Responses of ground flora to a gradient of harvest intensity in the Missouri Ozarks

Zenner, Eric K.; Kabrick, John M.; Jensen, Randy G.; Peck, JeriLynn E.; Grabner, Jennifer

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2005.10.027

Cited by 84 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Liu et al 1998;Gu, Dai2008). Shifts in species composition may be related to logging intensity (Bergstedt, Milberg 2001;Zenner et al 2006). For instance, Nagaike et al (2005) reported that restoring the species composition of clear-cut forests to that of primary forests in central Japan was difficult; while other studies have described anywhere from a limited response to rapid recovery of species composition in a range of forest types following various cutting methods and intensities (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in the structure, species composition and diversity of primary and harvested forests on Changbai Mountain, Northeast China

Su¹,

Yu²,

Zhou³

et al. 2010

J. For. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Broadleaved-Korean pine (Pinus koraiensis) mixed forest is a typical vegetation type in the eastern Eurasian continent. We compared the structure, composition and diversity of a primary forest and a logged forest for effective management and regeneration of a mixed forest ecosystem on Changbai Mountain, Northeast China. The logged forest was subjected to selective harvesting twenty years ago. The mean diameter and basal area for overall trees (≥ 2 cm dbh) were higher in the primary forest than in the logged forest, whereas overall tree density was significantly lower in the former (994 ± 34 trees∙ha<sup>–1</sup>) than in the logged forest (1921 ± 79 trees∙ha<sup>–1</sup>). The values of species richness and both Simpson's and Shannon's diversity indices for seedlings (< 2 cm dbh, ≥ 50 cm tall), saplings (2−9.9 cm dbh) and overall trees were greater in the primary forest. These results indicate that the selective logging had a lasting impact on the structural characteristics of the forest. There were major differences in species composition between the two forest sites, with the logged forest having more pioneer and mid-tolerant species than the primary forest. Diversity was more extensive in the logged forest due to the invasion of pioneer species. Twenty years is clearly an insufficient time for the logged forest to regain "primary" forest composition and structure. These two characteristics of the primary forest may serve as a reference for developing management plans for forest regeneration.  

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in the structure, species composition and diversity of primary and harvested forests on Changbai Mountain, Northeast China

Su¹,

Yu²,

Zhou³

et al. 2010

J. For. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Široka klimatska razširjenost kaže, da klima ni bistveni dejavnik razširjenosti, ampak moramo vzroke za razširjenost iskati drugje. Za nekatere vrste gomoljik smo potrdili, da se različni haplotipi razprostirajo na območjih, ki odgovarjajo poledenodobnim migracijskim potem potencialnih drevesnih partnerje gomoljik v ektomikorizi (Grebenc et al 2011;Murat et al 2013). …”

Section: Distribucija Gomoljik Glede Na Ekološke Lastnosti Mikrorastiščunclassified

Gozd in les: 70 let

Humar¹,

Kraigher²

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The management approach either directly quantifies the intensity of forest management operations in forest stands (Aguilar-Amuchastegui and Henebry 2007;Kueffer and Senn-Irlet 2005;Storaunet et al 2005;Uotila et al 2002;Sippola et al 2004;Zenner et al 2006;Arano and Munn 2006) or assesses the forest management regime applied in forest stands as a whole (Müller et al 2007a, b;Verwer et al 2008;Wulder et al 2007Duncker et al 2008Bell et al 2008). In contrast to the other two approaches, which Table 1 Overview of approaches characterizing forest management intensity grouped according to the main characteristics of land use (hemeroby/naturalness, disturbance, and management) and the address the effect or evidence of land use respectively, the management approach quantifies the intensity of management itself.…”

Section: Approaches For Assessing Forest Management Intensitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Others are based on factorial accuracy, using a metric scale of key management factors for a limited set of management practices (e.g. annual investment expenses (Arano and Munn 2006), harvest history based on tree number, basal area, or volume (Zenner et al 2006;Sippola et al 2004;Storaunet et al 2005;Uotila et al 2002;Aguilar-Amuchastegui and Henebry 2007) and time since the last silvicultural thinning or harvest operation (Kueffer and SennIrlet 2005)). However, there is no widely accepted concept on how to combine these diverse factors into a generally applicable, simple, yet accurate measure of forest management intensity.…”

Section: Approaches For Assessing Forest Management Intensitymentioning

confidence: 99%

How to quantify forest management intensity in Central European forests

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Existing approaches for the assessment of forest management intensity lack a widely accepted, purely quantitative measure for ranking a set of forest stands along a gradient of management intensity. We have developed a silvicultural management intensity indicator (SMI) which combines three main characteristics of a given stand: tree species, stand age and aboveground, living and dead wooden biomass. Data on these three factors are used as input to represent the risk of stand loss, which is a function of tree species and stand age, and stand density, which is a function of the silvicultural regime, stand age and tree species. Consequently, the indicator consists of a risk component (SMI r ) and a density component (SMI d ). We used SMI to rank traditional management of the main Central European tree species: Norway spruce (Picea abies [Karst.] L.), European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.), Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.), and oak (Quercus robur L. and Quercus petraea L.). By analysing SMI over their whole rotation period, we found the following ranking of management intensity: oak\beech\pine(spruce. Additionally, we quantified the SMI of actual research plots of the German Biodiversity exploratories, which represent unmanaged and managed forest stands including conifer forests cultivated outside their natural range. SMI not only successfully separate managed from unmanaged forests, but also reflected the variability of forest management and stand properties across the entire sample and within the different management groups. We suggest using SMI to quantify silvicultual management intensity of stands differing in species composition, age, silvicultural system (even-aged vs. uneven-aged), thinning grade and stages of stand conversion from one stand type into another. Using SMI may facilitate the assessment of the impact of forest management intensity on biodiversity in temperate forests.

show abstract

Responses of ground flora to a gradient of harvest intensity in the Missouri Ozarks

Cited by 84 publications

References 33 publications

Differences in the structure, species composition and diversity of primary and harvested forests on Changbai Mountain, Northeast China

Differences in the structure, species composition and diversity of primary and harvested forests on Changbai Mountain, Northeast China

Gozd in les: 70 let

How to quantify forest management intensity in Central European forests

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About