J. For. Sci., 2020, 66(5):197-207 | DOI: 10.17221/42/2020-JFS

Production potential and structural variability of pine stands in the Czech Republic: Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) vs. introduced pines - case study and problem reviewOriginal Paper

Vilém Podrázský, Zdeněk Vacek*, Stanislav Vacek, Jan Vítámvás, Josef Gallo, Anna Prokůpková, Giuseppe D'Andrea
Department of Silviculture, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) is one of the most important tree species in Eurasia. During the past centuries, it has been extensively introduced into artificial monocultures, but is currently experiencing a number of problems related to climate change and extreme droughts. There is a large-scale disintegration of its stands and, in addition to its replacement by other native trees, it is possible to use a wide range of introduced species of the same genus. The aim of the investigation was to compare production parameters, structure and diversity of pine stands at the age of 35 years in school Arboretum of Faculty of Forestry and Wood Science in Central Bohemia (320 m a.s.l., medium rich habitats, water deficit site). Seven species of pine were compared: ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Douglas ex C. Hawson), Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi Balf.), black pine (Pinus nigra J.F.Arnold), eastern white pine (Pinus strobus L.), Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Douglas), Macedonian pine (Pinus peuce Griseb.) and the only native Scots pine. The results showed that significantly (P < 0.001) highest height, diameter at breast height and mean stem volume were achieved in Pinus ponderosa and P. strobus stands, while these parameters were lowest in P. peuce and P. nigra. In contrast, the lowest stand volume was calculated for P. strobus (112 m3.ha-1) due to the lower stand density, while the highest production was again in P. ponderosa (430 m3.ha-1). In terms of structural variability, the highest diversity was found in P. jeffreyi and P. peuce. The introduced pine species, especially P. ponderosa, could therefore play an important role in terms of production and economic potential and even replace native P. sylvestris on suitable sites.

Keywords: introduction; forest structure; biodiversity; timber production; Central Europe

Published: May 31, 2020  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Podrázský V, Vacek Z, Vacek S, Vítámvás J, Gallo J, Prokůpková A, D'Andrea G. Production potential and structural variability of pine stands in the Czech Republic: Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) vs. introduced pines - case study and problem review. J. For. Sci. 2020;66(5):197-207. doi: 10.17221/42/2020-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. Álvarez-Álvarez P., Pizarro C., Barrio-Anta M., Cámara Obregón A., Bueno J.L.M., Álvarez A., Gutiérrez I., Burslem D.F.R.P. (2018): Evaluation of tree species for biomass energy production in Northwest Spain. Forests, 9: 160. Go to original source...
    2. Balbinot R., Valério A.F., Sanquesta C.R., Caldeira M.V., Silvestre R. (2008): Carbon stock in Pinus spp. plantations in different ages et southern region of the state of Paraná. Floresta, 38: 317-324. Go to original source...
    3. Bartoš J., Kacálek D. (2011): Douglaska tisolistá - dřevina vhodná k zalesňování bývalých zemědělských půd. Zprávy lesnického výzkumu, 56 (Special Issue): 6-13.
    4. Beran F., Šindelář J. (1996): Perspektivy vybraných cizokrajných dřevin v lesním hospodářství České republiky. Lesnictví, 8: 357-355.
    5. Beran F. (2018): Introdukované dřeviny v lesním hospodářství ČR - Přehled. In: Vacek Z., Podrázský V. (eds.): Introdukované dřeviny jako součást českého lesnictví. Kostelec nad Černými lesy 2018. Česká lesnická společnost, Praha 2018: 7-16. (in Czech)
    6. Bílek L., Vacek S., Vacek Z., Remeš J., Král J., Bulušek D., Gallo J. (2016): How close to nature is close-to-nature pine silviculture? Journal of Forest Science, 62: 24-34. Go to original source...
    7. Bílek L., Vacek Z., Vacek S., Bulušek D., Linda R., Král J. (2018): Are clearcut borders an effective tool for Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) natural regeneration?. Forest Systems, 27: 6. Go to original source...
    8. Brusinský R. (2004): Komentovaný světový klíč rodu Pinus L. - Závěrečná zpráva "Výzkum a hodnocení genofondu dřevin z aspektu sadovnického použití", Výzkumný ústav Silva Taroucy pro krajinu a okrasné zahradnictví, Průhonice. (in Czech)
    9. Businský R., Frantik T., Vit P. (2014): Morphological evaluation of the Pinus kesiya complex (Pinaceae). Plant Systematics and Evolution, 300: 273-285. Go to original source...
    10. Businský R., Velebil J. (2011): Borovice v České republice. Výsledky dlouhodobého hodnocení rodu Pinus L. v kultuře v České republice. VÚKOZ, Průhonice: 180. (in Czech)
    11. Čáp J., Novotný P., Fulín M., Dostál J., Beran F. (2018): Evaluation of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loudon) on a provenance plot situated in a formerly air-polluted area of the Krušné hory Mts. at the age of 34 years. Journal of Forest Sciences, 64: 118-128. Go to original source...
    12. Dimitrovský K. (2001): Tvorba nové krajiny na Sokolovsku. Sokolov, Sokolovská uhelná: 191. (in Czech)
    13. Dragoun L., Stolariková R., Merganič J., Šálek L., Krykorková J. (2015): Influence of admixed tree species on growth, structure and stability of Scots pine stands on anthropogenic soils of the Sokolov region. Forestry Journal, 61: 44-51. Go to original source...
    14. Eckert A., Hall B. (2006): Phylogeny, historical biogeography, and patterns of diversification for Pinus (Pinaceae): Phylogenetic tests of fossil-based hypotheses. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 40: 166-182. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    15. Fabrika M., Ďurský J. (2005): Algorithms and software solution of thinning models for SIBYLA growth simulator. Journal of Forest Science, 51: 431-445. Go to original source...
    16. Farjon A. (2001): Word checklist and bibliography of Conifers. Royal Bot. Gards., Kew, Richmond, UK. 309.
    17. Füldner K. (1995): Strukturbeschreibung in Mischbeständen. Forstarchiv, 66: 235-606.
    18. Gallo J., Baláš M., Linda R., Kuneš I. (2020a): The effects of planting stock size and weeding on survival and growth of small-leaved lime under drought-heat stress in the Czech Republic. Austrian Journal of Forest Science, 137: 43-66.
    19. Gallo, J., Bílek, L., Šimůnek, V., Roig, S., Fernández, J. A. B. (2020b): Uneven-aged silviculture of Scots pine in Bohemia and Central Spain: comparison study of stand reaction to transition and long-term selection management. Journal of Forest Science, 66: 22-35. Go to original source...
    20. Gernandt D.S., Aguirre Dugua X., Vázquez-Lobo A., Willyard A., Moreno Letelier A., Pérez de la Rosa J.A., Piñero D., Liston A. (2018): Multi-locus phylogenetics, lineage sorting, and reticulation in Pinus subsection Australes. American Journal of Botany, 105: 1-15. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    21. Gernandt D.S., López G.G., García S.O., Liston A. (2005): Phylogeny and classification of Pinus. Taxon, 54: 29-42. Go to original source...
    22. Grivet D., Climent J., Zabal-Aguirre M., Neale D. (2013): Adaptive evolution of Mediterranean pines. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 68: 555-566. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    23. Hadincová V., Dobrý J., Hanzéylová D., Härtel H., Herben T., Krahulec F., Kyncl J., Moravcová L., Šmilauer P., Šmilauerová M. (1997): Invazní druh Pinus strobus v Labských pískovcích, Zprávy České Botanické Společnosti, 14: 63-79. (in Czech)
    24. Hereş, A.M., Martínez-Vilalta, J., López, B.C. (2012): Growth patterns in relation to drought-induced mortality at two Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) sites in NE Iberian Peninsula. Trees, 26: 621-630. Go to original source...
    25. Hieke K. (1984): České zámecké parky a jejich dřeviny. Prague, Státní Zemědělské Nakladatelství: 464 (in Czech).
    26. Hlásny T., Barka I., Roessiger J., Kulla L., Trombik J., Sarvašová Z., Bucha T., Kovalčík M., Čihák T. (2017): Conversion of Norway spruce forests in the face of climate change: a case study in Central Europe. European Journal of Forest Research, 136: 1013-1028. Go to original source...
    27. Hora B. (ed.) (1980): The Oxford encyclopedia of trees of the World. Oxford, Elsevier: 288.
    28. Christensen K.I. (1987): Taxonomic revision of the Pinus mugo complex and P. rhaetica (P. mugo sylvestris) (Pinaceae). Nordic Journal of Botany, 7: 383-408. Go to original source...
    29. Jaehne S.C., Dohrenbusch A. (1997): Ein Verfahren zur Beurteilung der Bestandesdiversität. Forstwissenschaftliches Centralblatt, 116: 333-345. Go to original source...
    30. Kapeller S., Lexerb M.J., Geburek T., Hiebl J., Schueler S. (2012): Intraspecific variation in climate response of Norway spruce in the eastern Alpine range: Selecting ap-propriate provenances for future climate. Forest Ecology and Management, 271: 46-57. Go to original source...
    31. Kaňák K. (1987): Šlechtitelské strategie druhů rodu Pinus v imisní oblasti Krušných hor. Práce VÚLHM, 70: 71-100. (in Czech)
    32. Kaňák K. (1988): Hodnocení provenienčního pokusu s borovicí pokroucenou v imisní oblasti Krušných hor. Plzeň, VÚLHM: 25. (in Czech)
    33. Kaňák J. (1999): Introdukované druhy borovic v Arboretu Sofronka a jejich testování ve stresových podmínkách Krušných hor. Acta Průhoniciana, 68: 12-22. (in Czech)
    34. Kaňák J. (2004): Možnosti a úskalí introdukce některých druhů rodu Pinus. In: Karas J., Kobliha J. (eds.): Perspektivy lesnické dendrologie a šlechtění lesních dřevin. Sborník z konference. Kostelec n. Č. lesy, 12. - 13. 5. 2004. Praha, FLE ČZU, 76-84. (in Czech)
    35. Lima M., Barreto-Garcia P.A.J., Sanquetta C.R., Novaes A.B., Melo L.C. (2016): Biomass and carbon stock from Pinus caribaea var. hondurensis under homogenous stands in southwest Bahia, Brazil. Ciência Rural, 46: 957-962. Go to original source...
    36. Liška J., Lorenc F. (2017): Houbové choroby v lesích Česka v roce 2016. Škodliví činitelé v lesích Česka. Zpravodaj ochrany lesa, 20: 22-25. (in Czech)
    37. Mácová M. (2008): Dendroclimatological comparison of native Pinus sylvestris and invasive Pinus strobus in different habitats in the Czech Republic. Preslia, 80: 277-289.
    38. Mondek J., Baláš M. (2019): Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii /Mirb./ Franco) and its role in the Czech forests. Journal of Forest Science, 65: 41-50. Go to original source...
    39. Musil I., Hamerník J. (2007): Jehličnaté dřeviny: přehled nahosemenných i výtrusných dřevin. Praha, Academia: 177. (in Czech)
    40. Netherer S., Panassiti B., Pennerstorfer J., Matthews B. (2019): Acute drought is an important driver of bark beetle infestation in Austrian Norway spruce stands. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 2: 39. Go to original source...
    41. Novotný P., Fulín M., Dostál J., Čáp J., Frýdl J., Liška J., Kaňák J. (2017): Růst proveniencí borovice pokroucené v podmínkách acidofilní doubravy v západních Čechách ve věku 34 let. Zprávy lesnického výzkumu, 62: 197-207. (in Czech)
    42. Nožička J. (1957): Přehled vývoje našich lesů. Praha.
    43. Olsson S., Grivet D., Cid-Vian J. (2018): Species-diagnostic markers in the genus Pinus: evaluation of the chloroplast regions matK and ycf1. Forest Systems, 27: e016. Go to original source...
    44. Palátová, P., Dudík, R., Hušbauer, J., (2017): Czech wood and potential of its consumption in the Czech Republic. In: Dudík, R. (ed.): More Wood, Better Management, Increasing Effectiveness: Starting Points and Perspective. Prague, WoodEMA, i.a.: 33-37.
    45. Parks M., Cronn R., Liston A. (2009): Increasing phylogenetic resolution at low taxonomic levels using massively parallel sequencing of chloroplast genomes. BMC Biology 7: 84. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    46. Pensa M., Sellin A., Luud A., Valgma I. (2004): An analysis of vegetation restoration on opencast oil shale mines in Estonia. Restoration Ecology, 12: 200-206. Go to original source...
    47. Petráš R., Pajtík J. (1991): Sústava česko-slovenských objemových tabuliek drevín. Lesnícky časopis, 37: 49-56. (in Czech)
    48. Podrázský V. (2006): Lodgepole (Pinus contorta) as a preparatory tree species in immission area Orlické hory Mts. Scientia Agriculturae Bohemica, 37: 67-70.
    49. Podrázský V., Zahradník D., Pulkrab K., Kubeček J., Peňa J. B. (2013): Hodnotová produkce douglasky tisolisté (Pseudotsuga menziesii /Mirb./ Franco) na kyselých stanovištích Školního polesí Hůrky, Písecko. [Production value of Doulas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii /Mirb./ Franco) on acid sites of the School Forest Hůrky, Písek region.] Zprávy lesnického výzkumu, 59: 226-232.
    50. Podrázský V., Prknová H. (eds.) (2019): Silvicultural, production and enviromental potential of the main introduced tree species in the Czech Republic. Česká zemědělská univerzita v Praze, Kostelec nad Černými Lesy, Lesnická práce: 185.
    51. Poleno Z., Vacek S., Podrázský V., Remeš J., Štefančík I., Mikeska M., Kobliha J., Kupka I., Malík V., Turčáni M., Dvořák J., Zatloukal V., Bílek L., Baláš M., Simon J. (2009): Pěstování lesů III. Praktické postupy pěstování lesů. [Silviculture III. Practical methods in silviculture]. Kostelec nad Černými lesy, Lesnická práce: 952. (in Czech)
    52. Pretzsch H. (2006): Wissen nutzbar machen für das Management von Waldökosystemen. Allgemeine Forstzeitschrift/ Der Wald, 61: 1158-1159.
    53. Price R.A., Liston A., Strauss S.H. (1998): Phylogeny and systematics of Pinus. In: Richardson D.M. (ed): Ecology and Biogeography of Pinus. NY, USA, Cambridge University Press: 49-68.
    54. Riedl, M., Jarský, V., Palátová, P., Sloup, R., (2019): The challenges of the forestry sector communication based on an analysis of research studies in the Czech Republic. Forests, 10: 935. Go to original source...
    55. Rigueiro-Rodríguez A., Mosquera-Losada M.R., FernándezNúñez E. (2012): Afforestation of agricultural land with Pinus radiata D. don and Betula alba L. in NW Spain: Effects on soil PH, understorey production and floristic diversity eleven years after establishment. Land Degradation & Development, 23: 227-241. Go to original source...
    56. Richardson D.M. (1998): Pine ecology and biogeography - An introduction. In: Richardson D.M. (ed.): Ecology and Biogeography of Pinus. NY, USA, Cambridge University Press: 3-46.
    57. Seidel H., Schunk C., Matiu M., Menzel A. (2016): Diverging drought resistance of scots pine provenances revealed by infrared thermography. Frontiers in plant science, 7: 1247. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    58. Sharma R.P., Bílek L., Vacek Z., Vacek S. (2017): Modelling crown width-diameter relationship for Scots pine in the central Europe. Trees, 31: 1875-1889. Go to original source...
    59. Sharma R.P., Vacek Z, Vacek S, Kučera M. (2019): A Nonlinear Mixed-Effects Height-to-Diameter Ratio Model for Several Tree Species Based on Czech National Forest Inventory Data. Forests, 10: 70. Go to original source...
    60. Schoch W., Heller I., Schweingruber F.H., Kienast F. (2004): Wood anatomy of central European Species. Online version http:www.woodanatomy.ch
    61. Stankova T.V., Zlatanov T. (2010): Modeling diameter distribution of Austrian black pine (Pinus nigra Arn.) plantations: a comparison of the Weibull frequency distribution function and percentile-based projection methods. European Journal of Forest Research, 129: 1169-1179. Go to original source...
    62. Stolina M. et al. (1985): Ochrana lesa. Bratislava, Príroda: 480 (in Slovak).
    63. Sullivan T.P., Sullivan D.S., Lindgren P.M.F., Ransome D.B., Zabek L. (2020): Twenty-Five Years after Stand Thinning and Repeated Fertilization in Lodgepole Pine Forest: Implications for Tree Growth, Stand Structure, and Carbon Sequestration. Forests 11: 337. Go to original source...
    64. Syring J., Willyard A., Cronn R., Liston A. (2005): Evolutionary relationships among Pinus (Pinaceae) subsections inferred from multiple low-copy nuclear loci. American Journal of Botany, 92: 2086-2100. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    65. Šika A. (1976): Vejmutovka (Pinus strobus L.) v lesích ČSR, In: Študia o jehličnatých drevinách, Bratislava, Věda: 281 (in Slovak).
    66. Šindelář J., Frýdl J. (2004): Šlechtění a introdukce dřevin v ekologicky orientovaném LH. Lesnická práce, 2: 20-21. (in Czech)
    67. Šindelář J. (1979): První výsledky výzkumu proveniencí borovice černé v oblasti poškozované průmyslovými exhaláty. Práce VÚLHM, 54: 107-124. (in Czech)
    68. Šmilauer P., Lepš J. (2014): Multivariate analysis of ecological data using CANOCO 5. Cambridge university press: 361. Go to original source...
    69. Toth D., Maitah M., Maitah K., Jarolínová V. (2020): The Impacts of Calamity Logging on the Development of Spruce Wood Prices in Czech Forestry. Forests, 11: 283. Go to original source...
    70. Trasobares A., Pikkala T. (2004): Optimising the management of uneven-aged Pinus sylvestris L. and Pinus nigra Arn. mixed stands in Catalonia, north-east Spain. Annal of Forest Science, 61: 747-758. Go to original source...
    71. Ulbrichová I., Podrázský V., Beran F., Zahradník D., Fulín M., Procházka J., Kubeček J. (2015): Picea abies provenance test in the Czech Republic after 36 years-Central European provenances. Journal of Forest Science, 61: 465-477. Go to original source...
    72. Vacek S., Vacek Z., Bílek L., Simon J., Remeš J., Hůnová I., Král J., Putalová T., Mikeska M. (2016): Structure, regeneration and growth of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) stands with respect to changing climate and environmental pollution. Silva Fennica, 50: 1564. Go to original source...
    73. Vacek S., Vacek Z., Remeš J., Bílek L., Hůnová I., Bulušek D., Putalová T., Král J., Simon J. (2017): Sensitivity of unmanaged relict pine forest in the Czech Republic to climate change and air pollution. Trees - Structure and Function, 31: 1599-1617. Go to original source...
    74. Vacek S., Vacek Z., Bílek L., Hůnová I., Bulušek D., Král J., Brichta J. (2019b): Stand dynamics in natural Scots pine forests as a model for adaptation management?. Dendrobiology, 82: 24-42. Go to original source...
    75. Vacek Z., Cukor J., Vacek S., Podrázský V., Linda R., Kovařík J. (2018a): Forest biodiversity and production potential of post-mining landscape: opting for afforestation or leaving it to spontaneous development? Central European Forestry Journal, 64: 116-126. Go to original source...
    76. Vacek Z., Vacek S, Cukor J., Linda R., Bílek L., Podrázský V., Gallo J. (2018b): Native vs. introduced coniferous tree species: production and biodiversity of forest stands on reclamation sites after coal mining. In: Proceedings of Central European Silviculture 04.09.2018, Doksy, Sept 9, 2018: 198-206.
    77. Vacek Z., Vacek S., Slanař J., Bílek L., Bulušek D., Štefančík I., Králíček I., Vančura K. (2019a): Adaption of Norway spruce and European beech forests under climate change: from resistance to close-to-nature silviculture. Central European Forestry Journal, 65: 129-144. Go to original source...
    78. Vaněk P., Bednář P. (2013): Comparison of stem volume of Eastern white pine (Pinus strobus L.) and Scotch pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 61: 221-226. Go to original source...
    79. Vítámvás J., Bílek L., Ulbrichová I., Bažant V., Dreslerová J., Vacek Z. (2019): Emergence, survival and root systém of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) seedlings in different light intensities and irrigation regimes. Zprávy lesnického výzkumu, 64: 102-110.
    80. Weger J. (1999): Šlechtění vybraných druhů allochtonních borovic pro zalesňování nepříznivých stanovišť. Acta Průhoniciana, 68: 87-102.
    81. Yang R.C., Yeh F.C., Ye T.Z. (2007): Multilocus structure in the Pinus contorta-Pinus banksiana complex. Canadian Journal of Botany, 85: 774-784. 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