4.5 Article

Does tree diversity increase wood production in pine forests?

期刊

OECOLOGIA
卷 135, 期 2, 页码 299-303

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00442-003-1182-y

关键词

Mediterranean forests; mixed forest; Pinus halepensis; Pinus sylvestris; species richness

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent experimental advances on the positive effect of species richness on ecosystem productivity highlight the need to explore this relationship in communities other than grasslands and using non-synthetic experiments. We investigated whether wood production in forests dominated by Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis) and Pyrenean Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) differed between monospecific and mixed forests (2-5 species) using the Ecological and Forest Inventory of Catalonia (IEFC) database which contains biotic and environmental characteristics for 10,644 field plots distributed within a 31,944 km(2) area in Catalonia (NE Spain). We found that in Pyrenean Scots pine forests wood production was not significantly different between monospecific and mixed plots. In contrast, in Aleppo pine forests wood production was greater in mixed plots than in monospecific plots. However, when climate, bedrock types, radiation and successional stage per plot were included in the analysis, species richness was no longer a significant factor. Aleppo pine forests had the highest productivity in plots located in humid climates and on marls and sandstone bedrocks. Climate did not influence wood production in Pyrenean Scots pine forests, but it was highest on sandstone and consolidated alluvial materials. For both pine forests wood production was negatively correlated with successional stage. Radiation did not influence wood production. Our analysis emphasizes the influence of macroenvironmental factors and temporal variation on tree productivity at the regional scale. Well-conducted forest surveys are an excellent source of data to test for the association between diversity and productivity driven by large-scale environmental factors.

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

4.5
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