3.8 Article

Assessment of interspecific competition using relative height and distance indices in an age sequence of seral interior cedar-hemlock forests in British Columbia

Publisher

NATL RESEARCH COUNCIL CANADA
DOI: 10.1139/X04-008

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Treatments that reduce neighbour density are widely applied in the belief they will improve conifer growth in mixed forests. However, our understanding of stand composition and age effects on competition is poor. We used neighbourhood analysis for 748 target conifer trees to examine interspecific competition within 11-, 25-, and 50-year-old mixed, even-aged stands of paper birch (Betula papyrifera Marsh.), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca (Beissn.) Franco), western redcedar (Thuja plicata Donn ex D. Don), and western larch (Larix occidentalis Nutt.) in southern interior British Columbia. Critical neighbourhood height and distance were identified where competition accounted for the greatest variation in target conifer diameter. Competition processes were emperically examined using relative height indices. We found that critical neighbourhood distance increased with stand age and was greater for larch than for cedar. Critical neighbourhood height was higher for cedar than for Douglas-fir or larch in the 11-year-old stands but lower in the older stands. The most important competitors in the 11-year-old stands were tall neighbours, whereas those in the older stands were short neighbours. We found asymmetrical relationships between target conifers and neighbours for all species and age-classes, indicating a resource preemption mode of competition. To be useful in developing prescriptions for competition management in mixed species stands, competition indices should consider neighbour identity and critical height for each target species. Assessment radius must also be sufficiently large to adequately characterize competition.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available