4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Post-fire development of canopy structure and composition in black spruce forests of Abitibi, Quebec: A landscape scale study

期刊

SILVA FENNICA
卷 36, 期 1, 页码 249-263

出版社

FINNISH SOC FOREST SCIENCE-NATURAL RESOURCES INST FINLAND
DOI: 10.14214/sf.561

关键词

boreal forest; canopy structural development; Picea mariana; spruce budworm outbreaks; stand-level structure; windthrow

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fire reconstruction and forest inventory maps provided an opportunity to study changes in stand-level characteristics following fire using a data set comprised of all forest stands of fire origin in an area of over 10000 km(2). We assigned the date of the most recent fire occurrence to over 31000 forest stands in an ecoforestry database. We categorized stands on different substrates into age classes to investigate differences in canopy composition, cover and height, and incidence of secondary disturbance. Stands with over 75% Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP dominated all age classes on organic sites. On other substrates, there was a change in canopy composition from deciduous stands and stands dominated by Pinus banksiana Lamb. to Picea mariana stands after about 100 yr. This transition was later for xeric sites. After a peak in canopy cover and height at about 100 yr, there was a decrease in the area occupied by stands with dense, tall canopies. Structural development was slower on less productive sites. There was little incidence of spruce budworm outbreaks. Partial disturbance by windthrow coincided with canopy break-up at 3 00 yr, but appeared to have little effect on overall canopy structure in later stages. Structural diversity was independent of compositional diversity; on organic sites, stands with similar composition had different canopy structure. Diversity of stands with different composition and structure was greatest in the first 150 yr following fire. Maintaining stands in different stages of structural development on the landscape would serve to maintain regional biodiversity.

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