Fertilization modifies forest stand growth but not stand density: consequences for modelling stand dynamics in a changing climate
Forestry, ISSN: 1464-3626, Vol: 95, Issue: 2, Page: 187-200
2022
- 6Citations
- 19Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Knowledge of the maximum forest stand density and the self-thinning process is important for understanding, modelling and scheduling thinnings in silviculture. The upper trajectories of stem number, N, vs mean diameter, dq or mean tree volume vs stem number are often used for quantifying maximum stand density. The long debate about how site conditions modify these relationships is presently revived due to global change. A crucial question is whether environmental conditions alter the trajectories themselves or just the velocity at which stands move along them. Our contribution is based on fully stocked plots from long-term Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) fertilization experiments along an ecological gradient in South Germany. This allows us to compare the self-thinning trajectories of fertilized and unfertilized plots under different environmental conditions. We can show that repeated fertilization with nitrogen did not change the N ∼ dq trajectories. Assuming that fertilization affects forests in a similar way as an ongoing atmospheric N-deposition, this means that presently growth, mortality, and volume accumulation in forest stands proceed faster in time but still follow the same N ∼ dq allometric trajectories. Furthermore, we found that the level of the self-thinning line generally increases with the annual precipitation. The allometric self-thinning exponent, however, did not respond to environmental conditions. Finally, we quantitatively demonstrate and discuss the implications and consequences of the results regarding understanding and modelling forest stand dynamics, carbon sequestration and the development and adaptation of silvicultural guidelines in view of climate change.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know