A Review of Processes Behind Diversity—Productivity Relationships in Forests

By D. Forrester, Jürgen Bauhus. Current Forestry Reports, 2016

595 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bb96b1ba33350f6e4e8c799af6250a20afebd051

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 Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Tree‐to‐tree competition in mixed European beech–Scots pine forests has different impacts on growth and water‐use efficiency depending on site conditions (2018, background): “Interspecific differences in physiology, phenology or morphology can modify iWUE and growth of mixed stands as compared to pure stands (Forrester, 2015; Forrester & Bauhus, 2016).”
Synthesis and future research directions linking tree diversity to growth, survival, and damage in a global network of tree diversity experiments (2018, background): “Mechanistic explanations generally refer to the traits of study organisms (both morphological and physiological), biogeochemical cycling of nutrients between organisms and their environment (often soil, litter, or water), or multitrophic dynamics observed within the experiment (Forrester and Bauhus,”
Forest biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services (2017, background): “Productivity is often higher in mixtures than in monocultures, and this effect can increase with tree-species richness (Forrester and Bauhus 2016; Liang et al. 2016).”
Above‐ground biomass is driven by mass‐ratio effects and stand structural attributes in a temperate deciduous forest (2018, methodology): “The relationship between plant diversity and productivity/AGB has spurred much controversy over the past two decades (Cardinale et al., 2012; Forrester & Bauhus, 2016).”
Mangrove diversity enhances plant biomass production and carbon storage in Hainan island, China (2021, background): “…with similar observations in tropical forests (Poorter et al., 2015; Potvin & Gotelli, 2008), grass - lands (Fraser et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2019) and shrublands (Chen nitrogen), thus leading to a more rapid accumulation of mangrove bio - mass (Forrester & Bauhus, 2016; Turnbull et al., 2013).”
Species interactions increase the temporal stability of community productivity in Pinus sylvestris–Fagus sylvatica mixtures across Europe (2017, unknown): “2015; Jucker et al. 2016), since the result of the interactions among species changes depending on the growing conditions (Forrester, 2014; Forrester & Bauhus, 2016).”
Species mixing reduces drought susceptibility of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and oak (Quercus robur L., Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.) – Site water supply and fertility modify the mixing effect (2020, background): “present at the same time and can be difficult to distinguish (Forrester and Bauhus, 2016).”
Diversity and competition influence tree allometric relationships – developing functions for mixed‐species forests (2017, background): “…are increasingly recognized for their potentially superior productivity (e.g., average of 24%; Paquette & Messier 2011; Zhang, Chen & Reich 2012; Forrester & Bauhus 2016), their multifunctionality benefits (Gamfeldt et al. 2013) and their ecological and aesthetic value (Nadrowski, Wirth &…”
Mapping functional diversity using individual tree-based morphological and physiological traits in a subtropical forest (2021, background): “tion, and analyzing the relationship between diversity and ecosystem functioning (Baruffol et al., 2013; Forrester and Bauhus, 2016; Ouyang et al., 2019).”
Aboveground carbon storage is driven by functional trait composition and stand structural attributes rather than biodiversity in temperate mixed forests recovering from disturbances (2018, background): “…functional trait diversity can enhance ecosystem functions, and hence biomass productivity increases through resource-use efficiency by component species or interacting individuals due to the niche partitioning and/or facilitation (Tilman et al. 1997; Zhang et al. 2012; Forrester and Bauhus 2016).”
Effects of crown architecture and stand structure on light absorption in mixed and monospecific Fagus sylvatica and Pinus sylvestris forests along a productivity and climate gradient through Europe (2018, background): “…productivity, sometimes referred to as complementarity, generally result from interspecific differences in physiology, phenology or morphology or intraspecific differences (i.e. plasticity) that result from interspecific interactions (Forrester & Bauhus, 2016; Ishii & Asano, 2010; Kelty, 1992).”
Multiple factors modulate tree growth complementarity in Central European mixed forests (2018, background): “This suggests that the species interactions in those mixtures reduced competition for water either by increasing availability, uptake or efficiency (Forrester & Bauhus, 2016).”
Identifying the tree species compositions that maximize ecosystem functioning in European forests (2018, background): “…are not directly related to light availability (e.g., nutrient cycling related drivers or processes; Rothe & Binkley 2001) and our findings show that the mechanisms responsible for overyielding of mixtures (for an overview see Forrester & Bauhus 2016), do not necessarily increase other functions.”
Drought responses by individual tree species are not often correlated with tree species diversity in European forests (2016, unknown): “…etc), the species interactions may help reduce water stress, such as via facilitative processes including hydraulic lift and more favourable canopy micro-climates, or via a reduction in competition due to temporal or spatial stratification in soil water uptake and use (Forrester & Bauhus 2016).”