Abstract
The term competition is used to describe individual tree or stand-level reactions to situations where the trees must share limited resources. Resource limitation at the stand level constrains total growth, productivity, and the maximum biomass that a site can support. In this chapter we focus on the reactions of individuals to resource limitation. We consider the distribution of resources among individuals in crowded stands, plastic reactions of trees to competition, and the combined effects of environment and plasticity on resource acquisition.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Alam A, Kilpelainen A, Kellomaki S (2010) Potential energy wood production with implications to timber recovery and carbon stocks under varying thinning and climate scenarios in Finland. Bioenergy Res 3(4):362–372
Bohlman S, Pacala S (2012) A forest structure model that determines crown layers and partitions growth and mortality rates for landscape scale applications of tropical forests. J Ecol 100: 508–518
Botkin DB, Janak JF, Wallis JR (1972) Some ecological consequences of a computer model of forest growth. Ecology 60:849–872
Bugmann H (2001) A review of forest gap models. Clim Change 51:259–305
Caldwell MM, Dawson TE, Richards JH (1998) Hydraulic lift: consequences of water efflux from the roots of plants. Oecologia 113:151–161
Crawley MJ (2007) Plant population dynamics. In: May RM, McLean AR (eds) Theoretical ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 62–83
de Kroon H, Hendriks M, van Ruijven J, Ravenek J, Padilla FM, Jongejans E, Visser EJW, Mommer L (2012) Root responses to nutrients and soil biota: drivers of species coexistence and ecosystem productivity. J Ecol 100(1):6–15
Dieler J, Pretzsch H (2013) Morphological plasticity of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in pure and mixed-species stands. For Ecol Manage 295:97–108
Duursma RA, Mäkelä A (2007) Summary models for light interception and light-use efficiency of non-homogeneous canopies. Tree Physiol 27:859–870
Fischer R, Bohn F, de Paula MD, Dislich C, Groeneveld J, Gutierrez AG, Kazmierczak M, Knapp N, Lehmann S, Paulick S, Puetz S, Roedig E, Taubert F, Koehler P, Huth A (2016) Lessons learned from applying a forest gap model to understand ecosystem and carbon dynamics of complex tropical forests. Ecol Modell 326:124–133
Forrester DI, Guisasola R, Tang X, Albrecht AT, Dong TA, le Maire G (2014) Using a stand-level model to predict light absorption in stands with vertically and horizontally heterogeneous canopies. For Ecosyst 1:1–17
Forrester DI, Ammer C, Annighöfer PJ, Avdagic A, Barbeito I, Bielak K, Brazaitis G, Coll L, del Rìo M, Drössler L, Heym M, Hurt V, Löf M, Matović B, Meloni F, den Ouden J, Pach M, Pereira MG, Ponette Q, Pretzsch H, Skrzyszewski J, Stojanović D, Svoboda M, Ruiz-Peinaido R, Vacchiano G, Verheyen K, Zlatanov T, Bravo-Oviedo A (2017) Predicting the spatial and temporal dynamics of species interactions in Fagus sylvatica and Pinus sylvestris forests across Europe. For Ecol Manage 405:112–133
Freschet GT, Bellingham PJ, Lyver PO, Bonner KI, Wardle DA (2013) Plasticity in above-and belowground resource acquisition traits in response to single and multiple environmental factors in three tree species. Ecol Evol 3(4):1065–1078
García O (2017) Cohort aggregation modelling for complex forest stands: spruce–aspen mixtures in British Columbia. Ecol Modell 343:109–122
García O (2014) Can plasticity make spatial structure irrelevant in individual-tree models? For Ecosyst 1(1):16
Grace JC, Jarvis P, Norman JM (1987) Modelling the interception of solar radiant energy in intensively managed stands. N Z J For Sci 17:193–209
Härkönen S, Pulkkinen M, Duursma RA, Mäkelä A (2010) Estimating annual GPP, NPP and stem growth in Finland using summary models. For Ecol Manage 259:524–533
Hodge A (2004) The plastic plant: root responses to heterogeneous supplies of nutrients. New Phytol 162:9–24
Horn HS (1971) The adaptive geometry of trees. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Ishii H, Kitaoka S, Fujisaki Y, Maruyama T, Koike T (2007) Plasticity of shoot and needle morphology and photosynthesis of two Picea species with different site preferences in northern Japan. Tree Physiol 27:1595–1605
Iwasa Y, Andreasen V, Levin S (1987) Aggregation in model-ecosystems. 1. Perfect aggregation. Ecol Modell 37:287–302
Kokkila T, Mäkelä A, Franc A (2006) Comparison of distance-dependent and distance-independent stand growth models—is perfect aggregation possible? For Sci 26:623–635
Laasasenaho J, Koivuniemi J (1990) Dependence of some stand characteristics on stand density. Tree Physiol 7:183–187
Landsberg JJ, Waring RH (1997) A generalised model of forest productivity using simplified concepts of radiation use efficiency, carbon balance and partitioning. For Ecol Manage 95: 209–228
Lasch P, Badeck FW, Suckow F, Lindner M, Mohr P (2005) Model-based analysis of management alternatives at stand and regional level in Brandenburg (Germany). For Ecol Manage 207:59–74
Lindner M, Sievänen R, Pretzsch H (1997) Improving the simulation of stand structure in a forest gap model. For Ecol Manage 95:183–195
Lonsdale WM (1990) The self-thinning rule: dead or alive? Ecology 71:1373–1388
Mäkelä A, Hari P (1986) Stand growth model based on carbon uptake and allocation in individual trees. Ecol Modell 33:205–229
Mäkelä A, Vanninen P (1998) Impacts of size and competition on tree form and distribution of aboveground biomass in Scots pine. Can J For Res 28:216–227
Medlyn BE (2004) A MAESTRO Retrospective. In: Mencuccini M, Grace J, Moncrieff JB, McNaughton K (eds) Forests at the land-atmosphere interface. CABI, Oxfordshire, pp 105–121
Mitchell KJ (1975) Dynamics and simulated yield of Douglas-fir. For Sci Monogr 17:1–37
Norberg RA (1988) Theory of growth geometry of plants and self-thinning of plant populations: geometric similarity, elastic similarity, and different growth modes of plant parts. Am Nat 131:220–256
Norman JM, Welles JM (1983) Radiative transfer in an array of canopies. Agron J 75:481–488
Oker-Blom P, Pukkala T, Kuuluvainen T (1989) Relationship between radiation interception and photosynthesis in forest canopies: effect of stand structure and latitude. Ecol Modell 49:73–87
Osawa A, Sugita S (1989) The self-thinning rule: another interpretation of Weller’s results. Ecology pp 279–283
Pacala SW, Canham CD, Silander JA (1993) Forest models defined by field measurements. 1. The design of a Northeastern forest simulator. Can J For Res 23:1980–1988
Pacala SW, Canham CD, Saponara J, Silander JA, Kobe RK, Ribbens E (1996) Forest models defined by field measurements: estimation, error analysis and dynamics. Ecol Monogr 66:1–43
Poorter L, Oberbauer SF, Clark DB (1995) Leaf optical properties along a vertical gradient in a tropical rain forest canopy in Costa Rica. Am J Bot 82(10):1257–1263
Pregitzer KS (2002) Fine roots of trees–a new perspective. New Phytol 154(2):267–270
Pretzsch H, Biber P, Schuetze G, Uhl EO, Roetzer T (2014) Forest stand growth dynamics in Central Europe have accelerated since 1870. Nat Commun 5. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5967
Purves DW, Lichstein JW, Strigul N, Pacala SW (2008) Predicting and understanding forest dynamics using a simple tractable model. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:17018–17022
Rajaniemi TK (2003) Evidence for size asymmetry of belowground competition. Basic Appl Ecol 4:239–247
Reineke LH (1933) Perfecting a stand-density index for even-aged forests. J Agric Res 46(7): 626–637
Reynolds JH, Ford ED (2005) Improving competition representation in theoretical models of self-thinning: a critical review. J Ecol 93(2):362–372
Snow GRS (1931) Experiments on growth and inhibition. II. New phenomena of inhibition. Proc R Soc Lond 108:305–316
Sorrensen-Cothern KA, Ford ED, Sprugel DG (1993) A model of competition incorporating plasticity through modular foliage and crown development. Ecol Monogr 63(3):277–304
Sprugel DG (2002) When branch autonomy fails: Milton’s Law of resource availability and allocation. Tree Physiol 22:1119–1124
Strigul N, Pristinski D, Purves D, Dushoff J, Pacala S (2008) Scaling from trees to forests: tractable macroscopic equations for forest dynamics. Ecol Monogr 78:523–545
Valentine HT, Herman DA, Gove JH, Hollinger DY, Solomon DS (2000) Initializing a model stand for process-based projection. Tree Physiol 20(5–6):393–398
Valentine HT, Green EJ, Mäkelä A, Amateis RL, Mäkinen H, Ducey MJ (2012) Models relating stem growth to crown length dynamics: application to loblolly pine and Norway spruce. Trees 26:469–478
Valentine HT, Amateis RL, Gove JH, Mäkelä A (2013) Crown-rise and crown-length dynamics: application to loblolly pine. Forestry 86:371–375
Vogt KA, Vogt DJ, Asbjornsen H, Dahlgren RA (1995) Roots, nutrients and their relationship to spatial patterns. Plant Soil 168:113–123
Wang YP, Jarvis PG (1990) Description and validation of an array model – MAESTRO. Agric For Meteorol 51:257–280
Warren JM, Brooks JR, Meinzer FC, Eberhart JL (2008) Hydraulic redistribution of water from Pinus ponderosa trees to seedlings: evidence for an ectomycorrhizal pathway. New Phytol 178:382–394
Weiner J (1990) Asymmetric competition in plant populations. Tree 5:360–364
Weiner J, Wright DB, Castro S (1997) Symmetry of below-ground competition between Kochia scoparia individuals. Oikos 79:85–91
Weiskittel AR, Hann DW, Kershaw JA Jr, Vanclay JK (2011) Forest growth and yield modeling. John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex
Weller DE (1987) A reevaluation of the -3/2 power rule of plant self-thinning. Ecol Monogr 57(1):23–43
Weller DE (1990) Will the real self-thinning rule please stand up? – a reply to Osawa and Sugita. Ecology 71(3)1204–1207
Weller DE (1991) The self-thinning rule: dead or unsupported? – a reply to Lonsdale. Ecology 72(2):747–750
Westoby M (1981) The place of the self-thinning rule in population dynamics. Am Nat 118(4): 581–587
White J (1981) The allometric interpretation of the self-thinning rule. J Theor Biol 89(3):475–500
Yoda K, Kira T, Ogawa H, Hozumi K (1963) Self-thinning in overcrowded pure stands under cultivation and natural conditions. J Biol Osaka City Univ 14:107–129
Zeide B (1985) Tolerance and self-tolerance of trees. For Ecol Manage 13(3):149–166
Zeide B (1987) Analysis of the 3/2 power law of self-thinning. For Sci 33(2):517–537
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mäkelä, A., Valentine, H.T. (2020). Competition. In: Models of Tree and Stand Dynamics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35761-0_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35761-0_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-35760-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-35761-0
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)