A Review of Forest Gap Models

By Harald Bugmann. 2001

703 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/176ec37e413953bce9c3f14bb5c4ed69e8a54dc0

How researchers see this paper

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

In Global and Planetary Change

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Biodiversity and Climate Change: Integrating Evolutionary and Ecological Responses of Species and Communities (2010, background): “The most well-known and widely applied process-based models of species distribution in a climate change context are the so-called forest gap models (Bugmann 2001).”
Using dynamic vegetation models to simulate plant range shifts (2014, methodology): “This strategy is already employed in forest gap models with the cohort approach, where growth is calculated for one individual of the cohort and all individuals in the same cohort are identical (Bugmann 2001).”
A patch-dynamics approach to savanna dynamics and woody plant encroachment – Insights from an arid savanna (2006, background): “…of the temporal duration of the transition from tree-encroached patches to open savanna (Wiegand et al., in revision); information that, due to the long time scales involved, cannot easily be measured in the field and that cannot be derived from spatially implicit gap models (Bugmann, 2001).”
The relationship between tree growth patterns and likelihood of mortality: a study of two tree species in the Sierra Nevada (2007, methodology): “Mortality rates for these test populations were determined in a similar manner to that used by many individual-based forest simulation models (Bugmann 2001; Bigler and Bugmann 2004).”
The accuracy of matrix population model projections for coniferous trees in the Sierra Nevada, California (2005, methodology): “The use of individual-based forest ‘gap’ models (Bugmann 2001) is an attempt to account explicitly for localized environmental differences.”
Influence of four major plant traits on average height, leaf‐area cover, net primary productivity, and biomass density in single‐species forests: a theoretical investigation (2011, methodology): “Models taking this approach have been widely applied since the 1970s and shown to capture a wide range of phenomena (e.g. Shugart 1984; Huston & Smith 1987; Huston & DeAngelis 1987; Prentice & Leemans 1990; Bugmann 2001).”
Herbaceous Understorey: An Overlooked Player in Forest Landscape Dynamics? (2016, methodology): “Using dynamic forest landscape models, the constraints of long time spans and large spatial extents can be overcome (Bugmann 2001; Mladenoff 2004).”
The state of plant population modelling in light of environmental change (2008, background): “, 1972; Shugart, 1984; Botkin, 1993), increasing computational power soon allowed the explicit inclusion of spatial aspects of landscape heterogeneity or ecological processes into the approach (e.g. Pacala et al., 1993; Pacala and Deutschman, 1995; Moloney and Levin, 1996; Bugmann, 2001).”
Modelling exploration of the future of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) under climate change—Range, abundance, genetic diversity and adaptive response (2010, methodology): “For forests, the models are often based on the ‘gap dynamics’ concept: establishment, growth and survival are modeled for individual trees or cohorts in a number of replicate patches, each corresponding in size to the maximum influence of one large adult tree (Bugmann, 2001).”
Vegetation demographics in Earth System Models: A review of progress and priorities (2018, background): “In contrast, forest gap (Bugmann, 2001; Dietze & Latimer, 2011) and “individual-based” models (IBMs) (Christoffersen et al., 2016; Fischer et al., 2016; Fyllas et al., 2014; Sato, Ito, & Kohyama, 2007; Shuman, Shugart, & Krankina, 2014; Smith et al., 2001) represent vegetation at the level of…”
Predicting individual-tree growth of central European tree species as a function of site, stand, management, nutrient, and climate effects (2017, background): “Finally, concerning (3), the modelling approach is important in view of the possible use of derived tree growth functions in forest development models such as succession models (Bugmann 2001) or management scenario simulators (Barreiro et al.”
WHAT MATTERS FOR PREDICTING THE OCCURRENCES OF TREES: TECHNIQUES, DATA, OR SPECIES' CHARACTERISTICS? (2007, background): “Maximum growth rate is closely related to species’ successional status, since fast growth rates are linked to low shade tolerance (Shugart 1984, Bugmann 2001).”
Modeling plant–water interactions: an ecohydrological overview from the cell to the global scale (2016, methodology): “Forest demography in terrestrial biosphere models is similar or identical to the one developed for forest-gap models in forestry research.(61,375,376) Forest demography can be handled by an average tree individual(352,353,377) evolving in time or by simulating cohorts of individuals with different a”
Simulating Competition and Coexistence between Plant Functional Types in a Dynamic Vegetation Model (2006, background): “At the small forest patch scale (100–1000 m2), for instance, gap models explicitly simulate competition by tracking tree height and light competition ( Bugmann 2001 ).”
Next-Generation Individual-Based Models Integrate Biodiversity and Ecosystems: Yes We Can, and Yes We Must (2017, background): “However, ecosystem IBMs have existed for decades, in particular for forests (Botkin and others 1972; Shugart 1984; Bugmann 2001) and, to a lesser extent, marine fish communities (Shin and Cury 2001; Figure 1.”