Patterns of leaf area and growing space efficiency in young even-aged and multiaged coast redwood stands

Abstract

Projected leaf area estimates were used to predict volume increment and basal area of second-growth coast redwood ( Sequoia sempervirens (D. Don) Endl.) trees on Jackson Demonstration State Forest, Mendocino County, California. Sample plots were established within even-aged and multiaged mixed-species stands. Redwood tree basal area growth was more strongly related to sapwood area than to tree size and differed significantly between canopy strata and overstory stratum crown classes. Projected leaf area was predicted from sapwood area for each tree, and summarized to the stand level, giving a maximum stand leaf area index (LAI) estimate of 14.9 m2/m2. Redwood tree growing space efficiency (GSE; the ratio of stem volume increment to leaf area) was greatest on average among emergent overstory trees, followed by dominant and codominant overstory trees. There was no evidence of declining overstory tree GSE with increasing leaf area over the range of data collected. A nonlinear model predicted increasing understory tree GSE with increasing leaf area. Models that predict basal area and LAI were developed to permit implementation of GSE models from basic inventory data.

Proceedings of the coast redwood forests in a changing California: A symposium for scientists and managers

“…We also developed models to facilitate implementation of the taper model by predicting SA BH from DBH ( fig. 6), but these only apply to large dominant and codominant trees (table 4), whereas the model presented by Berrill and O'Hara (2007a) applies to a wider range of tree sizes and growing conditions. When applied in combination, crown ratio and sapwood models can be used to predict SA BLC from traditional forest inventory data.…”

“…= 0.012), indicating that, on average, northern trees contained relatively more sapwood than southern trees for a given DBH. The models for northern and southern trees were compared against the model presented by Berrill and O'Hara (2007a) for 891 redwood trees >4 in DBH growing in all canopy positions within even-aged and multiaged stands on JDSF. Predicted sapwood at breast height for dominant and codominant sample trees from the northern and southern regions exceeded the published SA BH -BA model predictions ( fig.…”

“…Growth efficiency can be used as a reference for a stand's susceptibility to disease or insect attack or for other trends in forest health (Maguire and Batista 1996). The relationship between redwood tree growth, growth efficiency, and tree leaf area is affected by stand structure and the tree crown's position within the stand (Berrill and O'Hara 2007a). Therefore redwood stand density and structure can be manipulated to affect leaf area, stand growth, and tree size at harvest (Berrill andO'Hara 2007b, 2009).…”

Multiaged silviculture in North America

“…A series of spreadsheet-based models called Multiaged Stocking Control Models (MASAM) have been developed for LAI allocation in ponderosa pine (Table 1; ), lodgepole pine (O'Hara, Kollenberg 2003, redwood (Berrill, O'Hara 2007), and mixed Norway spruce (Picea abies)/Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) in Finland (O'Hara et al 2001). These models provide a flexible user interface and can predict volume increment, density effects, and Table 1.…”

Leaf Area and Structural Changes after Thinning in Even-AgedPicea rubensandAbies balsameaStands in Maine, USA

“…Although the selection of trees for removal in thinning treatments can be characterized using the DBH distribution and DBH ratios [19,20], actual implementation usually focuses on individual tree crown class, height, and position relative to neighbors. Because the amount of individual tree leaf area varies substantially, and predictably, between crown classes in even-aged stands [8,9] and between cohorts in multiaged stands [3,10,13,21], silviculturists are actually redistributing the LAI in a given stand. For example, when using thinning methods such as low thinning, crown 2 International Journal of Forestry Research thinning, or selection thinning (henceforth called dominant thinning) removal is focused on trees from particular crown classes [19,22].…”