2014
DOI: 10.5424/fs/2014233-06112
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Size-structure dynamics of mixed versus pure forest stands

Abstract: Mixed species forests are presently on the advance as they are widely held to provide many ecosystem functions and services better than pure stands. Recent studies well explored species mixing effects at the individual tree level (Río et al., 2014a,b;Webster & Lorimer, 2003) and at the stand level (Morin et al., 2011;Piotto, 2007). However, the link between individual and stand level, the way how species mixing modifies the growth partitioning between the trees in a stand and their size-structure dynamics, is … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
20
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Studies that apply an individual tree level approach may overlook any compensation effects at the population or community levels and lead to questionable predictions when the results from individual dominant trees are scaled up to the community level responses. It is important to underline the possible mixing effect on size distributions (Pretzsch & Schütze , ), which can cause the contrasting effects at different levels, and contribute to misleading results if not taken into account when up‐scaling.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies that apply an individual tree level approach may overlook any compensation effects at the population or community levels and lead to questionable predictions when the results from individual dominant trees are scaled up to the community level responses. It is important to underline the possible mixing effect on size distributions (Pretzsch & Schütze , ), which can cause the contrasting effects at different levels, and contribute to misleading results if not taken into account when up‐scaling.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bolte et al, 2010;Pretzsch et al, 2010;Pretzsch & Schütze, 2014). It also provides valuable information about how the given mixed stand changes parameters of tree crowns (Dieler & Pretzsch, 2013), stem growth (Webster & Lorimer, 2003) and root growth and their relations (Schmid & Kazda, 2001) in comparison with pure stands.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…an increase of broadleaves proportion in unmanaged stands, were observed in older natural mixtures of spruce/ fir/beech (Štefančík, Kamenský 2006). Site conditions (poor vs. fertile sites) are important for biomass productivity of mixtures compared to monocultures (Pretzsch, Schütze 2014). A negative effect of beech on the pine growth was observed on unthinned plots by Primicia et al (2016) in the western Spanish Pyrenees.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%