Mixing effect on stand yield of Pinus tabulaeformis and Quercus liaotungensis is modulated by site quality and stand density in the Loess Plateau, China

References

• Amoroso MM, Turnblom EC. 2006. Comparing productivity of pure and mixed Douglas-fir and western hemlock plantations in the Pacific Northwest. Can J For Res. 36:1484–1496. doi:10.1139/x06-042.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Assmann E. 1970. The principles of forest yield study. Oxford: Pergamon Press. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-006658-5.50012-1.
   Google Scholar
• Augusto L, Ranger J, Binkley D, Rothe A. 2002. Impact of several common tree species of European temperate forests on soil fertility. Ann For Sci. 59:233–253. doi:10.1051/forest:2002020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes BV, Pregitzer KS, Spies TA, Spooner VH. 1982. Ecological forest site classification. J For. 80:493–498.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauhus J, Forrester DI, Pretzsch H. 2018. From observations to evidence about effects of mixed-species stands. In: Pretzsch H, Forrester D., Bauhus J, editors. Mixed species forests ecology and management. Berlin: Springer; p. 27–72. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-54553-9.
   Google Scholar
• Bauhus J, van Winden AP, Nicotra AB. 2004. Aboveground interactions and productivity in mixed-species plantations of Acacia mearnsii and Eucalyptus globulus. Can J For Res. 34:686–694. doi:10.1139/x03-243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Begon M, Harper JL, Townsend CR. 1986. Ecology: individuals, populations and communities. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications. doi:10.2307/2807146.
   Google Scholar
• Bertness MD, Yeh SM. 1994. Cooperative and competitive interactions in the recruitment of marsh elders. Ecology. 75:2416–2429. doi:10.2307/1940895.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bravo-Oviedo A, Pretzsch H, Ammer C, Andenmatten E, Barbati A, Barreiro S, Brang P, Bravo F, Coll L, Coronal P, et al. 2014. European mixed forests: definition and research perspectives. For Syst. 23:518–533. doi:10.5424/fs/2014233-06256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bristow M, Vanclay JK, Brooks L, Hunt M. 2006. Growth and species interactions of Eucalyptus pellita in a mixed and monoculture plantation in the humid tropics of north Queensland. For Ecol Manag. 233:285–294. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2006.05.019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooker RW, Maestre FT, Callaway RM, Lortie CL, Cavieres LA, Kunstler G, Liancourt P, Tielboerger K, Travis JMJ, Anthelme F, et al. 2007. Facilitation in plant communities: the past, the present, and the future. J Ecol. 96:18–34. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2007.01295.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cao JX, Wang XP, Tian Y, Wen ZY, Zha TS. 2012. Pattern of carbon allocation across three different stages of stand development of a Chinese pine (Pinus tabulaeformis) forest. Ecol Res. 27:883–892. doi:10.1007/s11284-012-0965-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng XQ, Han HR, Kang FF, Song YL, Liu K. 2014. Variation in biomass and carbon storage by stand age in pine (Pinus tabulaeformis) planted ecosystem in Mt. Taiyue, Shanxi, China. J Plant Interact. 9:521–528. doi:10.1080/17429145.2013.862360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Condes S, del Rio M. 2015. Climate modifies tree interactions in terms of basal area growth and mortality in monospecific and mixed Fagus sylvatica and Pinus sylvestris forests. Eur J For Res. 134:1095–1108. doi:10.1007/s10342-015-0912-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Condes S, Del Rio M, Sterba H. 2013. Mixing effect on volume growth of Fagus sylvatica and Pinus sylvestris is modulated by stand density. For Ecol Manag. 292:86–95. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2012.12.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornelissen JHC, Perez-Harguindeguy N, Diaz S, Grime JP, Marzano B, Cabido M, Vendramini F, Cerabolini B. 1999. Leaf structure and defence control litter decomposition rate across species and life forms in regional floras on two continents. New Phytol. 143:191–200. doi:10.1046/j.1469-8137.1999.00430.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forrester DI. 2014. The spatial and temporal dynamics of species interactions in mixed-species forests: from pattern to process. For Ecol Manag. 312:282–292. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2013.10.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forrester DI, Albrecht AT. 2014. Light absorption and light-use efficiency in mixtures of Abies alba and Picea abies along a productivity gradient. For Ecol Manag. 328:94–102. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2014.05.026.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forrester DI, Bauhus J. 2016. A review of processes behind diversity-productivity relationships in forests. Current For Rep. 2:45–61. doi:10.1007/s40725-016-0031-2 doi: 10.1007/s40495-016-0048-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forrester DI, Bauhus J, Cowie AL, Vanclay JK. 2006. Mixed-species plantations of Eucalyptus with nitrogen-fixing trees: a review. For Ecol Manag. 233:211–230. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2006.05.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forrester DI, Kohnle U, Albrecht AT, Bauhus J. 2013. Complementarity in mixed-species stands of Abies alba and Picea abies varies with climate, site quality and stand density. For Ecol Manag. 304:233–242. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2013.04.038.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frivold LH, Frank J. 2002. Growth of mixed birch-coniferous stands in relation to pure coniferous stands at similar sites in south-eastern Norway. Scand J For Res. 17:139–149. doi:10.1080/028275802753626782.
   Google Scholar
• Fu LY, Lei XD, Sharma RP, Li HK, Zhu GY, Hong LX, You L, Duan GS, Guo H, Lei YC, et al. 2018. Comparing height-age and height-diameter modelling approaches for estimating site productivity of natural uneven-aged forests. Forestry. 91:419–433. doi:10.1093/forestry/cpx049.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gamfeldt L, Snall T, Bagchi R, Jonsson M, Gustafsson L, Kjellander P, Ruiz-Jaen MC, Froberg M, Stendahl J, Philipson CD, et al. 2013. Higher levels of multiple ecosystem services are found in forests with more tree species. Nat Commun. 4:1340. doi:10.1038/ncomms2328.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garber SM, Maguire DA. 2004. Stand productivity and development in two mixed-species spacing trials in the central Oregon cascades. For Sci. 50:92–105.
   Google Scholar
• Griess VC, Knoke T. 2011. Growth performance, windthrow, and insects: meta-analyses of parameters influencing performance of mixed-species stands in boreal and northern temperate biomes. Can J For Res. 41:1141–1159. doi:10.1139/x11-042.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo H, Wang B, Ma XQ, Zhao GD, Li SN. 2008. Evaluation of ecosystem services of Chinese pine forests in China. Sci China Ser C-Life Sci. 51:662–670. doi:10.1007/s11427-008-0083-z.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Halty V, Valdes M, Tejera M, Picasso V, Fort H. 2017. Modeling plant interspecific interactions from experiments with perennial crop mixtures to predict optimal combinations. Ecol Appl. 27:2277–2289. doi:10.1002/eap.1605.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han WJ, Yuan XQ, Zhang WH. 2012. Effects of gap size on seedling natural regeneration in artificial Pinus tabulaeformis plantation. Chinese J Appl Ecol. 23:2940–2948. doi:10.13287/j.1001-9332.2012.0445.
   Google Scholar
• Hao H, Wang H. 2012. Shaanxi forest resources. Xi’an: Shaanxi Science and Technology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hara T. 1992. Effects of the mode of competition on stationary size distribution in plant-populations. Ann Bot. 69:509–513. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a088380.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hara T. 1993. Effects of variation in individual growth on plant-species coexistence. J Veg Sci. 4:409–416. doi:10.2307/3235600.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He W, Ma ZY, Pei J, Teng MJ, Zeng LX, Yan ZG, Huang ZL, Zhou ZX, Wang PC, Luo X, et al. 2019. Effects of predominant tree species mixing on lignin and cellulose degradation during leaf litter decomposition in the Three Gorges Reservoir, China. Forests. 10:360. doi:10.3390/f10040360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber MO, Sterba H, Bernhard L. 2014. Site conditions and definition of compositional proportion modify mixture effects in Picea abies - Abies alba stands. Can J For Res. 44:1281–1291. doi:10.1139/cjfr-2014-0188.
   Google Scholar
• Kelty MJ. 1992. Comparative productivity of monocultures and mixed-species stands. In: Kelty MJ, Larson BC, Oliver, CD, editors. The ecology and silviculture of mixed-species forests. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Kelty MJ. 2006. The role of species mixtures in plantation forestry. For Ecol Manag. 233:195–204. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2006.05.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelty MJ, Cameron IR. 1995. Plot designs for the analysis of species interactions in mixed stands. Commonwealth For Rev. 74:322–332.
   Google Scholar
• Laganiere J, Pare D, Bradley RL. 2010. How does a tree species influence litter decomposition? Separating the relative contribution of litter quality, litter mixing, and forest floor conditions. Can J For Res. 40:465–475. doi:10.1139/x09-208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langvall O. 2011. Impact of climate change, seedling type and provenance on the risk of damage to Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) seedlings in Sweden due to early summer frosts. Scand J For Res. 26:56–63. doi:10.1080/02827581.2011.564399.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long JN, Daniel TW. 1990. Assessment of growing stock in uneven-aged stands. West J Appl For. 5:93–96. doi: 10.1093/wjaf/5.3.93
   Google Scholar
• Manso R, Morneau F, Ningre F, Fortin M. 2015. Effect of climate and intra- and inter-specific competition on diameter increment in beech and oak stands. Forestry. 88:540–551. doi:10.1093/forestry/cpv020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meng Q, Liu X, Lu G. 2013. Effects of artificial tending on growth of Quercus liaotungensis at different altitudinal gradient. J Central South Univ For Technol. 292:86–95.
   Google Scholar
• Perez-Suarez M, Arredondo-Moreno JT, Huber-Sannwald E, Vargas-Hernandez JJ. 2009. Production and quality of senesced and green litterfall in a pine-oak forest in central-northwest Mexico. For Ecol Manag. 258:1307–1315. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.06.031.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piotto D. 2008. A meta-analysis comparing tree growth in monocultures and mixed plantations. For Ecol Manag. 255:781–786. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.09.065.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pretzsch H. 2005. Stand density and growth of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.): evidence from long-term experimental plots. Eur J For Res. 124:193–205. doi:10.1007/s10342-005-0068-4.
   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. Can J For Res. 40:370–384. doi:10.1139/x09-195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pretzsch H, Bielak K, Block J, Bruchwald A, Dieler J, Ehrhart H-P, Kohnle U, Nagel J, Spellmann H, Zasada M, et al. 2013. Productivity of mixed versus pure stands of oak (Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl. and Quercus robur L.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) along an ecological gradient. Eur J For Res. 132:263–280. doi:10.1007/s10342-012-0673-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pretzsch H, Block J, Dieler J, Dong PH, Kohnle U, Nagel J, Spellmann H, Zingg A. 2010. Comparison between the productivity of pure and mixed stands of Norway spruce and European beech along an ecological gradient. Ann For Sci. 67(7):712. doi:10.1051/forest/2010037.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pretzsch H, Dieler J. 2012. Evidence of variant intra- and interspecific scaling of tree crown structure and relevance for allometric theory. Oecologia. 169:637–649. doi:10.1007/s00442-011-2240-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pretzsch H, Schuetze G, Biber P. 2016. On the effect of tree species mixing on the yield components at the stand level. Allgemeine Forst Und Jagdzeitung. 187:122–135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reineke LH. 1933. Perfecting a stand-density index for even-aged forests. J Agric Res. 46:627–638.
   Google Scholar
• Richards F. 1959. A flexible growth function for empirical use. J Exp Bot. 10:290–301. doi: 10.1093/jxb/10.2.290
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richards AE, Schmidt S. 2010. Complementary resource use by tree species in a rain forest tree plantation. Ecol Appl. 20:1237–1254. doi:10.1890/09-1180.1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riofrio J, del Rio M, Bravo F. 2016. Mixing effects on growth efficiency in mixed pine forests. Forestry. 90:381–392. doi:10.1093/forestry/cpw056.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenfeld JS. 2002. Functional redundancy in ecology and conservation. Oikos. 98:156–162. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.980116.x.
   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. doi:10.2307/4221874 doi: 10.1007/s004420050397
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaw JD. 2000. Application of stand density index to irregularly structured stands. West J Appl For. 15:40–42. doi: 10.1093/wjaf/15.1.40
   Google Scholar
• Song BL, Yan MJ, Hou H, Guan JH, Shi WY, Li GQ, Du S. 2016. Distribution of soil carbon and nitrogen in two typical forests in the semiarid region of the Loess Plateau, China. Catena. 143:159–166. doi:10.1016/j.catena.2016.04.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sonohat G, Balandier P, Ruchaud F. 2004. Predicting solar radiation transmittance in the understory of even-aged coniferous stands in temperate forests. Ann For Sci. 61:629–641. doi:10.1051/forest:2004061.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stage AR. 1968. A tree-by-tree measure of site utilization for grand fir related to stand density index. U.S. Forest Service, Research Note INT-77.
   Google Scholar
• Sterba H, del Rio M, Brunner A, Condes S. 2014. Effect of species proportion definition on the evaluation of growth in pure vs. mixed stands. For Syst. 23:547–559. doi:10.5424/fs/2014233-06051.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun S, Cao QV, Cao T. 2019. Evaluation of distance-independent competition indices in predicting tree survival and diameter growth. Can J For Res. 49:440–446. doi:10.1139/cjfr-2018-0344.
   Google Scholar
• Suz LM, Kallow S, Reed K, Bidartondo MI, Barsoum N. 2017. Pine mycorrhizal communities in pure and mixed pine-oak forests: abiotic environment trumps neighboring oak host effects. For Ecol Manag. 406:370–380. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2017.09.030.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toigo M, Vallet P, Perot T, Bontemps J-D, Piedallu C, Courbaud B. 2015. Overyielding in mixed forests decreases with site productivity. J Ecol. 103:502–512. doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12353.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsunekawa A, Liu G, Yamanaka N, Du S. 2014. Restoration and development of the degraded Loess Plateau, China. Tokyo: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Vanclay JK, Herny NB. 1988. Assessing site productivity of indigenous cypress pine forest in southern Queensland. Commonw For Rev. 67:53–64.
   Google Scholar
• Vandermeer J. 1992. The ecology of intercropping. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vila M, Carrillo-Gavilan A, Vayreda J, Bugmann H, Fridman J, Grodzki W, Haase J, Kunstler G, Schelhaas M, Trasobares A. 2013. Disentangling biodiversity and climatic determinants of wood production. PLoS One. 8:e53530. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053530.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang L, Zhang Y. 2011. Discussion on the taxonomic position and nomenclature of liaodong oak (Fagaceae). Plant Science Journal. 29:749–754. doi:10.3724/sp.j.1142.2011.60749 doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1142.2011.10134
   Google Scholar
• Wang ZB, Yang HJ, Dong BQ, Zhou MM, Ma LY, Jia ZK, Duan J. 2017. Effects of canopy gap size on growth and spatial patterns of Chinese pine (Pinus tabulaeformis) regeneration. For Ecol Manag. 385:46–56. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2016.11.022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiner J, Freckleton RP. 2010. Constant final yield. In: Futuyma DJ, Shafer HB, Simberloff D, editors. Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics. p. 173–192. doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144642.
   Google Scholar
• Whitelam GC, Patel S, Devlin PF. 1998. Phytochromes and photomorphogenesis in Arabidopsis. Philos Trans R Soc London. 353:1445–1453. doi:10.1098/rstb.1998.0300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wichmann L. 2001. Annual variations in competition symmetry in even-aged sitka spruce. Ann Bot. 88:145–151. doi:10.1006/anbo.2001.1445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson KB, Hanson PJ, Mulholland PJ, Baldocchi DD, Wullschleger SD. 2001. A comparison of methods for determining forest evapotranspiration and its components: sap-flow, soil water budget, eddy covariance and catchment water balance. Agric For Meteorol. 106:153–168. doi:10.1016/s0168-1923(00)00199-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu QX, Yang WZ. 1998. Forest and grassland vegetation construction and its sustainable development in Loess Plateau. Beijing: Science Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wu ZY. 2010. Flora of China. Beijing: Science Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wykoff WR. 1990. A basal area increment model for individual conifers in the northern Rocky Mountains. For Sci. 36:1077–1104.
   Google Scholar
• Yan XF, Wang JL, Zhou LB. 2011. Effects of light intensity on Quercus liaotungensis seed germination and seedling growth. Chin J Appl Ecol. 22:1682–1688.
   Google Scholar
• Yang C, Zhang J, Meng F. 2012. The study on dual volume table of pine tree for Shandong Province. Shandong For Sci Technol. 200:90–92.
   Google Scholar
• Yang XZ, Zhang WH, He QY. 2019. Effects of intraspecific competition on growth, architecture and biomass allocation of Quercus liaotungensis. J Plant Interact. 14:284–294. doi:10.1080/17429145.2019.1629656.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yokozawa M, Kubota Y, Hara T. 1998. Effects of competition mode on spatial pattern dynamics in plant communities. Ecol Modell. 106:1–16. doi:10.1016/s0304-3800(97)00181-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zapater M, Hossann C, Breda N, Brechet C, Bonal D, Granier A. 2011. Evidence of hydraulic lift in a young beech and oak mixed forest using O-18 soil water labelling. Trees. 25:885–894. doi:10.1007/s00468-011-0563-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang TZ, Li YN, Han FY, Zhang SZ, Zhou YB. 2018. C: N: P stoichiometry of Pinus tabuliformis leaf and soil in two mixed stands in western Liaoning Province. Chinese J Ecol. 37:3061–3067. doi:10.13292/j.1000-4890.201810.015.
   Google Scholar
• Zhao M, Zhou GS. 2006. Estimating net primary productivity of Chinese pine forests based on forest inventory data. Forestry. 79:231–239. doi:10.1093/forestry/cpl002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhen J. 2013. Effects of light intensity, nitrogen, water on carbon fixing capacity in Pinus Tabulaeformis. In: Ecology. Beijing Forestry University.
   Google Scholar