The spatial and temporal dynamics of species interactions in mixed-species forests: From pattern to process

By D. Forrester. 2014

563 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c55881296b64067f8302a402aacc30edb1fc8698

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

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): “A mixing effect, regardless of how it developed, had to bemuch stronger to compensate for these differences (Forrester 2014).”
Characterization of the structure, dynamics, and productivity of mixed-species stands: review and perspectives (2015, methodology): “However, this approach is complicated by the fact that it is not always easy to identify the environmental factors which have the greatest influence on complementarity (Forrester 2014).”
Drought responses by individual tree species are not often correlated with tree species diversity in European forests (2016, unknown): “This shows the risk of using data from a small part of a species distribution to generalise about a given combination (Forrester 2014).”
Forest biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services (2017, background): “The same pattern can be expected for water- and lightrelated interactions along gradients in water status or gradients in light competition, respectively (Forrester 2014).”
Diversity and competition influence tree allometric relationships – developing functions for mixed‐species forests (2017, background): “2012), it is also well-known that species interactions in mixed-species forests can change resource availability and micro-climatic conditions (Richards et al. 2010; Forrester 2014).”
Positive species diversity and above‐ground biomass relationships are ubiquitous across forest strata despite interference from overstorey trees (2017, background): “…which are attri- butable to the use and retention of site resources by resource partitioning and reduced competition in species- rich communities (Hooper et al. 2005; Vil a et al. 2007, 2013; Paquette & Messier 2011; Zhang, Chen & Reich 2012; Forrester 2014; Jucker et al. 2014; Zhang & Chen 2015).”
Suitability of close-to-nature silviculture for adapting temperate European forests to climate change (2014, result): “As the interactions between species that may lead to complementarity are highly dynamic in space and time and also depend on stand density (Forrester, 2014), it is not surprising that contradictory results may occur even for the same species mixture.”
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): “According to the conceptual framework by Forrester (2014), complementarity effects are expected to increase when the mixing of tree species improves the availability, uptake or use efficiency of the limiting resource.”
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).”
Effect of tree species mixing on the size structure, density, and yield of forest stands (2015, background): “However, a better understanding of the emerging properties in mixed stands and the causes of overyielding is required for systematically designing and managing more resource-efficient mixed-species production systems (Forrester 2014).”
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, background): “2008; Pretzsch and Schütze 2009); however, there is still a long way for forest science to establish a solid theory of mixing effects and general rules of species behaviour in mixture or even guidelines for combining and thinning tree species or functional groups of species (Forrester 2014).”
Toward managing mixed-species stands: from parametrization to prescription (2017, background): “…and Messier 1999, Forrester et al. 2006, 2007, Gaiser 1952, Puhe 2003, Stone and Kalisz 1991), the temporal and spatial complementarity of niches (Forrester 2014), uptake and use efficiency of resources (Liang et al. 2015) and growth (Goisser et al. 2016), and the modification of growth…”
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): “Therefore, species interactions that increase APAR are likely to have an increasingly positive effect on growth as soil resource availability increases (Forrester, 2014).”