Show simple item record

resumen

Abstract
The growth of a stand is the sum of the growth of individual trees. Growth of individual trees can be explained by the amount of resources captured and how efficiently those resources are used (production ecology). The relationship between the contribution of a tree to stand growth relative to the contribution to stand biomass is expressed by the growth dominance. Patterns of growth dominance vary among tree species and stand age, suggesting that [ver mas...]
dc.contributor.authorFernandez Tschieder, Ezequiel
dc.contributor.authorBinkley, Dan
dc.contributor.authorBauerle, William
dc.date.accessioned2020-02-17T14:21:27Z
dc.date.available2020-02-17T14:21:27Z
dc.date.issued2020-01
dc.identifier.issn0378-1127
dc.identifier.otherhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.117891
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/6779
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378112719323205
dc.description.abstractThe growth of a stand is the sum of the growth of individual trees. Growth of individual trees can be explained by the amount of resources captured and how efficiently those resources are used (production ecology). The relationship between the contribution of a tree to stand growth relative to the contribution to stand biomass is expressed by the growth dominance. Patterns of growth dominance vary among tree species and stand age, suggesting that differences in production ecology underlie the observed patterns of growth dominance within stands. We explored the production ecology in an old-growth ponderosa pine forest. Growth dominance was strongly negative (−0.22) and was the outcome of a less-than-proportional increase of tree growth as a function of tree size. Dominant trees were almost 5 times larger than suppressed trees (1024 vs. 211 kg tree−1) but grew only about 2 times more than suppressed trees (4.3 vs. 1.9 kg tree−1 year−1). Dominant trees captured a lessthan-proportional amount of light relative to their size (90.4 vs. 20.9 GJ year−1 tree−1) and light use efficiency declined with tree size. Suppressed trees were twice as efficient as dominant trees (0.11 vs. 0.05 kg[wood] GJ [PAR]−1). Our results highlight the link between growth dominance, competition for resources, and the pattern of light use efficiency among large versus small trees.eng
dc.formatapplication/pdfes_AR
dc.language.isoenges_AR
dc.publisherElsevieres_AR
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccesses_AR
dc.sourceForest Ecology and Management 460 : 117891 (2020)es_AR
dc.subjectBosqueses_AR
dc.subjectForestseng
dc.subjectPinuses_AR
dc.subjectPinareses_AR
dc.subjectPine Forestseng
dc.subjectPinus Ponderosaes_AR
dc.subjectCrecimientoes_AR
dc.subjectGrowtheng
dc.subjectEcologíaes_AR
dc.subjectEcologyeng
dc.titleProduction ecology and reverse growth dominance in an old-growth ponderosa pine forestes_AR
dc.typeinfo:ar-repo/semantics/artículoes_AR
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_AR
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiones_AR
dc.description.origenEEA Delta del Paranáes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Fernandez Tschieder, Ezequiel. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Delta del Paraná; Argentina. Colorado State University. Department of Ecosystem Science and Sustainability. Graduate Degree Program in Ecology; Estados Unidoses_AR
dc.description.filFil: Binkley, Dan. Northern Arizona University. School of Forestry; Estados Unidoses_AR
dc.description.filFil: Bauerle, William. Colorado State University. Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture; Estados Unidoses_AR
dc.subtypecientifico


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

common

Show simple item record