Advertisement

Annals of Forest Science

, 75:101 | Cite as

Covariation between tree size and shade tolerance modulates mixed-forest productivity

  • Thomas Cordonnier
  • Thomas Bourdier
  • Georges Kunstler
  • Christian Piedallu
  • Benoît Courbaud
Research Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Mensuration and modelling for forestry in a changing environment

Abstract

Key message

In tree communities, tree size inequality reduces productivity and interacts with tree shade tolerance to modulate stand productivity, with a higher productivity in stands where shade-intolerant species dominate shade-tolerant species in size.

Context

Positive diversity–productivity relationships have been reported in different plant communities, including tree communities. These effects may be strongly related to both structural diversity and functional diversity, but also to their interactions if there is a non-random distribution of species functional characteristics among canopy layers.

Aims

We explore the relative effects on forest productivity of tree species diversity, tree size inequality, and species shade tolerance diversity, as well as the effect of the distribution of tree shade tolerance in the canopy.

Methods

We used 11,054 mixed-species forest plots from the French Forest Inventory (IGN) distributed throughout France (2006–2011). We analyzed the effects of species richness, shade tolerance diversity, and height inequality on forest plot productivity, represented by basal area annual increment over a period of 5 years, while controlling for first-order structure characteristics (basal area and quadratic mean diameter) and environmental factors (soil water budget and sum of growing degree days). Using the covariance between tree height and shade tolerance in mixed species canopies, we also explored the effect of the distribution of species’ shade tolerance among canopy layers.

Results

The results showed a positive effect of species richness (effect size, 0.02) and a negative effect of height inequality (− 0.05) on mixed-forest productivity. We also showed that a negative covariance between shade tolerance and height (e.g., higher proportion of shade-tolerant species in lower height classes) increased productivity (0.01). Shade tolerance diversity did not affect productivity.

Conclusion

In tree communities, as shown previously in monospecific forest stands, tree size inequality reduces productivity. This effect is modulated by the distribution of shade tolerance among canopy layers. Previous studies on species diversity effect have generally overlooked the importance of the size structure and the size hierarchy of functional characteristics. These effects are, however, crucial and deserve to be explored in greater detail.

Keywords

Species richness Size inequality Stand productivity Functional characteristics Gini index 

Notes

Funding

This article has been supported by the DISTIMACC project (BGF, no. Ecofor 2014–23) and the GIS-COOP “Cooperative for data on forest tree and stand growth”. LESSEM is part of Labex OSUG@2020 (ANR10 LABX56).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Assmann E (1970) The principles of forest yield study. Studies in the organic production, structure, increment and yield of forest stands 510 pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bertrand R, Lenoir J, Piedallu C, Riofrío-Dillon G, de Ruffray P, Vidal C, Pierrat JC, Gégout JC (2011) Changes in plant community composition lag behind climate warming in lowland forests. Nature 479:517–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Binkley D, Stape JL, Bauerle WL, Ryan MG (2010) Explaining growth of individual trees: light interception and efficiency of light use by Eucalyptus at four sites in Brazil. For Ecol Manag 259:1704–1713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bohn FJ, Huth A (2017) The importance of forest structure to biodiversity-productivity relationships. Royal Society Open Science 4Google Scholar
  5. Bourdier T (2016) Hétérogénéité des peuplements forestiers et production: interactions avec les traits fonctionnels des espèces. PhD Thesis, Université Grenoble Alpes. <NNT:2016GREAV050>. <tel-01684683>. https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01684683
  6. Bourdier T, Cordonnier T, Kunstler G, Piedallu C, Lagarrigues G, Courbaud B (2016) Tree size inequality reduces forest productivity: an analysis combining inventory data for ten European species and a light competition model. PLoS One 11:e0151852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bugmann H, Cramer W (1998) Improving the behaviour of forest gap models along drought gradients. For Ecol Manag 103:247–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cadotte MW, Carscadden K, Mirotchnick N (2011) Beyond species: functional diversity and the maintenance of ecological processes and services. J Appl Ecol 48:1079–1087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cardinale BJ, Wright JP, Cadotte MW, Carroll IT, Hector A, Srivastava DS, Loreau M, Weis JJ (2007) Impacts of plant diversity on biomass production increase through time because of species complementarity. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 104(46):18123–18128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cardinale BJ, Matulich KL, Hooper DU, Byrnes JE, Duffy E, Gamfeldt L, Balvanera P, O'Connor MI, Gonzalez A (2011) The functional role of producer diversity in ecosystems. Am J Bot 98:572–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, Narwani A, Mace GM, Tilman D, Wardle DA, Kinzig AP, Daily GC, Loreau M, Grace JB, Larigauderie A, Srivastava DS, Naeem S (2012) Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486:59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Caspersen JP, Vanderwel MC, Cole WG, Purves DW (2011) How stand productivity results from size- and competition-dependent growth and mortality. PLoS ONE 6(12):e28660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cordonnier T, Kunstler G (2015) The Gini index brings asymmetric competition to light. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 17:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Damgaard C, Weiner J (2000) Describing inequality in plant size or fecundity. Ecology 81:1139–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dănescu A, Albrecht AT, Bauhus J (2016) Structural diversity promotes productivity of mixed, uneven-aged forests in southwestern Germany. Oecologia 4:319–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. del Río M, Condés S, Pretzsch H (2014) Analyzing size-symmetric vs. size-asymmetric and intra- vs. inter-specific competition in beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) mixed stands. For Ecol Manag 325:90–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dı́az S, Cabido M (2001) Vive la différence: plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem processes. Trends Ecol Evol 16:646–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duduman G (2011) A forest management planning tool to create highly diverse uneven-aged stands. Forestry 84(3):301–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Duffy JE, Godwin CM, Cardinale BJ (2017) Biodiversity effects in the wild are common and as strong as key drivers of productivity. Nature 549:261–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Farnsworth KD, Albantakis L, Caruso T (2017) Unifying concepts of biological function from molecules to ecosystems. Oikos 126:1367–1376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Forrester DI (2013) The spatial and temporal dynamics of species interactions in mixed-species forests: from pattern to process. For Ecol Manag 312:282–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Forrester DI, Bauhus J (2016) A review of processes behind diversity—productivity relationships in forests. Curr Forestry Rep 2:45–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gadow K, Zhang CY, Wehenkel C, Pommerening A, Corral-rivas J, Korol M, Myklush S, Hui GY, Kiviste A, Zhao XH (2012) Forest structure and diversity. In: Pukkala T, von Gadow K (eds) Continuous cover forestry. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 29-83Google Scholar
  24. Gamfeldt L, Snäll T, Bagchi R, Jonsson M, Gustafsson L, Kjellander P, Ruiz-Jaen MC, Fröberg M, Stendahl J, Philipson CD, Mikusiński G, Andersson E, Westerlund B, Andrén H, Moberg F, Moen J, Bengtsson J (2013) Higher levels of multiple ecosystem services are found in forests with more tree species. Nat Commun 4:1340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grace JB, Anderson TM, Seabloom EW, Borer ET, Adler PB, Harpole WS, Hautier Y, Hillebrand H, Lind EM, Pärtel M, Bakker JD, Buckley YM, Crawley MJ, Damschen EI, Davies KF, Fay PA, Firn J, Gruner DS, Hector A, Knops JMH, MacDougall AS, Melbourne BA, Morgan JW, Orrock JL, Prober SM, Smith MD (2016) Integrative modelling reveals mechanisms linking productivity and plant species richness. Nature 529(7586):390–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hardiman BS, Bohrer G, Gough CM, Vogel CS, Curtisi PS (2011) The role of canopy structural complexity in wood net primary production of a maturing northern deciduous forest. Ecology 92:1818–1827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huston MA (2000) No consistent effect of plant diversity on productivity. Science 289:1255aCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jucker T, Bouriaud O, Avacaritei D, Coomes DA (2014) Stabilizing effects of diversity on aboveground wood production in forest ecosystems: linking patterns and processes. Ecol Lett 17:1560–1569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kelty MJ, Larson BC, Oliver CD (1992) The ecology and silviculture of mixed-species forests. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Klopcic M, Boncina A (2011) Stand dynamics of silver fir (Abies alba mill.)—European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) forests during the past century: a decline of silver fir? Forestry 84:259–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kunstler G, Coomes DA, Canham CD (2009) Size-dependence of growth and mortality influence the shade tolerance of trees in a lowland temperate rain forest. J Ecol 97:685–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kunstler G, Albert CH, Courbaud B, Lavergne S, Thuiller W, Vieilledent G, Zimmermann NE, Coomes DA (2011) Effects of competition on tree radial-growth vary in importance but not in intensity along climatic gradients. J Ecol 99:300–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Laliberté E, Legendre P (2010) A distance-based framework for measuring functional diversity from multiple traits. Ecology 91:299–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lei X, Wang W, Peng C (2009) Relationships between stand growth and structural diversity in spruce-dominated forests in New Brunswick, Canada. Can J For Res 39:1835–1847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lexerød NL, Eid T (2006) An evaluation of different diameter diversity indices based on criteria related to forest management planning. For Ecol Manag 222:17–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Liang J, Buongiorno J, Monserud RA (2005) Growth and yield of all-aged Douglas-fir—western hemlock forest stands: a matrix model with stand diversity effects. Can J For Res 35:2368–2381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Liang J, Buongiorno J, Monserud RA, Kruger EL, Zhou M (2007) Effects of diversity of tree species and size on forest basal area growth, recruitment, and mortality. For Ecol Manag 243:116–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Liang J et al (2016) Positive biodiversity-productivity relationship predominant in global forests. Science 354:aaf8957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Long JN, Shaw JD (2010) The influence of compositional and structural diversity on forest productivity. Forestry 83:121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lusk CH, Reich PB, Montgomery RA, Ackerly DD, Cavender-Bares J (2008) Why are evergreen leaves so contrary about shade? Trends Ecol Evol 23:299–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mason NWH, de Bello F, Mouillot D, Pavoine S, Dray S (2012) A guide for using functional diversity indices to reveal changes in assembly processes along ecological gradients. J Veg Sci 24:794–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Messier C, Parent S, Bergeron Y (1998) Effects of overstory and understory vegetation on the understory light environment in mixed boreal forests. J Veg Sci 9:511–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Morin X, Fahse L, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Bugmann H (2011) Tree species richness promotes productivity in temperate forests through strong complementarity between species. Ecol Lett 14:1211–1219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Niinemets Ü, Valladares F (2006) Tolerance to shade, drought, and waterlogging of temperate northern hemisphere trees and shrubs. Ecol Monogr 76:521–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. O’Hara KL, Hasenauer H, Kindermann G (2007) Sustainability in multi-aged stands: an analysis of long-term plenter systems. Forestry 80:163–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Paquette A, Messier C (2011) The effect of biodiversity on tree productivity: from temperate to boreal forests. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 20:170–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Piedallu C, Gégout JC (2008) Efficient assessment of topographic solar radiation to improve plant distribution models. Agric For Meteorol 148:1696–1706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Piedallu C, Gégout J-C, Bruand A, Seynave I (2011) Mapping soil water holding capacity over large areas to predict the potential production of forest stands. Geoderma 160:355–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Piedallu C, Gégout J-C, Perez V, Lebourgeois F (2013) Soil water balance performs better than climatic water variables in tree species distribution modelling. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 22:470–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Piotto D (2008) A meta-analysis comparing tree growth in monocultures and mixed plantations. For Ecol Manag 255:781–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Plummer M (2003) JAGS: a program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Distributed Statistical Computing (DSC 2003). March pp. 20–22Google Scholar
  52. Pretzsch H (2003) The elasticity of growth in pure and mixed stands of Norway spruce (Picea abies [ L .] Karst .) and common beech ( Fagus sylvatica L.). J For Sci 49:491–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pretzsch H (2005) Diversity and productivity in forests: evidence from long-term experimental plots. In: Scherer-Lorenzen M, Körner C, Schulze E-D (eds) Forest Diversity and Function, Ecological Studies Vol. 176Google Scholar
  54. Pretzsch H, Schütze G (2016) Effect of tree species mixing on the size structure, density, and yield of forest stands. Eur J For Res 135:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Roscher C, Schumacher J, Gubsch M, Lipowsky A, Weigelt A, Buchmann N, Schmid B, Schulze E-D (2012) Using plant functional traits to explain diversity-productivity relationships. PLoS One 7:e36760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ryan MG, Stape JL, Binkley D, Fonseca S, Loos RA, Takahashi EN, Silva CR, Silva SR, Hakamada RE, Ferreira JM, Lima AMN, Gava JL, Leite FP, Andrade HB, Alves JM, Silva GGC (2010) Factors controlling Eucalyptus productivity: how water availability and stand structure alter production and carbon allocation. For Ecol Manag 259:1695–1703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Scherer-Lorenzen M, Körner C, Schulze E-DD, Korner C, Schulze E-DD, Körner C (2005) Forest diversity and function. Ecological Studies Vol. 176, p. 399, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  58. Silva Pedro M, Rammer W, Seidl R (2017) Disentangling the effects of compositional and structural diversity on forest productivity. J Veg Sci 28:649–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Soares AAV, Leite HG, Souza AL, Silva SR, Lourenço HM, Forrester DI (2016) Increasing stand structural heterogeneity reduces productivity in Brazilian Eucalyptus monoclonal stands. For Ecol Manag 373:26–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tilman D, Reich PB, Isbell F (2012) Biodiversity impacts ecosystem productivity as much as resources, disturbance, or herbivory. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:10394–10397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Turc L (1961) Estimation of irrigation water requirements, potential evapotranspiration: a simple climatic formula evolved up to date. J Annu Agron 12:13–14Google Scholar
  62. Valbuena R, Packalén P, Martin-Fernández S, Maltamo M (2012) Diversity and equitability ordering profiles applied to study forest structure. For Ecol Manag 276:185–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vallet P, Pérot T (2011) Silver fir stand productivity is enhanced when mixed with Norway spruce: evidence based on large-scale inventory data and a generic modelling approach. J Veg Sci 22:932–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vilà M, Vayreda J, Comas L, Ibáñez JJ, Mata T, Obón B (2007) Species richness and wood production: a positive association in Mediterranean forests. Ecol Lett 10:241–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vilà M, Carrillo-Gavilán A, Vayreda J, Bugmann H, Fridman J, Grodzki W, Haase J, Kunstler G, Schelhaas MJ, Trasobares A (2013) Disentangling biodiversity and climatic determinants of wood production. PLoS One 8:e53530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wernsdörfer H, Colin A, Bontemps JD, Chevalier H, Pignard G, Caurla S, Leban JM, Hervé JC, Fournier M (2012) Large-scale dynamics of a heterogeneous forest resource are driven jointly by geographically varying growth conditions, tree species composition and stand structure. Ann For Sci 69:829–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Whittaker RJ (2010) Meta-analyses and mega-mistakes: calling time on meta-analysis of the species richness-productivity relationship. Ecology 91:2522–2533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zeller L, Liang J, Pretzsch H (2018) Tree species richness enhances stand productivity while stand structure can have opposite effects, based on forest inventory data from Germany and the United States of America. Forest Ecosystems 5:4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zhang Y, Chen HYH (2015) Individual size inequality links forest diversity and above-ground biomass. J Ecol 103:1245–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zhang Y, Chen HYH, Reich PB (2012) Forest productivity increases with evenness, species richness and trait variation: a global meta-analysis. J Ecol 100:742–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Irstea, UR LESSEMSaint-Martin-d’Hères cedexFrance
  2. 2.AgroParisTech, Inra, SilvaUniversité de LorraineNancyFrance

Personalised recommendations