, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 223–230 | Cite as

Estimation of canopy density and irradiance in 20- to 40-year-old birch stands (Betula pubescens Ehrh. andBetula pendula Roth)

  • Tord Johansson
Original Article


Three different experiments in birch (Betula pubescens Ehrh. andBetula pendula Roth) stands were conducted during summer 1991: an evaluation of the accuracy of the vertical tube method measuring crown free projection (CFP) in four birch stands; a study of relative irradiance (RI; photosynthetically active radiation, PAR), in birch stands differing in stem density and basal area; and an estimation of the CFP in different types of birch stands and the correlation between RI and CFP. The results indicate that the number of observation points well distributed over an area of 0.1 ha can vary between 50 and 200 to achieve sufficient accuracy. There were no significant differences in the CFP estimates made on the same plot by different observers including an untrained observer. CFP was related to basal area, stem number and diameter sum in a non-linear regression, CFP = A*e-BX. The correlations between RI and basal area, density and diameter sum, respectively, were 0.54, 0.57 and 0.67 for PAR. The coefficients of determination for RI (PAR) and CFP were high (0.86).

Key words

Betula pubescens Ehrh Betula pendula Roth Birch LAI Crown free projection 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson MC (1966a). Some problems of single characterization of the light climate in plant communities. In: Bainbridge R, Evans GC, Rackham O (eds) Light as an ecological factor. Brit Ecol Soc Symp 6: 77–90Google Scholar
  2. Andersson MC (1966b) Stand structure and light penetration. II. A theoretical analysis. J Appl Ecol 3: 41–54Google Scholar
  3. Anderson MC (1970) Interpreting the fraction of solar radiation available in forest. Agric Meteorol 7: 19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baldochi DD, Matt DR, Hutchinson NA, McMillen RT (1984) Solar radiation within an oak-hickory forest: an evaluation of the extinction coefficients for several radiation components during fully-leafed and leafless periods. Agric For Meterol 32: 307–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baldocchi DD, Hutchinson B, Matt D, McMillen R (1985) The effect of clumped foliage on the radiation regime in a deciduous forest canopy. In: Proc. 17th Conf. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology and 7th Conf. Biometeorology and Aerobiology, Scottsdale, Ariz. American Meterological Society, Boston, pp 237–238Google Scholar
  6. Borman F (1956) Percentage light readings, their intensity-duration aspects, and their significance in the estimation of photosynthesis. Ecology 37: 473–476Google Scholar
  7. Buell MF, Gordon WE (1945) Hardwood-conifer forest contact zone in Itasca Park Minesota. Am Midl Nat 34: 433–439Google Scholar
  8. Chambers JL, Jenkins MW (1983) Understorey light intensity in bottomland hardwood stands. USDA For Serv Gen Tech Rep SE-24, 161–165Google Scholar
  9. Eckersten H (1984) Light penetration and photosynthesis in a willow stand. In: Perttu K (ed) Ecology and management of forest biomass production systems. Swed Univ Agric Sci Dept Ecol and Environm Res Rep 15: 29–45Google Scholar
  10. Federer CA (1971) Solar radiation absorption by leafless hardwood forests. Agric Meteorol 9: 3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gay LW, Knoerr KR, Braaten MO (1971) Solar radiation variability on the floor of a pine plantation. AgricMeteorol 8: 39–50Google Scholar
  12. Garrison GA (1949) Uses and modification for the “Moosehorn” crown closure estimator. J For 47: 733–735Google Scholar
  13. Godman RM, Kreftig LW (1960) Factors important to yellow birch establishment in upper Michigan. Ecology 41: 18–28Google Scholar
  14. Håbjörg A (1972) Effects of light quality, light intensity and night temperature on growth and development of three latitudinal populations ofBetula pubescens Ehrh. Sci. Rep Agric Univ Norway 51: 1–17Google Scholar
  15. Hutchison BA, Matt DR (1977) The distribution of solar radiation within a deciduous forest. Ecol Monogr 47: 185–207Google Scholar
  16. Idso SB, de Wit CT (1970) Light relations in plant canopies. Appl Opt 9: 177–184Google Scholar
  17. Jackson MT, Petty KL (1981) A simple optical device for measuring vertical projection of tree crowns. For Sci 19: 60–62Google Scholar
  18. Jarvis PG (1964) The adaptability to light intensity of seedlings ofQuercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl. J Ecol 52: 545–571Google Scholar
  19. Jarvis PG, Leverenz JW (1983) Productivity of temperate, deciduous and evergreen forests. In: Lange OL (ed) Encyclopedia of plant physiology (vol 12D). Physiological plant ecology. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 249–250Google Scholar
  20. Johansson T (1985) Estimating canopy density by the vertical tube method. For Ecol Manage 11: 139–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johansson T (1986) Development of suckers by 2-year-old birch (Betulapendula Roth) at different temperatures and light intensities. Scand J For Res 1: 17–26Google Scholar
  22. Johansson T (1987a) Irradiance in thinned Norway spruce (Picea abies) stands and the possibilities to prevent suckers of broadleaved trees. For Ecol Manage 20: 307–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johansson T (1987b) The importance of thinning grade in stands of Norway spruce [Piceaabies (L.) Karst.] and Scots pine (Pinussylvestris L.) to minimize suckers of birch. Swed Univ Agric Sci Dept For Yield Res Report 19Google Scholar
  24. Johansson T (1987c) Development of stump suckers byBetula pubescens at different light intensities. Scand J For Res 2: 72–83Google Scholar
  25. Johansson T (1989) Irradiance within canopies of young trees of European aspen (Populus tremula L.) and European birch (Betulapubescens Ehrh.) in stands of different spacings. For Ecol Manage 28: 217–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lemmon PE (1956) A spherical densitometer for estimating forest overstory density. For Sci 2: 314–320Google Scholar
  27. Lemeur R, Rosenberg NJ (1979) Simulating the quality and quantity of shortwave radiation within and above canopies. In: S. Halldin (ed) Comparison of forest water and energy exchange models. Int Soc Ecol Modelling. Copenhagen, pp 77–100Google Scholar
  28. Lindroth A, Perttu KL (1981) Simple calculation of extinction coefficient of forest stands. Agric For Meterol 25: 97–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Logan KT (19659) Growth of tree seedlings as affected by light intensity. I. White birch, yellow birch, sugar maple and silver maple. Canada Dept For Publ No 1121Google Scholar
  30. MacLellan AJ, Frankland B (1985) A simple field method for measuring light quality. Seasonal changes in a temperate deciduous wood. Photobiology 42: 689–695Google Scholar
  31. Maruyama Y, Morikawa Y, Inoue T (1984) Effect of light quality, shading and intermittent light on the growth of birch seedlings. J Jpn For Soc 66: 361–367Google Scholar
  32. Maruyama Y, Inoue I, Morikawa Y (1986) Light-photosynthesis curves of leaves on birch seedlings grown under different light conditions. J Jpn For Soc 68: 10–14Google Scholar
  33. Miller PC (1969) Tests of solar radiation models in three forest canopies. Ecology 50: 879–885Google Scholar
  34. Miller EE, Norman JM (1971) A sunfleck theory for plants canopies. II. Penumbra effect: intensity distributions along sunfleck segments. Agron J 63: 739–743Google Scholar
  35. Minckler LS (1961) Measuring light in uneven aged hardwood stands. Cent States For Exp Stn Tech Pap 184Google Scholar
  36. Monsi M, Saeki T (1953) Uber den Lichtfaktor in den Pflanzengesellschaften und seine Bedeutung für die Stoffproduktion. Jpn J Bot 14: 22–52Google Scholar
  37. Montana C, Ezcurra E (1980) Simple instrument for quick measurement of crown projections. J For 78: 699Google Scholar
  38. Nash RW, Duda EJ (1951) Studies on extensive dying, regeneration and management of birch. Maine For Serv Bull No 15Google Scholar
  39. Norman JM, Miller EE, Tanner CB (1971) Light intensity and sunfleck-size distributions in plant canopies. Agron J 63: 743–748Google Scholar
  40. Nygren M, Kellomäki S (1983) Effect of shading on leaf structure and photosynthesis in young birches,Betula pendula Roth andBetula pubescens Ehrh. For Ecol Manage 7: 119–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ovington JD, Madgwick HAI (1959) A comparison of light in different woodlands. Forestry 28: 141–146Google Scholar
  42. Perttu KL (1982) Radiation climate of northern forest stands. Dept For Soils Swed Univ Agric Sci Rep 38Google Scholar
  43. Reifsnyder WE, Furnival GM, Horowitz JL (1971) Spatial and temporal distribution of solar radiation beneath forest canopies. Agric Meteorol 9: 21–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Saeki T (1960) Interrelationships between leaf amount, light distribution and total photosynthesis in a plant community. Bot Mag 73: 1762–1767Google Scholar
  45. Sarvas R (1953) Measurement of the crown closure of a stand. Commun Inst For Fenn 41: 1–13Google Scholar
  46. Satterlund DR (1983) Forest shadows: how much shelter in a shelterwood? For Ecol Manage 5: 27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schomaker CE (1968) Solar radiation measurements under a spruce and a birch canopy during May and June. For Sci 14: 31–38Google Scholar
  48. Shirley HL (1932) Light intensity in relation to plant growth in a virgin Norway pine forest. J Agric Res 44: 228–244Google Scholar
  49. Vezina PE, Péch G (1964) Solar radiation beneath canopies in relation to crown closure. For Sci 10: 443–451Google Scholar
  50. Wilson JW (1965) Stand structure and light penetration. I. Analysis by point quadrats. J Appl Ecology 2: 383–390Google Scholar
  51. Zar JH (1974) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tord Johansson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forest Yield ResearchSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesGarpenbergSweden

Personalised recommendations