Growth, survival, density, biomass partitioning and morphological adaptations of natural regeneration in Fagus sylvatica. A review

• Autorzy: Jarcuska B
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Beech is an important woody species in terms of ecology, and it also has a considerable commercial value. This fact is also reflected in a high number of scientific papers handling the issue of natural regeneration of this woody plant. The aim of this review is to analyse influence of resources availability and impact of other factors (competition) on height and diameter growth, survival, density, biomass partitioning and morphological adjustment in naturally regenerated beech seedlings and saplings. It pays a particular attention to light – the factor that influences, directly or indirectly, other environmental factors, and consequently, as the key influence on the performance of beech natural regeneration. This contribution includes information about e.g. shade tolerance and mortality-light relationships, ability to increase growth under improved light conditions, dependence of trees growth on their individual size and age etc. In spite of a large number of papers handling the issue of research on beech natural regeneration, growth responses in individual plants are difficult to predict, because the factors involved are numerous. Thus, the process of natural regeneration is in fact interactive, and even retroactive: any change in one of the involved factors induces adjustments of the others.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

beech; Fagus sylvatica; commercial value; natural regeneration; plant growth; plant survival; density; biomass; morphological adaptation; aboveground resource; belowground resource; light; water; competition

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Dendrobiology
• Rocznik: 2009
• Tom: 61
• Opis fizyczny: p.3-11,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Jarcuska B

• Slovak Academy of Sciences, Sturova 2, 960 53 Zvolen, Slovakia

Bibliografia

• Agestam E., Eko P.M., Nilsson U., Welander N.T. 2003. The effects of shelterwoodd ensity andsite preparation on natural regeneration of Fagus sylvatica in southern Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management 176: 61–73.
• Ammer C. 1996. Impact of ungulates on structure and dynamics of natural regeneration of mixed mountain forests in the Bavarian Alps. Forest Ecology and Management 88: 43–53.
• Ammer C. 2003. Growth andbiomass partitioning of Fagus sylvatica L. and Quercus robur L. seedlings in response to shading and small changes in the R/FR-ratio of radiation. Annals of Forest Science 60: 163–171.
• Ammer C., Mosandl, R., El Kateb H. 2002. Direct seeding of beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.) stands – effects of canopy density andfine root biomass on seed germination. Forest Ecology andManagement 159: 59–72
• Ammer C., Stimm B., Mosandl R. 2008. Ontogenetic variation in the relative influence of light and belowgroundresources on European beech seedling growth. Tree Physiology 28: 721–728.
• Aranda I., Bergasa L.F., Gil L., Pardos J.A. 2001. Effects of relative irradiance on the leaf structure of Fagus sylvatica L. seedlings planted in the understory of a Pinus sylvestris L. standafter thinning. Annals of Forest Science 58: 673–680.
• Aussenac G. 2000. Interactions between forest stands andmicroclimate: Ecophysiological aspects and consequences for silviculture. Annals of Forest Science 57: 287–301.
• Balandier P., Sinoquet H., Frak E., Giuliani R., Vandame M., Descamps S., Coll L., Adam B., Prevosto B., Curt T. 2007. Six-year time course of light-use efficiency, carbon gain andgrowth of beech saplings (Fagus sylvatica) plantedund er a Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) shelterwood. Tree Physiology 27: 1073–1082.
• Barna M. 2008. The effects of cutting regimes on natural regeneration in submountain beech forests: species diversity and abundance. Journal of Forest Science 54: 533–544.
• Barna M., Dobrovi J. 2008. Diverzita a abundancia semenáèikov prirodzenej obnovy v bukovom ekosystéme. In: Boltižiar M. (ed.) Ekologické štúdie VII, Nitra, SEKOS, pp. 20–27.
• Barna M., Schieber B., Cicák A. 2009. Effect of post-cutting changes in site conditions on the morphology andphenology of naturally regeneratedbeech seedlings (Fagus sylvatica L.). Polish Journal of Ecology 57: in press.
• Beaudet M., Messier C. 1998. Growth and morphological responses of yellow birch, sugar maple, and beech seedlings growing under a natural light gradient. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 28: 1007–1015.
• Coll L., Balandier P., Picon-Cochard C., Prévosto B., Curt T. 2003. Competition for water between beech seedlings and surrounding vegetation in different light and vegetation composition conditions. Annals of Forest Science 60: 593–600.
• Collet C., Chenost C. 2006. Using competition and light estimates to predict diameter and height growth of naturally regeneratedbeech seedlings growing under changing canopy conditions. Forestry 79: 489–502.
• Collet C., Le Moguedec G. 2007. Individual seedling mortality as a function of size, growth andcom - petition in naturally regeneratedbeech seedlings. Forestry 80: 359–370.
• Collet C., Lanter O., Pardos M. 2001. Effects of canopy opening on height andd iameter growth in naturally regeneratedbeech seedlings. Annals of Forest Science 58: 127–134.
• Collet C., Lanter O., Pardos M. 2002. Effects of canopy opening on the morphology andanatomy of naturally regeneratedbeech seedlings. Trees 16: 291–298.
• Collet C., Piboule A., Leroy O., Frochot H. 2008. Advance Fagus sylvatica and Acer pseudoplatanus seedlings dominate tree regeneration in a mixed broadleaved former coppice-with-standards forest. Forestry 81: 135–150.
• Curt T., Prévosto B. 2003a. Root biomass androoting profile of naturally regeneratedbeech in mid-elevation Scots pine woodlands. Plant Ecology 167: 269–282.
• Curt T., Prévosto B. 2003b. Rooting strategy of naturally regeneratedbeech in Silver birch and Scots pine woodlands. Plant and Soil 255: 265–279.
• Curt T., Coll L., Prévosto B., Balandier P., Kunstler G. 2005. Plasticity in growth, biomass allocation androot morphology in beech seedlings as induced by irradiance and herbaceous competition. Annals of Forest Science 62: 51–60.
• Czajkowski T., Bolte A. 2006. Different reaction of beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) provenances from Germany and Polandto drought. Allgemeine Forstund Jagdzeitung 177: 30–40.
• Delagrange S., Messier C., Lechowicz M.J., Dizengremel P. 2004. Physiological, morphological and allocational plasticity in understory deciduous trees: importance of plant size andlight availability. Tree Physiology 24: 775–784.
• Dreyer E., Collet C., MontpiedP., Sinoquet H. 2005. Characterisation of beech seedling tolerance to shade – comparison with associated species. Revue Forestiere Francaise 57: 175–188.
• Emborg J. 1998. Understorey light conditions and regeneration with respect to the structural dynamics of a near-natural temperate deciduous forest in Denmark. Forest Ecology andManagement 106: 83–95.
• Emborg J. 2007. Suppression andrelease during canopy recruitment in Fagus sylvatica and Fraxinus excelsior, a dendro-ecological study of natural growth patterns andcompetition. Ecological Bulletins 52: 53–67.
• Eschrich W.R., Burchardt R., Essiamah S. 1989. The induction of sun and shade leaves of the European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.): anatomical studies. Trees 3: 1–10.
• Falster D.S., Westoby M. 2003. Plant height andevo - lutionary games. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18: 337–343.
• Gömöry D., Paule L., Shvadchak I.M., Popescu F., Sułkowska M., Hynek V., Longauer R. 2003. Spatial patterns of the genetic differentiation in European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) at allozyme loci in the Carpathians andthe adjacent regions. Silvae Genetica 52: 78–83.
• Jaworski A., Podlaski R. 2007. Structure and dynamics of selectedstand s of primeval character in the Pieniny National Park. Dendrobiology 58: 25–41.
• Kazda M., Salzer J., Schmid I., von Wrangell P. 2004. Importance of mineral nutrition for photosynthesis andgrowth of Quercus petraea, Fagus sylvatica and Acer pseudoplatanus plantedund er Norway spruce canopy. Plant and Soil 264: 25–34.
• Kobe R.K. 1999. Light gradient partitioning among tropical tree species through differential seedling mortality and growth. Ecology 80: 187–201.
• Korpe Š. 1978. Za iato né fázy prirodzenej obnovy bukových porastov. In: Vedecké práce VÚLH Zvolen XXIII – Pestovanie a produkcia buka. Bratislava, Príroda, pp. 109–141.
• Korpe Š., Pe áz J., Saniga M., Tesa V. 1991. Pestovanie lesa. Príroda, Bratislava, 465 p.
• Kozlowski T.T. 2002. Physiological ecology of natural regeneration of harvestedandd isturbedforest stands: implications for forest management. Forest Ecology and Management 158: 195–221.
• Kunstler G., Curt T., Lepart J. 2004. Spatial pattern of beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) andoak (Quercus pubescens Mill.) seedlings in natural pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) woodlands. European Journal of Forest Research 123: 331–337.
• Kunstler G., Curt T., BouchaudM., Lepart J. 2005. Growth, mortality andmorphological response of European beech andd owny oak along a light gradient in sub-Mediterranean forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35: 1657–1668.
• Lendzion J., Leuschner C. 2008. Growth of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) saplings is limitedby elevatedatmospheric vapour pressure deficits. Forest Ecology and Management 256: 648–655.
• Löf M. 2000. Establishment andgrowth in seedlings of Fagus sylvatica and Quercus robur: influence of interference from herbaceous vegetation. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30: 855–864.
• Löf M., Welander N.T. 2000. Carry-over effects on growth andtranspiration in Fagus sylvatica seedlings after drought at various stages of development. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30: 468–475.
• Löf M., Welander N.T. 2004. Influence of herbaceous competitors on early growth in direct seeded Fagus sylvatica L. and Quercus robur L. Annals of Forest Science 61: 781–788.
• Löf M., Bolte A., Welander N.T. 2005. Interacting effects of irradiance and water stress on dry weight andbiomass partitioning in Fagus sylvatica seedlings. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 20: 322–328.
• Löf M., Karlsson M., Sonesson K., Welander N.T., Collet C. 2007. Growth andmortality in underplantedtree seedlings in response to variations in canopy closure of Norway spruce stands. Forestry 80: 371–384.
• Machado J.L., Walters M.B., Reich P.B. 2003. Below- groundresources limit seedling growth in forest understories but do not alter biomass distribution. Annals of Forest Science 60: 319–330.
• Madsen P. 1994. Growth and survival of Fagus sylvatica seedlings in relation to light intensity and soil water content. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 9: 316–322.
• Madsen P. 1995a. Effects of soil water content, fertilization, light, weedcompetition andseed bedtype on natural regeneration of beech (Fagus sylvatica). Forest Ecology and Management 72: 25l–264.
• Madsen P. 1995b. Effects of seedbed type on wintering of beech nuts (Fagus sylvatica) andd eer impact on sprouting seedlings in natural regeneration. Forest Ecology and Management 73: 37–43.
• Madsen P., Larsen J.B. 1997. Natural regeneration of beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) with respect to canopy density, soil moisture and soil carbon content. Forest Ecology and Management 97: 95–105.
• Madsen P., Hahn K. 2008. Natural regeneration in a beech-dominated forest managed by close-to-nature principles – a gap cutting experiment. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 38: 1716–1729.
• Martin T.A., Dougherty P.M., Topa M.A., McKeand S.E. 2005. Strategies andcase studies for incorporating ecophysiology into southern pine tree improvement programs. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 29: 70–79.
• Mauer O., Palátová E. 2000. Root system response to stress in artificially establishedNorway spruce stands. Ekológia (Bratislava) 19: 151–161.
• Modrý M., Hubený D., Rejšek K. 2004. Differential response of naturally regeneratedEuropean shade tolerant tree species to soil type and light availability. Forest Ecology andManagement 188: 185–195.
• Moles A.T., Westoby M. 2004. Seedling survival and seedsize: a synthesis of the literature. Journal of Ecology 92: 372–383.
• MountfordE.P., Savill P.S., Bebber D.P. 2006. Patterns of regeneration andgroundvegetation associatedwith canopy gaps in a managedbeechwood in southern England. Forestry 79: 389–408.
• Nielsen C.N., Jorgensen F.V. 2003. Phenology andd iameter increment in seedlings of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) as affectedby different soil water contents: variation between andwithin provenances. Forest Ecology andManagement 174: 233–249.
• Olesen C.R., Madsen P. 2008. The impact of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), seedbed, light and seed fall on natural beech (Fagus sylvatica) regeneration. Forest Ecology andManagement 255: 3962–3972.
• Peltier A., Touzet M.C., ArmengaudC., Ponge J.F. 1997. Establishment of Fagus sylvatica and Fraxinus excelsior in an old-growth beech forest. Journal of Vegetation Science 8: 13–20.
• Petritan A.M., von Lüpke B., Petritan I.C. 2007. Effect of shade on growth and mortality of maple (Acer pseudoplatanus), ash (Fraxinus excelsior) andbeech (Fagus sylvatica) saplings. Forestry 80: 397–412.
• Planchais I., Sinoquet H. 1998. Foliage determinants of light interception in sunny andshad edbranches of Fagus sylvatica (L.). Agricultural andForest Meteorology 89: 241–253.
• Prévosto B., Curt T. 2004. Dimensional relationships of naturally establishedEuropean beech trees beneath Scots pine andSilver birch canopy. Forest Ecology and Management 194: 335–348.
• Prévosto B., Balandier P. 2007. Influence of nurse birch and Scots pine seedlings on early aerial development of European beech seedlings in an open-fieldplantation of Central France. Forestry 80: 253–264.
• Provendier D., Balandier P. 2008. Compared effects of competition by grasses (Graminoids) andbroom (Cytisus scoparius) on growth andfunctional traits of beech saplings (Fagus sylvatica). Annals of Forest Science 65: ARTN 510.
• Sack L., Maranon T., Grubb P.J. 2002. Global allocation rules for patterns of biomass partitioning. Science 296: 1923.
• Saniga M. 1983. Prirodzená obnova buka v rámci kombinovanej obnovy v skupine lesných typov Fagetum pauper na ŠLP Zvolen. Acta Facultatis Forestalis Zvolen 25: 89–97.
• Saniga M. 1987. Prirodzená obnova lesných porastov v stredoslovenských štátnych lesoch Banská Bystrica a prí iny jej malého podielu. Lesnícky asopis 33: 229–234.
• Saniga M. 2007. Pestovanie lesa. ES TU Zvolen, 310 p. Szymura T.H., Dunajski A., Aman I., Makowski M., Szymura M. 2007. The spatial pattern and microsites requirements of Abies alba natural regeneration in the Karkonosze Mountains. Dendrobiology 58: 51–57.
• Szwagrzyk J., Szewczyk J., Bodziarczyk J. 2001. Dynamics of seedling bank in beech forest: results of a 10-year study on germination, growth and survival. Forest Ecology andManagement 141: 237–250.
• Van Hees A.F.M. 1997. Growth andmorphology of pedunculate oak (Quercus robur L.) andbeech (Fagus sylvatica L.) seedlings in relation to shading and drought. Annals of Forest Science 54: 9–18.
• Van Hees A.F.M., Clerkx A.P.P.M. 2003. Shading and root-shoot relations in saplings of silver birch, pedunculate oak and beech. Forest Ecology and Management 176: 439–448.
• Wagner S. 1999. Ökologische Untersuchungen zur Initialphase der Naturverjüngung in Eschen-Buchen- Mischbeständen. Schriftenreihe der Forstlichen Fakultät der Univ. Göttingen und der Niedersächsischen Forstlichen Versuchsanstalt Göttingen, Sauerländer’s Verlag, 262 p.
• Walters M.B., Reich P.B. 2000. Seedsize, nitrogen supply, andgrowth rate affect tree seedling survival in deep shade. Ecology 81: 1887–1901.
• Watt A.S. 1923. On the ecology of British beechwoods with special reference to their regeneration. Journal of Ecology 11: l–48.
• Welander N.T., Ottosson, B. 1998. The influence of shading on growth and morphology in seedlings of Quercus robur L. and Fagus sylvatica L. Forest Ecology and Management 107: 117–126.