Use of the Lorenz curve to measure size inequality and growth dominance in forest populations

References

• Binkley D. 2004. A hypothesis about the interaction of tree dominance and stand production through stand development. Forest Ecology and Management. 190:265‒271.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binkley D, Kashian DM, Boyden S, Kay MW, Bradford JB, Arthur MA, Fornwalt PJ, Ryan MG. 2006. Patterns of growth dominance in forests of the Rocky Mountains, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 236:193‒201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binkley D, Olsson U, Rochelle R, Stohlgren T, Nikolov N. 2003a. Structure, production and resource use in old-growth spruce/fir forests in the central Rocky Mountains, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 172:271–279.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binkley D, Senock R, Bird S, Cole T. 2003b. Twenty years of stand development in pure and mixed stands of Eucalyptus saligna and nitrogen fixing Falcataria mollucana. Forest Ecology and Management. 182:93–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradford JB, D’Amato AW, Palik BJ, Fraver S. 2010. A new method for evaluating forest thinning: growth dominance in managed Pinus resinosa stands. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 40:842–849.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brillouin L. 1962. Science and information theory. 2nd ed. New York (NY): Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cheng XP, Umeki K, Honjo T, Mizusaki D. 2014. Basal area growth rates of five major species in a Pinus-Cunninghamia forest in eastern China affected by asymmetric competition and spatial autocorrelation. Journal of Forest Research. 19:86‒96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cordonnier T, Kunstler G. 2015. The Gini index brings asymmetric competition to light. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics. 17:107‒115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craine JM, Dybzinski R. 2013. Mechanisms of plant competition for nutrients water, and light. Functional Ecology. 27:833‒840.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damgaard C, Weiner J. 2000. Describing inequality in plant size or fecundity. Ecology. 81:1139‒1142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• del Río M, Condés S, Pretzsch H. 2014. Analyzing size-symmetric vs size-asymmetric and intra- vs inter-specific competition in beech (Fagus sylvatica L) mixed stands. Forest Ecology and Management. 325:90‒98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dixon PM, Weiner J, Mitchell-Olds T, Woodley R. 1987. Bootstrapping the Gini coefficient of inequality. Ecology. 68:1548‒1551.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doi BT, Binkley D, Stape JL. 2010. Does reverse growth dominance develop in old plantations of Eucalyptus saligna? Forest Ecology and Management. 259:1815−1818.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernández ME, Gyenge J. 2009. Testing Binkley’s hypothesis about the interaction of individual tree water use efficiency and growth efficiency with dominance patterns in open and close canopy stands. Forest Ecology and Management. 257:1859–1865.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernández ME, Tschieder EF, Letourneau F, Gyenge JE. 2011. Why do Pinus species have different growth dominance patterns than Eucalyptus species? A hypothesis based on differential physiological plasticity. Forest Ecology and Management. 261:1061−1068.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forman RT, Hahn DC. 1980. Spatial patterns of trees in a Caribbean semievergreen forest. Ecology. 61:1267‒1274.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gini C. 1912. Variabilita e mutibilita. Bologna (Italy): C Cuppini.
   Google Scholar
• Glencross K, West PW, Nichols JD. 2016. Species shade tolerance affects tree basal area growth behaviour in two eucalypt species in thinned and unthinned even-aged monoculture. Australian Forestry. 79:157‒167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guisande C, Heine J, Garćia-Roselló E, González-Dacosta J, Vilas LG, Perez-Schofield JG. 2017. DER: an algorithm for comparing species diversity between assemblages. Ecological Indicators. 81:41–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hara T. 1986a. Growth of individuals in plant populations. Annals of Botany. 57:55‒68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hara T. 1986b. Effects of density and extinction coefficient on size variability in plant populations. Annals of Botany. 57:885–892.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lexerød NL, Eid T. 2006. An evaluation of different diameter diversity indices based on criteria related to forest management planning. Forest Ecology and Management. 222:17‒28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorenz MO. 1905. Methods of measuring the concentration of wealth. Publication of the American Statistical Association. 9:209‒219.
   Google Scholar
• Lundqvist L. 1994. Growth and competition in partially cut sub-alpine Norway spruce forests in northern Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management. 65:115‒122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin TA, Jokela EJ. 2004. Developmental patterns and nutrition impact radiation use efficiency components in southern pine stands. Ecological Applications. 14:1839–1854.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McElhinny C, Gibbons P, Brack C, Bauhus J. 2005. Forest and woodland stand structural complexity: its definition and measurement. Forest Ecology and Management. 218:1–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGown KI, O’Hara KL, Youngblood A. 2016. Patterns of size variation over time in ponderosa pine stands established at different initial densities. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 46:101‒113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McMinn JW. 1992. Diversity of woody species 10 years after four harvesting treatments in the oak-pine type. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 22:1179‒1183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petersen JE, Brandt EC, Grossman JJ, Allen GA, Benzing DH. 2015. A controlled experiment to assess relationships between plant diversity, ecosystem function and planting treatment over a nine year period in constructed freshwater wetlands. Ecological Engineering. 82:531‒541.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pommerening A, Brzeziecki B, Binkley D. 2016. Are long-term changes in plant species composition related to asymmetric growth dominance in the pristine Białowieża Forest? Basic and Applied Ecology. 17:408–417.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pothier D. 2017. Relationship between patterns of stand growth dominance and tree competition mode for species of various shade tolerances. Forest Ecology and Management. 406:155–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pretzsch H, Biber P. 2010. Size-symmetric versus size-asymmetric competition and growth partitioning among trees in forest stands along an ecological gradient in central Europe. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 40:370‒384.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Priego-Santander ÁG, Campos M, Bocco G, Ramírez-Sánchez LG. 2013. Relationship between landscape heterogeneity and plant species richness on the Mexican Pacific coast. Applied Geography. 40:171‒178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadras V, Bongiovanni R. 2004. Use of Lorenz curves and Gini coefficients to assess yield inequality within paddocks. Field Crops Research. 90:303‒310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwinning S, Weiner J. 1998. Mechanisms determining the degree of size asymmetry in competition among plants. Oecologia. 113:447‒455.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shannon CE, Weaver W. 1949. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana (Illinois): University of Illinois Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shumway DL, Koide RT. 1995. Size and reproductive inequality in mycorrhizal and nonmycorrhizal populations of Abutilon theophrasti. Journal of Ecology. 83:613‒620.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staudhammer CL, LeMay VM. 2001. Introduction and evaluation of possible indices of stand structural diversity. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 31:1105‒1115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stocker GC, Unwin GL, West PW. 1985. Measures of richness, evenness and diversity in tropical rainforest. Australian Journal of Botany. 33:131‒137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tschieder EF, Fernández ME, Schlicter TM, Pinazo MA, Crechi EH. 2012. Influence of growth dominance and individual tree growth efficiency on Pinus taeda stand growth. A contribution to the debate about why stands productivity declines. Forest Ecology and Management. 277:116–123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiner J. 1990. Asymmetric competition in plant populations. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 5:360‒364.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiner J, Solbrig OT. 1984. The meaning and measurement of size hierarchies in plant populations. Oecologia. 61:334‒336.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiner J, Thomas SC. 1986. Size variability and competition in plant monocultures. Oikos. 47:211‒222.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West PW. 2014. Calculation of a growth dominance statistic for forest stands. Forest Science. 60:1021‒1023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West PW, Jackett DR, Borough CJ. 1989. Competitive processes in a monoculture of Pinus radiata D. Don. Oecologia. 81:57‒61.
   Google Scholar
• West PW, Mattay JP. 1993. Yield prediction models and comparative growth rates for six eucalypt species. Australian Forestry. 56:211‒225.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang Q, Buyantuev A, Li FY, Jiang L, Niu JM, Ding Y, Kang S, Ma WJ. 2017. Functional dominance rather than taxonomic diversity and functional diversity mainly affects community aboveground biomass in the Inner Mongolia grassland. Ecology and Evolution. 7:1605‒1615.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar