Covariation between tree size and shade tolerance modulates mixed-forest productivity
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsSpecies richness Size inequality Stand productivity Functional characteristics Gini index
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.
- Bohn FJ, Huth A (2017) The importance of forest structure to biodiversity-productivity relationships. Royal Society Open Science 4Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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