A meta-analysis comparing tree growth in monocultures and mixed plantations

By D. Piotto. 2008

328 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Forestry, Global and Planetary Change, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0420ecd7848ca16acda070cc157c082b12fad53b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Forestry

In Global and Planetary Change

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Impact of climate change on biodiversity and associated key ecosystem services in Africa: a systematic review (2018, background): “Studies have shown that, under similar conditions, tree plantations with two or more species may achieve higher levels of productivity than singlespecies plantations for a range of species combinations (Forrester et al. 2006, Kelty 2006; Piotto 2008).”
Balancing the environmental benefits of reforestation in agricultural regions (2015, unknown): “This balance can be altered by differences in establishment of plantings (e.g. single- vs mixed-species, Piotto, 2008; Paquette and Messier, 2010) and in previous land uses (e.g. pasture vs cropping, Paul et al., 2002; Laganière et al., 2010).”
Species interactions increase the temporal stability of community productivity in Pinus sylvestris–Fagus sylvatica mixtures across Europe (2017, unknown): “Much evidence exists that mixed-species stands often produce greater yields than monocultures (Piotto 2008; Paquette & Messier 2011; Vilà et al. 2013; Pretzsch et al. 2015; Liang et al. 2016) although contradictory findings of underyielding (Chen et al 2003; Carvard et al .”
Uses and misuses of meta‐analysis in plant ecology (2014, background): “Meta-analysis is also gaining attention in forestry, where recent examples of its applications include comparisons of tree growth in monocultures and mixed plantations (Piotto 2008; Griess & Knoke 2011) and assessment of effects of logging on tree species richness (Clark & Covey 2012).”
Tree species mixing can increase maximum stand density (2016, background): “…418 419 Species mixing as a cause for increased stand density 420 421 Many studies show that tree species mixing can significantly increase the stand productivity 422 in terms of stem volume growth (Forrester et al. 2006, Piotto 2008, Pretzsch et al. 2010, 2013, 423 2015b, Zhang et al. 2012).”
Growing Plantation Forests (2010, background): “However, research over the last decade or so with mixedspecies forest plantations has expanded (Kelty 1992, 2006; Binkley et al. 1997; Garber and Maguire 2004; Lamb et al. 2005a; Forrester et al. 2006b; Piotto 2008; Lei et al. 2012) and shows that many of the principles established from agricultural”
Competition for light and water play contrasting roles in driving diversity–productivity relationships in Iberian forests (2014, background): “Numerous studies have reported positive effects of diversity on AWP in forests (Piotto 2008; Paquette & Messier 2011; Gamfeldt et al. 2013; Vil a et al. 2013), including in Mediterranean systems (Vil a et al. 2007; Ruiz-Benito et al. 2014).”
Is forest diversity driving ecosystem function and service (2010, methodology): “The following literature was used: biota community property: [14,15 ,16–23,27 ,29], resistance to herbivory [25,26,27 ,28,29], invasion resistance [24], production [30,32 ,33,34 ,35,40,43], survival [32 ,34 ,40] recruitment [25,40], litter production [31,44], root biomass [22,45], soil C [46], eleme”
Improved productivity and modified tree morphology of mixed versus pure stands of European beech (Fagus sylvatica) and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) with increasing precipitation and age (2016, background): “While there are many studies dealing with the question of over- or underyielding in mixed stands (e.g., Kelty 1992; Piotto 2008; Pretzsch et al. 2013), there are, to our knowledge, only two extensive studies dealing with Douglas-fir and European beech (Bartelink 1998, Thomas et al. 2015).”
Effects of plant phylogenetic diversity on herbivory depend on herbivore specialization (2014, background): “Several recent syntheses have demonstrated the benefits of mixed forests, compared with monocultures, in terms of productivity (Piotto 2008; Paquette & Messier 2011; Zhang, Chen & Reich 2012), resistance to herbivores (Jactel & Brockerhoff 2007), windthrow (Griess et al.”
Identifying the tree species compositions that maximize ecosystem functioning in European forests (2018, background): “In closed canopy forests, this is primarily due to more efficient light use when species with contrasting canopy traits co-occur (Fichtner et al., 2017; Pretzsch, 2014; Zhang, Chen, & Reich, 2012).”
Partitioning of net primary production in Eucalyptus and Acacia stands and in mixed-species plantations: Two case-studies in contrasting tropical environments (2013, background): “Mixed-species forest plantations with a nitrogen-fixing species (NFS) are one of these options (Binkley, 1992; Forrester et al., 2006c; Kelty, 2006; Piotto, 2008).”