Advertisement

Trees

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 196–209 | Cite as

Morphological plasticity of regeneration subject to different levels of canopy cover in mixed-species, multiaged forests of the Romanian Carpathians

  • Petru Tudor StancioiuEmail author
  • Kevin L. O'Hara
Original Article

Abstract

Morphological plasticity was studied for advanced regeneration trees in different light environments of the mountainous, mixed-species forests in the Carpathian Mountains of Romania. The primary species in these mixtures were very shade tolerant silver fir (Abies alba Mill.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.), and midtolerant Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst). Seedlings/saplings of these species were selected for measurements in different stands from two different geographical locations. Various morphological traits (specific leaf area, live crown ratio, crown width to length ratio, terminal to lateral ratio, number of internodal shoots, number of shoots in terminal whorl, stem symmetry, stem orientation, stem forking) for each regenerating tree were measured during summers of 2001 and 2002. Percentage of above canopy light and stand basal area measures were used to assess the available growing space for each seedling/sapling. Regression relationships were developed for the different morphological indicators as a function of these two variables. All species adapted their morphology along the gradient in light and basal area. Spruce seemed to be less adapted to low light conditions than both fir and beech. However, no significant differences in terms of shade tolerance were detected using the above indicators. In really dense stand conditions (less than 20% above canopy light and stand basal area above 36 m2 ha−1), probability for stem forking in beech increased. In open, all three species adapted their morphology for vigorous growth. Under such conditions, spruce was better adapted than fir.

Keywords

Abies alba Fagus sylvatica Morphological plasticity Multiaged stands Picea asbies Selection systems 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The National Forest Administration and Retezat National Park granted access to field sites and inventory data. Access to laboratory supplies and technology was provided by Faculty of Biology and Geology (“Babes-Bolyai” University, Cluj, Romania) and by Traian Cadariu (Orastie, Romania). Part of the fieldwork during 2001 was funded by Adonis group—Belgium. Assistance provided by Daniel Vasiu with field and laboratory work is greatly appreciated

References

  1. Avery TE, Burkhart HE (2002) Forest measurements, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill, BostonGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes VB, Zak DR, Denton SR, Spurr SH (1997) Forest ecology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartelink HH (1997) Allometric relationships for biomass and leaf area of beech (Fagus sylvatica L). Ann For Sci 54:39–50Google Scholar
  4. Beaudet M, Messier C (1998) Growth and morphological responses of yellow birch, sugar maple, and beech seedlings growing under a natural light gradient. Can J For Res 28:1007–10015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brunner A (1993) Die Entwicklung von Bergmischwaldkulturen in den Chiemgauer Alpen und eine Methodenstudie zur ökologischen Lichtmessung im Wald. Forstliche Forschungsberichte München 128Google Scholar
  6. Cannell MGR (1974) Production of branches and foliage by young trees of Pinus contorta and Picea sitchensis: Provenance differences and their simulation. J Appl Ecol 11:1091–1115Google Scholar
  7. Chen HYH, Klinka K, Kayahara GJ (1996) Effects of light on growth, crown architecture, and specific leaf area for naturally established Pinus contorta var. latifolia and Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca saplings. Can J For Res 26:1149–1157Google Scholar
  8. Claveau Y, Messier C, Comeau PG, Coates KD (2002) Growth and crown morphological responses of boreal conifer seedlings and saplings with contrasting shade tolerance to a gradient of light and height. Can J For Res 32:458–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duchesneau R, Lesage I, Messier C, Morin H (2001) Effects of light and intraspecific competition on growth and crown morphology of two size classes of understory balsam fir saplings. For Ecol Manage 140:215–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Evans J (1984) Silviculture of broadleaved woodland. Forestry Commission Bulletin 62, UKGoogle Scholar
  11. Florescu II, Nicolescu NV (1998) Silvicultura, vol II—Silvotehnica. Editura Universitatii Transilvania din Brasov, BrasovGoogle Scholar
  12. Gendron F, Messier C, Comeau PG (1998) Comparison of various methods for estimating the mean growing season percent photosythetic photon flux density in forests. Agric For Meteorol 92:55–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Givnish T (1988) Adaptation to sun and shade: a whole plant perspective. Aust J Plant Physiol 15:63–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grassi G, Bagnaresi U (2001) Foliar morphological and physiological plasticity in Picea abies and Abies alba saplings along a natural light gradient. Tree Physiol 21:959–967PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Haralamb A (1967) Cultura speciilor forestiere, Editia a 3 a. Editura Agro-Silvica, BucurestiGoogle Scholar
  16. Klinka K, Wang Q, Kayahara K (1992) Light-growth response relationships in Pacific silver fir (Abies amabilis) and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa). Can J Bot 70:1919–1930Google Scholar
  17. Kozlowski TT, Kramer PJ, Pallardy SG (1991) The physiological ecology of woody plants. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Messier C, Nikinmaa E (2000) Effects of light availability and sapling size on the growth, biomass allocation, and crown morphology of understory sugar maple, yellow birch, and beech. Ecoscience 7(3):345–356Google Scholar
  19. Messier C, Parent S (1997) Reply—The effects of direct-beam light on overcast-day estimates of light availability: on the accuracy of the instantaneous one-point overcast-sky conditions method to estimate mean daily PPFD under heterogeneous overstory canopy conditions. Can J For Res 27:274–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Messier C, Doucet R, Ruel JC, Claveau Y, Kelly C, Lechowicz MJ (1999) Functional ecology of advance regeneration in relation to light in boreal forests. Can J For Res 29:812–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Negulescu EG, Ciumac G (1959) Silvicultura. Ministerul agriculturii si silviculturii— Editura agro-silvica de stat, BucurestiGoogle Scholar
  22. Nicolini É (1997) Approche morphologique du développement du hêtre (Fagus sylvatica L.). PhD thesis, University of Montpelier IIGoogle Scholar
  23. Nicolini É (2000) New observations on the morphology of beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) growth units. Symmetry of the shoots reflects the vigor of the trees. Can J Bot 78:77–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nicolini É, Caraglio Y (1994) L'influence de divers caractères architecturaux sur l'apparition de la fourche chez le Fagus sylvatica, en fonction de l'absence ou de la présence d'un couvert. Can J Bot 72:1723–1734Google Scholar
  25. Ninemets U, Kull O (1995) Effects of light availability and tree size on the architecture of assimilative surface in the canopy of Picea abies: Variation in needle morphology. Tree Physiol 15:307–315PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Oliver CD, Larson BC (1996) Forest stand dynamics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Padraic MJ, Huss J, McCarthy R, Pfeifer A, Hendrick E (1998) Growing broadleaves: Silvicultural guidelines for ash, sycamore, wild cherry, beech, and oak in Ireland. COFORD-National Council for Forest Research and Development, National University of Ireland, Belfield, DublinGoogle Scholar
  28. Parent S, Messier C (1996) A simple and efficient method to estimate light availability under a forest canopy. Can J For Res 26:151–154Google Scholar
  29. Ruel J-C, Messier C, Doucet R, Claveau Y, Comeau P (2000) Morphological indicators of growth response of coniferous advance regeneration to overstory removal in the boreal forest. For Chron 76:633–642Google Scholar
  30. Savill PS (1991) The silviculture of trees used in British forestry. CAB International, Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
  31. Schlichting CD (1986) The evolution of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 17:667–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smith DM, Larson BC, Kelty MJ, Ashton PMS (1996) The practice of silviculture: applied forest ecology, 9th edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Stancioiu PT (2003) Regeneration dynamics in mixed-species, multiaged, mountainous forests of Romania. PhD thesis, University of California at BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  34. Stancioiu PT, O'Hara KL (2005) Regeneration growth in different light environments of mixed-species, multiaged, mountainous forests of Romania. Eur J Forest Res (in press)Google Scholar
  35. Stanescu V, Sofletea N, Popescu O (1997) Flora forestiera lemnoasa a Romaniei. Editura Ceres, BucurestiGoogle Scholar
  36. Williams H, Messier C, Kneeshaw D (1999) Effects of light availability and sapling size on the growth and crown morphology of understory Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine. Can J For Res 29:222–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Ecosystem Sciences, ESPMUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.National Forest Administration, Brasov BranchBrasovRomania

Personalised recommendations