4.4 Article

Spatial distribution of regeneration in West-Carpathian uneven-aged silver fir forests

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH
卷 124, 期 1, 页码 47-54

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10342-005-0054-x

关键词

Abies alba; regeneration; selection forest; gap; microhabitat; patchiness

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of our study was to examine whether distribution of regeneration in uneven-aged fir ( Abies alba Mill.) forests is related to the spatial pattern of trees. In 12 sample plots of size 0.45 - 1.00 ha ( in total 8.65 ha, with stand basal areas ranging from 27.6 m(2) ha(-1) to 39.5 m(2) ha(-1)), all live and dead trees above 5 cm in d(1.3) were mapped and their diameters measured. In eight plots, all live and dead fir saplings were mapped. In three plots, the number of live fir saplings and seedlings was registered on small systematically distributed circular plots. The values of an analytically developed index of stand influence were compared in patches occupied and unoccupied by live or dead fir regeneration. Contrary to preliminary assumptions, only in a few cases did saplings and trees 5 - 15 cm in d1.3 appear more often in gaps and looser stand patches. Rather, in many plots, the opposite tendency was observed. The seedling density showed a weak but positive correlation with the index of influence. If the spatial pattern of regeneration reflects the spatially varying mortality of juvenile trees, then no evidence was found that stand competition was the most important factor inducing this mortality. On the contrary, on the basis of the results obtained, we can presume that the survival rate of juvenile firs was higher in patches with a relatively higher local basal area. Thus, it was hypothesised that, first, dispersion of regeneration in uneven-aged fir forests is controlled by easy-to-change edaphic factors such as humus form and acidity of the upper soil horizons, and second, that these soil features are linked with the spatial pattern of trees.

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

4.4
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