2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2011.01.019
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Size-mediated climate–growth relationships in temperate forests: A multi-species analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

10
104
1
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 159 publications
(116 citation statements)
references
References 60 publications
(94 reference statements)
10
104
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Conversely, the reported increase in the relative annual sensitivity of growth (quantified by the Gini coefficient) of the two dominant crown classes highlights a different functional response to climate of dominant trees, regardless of the thinning treatment. The literature reports contradictory results regarding the crown class modulation of the tree growth responses to annual climate: certain studies report suppressed trees to be more sensitive to rainfall variability (De Luis et al 2009;Olivar et al 2013), whereas others report a greater sensitivity of the dominant trees, in line with our results (Martín-Benito et al 2008;Mérian and Lebourgeois 2011). Performing a multispecies analysis along a wide climatic gradient, Mérian and Lebourgeois (2011) reported that larger trees of shade-tolerant species, such as C. atlantica, were significantly more sensitive to summer drought than smaller trees.…”
Section: Crown Class Modulation Of the Climate-growth Relationshipsupporting
confidence: 84%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Conversely, the reported increase in the relative annual sensitivity of growth (quantified by the Gini coefficient) of the two dominant crown classes highlights a different functional response to climate of dominant trees, regardless of the thinning treatment. The literature reports contradictory results regarding the crown class modulation of the tree growth responses to annual climate: certain studies report suppressed trees to be more sensitive to rainfall variability (De Luis et al 2009;Olivar et al 2013), whereas others report a greater sensitivity of the dominant trees, in line with our results (Martín-Benito et al 2008;Mérian and Lebourgeois 2011). Performing a multispecies analysis along a wide climatic gradient, Mérian and Lebourgeois (2011) reported that larger trees of shade-tolerant species, such as C. atlantica, were significantly more sensitive to summer drought than smaller trees.…”
Section: Crown Class Modulation Of the Climate-growth Relationshipsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…As a consequence, several important aspects of management impact on forest functioning were overlooked: (i) the short-and medium-term effects of thinning, (ii) the cumulative effect of successive thinning and (iii) the prospective analysis of the effect of thinning intensities beyond the current guidelines. Moreover, most of the previous studies focused on the growth response of dominant trees, which is not always representative of the functioning of the entire stand (De Luis et al 2009;Mérian and Lebourgeois 2011). Conversely, annual size surveys allow the competition intensity to be quantified yearly, along with the assessment of the effect of social position on the tree growth responses.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…in the Romanian Carpathians, Fagus sylvatica L. in France, Pinus tabulaeformis Carrière on the semi-arid Chinese Loess Plateau, and Abies georgei var. smithii in the southeastern Tibetan Plateau [11,[71][72][73][74].…”
Section: Age-effect On Tree Growth-climate Relationshipsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bar dimensions are 110 more practical than disks for sample preparation; moreover, in comparison with cores, their 111 higher area improves ring delineation and overall measurement quality. We ensured that the 112 selection criteria of sites and trees (Mérian and Lebourgeois, 2011a;Mérian et al, 2013) and 113 the resulting tree-ring series (Mérian and Lebourgeois, 2011b) met the requirements for being 114 representative of beech growth at the scale of the study region. 115…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%