2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2007.09.043
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Eleven-year responses of a boreal mixedwood stand to partial harvesting: Light, vegetation, and regeneration dynamics

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

8
54
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 61 publications
(62 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
8
54
0
Order By: Relevance
“…6). The overall suppression of suckering by a residual canopy of aspen and retained basal area of understory spruce supports the findings that aspen regeneration is best after clearcutting and is suppressed by leaving residuals on the site (Huffman et al 1999, Palik et al 2003, Brais et al 2004, Man et al 2008.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 63%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…6). The overall suppression of suckering by a residual canopy of aspen and retained basal area of understory spruce supports the findings that aspen regeneration is best after clearcutting and is suppressed by leaving residuals on the site (Huffman et al 1999, Palik et al 2003, Brais et al 2004, Man et al 2008.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 63%
“…Aspen regeneration, however, may not grow well in these understory protection sites since aspen is a shade-intolerant species and it is generally understood that optimal regeneration is achieved by clearcutting (Navratil 1991). In addition, there is a growing body of evidence that density of aspen regeneration is suppressed by low densities of residual aspen trees (Schier et al 1985, Huffman et al 1999, Palik et al 2003, Man et al 2008. However, this study of aspen regeneration following understory protection offers some differences to these previous studies on aspen regeneration following partial-cut logging.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…First, mixedwood stands are diverse by nature and often structurally complex, and light conditions may vary greatly among stands due to differences in stand structure and species composition (Barkman, 1992;Messier et al, 1998). Second, our simulations are believed to be representative of the light conditions immediately after harvest, but they do not account for the dynamic vegetation response that is generally observed over time after harvesting Man et al, 2008). Finally, the specific light values that were used as thresholds to identify the intervals of light conditions to be promoted or avoided through silvicultural interventions were selected based on specific publications.…”
Section: Management Implicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Field-based comparisons of silvicultural treatments can provide useful information to determine which silvicultural system will produce the optimal distribution of light levels for a given set of management objectives (Prévost and Pothier, 2003;Brais et al, 2004;Man et al, 2008). However, field experiments are necessarily limited in the number of treatments that can be implemented, and they can be affected by many factors that cannot be controlled (e.g., occurrence of a forest tent caterpillar outbreak following experimental partial cutting treatments in Man et al, 2008).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently, observations of aspen regeneration following partial harvesting have been reported (Prévost and Pothier 2003, Haussler et al 2007, Gradowski et al 2008, Man et al 2008a. Observations of aspen regeneration following the creation of small forest openings are limited, however (Groot et al 1997, Kabzems 2001.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%