J. For. Sci., 2016, 62(1):24-34 | DOI: 10.17221/98/2015-JFS

How close to nature is close-to-nature pine silviculture?Original Paper

L. Bílek, S. Vacek, Z. Vacek, J. Remeš, J. Král, D. Bulušek, J. Gallo
Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

Structural parameters of Scots pine stands (129-191 years) on their natural sites (270-600 m a.s.l.) are described on 6 permanent research plots (PRP; 3 in managed stands using near-natural silvicultural practices and 3 in stands without active forest management for 3 decades at least) in areas of western, central and eastern Bohemia and in the Polish part of the Krkonoše Mts. In the framework of the study structural and growth parameters, horizontal and vertical structure and biodiversity were evaluated on the plots. A comparison of the plots, and of managed and unmanaged plots showed a relatively high variability in different parameters. Nevertheless, the results document that managed stands, compared to forest stands without management, mostly have significantly higher standing volumes (1.5 times in total and 1.7 times in pine), which is caused by more extreme sites. An opposite trend was found out in dead wood volume, which is distinctly higher in unmanaged stands. Differences in the other parameters are not so pronounced, probably because small-scale management is used and because a relatively short time since the stands were left to spontaneous development has elapsed (30-52 years).

Keywords: stand structure; Scots pine; natural pinewoods; managed forests; unmanaged forests

Published: January 31, 2016  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Bílek L, Vacek S, Vacek Z, Remeš J, Král J, Bulušek D, Gallo J. How close to nature is close-to-nature pine silviculture? J. For. Sci. 2016;62(1):24-34. doi: 10.17221/98/2015-JFS.
Download citation

References

  1. Ambrož R., Vacek S., Vacek Z., Král J., Štefančík I. (2015): Structure, growth parameters and regeneration in relation to model development of beech forests with different game management in the Lány Game Enclosure. Lesnícký časopis - Forestry Journal, 61: 78-88. Go to original source...
  2. Angelstam P., Kuuluvainen T. (2004): Boreal forest disturbance regimes, successional dynamics and landscape structures - a European perspective. Ecological Bulletins, 51: 117-136.
  3. Barbier S., Gosselin F., Balandier P. (2008): Influence of tree species on understory vegetation diversity and mechanisms involved - a critical review for temperate and boreal forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 254: 1-15. Go to original source...
  4. Bauhus J., Puettmann K., Messier C. (2009): Silviculture for old-growth attributes. Forest Ecology and Management, 258: 525-537. Go to original source...
  5. Bílek L., Remeš J., Zahradník D. (2011): Managed vs. unmanaged. Structure of beech forest stands (Fagus sylvatica L.) after 50 years of development, Central Bohemia. Forest Systems, 20: 122-138. Go to original source...
  6. Burrascano S., Sabatini F.M., Blasi C. (2011): Testing indicators of sustainable forest management on understorey composition and diversity in southern Italy through variation partitioning. Plant Ecology, 212: 829-841. Go to original source...
  7. Clark P.J., Evans F.C. (1954): Distance to nearest neighbour as a measure of spatial relationship in populations. Ecology, 35: 445-453. Go to original source...
  8. Coote L., Dietzsch A.C., Wilson M.W., Graham C.T., Fuller L., Walsh A.T., Irwin S., Kelly D.L., Mitchell F.J.G., Kelly T.C., O'Halloran J. (2013): Testing indicators of biodiversity for plantation forests. Ecological Indicators, 32: 107-115. Go to original source...
  9. Crow T.R., Buckley D.S., Nauertz, E.A., Zasada, J.C. (2002): Effects of management on the composition and structure of northern hardwood forests in Upper Michigan. Forest Science, 48: 129-145. Go to original source...
  10. D'Amato A.W., Orwig D.A., Foster D.R. (2008): The influence of successional processes and disturbance on the structure of Tsuga canadensis forests. Ecological Applications, 18: 1182-1199. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  11. David F.N., Moore P.G. (1954): Notes on contagious distributions in plant populations. Annals of Botany, 18: 47-53. Go to original source...
  12. Fabrika M., Ďurský J. (2005): Stromové růstové simulátory. Zvolen, EFRA: 112.
  13. Franklin J.F., Spies T.A., Pelt R.V., Carey A.B., Thornburgh D.A., Berg D.R., Lindenmayer D.B., Harmon M.E., Keeton W.S., Shaw D.C., Bible K., Chen J. (2002): Disturbances and structural development of natural forest ecosystems with structural implications, using Douglas-fir forests as an example. Forest Ecology and Management, 155: 399-423. Go to original source...
  14. Fraver S., Palik B.J. (2012): Stand and cohort structures of oldgrowth Pinus resinosa-dominated forests of northern Minnesota, USA. Journal of Vegetation Science, 23: 249-259. Go to original source...
  15. Fuller R.J., Gill R.M.A. (2001): Ecological impacts of increasing numbers of deer in British woodland. Forestry, 74: 193-199. Go to original source...
  16. Gao T., Hedblom M., Emilsson T., Nielsen A.B. (2014): The role of forest stand structure as biodiversity indicator. Forest Ecology and Management, 330: 82-93. Go to original source...
  17. Gini C. (1921): Measurement of inequality on income. The Economic Journal, 31: 22-43. Go to original source...
  18. Hopkins B., Skellam J.G. (1954): A new method for determining the type of distribution of plant individuals. Annals of Botany, 18: 213-227. Go to original source...
  19. Chávez V., MacDonald S.E. (2012): Partitioning vascular understory diversity in mixed wood boreal forests: the importance of mixed canopies for diversity conservation. Forest Ecology and Management, 271: 19-26. Go to original source...
  20. Jaehne S.C., Dohrenbusch A. (1997): Ein Verfahren zur Beurteilung der Bestandesdiversität. Forstwissenschaftliches Centralblatt, 116: 333-345. Go to original source...
  21. Kaufmann M.R., Regan C.M., Brown P.M. (2000): Heterogeneity in ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests: age and size structure in unlogged and logged landscapes of central Colorado. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 30: 698-711. Go to original source...
  22. Lampainen J., Kuuluvainen T., Wallenius T.H., Karjalainen L., Vanha-Majamaa I. (2004): Long-term forest structure and regeneration after wild fire in Russian Karelia. Journal of Vegetation Science, 15: 245-256. Go to original source...
  23. Larson A.J., Keyes C.R., Stover K.C. (2012): Effects of restoration thinning on spatial heterogeneity in mixed-conifer forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 42: 1505-1517. Go to original source...
  24. Liira J., Sepp T., Parrest O. (2007): The forest structure and ecosystem quality in conditions of anthropogenic disturbance along productivity gradient. Forest Ecology and Management, 250: 34-46. Go to original source...
  25. Lust N., Muys B., Nachtergale L. (1998): Increase of biodiversity in homogeneous Scots pine stands by an ecologically diversified management. Biodiversity and Conservation, 7: 249-260. Go to original source...
  26. Lydersen J.M., North M.P., Knapp E.E., Collins B.M. (2013): Quantifying spatial patterns of tree groups and gaps in mixed-conifer forests: reference conditions and long-term changes following fire suppression and logging. Forest Ecology and Management, 304: 340-382. Go to original source...
  27. Mace G.M., Norris K., Fitter A.H. (2012): Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 27: 19-26. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  28. Maddelein D., Lust N., Meyen S., Muys B. (1990): Dynamics in maturing Scots pine monocultures in North-East Belgium. Silva Gandavensis, 55: 69-80. Go to original source...
  29. Maltamo M., Kangas A., Uuttera J., Torniainen T., Saramäki J. (2000): Comparison of percentile based prediction methods and the Weibull distribution in describing the diameter distribution of heterogeneous Scots pine stands. Forest Ecology and Management, 133: 263-274. Go to original source...
  30. Maltamo M., Kangas A., Uuttera J., Torniainen T., Saramäki J. (2000): Comparison of percentile based prediction methods and the Weibull distribution in describing the diameter distribution of heterogeneous Scots pine stands. Forest Ecology and Management, 133: 263-274. Go to original source...
  31. Martín-Alcón S., Coll L., Salekin S. (2015): Stand-level drivers of tree-species diversification in Mediterranean pine forests after abandonment of traditional practices. Forest Ecology and Management, 353: 107-117. Go to original source...
  32. McLachlan J.S., Foster D.R., Menalled F. (2000): Anthropogenic ties to latesuccessional structure and composition in four New England hemlock stands. Ecology, 81: 717-733. Go to original source...
  33. Millar C.I., Stephenson N.L., Stephens S.L. (2007): Climate change and forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications, 17: 2145-2151. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  34. Montes F., Rubio A., Barbeito I., Cañellas I. (2008): Characterization of the spatial structure of the canopy in Pinus silvestris L. stands in central Spain from hemispherical photographs. Forest Ecology and Management, 255: 580-590. Go to original source...
  35. Montes F., Sanchez M., del Rio M., Canellas I. (2005): Using historic management records to characterize the effects of management on the structural diversity of forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 207: 279-293. Go to original source...
  36. Mountford M.D. (1961): On E. C. Pielou's index of non randomness. Journal of Ecology, 49: 271-275. Go to original source...
  37. Näslund M. (1936): Skogsförsöksanstaltens gallringsförsök i tallskog. Meddelanden från Statens Skogsförsöksanstalt, Swedish Institute of Experimental Forestry, 29: 169.
  38. Oliver C.D., Larson B.C. (1990): Forest Stand Dynamics. New York, McGraw-Hill: 544.
  39. Peterken G.F. (1981): Wooland Conservation and Management. London: Chapman & Hall: 328. Go to original source...
  40. Petráš R., Pajtík J. (1991): Sústava Česko-slovenských objemových tabuliek drevín. Lesnícky časopis: 7, 49-56.
  41. Pielou E.C. (1959): The use of point-to-plant distances in the study of the pattern of plant populations. Journal of Ecology, 47: 607-613. Go to original source...
  42. Pielou E.C. (1975): Ecological Diversity. New York, Wiley: 165.
  43. Poyatos R., Latron J., Llorens P. (2003): Land use and land cover change after agricultural abandonment - the case of a Mediterranean Mountain Area (Catalan Pre-Pyrenees). Mountain Research and Development, 23: 362-368. Go to original source...
  44. Pretzsch H. (2006). Wissen nutzbar machen für das Management von Waldökosystemen. Allgemeine Forstzeitschrift/ Der Wald, 61: 1158-1159.
  45. Ripley B.D. (1981): Spatial Statistics. New York, John Wiley & Sons: 252. Go to original source...
  46. Rouvinen S., Kuuluvainen T. (2005): Tree diameter distributions in natural and managed old Pinus sylvestris -dominated forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 208: 45-61. Go to original source...
  47. Sánchez Meador A.J., Parysow P.F., Moore M.M. (2011): A new method for delineating tree patches and assessing spatial reference conditions of ponderosa pine forests in northern Arizona. Restoration Ecology, 19: 490-499. Go to original source...
  48. Shannon C.E. (1948): A mathematical theory of communications. Bell System Technical Journal, 27: 379-423. Go to original source...
  49. Silver E.J, D'Amato A., Fraver S., Palik B.J., Bradford J.B. (2013): Structure and development of old-growth, unmanaged second-growth, and extended rotation Pinus resinosa forests in Minnesota, USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 291: 110-118. Go to original source...
  50. Smith G.F., Gittings T., Wilson M., French L., Oxbrough A., O'Donoghue S., O'Halloran J., Kelly D.L., Mitchell F.J.G., Kelly T., Iremonger S., McKee A.M., Giller P. (2008): Identifying practical indicators of biodiversity for standlevel management of plantation forests. Biodiversity and Conservation, 17: 991-1015. Go to original source...
  51. Spies T.A. (1998): Forest structure: a key to the ecosystem. Northwest Science, 72: 34-39.
  52. Spies T.A. (2004): Ecological concepts and diversity of oldgrowth forests. Journal of Forestry, 102: 14-20. Go to original source...
  53. Stephenson N.L. (1999): Reference conditions for giant sequoia forest restoration: structure, process, and precision. Ecological Applications, 9: 1253-1265. Go to original source...
  54. Sterba H. (2008): Diversity indices based on angle count sampling and their interrelationships when used in forest inventories. Forestry 81: 587-597. Go to original source...
  55. ter Braak C.J.F., Šmilauer P. (2002): CANOCO Reference Manual and CanoDraw for Windows User>s Guide: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4.5). Ithaca, NY, USA. Available at www.canoco.com
  56. Tuten M.C., Meador A.S., Fu P.Z. (2015): Ecological restoration and fine-scale forest structure regulativ in southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 348: 57-67. Go to original source...
  57. Uotila A., Maltamo M., Uuttera J., Isomaki A. (2001): Stand structure in seminatural and managed forests in eastern Finland and Russian Karelia. Ecological Bulletins, 49: 149-158.
  58. Uotila A., Kouki J., Kontkanen H., Pulkkinen P. (2002): Assessing the naturalness of boreal forests in eastern Fennoscandia. Forest Ecology and Management, 161: 257-277. Go to original source...
  59. Vacek S., Vacek Z., Podrazský V., Bilek L., Bulušek D., Štefančik I., Remeš J., Šticha V., Ambrož R. (2014): Structural diversity of autochthonous beech forests in Broumovske Stěny national nature reserve, Czech Republic. Austrian Journal of Forest Science, 131: 191-214.
  60. Vanderwel M.C., Caspersen J.P., Woods M.E. (2006): Snag dynamics in partially harvested and unmanaged northern hardwood forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 36: 2769-2779. Go to original source...
  61. Viewegh J., Kusbach A., Mikeska M. (2003): Czech forest ecosystem classification. Journal of Forest Science, 49: 74-82. Go to original source...
  62. Weiner J. (1985): Size hierarchies in experimental populations of annual plants. Ecology, 66: 743-752. Go to original source...
  63. Weiner J. (1990): Asymmetric competition in plant populations. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 5: 360-364. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  64. Zobel K., Zobel M., Peet R.K. (1993): Change in pattern diversity during secondary succession in Estonian forests. Journal of Vegetation Science, 4: 489-498. Go to original source...

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.