Positive effect of forest structural diversity on aboveground stand carbon stocks for even-aged Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) stands in the Sarıçiçek Forest, Northern Turkey

References

• Alemdağ İŞ. 1967. Structure and yield potential of Scotch pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) forests in Turkey and the principles to be followed in managing these forests. Ankara: Forest Research Institute, Technical Bulletin No: 20. (in Turkish with English summary).
   Google Scholar
• An-ning S, Tian-Zhen J, Jiang-Ping G. 2008. Relationship between species richness and biomass on environmental gradients in natural forest communities on Mt. Xiaolongshang, northwest China. For Stud China. 10:212–219. doi: 10.1007/s11632-008-0041-7
   Google Scholar
• Balvanera P, Pfisterer A, Buchmann N, He J, Nakashizuka T, Raffaelli D, Schmid B. 2006. Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. Ecol Lett. 9(10):1146–1156. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00963.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbeito I, Cańellas I, Montes F. 2009. Evaluating the behavior of vertical structure indices in Scots pine forests. Ann For Sci. 66(7):710–720. doi: 10.1051/forest/2009056
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger WH, Parker FL. 1970. Diversity of planktonic Foraminifera in deep sea sediments. Science. 168:1345–1347. doi: 10.1126/science.168.3937.1345
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caspersen JP, Pacala SW. 2001. Successional diversity and forest ecosystem function. Ecol Res. 16:895–903. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1703.2001.00455.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [CCFM] Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 1992. Sustainable forests: A Canadian commitment. Ottawa, ON; p. 51.
   Google Scholar
• Chen X. 2006. Tree diversity, carbon storage, and soil nutrient in an old-growth forest at Changbai Mountain, Northeast China. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. 37(3):363–375. doi: 10.1080/00103620500440210
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ercanli I, Kahriman A. 2015. The evaluation of different forest structural indices to predict the stand aboveground biomass of even-aged Scotch pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) forests in Kunduz, Northern Turkey. Environ Monit Assess. 187(3). doi: 10.1007/s10661-014-4248-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Firn J, Erskine PD, Lamb D. 2007. Woody species diversity influences productivity and soil nutrient availability in tropical plantations. Oecologia. 154(3):521–533. doi: 10.1007/s00442-007-0850-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fornara D, Tilman D. 2008. Plant functional composition influences rates of soil carbon and nitrogen accumulation. J Ecol. 96(2):314–322. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2007.01345.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gini C. 1921. Measurement of inequality on income. Econ J. 31:22–43. doi: 10.2307/2223319
   Google Scholar
• Hector A, Schmid V, Beierkuhnlein C, Caldeira MC, Diemer M, Dimitrakopoulos PG, Fin JA, Freitas H, Giller PS, Good J, et  al. 1999. Plant diversity and productivity experiments in european grasslands. Science. 286:1123–1127. doi: 10.1126/science.286.5442.1123
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huston M. 1980. Soil nutrients and tree species richness in Costa Rican forests. J Biogeogr. 7:147–157. doi: 10.2307/2844707
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelty MJ. 1989. Productivity of New England hemlock/hardwood stands as affected by species composition and canopy structure. For Ecol Manag. 28:237–257. doi: 10.1016/0378-1127(89)90006-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LeMay V, Staudhammer C. 2005. Indices of stand structural diversity: adding spatial diversity to a stand structural index. Extended Abtract. Proceedings from the IUFRO Sustainable Forestry in Theory and Practice Conference?; March, 2005, USDA Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-688; Edinburgh.
   Google Scholar
• Lexerød NL, Eid T. 2006. An evaluation of different diameter diversity indices based on criteria related to forest management planning. For Ecol Manag. 222:17–28. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2005.10.046
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liang J, Buongiorno J, Monserud RA. 2005. Growth and yield of all-aged Douglas-fir western hemlock forest stands: a matrix model with stand diversity effects. Can J For Res. 35(10):2368–2381. doi: 10.1139/x05-137
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Margalef R. 1958. Information theory in ecology. Gen Syst. 3:36–71.
   Google Scholar
• Martinez-Sanchez JL, Cabrales LC. 2012. Is there a relationship between floristic diversity and carbon stocks in tropical vegetation in Mexico? Afr J Agric Res. 7(17):2584–2591.
   Google Scholar
• McIntosh RP. 1967. An index of diversity and the relation of certain concepts to diversity. Ecology. 48:392–404. doi: 10.2307/1932674
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peng C, Liu J, Dang Q, Apps MJ, Jiang H. 2002. TRIPLEX: a generic hybrid model for predicting forest growth and carbon and nitrogen dynamics. Ecol Model. 153:109–130. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3800(01)00505-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sagar R, Singh JS. 2006. Tree density, basal area and species diversity in a disturbed dry tropical forest of northern India: implications for conservation. Environ Conserv. 33:256–262. doi: 10.1017/S0376892906003237
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saha S, Nair P, Nair V, Kumar B. 2009. Soil carbon stock in relation to plant diversity of homegardens in Kerala, India. Agrofor Syst. 76(1):53–65. doi: 10.1007/s10457-009-9228-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SAS Institute Inc. 2012. SAS/ETS^® 9.3 user’s guide. Cary (NC): SAS Institute Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Shannon CE, Weiner W. 1949. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press; p. 144.
   Google Scholar
• Simpson EH. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature. 163:688. doi: 10.1038/163688a0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szwagrzyk J, Gazda A. 2007. Above-ground standing biomass and tree species diversity in natural stands of Central Europe. J Veg Sci. 18(4):555–562. doi: 10.1111/j.1654-1103.2007.tb02569.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tilman D, Wedin D, Knops J. 1996. Productivity and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Nature. 379:718–720. doi: 10.1038/379718a0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [UNCED] United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. 1992. Agenda 21. New York, NY: United Nations.
   Google Scholar
• Vilà M, Vayreda J, Gracia C, Ibáñez JJ. 2003. Does tree diversity increase wood production in pine forests? Oecologia. 135:299–303. doi: 10.1007/s00442-003-1182-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang W, Lei X, Ma Z, Kneeshaw DD, Peng C. 2011. Positive relationship between aboveground carbon stocks and structural diversity in spruce dominated forest stands in New Brunswick. For Sci. 57:506–515.
   Google Scholar
• Wardle DA, Zackrisson O, Hornberg G, Gallet C. 1997. The influence of island area on ecosystem properties. Science. 277:1296–1299. doi: 10.1126/science.277.5330.1296
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilsey BJ, Potvin C. 2000. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: importance of species evenness in an old field. Ecology. 81:887–892. doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[0887:BAEFIO]2.0.CO;2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yavuz H, Mısır N, Tüfekçioğlu A, Mısır M, Altun L, Ercanlı İ, Sakıcı OE, Kahriman A, Karahalil U, Yılmaz M, et al. 2010. Developing some mechanistic growth models and estimating of biomass and carbon storage for Scotch pine stands in Turkey. TÜBİTAK Research Project, Report No: 106O274. (in Turkish).
   Google Scholar