, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 97–110 | Cite as

Tree allometry of Douglas fir and Norway spruce on a nutrient-poor and a nutrient-rich site

  • Josef Urban
  • Kateřina Holušová
  • Ladislav Menšík
  • Jan Čermák
  • Petr Kantor
Original Paper


Research related to the allometric relationships of tree height and projected tree crown area to diameter at breast height was conducted to look at the biological suitability and timber production potential of Douglas fir under the conditions present in central Europe. The dependence of allometric relationships on soil nutrient conditions were described in forest stands of Douglas fir and Norway spruce. The studied sites were climatically similar but differed in soil nutrient availability. A significant difference was found in the allometric relationships of Norway spruce trees from the nutrient poor and nutrient rich site. In contrast to the Norway spruce, there was no significant effect of site fertility on allometric relationships for Douglas fir suggesting that its allocation patterns were less sensitive to site nutrient conditions. Stem growth increment, which was measured weekly during two consecutive seasons for both species, was related to the weather conditions and available soil moisture. Stem growth of Douglas fir began about 2 weeks earlier than in the Norway spruce at both sites. At the nutrient rich site, most of the stem growth of both species occurred at the beginning of the season, while growth at the other site was more evenly distributed throughout the season. Data obtained in this study will be useful for modeling stem growth and analysis of water use efficiency of these two tree species.


Allometry Biometry Douglas fir Norway spruce Stem increment 


  1. Alvarez-Uria P, Körner C (2007) Low temperature limits of root growth in deciduous and evergreen temperate tree species. Funct Ecol 21:211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartelink HH (1996) Allometric relationships on biomass and needle area of Douglas-fir. For Ecol Manage 86:193–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartelink HH (1997) Allometric relationship for biomass and leaf area of beech (Fagus sylvatica, L.). Ann For Sci 54:39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartoš J, Kacálek D (2011) Wood production of young first-generation stands on former agricultural land. Zprávy Lesnického Výzkumu 56:118–124Google Scholar
  5. Beets P, Gilchrist K (2001) Wood density of radiata pine: effect of nitrogen supply. For Ecol Manage 145:173–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borchert R (1994) Soil and stem water storage determine phenology and distribution of tropical dry forest trees. Ecology 75:1437–1449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Briffa KR, Schweingruber FH, Jones PD, Osborn TJ, Shiyatov SG, Vaganov EA (1998) Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes. Nature 391:678–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bušina F (2007) Natural regeneration of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii [Mirb.] Franco) in forest stands of Hurky Training Forest District, Higher Forestry School and Secondary Forestry School in Písek. J For Sci 53:20–34Google Scholar
  9. Cannell MGR (1982) World forest biomass and primary production data. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Čermák J (1989) A practical functional parameter of assimilation organs of trees and forest stands—solar equivalent leaf area (in Czech). Lesnictví 35(8):695–707Google Scholar
  11. Čermák J (1998) Leaf distribution in large trees and stands of the floodplain forests in southern Moravia. Tree Physiol 18:727–737PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Čermák J, Michálek J (1991) Selection of sample trees in forest stands using the “quantiles of total” (in Czech). Lesnictvi (Forestry) 37:49–60Google Scholar
  13. Čermák J, Nadezhdina N (1998) Sapwood as the scaling parameter—defining according to xylem water content or radial pattern of sap flow? Ann Sci For 55:509–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Čermák J, Kučera J, Nadezhdina N (2004) Sap flow measurements with two thermodynamic methods, flow integration within trees and scaling up from sample trees to entire forest stands. Trees Struct Funct 18:529–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Čermák J, Kučera J, Bauerle WL, Phillips N, Hinckley TM (2007) Tree water storage and its diurnal dynamics related to sap flow and changes in stem volume in old-growth Douglas-fir trees. Tree Physiol 27:181–198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Day W, Chrystal R (1928) Damage by late frost on Douglas fir, Sitka spruce, and other conifers. Forestry 2:19Google Scholar
  17. Delft BV, Wall RD, Kemmers R, Mekkink P, Sevink J (2006) Field guide humus forms, description and classification of humus forms for ecological applications. Research Institute for the Green Environment, Wageningen: Alterra, p 92Google Scholar
  18. Goldstein G, Meinzer F, Monasterio M (1984) The role of capacitance in the water balance of Andean giant rose species. Plant Cell Environ 6:649–656Google Scholar
  19. Goldstein G, Andrade JL, Meinzer FC, Holbrook NM, Cavelier J, Jackson P, Celis A (1998) Stem water storage and diurnal patterns of water use in tropical forest canopy trees. Plant Cell Environ 21:397–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Green RN, Trowbridge RL, Klinka K (1993) Towards a taxonomic classification of humus forms. For Sci Monogr 29(39):1–49Google Scholar
  21. Gryc V, Hacura J, Vavrčík H, Urban J, Gebauer R (2012) Monitoring of xylem formation in Picea abies under drought stress influence. Dendrobiology 67:15–24Google Scholar
  22. Hawkins BJ, Davradou M, Pier D, Shortt R (1995) Frost hardiness and winter photosynthesis of Thuja plicata and Pseudotsuga menziesii seedlings grown at three rates of nitrogen and phosphorus supply. Can J For Res 25:18–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hein S, Weiskittel AR, Kohnle U (2008) Effect of wide spacing on tree growth, branch and sapwood properties of young Douglas-fir [Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco] in southwestern Germany. Eur J Forest Res 127:481–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hinckley TM, Bruckerhoff DN (1975) The effect of drought on water relations and stem shrinkage of Quercus alba. Can J Bot 53:62–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jönsson AM, Harding S, Bärring L, Ravn HP (2007) Impact of climate change on the population dynamics of Ips typographus in southern Sweden. Agric For Meteorol 146:70–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kantavichai R, Briggs DG, Turnblom EC (2010) Effect of thinning, fertilization with biosolids, and weather on interannual ring specific gravity and carbon accumulation of a 55-year-old Douglas-fir stand in western Washington. Can J For Res 40:72–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kantor P (2008) Production potential of Douglas fir at mesotrophic sites of Křtiny Training Forest Enterprise. J For Sci 54(7):321–332Google Scholar
  28. Kantor P, Kulhavý J, Naděždina N, Knott R, Klíma S, Urban J, Menšík L (2009) Douglas fir—the most important introduced tree species in the multifunctional and sustainable forest management (in Czech). Final report of the research project. Brno, 2009Google Scholar
  29. Keyes MR, Grier CC (1981) Above- and belowground net production in 40-year-old Douglas fir stands on low and high productivity sites. Can J For Res 11:599–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kindermann GE (1998) Die flachenanteile der baumarten. Institut fur Waldwachstumsforschung, Universitat fur Bodenkultur, Perchtolsdorf, Deutschland, DiplomaarbeitGoogle Scholar
  31. King JS, Albaugh TJ, Allen HL, Kress LW (1999) Stand-level allometry in Pinus taeda as affected by irrigation and fertilization. Tree Physiol 19:769–778PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kirdyanov A, Hughes M, Vaganov E, Schweingruber F, Silkin P (2003) The importance of early summer temperature and date of snow melt for tree growth in the Siberian Subarctic. Trees Struct Funct 17(1):61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kobe R (2006) Sapling growth as a function of light and landscape-level variation in soil water and foliar nitrogen in northern Michigan. Oecologia 147(1):119–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leuschner C, Hertel D, Schmid I, Koch O, Muhs A, Hölscher D (2004) Stand fine root biomass and fine root morphology in old-growth beech forests as a function of precipitation and soil fertility. Plant Soil 258:43–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lewis JD, McKane RB, Tingey DT, Beedlow PA (2000) Vertical gradients in photosynthetic light response within an old-growth Douglas fir and western hemlock canopy. Tree Physiol 20:447–456PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lindner M, Maroschek M, Netherer S, Kremer A, Barbati A, Garcia-Gonzalo J, Seidl R, Delzon S, Corona P, Kolström M (2010) Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of European forest ecosystems. For Ecol Manage 259:698–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lindstrom H (1997) Fiber length, tracheid diameter, and latewood percentage in Norway spruce: development from pith outward. Wood Fiber Sci 29:21–34Google Scholar
  38. Loehle C (1998) Height growth rate tradeoffs determine northern and southern range limits for trees. J Biogeogr 25:735–742Google Scholar
  39. Loehle C (2000) Forest ecotone response to climate change: sensitivity to temperature response functional forms. Can J For Res 30:1632–1645Google Scholar
  40. Lupi C, Morin H, Deslauriers A, Rossi S (2012) Xylogenesis in black spruce: does soil temperature matter? Tree Physiol 32:74–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mäkinen H, Hein S (2006) Effect of wide spacing on increment and branch properties of young Norway spruce. Eur J For Res 125:239–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mäkinen H, Nöjd P, Mielikäinen K (2001) Climatic signal in annual growth variation in damaged and healthy stands of Norway spruce [Picea abies (L.) Karst.] in southern Finland. Trees 15:177–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mäkinen H, Ojansuu R, Sairanen P, Yli-Kojola H (2003) Predicting branch characteristics of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) from simple stand and tree measurements. Forestry 76(5):525–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mäkipää R (1999) Response patterns of Vaccinium myrtillus and V. vitis-idaea along nutrient gradients in boreal forest. J Veg Sci 17–26Google Scholar
  45. Menšík L, Kulhavý J, Kantor P, Remeš M (2009) Humus conditions of stands with the different proportion of Douglas fir in training forest district Hůrky and the Křtiny Forest Training Enterprise. J For Sci 55:345–356Google Scholar
  46. Michalak R (2011) FOREST EUROPE, UNECE and FAO 2011: State of Europe’s Forests 2011. Status and trends in sustainable forest management in Europe. Forest Europe, OsloGoogle Scholar
  47. Nagel J, Albert M, Schmidt M (2002) Das waldbauliche Prognose- und Entscheidungsmodell BWINPro6.1. Forst und Holz 57:486–493Google Scholar
  48. Naidu S, deLucia E (1997) Growth, allocation and water relations of shade-grown Quercus rubra L. saplings exposed to a late-season canopy gap. Ann Bot 80:335–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Näslund M (1936) Skogsförsöksanstaltens gallringsförsök i tallskog. Meddelanden från Statens Skogsförsöksanstalt 29:169 pGoogle Scholar
  50. Niklas KJ (1994) Plant allometry. The scaling of form and process. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, p 1994Google Scholar
  51. Oinas S, Sikanen L (2000) Discrete event simulation model for purchasing of marked stands, timber harvesting and transportation. Forestry 73:283–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Peric S, Seletkovic I, Medak J, Pilaš I, Topic V (2006) Research of thriving of six coniferous species in ecologically characteristic regions of Croatia. Rad Šumar inst Izvanredno izdanje 9:99–108Google Scholar
  53. Phillips NG, Ryan MG, Bond BJ, Dowell NGMC, Hinckley TM, Čermák J (2003) Reliance on stored water increases with tree size in three species in the Pacific Northwest. Tree Physiol 23:237–245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Plíva J (1991) Functionally integrated forest management I. Forest site condition classification (in Czech). UHUL Brandys nad LabemGoogle Scholar
  55. Poorter H, Niklas KJ, Reich PB, Oleksyn J, Poot P, Mommer L (2012) Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: meta-analyses of interspecific variation and environmental control. New Phytol 193:30–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pretzsch H (2009) Forest dynamics, growth and yield. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  57. Pretzsch H (2010) Re-evaluation of allometry: state-of-the-art and perspective regarding individuals and stands of woody plants. In: Lüttge UE, Beyschlag W, Büdel B, Francis D (eds) Progress in Botany 71, vol 71. Springer, Berlin, pp 339–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pretzsch H, Biber P, Ďurský J (2002) The single tree based stand simulator SILVA: construction, application and evaluation. For Ecol Manage 162:3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ranger J, Marques R, Colin-Belgrand M, Flammang N, Gelhaye D (1995) The dynamics of biomass and nutrient accumulation in a Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii Franco) stand studied using a chronosequence approach. For Ecol Manage 72:167–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Reich PB (2002) Root–shoot relations: optimality in acclimation and adaptation or the “Emperor’s new clothes”? In: Waisel Y, Eshel A (eds.) Plant roots: the hidden half, pp 205–220Google Scholar
  61. Rossi S, Deslauriers A, Anfodillo T, Carraro V (2007) Evidence of threshold temperatures for xylogenesis in conifers at high altitudes. Oecologia 152:1–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rötzer T, Seifert T, Pretzsch H (2008) Modeling above and below ground carbon dynamics in a mixed beech and spruce stand influenced by climate. Eur J Forest Res 128:171–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ryan M, Yoder B (1997) Hydraulic limits to tree height and tree growth. Bioscience 47(4):235–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Shinozaki KK, Yoda K, Hozumi L, Kira T (1964) A quantitative analysis of plant form—the pipe model theory. I. Basic analysis. Jpn J Ecol 14:97–105Google Scholar
  65. Sicard C, Sain-Andre L, Gelhaye D, Ranger J (2006) Effect of initial fertilization on biomass and nutrient content of Norway spruce and Douglas-fir plantations at the same site. Trees 20:229–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Siipilehto J (2000) A comparison of two parameter prediction methods for stand structure in Finland. Silva Fennica 34(4):331–349Google Scholar
  67. Šika A, Vinš B (1980) Growth of Douglas fir in the forest stands of Czechoslovakia (in Czech). Práce VÚLHM 57:73–95Google Scholar
  68. Spathelf P (2003) Reconstruction of crown length of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) and Silver fir (Abies alba Mill.)—technique, establishment of sample methods and application in forest growth analysis. Ann For Sci 60:833–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tatarinov F, Urban J, Čermák J (2008) Application of “clump technique” for root system studies of Quercus robur and Fraxinus excelsior. For Ecol Manage 255:495–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Teskey RO, Bongarten BC, Cregg BM, Dougherty PM, Hennessey TC (1987) Physiology and genetics of tree growth response to moisture and temperature stress: an examination of the characteristics of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.). Tree Physiol 3(1):41–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Timmis R, Flewelling J, Talbert C (1994) Frost injury prediction model for Douglas-fir seedlings in the Pacific Northwest. Tree Physiol 14:855–869PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tryon PR, Chapin FS (1983) Temperature control over root growth and root biomass in taiga forest trees. Can J For Res 13(5):827–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tyree M, Zimmerman MH (2002) Xylem structure and the ascent of sap. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Urban J, Rebrošová K, Dobrovolný L, Schneider J (2010) Allometry of four European beech stands growing at the contrasting localities in small-scale area. Folia Oecologica 37:103–112Google Scholar
  75. Van Cleve K, Oechel WC, Hom JL (1990) Response of black spruce (Picea mariana) ecosystems to soil-temperature modification in interior Alaska. Can J For Res 20:1530–1535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vinš B, Šika A (1981) Comparison of the growth reaction of Douglas fir and Norway spruce on site factors in the conditions of the CSR. Prace VULHM 58:7–33Google Scholar
  77. Vyskot M (1975) Results of a 25 years provenance experiment with larch (Larix decidua Mill.). Yield Science, Vienna, October 3–7Google Scholar
  78. Waring RH, Running SW (1978) Sapwood water storage: its contribution to transpiration and effect upon water conductance through the stems of old-growth Douglas-fir. Plant Cell Environ 1:131–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Waring RH, Whitehead D, Jarvis PG (1979) The contribution of stored water to transpiration in Scots pine. Plant Cell Environ 2:309–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zbíral J, Honsa I, Malý S (1997): Soil analysis III. Uniform working processes. ÚKZÚZ, Brno (in Czech)Google Scholar
  81. Zimmerman MH (1983) Xylem structure and the ascent of sap. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  82. Zweifel R, Item H, Häsler R (2000) Stem radius changes and their relation to stored water in stems of young Norway spruce trees. Trees 15:50–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Josef Urban
    • 1
  • Kateřina Holušová
    • 1
  • Ladislav Menšík
    • 1
  • Jan Čermák
    • 1
  • Petr Kantor
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Forestry and Wood TechnologyMendel University in BrnoBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations