Advertisement

The Design of Experimental Tree Plantations for Functional Biodiversity Research

  • M. Scherer-Lorenzen
  • C. Potvin
  • J. Koricheva
  • B. Schmid
  • A. Hector
  • Z. Bornik
  • G. Reynolds
  • E.-D. Schulze
Part of the Ecological Studies book series (ECOLSTUD, volume 176)

Keywords

Tree Species Ecosystem Functioning Short Rotation Coppice Canonical Axis Tree Species Diversity 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allison GW (1999) The implications of experimental design for biodiversity manipulations. Am Nat 153:27–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andow DA (1991) Vegetation diversity and arthropod population response. Annu Rev Entomol 36:561–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergmann F, Gregorius HR, Larsen JB (1990) Levels of genetic variation in European silver fir (Abies alba) — are they related to the species’ decline? Genetica 82:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berish CW, Ewel JJ (1988) Root development in simple and complex tropical successional ecosystems. Plant Soil 106:73–84Google Scholar
  5. Binkley D (1992) Functioning of nitrogen2-fixing and non-nitrogen2-fixing tree species. In: Cannell MGR, Malcolm DC, Robertson PA (eds) The ecology of mixed-species stands of trees. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 99–124Google Scholar
  6. Caspersen JP, Pacala SW (2001) Successional diversity and forest ecosystem function. Ecol Res 16:895–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen JQ, Franklin JF, Spies TA (1995) Growing-season microclimatic gradients from clear-cut edges into old-growth Douglas-fir forests. Ecol Appl 5:74–86Google Scholar
  8. de Wit CT (1960) On competition. Verslagen Landbouwkundige Onderzoekingen 66:1–82Google Scholar
  9. Díaz S, Cabido M (2001) Vive la différence: plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem processes. Trends Ecol Evol 16:646–655Google Scholar
  10. Díaz S, Symstad AJ, Stuart Chapin IF, Wardle DA, Huenneke LF (2003) Functional diversity revealed by removal experiments. Trends Ecol Evol 18:140–146Google Scholar
  11. Dutilleul P, Potvin C (1995) Among-environment heteroscedasticity and genetic autocorrelation: implications for the study of phenotypic plasticity. Genetics 139:1815–1829PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Engelmark O, Sjoberg K, Andersson B, Rosvall O, Agren GI, Baker WL, Barklund P, Bjorkman C, Despain DG, Elfving B, Ennos RA, Karlman M, Knecht MF, Knight DH, Ledgard NJ, Lindelöw Å, Nilsson C, Peterken GF, Sörlin S, Sykes MT (2001) Ecological effects and management aspects of an exotic tree species: the case of lodgepole pine in Sweden. For Ecol Manage 141:3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ewel JJ, Mazzarino MJ, Berish CW (1991) Tropical soil fertility changes under monocultures and successional communities of different structure. Ecol Appl 1:289–302Google Scholar
  14. Ford ED, Renshaw E (1984) The interpretation of processes from pattern using two-dimensional spectral analysis:modelling single species pattern in vegetation. Vegetatio 56:113–123Google Scholar
  15. Franklin JF, Spies TA, van Pelt R, Carey AB, Thornburgh DA, Berg DR, Lindenmayer DB, Harmon ME, Keeton WS, Shaw DC, Bible K, Chen JQ (2002) Disturbances and structural development of natural forest ecosystems with silvicultural implications, using Douglas-fir forests as an example. For Ecol Manage 155:399–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freckleton RP, Watkinson AR (2000) On detecting and measuring competition in spatially structured plant communities. Ecol Lett 3:423–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gibson DJ, Connolly J, Hartnett DC, Weidenhammer JD (1999) Designs for greenhouse studies of interactions between plants. J Ecol 87:1–16Google Scholar
  18. Gomory D (1992) Effect of stand origin on the genetic diversity of Norway spruce (Picea abies Karst.) populations. For Ecol Manage 54:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hallé F (1986) Modular growth in seed plants. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 313:77–87Google Scholar
  20. Harper JL (1977) Population biology of plants. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Hector A, Schmid B, Beierkuhnlein C, Caldeira MC, Diemer M, Dimitrakopoulos PG, Finn J, Freitas H, Giller PS, Good J, Harris R, Högberg P, Huss-Danell K, Joshi J, Jumpponen A, Körner C, Leadley PW, Loreau M, Minns A, Mulder CPH, O’Donovan G, Otway SJ, Pereira JS, Prinz A, Read DJ, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Schulze E-D, Siamantziouras A-SD, Spehn E, Terry AC, Troumbis AY, Woodward FI, Yachi S, Lawton JH (1999) Plant diversity and productivity experiments in European grasslands. Science 286:1123–1127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hector A, Loreau M, Schmid B, project atB (2002) Biodiversity manipulation experiments: studies replicated at multiple sites. In: Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P (eds) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Synthesis and perspectives. Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, pp 36–46Google Scholar
  23. Heywood VH, Watson RT (eds) (1995) Global biodiversity assessment. Cambridge Univ Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Holden C (2003) Forest ecologists go mega. Science 300:1872Google Scholar
  25. Hooper DU, Solan M, Symstad A, Díaz S, Gessner MO, Buchmann N, Degrange V, Grime P, Hulot F, Mermillod-Blondin F, Roy J, Spehn EM, van Peer L (2002) Species diversity, functional diversity, and ecosystem functioning. In: Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P (eds) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Synthesis and perspectives. Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, pp 195–208Google Scholar
  26. Huston MA (1997) Hidden treatments in ecological experiments: re-evaluating the ecosystem function of biodiversity. Oecologia 110:449–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huston MA, McBride AC (2002) Evaluating the relative strengths of biotic versus abiotic controls on ecosystem processes. In: Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P (eds) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: synthesis and perspectives. Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, pp 47–60Google Scholar
  28. Kelty MJ, Cameron IR (1995) Plot design for the analysis of species interactions in mixed stands. Comm For Rev 74:322–332Google Scholar
  29. Kempton RA Lockwood G (1984) Inter-plot competition in variety trials of field beans (Vicia fabaL.). J Agric Sci 103:293–302Google Scholar
  30. Kinzig AP, Pacala SW, Tilman D (2002) The functional consequences of biodiversity: empirical progress and theoretical extensions. Princeton Univ Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  31. Kira T, Ogawa H, Shinozaki K (1953) Intraspecific competition among higher plants. 1. Competition-density-yield inter-relationships in regularly dispersed populations. J Inst Polytech Osaka Cy Univ D 4:1–16Google Scholar
  32. Körner C (1993) Scaling from species to vegetation: the usefulness of functional groups. In: Schulze E-D, Mooney HA (eds) Biodiversity and ecosystem function. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 117–140Google Scholar
  33. Kohyama T, Hotta M (1990) Significance of allometry in tropical saplings. Funct Ecol 4:515–521Google Scholar
  34. Lamont BB (1995) Testing the effect of ecosystem composition/structure on its functioning. Oikos 74:283–295Google Scholar
  35. Lawton JH, Naeem S, Thompson LJ, Hector A, Crawley MJ (1998) Biodiversity and ecosystem function: getting the Ecotron experiment in its correct context. Funct Ecol 12:848–852Google Scholar
  36. Loreau M (2000) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: recent theoretical advances. Oikos 91:3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Loreau M, Hector A (2001) Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 412:72–76CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P (eds) (2002) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: Synthesis and perspectives. Oxford Univ Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  39. McCracken AR, Dawson WM (1998) Short rotation coppice willow in Northern Ireland since 1973: development of the use of mixtures in the control of foliar rust (Melampsoraspp.). Eur J For Pathol 28:241–250Google Scholar
  40. Mikola J, Salonen V, Setälä H (2002) Studying the effects of plant species richness on ecosystem functioning: does the choice of experimental design matter? Oecologia 133:594–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oleksyn J, Prus-Glowacki W, Giertych M, Reich PB (1994) Relation between genetic diversity and pollution impact in a 1912 experiment with east European Pinus sylvestris provenances. Can J For Res 24:2390–2394Google Scholar
  42. Oliver CD, Larson BC (1996) Forest stand dynamics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Pacala SW, Deutschman DH (1995) Details that matter — the spatial distribution of individual trees maintains forest ecosystem function. Oikos 74:357–365Google Scholar
  44. Palmer, MW, Clark DB, Clark DA (2000) Is the number of tree species in small tropical forest plots nonrandom? Comm Ecol 1:95–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Petchey OL, Gaston KJ (2002) Functional diversity (FD), species richness and community composition. Ecol Lett 5:402–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Peterken GF (2001) Ecological effects of introduced tree species in Britain. For Ecol Manage 141:31–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Potvin C (2001) ANOVA: experiments layout and analysis. In: Scheiner S, Gurevitch J (eds) Design and analysis of ecological experiments. Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, pp 63–76Google Scholar
  48. Raddi S, Stefanini FM, Camussi A, Giannini R (1994) Forest decline index and genetic variability in Picea abies (L.) Karst. For Genet 1:33–40Google Scholar
  49. Rajora OP (1999) Genetic biodiversity impacts of silvicultural practices and phenotypic selection in white spruce. Theor Appl Genet 99:954–961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rothe A, Binkley D (2001) Nutritional interactions in mixed species forests: a synthesis. Can J For Res 31:1855–1870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schläpfer F, Schmid B (1999) Ecosystem effects of biodiversity: a classification of hypotheses and cross-system exploration of empirical results. Ecol Appl 9:893–912Google Scholar
  52. Schmid B, Harper JL (1985) Clonal growth in grassland perennials. I. Density and pattern dependent competition between plants with different growth form. J Ecol 73:793–808Google Scholar
  53. Schmid B (2002) The species richness-productivity controversy. Trends Ecol Evol 17:113–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schmid B, Pfisterer AB (2003) Species vs community perspectives in biodiversity experiments. Oikos 100:620–621Google Scholar
  55. Schmid B, Hector A, Huston MA, Inchausti P, Nijs I, Leadley PW, Tilman D (2002) The design and analysis of biodiversity experiments. In: Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P (eds) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: synthesis and perspectives. Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, pp 61–75Google Scholar
  56. Schulze ED, Valentini R, Sanz M-J (2002) The long way from Kyoto to Marrakesh: implications of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations for global ecology. Global Change Biol 8:505–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Smith TM, Shugart HH, Woodward FI (eds) (1997) Plant functional types — their relevance to ecosystem properties and global change. Cambridge Univ Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  58. Spaèkova I, Lepš J (2001) Procedure for separating the selection effect from other effects in diversity-productivity relationship. Ecol Lett 4:585–594Google Scholar
  59. Stoll P, Prati D (2001) Intraspecific aggregation alters competitive interactions in experimental plant communities. Ecology 82:319–327Google Scholar
  60. Stoll P, Weiner J, Schmid B (1994) Growth variation in a naturally established population of Pinus sylvestris. Ecology 75:660–670Google Scholar
  61. Thorington RW, Tannenbaum B, Tarak A, Rudran R (1991) Distribución de los arboles en la ísla de Barro Colorado: una muestra de cinco hectareas. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, PanamaGoogle Scholar
  62. Tilman D, Reich PB, Knops J, Wedin D, Mielke T, Lehmann C (2001) Diversity and productivity in a long-term grassland experiment. Science 294:843–845CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Vitousek PM, Hooper DU (1993) Biological diversity and terrestrial ecosystem biogeochemistry. In: Schulze ED, Mooney HA (eds) Biodiversity and ecosystem function. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 3–14Google Scholar
  64. Walker B, Kinzig A, Langridge J (1999) Plant attribute diversity, resilience, and ecosystem function: the nature and significance of dominant and minor species. Ecosystems 2:95–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. WBGU — German Advisory Council on Global Change (2000) World in transition: conservation and sustainable use of the biosphere. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  66. Winer BJ (1971) Statistical principles in experimental design. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  67. Yoda K, Kira T, Ogawa H, Hozumi K (1963) Self thinning in overcrowded pure stands under cultivated and natural conditions. J Biol Osaka Cy Univ 14:107–129Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Scherer-Lorenzen
  • C. Potvin
  • J. Koricheva
  • B. Schmid
  • A. Hector
  • Z. Bornik
  • G. Reynolds
  • E.-D. Schulze

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations