, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 583–591 | Cite as

Impact of stand density on tree morphology and growth stresses in young beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) stands

  • Mathieu Dassot
  • Thiéry Constant
  • François Ningre
  • Meriem Fournier
Original Paper


Key message

According to biomechanical processes, tree morphology (trunk inclination, height-to-diameter ratio and crown area) explains statistically silvicultural effects on growth stress variation.


Growth stresses constitute the main mechanism allowing the tree to control its posture against its mechanical environment, but are also among the most important factors contributing to the depreciation of timber value. This study aimed at assessing the link between stand planting density and growth stress level in European beech (Fagus sylvatica) stands. Beech seedlings were planted in four plots corresponding to four planting densities: 2,500, 5,000, 10,000 and 40,000 stems/ha. They were left to grow for 26 years without any intervention, resulting in trees with highly different morphologies but of the same age and provenance. After 26 years of growth, both the tree morphology and growth stress indicators were measured on the standing trees in each plot and an attempt was made to establish a link between them. Our results showed that initial stand density influences growth stresses of the first order as a result of its impact on tree morphology. The best predictors of high growth stresses were high trunk inclination, high height-to-diameter ratio (slenderness factor) and low crown area. According to mechanosensing theories, these morphological criteria emphasised that growth stresses are due to a global mechanical stimulation rather than to local stem inclination alone. Research now has to be undertaken on new methods that combine the integrative assessment of tree morphology as well as its monitoring over time.


Growth stresses Gravitropism Silviculture Dendrometry Tree biomechanics 


Author contribution statement

MD wrote the major part of the manuscript and was in charge of data analysis. MF contributed to the redaction of the manuscript. TC and FN contributed to data acquisition and pre-processing, as well as manuscript reviewing and content validation.


The UMR 1092 LERFoB is supported by the French National Research Agency (ANR) through the Laboratory of Excellence ARBRE (ANR-12-LABXARBRE-01). This project has also received ANR support through the EMERGE project (ANR BIOENERGIES 2008 BIOE-003) and support from the French Forestry Office (ONF) through the ModelFor contract. The Lyons-La-Forêt experiment was implemented and measured by the technical team of LERFoB, in particular Bruno Garnier and Emmanuel Cornu. This work was also part of the Ph.D thesis of Mathieu Dassot, prepared at the RP2E doctorate school (ED 410, Ressources, Procédés, Produits, Environnement).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Almeras T, Thibaut A, Gril J (2005) Effect of circumferential heterogeneity of wood maturation strain, modulus of elasticity and radial growth on the regulation of stem orientation in trees. Trees-Struct Funct 19:457–467. doi: 10.1007/s00468-005-0407-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almeras T, Gril J, Jullien D, Fournier M (2008) Growth-related stresses in stems–modelling their development and their biological function. Les contraintes de croissance dans les tiges: modelisation de leur mise en place et de leur fonction biologique Revue Forestiere Francaise 60:749–760Google Scholar
  3. Archer RR (1989) On the origin of growth stresses in trees 2. Stresses generated in a tissue of developing cells. Wood Sci Technol 23:311–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arganbright DG, Bensend DW (1968) Relationship of gelatinous fiber development to tree lean in soft maple. Wood Sci 1:37–40Google Scholar
  5. Bamber RK (2001) A general theory for the origin of growth stresses in reaction wood: how trees stay upright. Iawa J 22:205–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barbacci A, Constant T, Nepveu G (2009) Theoretical and experimental study of a mechanical model describing the trunk behaviour of mature beech trees (Fagus sylvatica L.) under the static loading of the crown. Trees-Struct Funct 23:1137–1147. doi: 10.1007/s00468-009-0367-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Becker G, Beimgraben T (2001) Stresses in beech–occurence and relevance of growth stresses in beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in Central EuropeGoogle Scholar
  8. Boyd JD (1977) Relationship between fibre morphology and shrinkage of wood. Wood Sci Technol 11:3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Constant T, Nepveu G (2007) Constraints on the growth of beech: state of knowledge and perspectives. RenDez-Vous Techniques:76–84Google Scholar
  10. Coutand C (2010) Mechanosensing and thigmomorphogenesis, a physiological and biomechanical point of view. Plant Sci 179:168–182. doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2010.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coutand C, Moulia B (2000) Biomechanical study of the effect of a controlled bending on tomato stem elongation: local strain sensing and spatial integration of the signal. J Exp Bot 51:1825–1842. doi: 10.1093/jexbot/51.352.1825 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Coutand C, Fournier M, Moulia B (2007) The gravitropic response of poplar trunks: key roles of prestressed wood regulation and the relative kinetics of cambial growth versus wood maturation. Plant Physiol 144:1166–1180. doi: 10.1104/pp.106.088153 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Dassot M, Constant T, Fournier M (2011) The use of terrestrial LiDAR technology in forest science: application fields, benefits and challenges. Ann For Sci 68:959–974. doi: 10.1007/s13595-011-0102-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dassot M, Colin A, Santenoise P, Fournier M, Constant T (2012a) Terrestrial laser scanning for measuring the solid wood volume, including branches, of adult standing trees in the forest environment. Comput Electron Agric 89:86–93. doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2012.08.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dassot M, Fournier M, Ningre F, Constant T (2012b) Effect of tree size and competition on tension wood production over time in beech plantations and assessing relative gravitropic response with a biomechanical model. Am J Bot 99:1427–1435CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Development Core Team R (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  17. Du S, Yamamoto F (2007) An overview of the biology of reaction wood formation. J Integr Plant Biol 49:131–143. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7909.2007.00427 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferrand JC (1982) Study of growth stresses. 2. Variations in the forest of growth stresses of beech (Fagus sylvatica L.). Ann Des Sci For 39:187–218. doi: 10.1051/forest:19820301 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferrand JC (1983) Growth stresses and their consequences for silviculture and sawing methods. Rev For Fr 35:327–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fournier M, Langbour P, Guitard D (1990) Mechanics of standing trees–the evaluation of gravitational forces on a tree trunk from the usual tree measurements. Ann Des Sci For 47:565–577. doi: 10.1051/forest:19900603 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fournier M, Chanson B, Thibaut B, Guitard D (1994) Measurements of residual growth strains at the stem surface: observations on different species. Ann Des Sci For 51:249–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fournier M, Dlouhá J, Jaouen G, Almeras T (2013) Integrative biomechanics for tree ecology: beyond wood density and strength. J Exp Bot:4793–4815Google Scholar
  23. Huang YS, Hung LF, Kuo-Huang LL (2010) Biomechanical modeling of gravitropic response of branches: roles of asymmetric periphery growth strain versus self-weight bending effect. Trees-Struct Funct 24:1151–1161. doi: 10.1007/s00468-010-0491-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jourez B, Avella-Shaw T (2003) Effect of gravitational stimulus duration on tension wood formation in young stems of poplar (P-euramericana ev ‘Ghoy’). Ann For Sci 60:31–41. doi: 10.1051/forest:2002071 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jullien D, Widmann R, Loup C, Thibaut B (2013) Relationship between tree morphology and growth stress in mature European beech stands. Ann For Sci 70:133–142. doi: 10.1007/s13595-012-0247-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaiser M, Pillow MY (1955) Tension wood in eastern cottonwood. 149Google Scholar
  27. Kubler H (1988) Silvicultural control of mechanical stresses in trees. Can J For Res 18:1215–1225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Le Goff N, Ottorini JM, Ningre F (2011) Evaluation and comparison of size-density relationships for pure even-aged stands of ash (Fraxinus excelsior L.), beech (Fagus silvatica L.), oak (Quercus petraea Liebl.), and sycamore maple (Acer pseudoplatanus L.). Ann For Sci 68:461–475. doi: 10.1007/s13595-011-0052-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lenz O, Strässler HJ (1959) Contribution à l’étude de l’éclatement des billes de hêtre: (Fagus sylvatica L.) vol 5. Schweizerische Anstalt für das forstliche VersuchswesenGoogle Scholar
  30. Nicholson JE (1973) Growth stress differences in Eucalypts. For Sci 19:169–174Google Scholar
  31. Ningre F, Cordonnier T, Piboule A (2011) Typologie et réactivité des perches de hêtres en forêt hétérogène Forêt Wallonne 111:16–25Google Scholar
  32. Pardé J, Bouchon J (1988) Forest mensuration. Dendrometrie, 2nd edn. Ecole Nationale du Genie Rural, des Eaux et des Forets, Nancy FranceGoogle Scholar
  33. Polge H (1982) Growth stresses in forest trees Comptes Rendus des Seances de l’Academie d’Agriculture de France 68:1307–1316Google Scholar
  34. Saurat J, Gueneau P (1976) Growth stresses in beech. Wood Sci Technol 10:111–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schroter M, Hardtle W, von Oheimb G (2012) Crown plasticity and neighborhood interactions of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in an old-growth forest Eur. J For Res 131:787–798. doi: 10.1007/s10342-011-0552-y Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mathieu Dassot
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Thiéry Constant
    • 1
  • François Ningre
    • 1
  • Meriem Fournier
    • 2
  1. 1.UMR 1092 LERFoB, INRAChampenouxFrance
  2. 2.UMR 1092 LERFoB, AgroParisTechNancyFrance
  3. 3.EcoSustain, Environmental Engineering Office, Research and DevelopmentKanfenFrance

Personalised recommendations