Annals of Forest Science

, 74:63 | Cite as

EuMIXFOR empirical forest mensuration and ring width data from pure and mixed stands of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) through Europe

  • Michael Heym
  • Ricardo Ruíz-Peinado
  • Miren Del Río
  • Kamil Bielak
  • David I. Forrester
  • Gerald Dirnberger
  • Ignacio Barbeito
  • Gediminas Brazaitis
  • Indrė Ruškytkė
  • Lluís Coll
  • Marek Fabrika
  • Lars Drössler
  • Magnus Löf
  • Hubert Sterba
  • Václav Hurt
  • Viktor Kurylyak
  • Fabio Lombardi
  • Dejan Stojanović
  • Jan Den Ouden
  • Renzo Motta
  • Maciej Pach
  • Jerzy Skrzyszewski
  • Quentin Ponette
  • Géraud De Streel
  • Vit Sramek
  • Tomáš Čihák
  • Tzvetan M. Zlatanov
  • Admir Avdagic
  • Christian Ammer
  • Kris Verheyen
  • Buraczyk Włodzimierz
  • Andrés Bravo-Oviedo
  • Hans Pretzsch
Data Paper

Abstract

Key message

This data set provides unique empirical data from triplets of Scots pine ( Pinus sylvestris L.) and European beech ( Fagus sylvatica L.) across Europe. Dendrometric variables are provided for 32 triplets, 96 plots, 7555 trees and 4695 core samples. These data contribute to our understanding of mixed stand dynamics. Dataset access at   http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.8v04m . Associated metadata available at https://metadata-afs.nancy.inra.fr/geonetwork/apps/georchestra/?uuid=b3e098ca-e681-4910-9099-0e25d3b4cd52&hl=eng .

Keywords

EuMIXFOR data Mixed and monospecific stands Mixed stand dynamics Scots pine European beech 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This article is based upon work from COST Action FP1206 (EuMIXFOR), supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology). All contributors thank their national funding institutions and the woodland owners for agreeing to establish, measure, analyse and reuse data from the triplets. Many thanks to the anonymous reviewer and data paper handling editor Marianne Peiffer for their helpful comments to improve the early draft of the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

Networking for the design and discussion of the transect study was supported by COST Association during FP1206 COST Action (EuMIXFOR: European mixed forests – Integration Scientific Knowledge in Sustainable Forest Management). Funding for the establishment of the plots and collection of the data belonged to co-author.

Supplementary material

13595_2017_660_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (29 kb)
ESM 1 (XLSX 28 kb).

References

  1. Biber P (2013) Kontinuität durch Flexibilität – Standardisierte Datenauswertung im Rahmen eines waldwachstumskundlichen Informationssystems, Allg. Forst- u. J.-Ztg., 184. Jg., 7/8:167–177Google Scholar
  2. Bielak K, Dudzińska M, Pretzsch H (2014) Mixed stands of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst) can be more productive than monocultures. Evidence from over 100 years of observation of long-term experiments. For Syst 23:573–589Google Scholar
  3. Bitterlich W (1952) Die Winkelzählprobe. Forstwiss Cbl 71:215–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Condés S, Río M, Sterba H (2013) Mixing effect on volume growth of Fagus sylvatica and Pinus sylvestris is modulated by stand density. For Ecol Manag 292:86–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dirnberger G, Sterba H, Condés S, Ammer C, Annighöfer P, Avdagić A, Bielak K, Brazaitis G, Coll L, Heym M, Hurt V, Kurylyak V, Motta R, Pach M, Ponette Q, Ruiz-Peinado R, Skrzyszewski J, Šrámek V, de Streel G, Svoboda M, Zlatanov T, Pretzsch H (2016) Species proportions by area in mixtures of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) Eur J For Res.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10342-016-1017-0
  6. Forrester DI, Ammer C, Annighöfer PJ, Barbeito I, Bielak K, Bravo-Oviedo A, Coll L, Río Md, Drössler L, Heym M, Hurt V, Löf M, Ouden Jd, Pach M, Pereira MG, Plaga B, Ponette Q, Skrzyszewski J, Sterba H, Svoboda M, Zlatanov T, Pretzsch H (2017) Effects of crown architecture and stand structure on light absorption in mixed and monospecific Fagus sylvatica and Pinus sylvestris forests along a productivity and climate gradient through Europe. J Ecol 00:1–15.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12803
  7. Franz F (1971) Funktionen und Tabellen der Derbholzformhöhen für die wichtigsten Baumarten in Bayern. München, Manuskriptdruck, Lehrstuhl für Waldwachstumskunde, Technische Universität München, unpublishedGoogle Scholar
  8. Heym M, Ruíz-Peinado R, del Río M, Bielak K, Forrester DI, Dirnberger G, Barbeito I, Brazaitis G, Ruškytė I, Coll L, Fabrika M, Drössler L, Löf M, Sterba H, Hurt V, Kurylyak V, Lombardi F, Stojanović D, den Ouden J, Motta R, Pach M, Skrzyszewski J, Ponette Q, de Streel G, Sramek V, Čihák T, Zlatanov TM, Avdagic A, Ammer C, Verheyen K, Włodzimierz B, Bravo-Oviedo A, Pretzsch H (2017) EuMIXFOR empirical forest mensuration and ring width data from pure and mixed stands of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) through Europe. Dryad Digital Repository. [Dataset].  http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.8v04m
  9. Knoke T, Ammer H, Stimm B, Mosandl R (2008) Admixing broadleaved to coniferous tree species: a review on yield, ecological stability and economics. Eur J For Res 127:89–101Google Scholar
  10. Liang J, Crowther TW, Picard N, Wiser S, Zhou M, Alberti G, Schulze E-D, McGuire AD, Bozzato F, Pretzsch H, de-Miguel S, Paquette A, Hérault B, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Barrett CB, Glick HB, Hengeveld GM, Nabuurs G-J, Pfautsch S, Viana H, Vibrans AC, Ammer C, Schall P, Verbyla D, Tchebakova N, Fischer M, Watson JV, HYH C, Lei X, Schelhaas M-J, Lu H, Gianelle D, Parfenova EI, Salas C, Lee E, Lee B, Seok Kim H, Bruelheide H, Coomes DA, Piotto D, Sunderland T, Schmid B, Gourlet-Fleury S, Sonké B, Tavani R, Zhu J, Brandl S, Vayreda J, Kitahara F, Searle EB, Neldner VJ, Ngugi MR, Baraloto C, Frizzera L, Bałazy R, Oleksyn J, Zawiła-Niedźwiecki T, Bouriaud O, Bussotti F, Finér L, Jaroszewicz B, Jucker T, Valladares F, Jagodzinski AM, Peri PL, Gonmadje C, Marthy W, O’Brien T, Martin EH, Marshall AR, Rovero F, Bitariho R, Niklaus PA, Alvarez-Loayza P, Chamuya N, Valencia R, Mortier F, Wortel V, Engone-Obiang NL, Ferreira LV, Odeke DE, Vasquez RM, Lewis SL, Reich PB (2016) Positive biodiversity-productivity relationship predominant in global forests. Science 354(6309):196.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf8957
  11. Petterson H (1955) Die Massenproduktion des Nadelwaldes. Mitt Forstlichen Forschungsanstalten Schwedens 45(1):1–392Google Scholar
  12. Pretzsch H, Block J, Dieler J, Dong PH, Kohnle U, Nagel J, Spellmann H, Zingg A (2010) Comparison between the productivity of pure and mixed stands of Norway spruce and European beech along an ecological gradient. Ann For Sci 67:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pretzsch H, Bielak K, Block J, Bruchwald A, Dieler J, Ehrhart H-P, Kohnle U, Nagel J, Spellmann H, Zasada M, Zingg A (2013) Productivity of pure versus mixed stands of oak (Quercus petraea (MATT.) LIEBL. and Quercus robur L.) and European beech (Fagus Sylvatica L.) along an ecological gradient. Eur J For Res 132:263–280Google Scholar
  14. Pretzsch H, Río M, Ammer C, Avdagic A, Barbeito I, Bielak K, Brazaitis G, Coll L, Dirnberger G, Drössler L, Fabrika M, Forrester D, Heym M, Hurt V, Kurylyak V, Löf M, Lombardi F, Mohren F, Motta R, den Ouden J, Pach M, Ponette Q, Schütze G, Schweig J, Skrzyszewski J, Sramek V, Sterba H, Stojanović D, Svoboda M, Vanhellemont M, Verheyen K, Wellhausen K, Zlatanov T, Bravo-Oviedo A (2015) Growth and yield of mixed versus pure stands of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) analysed along a productivity gradient through Europe. For Ecol Manag 373:149–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pretzsch H, Rio M, Schütze G, Ammer C, Annighöfer P, Avdagic A, Barbeito I, Bielak K, Brazaitis G, Coll L, Drössler L, Fabrika M, Forrester DI, Kurylyak V, Löf M, Lombardi F, Matovic B, Mohren F, Motta R, den Ouden J, Pach M, Ponette Q, Skzyszewski J, Sramek V, Sterba H, Svoboda M, Verheyen K, Zlatanov T, Bravo-Oviedo A (2016) Mixing of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) enhances structural heterogeneity, and the effect increases with water availability. For Ecol Manag 373:149–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Río M, Sterba H (2009) Comparing volume growth in pure and mixed stands of Pinus sylvestris and Quercus pyrenaica. Ann For Sci 66:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Río M, Pretzsch H, Alberdi I, Bielak K, Bravo F, Brunner A, Condés S, Ducey MJ, Fonseca T, von Lüpke N, Pach M, Peric S, Perot T, Souidi Z, Spathelf P, Sterba H, Tijardovic M, Tomé M, Vallet P, Bravo-Oviedo A (2016a) Characterization of the structure, dynamics, and productivity of mixed species stands: review and perspectives. Eur J For Res 135:23–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Río M, Pretzsch H, Ruíz-Peinado R, Ampoorter E, Annighöfer P, Barbeito I, Bielak K, Brazaitis G, Coll L, Drössler L, Fabrika M, Forrester DI, Heym M, Hurt V, Kurylyak V, Löf M, Lombardi F, Madrickiene E, Matović B, Mohren F, Motta R, den Ouden J, Pach M, Ponette Q, Schütze G, Skrzyszewski J, Sramek V, Sterba H, Stojanović D, Svoboda M, Zlatanov T, Bravo-Oviedo A (2016b) Data from: Species interactions increase the temporal stability of community productivity in Pinus sylvestris-Fagus sylvatica mixtures across Europe. Dryad Digital Repository. [Dataset].  http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.fq4tk
  19. Río M, Pretzsch H, Ruíz-PeinadoR AE, Annighöfer P, Barbeito I, Bielak K, Brazaitis G, Coll L, Drössler L, Fabrika M, Forrester DI, Heym M, Hurt V, Kurylyak V, Löf M, Lombardi F, Madrickiene E, Matović B, Mohren F, Motta R, den Ouden J, Pach M, Ponette Q, Schütze G, Skrzyszewski J, Sramek V, Sterba H, Stojanović D, Svoboda M, Zlatanov T, Bravo-Oviedo A (2017) Species interactions increase the temporal stability of community productivity in Pinus sylvestris-Fagus sylvatica mixtures across Europe. J Ecol 105(40):1032–1043.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12727
  20. Vallet P, Perot 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

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer-Verlag France SAS 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Heym
    • 1
  • Ricardo Ruíz-Peinado
    • 2
    • 3
  • Miren Del Río
    • 2
    • 3
  • Kamil Bielak
    • 4
  • David I. Forrester
    • 5
  • Gerald Dirnberger
    • 6
  • Ignacio Barbeito
    • 7
  • Gediminas Brazaitis
    • 8
  • Indrė Ruškytkė
    • 8
  • Lluís Coll
    • 9
  • Marek Fabrika
    • 10
  • Lars Drössler
    • 11
  • Magnus Löf
    • 11
  • Hubert Sterba
    • 6
  • Václav Hurt
    • 12
  • Viktor Kurylyak
    • 13
  • Fabio Lombardi
    • 14
  • Dejan Stojanović
    • 15
  • Jan Den Ouden
    • 16
  • Renzo Motta
    • 17
  • Maciej Pach
    • 18
  • Jerzy Skrzyszewski
    • 18
  • Quentin Ponette
    • 19
  • Géraud De Streel
    • 19
  • Vit Sramek
    • 20
  • Tomáš Čihák
    • 21
  • Tzvetan M. Zlatanov
    • 22
  • Admir Avdagic
    • 23
  • Christian Ammer
    • 24
  • Kris Verheyen
    • 25
  • Buraczyk Włodzimierz
    • 4
  • Andrés Bravo-Oviedo
    • 2
    • 3
  • Hans Pretzsch
    • 1
  1. 1.Chair for Forest Growth and Yield ScienceTechnische Universität MünchenMunichGermany
  2. 2.Department of Silviculture and Forest Systems ManagementINIA-CIFORMadridSpain
  3. 3.Sustainable Forest Management Research Institute University of Valladolid & INIAValladolidSpain
  4. 4.Department of SilvicultureWarsaw University of Life SciencesWarsawPoland
  5. 5.Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSLBirmensdorfSwitzerland
  6. 6.Department of Forest and Soil ScienceBOKU University of Natural Resources and Life SciencesViennaAustria
  7. 7.Laboratoire d’Etude des Ressources Forêt Bois (LERFoB)INRA centre of NancyChampenouxFrance
  8. 8.Institute of Forest Biology and Silviculture, Faculty of Forest Science and EcologyAleksandras Stulginiskis UniversityKaunas distLithuania
  9. 9.Department of Agriculture and Forest Engineering – Forest Sciences Centre of Catalonia (CTFC)University of LleidaLleidaSpain
  10. 10.Department of Forest Management and Geodesy, Faculty of ForestryTechnical University in ZvolenZvolenSlovakia
  11. 11.Southern Swedish Forest Research CentreSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesAlnarpSweden
  12. 12.Department of SilvicultureMendel UniversityBrnoCzech Republic
  13. 13.Forestry Academy of Sciences of UkraineLvivUkraine
  14. 14.Dipartimento di AGRARIAUniversità Mediterranea di Reggio CalabriaReggio CalabriaItaly
  15. 15.Institute of Lowland Forestry and EnvironmentUniversity of Novi SadNovi SadSerbia
  16. 16.Forest Ecology and Forest Management GroupWageningen University & ResearchWageningenThe Netherlands
  17. 17.Department of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences DISAFAUniversity of TurinTurinItaly
  18. 18.Department of Silviculture, Institute of Forest Ecology and SilvicultureUniversity of AgricultureKrakowPoland
  19. 19.Faculty of Bioscience Engineering & Earth and Life InstituteUniversité catholique de LouvainLouvain-la-NeuveBelgium
  20. 20.Forestry and Game Management Research InstituteOpocnoCzech Republic
  21. 21.Forestry and Game Management Research InstituteJílovištěCzech Republic
  22. 22.Department of SilvicultureForest Research InstituteSofiaBulgaria
  23. 23.Faculty of ForestryUniversity SarajevoSarajevoBosnia and Herzegovina
  24. 24.Abteilung Waldbau und Waldökologie der gemäßigten ZonenGeorg-August-Universität GöttingenGöttingenGermany
  25. 25.Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Forest & Nature LabGhent UniversityMelleBelgium

Personalised recommendations