Functioning of Mixed-Species Stands: Evidence from a Long-Term Forest Experiment

  • H.E. Jones
  • N. McNamara
  • W.L. Mason
Part of the Ecological Studies book series (ECOLSTUD, volume 176)


Mixed Stand Pure Stand Litter Mixture Mixture Effect Ecol Manage 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Assmann E (1970) The principles of forest yield study. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 506 ppGoogle Scholar
  2. Avery BW (1980) Soil classification for England and Wales (higher categories). Tech Monogr no 14. Soil Survey of England and Wales, HarpendenGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartsch N, Petercord R, von Lupke B (1996) Growth of sessile oak in mixture with Scots pine. Forst Holz 51:195–200Google Scholar
  4. Bi H, Turvey ND (1994) Inter-specific competition between seedlings of Pinus radiata, Eucalyptus regnans and Acacia melanoxylon. Aust J Bot 42:61–70Google Scholar
  5. Binkley D (1992) Mixtures nitrogen-fixing and non-nitrogen-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. Binns WO, Mayhead GJ, MacKenzie JM (1980) Nutrient deficiencies of conifers in British forests. Forestry Commission Leaflet no 76. HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Brandtberg P-O, Lundkvist H, Bengtsson J (2000) Changes in forest-floor chemistry caused by a birch admixture in Norway spruce stands. For Ecol Manage 130:253–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Briones MJI, Ineson P, Poskitt JM (1998) Climate change and Cognettia sphagnetorum:effect on carbon dynamics in organic soils. Funct Ecol 12:528–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown AHF (1988) Discrimination between the effects on soils of 4 tree species in pure and mixed stands using cotton strip assay. In: Harrison AF, Latter PM, Walton DWH (eds) Cotton strip assay: an index of decomposition in soils. ITE symposium no 24 Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Grange-over-Sands, pp 80–83Google Scholar
  10. Brown AHF (1992) Functioning of mixed-species stands at Gisburn, N W England. In: Cannell MGR, Malcolm DC, Robertson PA (eds) The ecology of mixed-species stands of trees. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 125–150Google Scholar
  11. Brown AHF, Harrison AF (1983) Effects of tree mixtures on earthworm populations, and nitrogen and phosphorus status in Norway spruce (Picea abies) stands. In: Lebrun P, Andre HM, de Medts H, Gregoire-Wibo C, Wauthy G (eds) New trends in soil biology. Ottignies-Louvain-la Neuve, Dieu-Brichart, pp 101–108Google Scholar
  12. Brown AHF, Iles MA (1991) Water chemistry profiles under four tree species at Gisburn, NW England. Forestry 64:169–187Google Scholar
  13. Brozek S (1990) Effect of soil changes caused by red alder (Alnus rubra) on biomass and nutrient status of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) seedlings. Can J For Res 20:1320–1325Google Scholar
  14. Burkhart HE, Tham A (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-species stands of trees. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 21–34Google Scholar
  15. Cairney JWG, Alexander IJ (1992a) A study of the ageing of spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong) Carr.) ectomycorrhizas II Carbohydrate allocation in ageing Picea sitchensis/ Tylospora fibrillosa (Burt.) Donk ectomycorrhizas. New Phytol 122:153–158Google Scholar
  16. Cairney JWG, Alexander IJ (1992b) A study of the ageing of spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong) Carr.) ectomycorrhizas III Phosphate absorption and transfer in ageing Picea sitchensis/Tylospora fibrillosa (Burt.) Donk ectomycorrhizas. New Phytol 122:159–164Google Scholar
  17. Cameron AD, Watson BA (2000) Growth and wood properties of Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr.) in nursing mixtures established on nitrogen-deficient mineral soils. Scand J For Res 15:237–246Google Scholar
  18. Carlyle JC, Malcolm DC (1986) Larch litter and nitrogen availability in mixed larchspruce stands II. A comparison of larch and spruce litters as a nitrogen source for Sitka spruce seedlings. Can J For Res 16:327–329Google Scholar
  19. Chapman K (1986) Interaction between tree species: decomposition and nutrient release from litters. PhD Thesis, University of LancasterGoogle Scholar
  20. DeBell DS, Cole TG, Whitesell CD (1997) Growth, development and yield of pure and mixed stands of Eucalyptus and Albizia. For Sci 43:286–298Google Scholar
  21. De Wit CT, van den Bergh JP (1965) Competition between herbage plants. Neth J Agric Sci 13:212–221Google Scholar
  22. Downes GM, Alexander IJ, Cairney JWG (1992) A study of the ageing of spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr.) ectomycorrhizas I Morphological and cellular changes in mycorrhizas formed by Tylospora fibrillosa (Burt.) Donk and Paxillus involutus (Batsch. ex Fr.) Fr. New Phytol 122:141–152Google Scholar
  23. Elliott WM, Elliott NB, Wyman RL (1993) Relative effects of litter and forest type on rate of decomposition. Am Midl Nat 129:87–95Google Scholar
  24. Everard J (1973) Foliar analysis: sampling methods, interpretation and application of the results. Q J For 67:51–66Google Scholar
  25. Franklin JF (1989) Importance and justification of long-term studies in ecology. In: Likens GE (ed) Long-term studies in ecology. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 3–19Google Scholar
  26. Freist H (1991) Is it sensible to mix four tree species (beech, oak, spruce, larch)? Forst Holz 46:501–502Google Scholar
  27. Gardiner J J (1999) Changing forests, management and growing conditions. In: Olsthoorn AFM, Bartelink HH, Gardiner JJ, Pretzsch H, Hekhuis HJ, Franc A (eds) Management of mixed-species forest: silviculture and economics. IBN scientific contributions, vol 15. DLO Institute for Forestry and Nature Research, Wageningen, pp 17–19Google Scholar
  28. Giardina CP, Huffman S, Binkley D, Caldwell BA (1995) Alders increase soil phosphorus availability in a Douglas-fir plantation. Can J For Res 25:1652–1657Google Scholar
  29. Hartley MJ (2002) Rationale and methods for conserving biodiversity in plantation forests. For Ecol Manage 155:81–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hector A (1998) The effect of diversity on productivity: detecting the role of species complementarity. Oikos 82:597–599Google Scholar
  31. Hendrickson O, Chatarpaul (1984) Nitrification potential in an alder plantation. Can J For Res 14:543–546Google Scholar
  32. Holmes GD, Lines R (1956) Mixture experiments. Forestry Commission Rep Forest Res, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Kalinin MI, Zakharchuk IA (1983) Differences in the structure of the root systems of Pinus banksiana and P. sylvestris. Lesnoi-Zhurnal 1:28–31Google Scholar
  34. Kautz G, Topp W (1998) Sustainable forest management for improving soil quality. Forst Centralbl 117:23–43Google Scholar
  35. Kelty MJ (1992) Comparative productivity of monocultures and mixed species stands. In: Kelty MJ, Larson CB, Oliver CD (eds) The ecology and silviculture of mixed-species forests, vol 40. Forestry sciences. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 131–141Google Scholar
  36. Lahde E, Laiho O, Norokorpi Y (1999) Diversity oriented silviculture in the Boreal Zone of Europe. For Ecol Manage 118:223–243Google Scholar
  37. Leuschner C, Hertel D, Coners H, Buttner V (2001) Root competition between beech and oak: a hypothesis. Oecologia 126:276–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lockow KW (1998) Long-term experimental plots at Eberswalde pine open stand experiment with beech underplanting at Schonholz 16. Beitr Forstwirts Landschaftsökol 32:145–154Google Scholar
  39. Longpré M-H, Bergeron Y, Paré D, Béland M (1994) Effect of companion species on the growth of Jack pine (Pinus banksiana). Can J For Res 24:1846–1853Google Scholar
  40. Loreau M, Hector A (2001) Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 412:72–76CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Luis JFS, Monteiro M do L (1998) Dynamics of a broadleaved (Castanea sativa) conifer (Pseudotsuga menziesii) mixed stand in northern Portugal. For Ecol Manage 107:183–190Google Scholar
  42. Malcolm DC, Mason WL (1999) Experimental mixtures of Scots pine and birch: 30 year effects on production, vegetation and soils. In: Olsthoorn AFM, Bartelink HH, Gardiner JJ, Pretzsch H, Hekhuis HJ, Franc A (eds) Management of mixed-species forest: silviculture and economics. IBN scientific contributions, vol 15. DLO Institute for Forestry and Nature Research, Wageningen, pp 79–87Google Scholar
  43. Mård H (1996) The influence of a birch shelter (Betula spp) on the growth of young stands of Picea abies. Scand J For Res 11:343–350Google Scholar
  44. McKay HM, Malcolm DC (1988) A comparison of the fine root component of a pure and a mixed coniferous stand. Can J For Res 18:1416–1426Google Scholar
  45. McTiernan KB, Ineson P, Coward PA (1997) Respiration and nutrient release from tree leaf litter mixtures. Oikos 78:527–538Google Scholar
  46. Moffat AJ, Boswell RC (1990) Effect of tree species and species mixtures on soil properties at Gisburn Forest, Yorkshire. Soil Use Manage 6:46–52Google Scholar
  47. Moore R, Warrington S, Whittaker JB (1991) Herbivory by insects on oak trees in pure stands compared with paired mixtures. J Appl Ecol 28:290–304Google Scholar
  48. Morgan JL, Campbell JM, Malcolm DC (1992) Nitrogen relations of mixed-species stands on oligotrophic soils. In: Cannell MGR, Malcolm DC, Robertson PA (eds) The ecology of mixed-species stands of trees. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 65–85Google Scholar
  49. Muller MM, Hallaksela AM (1998) Diversity of Norway spruce needle endophytes in various mixed and pure Norway spruce stands. Mycol Res 102:1183–1189Google Scholar
  50. Norokorpi Y (1994) Admixture of birch in planted Norway spruce stands enhances total yield. In: Pinto da Costa ME, Preuhsler T (eds) Mixed stands: research plots, measurements and results. Proceedings of the symposium of the IUFRO working group S 4.01. Lousa/Coimbra April 1994 Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Lisboa, pp 97–103Google Scholar
  51. Nüsslein S (1993) Comparison of performance of pure spruce stands and mixed spruce/beech stands. Allg Forst Z 48:682–684Google Scholar
  52. Oyen B H, Tveite B (1998) A comparison of site index class and potential stem volume yield between different tree species growing on equivalent sites in western Norway. Rapport fra Skogforskningen no 15, 32 ppGoogle Scholar
  53. Ponge JF, Prat B (1982) Collembola, indicators of the humification process in coniferous, deciduous and mixed plantations: results form the forest of Orleans, Franc. Rev Ecol Biol Sol 19:237–250Google Scholar
  54. Poursin JM, Ponge JF (1982) Comparison of three forest plantations (broadleaves, conifers and mixed) by means of their soil fauna composition (Collembola and Oribatids). CR Hebdom Seances Acad Sci 22:1021–1024Google Scholar
  55. Prescott CE, Zabek LM, Staley CL, Kabzems R (2000) Decomposition of broadleaf and needle litter in forests of British Columbia: influences of litter type, forest type and litter mixtures. Can J For Res 30:1742–1750Google Scholar
  56. Robertson SMC, Hornung M, Kennedy VH (2000) Water chemistry of throughfall and soil water under four tree species at Gisburn, northwest England, before and after felling. For Ecol Manage 129:101–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rothe A, Binkley D (2001) Nutritional interactions in mixed species forests: a synthesis. Can J For Res 31:1855–1870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rothe A, Kreutzer K, Küchenhoff H (2002) Influence of tree species composition on soil and soil solution properties in two mixed spruce-beech stands with contrasting history in southern Germany. Plant Soil 240:47–56Google Scholar
  59. Saetre P, Brandtberg P-O, Lundkvist H, Bengtsson J (1999) Soil organisms and carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus mineralisation in Norway spruce and mixed Norway spruce-Birch stands. Biol Fertil Soils 28:382–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schmid I, Kazda M (2001) Vertical distribution and radial growth of coarse roots in pure and mixed stands of Fagus sylvatica and Picea abies. Can J For Res 31:539–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schuler TM, Smith FW (1988) Effect of species mix on site/density and leaf area relations in southwest pinyon/juniper woodlands. For Ecol Manage 25:211–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Su Q, Maclean DA, Needham TD (1996) The influence of hardwood content on balsam fir defoliation by spruce budworm. Can J For Res 26:1620–1628Google Scholar
  63. Swift MJ, Heal OW, Anderson JM (1979) Decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems. Studies in ecology, vol 5. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  64. Tarrant RF (1961) Stand development and soil fertility in a Douglas-fir/red alder plantation. For Sci 7:238–246Google Scholar
  65. Tarrant RF, Trappe JM (1971) The role of Alnus in improving the forest environment. Plant Soil Spec Vol 335–348Google Scholar
  66. Thelin G, Rosengren U, Callesen I, Ingerslev M (2002) The nutrient status of Norway spruce in pure and in mixed-species stands. For Ecol Manage 160:115–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Turner DP, Sollins P, Leuknig M, Rudd N (1993) Availability and uptake of inorganic nitrogen in a mixed old-growth coniferous forest. Plant Soil 148:163–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Valkonen S, Valsta L (2001) Productivity and economics of mixed two-storied spruce and birch stands in Southern Finland simulated with empirical models. For Ecol Manage 140:133–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Von Lupke B, Spellmann H (1997) Aspects of stability and growth of mixed spruce-beech stands as a basis of silvicultural decisions. Forstarchiv 68:167–179Google Scholar
  70. Wang JR, Letchford T, Comeau P, Kimmins JP (2000) Above-and below-ground biomass and nutrient distribution of a paper birch and subalpine fir mixed-species stand in the Sub-Boreal zone of British Columbia. For Ecol Manage 130:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Watt AD (1992) Insect pest population dynamics: effects of tree species diversity. In: Cannell MGR, Malcolm DC, Robertson PA (eds) The ecology of mixed-species stands of trees. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 267–275Google Scholar
  72. Yanai RD, Malcolm DC (1992) Competitive interactions between Norway spruce and Scots pine at Gisburn Forest, NW England. Forestry 65:435–451Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • H.E. Jones
  • N. McNamara
  • W.L. Mason

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations