2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2018.12.046
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Patterns of tree diameter distributions in managed and unmanaged Abies alba Mill. and Fagus sylvatica L. forest patches

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
12
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
1
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In these stands, differences among development stages had less to do with L and VL trees, which did not differ among stages (perhaps due to resistance to disturbance, Paluch, 2007), and more to do with changes in the proportions of VS, S, and M size classes, which could either reflect recent gap dynamics (i.e., small disturbances stimulating regeneration and release) or the continuous regeneration of shade-tolerant beech (providing an ongoing supply of VS trees), in both cases followed by neighborhood dynamics (resulting in size differentiation among trees regardless of age). Although it is beyond the scope of the current study to determine which processes explain observed structures, we agree with Akhavan et al (2012) that structural differences among stands in different development stages cannot arise only through dynamics that are common to all forested stands (i.e., neighborhood dynamics or continuous regen- (Nagel, Svoboda, Rugani, & Diaci, 2010;Wagner et al, 2010) and neighborhood dynamics (e.g., competition) exacerbate size differentiation among trees (Podlaski, Sobala, & Kocurek, 2019). Structure in natural beech forests is dominated by neighboring trees that often vary considerably in age (Drössler et al, 2016;Trotsiuk, Hobi, & Commarmot, 2012), due to a high tolerance for suppression (Piovesan, Di Filippo, Alessandrini, Biondi, & Schirone, 2005;Wagner et al, 2010) combined with a strong capacity for release (Korpeľ, 1995;Leibundgut, 1993;Schütz, 2001), which would be consistent with the wide span of tree sizes observed within these plenter-like matrix neighborhoods.…”
Section: Peck and Zennersupporting
confidence: 77%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…In these stands, differences among development stages had less to do with L and VL trees, which did not differ among stages (perhaps due to resistance to disturbance, Paluch, 2007), and more to do with changes in the proportions of VS, S, and M size classes, which could either reflect recent gap dynamics (i.e., small disturbances stimulating regeneration and release) or the continuous regeneration of shade-tolerant beech (providing an ongoing supply of VS trees), in both cases followed by neighborhood dynamics (resulting in size differentiation among trees regardless of age). Although it is beyond the scope of the current study to determine which processes explain observed structures, we agree with Akhavan et al (2012) that structural differences among stands in different development stages cannot arise only through dynamics that are common to all forested stands (i.e., neighborhood dynamics or continuous regen- (Nagel, Svoboda, Rugani, & Diaci, 2010;Wagner et al, 2010) and neighborhood dynamics (e.g., competition) exacerbate size differentiation among trees (Podlaski, Sobala, & Kocurek, 2019). Structure in natural beech forests is dominated by neighboring trees that often vary considerably in age (Drössler et al, 2016;Trotsiuk, Hobi, & Commarmot, 2012), due to a high tolerance for suppression (Piovesan, Di Filippo, Alessandrini, Biondi, & Schirone, 2005;Wagner et al, 2010) combined with a strong capacity for release (Korpeľ, 1995;Leibundgut, 1993;Schütz, 2001), which would be consistent with the wide span of tree sizes observed within these plenter-like matrix neighborhoods.…”
Section: Peck and Zennersupporting
confidence: 77%
“…The findings of the current study appear most congruous with the temporal and spatial variation of gap dynamics resulting in variously aged, but relatively newer, gap patches (with relatively high within‐patch homogeneity) nested within a background matrix of highly heterogeneous neighborhoods emerging in the absence of recent disturbance. In the first part of this proposed model, the shared matrix structure we observed in all three development stages would be common to neighborhoods that have experienced relatively long periods of stability in which both the continuous regeneration of beech under an existing canopy (Nagel, Svoboda, Rugani, & Diaci, ; Wagner et al., ) and neighborhood dynamics (e.g., competition) exacerbate size differentiation among trees (Podlaski, Sobala, & Kocurek, ). Structure in natural beech forests is dominated by neighboring trees that often vary considerably in age (Drössler et al., ; Trotsiuk, Hobi, & Commarmot, ), due to a high tolerance for suppression (Piovesan, Di Filippo, Alessandrini, Biondi, & Schirone, ; Wagner et al., ) combined with a strong capacity for release (Korpeľ, ; Leibundgut, ; Schütz, ), which would be consistent with the wide span of tree sizes observed within these plenter‐like matrix neighborhoods.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The complexity of the forest structure may enhance biodiversity (Gardner et al, 2009) and improve ecosystem services (Rutten et al, 2015). Forest structure consists of vertical and horizontal components and it is usually defined as species composition, size and distribution of trees, shrubs and ground cover vegetation (Podlaski et al, 2019). While vertical stand structure often refers to layering of tree crowns, horizontal structure mostly represents diameter size distribution and spatial patterns of tree species (Davis, Johnson, 1987).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Different vertical stand structures can be formed in forests of shade-tolerant tree species. Thus, the understanding of the linkage between diameter distribution patterns and future stand structure is essential for the successful and sustainable management of these forest types (Podlaski et al, 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%