Unraveling the Importance of Inter- and Intraspecific Competition for the Adaptation of Forests to Climate Change

Part of the Progress in Botany book series (BOTANY, volume 78)


Climate change implies a new and challenging source of uncertainty for forestry and requires adaptation measures. In the context of silviculture two main approaches have recently been discussed: adapting target tree species composition, and adapting stand density. This review shows that creating mixed stands and controlling stand density through thinning are effective adaptation principles, which both may reduce resource competition among trees. Mixed stands composed of species with different functional traits and foraging strategies increase the likelihood of complementary effects because of reduced (intraspecific) competition pressure and/or facilitation effects. Thinning stands leads to lowered interception and increases in throughfall and soil water availability, improving tree recovery and resilience after drought events. For an adequate interpretation of tree growth responses to drought it is important to distinguish between the term sensitivity, which describes the magnitude of the individual’s response to stress, and the term vulnerability, which describes whether or not the actual stress is crucial for both long-term performance and tree or stand survival, respectively.


Tree Ring Functional Trait Stand Density Mixed Stand Intraspecific Competition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



I am grateful to Rainer Matyssek who initiated this work and who gave valuable comments to an earlier version of the manuscript. I also thank Peter Annighöfer for commenting on the manuscript and linguistic corrections. Finally, I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for critical remarks and helpful suggestions.


  1. Aitken SN, Yeaman S, Holliday JA, Wang T, Curtis-McLane S (2008) Adaptation, migration or extirpation: climate change outcomes for tree populations. Evol Appl 1:95–111PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle 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 36:1484–1496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aussenac G, Granier A (1988) Effects of thinning on water stress and growth in Douglas-fir. Can J For Res 18:100–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berger TW, Köllensperger G, Wimmer R (2004) Plant-soil feedback in spruce (Picea abies) and mixed spruce-beech (Fagus sylvatica) stands as indicated by dendrochemistry. Plant and Soil 264:69–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertness M, Callaway RM (1994) Positive interactions in communities. Trends Ecol Evol 9:191–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 For Res 125:15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolte A, Ammer C, Löf M, Madsen P, Nabuurs GJ, Schall P, Spathelf P, Rock J (2009) Adaptive forest management in central Europe: climate change impacts, strategies and integrative concept. Scand J For Res 24:473–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bolte A, Ammer C, Löf M, Nabuurs G-J, Schall P, Spathelf P (2010) Adaptive forest management: a prerequisite for sustainable forestry in the face of climate change. In: Spathelf P (ed) Sustainable forest management in a changing world: a European perspective, vol 19, Managing forest ecosystems. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 115–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bosela M, Tobin B, Šebeň V, Petráš R, Larocque GR (2015) Different mixtures of Norway spruce, silver fir, and European beech modify competitive interactions in central European mature mixed forests. Can J For Res 45:1577–1586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brang P, Spathelf P, Larsen JB, Bauhus J, Bončìna A, Chauvin C, Drössler L, García-Güemes C, Heiri C, Kerr G, Lexer MJ, Mason B, Mohren F, Mühlethaler U, Nocentini S, Svoboda M (2014) Suitability of close-to-nature silviculture for adapting temperate European forests to climate change. Forestry 87:492–503Google Scholar
  11. Bréda N, Huc R, Granier A, Dreyer E (2006) Temperate forest trees and stands under severe drought: a review of ecophysiological responses, adaptation processes and long-term consequences. Ann For Sci 63:625–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bréda N, Granier A, Aussenac G (1995) Effects of thinning on soil and tree water relations, transpiration and growth in an oak forest (Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.). Tree Physiol 15:295–306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burkhart HE, Tham Å (1992) Predictions from growth and yield models of the performance of mixed-species stands. In: Cannell MGR, Malcolm DC, Robertson PA (eds) The ecology of mixed stands of trees. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp 21–34Google Scholar
  14. Cescatti A, Piutti E (1998) Silvicultural alternatives, competition regime and sensitivity to climate in a European beech forest. For Ecol Manage 102:213–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Condés S, del Río M (2015) Climate modifies tree interactions in terms of basal area growth and mortality in monospecific and mixed Fagus sylvatica and Pinus sylvestris forests. Eur J For Res 134:1095–1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Condés S, del Río M, Sterba H (2013) Mixing effect on volume growth of Fagus sylvatica and Pinus sylvestris is modulated by stand density. For Ecol Manage 292:86–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cotillas M, Sabate S, Gracia C, Espelta JM (2009) Growth response of mixed Mediterranean oak coppices to rainfall reduction: could selective thinning have any influence on it? For Ecol Manage 258:1677–1683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. D’Amato AW, Bradford JB, Fraver S, Palik BJ (2013) Effects of thinning on drought vulnerability and climate response in north temperate forest ecosystems. Ecol Appl 23:1735–1742PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dawson TE (1996) Determining water use by trees and forests from isotopic, energy balance and transpiration analyses: the roles of tree size and hydraulic lift. Tree Physiol 16:263–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. del Campo AD, Fernandes TJ, Molina AJ (2014) Hydrology-oriented (adaptive) silviculture in a semiarid pine plantation: how much can be modified the water cycle through forest management? Eur J For Res 133:879–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. del Río M, Schütze G, Pretzsch H (2014) Temporal variation of competition and facilitation in mixed species forests in Central Europe. Plant Biol 16:166–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dieler J, Pretzsch H (2013) Morphological plasticity of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in pure and mixed-species stands. For Ecol Manage 295:97–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dobrowski SZ, Abatzoglou J, Swanson AK, Greenberg JA, Mynsberge AR, Holden ZA, Schwartz MK (2013) The climate velocity of the contiguous United States during the 20th century. Glob Chang Biol 19:241–251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dounavi A, Netzer F, Celepirovic N, Ivanković M, Burger J, Figueroa AG, Schön S, Simon J, Cremer E, Fussi B, Konnert M, Rennenberg H (2016) Genetic and physiological differences of European beech provenances (F. sylvatica L.) exposed to drought stress. For Ecol Manage 361:226–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fernandes TJG, del Campo AD, Herrera R, Molina AJ (2016) Simultaneous assessment, through sap flow and stable isotopes, of water use efficiency (WUE) in thinned pines shows improvement in growth, tree-climate sensitivity and WUE, but not in WUEi. For Ecol Manage 361:298–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fernández-de-Uña L, McDowell NG, Cañellas I, Gea-Izquierdo G (2016) Disentangling the effect of competition, CO2 and climate on intrinsic water-use efficiency and tree growth. J Ecol 104:678–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Filipescu CN, Comeau PG (2007) Competitive interactions between aspen and white spruce vary with stand age in boreal mixedwoods. For Ecol Manage 247:175–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fischer M, Bossdorf O, Gockel S, Hänsel F, Hemp A, Hessenmöller D, Korte G, Nieschulze J, Pfeiffer S, Prati D, Renner S (2010) Implementing large-scale and long-term functional biodiversity research: the Biodiversity Exploratories. Basic Appl Ecol 11:473–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Forrester DI (2014) The spatial and temporal dynamics of species interactions in mixed-species forests: from pattern to process. For Ecol Manage 312:282–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Forrester DI (2015) Transpiration and water-use efficiency in mixed-species forests versus monocultures. Effects of tree size, stand density and season. Tree Physiol 35:289–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Forrester DI, Pretzsch H (2015) Tamm review: on the strength of evidence when comparing ecosystem functions of mixtures with monocultures. For Ecol Manage 356:41–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Forrester DI, Vanclay JK, Forrester RI (2011) The balance between facilitation and competition in mixtures of Eucalyptus and Acacia changes as stands develop. Oecologia 166:265–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gebauer T, Horna V, Leuschner C (2012) Canopy transpiration of pure and mixed forest stands with variable abundance of European beech. J Hydrol 442:2–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gebhardt T, Häberle K-H, Matyssek R, Schulz C, Ammer C (2014) The more, the better? Water relations of Norway spruce stands after progressive thinning intensities. Agric For Meteorol 197:235–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Giuggiola A, Bugmann H, Zingg A, Dobbertin M, Rigling A (2013) Reduction of stand density increases drought resistance in xeric Scots pine forests. For Ecol Manage 310:827–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Giuggiola A, Ogée J, Rigling A, Gessler A, Bugmann H, Treydte K (2016) Improvement of water and light availability after thinning at a xeric site: which matters more? A dual isotope approach. New Phytol 210:108–121. doi: 10.1111/nph.13748
  37. Grams TEE, Kozovits AR, Reiter IM, Barbro Winkler J, Sommerkorn M, Blaschke H, Häberle K-H, Matyssek R (2002) Quantifying competitiveness in woody plants. Plant Biol 4:153–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Grams TEE, Kozovits AR, Häberle K-H, Matyssek R, Dawson TE (2007) Combining δ13C and δ 18O analyses to unravel competition, CO2 and O3 effects on the physiological performance of different-aged trees. Plant Cell Environ 30:1023–1034PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Grossiord C, Gessler A, Granier A, Berger S, Bréchet C, Hentschel R, Hommel R, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Bonal D (2014a) Impact of interspecific interactions on the soil water uptake depth in a young temperate mixed species plantation. J Hydrol 519:3511–3519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Grossiord C, Gessler A, Granier A, Pollastrini M, Bussotti F, Bonal D (2014b) Interspecific competition influences the response of oak transpiration to increasing drought stress in a mixed Mediterranean forest. For Ecol Manage 318:54–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Grossiord C, Granier A, Ratcliffe S, Bouriaud O, Bruelheide H, Chećko E, Forrester DI, Dawud SM, Finér L, Pollastrini M, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Valladares F, Bonal D, Gessler A (2014c) Tree diversity does not always improve resistance of forest ecosystems to drought. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:14812–14815PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hallegatte S (2009) Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Glob Environ Chang 19:240–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hertel D, Strecker T, Müller-Haubold H, Leuschner C (2013) Fine root biomass and dynamics in beech forests across a precipitation gradient – is optimal resource partitioning theory applicable to water-limited mature trees? J Ecol 101:1183–1200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Holmgren M, Scheffer M, Huston MA (1997) The interplay of facilitation and competition in plant communities. Ecology 78:1966–1975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. IPCC (2013) Climate Change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324
  46. Jonard F, André F, Ponette Q, Vincke C, Jonard M (2011) Sap flux density and stomatal conductance of European beech and common oak trees in pure and mixed stands during the summer drought of 2003. J Hydrol 409:371–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Joyce LA, Blate GM, McNulty SG, Millar CI, Moser S, Neilson RP, Peterson DL (2009) Managing for multiple resources under climate change: national forests. Environ Manag 44:1022–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jucker T, Bouriaud O, Avacaritei D, Dănilă I, Duduman G, Valladares F, Coomes DA (2014) Competition for light and water play contrasting roles in driving diversity–productivity relationships in Iberian forests. J Ecol 102:1202–1213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jucker T, Avăcăriței D, Bărnoaiea I, Duduman G, Bouriaud O, Coomes DA (2016) Climate modulates the effects of tree diversity on forest productivity. J Ecol 104:388–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Keenan RJ (2015) Climate change impacts and adaptation in forest management: a review. Ann For Sci 72:145–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Keskitalo ECH (2011) How can forest management adapt to climate change? Possibilities in different forestry systems. Forests 2:415–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kohler M, Sohn J, Nägele G, Bauhus J (2010) Can drought tolerance of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) be increased through thinning? Eur J For Res 129:1109–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lagergren F, Lankreijer H, Kučera J, Cienciala E, Mölder M, Lindroth A (2008) Thinning effects on pine-spruce forest transpiration in central Sweden. For Ecol Manage 255:2312–2323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lebourgeois F, Gomez N, Pinto P, Mérian P (2013) Mixed stands reduce Abies alba tree-ring sensitivity to summer drought in the Vosges mountains, western Europe. For Ecol Manage 303:61–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lévesque M, Rigling A, Bugmann H, Weber P, Brang P (2014) Growth response of five co-occurring conifers to drought across a wide climatic gradient in Central Europe. Agric For Meteorol 197:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Linares JC, Camarero JJ, Carreira JA (2010) Competition modulates the adaptation capacity of forests to climatic stress: insights from recent growth decline and death in relict stands of the Mediterranean fir Abies pinsapo. J Ecol 98:592–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lindner M, Maroschek M, Netherer S, Kremer A, Barbati A, Garcia-Gonzalo J, Seidl R, Delzon S, Corona P, Kolström M, Lexer MJ, Marchetti M (2010) Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of European forest ecosystems. For Ecol Manage 259:698–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lindner M, Fitzgerald JB, Zimmermann NE, Reyer C, Delzon S, van der Maaten E, Schelhaas M-J, Lasch P, Eggers J, van der Maaten-Theunissen M, Suckow F, Psomas A, Poulter B, Hanewinkel M (2014) Climate change and European forests: what do we know, what are the uncertainties, and what are the implications for forest management? J Environ Manage 146:69–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lloret F, Keeling EG, Sala A (2011) Components of tree resilience: effects of successive low-growth episodes in old ponderosa pine forests. Oikos 120:1909–1920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lübbe T, Schuldt B, Coners H, Leuschner C (2016) Species diversity and identity effects on the water consumption of tree sapling assemblages under ample and limited water supply. Oikos 125:86–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Maestre FT, Callaway RM, Valladares F, Lortie CJ (2009) Refining the stress-gradient hypothesis for competition and facilitation in plant communities. J Ecol 97:199–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Magruder M, Chhin S, Palik B, Bradford JB (2013) Thinning increases climatic resilience of red pine. Can J For Res 43:878–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Manso R, Morneau F, Ningre F, Fortin M (2015) Effect of climate and intra-and inter-specific competition on diameter increment in beech and oak stands. Forestry 88:540–551Google Scholar
  64. Martín-Benito D, del Río M, Heinrich I, Helle G, Cañellas I (2010) Response of climate-growth relationships and water use efficiency to thinning in a Pinus nigra afforestation. For Ecol Manage 259:967–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Martínez-Vilalta J, López B, Loepfe L, Lloret F (2012) Stand-and tree-level determinants of the drought response of Scots pine radial growth. Oecologia 168:877–888PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Matyssek R, Wieser G, Patzner K, Blaschke H, Häberle KH (2009) Transpiration of forest trees and stands at different altitude: consistencies rather than contrasts? Eur J For Res 128:579–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. McDowell NG, Adams HD, Bailey JD, Hess M, Kolb TE (2006) Homeostatic maintenance of ponderosa pine gas exchange in response to stand density changes. Ecol Appl 16:1164–1182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Meinzer FC, Warren JM, Brooks JR (2007) Species-specific partitioning of soil water resources in an old-growth Douglas-fir–western hemlock forest. Tree Physiol 27:871–880PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Meir P, Mencuccini M, Dewar RC (2015) Drought-related tree mortality: addressing the gaps in understanding and prediction. New Phytol 207:28–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Mérian P, Lebourgeois F (2011) Size-mediated climate–growth relationships in temperate forests: a multi-species analysis. For Ecol Manage 261:1382–1391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Merlin M, Perot T, Perret S, Korboulewsky N, Vallet P (2015) Effects of stand composition and tree size on resistance and resilience to drought in sessile oak and Scots pine. For Ecol Manage 339:22–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Metz J, Seidel D, Schall P, Scheffer D, Schulze E-D, Ammer C (2013) Crown modeling by terrestrial laser scanning as an approach to assess the effect of aboveground intra- and interspecific competition on tree growth. For Ecol Manage 310:275–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Metz J, Annighöfer P, Schall P, Zimmermann J, Kahl T, Schulze E-D, Ammer C (2016) Site-adapted admixed tree species reduce drought susceptibility of mature European beech. Glob Chang Biol 22:903–920. doi: 10.1111/gcb.13113
  74. Millar CI, Stephenson NL, Stephens SL (2007) Climate change and forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecol Appl 17:2145–2151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Misson L, Nicault A, Guiot J (2003) Effects of different thinning intensities on drought response in Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.). For Ecol Manage 183:47–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Mölder I, Leuschner C (2014) European beech grows better and is less drought sensitive in mixed than in pure stands: tree neighbourhood effects on radial increment. Trees 28:777–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Morikawa Y, Hattori S, Kiyono Y (1986) Transpiration of a 31-year-old Chamaecyparis obtusa Endl. stand before and after thinning. Tree Physiol 2:105–114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Neuner S, Albrecht A, Cullmann D, Engels F, Griess VC, Hahn WA, Hanewinkel M, Härtl F, Kölling C, Staupendahl K, Knoke T (2015) Survival of Norway spruce remains higher in mixed stands under a dryer and warmer climate. Glob Chang Biol 21:935–946PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Pinkard E, Battaglia M, Bruce J, Matthews S, Callister AN, Hetherington S, Last I, Mathieson S, Mitchell C, Mohammed C, Musk R, Ravenwood I, Rombouts J, Stone C, Wardlaw T (2015) A history of forestry management responses to climatic variability and their current relevance for developing climate change adaptation strategies. Forestry 88:155–171Google Scholar
  80. Pretzsch H (2003) Diversität und Produktivität von Wäldern. Allg Forst Jagdztg 174:88–98Google Scholar
  81. Pretzsch H, Biber P (2005) A re-evaluation of Reineke’s rule and stand density index. For Sci 51:304–320Google Scholar
  82. Pretzsch H, Schütze G (2009) Transgressive overyielding in mixed compared with pure stands of Norway spruce and European beech in Central Europe: evidence on stand level and explanation on individual tree level. Eur J For Res 128:183–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 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 67:712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Pretzsch H, Bielak K, Block J, Bruchwald A, Dieler J, Ehrhart HP, Kohnle U, Nagel J, Spellmann H, Zasada M, Zingg A (2013a) Productivity of mixed versus pure 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 132:263–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Pretzsch H, Schütze G, Uhl E (2013b) Resistance of European tree species to drought stress in mixed versus pure forests: evidence of stress release by inter‐specific facilitation. Plant Biol 15:483–495PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Pretzsch H, del Río M, Ammer C, Avdagic A, Barbeito I, Bielak K, Brazaitis G, Coll L, Dirnberger G, Drössler L, Fabrika M, Forrester DI, Godvod K, 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, Stojanovic 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.) analyzed along a productivity gradient through Europe. Eur J For Res 134:927–947Google Scholar
  87. Pretzsch H, del Río 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, Mohren F, Motta R, Pach M, Ponette Q, Sramek V, Sterba H, Stojanović D, 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 humidity. For Ecol Manag 373:149–166Google Scholar
  88. Rist L, Moen J (2013) Sustainability in forest management and a new role for resilience thinking. For Ecol Manage 310:416–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Rothe A (1997) Einfluss des Baumartenanteils auf Durchwurzelung, Wasserhaushalt, Stoffhaushalt und Zuwachsleistung eines Fichten-Buchen-Mischbestandes am Standort Höglwald. Forstliche Forschungsberichte München 163:1–174Google Scholar
  90. Sánchez-Salguero R, Linares JC, Camarero JJ, Madrigal-González J, Hevia A, Sánchez-Miranda Á, Ballesteros-Cánovas JA, Alfaro-Sánchez R, García-Cervigón AI, Bigler C, Rigling A (2015) Disentangling the effects of competition and climate on individual tree growth: a retrospective and dynamic approach in Scots pine. For Ecol Manage 358:12–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Schall P, Ammer C (2013) How to quantify forest management intensity in Central European Forests. Eur J For Res 132:379–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 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 Manage 266:246–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Schmid I (2002) The influence of soil type and interspecific competition on the fine root system of Norway spruce and European beech. Basic Appl Ecol 3:339–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Schoene DH, Bernier PY (2012) Adapting forestry and forests to climate change: a challenge to change the paradigm. Forest Policy Econ 24:12–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Schuldt B, Knutzen F, Delzon S, Jansen S, Müller-Haubold H, Burlett R, Clough Y, Leuschner C (2016) How adaptable is the hydraulic system of European beech in the face of climate change-related precipitation reduction? New Phytol 210:443–458PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Schulze ED, Aas G, Grimm GW, Gossner MM, Walentowski H, Ammer C, Kühn I, Bouriaud O, von Gadow K (2016) A review on plant-diversity and forest management of European beech forests. Eur J For Res 135:51–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Schume H, Jost G, Hager H (2004) Soil water depletion and recharge patterns in mixed and pure forest stands of European beech and Norway spruce. J Hydrol 289:258–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Schwendenmann L, Pendall E, Sanchez-Bragado R, Kunert N, Hölscher D (2015) Tree water uptake in a tropical plantation varying in tree diversity: interspecific differences, seasonal shifts and complementarity. Ecohydrology 8:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Seidl R, Lexer MJ (2013) Forest management under climatic and social uncertainty: trade-offs between reducing climate change impacts and fostering adaptive capacity. J Environ Manage 114:461–469PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Seidl R, Rammer W, Lexer MJ (2011) Adaptation options to reduce climate change vulnerability of sustainable forest management in the Austrian Alps. Can J For Res 41:694–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Seppälä R (2009) A global assessment on adaptation of forests to climate change. Scand J For Res 24:469–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Shipley B, Meziane D (2002) The balanced-growth hypothesis and the allometry of leaf and roots biomass allocation. Funct Ecol 16:326–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Simonin K, Kolb TE, Montes-Helu M, Koch GW (2007) The influence of thinning on components of stand water balance in a ponderosa pine forest stand during and after extreme drought. Agric For Meteorol 143:266–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Smit B, Wandel J (2006) Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Glob Environ Chang 16:282–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Smit B, Burton I, Klein R, Wandel J (2000) An anatomy of adaptation to climate change and variability. Clim Change 45:223–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Sohn J, Gebhardt T, Ammer C, Bauhus J, Häberle K-H, Matyssek M, Grams TEE (2013) Mitigation of drought by thinning: short-term and long-term effects on growth and physiological performance of Norway spruce (Picea abies). For Ecol Manage 308:188–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Spittlehouse DL, Stewart RB (2003) Adaptation to climate change in forest management. BC J Ecosyst Manag 4:1–11Google Scholar
  108. Stogsdill WR, Wittwer RF, Hennessey TC, Dougherty PM (1992) Water use in thinned loblolly pine plantations. For Ecol Manage 50:233–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Teskey R, Wertin T, Bauweraerts I, Ameye M, McGuire MA, Steppe K (2015) Responses of tree species to heat waves and extreme heat events. Plant Cell Environ 38:1699–1712PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Thuiller W, Lavorel S, Sykes MT, Araújo MB (2006) Using niche-based modelling to assess the impact of climate change on tree functional diversity in Europe. Divers Distribution 12:49–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Toïgo M, Vallet P, Tuilleras V, Lebourgeois F, Rozenberg P, Perret S, Courbaud B, Perot T (2015) Species mixture increases the effect of drought on tree ring density, but not on ring width, in Quercus petraeaPinus sylvestris stands. For Ecol Manage 345:73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Trouvé R, Bontemps J-D, Collet C, Seynave I, Lebourgeois F (2014) Growth partitioning in forest stands is affected by stand density and summer drought in sessile oak and Douglas-fir. For Ecol Manage 334:358–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Trouvé R, Bontemps J-D, Seynave I, Collet C, Lebourgeois F (2015) Stand density, tree social status and water stress influence allocation in height and diameter growth of Quercus petraea (Liebl.). Tree Physiol 35:1035–1046PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Wagner S (2004) Möglichkeiten und Beschränkungen eines funktionsorientierten Waldbaus. Forst und Holz 59:105–111Google Scholar
  115. White DA, Crombie DS, Kinal J, Battaglia M, McGrath JF, Mendham DS, Walker SN (2009) Managing productivity and drought risk in Eucalyptus globulus plantations in south-western Australia. For Ecol Manage 259:33–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Zapater M, Hossann C, Bréda N, Bréchet C, Bonal D, Granier A (2011) Evidence of hydraulic lift in a young beech and oak mixed forest using 18O soil water labelling. Trees 25:885–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Silviculture and Forest Ecology of the Temperate Zones and Center for Biodiversity and Sustainable Land UseGöttingen UniversityGöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations