4.7 Article

Structural differences between precommercially thinned and unthinned conifer stands

期刊

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
卷 194, 期 1-3, 页码 131-143

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2003.12.021

关键词

precommercial thinning; forest structure; wildlife habitat; Maine; herbicide

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Effects of precommercial thinning (PCT) in young, high-density forest stands on the growth and yield of crop trees has been well-studied, but information about the response of habitat characteristics and structural attributes that are related to abundance and diversity of wildlife populations is deficient. We examined changes in habitat characteristics and forest structure that occurred with PCT and stand development in commercial spruce-fir stands within the Acadian forest of northern Maine. We selected 30 regenerating, herbicide-treated conifer stands (17 treated with PCT) of three development classes (1, 6, or 11 years post-PCT) and measured 27 variables that described the characteristics and structure of the understory, overstory, woody debris, or ground cover within these stands. The application of PCT accelerated some characteristics of stand development, resulting in a reduction of understory structure and complexity, which conflicts with previous studies of non-herbicide-treated forest that reported increases in understory complexity after thinning. Near-ground cover, overstory cover, and understory structure described >80% of the variation in vegetation structure between thinned and unthinned stands. Horizontal cover, an overstory to understory contrast, and a gradient of herbaceous vegetation described >75% of the variation that occurred as regenerating stands (thinned and unthinned) developed through time. The forest structure in regenerating stands treated with PCT may have negative effects on wildlife that are dependent on the structure of early successional forest, but may positively affect species that use more mature forest. (C) 2004 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