4.7 Article

Impact of Stand Density and Tree Social Status on Aboveground Biomass Allocation of Scots PinePinus sylvestrisL.

期刊

FORESTS
卷 11, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/f11070765

关键词

aboveground biomass; social position; crown form; Kraft classification; Schadelin classification

类别

资金

  1. European Regional Development Fund
  2. Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education [INT-09-0039]
  3. Ministry of Science and Higher Education program Regional Initiative Excellence in the years 2019-2022 [005/RID/2018/19]
  4. Department of Forest Resources Management, Faculty of Forestry, University of Agriculture in Krakow [SUB/040015/D019]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stand density changes due to aging and thinning interventions. At the same time, the social status of trees develops and varies due to different genetic conditions as well as access to nutrients and light. Trees growing in diverse conditions gain their social status in the stand, which, in the end, influences their development and biomass allocation. The objective of this research was to discover if stand density or tree social status has an impact on a tree's aboveground biomass allocation. The study was carried out in five premature and five mature pine stands, growing in the same soil conditions. The selected sample stands had a different growing density, from low to high. In each sample stand, 10 trees were selected to represent a different social status, according to the Schadelin classification. There were 100 trees felled in total (50 in the premature stands and 50 in the mature stands), for which the dry biomass of the stem, living and dead branches, needles, and cones was determined. The results showed that stand density only had an impact on the branches' biomass fraction but not the stem and foliage fractions, while social status had an impact on all the fractions. Dominant and codominant trees, as well as those with developed crowns, had a smaller share of the stem and higher share of branches in comparison with trees of a lower social status.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据