Spatial structure of managed beech-dominated forest: applicability of nearest neighbors indices
Treść / Zawartość
High structural diversity is often attributed to old-growth forests, usually established naturally and unmanaged. Forest diversity should be considered not only in terms of species diversity and richness but also the variation in trees dimension and their spatial distribution have to be taken into consideration. The main goal of this paper was the answer if nearest neighbor indices are suitable for spatial forest structure description. To answer this question results obtained from 3 managed beech-dominated forests from natural regeneration are presented and discussed. The following indices were calculated: Clark-Evans aggregation index (R), DBH and height differentiation indices (TD and TH, respectively) and mingling index (DM) analyzing horizontal and vertical spatial structure of the forest. Results indicated that managed beech forests demonstrated rather homogenous spatial structure in both aspects. Living trees as well as future crop trees were mostly regularly distributed. Spatial variation in DBH and height between living nearest neighbors was rather low. The lowest variation in sizes was demonstrated by future crop trees. Mature beech forests revealed single species structure and other tree species – if present – were spatially segregated from beech. It can be supposed that high homogeneity structure of these forests results from biological characteristics of this species as well as thinning treatments conducted by foresters.
- Aguirre O., Hui G.Y., von Gadow K., Jimenez J. 2003. An analysis of spatial forest structure using neighbourhood-based variables. Forest Ecology and Management 183: 137–145.
- Boyden S., Binkley D., Shepperd W. 2005. Spatial and temporal patterns in structure, regeneration, and mortality of an old-growth ponderosa pine forest in the Colorado Front Range. Forest Ecology and Management 219: 43–55.
- Bachofen H., Zingg A. 2001. Effectiveness of structure improvement thinning on standstructure in subalpine Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) stands. Forest Ecology and Mangement 145: 137–149.
- Barbeito I., Cańellas I., Montes F. 2009. Evaluating the behaviour of vertical structure indices in Scots pine forests. Annals of Forest Science 66. Article Number 710.
- Bilek L., Remes J., Zahradnik D. 2011. Managed vs. unmanaged. Structure of beech forest stands (Fagus sylvatica L.) afetr 50 years of development, Central Bohemia. Forest Systems 20: 122–138.
- Bilski M., Brzeziecki B. 2005. Impact of differentation thinning on standstructural diversity. Sylwan 149: 21–33.
- Boncina A., Kadunc A., Robic D. 2007. Effects of selective thinning on growth andd evelopment of beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) forest stands in south-eastern Slovenia. Annals of Forest Science 64: 47–57.
- Brzeziecki B. 2002. Stand structural diversity indices. Sylwan 146: 69-79.
- Brzeziecki B. 2005. Impact of thinning on structural diversity of Scots pine stands. Sylwan 149: 11–19.
- Comas C., Mateu J. 2007. Modelling forest dynamics: a perspective from point process methods. Biometrical Journal 49: 176–196.
- Comita L.S., Condit R., Hubbell P. 2007: Developmental changes in habitat associations of tropical trees. Journal of Ecology 95: 482–492.
- Crecente-Campo F., Pommerening A., Rodríguez-Soalleiro R. 2009: Impacts of thinning on structure, growth andrisk of crown fire in a Pinus sylvestris L. plantation in northern Spain. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 1945–1954.
- Clark P.J., Evans F.C. 1954. Distance to the nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial relationships in populations. Ecology 35: 444–453.
- Donnelly K. P. 1978. Simulation to determine the variance anded ge effect of total nearest-neighbour distances. W: Hodder, I. [ed.] Simulation methods in archeology. 91–95. Cambridge Press, London.
- Dröâler L., Lüpke B. v. 2004. Quantitative description of forest structure in a virgin beech forest anda comparison with managedbeech forests. In: Sagheb-Talebi (ed.) 2004. Improvement and silviculture of beech. Proceedings: IUFRO Research Group 1.10.00; 10–20.05.2004, Teheran, Iran, pp. 37–46.
- Eichhorn M.P. 2010. Patterns reveals process: spatial organisation of Kamtchatan stone birch forest. Plant Ecology and Diversity 3: 281–288.
- Fortin M.J., Dale M.R.T. 2005. Spatial analysis: a guide for ecologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
- Gadow, von K., Hui G. Y. 2007. Characterizing forest spatial structure and diversity. Forestry Studies 46: 13–22.
- Hanewinkel M. 2004. Spatial patterns in mixedconiferous even-aged, uneven-aged and conversion stands. European Journal of Forest Research 123: 139–155.
- Jagodziński A.M., Oleksyn J. 2009a. Ecological consequences of silviculture at variable standd ensities I. Standgrowth andd evelopment. Sylwan 153: 75–85.
- Jagodziński A.M., Oleksyn J. 2009b. Ecological consequences of silviculture at variable standd ensities II. Biomass production and allocation, nutrient retention. Sylwan 153: 147–157.
- Jagodziński A.M., Oleksyn J. 2009c. Ecological consequences of silviculture at variable standd ensities III. Standstability, phytoclimate andbiod iversity. Sylwan 153: 219–230.
- Juodvalkis A., Kairiukstis L., Vasiliauskas R. 2005. Effects of thinning on growth of six tree species in north-temperate forests of Lithuania. European Journal of Forest Research 124: 187–192.
- Jactel H., Nicoll B.C., Branco M., Gonzalez-Olabarria J.R., Grodzki W., Langström B., Moreira S., Orazio Ch., Piou D., Santos H., Schelhaas M.J., Tojic K., Vodde F. 2009. The influence of forest stand management on biotic andabiotic risks of damage. Annals of Forest Science 66: Article Number 701.
- Kint V., van Meirvenne M., Nachtergale L., Geudens G., Lust N. 2003. Spatial methods for quantifying forest standstructure developmnent: a compariuson between nearest-neighbor indices and variogram analysis. Forest Science 49: 36–49.
- Kint V. 2004. SIAFOR 1.0 – user guide. Laboratory of Forestry, Ghent University.
- Kenkel N.C., Hendrie M.L., Bella I.E. 1997. A long-term study of Pinus banksiana population dynamics. Journal of Vegetation Science 8: 241–254.
- Lähde E., Laiho O., Norokorpi Y., Saksa T. 1999. Stand structure as the basis of diversity index. Forest Ecology and Management 115: 213–220.
- Leps J. 1990. Can underlying mechanisma be deduced from observedpatterns ? In: Spatial processes in plant communities. The Hague, the Netherlands: SPB Academic Publishing.
- LexerødN.L., EidT. 2006. An evaluation of different diameter diversity indices based on criteria relatedto forest management planning. Forest Ecology and Management 222: 17–28.
- Montes F., Cańellas I., Del Rio M., Calama R., Montero G. 2004. The effects if thinning on the structural diversity of coppice forests. Annals of Forest Science 61: 771–779.
- Pommerening A. 2002. Approaches to quantifying forest structures. Forestry 75: 305–324.
- Pommerening A. 2006. Evaluating structural indices by reversing forest structural analysis. Forest Ecology and Management 224: 266–277.
- Pretzsch H. 1996. The effect of various thinning regimes on spatial standstructure. IUFRO-Proceedings, 183–191. Conference of effect of envienvironmental factors on tree andstandgrowth, IUFRO S4.01 Conference.
- Pretzsch H. 1999. Structural diversity as a result of silvicultural operations. In: Management of mixed-species forest: silviculture and economics. IBN-DLO Wageningen, 157–174.
- Pretzsch H. 2009. Forest dynamics, growth and yield. Springer-Verlag Berlin.
- Rozas V., Zas R., Solla A. 2009. Spatial structure of deciduous forest stands with contrasting human influence in northwest Spain. European Journal of Forest Research 128: 273–285.
- Ruprecht H., Dhar A., Aigner B., Oitzinger G., Klumpp R., Vacik H. 2010. Structural diversity of English yew (Taxus baccata L.) populations. European Journal of Forest Research 129: 189–198.
- Saunders M.R., Wagner R.G. 2008. Long-term spatial and structural dynamics in Acadian mixed stands managedund er various silvicultural systems. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 38: 498–517.
- Stoll P., Bergius E. 2005. Pattern andprocess: competitiuon casues regular spacing of individuals within plant populations. Jornal of Ecology 93: 395–403.
- Stoyan D., Penttinen A. 2000. Recent applications of point process methods in forestry statistics. Statistical Science 15: 61–78.
- Szmyt J. 2010. Spatial pattern of trees of different diameter classes in managedpine stands (Pinus sylvestris L.) of different age. Acta Scientarum Polonorum Silvarum Calendarum Ratio et Industria Lignarria 9: 37–49.
- Szmyt J., Korzeniewicz R. 2007. Horizontal distribution of trees in manager, 80-years oldNorway spruce stands in Slawno Forest District. Sylwan 9: 3–11.
- Szmyt J., Korzeniewicz R. 2010. Spatial diversity of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirbel) Franco) stands plant on fresh mixed coniferous and fresh mixedbroad leaved sites. Sylwan 154: 791–800.
- Wolf A. 2005. Fifty year recordof change in tree spatial patterns within a mixed deciduous forest. Forest Ecology and Management 215: 212–223.
- Vorèák J., Merganiè J., Saniga M. 2006. Structural diversity change andregeneration processes of the Norway spruce natural forest in Babia hora NNR in relation to altitude. Journal of Forest Science 52 (9): 399–409.
- Zingg A., Ramp B. 2004. Thinning andstem quality in pure andmixedbeech (Fagus sylvatica L.) stands. Poceedings from the 7-th International Beech Symposium. IUFRO Research Group 1.10.00. 10–20 May 2004, 196–180. Teheran, Iran.