Relationship between forest canopy and natural regeneration in the subalpine spruce-larch forest (north-east Italy)

• Autorzy: Marchi A. , Paletto A.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The authors describe the difference between canopy cover (proportion of the forest floor covered by the vertical projection of the tree crowns) and canopy closure (proportion of sky hemisphere obscured by vegetation when viewed from a single point) and the respective ground-based estimation techniques focused on two types of densiometer (GRS tube and spherical). The data collected in the field were used to analyse the relationship between forest canopy and natural regeneration in two subtypes of subalpine larch-spruce forests. The results indicate that in the first subtype characterized by a high fertility and a high canopy cover (around 62%), the level of natural regeneration is low (115 stems per hectare) and it is nearly exclusively composed by spruce [Picea abies (L.) Karst.]. For the second subtype characterized by a low fertility and a medium canopy cover (around 49%) the natural regeneration is rather dense (650 stems per hectare). At last the authors evidence a insignificant difference between the data of forest canopy collected by different ground-based estimation techniques (+0.7% using spherical densiometer compared to using GRS tube densiometer).

Słowa kluczowe

EN

relationship; forest canopy; natural regeneration; subalpine forest; spruce-larch forest; canopy closure; canopy cover; Italy

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Folia Forestalia Polonica. Series A . Forestry
• Rocznik: 2010
• Tom: 52
• Numer: 1
• Opis fizyczny: p.3-12,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Marchi A.

• Agricultural Research Council - Forest Monitoring and Planning Research Unit (CRA-MPF), p.za Nicolini 6, 38050 Villazzano, Trento, Italy

autor

Paletto A.

• Agricultural Research Council - Forest Monitoring and Planning Research Unit (CRA-MPF), p.za Nicolini 6, 38050 Villazzano, Trento, Italy

Bibliografia

• Avery T. E., Burkart H. E. 1994. Forest measurements. McGraw-Hill, New York, 331 pp.
• Bebi P., Kienast F., Schönenberger W. 2001. Assessing structures in mountain forests as a basis for investigatine the forests’ dynamics and protective function. For. Ecol. Manag.,145, 3– 14.
• Berger F., Rey F. 2004. Mountain protection forests against natural hazards and risks: New French developments by integratine forests in risk zoning. Natural Hazards, 33, 395– 404.
• Braun-Blanquet J. 1928. Pflanzensoziologie. Springer, Verlag, Wien, Austria, 330 pp.
• Canham C. D., Finzi A. C., Pacala S. W., Burbank D. H. 1994. Causes and consequences of resource heterogeneity in forests – interspecific variation in light transmission by canopy trees. Canad. J. For. Res., 24, 337– 349.
• Chincarini M., Paletto A., Tosi V. 2009. Valutazione della copertura arborea in formazioni forestali lineari: confronto tra densiometro sferico e stima visuale. Estimo e Territorio, 1, 30– 35.
• Colombo R., Bellingeri D., Fasolini D., Marino C. M. 2003. Retrieval of leaf area index in different vegetation types using high resolution satellite data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 86, 120– 131.
• Cook J. G., Stutzman T. W., Bowers C. W., Brenner K. A., Irwin L. L. 1995. Spherical Densiometers Produce Biased Estimates of Forest Canopy Cover. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 4, 711– 717.
• Dai X. 1996. Influence of light conditions in canopy gaps on forest regeneration: a new gap light index and its application in a boreal forest in east-central Sweden. For. Ecol. Manag., 1– 3, 187– 197.
• Daubenmire R. 1959. A canopy-coverage method of vegetation analysis. Northwest Sci., 33, 43– 64.
• DeClerck F. A. J., Barbour M. G., Sawyer J. O. 2005. Resource use efficiency as a function of species richness and stand composition in upper montane conifer forests of the Sierra Nevada. J. Veget. Science, 16, 443– 452.
• Dobrowolska D. 2006. Warunki mikroklimatyczne w lukach w drzewostanach mieszanych w rezerwacie Jata. Leś. Prace Bad., 3, 45– 56.
• Duncan S. 2002. Canopy gaps and dead tree dynamics: poking holes in the forest. Science Findings. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. April (43), 1– 5.
• EEA. 2006. European forest types. EEA Technical Report 9, Luxembourg, 111 pp.
• Englund S. R., O’Brien J. J., Clark D. B. 2000. Evaluation of digital and film hemispherical photography and spherical densiometry for measuring forest light environments. Can. J. For. Res., 30, 1999– 2005.
• Falkowski M. J., Smith A. M. S., Gessler P. E., Hudak A. T., Vierling L. A., Evans J. S. 2008. The influence of conifer forest canopy cover on the accurancy of two individual tree measurement algorithms using lidar data. Can. J. Remote Sensing, 2, 338– 350.
• Fiala A. C. S., Garman S. L., Gray A. N. 2006. Comparison of five canopy cover estimation techniques in the western Oregon Cascades. For. Ecol. Manag., 1– 3, 188– 197.
• Ganey J. L., Block W. M. 1994. A comparison of two techniques for measuring canopy closure. West. J. App. For., 1, 21– 23.
• Garrison G. A. 1949. Uses and modifications for the “moosehorn” crown closure estimator. J. For., 47, 733– 735.