Advertisement

Annals of Forest Science

, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp 325–335 | Cite as

A comprehensive framework of forest stand property–density relationships: perspectives for plant population ecology and forest management

  • James N. Long
  • Giorgio VacchianoEmail author
Review Paper

Abstract

Context

There are many stand property–density relationships in ecology which represent emergent properties of plant populations. Examples include self-thinning, competition–density effect, constant final yield, and age-related decline in stand growth. We suggest that these relationships are different aspects of a general framework of stand property–density relationships.

Aims

We aim to illustrate the generalities and ecological implications of stand property–density relationships, and organize them in a comprehensive framework.

Methods

We illustrate relationships between stand property and density (1) at one point in time, (2) over time, and (3) independent of time. We review the consequences of considering different variables to characterize stand property (mean tree size, mean tree growth, stand growth, stand yield, stand leaf area).

Results

We provide a framework that integrates the broad categories of stand property–density relationships and individual expressions of these relationships. For example, we conclude that constant final yield is a special case of the growth–growing stock relationship for life forms were yield is a reasonable approximation of growth (non-woody plants).

Conclusion

There is support in the literature for leaf area being broadly integrative with respect to various expressions of stand property–density relationships. We show how this is and suggest implications for plant population ecology and forest management.

Keywords

Competition Leaf area Population ecology Self-thinning Stand density Stand dynamics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Wanda Lindquist assisted with preparation of the figures.

Funding

This research was supported by the Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, Utah State University, Logan, Utah 84322-4810. Approved as journal paper no. 8554.

References

  1. Assmann E (1970) The Principles of Forest Yield Study. Pergamon Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Berger U, Hildenbrandt H, Grimm V (2004) Age-related decline in forest production: modelling the effects of growth limitation, neighbourhood competition and self-thinning. J Ecol 92:846–853Google Scholar
  3. Bi H, Wan G, Turvey ND (2000) Estimating the self-thinning boundary line as a density-dependent stochastic biomass frontier. Ecology 81:1477–1483Google Scholar
  4. Binkley D, Stape JL, Ryan MG, Barnard HR, Fownes JH (2002) Age-related decline in forest ecosystem growth: an individual-tree, stand-structure hypothesis. Ecosystems 5:58–67Google Scholar
  5. Bonan GB, Levis S, Sitch S, Vertenstein M, Oleson KW (2003) A dynamic global vegetation model for use with climate models: concepts and description of simulated vegetation dynamics. Global Change Biol 9:1543–1566Google Scholar
  6. Burkhart HE (2013) Comparison of maximum size–density relationships based on alternate stand attributes for predicting tree numbers and stand growth. For Ecol Manage 289:404–408Google Scholar
  7. Cao QV, Dean TJ, Baldwin VC Jr (2000) Modeling the size–density relationship in direct-seeded slash pine stands. For Sci 46:317–321Google Scholar
  8. Charru M, Seynave I, Morneau F, Rivoire M, Bontemps JD (2012) Significant curvilinear in the self-thinning relationships of 11 temperate tree species assessed from forest inventory data. Ann For Sci 69:195–205Google Scholar
  9. Clark JS (1990) Integration of ecological levels: individual plant growth, population mortality and ecosystem processes. J Ecol 78:275–299Google Scholar
  10. Curtis RO, Marshall DD, Bell JF (1997) LOGS: a pioneering example of silvicultural research in coast Douglas-fir. J For 95:19–25Google Scholar
  11. Deng J, Li T, Wang G, Liu J, Yu Z, Zhao C, Ji M, Zhang Q, Liu J (2008) Trade-offs between the metabolic rate and population density of plants. PLoS One 3:e1799PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Deng J, Zuo W, Wang Z, Fan Z, Ji M, Wang G, Ran J, Zhao C, Liu J, Niklas KJ, Hammond ST, Brown JH (2012) Insights into plant size–density relationships from models and agricultural crops. Procs Nat Acad Sci 109:8600–8605Google Scholar
  13. DeRose RJ, Shaw JD, Vacchiano G, Long JN (2008) Improving longleaf pine mortality predictions in the Southern Variant of the Forest Vegetation Simulator. In: Havis RN, Crookston NL (eds) Third Forest Vegetation Simulator Conference; Fort Collins, February 13–15, 2007; Proceedings RMRS-P-54. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO, pp 160–166Google Scholar
  14. Deshar R, Sharma S, Mouctar K, Wu M, Hoque ATMR, Hagihara A (2012) Self-thinning exponents for partial organs in overcrowded mangrove Bruguiera gymnorrhiza stands on Okinawa Island, Japan. For Ecol Manage 278:146–154Google Scholar
  15. Drew TJ, Flewelling JW (1977) Some recent Japanese theories of yield–density relationships and their application to Monterey pine plantations. For Sci 23:517–534Google Scholar
  16. Eichhorn F (1904) Beziehungen zwischen Bestandshöhe und Bestandsmasse. Allg Forst Jadz 80:45–49Google Scholar
  17. Enquist BJ, Brown JH, West GB (1998) Allometric scaling of plant energetics and population density. Nature 395:163–165Google Scholar
  18. Ex SA, Smith FW (2013) Stand density index estimates leaf area index in uneven-aged Ponderosa pine stands. West J Appl For 28:9–12Google Scholar
  19. Fish H, Lieffers VJ, Silins U, Hall RJ (2006) Crown shyness in lodgepole pine stands of varying stand height, density, and site index in the upper foothills of Alberta. Can J For Res 36:2104–2111Google Scholar
  20. Goldstein J (1999) Emergence as a construct: history and issues. Emergence 1:49–72Google Scholar
  21. Grier CC, Waring RH (1974) Conifer foliage mass related to sap-wood area. For Sci 20:205–206Google Scholar
  22. Hay RKM (1995) Harvest index: a review of its use in plant breeding and crop physiology. Ann Appl Biol 126:197–216Google Scholar
  23. Harms WR, Whitesell CD, DeBell DS (2000) Growth and development of loblolly pine in a spacing trial planted in Hawaii. For Ecol Manage 126:13–24Google Scholar
  24. Holdaway RJ, Allen RB, Clinton PW, Davis MR, Coomes DA (2008) Intraspecific changes in forest canopy allometries during self-thinning. Funct Ecol 22:460–469Google Scholar
  25. Husch B, Miller CI, Beers TW (1982) Forest Mensuration. John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Hynynen J (1993) Self-thinning models for even-aged stands of Pinus sylvestris, Picea abies and Betula pendula. Scand J For Res 8:326–336Google Scholar
  27. Jack SB, Long JN (1996) Linkages between silviculture and ecology: an analysis of density management diagrams. For Ecol Manage 86:205–220Google Scholar
  28. Kira T, Ogawa H, Sakazaki N (1953) Interspecific competition among higher plants. I. Competition–yield–density interrelationship in regularly dispersed populations. J Inst Polytech Osaka City Univ 4:1–16Google Scholar
  29. Kira T, Shidei T (1967) Primary production and turnover of organic matter in different forest ecosystems of the Western Pacific. Japan J Ecol 17:70–87Google Scholar
  30. Langsæter A (1941) Om tynning I enaldret granog furuskog. Medd Norsk Skogfor 8:131–216Google Scholar
  31. Laroque GR (2002) Examining different concepts for the development of a distance-dependent competition model for red pine diameter growth using long-term stand data differing in initial stand density. For Sci 48:24–34Google Scholar
  32. Leary RA (1997) Testing models of unthinned red pine plantation dynamics using a modified Bakuzis matrix of stand properties. Ecol Modelling 98:35–46Google Scholar
  33. Lin Y, Grimm V, Berger U, Huth F (2011) Reconciling metabolic scaling theory with observed variation in self-thinning trajectories: the relative roles of individual ontogeny, mode of competition, and resource limitation. eprint arXiv:1101.3176Google Scholar
  34. Long JN (1985) A practical approach to density management. For Chron 61:23–27Google Scholar
  35. Long JN, Dean TJ (1986) Sapwood area of Pinus contorta stands as a function of mean size and density. Oecologia 68:410–412PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Long JN, Dean TJ, Roberts SD (2004) Linkages between silviculture and ecology: examination of several important conceptual models. For Ecol Manage 200:249–261Google Scholar
  37. Long JN, Shaw JD (2005) A density management diagram for even-aged Ponderosa pine stands. West J Appl For 20:205–215Google Scholar
  38. Long JN, Shaw JD (2010) The influence of compositional and structural diversity on forest productivity. Forestry 83:121–128Google Scholar
  39. Long JN, Shaw JD (2012) A density management diagram for even-aged Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer stands. West J Appl For 27:187–195Google Scholar
  40. Long JN, Smith FW (1984) Relation between size and density in developing stands: a description and possible mechanisms. For Ecol Manage 7:191–206Google Scholar
  41. Long JN, Smith FW (1990) Determinants of stemwood production in Pinus contorta var. latifolia forests: the influence of site quality and stand structure. J Appl Ecol 27:847–856Google Scholar
  42. Long JN, Smith FW (1992) Volume increment in Pinus contorta var. latifolia: the influence of stand development and crown dynamics. For Ecol Manage 53:53–64Google Scholar
  43. Lonsdale WM, Watkinson AR (1982) Light and self-thinning. New Phytol 90:431–445Google Scholar
  44. Magnani F, Mencuccini M, Grace J (2000) Age-related decline in stand productivity: the role of structural acclimation under hydraulic constraints. Plant Cell Environ 23:251–263Google Scholar
  45. Mäkelä A, Valentine HT (2006) Crown ratio influences allometric scaling in trees. Ecology 87:2967–2972PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Martínez-Vilalta J, Vanderklein D, Mencuccini M (2006) Tree height and age-related decline in growth in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). Oecologia 150:529–544PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Meng SX, Rudnicki M, Lieffers VJ et al (2006) Preventing crown collisions increases the crown cover and leaf area of maturing lodgepole pine. J Ecol 94:681–686Google Scholar
  48. Monserud RA, Ledermann T, Sterba H (2004) Are self-thinning constraints needed in a tree-specific mortality model? For Sci 50:848–858Google Scholar
  49. Morris EC (2002) Self-thinning lines differ with fertility level. Ecol Res 17:17–28Google Scholar
  50. Newton PF (1997) Stand density management diagrams: review of their development and utility in stand-level management planning. For Ecol Manage 98:251–265Google Scholar
  51. Oliver CD, Larson BC (1996) Forest Stand Dynamics. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Pretzsch H (2010) Forest Dynamics, Growth and Yield: From Measurement to Model. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  53. Pretzsch H, Biber P (2005) A re-evaluation of Reineke’s rule and stand density index. For Sci 51:304–320Google Scholar
  54. Pretzsch H, Dieler J (2012) Evidence of variant intra- and interspecific scaling of tree crown structure and relevance for allometric theory. Oecologia 169:637–649PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Pretzsch H, Mette T (2008) Linking stand-level self-thinning allometry to the tree-level leaf biomass allometry. Trees 22:611–622Google Scholar
  56. Putz FE, Parker GG, Archibald RM (1984) Mechanical abrasion and intercrown spacing. Am Midl Nat 112:24–28Google Scholar
  57. Reineke LH (1933) Perfecting a stand–density index for even-aged forests. J Agric Res 46:627–638Google Scholar
  58. Reyes-Hernandez V, Comeau PG, Bokalo M (2013) Static and dynamic maximum size–density relationships for mixed trembling aspen and white spruce stands in western Canada. For Ecol Manage 289:300–311Google Scholar
  59. Reynolds JH, Ford ED (2005) Improving competition representation in theoretical models of self-thinning: a critical review. J Ecol 93:362–372Google Scholar
  60. Rivoire M, Le Moguedec G (2012) A generalized self-thinning relationship for multi-species and mixed-size forests. Ann For Sci 69:207–219Google Scholar
  61. Rudnicki M, Lieffers VJ, Silins U (2003) Stand structure governs the crown collisions of lodgepole pine. Can J For Res 33:1238–1244Google Scholar
  62. Ryan MG, Binkley D, Fownes JH (1997) Age-related decline in forest productivity: pattern and process. Adv Ecol Res 27:213–262Google Scholar
  63. Schütz JP, Zingg A (2010) Improving estimations of maximal stand density by combining Reineke’s size–density rule and the yield level, using the example of spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) and European Beech (Fagus sylvatica L.). Ann For Sci 67:507Google Scholar
  64. Shaw JD (2000) Application of stand density index to irregularly structured stands. West J Appl For 15:40–42Google Scholar
  65. Shaw JD, Long JN (2007) A density management diagram for longleaf pine stands with application to red-cockaded woodpecker habitat. South J Appl For 31:28–38Google Scholar
  66. Shinozaki K, Kira T (1956) Intraspecific competition among higher plants. VII. Logistic theory of the C-D effect. J Inst Polytech Osaka City Univ 7:35–72Google Scholar
  67. Simini F, Anfodillo T, Carrer M, Baravan JR, Maritan A (2010) Self-similarity and scaling in forest communities. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107:7658–7662PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. Skovsgaard JP, Vanclay JK (2008) Forest site productivity: a review of the evolution of dendrometric concepts for even-aged stands. Forestry 81:13–31Google Scholar
  69. Smith NJ, Hann DW (1986) A growth model based on the self-thinning rule. Can J For Res 16:330–334Google Scholar
  70. Smith DM, Larson BC, Kelty MJ, Ashton PMS (1997) The Practice of Silviculture: Applied Forest Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  71. Smith FW, Long JN (1989) The influence of canopy architecture on stemwood production and growth efficiency of Pinus contorta var. latifolia. J Appl Ecol 26:681–691Google Scholar
  72. Smith FW, Long JN (2001) Age-related decline in forest growth: an emergent property. For Ecol Manage 144:175–181Google Scholar
  73. Sterba H (1981) Natürlicher Bestockungsgrad und Reinekes SDI. Centralblt Gesamt Forstwes 98:101–116Google Scholar
  74. Sterba H (1987) Estimating potential density from thinning experiments and inventory data. For Sci 33:1022–1034Google Scholar
  75. Thomas SC (2010) Photosynthetic capacity peaks at intermediate size in temperate deciduous trees. Tree Physiol 30:555–573PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Toda M, Yokozawa M, Sumida A, Watanabe T, Hara T (2009) Foliage profiles of individual trees determine competition, self-thinning, biomass and NPP of a Cryptomeria japonica forest stand: a simulation study based on a stand-scale process-based forest model. Ecol Model 220:2272–2280Google Scholar
  77. Turner J, Long JN (1975) Accumulation of organic matter in a series of Douglas-fir stands. Can J For Res 5:681–690Google Scholar
  78. Vacchiano G, Castagneri D, Meloni F, Lingua E, Motta R (2011) Point pattern analysis of crown-to-crown interactions in mountain forests. Proc Environ Sci 7:269–274Google Scholar
  79. Vacchiano G, DeRose RJ, Shaw JD, Svoboda M, Motta R (2013) A density management diagram for Norway spruce in the temperate European montane region. Eur J For Res 132:535–549Google Scholar
  80. Vanclay JK (2009) Tree diameter, height and stocking in even-aged forests. Ann For Sci 66:702–702Google Scholar
  81. Weiner J, Freckleton RP (2010) Constant final yield. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 41:173–192Google Scholar
  82. Weiner J, Thomas SC (1986) Size variability and competition in plant monocultures. Oikos 47:211–222Google Scholar
  83. Weiner J, Thomas SC (2001) The nature of tree growth and the age-related decline in forest productivity. Oikos 94:374–376Google Scholar
  84. West GB, Brown JH, Enquist BJ (1997) A general model for the origin of allometric scaling laws in biology. Science 276:122–126PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. White EP, Ernest SKM, Kerkhoff AJ, Enquist BJ (2007) Relationships between body size and abundance in ecology. Trends in Ecol Evol 22:323–330Google Scholar
  86. White JN, Harper JL (1970) Correlated changes in plant size and number in plant populations. J Ecol 58:467–485Google Scholar
  87. Woodall CW, Perry CH, Miles PD (2006) The relative density of forests in the United States. For Ecol Manage 226:368–372Google Scholar
  88. Xu CY, Turnbull MH, Tissue DT, Lewis JD, Carson R, Schuster WSF, Whitehead D, Walcroft AS, Li J, Griffin KL (2012) Age-related decline of stand biomass accumulation is primarily due to mortality and not to reduction in NPP associated with individual tree physiology, tree growth or stand structure in a Quercus-dominated forest. J Ecol 100:428–440Google Scholar
  89. Xue L, Hagihara A (2012) Self-thinning lines of organs and aboveground parts based on allometric relationships in overcrowded Pinus densiflora stands. Ecol Res 27:15–21Google Scholar
  90. Yoda K, Kira T, Ogawa H, Hozumi K (1963) Self-thinning in over-crowded pure stands under cultivated and natural conditions (intraspecific competition among higher plants. XI.). J Biol Osaka City Univ 14:107–129Google Scholar
  91. Yoder BJ, Ryan MG, Waring RH, Schoettle AW, Kaufmann MR (1994) Evidence of reduced photosynthetic rates in old trees. For Sci 40:513–527Google Scholar
  92. Zeide B (1985) Tolerance and self-tolerance of trees. For Ecol Manage 13:149–166Google Scholar
  93. Zeide B (1987) Analysis of the 3/2 power law of self-thinning. For Sci 33:517–537Google Scholar
  94. Zeide B (2001) Thinning and growth: a full turnaround. J For 99:20–25(6)Google Scholar
  95. Zhang L, Bi H, Gove JH, Heath LS (2005) A comparison of alternative methods for estimating the self-thinning boundary line. Can J For Res 35:1507–1514Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2013

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

To view a copy of this license, visit (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/)

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Quinney College of Natural Resources and Ecology CenterUtah State UniversityLoganUSA
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, Forestali e AlimentariUniversità degli Studi di TorinoGrugliascoItaly

Personalised recommendations