, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 1821–1825 | Cite as

The effect of age on height growth in even-sized saplings of Fagus sylvatica L.

  • Benjamín JarčuškaEmail author
  • Michael E. Day
Short Communication


Key message

After controlling for the effects of size and light, partial regression revealed that height growth of common beech saplings was negatively affected by sapling age.


Common beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) saplings were studied along gradients of light availability (4–82 % of full sunlight), initial size (9–290 cm), and age (2–25 years) to examine the interactive effect of these variables on saplings’ annual height growth. Although age was non-significant as a main effect in a linear model, sapling age had a significant interaction with the other variables. After controlling for the effects of size and light, partial regression revealed that height growth was negatively affected by sapling age. Observed growth decline in older common-sized saplings may be explained not as effect of age per se, but as indirect age-related effect probably induced through plastic response of saplings to past growth conditions.


Common beech Height growth Age Size Ontogeny Light 



Two anonymous referees are gratefully acknowledged for their reviews. The authors are also thankful to Lucia Danková and Milan Barna for their helpful assistance in the field. Financial support was provided by the Scientific Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic and the Slovak Academy of Sciences (VEGA), Projects No. 2/0027/13 and 2/0055/10.

Supplementary material

468_2013_911_MOESM1_ESM.docx (231 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 231 kb)


  1. Ammer C, Stimm B, Mosandl R (2008) Ontogenetic variation in the relative influence of light and belowground resources on European beech seedling growth. Tree Physiol 28:721–728PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaudet M, Messier C (1998) Growth and morphological responses of yellow birch, sugar maple, and beech seedlings growing under a natural light gradient. Can J For Res 28:1007–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Caquet B, Barigah TS, Cochard H, Montpied P, Collet C, Dreyer E, Epron D (2009) Hydraulic properties of naturally regenerated beech saplings respond to canopy opening. Tree Physiol 29:1395–1405PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caquet B, Montpied P, Dreyer E, Epron D, Collet C (2010) Response to canopy opening does not act as a filter to Fagus sylvatica and Acer sp. advance regeneration in a mixed temperate forest. Ann For Sci 67:105. doi: 10.1051/forest/2009086 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collet C, Lanter O, Pardos M (2002) Effects of canopy opening on the morphology and anatomy of naturally regenerated beech seedlings. Trees 16:291–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Day ME, Greenwood MS (2011) Regulation of ontogeny in temperate conifers. In: Meinzer FC, Lachenbruch B, Dawson TE (eds) Size- and age-related changes in tree structure and function. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 91–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Day ME, Greenwood MS, Diaz-Sala C (2002) Age- and size-related trends in woody plant shoot development: regulatory pathways and evidence for genetic control. Tree Physiol 22:507–513PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ewers BE, Gower ST, Bond-Lamberty B, Wang CK (2005) Effects of stand age and tree species on canopy transpiration and average stomatal conductance of boreal forests. Plant Cell Environ 28:660–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fox J, Weisberg S (2011) An R companion to applied regression, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, Sage.
  10. Frazer GW, Canham CD, Lertzman KP (1999) Gap light analyzer (GLA). Version 2.0. Imaging software to extract canopy structure and gap light transmission indices from true-color fisheye photographs: users’ manual and program documentation. Simon Fraser University, BurnabyGoogle Scholar
  11. Gilbert IR, Jarvis PG, Smith H (2001) Proximity signal and shade avoidance differences between early and late successional trees. Nature 411:792–795PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Greenwood MS, Day ME, Schatz J (2010) Separating the effects of tree size and meristem maturation on shoot development of grafted scions of red spruce (Picea rubens Sarg.). Tree Physiol 30:459–468PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hinckley TM, Lachenbruch B, Meinzer FC, Dawson TE (2011) A lifespan perspective on integrating structure and function in trees. In: Meinzer FC, Lachenbruch B, Dawson TE (eds) Size- and age-related changes in tree structure and function. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 3–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jarčuška B (2010) Influence of selected ecological factors on natural regeneration of European beech. Dissertation. IFE SAS, Zvolen.
  15. Lachenbruch B, Moore JR, Evans R (2011) Radial variation in wood structure and function in woody plants, and hypotheses for its occurrence. In: Meinzer FC, Lachenbruch B, Dawson TE (eds) Size- and age-related changes in tree structure and function. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 121–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Legendre P, Legendre L (2012) Numerical ecology, 3rd edn. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  17. Lilles EB, Astrup R (2012) Multiple resource limitation and ontogeny combined: a growth rate comparison of three co-occurring conifers. Can J For Res 42:99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Martínez-Vilalta J, Vanderklein D, Mencuccini M (2007) Tree height and age-related decline in growth in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). Oecologia 150:529–544PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moores AR, Seymour RS, Kenefic LS (2007) Height development of shade-tolerant conifer saplings in multiaged Acadian forest stands. Can J For Res 37:2715–2723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moya-Laraño J, Corcobado G (2008) Plotting partial correlation and regression in ecological studies. Web Ecol 8:35–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Munné-Bosch S (2007) Aging in perennials. Crit Rev Plant Sci 26:123–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Niinemets Ü (2002) Stomatal conductance alone does not explain the decline in foliar photosynthetic rates with increasing tree age and size in Picea abies and Pinus sylvestris. Tree Physiol 22:515–535PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Niinemets Ü (2006) The controversy over traits conferring shade-tolerance in trees: ontogenetic changes revisited. J Ecol 94:464–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pascala SW, Canham CD, Silander JA, Kobe RK (1994) Sapling growth as a function of resources in a north temperate forest. Can J For Res 24:2172–2183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Quero JL, Villar R, Marañón T, Zamora R, Poorter L (2007) Seed-mass effects in four Mediterranean Quercus species (Fagaceae) growing in contrasting light environments. Am J Bot 94:1795–1803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. R Development Core Team (2012) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
  27. Reynolds PE, Frochot H (2003) Photosynthetic acclimation of beech seedlings to full sunlight following a major windstorm event in France. Ann For Sci 60:701–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schall P, Lödige C, Beck M, Ammer C (2012) Biomass allocation to roots and shoots is more sensitive to shade and drought in European beech than in Norway spruce seedlings. For Ecol Man 266:246–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wagner S, Collet C, Madsen P, Nakashizuka T, Nyland RD, Sagheb-Talebi K (2010) Beech regeneration research: from ecological to silvicultural aspects. For Ecol Man 259:2172–2182CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Forest Ecology, Slovak Academy of SciencesZvolenSlovakia
  2. 2.School of Forest ResourcesUniversity of MaineOronoUSA

Personalised recommendations