Influence of growth dominance and individual tree growth efficiency on Pinus taeda stand growth. A contribution to the debate about why stands productivity declines

• Published in: Forest ecology and management 2012-08, Vol.277, p.116-123
• Main Authors: Fernández Tschieder, Ezequiel, Fernández, María Elena, Schlichter, Tomás Miguel, Pinazo, Martin Alcides, Crechi, Ernesto Héctor
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Age; Age-related growth decline; Animal and plant ecology; Animal, plant and microbial ecology; Biological and medical sciences; Dominance; Eucalyptus; Forestry; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Growth dominance coefficient; Pattern recognition; Pinus taeda; Productivity; Stand structure; Stands; Supports; Synecology; Terrestrial ecosystems; Thinning; Trees
• ISSN: 0378-1127; 1872-7042
• DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2012.04.025

► We studied growth dominance, growth and growth efficiency in thinned and unthinned P. taeda plots. ► Growth dominance was very low; then it would not be the cause of stand growth decline. ► Growth dominance resulted from growth efficiency differentiation between different size trees. ► Lower growth dominance did not result in higher growth efficiency in thinned plots. A well recognized pattern during even-aged stands development is the growth decline after reaching a peak. We studied the effect of changes in stand structure, characterized by growth dominance, upon stand growth, stand growth efficiency and tree growth efficiency in thinned and unthinned plots of Pinus taeda. According to the stated hypothesis (Binkley, 2004), stand growth decline would be related to a decrease in growth efficiency of smaller trees due to the increase of growth dominance. Growth dominance in unthinned plots continuously increased with age, although it was very low compared to other genus, particularly Eucalyptus. In thinned plots, growth dominance was even lower and no consistent trend through time was observed. In general large trees were more efficient than small trees in unthinned and thinned plots, however, growth efficiency of both, small and large trees, showed the same pattern with age. Nevertheless, in both treatments, the difference between growth efficiency of smallest and largest trees increased with developing growth dominance because the increasing difference in tree size with age. At stand level lower growth dominance levels did not result in higher stand growth efficiency. Based on the low growth dominance levels, we cannot conclude that increasing growth dominance during stand development can be responsible for its growth decline. Growth dominance appears not to be the cause but the consequence of growth efficiency differentiation between small and large trees of a stand.