Age-related Decline in Forest Ecosystem Growth: An Individual-Tree, Stand-Structure Hypothesis

By D. Binkley, J. L. Stape, Michael G. Ryan, H. Barnard, J. Fownes. Ecosystems, 2002

291 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/db650c362042fe308f9885a9cd951883b578038e

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

AN EXPERIMENTAL TEST OF THE CAUSES OF FOREST GROWTH DECLINE WITH STAND AGE (2004, methodology): “Ecological Monographs Vol. 74, No. 3 We harvested one of the LD–HF plots in 1999 for another study (Binkley et al. 2002), and this plot was omitted from the analysis for years 5 and 6.”
The interactions of climate, spacing and genetics on clonal Eucalyptus plantations across Brazil and Uruguay (2017, background): “Most intensively managed Eucalyptus plantations use genetically identical clonal trees within each stand to maximize uniformity and growth (Binkley et al., 2002; Stape et al., 2010), and genotypes differ substantially in rates of water use, the efficiency of wood production per unit of water…”
Long term growth responses of loblolly pine to optimal nutrient and water resource availability (2004, background): “…(Mencuccini and Grace, 1996), increased respiratory losses or changes in aboveground and belowground carbon allocation (Ryan et al., 1997; Binkley et al., 2002), Clearly leaf area and growth efficiency (production per unit of light interception) can be improved with resource additions…”
Light absorption and use efficiency in forests: Why patterns differ for trees and stands (2013, background): “…a wide variety of studies have documented that stem growth within a stand is a roughly linear function of tree leaf area (cf. Waring et al., 1980; Binkley et al., 2002; Seymour and Kenefic, 2002; Berrill and O’Hara, 2007; McDowell et al., 2007; DeRose and Seymour, 2009; Hofmeyer et al., 2010),…”
Increasing stand structural heterogeneity reduces productivity in Brazilian Eucalyptus monoclonal stands (2016, background): “…heterogeneous stands, dominant trees are likely to have smaller neighbors than they would in less heterogeneous stands and they therefore grow faster because they capture more resources and use them more efficiently (Binkley et al., 2002, 2010, 2013; Campoe et al., 2013; Forrester et al., 2013).”
Emergent crowns and light-use complementarity lead to global maximum biomass and leaf area in Sequoia sempervirens forests (2016, background): “…accepted models of forest development that suggest leaf area peaks shortly after canopy closure and then slowly declines (Gower et al., 1996; Ryan et al., 1997; Binkley et al., 2002) or quickly reaches a peak and remains relatively constant thereafter (Turner and Long, 1975; Long and Smith, 1992).”
Primary production and carbon allocation in relation to nutrient supply in a tropical experimental forest (2003, background): “A second leaf area harvest in August 1999 of all 23 trees in an adjacent Continuously Fertilized 3 by 3 m plot that was not part of this study (Binkley et al., 2002) yielded an estimate of LAI that was within 15% of our allometrically corrected LAI-2000 value.”
The hydraulic limitation hypothesis revisited. (2006, background): “In addition, once canopy closure occurs, the population of trees segregates into different competitive classes (dominants, co-dominants, suppressed), and trees in these different competitive positions may grow and use resources differently (Binkley et al. 2002).”