Productivity of needles and allocation of growth in young Scots pine trees of different competitive status

Nilsson, Urban; Albrektson, Arne

doi:10.1016/0378-1127(93)90049-s

Cited by 59 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…9), likely the result of re-prioritizing carbon allocation to height and diameter growth (Nilsson and Albrektson, 1993). Trees grown under high density must first allocate carbon to height growth in order to survive.…”

Section: Hypothesis 2: Survivors' Rgr Dbh Increases With Increasing Imentioning

confidence: 99%

“…RGR DBH should therefore be an effective indication of a tree's overall growth efficiency (Larocque and Marshall, 1993;Larocque, 1998). However, Nilsson and Albrektson (1993) suggested that under intense competition for light, diameter growth becomes a high priority. Despite different views, both arguments suggest that RGR DBH should be a robust measure of a tree's competitive ability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Growth efficiency–survivorship relationship and effects of spacing on relative diameter growth rate of Japanese cedars

Guan

Lin

et al. 2008

Forest Ecology and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Hypothesis 2: Survivors' Rgr Dbh Increases With Increasing Imentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Growth efficiency–survivorship relationship and effects of spacing on relative diameter growth rate of Japanese cedars

Guan

Lin

et al. 2008

Forest Ecology and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…If this is true, tree size distribution, species mixture and stand density should affect the amount of branch and foliage biomass per unit of basal area. A number of investigations have indeed found a significant influence of stand density and individual competitive status on these relations (Baldwin et al 2000;Claesson et al 2001;Henskens et al 2001;Nilsson and Albrektson 1993).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Competition-dependent modelling of foliage biomass in forest stands

Grote

Reiter²

2004

Trees

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Currently, foliage biomass is estimated based on stem diameter or basal area. However, it is questionable whether the relations between foliage and stem observed from plantations of a single tree species can be applied to stands of different structure or species composition. In this paper, a procedure is presented to simulate foliage and branch biomass of tree crowns relative to crown size and light competition. Crowns are divided into layers and segments and each segment is divided into a foliated and an unfoliated fraction. Depending on the competitive status of the segment, leaf area density, specific leaf area and foliated branch fraction are determined. Based on this information, foliage biomass is calculated. The procedure requires a crown shape function and a measure to characterise competition for light and space of each individual segment within the canopy. Simple solutions are suggested for both requirements to enable an application with data that can be measured non-destructively in the field; these were stem position, tree height, crown base height, crown radii and some general crown shape information. The model was parameterised from single trees of Norway spruce and European beech and partly evaluated with independent data close to the investigation plot. Evaluations showed that the model can attribute the ecology of the different crown forms. Modelled foliage distribution for beech and spruce as well as total needle biomass of spruce agreed well with measurements but foliage biomass of beech was underestimated. The results are discussed in the context of a general model application in structured forests.

show abstract

“…Once competition began to intensify, however, smaller trees must avoid being overtopped to survive. To grow tall, they also have to make a substantial radial growth for mechanical support (Nilsson and Albrektson, 1993) and achieve it efficiently (Schwinning and Weiner, 1998) since they probably have less resources available to them under size-asymmetric competition (Weiner, 1990). On the other hand, larger individuals presumably still had more resources available, but also possessed greater amounts of nonproductive tissues to maintain (Schwinning and Weiner, 1998;Perry, 1985).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%