A comparison of three age determination methods for suppressed Norway spruce: implications for age structure analysis

By M. Niklasson. 2002

85 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Atmospheric Science, Global and Planetary Change, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4f474586479d74c0680770b61ff47090a8461e19

How researchers see this paper

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

In Atmospheric Science

1. Ö. Fritz
2. M. Churski
3. J. Mccarthy
4. G. Weetman

In Global and Planetary Change

1. M. Churski
2. Ö. Fritz
3. G. Weetman
4. J. Mccarthy
5. T. Kuuluvainen
6. T. Aakala

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. Ö. Fritz
2. M. Churski
3. J. Mccarthy
4. G. Weetman
5. M. Niklasson

Citations in the corpus

• Age and size structure of gap-dynamic, old-growth boreal forest stands in Newfoundland (2006, background): “Correct aging of highly suppressed seedlings with adventitious rooting can be difficult due to the common occurrence of missing rings and practical difficulties in locating the actual root/shoot interface (Niklasson 2002).”
• Tree age is a key factor for the conservation of epiphytic lichens and bryophytes in beech forests. (2009, methodology): “In order to eliminate missing and wedging rings, cross dating was applied for the trees in the 20- m radius plots based on the following pointer years: 1869, 1890, 1911, 1925, 1956, 1960 and 1974 (Niklasson 2002; Niklasson et al. 2005).”