Evaluation of competition and light estimation indices for predicting diameter growth in mature boreal mixed forests (original) (raw)

References

  1. Alberta Land and Forest Services, Land and Forest Services Permanent Sample Plot Field Procedures Manual, For. Manage. Div., Edmonton, Alberta, 2002.
    Google Scholar
  2. Alemdag I.S., Evaluation of some competition indices for the prediction of diameter increment in planted white spruce, Can. For. Serv. Inf. Rep. FMR-X-108, 1978.
  3. Bartelink H.H., Effects of stand composition and thinning in mixed-species forests: a modeling approach applied to Douglas-fir and beech, Tree Physiol. 20 (2000) 399–406.
    PubMed Google Scholar
  4. Beckingham J.D., Archibald J.H., Field guide to ecosites of northern Alberta, University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, BC, 1996.
    Google Scholar
  5. Beckingham J.D., Corns I.G.W., Archibald J.H., Field guide to ecosites of west-central Alberta. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, BC, 1996.
    Google Scholar
  6. Biging G.S., Dobbertin M., A comparison of distance-dependent competition measures for height and basal area growth of individual conifer trees, For. Sci. 38 (1992) 695–720.
    Google Scholar
  7. Biging G.S., Dobbertin M., Evaluation of competition indices in individual tree growth models, For. Sci. 41 (1995) 360–377.
    Google Scholar
  8. Brunner A., A light model for spatially explicit forest stand models, For. Ecol. Manage. 107 (1998) 19–46.
    Article Google Scholar
  9. Burton P.J., Some limitations inherent to static indices of plant competition, Can. J. For. Res. 23 (1993) 2141–2151.
    Article Google Scholar
  10. Canham C.D., Finzi A.C., Pacala S.W., Burbank D.H., Causes and consequences of resource heterogeneity in forests: interspecific variation in light transmission by canopy trees, Can. J. For. Res. 24 (1994) 337–349.
    Article Google Scholar
  11. Canham C.D., Coates K.D., Bartemucci P., Quaglia S., Measurement and modeling of spatially explicit variation in light transmission through interior cedar-hemlock forests of British Columbia, Can. J. For. Res. 29 (1999) 1775–1783.
    Article Google Scholar
  12. Canham C.D., LePage P.T., Coates K.D., A neighborhood analysis of canopy tree competition: effects of shading versus crowding, Can. J. For. Res. 34 (2004) 778–787.
    Article Google Scholar
  13. Coates K.D., Canham C.D., Beaudet M., Sachs D.L., Messier C., Use of a spatially explicit individual-tree model (SORTIE/BC) to explore the implications of patchiness in structurally complex forests, For. Ecol. Manage. 186 (2003) 297–310.
    Article Google Scholar
  14. Comeau P.G., Braumandl T.F., Xie C.Y., Effects of overtopping vegetation on light availability and growth of Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) seedlings, Can. J. For. Res. 23 (1993) 2044–2048.
    Article Google Scholar
  15. Connell J.H., Apparent versus “real” competition in plants, in: Grace J.B., Tilman D. (Eds.), Perspectives on Plant Competition, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1990, pp. 9–26.
    Google Scholar
  16. Corona P., Ferrara A., Individual competition indices for conifer plantations, Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 27 (1989) 429–437.
    Article Google Scholar
  17. Cumming S.G., Schmiegelow F.K.A., Burton P.J., Gap dynamics in boreal aspen stands: is the forest older than we think? Ecol. Appl. 10 (2000) 744–759.
    Google Scholar
  18. Dang Q.L., Lieffers V.J., Assessment of patterns of response of tree ring growth of black spruce following peatland drainage, Can. J. For. Res. 19 (1989) 924–929.
    Article Google Scholar
  19. Daniels R.F., Simple competition indices and their correlation with annual loblolly pine tree growth, For. Sci. 22 (1976) 454–460.
    Google Scholar
  20. Daniels R.F., Burkhart H.E., Clason T.R., A comparison of competition measures for predicting growth of loblolly pine trees, Can. J. For. Res. 16 (1986) 1230–1237.
    Article Google Scholar
  21. Hegyi F., A simulation model for managing jack pine stands, in: Fries J. (Ed.), Growth models for tree and stand simulation, Royal Coll. For., Stockholm, 1974, pp. 74–90.
  22. Holmes M.J., Reed D.D., Competition indices for mixed species northern hardwoods, For. Sci. 37 (1991) 1338–1349.
    Google Scholar
  23. Huang S., Titus S.J., Lakusta T.W., Held, R.J., Ecologically-based individual tree height-diameter models for major Alberta tree species, Alberta Environ. Prot., Land For. Serv., For. Manage. Div., 1994.
  24. Jones J.R., Review and comparison of site evaluation methods, USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. RM-51, 1969.
  25. Kelty M., Cameron I.R., Plot designs for the analysis of species interactions in mixed stands, Commonw. For. Rev. 74 (1995) 322–332.
    Google Scholar
  26. Kucharik C.J., Norman J.M., Gower S.T., Characterization of radiation regimes in nonrandom forest canopies: theory, measurements, and a simplified modeling approach, Tree Physiol. 19 (1999) 695–706.
    PubMed Google Scholar
  27. Larocque G.R., Examining different concepts for the development of a distance-dependent competition model for red pine diameter growth using long-term stand data differing in initial stand density, For. Sci. 48 (2002) 24–34.
    Google Scholar
  28. Lazaruk L.W., Kernaghan G., Macdonald S.E., Khasa D., Effects of partial cutting on the ectomycorrhizae of Picea glauca forests in northwestern Alberta, Can. J. For. Res. 35 (2005) 1442–1454.
    Article Google Scholar
  29. Lieffers V.J., Beck J.A., A seminatural approach to mixedwood management in the prairie provinces, For. Chron. 70 (1994) 260–264.
    Google Scholar
  30. Lieffers V.J., Macmillan R.B., MacPherson D., Branter K., Stewart J.D., Semi-natural and intensive silvicultural systems for the boreal mixedwood forest, For. Chron. 72 (1996) 286–292.
    Google Scholar
  31. Lieffers V.J., Stadt K.J., Growth of understory Picea glauca, Calamagrostis canadensis, and Epilobium angustifolium in relation to overstory light transmission, Can. J. For. Res. 24 (1994) 1193–1198.
    Article Google Scholar
  32. Lin J.Y., Stand growth simulation models for Douglas-fir and western hemlock in the northwestern United States, in: Fries J. (Ed.), Growth Models for Tree and Stand Simulation, Royal Coll. For., Stockholm, 1974, pp. 102–118.
  33. Lorimer C.G., Tests of age-independent competition indices for individual trees in natural hardwood stands, For. Ecol. Manage. 6 (1983) 343–360.
    Article Google Scholar
  34. MacPherson D.M., Lieffers V.J., Blenis P.V., Productivity of aspen stands with and without a spruce understory in Alberta’s boreal mixedwood forests, For. Chron. 77 (2001) 351–356.
    Google Scholar
  35. Man R.Z., Lieffers V.J., Effects of shelterwood and site preparation on microclimate and establishment of white spruce seedlings in a boreal mixedwood forest, For Chron. 75 (1999) 837–844.
    Google Scholar
  36. Martin G.L., Ek A.R., A comparison of competition measures and growth models for predicting plantation red pine diameter and height growth, For. Sci. 30 (1984) 731–743.
    Google Scholar
  37. Navratil S., MacIsaac D.A., Juvenile growth of white spruce and deciduous competition on mixedwood sites in Alberta, Can. For. Serv., PAF Rep. 141, 1996.
  38. Peters V.S., MacDonald S.E., Dale M.R.T., The interaction between masting and fire is key to white spruce regeneration, Ecology 86 (2005) 1744–1750.
    Article Google Scholar
  39. Rawlings J.O., Pantula S.G., Dickey D.A., Applied regression analysis: a research tool, 2nd ed., Springer-Verlag, New York, 1998.
    Book Google Scholar
  40. Robinson A.P., Ek A.R., The consequences of hierarchy for modeling in forest ecosystems, Can. J. For. Res. 30 (2000) 1837–1846.
    Article Google Scholar
  41. Rowe J.S., Forest Regions of Canada, Can. Forestry Serv. Pub. No. 1300, Information Canada, Ottawa, 1972.
  42. Simard S.W., Perry D.A., Jones M.D., Myrold D.D., Durall D.M., and Molina R., Net transfer of carbon between trees species with shared ectomycorrhizal fungi, Nature 388 (1997) 579–582.
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  43. Smolander S., Stenberg P., A method for estimating light interception by a conifer shoot, Tree Physiol. 21 (2001) 797–803.
    PubMed CAS Google Scholar
  44. Soares P., Tomé M., Distance-dependent competition measures for eucalyptus plantations in Portugal, Ann. For. Sci. 56 (1999) 307–319.
    Article Google Scholar
  45. Stadt K.J., Modeling light for regeneration planning in mixed-species boreal forests, Ph.D. thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, 2002.
    Google Scholar
  46. Stadt K.J., Lieffers V.J., MIXLIGHT: A flexible light transmission model for mixed-species forest stands, Agric. For. Meteorol. 102 (2000) 235–252.
    Article Google Scholar
  47. Stadt K.J., Lieffers V.J., Hall R.J., Messier C., Spatially explicit modeling of PAR transmission and growth of Picea glauca and Abies balsamea in the boreal forests of Alberta and Quebec, Can. J. For. Res. 35 (2005) 1–12.
    Article Google Scholar
  48. Ter-Mikaelian M.T., Wagner R.G., Bell F.W., Shropshire C., Comparison of photosynthetically active radiation and cover estimation for measuring the effects of interspecific competition on jack pine seedlings, Can. J. For. Res. 29 (1999) 883–889.
    Article Google Scholar
  49. Tomé M., Burkhart H.E., Distance-dependent competition measures for predicting growth of individual trees, For. Sci. 35 (1989) 816–831.
    Google Scholar
  50. Vettenranta J., Distance-dependent models for predicting the development of mixed coniferous forests in Finland, Silva Fenn. 33 (1999): 51–72.
    Google Scholar
  51. Wimberly M., Bare B.B., Distance-dependent and distance-independent models of Douglas-fir and western hemlock basal area growth following silvicultural treatment, For. Ecol. Manage. 89 (1996) 1–11.
    Article Google Scholar

Download references