Advertisement

Trees

, Volume 24, Issue 6, pp 1117–1126 | Cite as

Comparison of self-thinning models: an exercise in reasoning

  • Boris Zeide
Original Paper

Abstract

Self-thinning of forest stands is one of the clearest and best-documented examples of natural selection. Besides their theoretical interest, understanding of self-thinning is important for forest practice because it produces estimates of stand density and stocking. There is a considerable diversity of views on the processes causing self-thinning, predicting variables, and analytical form of models. The most popular model was proposed by Reineke (J Agric Res 46(7):627–638, 1933) over 70 years ago. This study compares existing models of self-thinning and provides evidence that the virtually unknown model developed by Artur Nilson describes self-thinning more realistically than Reineke’s. While in the Reineke model the rate of mortality (the slope of self-thinning line) is assumed to be constant, it changes from 0 to −2 in Nilson’s model. As a result, Nilson’s model is slightly but consistently more accurate than Reineke’s. Although both models are empirical, their analysis suggests several general conclusions about self-thinning.

Keywords

Aging Maximum density Mortality Stand density Stand dynamics Stocking Tree growth 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Mike Olson, Curtis VanderSchaaf, and two anonymous referees for their valuable comments.

References

  1. Alban DH, Laidly PR (1982) Generalized biomass equations for jack and red pine in the Lake States. Can J For Res 12:913–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Averell JL (1945) Rules of thumb for thinning loblolly pines. J For 43(9):649–651Google Scholar
  3. Avery TE, Burkhart HE (2002) Forest measurements, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, 456 ppGoogle Scholar
  4. Bella IE (1971) A new competition model for individual trees. For Sci 17:364–372Google Scholar
  5. Bonnor GM (1964) The influence of stand density on the correlation of stem diameter with crown width for lodgepole pine. For Chron 40(3):347–349Google Scholar
  6. Briegleb PA (1952) An approach to density measurement in Douglas-fir. J For 50:529–536Google Scholar
  7. Brown J (1882) The forester or a practical treatise on the planting, rearing, and general management of forest trees, 5th edn. Blackwood, Edinburgh, 898 ppGoogle Scholar
  8. Chisman HH, Schumacher FX (1940) On the tree-area ratio and certain of its applications. J For 38(4):311–317Google Scholar
  9. Curtis R (1970) Stand density measures: an interpretation. For Sci 16(4):403–414Google Scholar
  10. Curtis RO (1971) A tree area power function and related stand density measures for Douglas-fir. For Sci 17(2):146–159Google Scholar
  11. Czarnowski MS (1961) Dynamics of even-aged forest stands. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, 132 ppGoogle Scholar
  12. Dawkins HC (1963) Crown diameters: their relation to bole diameter in tropical forest trees. Commonw For Rev 42:318–333Google Scholar
  13. Enquist BJ (2002) Universal scaling in tree and vascular plant allometry: toward a general quantitative theory linking plant form and function from cells to ecosystems. Tree Physiol 22:1045–1064PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. FIA data http://srsfia2.fs.fed.us/. Accessed 12 Feb 2007
  15. Francis JK (1986) The relationship of bole diameter and crown widths for seven bottomland hardwood species. USDA Forest Service Research Note SO-328, 3 ppGoogle Scholar
  16. Gering LR, May DM (1995) The relationship of diameter at breast height and crown diameter for four species groups in Hardin county, Tennessee. South J Appl For 19(4):177–181Google Scholar
  17. Gevorkiantz SR, Zon R (1930) Second-growth white pine in Wisconsin: its growth and yield, and commercial possibilities. Wis Agr Exp Sta Res Bull 98:40Google Scholar
  18. Gingrich SF (1967) Measuring and evaluating stocking and stand density in upland hardwood forest in the central states. For Sci 13(1):38–53Google Scholar
  19. Harding RB, Grigal DF (1985) Individual tree biomass estimation equations for plantation-grown white spruce in northern Minnesota. Can J For Res 15:738–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harms WR, Whitesell CD, DeBell DS (2000) Growth and development of loblolly pine in a spacing trial planted in Hawaii. For Ecol Manag 126:23–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huxley JS (1932) Problems of relative growth. The Dial Press, New York, 276 ppGoogle Scholar
  22. Krajicek JE, Brinkman KA, Gingrich SF (1961) Crown competition—a measure of density. For Sci 7(1):35–42Google Scholar
  23. Lambert M-C, Ung C-H, Haulier F (2005) Canadian national tree aboveground biomass equations. Can J For Res 35(8):1996–2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leech JW (1984) Estimating crown width from diameter at breast height for open-grown radiate pine trees in South Australia. Aust For Res 14:33–337Google Scholar
  25. Lexen B (1939) Space requirement of ponderosa pine by tree diameter. USDA Forest Service Southwestern Forest and Range Experiment Station Research Note No. 63, 4 ppGoogle Scholar
  26. Lohrey RE (1985) Aboveground biomass of planted and direct-seeded slash ine in the West Gulf Region. In: Saucier JR (ed) The 1984 Southern Forest Biomass Workshop. USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, pp 75–82 (121 pp)Google Scholar
  27. Long JN, Smith FW (1984) Relation between size and density in developing stands: a description and possible mechanisms. For Ecol Manag 7:191–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. MacKinney AL, Chaiken LE (1935) A method of determining density of loblolly pine stands. USDA Forest Service Appalachian Forest Experiment Station Technical Note No. 15, 3 ppGoogle Scholar
  29. Mandelbrot BB (1983) The fractal geometry of nature. W. N. Freeman, New York, 468 ppGoogle Scholar
  30. McIntosh RP (1980) The background and some current problems of theoretical ecology. Synthese 43:195–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McQuarrie ADR, Tsai CL (1998) Regression and time series model selection. World Scientific, Singapore, 455 ppGoogle Scholar
  32. Meyer WH (1938) Yield of even-aged stands of ponderosa pine. USDA Technical Bulletin 630, 59 ppGoogle Scholar
  33. Meyer WH (1942) Yield of even-aged stands of loblolly pine in northern Louisiana. School of Forestry Bulletin 51. Yale University, New Haven, 39 ppGoogle Scholar
  34. Mitchell HC (1943) Regulation of farm woodlands by rule of thumb. J For 41(4):243–248Google Scholar
  35. Nilson A (1973) Hooldusraiete arvutusliku projekteerimise teooriast. [On the theory of programming of thinnings] Eesti Põllumajanduse Akadeemia tead. tööde kogumik. Tartu 89:136–142 [In Estonian]Google Scholar
  36. Nilson A (2006) Modeling dependence between the number of trees and mean tree diameter of stands, stand density and stand sparsity. In: Cieszewski CJ, Strub M (eds) Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on forest measurements and quantitative methods and management & the 2004 southern mensurationists meeting. Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, pp 74–94 (412 pp)Google Scholar
  37. Ouellet D (1985) Biomass equations for six commercial tree species in Quebec. For Chron 61:218–222Google Scholar
  38. Paine DP, Hann DW (1982) Maximum crown-width equations for southwestern Oregon tree species. Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State University, Corvallis. Research Paper. 46, 20 pGoogle Scholar
  39. Painter PR (2005) The fractal geometry of nutrient exchange surfaces does not provide an explanation for 3/4-power metabolic scaling. Theor Biol Med Model 2:30. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1226149
  40. Perez JW (1970) Relation of crown diameter to stem diameter in forests of Puerto Rico, Dominica, and Thailand. In: Odum HT, Pigeon RF (eds) A tropical rain forest; a study of irradiation and ecology at El Verde, Puerto Rico. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Oak Ridge, Tenn, pp B105–B122Google Scholar
  41. Reineke LH (1933) Perfecting a stand-density index for even-aged forests. J Agric Res 46(7):627–638Google Scholar
  42. Spurr SH (1952) Forest inventory. Ronald Press, New York, 476 pGoogle Scholar
  43. Stahelin R (1949) Thinning even-aged loblolly and slash pine stands to specified densities. J For 47(7):538–540Google Scholar
  44. Tarashkevitch A (1926) The composition of pure stands. Collection of works on forestry. Leningrad Agricultural Institute, pp 106–135 (In Russian)Google Scholar
  45. Tjurin A (1927) The structure of even-aged stands. Memoirs of the Voronezh Institute of Agriculture 8:5–49 (In Russian)Google Scholar
  46. USDA (1929) Volume, yield, and stand tables for second-growth southern pines. USDA Miscellaneous publication No. 50, 202 ppGoogle Scholar
  47. Vezina PE (1962) Crown width-d.b.h. relations for open-grown balsam fir and white spruce in Quebec. For Chron 38:463–473Google Scholar
  48. Vezina PE (1963) More about the crown competition factor. For Chron 39:313–317Google Scholar
  49. Weller DE (1987) A reevaluation of the -3/2 power rule of self-thinning. Ecol Monogr 57(1):23–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. West GB, Brown JH, Enquist BJ (1997) A general model for the origin of allometric scaling laws in biology. Science 276:122–126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. West GB, Brown JH, Enquist BJ (1999) A general model for the structure and allometry of plant vascular systems. Nature 400:664–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Whittington R (1984) Laying down the -3/2 power law. Nature 311:217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Williams RA (1994) Stand density management diagram for loblolly pine plantations in north Louisiana. South J Appl For 18(1):40–45Google Scholar
  54. Wilson FG (1946) Numerical expression of stocking in terms of height. J For 44:758–761Google Scholar
  55. Yoda K, Kira T, Ogawa H, Hozumi K (1963) Self-thinning in overcrowded pure stands under cultivated and natural conditions. J Biol Osaka City Univ 14:107–129Google Scholar
  56. Zeide B (1985) Tolerance and self-tolerance of trees. For Ecol Manag 13:149–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zeide B (1986) Crown width and stem diameter in open-grown trees. In: Fujimori T, Whitehead D (eds) Crown and canopy structure in relation to productivity. Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Ibaraki, pp 146–158, 448 pGoogle Scholar
  58. Zeide B (1987) Analysis of the 3/2 power law of self-thinning. For Sci 33:517–537Google Scholar
  59. Zeide B (1991) Self-thinning and stand density. For Sci 37:517–523Google Scholar
  60. Zeide B (2005) How to measure stand density. Trees Struct Funct 19(1):1–14Google Scholar
  61. Zeide B (2008) The science of forestry. J Sustain For 27(4):345–473Google Scholar
  62. Zeide B, Pfeifer P (1991) A method for estimation of fractal dimension of tree crowns. For Sci 37:1253–1265Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Forest ResourcesUniversity of ArkansasMonticelloUSA
  2. 2.MariettaUSA

Personalised recommendations