4.7 Article

The more, the better? Water relations of Norway spruce stands after progressive thinning

期刊

AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST METEOROLOGY
卷 197, 期 -, 页码 235-243

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.05.013

关键词

Transpiration; Water use efficiency; Understory vegetation; Water balance; Available soil water content

资金

  1. Bavarian Forest Service [W 37]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Predicted intense and prolonged drought events challenge forest management. Thinning is debated as a silvicultural measure for reducing drought risk in densely established forest stands. We report on a thinning experiment in a 26-year-old Norway spruce stand (Picea abies), comprising of two thinning intensities and one unthinnned control. The removal of 43% (moderate thinning, MT) and 67% (heavy thinning, HT) of the initial basal area led to increased water availability during the entire three year observation period. Stand-level transpiration (E-s) was decreased by about 25% upon moderate, and by about 50% upon heavy thinning during the first year after the interventions had been carried out. However, differences in Es across the treatments decreased within three years after thinning mainly due to increased single-tree transpiration and additional understory evapotranspiration at HT. Nevertheless, due to lower interception and transpiration on the thinned plots three years after treatment MT and HT still showed a substantial surplus in extractable soil water. The results showed that the main determinants concerning the extent of the mitigation effect with increasing thinning intensity were the available soil water storage capacity and the emerging understory vegetation. We conclude that repeated moderate thinning, through enhancing the water availability to the remaining trees, can mitigate drought risk in young spruce stands and thus, represent a viable silvicultural measure in anticipating possible water limitations due to climate change. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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