Advertisement

Trees

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 411–424 | Cite as

Responses of crown architecture in Betula pendula to competition are dependent on the species of neighbouring trees

  • Anna Lintunen
  • Pekka Kaitaniemi
Original Paper

Abstract

We measured the growth responses of individual shoots and branches of Betula pendula when growing next to trees of the same species or Pinus sylvestris, Larix sibirica or Alnus glutinosa. We used the three-dimensionally digitized response variables and the size and distance of trees growing within a 5-m radius of the study trees to establish a relationship between tree performance and the effect of competing neighbouring tree species on crown architecture. B. pendula was able to modify its crown architecture and thus alter its strategy to compete with different neighbours. Trees of B. pendula growing beside species counterparts had the highest growth of new long shoots in relation to the already existing branch length [growth vigour (GV)], while GV was the lowest next to L. sibirica. With B. pendula or P. sylvestris as its main neighbour, B. pendula invested in short shoots by growing them rather densely in short branches with limited numbers, whereas with L. sibirica the number, length and angle of the branches were high. The competitive response was also strongly dependent on tree ontogeny and the shoot and branch characteristics were significantly affected by their location inside the crown. B. pendula was able to respond to the challenges posed by its neighbours, which was also reflected in the GV. The ability to maintain steady growth with alternative crown designs in different neighbourhoods reflects plasticity in the crown responses.

Keywords

Acclimation Betula pendula Competition Crown architecture Shoot growth Neighbour effect 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Sauli Valkonen for making possible the use of four experimental stands of the Finnish Forest Research Institute (Metla) in the study. Niina Miettinen, Reijo Pankka and Tiina Sauvula are thanked for their assistance in the field and laboratory. We also thank Jari Perttunen and Mika Lehtonen of Metla for enabling the visualization of trees in the Lignum modelling system. Thanks are also due to Eero Nikinmaa for constructive comments on the manuscript. The study was financed by the Academy of Finland and by the Finnish Graduate School in Forest Science.

References

  1. Aiken LS, West SG (1991) Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions, 2nd edn. Sage, CAGoogle Scholar
  2. Alméras T, Fournier M (2009) The gravitropic control of woody stems orientation: biomechanical parameters involved and consequences for stem allometry. In: Thibaut B (ed) Proceedings of the sixth plant biomechanics conference in Cayenne, French Guyana, French, pp 314–321Google Scholar
  3. Anonymous (2001) Hyvän metsänhoidon suositukset. Publications of Forestry Development Centre Tapio, Libris Oy, Helsinki (in Finnish)Google Scholar
  4. Aphalo PJ, Ballaré CL (1995) On the importance of information-acquiring systems in plant–plant interactions. Funct Ecol 9:5–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aphalo PJ, Rikala R (2006) Spacing of silver birch seedlings grown in containers of equal size affects their morphology and its variability. Tree Physiol 26:1227–1237PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell AD (1991) Plant form: an illustrated guide to flowering plant morphology. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Biging GS, Dobbertin M (1992) A comparison of distance-dependent competition measures for height and basal area growth of individual conifer trees. Forest Sci 38:695–720Google Scholar
  8. Biging GS, Dobbertin M (1995) Evaluation of competition indices in individual tree growth models. Forest Sci 41:360–377Google Scholar
  9. Binkley D (1983) Interactions of site fertility and red alder on ecosystem production in Douglas-fir plantations. Forest Ecol Manag 5:215–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonser SP, Aarssen LW (1994) Plastic allometry in young sugar maple (Acer saccharum): adaptive responses to light availability. Am J Bot 81:400–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Borchert R, Tomlinson PB (1984) Architecture and crown geometry in Tabebuia rosea (Bignoniaceae). Am J Bot 71:958–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bravo F, Hann DW, Maguire DA (2001) Impact of competitor species composition on predicting diameter growth and survival rates of Douglas-fir trees in southwestern Oregon. Can J Forest Res 31:2237–2247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cajander AK (1909) Ueber waldtypen. Acta Forest Fenn 1:1–176Google Scholar
  14. Canham CD, Finzi AC, Pacala SW, Burbank DH (1994) Causes and consequences of resource heterogeneity in forests: interspecific variation in light transmission by canopy trees. Can J Forest Res 24:337–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Canham CD, LePage PT, Coates KD (2004) Neighbourhood analysis of canopy tree competition: effects of shading versus crowding. Can J Forest Res 34:778–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chelle M (2005) Phylloclimate or the climate perceived by individual plant organs: What is it? How to model it? What for? New Phytol 166:781–790CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Cole WG, Lorimer CG (1994) Predicting tree growth from crown variables in managed northern hardwood stands. Forest Ecol Manag 67:159–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. de la Rosa TM, Aphalo PJ, Lehto T (1998) Effects of far-red light on the growth, mycorrhizas and mineral nutrition of Scots pine seedlings. Plant Soil 201:17–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. de Luis M, Raventos J, Cortina J, Moro M, Bellot J (1998) Assessing components of a competition index to predict growth in an even aged Pinus nigra stand. New Forest 15:223–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gates DM (1980) Biophysical ecology. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Goldberg DE (1987) Neighborhood competition in an old-field plant community. Ecology 68:1211–1223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goulet J, Messier C, Nikinmaa E (2000) Effect of branch position and light availability on shoot growth of understory sugar maple and yellow birch saplings. Can J Bot 78:1077–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hallé F, Oldemann RAA, Tomlinson PB (1978) Tropical trees and forests. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Hämet-Ahti L, Palmén A, Alanko P, Tigerstedt PMA (1992) Woody flora of Finland. Publ Finnish Dendrol Soc 6:1–373Google Scholar
  25. Holmes MJ, Reed DD (1991) Competition indices for mixed species northern hardwoods. Forest Sci 37:1338–1349Google Scholar
  26. Hubbell SP (2005) Neutral theory in community ecology and the hypothesis of functional equivalence. Funct Ecol 19:166–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jones M, Harper JL (1987a) The influence of neighbours on the growth of trees: I. The democracy of buds in Betula pendula. Proc Roy Soc Lond B Biol 232:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones M, Harper JL (1987b) The influence of neighbours on the growth of trees: II. The fate of buds on long and short shoots in Betula pendula. Proc Roy Soc Lond B Biol 232:19–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaitaniemi P (2007) Consequences of variation in tree architecture and leaf traits on light capture and photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency in mountain birch. Arct Antarc Alp Res 39:258–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kaitaniemi P, Lintunen A (2008) Precision of allometric scaling equations for trees can be improved by including the effect of ecological interaction. Trees-Struct Funct 22:579–584Google Scholar
  31. Kaitaniemi P, Lintunen A (2010) Neighbor identity and competition influence tree growth in Scots pine, Siberian larch and silver birch. Ann For Sci (in press)Google Scholar
  32. Kaitaniemi P, Ruohomäki K (2003) Factors controlling resource allocation in mountain birch. Perspect Plant Ecol 5:231–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kaitaniemi P, Ruohomäki K (2006) Uncaged larvae elicit a combination of local and integrated growth responses within mountain birch crown. Oikos 115:537–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Landis RM, Peart DR (2005) Early performance predicts canopy attainment across life-histories in subalpine forest trees. Ecology 86:63–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lappi-Seppälä M (1930) Untersuchungen über die Entwicklung gleichaltriger Mischbestände aus Kiefer und Birke, basiert auf Material der Südhälfte von Suomi (Finland). Commun Inst For Fenn 15:1–243Google Scholar
  36. Ledermann T, Stage AR (2001) Effects of competitor spacing in individual-tree indices of competition. Can J For Res 31:2143–2150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lorimer CG (1983) Tests of age-independent competition indices for individual trees in natural hardwood stands. Forest Ecol Manag 6:343–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. MacDonald N (1983) Trees and networks in biological models. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  39. Maillette L (1982) Structural dynamics of silver birch I. The fate of buds. J Appl Ecol 19:203–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mailly D, Turbis S, Pothier D (2003) Predicting basal area increment in a spatially explicit, individual tree models: a test of competition measures with black spruce. Can J For Res 33:435–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marks CO, Lechowicz MJ (2006) Alternative designs and the evolution of functional diversity. Am Nat 167:55–66CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Meng SX, Rudnicki M, Lieffers VJ, Reid DEB, Silins U (2006) Preventing crown collisions increases the crown cover and leaf area of maturing lodgepole pine. J Ecol 94:681–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mielikäinen K (1980) Structure and development of mixed pine and birch stands. Commun Inst For Fenn 99:1–82Google Scholar
  44. Mitsuda Y, Ito S, Takata K (2002) Effects of competitive and cooperative interaction among neighboring trees on tree growth in a naturally even-aged Larix sibirica stand in considering height stratification. J For Res 7:185–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Morris LA, Moss SA, Garbett WS (1993) Competitive interference between selected herbaceous and woody plants and Pinus taeda L. during two growing seasons following planting. For Sci 39:166–187Google Scholar
  46. Nikinmaa E, Messier C, Sievänen R, Perttunen J, Lehtonen M (2003) Shoot growth and crown development: effect of crown position in three-dimensional simulations. Tree Physiol 23:129–136PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Orelien JG (2001) Model fitting in Proc Genmod. In: Proceedings of SAS Users Group International 26. SAS Institute, Cary, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  48. Osada N, Takeda H, Furukawa A, Awang M (2002) Changes in shoot allometry with increasing tree height in a tropical canopy species, Elateriospermum tapos. Tree Physiol 22:625–632PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Osada N, Tateno R, Mori A, Takeda H (2004) Changes in crown development patterns and current-year shoot structure with light environment and tree height in Fagus crenata (Fagaceae). Am J Bot 91:1981–1989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Prescott CE (1996) Influence of forest floor type on rates of litter decomposition in microcosms. Soil Biol Biochem 28:1319–1325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Prescott CE (2002) The influence of the forest canopy on nutrient cycling. Tree Physiol 22:1193–1200PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Priha O, Smolander A (1997) Microbial biomass and activity in soil and litter under Pinus sylvestris, Picea abies and Betula pendula at originally similar field afforestation sites. Biol Fert Soils 24:45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Priha O, Smolander A (1999) Nitrogen transformations in soil under Pinus sylvestris, Picea abies and Betula pendula at two forest sites. Soil Biol Biochem 31:965–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rouvinen S, Kuuluvainen T (1997) Structure and asymmetry of tree crowns in relation to local competition in a natural mature Scots pine forest. Can J For Res 27:890–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sachs T (2004) Self-organization of tree form: a model for complex social systems. J Theor Biol 230:197–202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Sinoquet H, Rivet P, Godin C (1997) Assessment of the three-dimensional architecture of walnut trees using digitising. Silva Fenn 31:265–273Google Scholar
  57. Sprugel DG, Hinckley TM, Schaap W (1991) The theory and practice of branch autonomy. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 22:309–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stiell WM (1970) Some competitive relations in a red pine plantation. Publication number 1275. Department of Fisheries and Forestry, Canadian Forestry Service, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  59. Sumida A, Terazawa I, Togashi A, Komiyama A (2001) Three-dimensional structure of branches for community-grown trees of a deciduous species, Castanea crenata, as related to their crown expansion patterns. In: Labrecque M (ed) L’Arbre 2000 the tree. Institut de Recherché en Biologie Bégétale, Montreal, pp 46–52Google Scholar
  60. Sumida A, Terazawa I, Togashi A, Komiyama A (2002) Spatial arrangement of branches in relation to slope and neighbourhood competition. Ann Bot 89:301–310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Takenaka A (1994) A simulation model of tree architecture development based on growth response to local light environment. J Plant Res 107:321–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Takenaka A (2000) Shoot growth responses to light microenvironment and correlative inhibition in tree seedlings under a forest canopy. Tree Physiol 20:987–991PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Tomé JM, Burkhart HE (1989) Distance-dependent competition measures for predicting growth of individual trees. For Sci 35:816–831Google Scholar
  64. Tremmel DC, Bazzaz FA (1993) How neighbour canopy architecture affects target plant performance. Ecology 74:2114–2124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Trewavas A (2005) Green plants as intelligent organisms. Trends Plant Sci 10:413–419CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Umeki K, Kikuzawa K (2000) Patterns in individual growth, branch population dynamics, and growth and mortality of first-order branches of Betula platyphylla in northern Japan. Ann For Sci 57:587–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Uriarte M, Condit R, Canham C, Hubbell S (2004) A spatially explicit model of sapling growth in a tropical forest: does the identity of neighbours matter? J Ecol 92:348–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Valkonen S, Ruuska J (2003) Effect of Betula pendula admixture on tree growth and branch diameter in young Pinus sylvestris stands in southern Finland. Scand J For Res 18:416–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vandenbussche F, Van Der Straeten D (2004) Shaping the shoot: a circuitry involving multiple signals. Trends Plant Sci 9:499–506CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Wagner RG, Radosevich SR (1991) Neighborhood predictors of interspecific competition in young Douglas-fir plantations. Can J For Res 21:821–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wang Y, Gril J, Sugiyama J (2009) Is the branch of Viburnum odoratissimum var. awabuki reaction wood? Unusual eccentric growth and various distributions of growth strain. In: Thibaut B (ed) Proceedings of the sixth plant biomechanics conference in Cayenne, French Guyana, French, pp 328–334Google Scholar
  72. Weiner J (1990) Asymmetric competition in plant populations. Trends Ecol Evol 5:360–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Weiner J (2004) Allocation, plasticity and allometry in plants. Perspect Plant Ecol 6:207–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wilson BF (1998) Branches versus stems in woody plants: control of branch diameter growth and angle. Can J Bot 76:1852–1856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wu C-T, Gumpertz ML, Boos DD (2001) Comparison of GEE, MINQUE, ML, and REML estimating equations for normally distributed data. Am Stat 55:125–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zaluski D, Golaszewski J (2006) Efficiency of 35-p fractional factorial designs determined using additional information on the spatial variability of the experimental field. J Agron Crop Sci 192:303–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Hyytiälä Forestry Field StationUniversity of HelsinkiKorkeakoskiFinland

Personalised recommendations