Transgressive overyielding in mixed compared with pure stands of Norway spruce and European beech in Central Europe: evidence on stand level and explanation on individual tree level

By Hans Pretzsch, G. Schütze. European Journal of Forest Research, 2009

304 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5027ffcaf0837414b723c8d4844078fe592d49fc

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

Analyzing size-symmetric vs. size-asymmetric and intra- vs. inter-specific competition in beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) mixed stands (2014, background): “Overyielding in mixed beech forests has been attributed to a number of different factors such as differences in space occupation efficiency (Pretzsch and Schütze, 2009), and root systems (Leuschner et al.”
Competition for light and water play contrasting roles in driving diversity–productivity relationships in Iberian forests (2014, background): “Changes in the way light is distributed through the canopy can also directly benefit the growth of individual trees by alleviating competition among neighbours in mixtures (e.g. Pretzsch & Sch€utze 2009).”
Forest productivity increases with evenness, species richness and trait variation: a global meta‐analysis (2012, background): “…DPR studies in forest ecosystems have reported positive (e.g. MacPherson, Lieffers & Blenis 2001; Garber & Maguire 2004; Amoroso & Turnblom 2006; Pretzsch & Schutze 2009; Brassard et al. 2011), insignificant or even negative (e.g. Edgar & Burk 2001; Chen & Klinka 2003; Vila et al. 2003; Cavard…”
Tropical tree diversity enhances light capture through crown plasticity and spatial and temporal niche differences (2014, background): “Similarly, architectural complementarity among tree crowns and a more complete multi-layered exploitation of light are often proposed to explain growth enhancement in tree mixtures (Erskine et al. 2006, Pretzsch and Schutze 2009).”
Tamm Review: On the strength of evidence when comparing ecosystem functions of mixtures with monocultures (2015, methodology): “2 has often been applied to Specific Forest Plots and inventory data (Pretzsch and Schütze, 2009).”
Stand growth and structure of mixed-species and monospecific stands of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and oak (Q. robur L., Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.) analysed along a productivity gradient through Europe (2019, methodology): “For analysing dependencies between overyielding or underyielding and site fertility, we derived the height of the trees at the age of 100 years with the quadratic mean diameter, hq, as site index (SI) (see Pretzsch 2009, pp. 200–203 for the definition and calculation of hq).”
Effect of species proportion definition on the evaluation of growth in pure vs. mixed stands. (2014, background): “If there are triplets of unthinned stands available (Pretzsch, 2009; Pretzsch & Schütze, 2009), or at least with comparable densities (Pretzsch et al,, 2010), the neighbouring pure stands as well as the mixed stand may well be assumed to grow at maximum density and might be comparable.”