, Volume 189, Issue 2, pp 515–528 | Cite as

Size–growth asymmetry is not consistently related to productivity across an eastern US temperate forest network

  • Alex DyeEmail author
  • M. Ross Alexander
  • Daniel Bishop
  • Daniel Druckenbrod
  • Neil Pederson
  • Amy Hessl
Ecosystem ecology – original research


Modeling and forecasting forests as carbon sinks require that we understand the primary factors affecting productivity. One factor thought to be positively related to stand productivity is the degree of asymmetry, or the slope of the relationship between tree size and biomass growth. Steeper slopes indicate disproportionate productivity of big trees relative to small trees. Theoretically, big trees outcompete smaller trees during favorable growth conditions because they maintain better access to light. For this reason, high productivity forests are expected to have asymmetric growth. However, empirical studies do not consistently support this expectation, and those that do are limited in spatial or temporal scope. Here, we analyze size–growth relationships from 1970 to 2011 across a diverse network of forest sites in the eastern United States (n = 16) to test whether asymmetry is consistently related to productivity. To investigate this relationship, we analyze asymmetry-productivity relationships between our 16 forests at non-overlapping annual, 2-, 5-, 10-, and 20-year sampling intervals and find that asymmetry is negatively related to productivity, but the strength depends on the specific interval considered. Within-site temporal variability in asymmetry and productivity are generally positively correlated over time, except at the 5-year remeasurement interval. Rather than confirming or failing to support a positive relationship between asymmetry and productivity, our findings suggest caution interpreting these metrics since the relationship varies across forest types and temporal scales.


Temperate forests Dendroecology Basal area growth Productivity Asymmetry 



Funding for this work was generously contributed by: National Science Foundation MacroSystems Biology Grant #1241930; the Department of Energy Global Climate Modeling program SC0016011; and the Huron Mountain Wildlife Foundation.

Author contribution statement

AD conceived the idea, performed analyses, and wrote the manuscript; AD, MRA, DB, and NP contributed new datasets; DD, NP, and AH helped frame the analysis and contributed intellectual expertise; All Authors provided editorial advice and data interpretation.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Alexander MR (2017). Determining the role of stand structure in shaping climate-growth relationships in eastern temperate forests of the US. PhD dissertation, The University of ArizonaGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander MR, Rollinson CR, Babst F, Trouet V, Moore DJP (2018) Relative influences of multiple sources of uncertainty on cumulative and incremental tree-ring-derived aboveground biomass estimates. Trees 32:265–276. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Babst F, Bouriaud O, Alexander MR, Trouet V, Frank D (2014) Towards consistent measurements of carbon accumulation: a multi-site assessment of biomass and basal area increment across Europe. Dendrochronologia 32:153–161. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakdash JZ, Marusich LR (2017) Repeated measures correlation. Front Psychol 8:456. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bassow SL, Bazzazz FA (1997) Intra- and inter-specific variation in canopy photosynthesis in a mixed deciduous forest. Oecologia 109:507–515. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Binkley D, Kashian DM, Boyden S, Kaye MW, Bradford JB, Arthur MA, Fornwalt PJ, Ryan MG (2006) Patterns of growth dominance in forests of the Rocky Mountains, USA. For Ecol Manage 236:193–201. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biondi F (1996) Decadal-scale dynamics at the Gus Pearson natural area: evidence for inverse (a)symmetric competition? Can J For Res 26:1397–1406. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bourdier T, Cordonnier T, Kunstler G, Piedallu C, Lagarrigues G, Courbaud B (2016) Tree size inequality reduces forest productivity: an analysis combining inventory data for ten European species and a light competition model. PLos One. Google Scholar
  9. Bowman DMJS, Brienen RJW, Gloor E, Phillips OL, Prior LD (2013) Detecting trends in tree growth: not so simple. Trends Plant Sci 18:11–17. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Braun EL (1950) Deciduous forests of eastern North America. Blakiston Co., PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  11. Cahill J (1999) Fertilization effects on interactions between above- and belowground competition in an old field. Ecology 80:466–480.;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Canham C, LePage PT, Coates KD (2004) A neighborhood analysis of canopy tree competition: effects of shading versus crowding. Can J For Res 34:778–787. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Casper BB, Jackson RB (1997) Plant competition underground. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:545–570. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Castagneri D, Nola P, Cherubini P, Motta R (2012) Temporal variability of size-growth relationships in a Norway spruce forest: the influence of stand structure, logging, and climate. Can J For Res 42:550–560. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cook E, Briffa K, Shiyatov S, Mazepa V (1990) Tree-ring standardization and growth-trend estimation. In: Cook ER, Kairiukstis LA (eds) Methods of dendrochronology. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 104–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coomes DA, Lines ER, Allen RB (2011) Moving on from metabolic scaling theory: hierarchical models of tree growth and asymmetric competition for light. J Ecol 99:748–756. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Craine JM, Dybzinski R (2013) Mechanisms of plant competition for nutrients, water, and light. Funct Ecol 27:833–840. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. D’Amato AW, Orwig DA, Foster DR (2008) The influence of successional processes and disturbance on the structure of Tsuga canadensis forests. Ecol Appl 18:1182–1199. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Davis SC, Hessl AE, Scott CJ, Adams MB, Thomas RB (2009) Forest carbon sequestration changes in response to timber harvest. For Ecol Manage 258:2101–2109. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. del Río M et al (2015) Characterization of the structure, dynamics, and productivity of mixed-species stands: review and perspectives. Eur J For Res 135:23–49. Google Scholar
  21. DeMalach N, Zaady E, Weiner J, Kadmon R (2016) Size asymmetry of resource competition and the structure of plant communities. J Ecol 104:899–910. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dye A (2018). Annual aboveground biomass growth of temperate forests in eastern North America. PhD Dissertation, West Virginia UniversityGoogle Scholar
  23. Dye A, Barker Plotkin A, Bishop D, Pederson N, Poulter B, Hessl A (2016) Comparing tree-ring and permanent plot estimates of aboveground net primary productivity in three Eastern US forests. Ecosphere 7:e01454. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Elkinton JS, Liebhold AW (1990) Population dynamics of gypsy moth in North America. Annu Rev Entomol 35:571–596. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Foster JR, Finley AO, D’Amato AW, Bradford JB, Banerjee S (2016) Predicting tree biomass growth in the temperate-boreal ecotone: is tree size, age, competition, or climate response more important? Glob Change Biol 22:2138–2151. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Graumlich LJ, Brubaker LB, Grier CC (1989) Long-term trends in forest net primary productivity: Cascade Mountains, Washington. Ecology 70:405–410. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Holmes RL (1983) Computer-assisted quality control in tree-ring dating and measurement. Tree Ring Bull 43:69–78Google Scholar
  28. Jacquart EM, Armentano TV, Spingarn AL (1992) Spatial and temporal tree responses to water stress in an old-growth deciduous forest. Am Midl Nat 127:158–171. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klesse S, Etzold S, Frank D (2016) Integrating tree-ring and inventory-based measurements of aboveground biomass growth: research opportunities and carbon cycle consequences from a large snow breakage event in the Swiss Alps. Eur J For Res 135(2):1–15. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kocin PJ, Uccellini LW (2004) A snowfall impact scale derived from northeast storm snowfall distributions. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. Google Scholar
  31. Larocque G, Luckai N, Adhikary SN, Groot A, Bell FW, Sharma M (2013) Competition theory—science and application in mixed forest stands: review of experimental and modelling methods and suggestions for future research. Environ Rev 21:71–84. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lebourgeois F, Eberle P, Merian P, Seynave I (2014) Social status-mediated tree-ring responses to climate of Abies alba and Fagus sylvatica shift in importance with increasing stand basal area. For Ecol Manag 328:209–218. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Looney CE, D’Amato AW, Fraver S, Palik BJ, Reinikainen MR (2016) Examining the influences of tree-to-tree competition and climate on size-growth relationships in hydric, multi-aged Fraxinus nigra stands. For Ecol Manag 375:238–248. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lorimer CG, Frelich LE (1989) A methodology for estimating canopy disturbance frequency and intensity in dense temperate forests. Can J For Res 19:651–663. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leuschner C, Hertel D, Coners H, Büttner V (2001) Root competition between beech and oak: a hypothesis. Oecologia 126:276–284. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Metsaranta J, Leiffers V (2010) Patterns of inter-annual variation in the size asymmetry of growth in Pinus banksiana. Oecologia 163:737–745. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nehrbass-Ahles C, Babst F, Klesse S, Notzli M, Bouriaud O, Neukom R, Dobbertin M, Frank D (2014) The influence of sampling design on tree-ring based quantification of forest growth. Glob Change Biol 20:2867–2885. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nord-Larsen T, Damgaard C, Weiner J (2006) Quantifying size-asymmetric growth among individual beech trees. Can J For Res 36:418–425. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Orwig DA, Abrams MD (1997) Variation in radial growth responses to drought among species, site, and canopy strata. Trees 11:474–484. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pan Y et al (2011) A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333:988–993. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pederson N, Dyer JM, McEwan RW, Hessl AE, Mock CJ, Orwig DA, Rieder HE, Cook BI (2014) The legacy of episodic climatic events in shaping temperate, broadleaf forests. Ecol Monogr 84:599–620. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pothier D (2017) Relationships between patterns of stand growth dominance and tree competition mode for species of various shade tolerances. For Ecol Manag 406:155–162. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pretzsch H, Biber P (2010) Size-symmetric versus size-asymmetric competition and growth partitioning among trees in forest stands along an ecological gradient in central Europe. Can J For Res 40:370–384. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pretzsch H, Dieler J (2011) The dependency of the size-growth relationship of Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica [L.] in forest stands on long-term site conditions, drought events, and ozone stress. Trees 25:355–369. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Prior LD, Bowman DMJS (2014) Across a macro-ecological gradient forest competition is strongest at the most productive sites. Front Plant Sci 5:260. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rajaniemi TK (2003) Evidence for size-asymmetry of belowground competition. Basic Appl Ecol 4:239–247. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rewald B, Leuschner C (2009) Belowground competition in a broad-leaved temperate mixed forest: pattern analysis and experiments in a four-species stand. Eur J For Res 128:387–398. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. R Core Team (2018) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
  49. Stokes MA, Smiley TL (1968) An introduction to Tree-Ring Dating. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  50. Trotsiuk V et al (2016) The legacy of disturbance on individual tree and stand-level aboveground biomass accumulation and stocks in primary Picea abies forests. For Ecol Manag 373:108–115. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Urbano AR, Keeton WS (2017) Carbon dynamics and structural development in recovering secondary forests of the northeastern United States. For Ecol Manag 392:21–35. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wichmann L (2001) Annual variations in competition symmetry in even-aged Sitka spruce. Ann Bot 88:145–151. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wiener J (1990) Asymmetric competition in plant populations. Trends Ecol Evol 5:360–364. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Woodbury PB, Smith JE, Heath LS (2007) Carbon sequestration in the US forest sector from 1990 to 2010. For Ecol Manag 241:14–27. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zang C, Pretzsch H, Rothe A (2011) Size-dependent responses to summer drought in Scots pine, Norway spruce, and common oak. Trees 26:557. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zhang J, Huang S, He F (2015) Half-century evidence from western Canada shows forest dynamics are primarily driven by competition followed by climate. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:4009–4014. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geology and GeographyWest Virginia UniversityMorgantownUSA
  2. 2.Harvard Forest, Harvard UniversityPetershamUSA
  3. 3.Midwest Dendro, LLCNapervilleUSA
  4. 4.Department of Earth and Environmental SciencesColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  5. 5.Tree-Ring Lab, Lamont-Doherty Earth ObservatoryColumbia UniversityPalisadesUSA
  6. 6.Department of Geological, Environmental, and Marine SciencesRider UniversityLawrencevilleUSA

Personalised recommendations