4.7 Article

Tree size drives growth interactions in mixed mature stands of black spruce (Picea mariana) and tamarack (Larix laricina)

期刊

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
卷 543, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2023.121150

关键词

Intraspecific competition; Interspecific competition; Spatially explicit models; Boreal forest; Growth complementarity

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the growth interactions between black spruce and tamarack and found that the size of neighbouring trees was the main parameter influencing competition between these two species.
Little is known about the growth interactions of black spruce (Picea mariana) and tamarack (Larix laricina), two important commercial tree species of the Canadian boreal forest. We investigated growth relations between black spruce and tamarack in mature mixed stands. We sampled tree-rings of 223 black spruce and 103 tamaracks to analyze their basal area increment over 10 years. We mapped, identified the species, and measured the diameter at breast height of each neighbouring tree in 112 circular plots of 400 m2 to analyze basal area increments through spatially explicit models. The model estimating crowding effect of neighbouring tree was adjusted with 4 parameters expressing the effect of distance, size of neighbours, size of target tree and species. Our models suggested that the size of neighbouring trees was the main parameter influencing competition between the studied species. Black spruce basal area increments over 10 years declined up to 22 cm2 when surrounded by large neighbours. Tamarack basal area increments declined by 48 cm2 due to competition by large neighbours. However, the overall crowding effect showed that tamarack was more sensitive to competition than black spruce and the intraspecific and interspecific competition had similar effect. Our research provides insight on growth relations between two important commercial species of the Canadian boreal forest.

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