Journal of Forestry Research

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 247–254 | Cite as

Comparing growth and fine root distribution in monocultures and mixed plantations of hybrid poplar and spruce

  • Lahcen BenomarEmail author
  • Annie DesRochers
  • Guy R. Larocque
Original Paper


Disease prevention, biodiversity, productivity improvement and ecological considerations are all factors that contribute to increasing interest in mixed plantations. The objective of this study was to evaluate early growth and productivity of two hybrid poplar clones, P. balsamifera x trichocarpa (PBT) and P. maximowiczii x balsamifera (PMB), one improved family of Norway spruce (Picea glauca (PA)) and one improved family of white spruce (Picea abies (PG)) growing under different spacings in monocultures and mixed plots. The plantations were established in 2003 in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Quebec, Canada, in a split plot design with spacing as the whole plot factor (1 × 1 m, 3 × 3 m and 5 × 5 m) and mixture treatments as subplot factor (pure: PBT, PMB, PA and PG, and 1:1 mixture PBT:PA, PBT:PG, PMB:PA and PMB:PG). Results showed a beneficial effect of the hybrid poplar-spruce mixture on diameter growth for hybrid poplar clones, but not for the 5 × 5 m spacing because of the relatively young age of the plantations. Diameter growth of the spruces decreased in mixed plantings in the 1 × 1 m, while their height growth increased, resulting in similar aboveground biomass per tree across treatments. Because of the large size differences between spruces and poplars, aboveground biomass in the mixed plantings was generally less than that in pure poplar plots. Leaf nitrogen concentration for the two spruce families and hybrid poplar clone PMB was greater in mixed plots than in monocultures, while leaf nitrogen concentration of clone PBT was similar among mixture treatments. Because of its faster growth rate and greater soil resources demands, clone PMB was the only one showing an increase in leaf N with increased spacing between trees. Fine roots density was greater for both hybrid poplars than spruces. The vertical distribution of fine roots was insensitive to mixture treatment.

Key words

Picea glauca Populus balsamifera × trichocarpa P. maximowiczii × balsamifera mixed-species monoculture spacing fine root 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aarssen LW. 1983. Ecological combining ability and competitive combining ability in plants: Toward a general evolutionary theory of coexistence in systems of competition. Am Nat, 122(6): 707–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amoroso MM, Turnblom EC. 2006. Comparing productivity of pure and mixed Douglas-fir and western hemlock plantations in the Pacific Northwest. Can J For Res, 36(6): 1484–1496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauhus J, Khanna PK, Menden N. 2000. Aboveground and belowground interactions in mixed plantations of Eucalyptus globulus and Acacia mearnsii. Can J For Res, 30(12): 1886–1894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benomar L, DesRochers A, Larocque GR. 2011. Changes in specific leaf area and photosynthetic nitrogen-use efficiency associated with physiological acclimation of two hybrid poplar clones to intraclonal competition. Can J For Res, 41(7): 1465–1476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benomar L, DesRochers A, Larocque GR. 2012. The effects of spacing on growth, morphology and biomass production and allocation in two hybrid poplar clones growing in the boreal region of Canada. Trees Struct Func, 26(3): 939–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Binkley D, Senock R, Bird S, Cole TG. 2003. Twenty years of stand development in pure and mixed stands of Eucalyptus saligna and nitrogenfixing Facaltaria moluccana. For Ecol Manag, 182 (1–3): 93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolte A, Villanueva I. 2006. Interspecific competition impacts on the morphology and distribution of fine roots in European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) and Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.). Eur J Forest Res, 125(1): 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burdon RD. 2001. Genetic diversity and disease resistance: Some considerations for research, breeding, and deployment. Can J For Res, 31(4): 596–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Casper BB, Jackson RB. 1997. Plant competition underground. Annu Rev Ecol Syst, 28(1): 545–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cavard X, Bergeron Y, Chen HYH, Paré D. 2010. Mixed-species effect on tree aboveground carbon pools in the east-central boreal forests. Can J For Res, 40(1): 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen HYH, Klinka K. 2003. Aboveground productivity of western hemlock and western red cedar mixed-species stands in southern coastal British Columbia. For Ecol Manag, 184 (1–3): 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen HYH, Klinka K, Mathey AH, Wang X, Varga P, Chourmouzis C. 2003. Are mixed-species stands more productive than single-species stands: An empirical test of three forest types in British Columbia and Alberta. Can J For Res, 33(7): 1227–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cui XY. 1997. Spacial patterns of fine root abundance in mixed larch-ash plantation. J Forestry Res, 8(4): 206–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ewel JJ, Mazzarino MJ. 2009. Competition from below for light and nutrients shifts productivity among tropical species. Proc Natl Acad Sci, 105(48): 18836–18841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. FAO. 2001. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000. Main Report. FAO Forestry Paper. No 140 Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  16. Felton A, Lindbladh M, Brunet J, Fritz Ö. 2010. Replacing coniferous monocultures with mixed-species production stands: An assessment of the potential benefits for forest biodiversity in northern Europe. For Ecol Manag, 260(6): 939–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Forrester DI, Bauhus J, Cowie AL, Vanclay JK. 2006. Mixed-species plantations of Eucalyptus with nitrogen-fixing trees: A review. For Ecol Manag, 233(2–3): 211–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gartner TB, Cardon ZG. 2004. Decomposition dynamics in mixed-species leaf litter. Oikos, 104(2): 230–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grams TEE, Andersen CP. 2007. Competition for resources in trees: physiological versus morphological plasticity. Prog Bot, 68(4): 356–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hartley MJ. 2002. Rationale and methods for conserving biodiversity in plantation forests. For Ecol Manag, 155: 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hooper DU, Chapin FS, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, Lavorel S. 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr, 75: 3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Howe GT, Shindler B, Cashore B, Hansen E, Lach D, Armstrong W. 2005. Public influences on plantation forestry. J For, 103(2): 90–94.Google Scholar
  23. Jose S, Williams R, Zamora D. 2006. Belowground ecological interactions in mixed-species forest plantations. For Ecol Manag, 233(2–3): 231–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jozsa LA, Middleton GR. 1997. Les caractéristiques déterminant la qualité du bois: nature et conséquences pratiques. Forintek Canada Corp. Québec, Canada. 42 p.Google Scholar
  25. Kabzems R, Linnell NA, Farnden C. 2007. Growing trembling aspen and white spruce intimate mixtures: Early results (13–17 years) and future projection. J Ecosyst Manag, 8(1): 1–14.Google Scholar
  26. Kelty MJ. 2006. The role of species mixtures in plantation forestry. For Ecol Manag, 233(2–3): 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Knoke T, Ammer C, Stimm B, Mosandl R. 2009. Admixing broadleaved to coniferous tree species: a review on yield, ecological stability and economics. Eur J For Res, 127(2): 89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lanner RM. 1985. On the insensitivity of height growth to spacing. For Ecol Manag, 13(3–4): 143–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Légaré S, Paré D, Bergeron Y. 2004. The responses of black spruce growth to an increased proportion of aspen in mixed stands. Can J For Res, 34(2): 405–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P, Bengtsson J, Grime J.P, Hector A, Hooper DU, Huston MA, Raffaelli D, Schmid B, Tilman D, Wardle A. 2001. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science, 294: 804–809.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Man R, Lieffers VJ. 1999. Are mixtures of aspen and white spruce more productive than single species stands? For Chron, 75(3): 505–513.Google Scholar
  32. McCracken AR, Dawson WM. 1997. Growing clonal mixtures of willow to reduce effect of Melampsora epitea var. epitea. Eur J For Pathol, 27(5): 319–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Menalled FD, Kelty MJ, Ewel JJ. 1999. Canopy development in tropical tree plantations: A comparison of species mixtures and monocultures. For Ecol Manag, 104(1–3): 249–263.Google Scholar
  34. Nichols JD, Bristow M, Vanclay JK. 2006. Mixed-species plantations: Prospects and challenges. For Ecol Manag, 233: 383–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ordoñez JC, Van Bodegom PM, Witte J-PM, Wright IJ, Reich PB, Aerts R (2009) A global study of relationships between leaf traits, climate and soil measures of nutrient fertility. Glob Ecol Biogeogr, 18(2): 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roberds JH, Bishir JW. 1997. Risk analyses in clonal forestry. Can J For Res, 27(3): 425–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rothe A, Binkley D. 2001. Nutritional interactions in mixed species forests: a synthesis. Can J For Res, 31: 1855–1870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schmid I, Kazda M. 2002. Root distribution of Norway spruce in monospecific and mixed stands on different soils. For Ecol Manag, 159(1–2): 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sumida A, Ito H, Isagi Y. 1997. Trade-off between height growth and stem diameter growth for an evergreen Oak, Quercus glauca, in a mixed hardwood forest. Funct Ecol, 11(3): 300–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ter-Mikaelian MT, Parker WC. 2000. Estimating biomass of white spruce seedlings with vertical photo imagery. New For, 20(2): 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wang QC. 2002. Spatial distribution of fine roots of larch and ash in the mixed plantation stand. J Forestry Res, 13(4): 265–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Northeast Forestry University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lahcen Benomar
    • 1
    Email author
  • Annie DesRochers
    • 1
  • Guy R. Larocque
    • 2
  1. 1.Chaire industrielle CRSNG-UQAT-UQAM en aménagement forestier durableUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-TémiscamingueAmosCanada
  2. 2.Natural Resources CanadaLaurentian Forestry CentreStn. Sainte-Foy, QuébecCanada

Personalised recommendations