications for species coexistence in one-sided light competition. Canham C, editor. J Ecol. 2014; 102:167-175. doi: 10.1111/1365-2745.12184
31. Laurans M, Hérault B, Vieilledent G, Vincent G. Vertical stratification reduces competition for light in dense tropical forests. For Ecol Manage. Elsevier B.V.; 2014; 329:79-88. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2014.05.059
32. Binkley D, Campoe OC, Gspaltl M, Forrester DI, Camargo O, Gspaltl M, et al. Light absorption and use efficiency in forests: Why patterns differ for trees and stands. For Ecol Manage. Elsevier B.V.; 2013; 288: 5-13. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2011.11.002
33. Vallet P, Pérot T. Silver fir stand productivity is enhanced when mixed with Norway spruce: evidence based on large-scale inventory data and a generic modelling approach. J Veg Sci. 2011; 22: 932-942. doi: 10.1111/j.1654-1103.2011.01288.x
34. Kunstler G, Albert CH, Courbaud B, Lavergne S, Thuiller W, Vieilledent G, et al. Effects of competition on tree radial-growth vary in importance but not in intensity along climatic gradients. J Ecol. 2011; 99: 300-312. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01751.x
35. Piedallu C, Gégout JC. Efficient assessment of topographic solar radiation to improve plant distribution models. Agric For Meteorol. 2008; 148:1696-1706. doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2008.06.001
36. Bertrand R, Lenoir J, Piedallu C, Riofrío-Dillon G, de Ruffray P, Vidal C, et al. Changes in plant community composition lag behind climate warming in lowland forests. Nature. 2011; 479: 517-520. doi: 10.1038/nature10548 PMID: 22012261
37. Piedallu C, Gégout J-CC, Perez V, Lebourgeois F. Soil water balance performs betterthan climatic water variables in tree species distribution modelling. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2013; 22: 470-482. doi: 10.1111/geb.12012
38. Piedallu C, Gu J, Bruand A, Seynave I. Mapping soil water holding capacity over large areas to predict the potential production of forest stands. 2011
39. Turc L. Estimation of irrigation water requirements, potential evapotranspiration: A simple climatic formula evolved up to date. J Annu Agron. 1961; 12:13-14.
40. Bugmann H, Cramer W. Improving the behaviour of forest gap models along drought gradients. For Ecol Manage. 1998; 103: 247-263. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(97)00217-X
41. Staudhammer CL, LeMay VM. Introduction and evaluation of possible indices of stand structural diversity. Can J For Res. 2001; 31:1105-1115. doi: 10.1139/cjfr-31-7-1105
42. Gadow K, Zhang CY, Wehenkel C, Pommerening A, Corralrivas J, Korol M, et al. Continuous Cover Forestry [Internet]. Pukkala T, von Gadow K, editors. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2012. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-2202-6
43. O'Hara KL, Hasenauer H, Kindermann G. Sustainability in multi-aged stands: An analysis of long-term plenter systems. Forestry. 2007; 80:163-181. doi: 10.1093/forestry/cpl051
44. Buongiorno J, Dahir S, Lu H-C, Lin C-R. Tree Size Diversity and Economic Returns in Uneven-Aged Forest Stands. For Sci. 1994; 40: 83-103.
45. Valbuena R. Forest structure indicators based on tree size inequality and their relationships to airborne laser scanning. Diss For. 2015; 1. doi: 10.14214/df.205
46. Lexerad NL, Eid T. An evaluation of different diameter diversity indices based on criteria related to forest management planning. For Ecol Manage. 2006; 222:17-28. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2005.10.046
47. Valbuena R, Packalén P, Martín-Fernández S, Maltamo M. Diversity and equitability ordering profiles applied to study forest structure. For Ecol Manage. 2012; 276:185-195. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2012.03.036
48. Damgaard C, Weiner J. Describing inequality in plant size or fecundity. Ecology. Ecological Society of America; 2000; 81: 1139-1142. doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[1139:DIIPSO]2.0.CO;2
49. Valbuena R, Packalen P, Mehtãtalo L, García-Abril A, Maltamo M. Characterizing forest structural types and shelterwood dynamics from Lorenz-based indicators predicted by airborne laser scanning. Can J For Res. 2013; 43:1063-1074. doi: 10.1139/cjfr-2013-0147
50. Valladares F, Niinemets Ü. Shade Tolerance, a Key Plant Feature of Complex Nature and Consequences. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2008; 39: 237-257. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173506
51. Assmann E. The principles of forest yield study. Studies in the organic production, structure, increment and yield of forest stands. 1970. p. 506.
52. Lafond V, Lagarrigues G, Cordonnier T, Courbaud B. Uneven-aged management options to promote forest resilience for climate change adaptation: effects of group selection and harvesting intensity. Ann For Sci. 2013; 71: 173-186. doi: 10.1007/s13595-013-0291-y
53. Courbaud B, de Coligny F, Cordonnier T. Simulating radiation distribution in a heterogeneous Norway spruce forest on aslope. Agric For Meteorol. 2003; 116:1-18. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1923(02)00254-X
54. Vallet P, Dhôte J-F, Moguédec G Le, Ravart M, Pignard G. Development of total aboveground volume equations for seven important forest tree species in France. For Ecol Manage. 2006; 229: 98-110. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2006.03.013
55. Wykoff WR. A Basal Area Increment Model for Individual Conifers in the Northern Rocky Mountains. For Sci. 1990; 36:1077-1104. Available: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/saf/fs/1990/00000036/00000004/art00019
56. Monserud R a., Sterba H. A basal area increment model for individual trees growing in even- and uneven-aged forest stands in Austria. For Ecol Manage. 1996; 80: 57-80. doi: 10.1016/0378-1127(95)03638-5
57. Pokharel B, Dech JP. Mixed-effects basal area increment models fortree species in the boreal forest of Ontario, Canada using an ecological land classification approach to incorporate site effects. Forestry. 2012; 85: 255-270. doi: 10.1093/forestry/cpr070
58. Xiao X, White EP, Hooten MB, Durham SL. On the use of log-transformation vs. nonlinear regression for analyzing biological power laws. Ecology. 2011; 92:1887-1894. doi: 10.1890/11-0538.1 PMID: 22073779
59. Burnham KP. Multimodel Inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in Model Selection. Sociol Methods Res. 2004; 33: 261-304. doi: 10.1177/0049124104268644
60. Niinemets Ü. A review of light interception in plant stands from leaf to canopy in different plant functional types and in species with varying shade tolerance. Ecol Res. 2010; 25: 693-714. doi: 10.1007/s11284-010-0712-4
61. Messier C, Parent S, Bergeron Y. Effects of overstory and understory vegetation on the understory light environment in mixed boreal forests. J VegSci. 1998; 9: 511-520. doi: 10.2307/3237266
62. Zeide B. Tolerance and self-tolerance of trees. For Ecol Manage. 1985; 13:149-166. doi: 10.1016/0378-1127(85)90031-3
63. Pretzsch H. Forest Dynamics, Growth and Yield [Internet]. Forest Research. Springer Berlin; 2010. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-88307-4
64. Callaway RM. Positive interactions among plants. Bot Rev. 1995; 61: 306-349. doi: 10.1007/bf02912621
65. le Maire G, Nouvellon Y, Christina M, Ponzoni FJ, Gonçalves JLM, Bouillet J-P, et al. Tree and stand light use efficiencies over a full rotation of single- and mixed-species Eucalyptus grandis and Acacia mangium plantations. For Ecol Manage. 2013; 288: 31-42. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2012.03.005
66. Campoe OC, Stape JL, Nouvellon Y, Laclau J-P, Bauerle WL, Binkley D, et al. Stem production, light absorption and light use efficiency between dominant and non-dominant trees of Eucalyptus grandis across a productivity gradient in Brazil. For Ecol Manage. 2013; 288:14-20. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2012.07.035
67. Campoe OC, Stape JL, Albaugh TJ, Lee Allen H, Fox TR, Rubilar R, et al. Fertilization and irrigation effects on tree level aboveground net primary production, light interception and light use efficiency in a loblolly pine plantation. For Ecol Manage. 2013; 288: 43-48. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2012.05.026
68. Gspaltl M, Bauerle W, Binkley D, Sterba H. Leaf area and light use efficiency patterns of Norway spruce under different thinning regimes and age classes. For Ecol Manage. Elsevier B.V.; 2013; 288: 49-59. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2011.11.044
69. Binkley D, Stape JL, Bauerle WL, Ryan MG. Explaining growth of individual trees: Light interception and efficiency of light use by Eucalyptus atfoursites in Brazil. For Ecol Manage. 2010; 259:1704-1713. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.05.037
70. Kelty MJ, Larson BC, Oliver CD. The Ecology and Silviculture of Mixed-Species Forests. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht; 1992.
71. Pretzsch H. Diversity and productivity in forests: evidence from long-term experimental plots. For Divers FunctTemp Boreal Syst. 2005; 176: 41-64. doi: 10.1007/3-540-26599-6 3
72. Forrester DI, Albrecht AT. Light absorption and light-use efficiency in mixtures of Abies alba and Picea abies along a productivity gradient. For Ecol Manage. Elsevier B.V.; 2014; 328: 94-102. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2014.05.026
73. Lafond V, Cordonnier T, Courbaud B. Reconciling Biodiversity Conservation and Timber Production in Mixed Uneven-Aged Mountain Forests: Identification of Ecological Intensification Pathways. Environ Manage. 2015; 1118-1133. doi: 10.1007/s00267-015-0557-2 PMID: 26105969
74. Király I, Ódor P. The effect of stand structure and tree species composition on epiphytic bryophytes in mixed deciduous-coniferous forests of Western Hungary. Biol Conserv. 2010; 143: 2063-2069. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.05.014
75. Bagnaresi U, Giannini R, Grassi G, Minotta G, Paffetti D, Prato EP, et al. Stand structure and biodiversity in mixed, uneven-aged coniferous forests in the eastern Alps. Forestry. 2002; 75: 357-364. doi: 10.1093/forestry/75.4.357