J. For. Sci., 2018, 64(11):486-495 | DOI: 10.17221/117/2018-JFS

Do stand structure and admixture of tree species affect Scots pine aboveground biomass production and stability on its natural site?Original Paper

Ondřej ©PULÁK*, Jiří SOUČEK, Jakub ČERNÝ
Forestry and Game Management Research Institute, Strnady, Opočno Research Station, Opočno, Czech Republic

The paper analyses stand structure and production on two experimental forest stand series of mature pure and mixed Scots pine stands, growing on natural Scots pine sites in the Czech Republic. Sessile oak was the main admixed species. In mixed stands, Scots pine constituted the dominant level of the stand, admixed species grew mostly as subdominants. Admixture increased stand densities and aboveground biomass production compared to pure stands. Sessile oak with the 20-30% number share within the Scots pine stand led to an increase of the Scots pine tree dimensions and mean stem merchantable wood (DBH ≥ 7 cm) volume compared to the pure Scots pine stand of similar density. The Scots pine and sessile oak slenderness ratios increased in mixed stands compared to monocultures, however, the stand mechanical stability was not threatened.

Keywords: Pinus sylvestris; sessile oak; Norway spruce; mixture; volume; stand indices

Published: November 30, 2018  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
©PULÁK O, SOUČEK J, ČERNÝ J. Do stand structure and admixture of tree species affect Scots pine aboveground biomass production and stability on its natural site? J. For. Sci. 2018;64(11):486-495. doi: 10.17221/117/2018-JFS.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Bartsch N., Petercord R., von Lüpke B. (1996): Wachstum von Traubeneiche in Mischung mit Kiefer. Forst und Holz, 51: 195-200.
    2. Bassett G., Koenker R. (1978): Regression quantiles. Econometrica, 46: 33-50. Go to original source...
    3. Bergel D. (1974): Massentafeln für Nordwestdeutschland II: Eiche, Roteiche, Kiefer. Göttingen, Niedersächsische Forstliche Versuchsanstalt: 22.
    4. Bergkvist B.O. (1987): Soil solution chemistry and metal budgets of spruce forest ecosystems in S. Sweden. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 33: 131-154. Go to original source...
    5. Bielak K., Dudziňska M., Pretzsch H. (2014): Mixed stands of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst) can be more productive than monocultures. Evidence from over 100 years of observation of long-term 3 experiments. Forest Systems, 23: 573-589. Go to original source...
    6. Bilgili E., Ozturk M., Coskuner K.A., Baysal I., Serdar B., Yavuz H., Eroglu M., Usta Y. (2018): Quantifying the effect of pine mistletoe on the growth of Scots pine. Forest Pathology, 48: e12435. Go to original source...
    7. Błońska E., Lasota J, Januszek K. (2013): Relation between properties of humus horizon and oak participation in a Scots pine stands. Soil Science Annual, 64: 82-87. Go to original source...
    8. Borken W., Beese F. (2005): Soil respiration in pure and mixed stands of European beech and Norway spruce following removal of organic horizons. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 35: 2756-2764. Go to original source...
    9. del Río M., Sterba H. (2009): Comparing volume growth in pure and mixed stands of Pinus sylvestris and Quercus pyrenaica. Annals of Forest Science, 66: 502. Go to original source...
    10. del Río M., Pretzsch H., Ruíz-Peinado R., Ampoorter E., Annighöfer P., Barbeito I., Bielak K., Brazaitis G., Coll L., Drössler L., Fabrika M., Forrester D.I., Heym M., Hurt V., Kurylyak V., Löf M., Lombardi F., Madrickiene E., Matović B., Mohren F., et al. (2017): Species interactions increase the temporal stability of community productivity in Pinus sylvestris-Fagus sylvatica mixtures across Europe. Journal of Ecology, 105: 1032-1043. Go to original source...
    11. Dragoun L., Stolariková R., Merganič J., ©álek L., Krykorková J. (2015): Porovnání vlivu příměsi na růstové veličiny, strukturu a stabilitu porostu borovice lesní (Pinus sylvestris L.) na antropogenních půdách sokolovského regionu. Lesnícky časopis - Forestry Journal, 61: 44-51. (in Czech with English abstract) Go to original source...
    12. Fabrika M., Pretzsch H. (2013): Forest Ecosystem Analysis and Modelling. Zvolen, Technical University in Zvolen: 619.
    13. Griess V.C., Knoke T. (2011): Growth performance, windthrow, and insects: Meta-analyses of parametres influencing performance of mixed-species stands in boreal and northern temperate biomes. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 41: 1141-1159. Go to original source...
    14. IPCC (2014): Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Working Group II Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 1132.
    15. IPCC (2018): Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C above Pre-industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty. Summary for Policymakers. Geneva, World Meteorological Organization: 26.
    16. Jeník J. et al. (2014): Roots and Root System of Trees/Kořeny a kořání stromů. Liberec, Botanická zahrada: 331. (bilingual: in English and Czech)
    17. Kacálek D., Mauer O., Podrázský V., Slodičák M. et al. (2017): Meliorační a zpevňující funkce lesních dřevin. Strnady, Výzkumný ústav lesního hospodářství a myslivosti, v. v. i.: 300 s. (in Czech with English summaries)
    18. Kollas C., Gutsch M., Hommel R., Lasch-Born P., Suckow F. (2018): Mistletoe-induced growth reductions at the forest stand scale. Tree Physiology, 38: 735-744. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    19. Küsters E., Bachmann M., Steinacker L., Schütze G., Pretzsch H. (2004): Die Kiefer im Rein- und Mischbestand. Produktivität, Variabilität, Wachstumstrend. Mitteilungen aus der Bayerischen Staatsforstverwaltung 52. München, Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Landswirthschaft und Forsten: 345.
    20. Lehmann B.W. (2008): Effekte einzelbaumweise eingemischter einheimischer Eichen in Wäldern der Gemeinen Kiefer (Pinus sylvestris L.) auf Standorten geringer Trophie und Wasserversorgung im Süden Brandenburgs. [Ph.D. Thesis.] Dresden, Technische Universität Dresden: 186.
    21. Mellado A., Zamora R. (2016): Spatial heterogeneity of a parasitic plant drives the seed-dispersal pattern of a zoochorous plant community in a generalist dispersal system. Functional Ecology, 30: 459-467. Go to original source...
    22. Milewski W. (ed.) (2017): Poland: The State Forests in Figures 2017. Warsaw, The State Forests Information Centre: 55.
    23. Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic (2014): Zpráva o stavu lesa a lesního hospodářství České republiky v roce 2013. Prague, Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic: 200. (in Czech with English summaries)
    24. Mosandl R., Kleinert A. (1998): Development of oaks (Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.) emerged from bird-dispersed seeds under old-growth pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) stands. Forest Ecology and Management, 106: 35-44. Go to original source...
    25. Musil I., Hamerník J. (2007): Jehličnaté dřeviny: přehled nahosemenných i výtrusných dřevin. Prague, Academia: 352.
    26. Näslund M. (1937): Die Durchforstungsversuche der Forstlichen Versuchsanstalt Schwedens in Kiefernwald. In: Meddelanden från Statens Skogsförsöksanstalt. Häfte 29. Stockholm, Esselte AB: 121-169.
    27. Noack M. (2008): Standortökologisch-biomathematische Grundlagen für die Umwandlung von Kiefernreinbeständen in Kiefern-Trauben-Eichen-Mischbestände als Beitrag zur zukunftsorientierten Ressourcennutzung im Nordostdeutschen Tiefland. Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin: 520.
    28. Novák J., Duąek D., Slodičák M. (2013): Výchova porostů borovice lesní a poąkození sněhem. Zprávy lesnického výzkumu, 58: 147-157. (in Czech with English summary)
    29. Oleksyn J., Reich P.B., Zytkowiak R., Karolewski P., Tjoelker M.G. (2002): Needle nutrients in geographically diverse Pinus sylvestris L. populations. Annals of Forest Science, 59: 1-18. Go to original source...
    30. Peřina V. (1973): Vliv příměsi smrku a dubu na růst a půdní vlastnosti borových porostů. Lesnictví, 19: 547-566. (in Czech with English summary).
    31. Poleno Z. (1975): Smíąené porosty smrku s borovicí. Lesnictví, 21: 899-912. (in Czech with English summary)
    32. Pretzsch H., Forrester D.I., Rötzer T. (2015a): Representation of species mixing in forest growth models. A review and perspective. Ecological Modelling, 313: 276-292. Go to original source...
    33. Pretzsch H., Bielak K., Bruchwald A., Dieler J., Dudzinska M., Ehrhart H.P., Jensen A.M., Johannsen V.K., Kohnle U., Nagel J., Spellmann H., Zasada M., Zingg A. (2013): Species mixing and productivity of forests. Results from long-term experiments. Allgemeine Forst- und Jagdzeitung, 184: 177-196.
    34. Pretzsch H., del Río M., Ammer C., Avdagic A., Barbeito I., Bielak K., Brazaitis G., Coll L., Dirnberger G., Drössler L., Fabrika M., Forrester D.I., Godvod K., Heym M., Hurt V., Kurylyak V., Löf M., Lombardi F., Matović B., Mohren F., et al. (2015b): Growth and yield of mixed versus pure stands of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) analysed along a productivity gradient through Europe. European Journal of Forest Research, 134: 927-947. Go to original source...
    35. Pretzsch H., del Río M., Schütze G., Ammer C., Annighöfer P., Avgadic A., Barbeito I., Bielak K., Brazaitis G., Coll L., Drössler L., Fabrika M., Forrester D.I., Kurylyak V., Löf M., Lombardi F., Matović B., Mohren F., Motta R., den Ouden J., et al. (2016): Mixing of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) enhances structural heterogeneity, and the effect increases with water availability. Forest Ecology and Management, 373: 149-166. Go to original source...
    36. Prietzel J. (2004): Humusveränderungen nach Einbringung von Buche und Eiche in Kiefernreinbestände. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 167: 428-438. Go to original source...
    37. Reineke L.H. (1933): Perfecting a stand density index for even-aged forests. Journal of Agricultural Research, 46: 627-638.
    38. Schirmer W., Diehl T., Ammer C. (1999): Zur Entwicklung junger Eichen unter Kiefernschirm. Forstarchiv, 70: 57-65.
    39. Schröder J., Michel A., Kätzel R., Degenhardt A. (2009): Bestand und Bewirtschaftung. In: Elmer M., Kätzel R., Bens O., Bues C.T., Sonntag H., Hüttl R. F. (eds): Nachhaltige Bewirtschaftung von Eichen-Kiefern-Mischbeständen. München, Oekon: 45-65.
    40. Schua K., Fischer H., Lehman B., Wagner S. (2007): Wirkungen einzelbaumweise eingemischter Trauben-Eichen (Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.) auf den Oberbodenzustand in Kiefernbeständen (Pinus sylvestris L.). Allgemeine Forstund Jagdzeitung, 178: 172-179.
    41. Siitonen J. (2014): Ips acuminatus kills pines in southern Finland. Silva Fennica, 48: id1145. Go to original source...
    42. Spathelf P., Ammer C. (2015): Forest management of scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) in northern Germany-a brief review of the history and current trends. Forstarchiv, 86: 59-66.
    43. Toigo M., Vallet P., Tuilleras V., Lebourgeois F., Rozenberg P., Perret S., Courbaud B., Perot T. (2015): Species mixture increases the effect of drought on tree ring density, but not on ring width, in Quercus petraea and Pinus sylvestris stands. Forest Ecology and Management, 345: 73-82. Go to original source...
    44. Valinger E. (1992): Effects of thinning and nitrogen fertilisation on stem growth and stem form of Pinus sylvestris (L.) trees. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 7: 219-228. Go to original source...
    45. Vettenranta J., Miina J. (1999): Optimizing thinnings and rotation of Scots pine and Norway spruce mixtures. Silva Fennica, 33: 73-84. Go to original source...
    46. Viewegh J., Kusbach A., Mikeska M. (2003): Czech forest ecosystem classification. Journal of Forest Science, 49: 74-82. Go to original source...
    47. Zeller L., Ammer C., Annighöfer P., Biber P., Marshall J., Schütze G., del Río M., Pretzsch H. (2017): Tree ring wood density of Scots pine and European beech lower in mixed-species stands compared with monocultures. Forest Ecology and Management, 400: 363-374. Go to original source...
    48. Zhang Y., Chen H.Y.H., Reich P.B. (2012): Forest productivity increases with evenness, species richness and trait variation: A global meta-analysis. Journal of Ecology, 100: 742-749. 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.


    Return to the content