Tamm Review: On the strength of evidence when comparing ecosystem functions of mixtures with monocultures

By D. Forrester, Hans Pretzsch. 2015

143 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ee19f2cc938aeb9e4e88f0318dfbd1dfc38c57a8

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

Characterization of the structure, dynamics, and productivity of mixed-species stands: review and perspectives (2015, background): “In the same way, similar methods of weighting by species proportion can be calculated to compare other stand variables in mixed with monospecific stands (Forrester and Pretzsch 2015).”
Diversity and competition influence tree allometric relationships – developing functions for mixed‐species forests (2017, background): “Allometric functions developed for monospecific stands may prove to be imprecise and biased when applied to the study and management of mixed-species forests (Forrester & Pretzsch 2015).”
Increased forest biomass production in the Nordic and Baltic countries – a review on current and future opportunities (2016, background): “In theory, mixed-species ecosystems could be more productive than single-species ecosystems (e.g. Hector et al.1999; Forrester and Pretzsch 2015; Pretzsch et al. 2015).”
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, methodology): “…used production ecology or mass balance approaches to show that a process occurring in a mixture (e.g. symbiotic nitrogen fixation) was not causing any mixing effect on growth or resource uptake by the associated species (Binkley, Sollins, Bell, Sachs, & Myrold, 1992; Forrester & Pretzsch, 2015).”
Tree species mixing can increase maximum stand density (2016, background): “In this case, the ln(N)-ln(dq) line observed in a 85 mixed stand would be identical with the expected line, indicating the absence of any true 86 mixing effect in the sense of Forrester and Pretzsch (2015).”
Drought responses by individual tree species are not often correlated with tree species diversity in European forests (2016, unknown): “…F. sylvatica was found to decrease from 78% at a single site in Germany, to 17% when averaged across seven sites in Germany and Poland, to 9% when averaged for 32 sites spread across a large proportion of the natural distribution of this species combination in Europe (Forrester & Pretzsch 2015).”
Toward managing mixed-species stands: from parametrization to prescription (2017, background): “…some evidence points to conditions under which mixed species stands are able to produce more volume (overyielding) than the monocultures of the respective constituent species, this is not necessarily the case for just any combination of tree species (Forrester 2014, Forrester and Pretzsch 2015).”
Multiple factors modulate tree growth complementarity in Central European mixed forests (2018, background): “…for the interactions between stand and mixture variables supported our first hypothesis that the modulating effects of stand density and development stage are important to consider when examining complementarity patterns (Cavard et al., 2011; Forrester & Pretzsch, 2015; Garber & Maguire, 2004).”
Species interactions increase the temporal stability of community productivity in Pinus sylvestris–Fagus sylvatica mixtures across Europe (2017, unknown): “…biased estimations of biomass growth as mixing tree species can modify tree allometry (Pretzsch 2014) as well as between-tree growth partitioning (Binkley et al. 2003; Pretzsch & Schütze 2014), suggesting the need of specific functions for mixtures (Forrester & Pretzsch 2015; Río et al. 2016).”