4.1 Article

Gap closure process by lateral extension growth of canopy trees and its effect on woody species regeneration in a temperate secondary forest, Northeast China

期刊

SILVA FENNICA
卷 49, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

FINNISH SOC FOREST SCIENCE-NATURAL RESOURCES INST FINLAND
DOI: 10.14214/sf.1310

关键词

canopy opening; opening size; crown expansion; canopy closure; duration; hemispherical photograph; recruitment

类别

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31330016]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China [2012CB416906]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gap formation and its effects on regeneration have been reported as being important in forest development, but seldom studies concentrated on the gap closure process by lateral extension growth of canopy trees surrounding gaps. We monitored the closure process of 12 artificial gaps for 7 years with three size classes: small (from 68 m(2) to 125 m(2)), middle (from 174 m(2) to 321 m(2)), and large (from 514 m(2) to 621 m(2)); and investigated the regeneration twice in a temperate secondary forest, Northeast China. The closure process can be described through quadratic functions, which showed the closure rates slowed down with gap ages. Large gaps had a higher closure rate (39 m(2) a(-1)) than middle gaps (25 m(2) a(-1)) and small gaps (11 m(2) a(-1)). According to the quadratic equations, the lateral growth could last 11, 13 and 16 years for small, middle and large gaps with a remaining size of 12, 69 and 223 m(2), respectively. As expected, regeneration exhibited the highest seedling density and volume in large gaps. There was no significant difference in regeneration density between middle gaps, small gaps and forest understory in the final investigation; but the volume of regenerated woody species increased significantly from small gaps to large gaps compared with forest understory. These results may provide references on the choice of appropriate gap sizes to promote the regeneration in temperate secondary forests.

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

4.1
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