Resistance of European tree species to drought stress in mixed <i>versus</i> pure forests: evidence of stress release by inter‐specific facilitation

Plant Biology - Tập 15 Số 3 - Trang 483-495 - 2013
Hans Pretzsch1, Gerhard Schütze1, Enno Uhl1
1Center of Life and Food Sciences Weihenstephan, Technische Universität München, Freising, Bavaria, Germany.

Tóm tắt

AbstractWhile previous studies focused on tree growth in pure stands, we reveal that tree resistance and resilience to drought stress can be modified distinctly through species mixing. Our study is based on tree ring measurement on cores from increment boring of 559 trees of Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.), European beech (Fagus sylvatica [L.]) and sessile oak (Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.) in South Germany, with half sampled in pure, respectively, mixed stands. Indices for resistance, recovery and resilience were applied for quantifying the tree growth reaction on the episodic drought stress in 1976 and 2003. The following general reaction patterns were found. (i) In pure stands, spruce has the lowest resistance, but the quickest recovery; oak and beech were more resistant, but recover was much slower and they are less resilient. (ii) In mixture, spruce and oak perform as in pure stands, but beech was significantly more resistant and resilient than in monoculture. (iii) Especially when mixed with oak, beech is facilitated. We hypothesise that the revealed water stress release of beech emerges in mixture because of the asynchronous stress reaction pattern of beech and oak and a facilitation of beech by hydraulic lift of water by oak. This facilitation of beech in mixture with oak means a contribution to the frequently reported overyield of beech in mixed versus pure stands. We discuss the far‐reaching implications that these differences in stress response under intra‐ and inter‐specific environments have for forest ecosystem dynamics and management under climate change.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.001

Ammer C., 2005, Zur Zukunft der Buche (Fagus sylvatica) in Mitteleuropa, Allgemeine Forst- und Jagdzeitung, 176, 60

10.1007/BF01872794

10.1051/forest:2002020

Avery T.E., 1975, Forest measurements, 331

10.1016/j.foreco.2004.01.019

10.1007/BF01821439

10.1007/s10342-009-0323-1

10.1051/forest:2006042

10.1007/s004420050363

10.1890/0012-9658(1997)078[1958:CAFASA]2.0.CO;2

10.1016/j.foreco.2012.02.010

10.1890/02-0478

10.1139/x89-070

10.1007/BF00317442

10.1016/j.foreco.2008.11.026

10.3170/2008-8-18442

10.1139/x11-042

10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02248.x

10.1038/nature05947

10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01709.x

10.1890/0012-9658(1997)078[1966:TIOFAC]2.0.CO;2

IPCC. (2007)Fourth assessment report: climate change 2007. Working Group I Report. The Physical Science Basis.IPCC Geneva Switzerland 104pp.

10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01073.x

Jüttner O., 1955, Ertragstafeln der wichtigsten Baumarten, 12

10.1007/978-94-015-8052-6_8

Kölling C., 2007, Die Anfälligkeit der Wälder Deutschlands gegenüber dem Klimawandel, Gefahrstoffe-Reinhaltung der Luft, 67, 259

Körner C., 2002, Strasburger Lehrbuch für Botanik, 930

Kramer H., 1988, Waldwachstumslehre, 374

Leuschner C.H., 1998, Mechanismen der Konkurrenzüberlegenheit der Rotbuche, Berichte der Reinhold-Tüxen-Gesellschaft, 10, 5

LfU. (2012)High resolution climate maps for Bavaria. Available fromhttp://www.lfu.bayern.de/wasser/klima_wandel/bayern/klimakarten/index.htm(accessed April 2012).

10.1093/treephys/tpq052

10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.19372.x

Martonne de E., 1926, Une nouvelle fonction climatologique: L’indice d’aridité, La Météorologie, 21, 449

10.1111/j.1365-2435.2007.01276.x

10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02436.x

10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01691.x

Pretzsch H., 2009, Forest dynamics, growth and yield, 664, 10.1007/978-3-540-88307-4

Pretzsch H., 2012, Facilitation and competition in mixed‐species forests analysed along an ecological gradient, Nova Acta Leopoldina

10.1007/s00468-010-0510-1

10.1051/forest/2010037

10.1080/02827581.2012.672583

10.1007/s00468-012-0710-y

Prodan M., 1951, Messung der Waldbestände, 644

Rennenberg H., 2004, Die Buche (Fagus sylvatica L.) – ein Waldbaum ohne Zukunft im südlichen Mitteuropa?, Allgemeine Forst- und Jagdzeitung, 175, 210

10.1055/s-2006-924084

10.1093/treephys/tpq035

10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02235.x

10.1051/forest:2005012

10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.02770.x

10.1038/nature02300

Scherer‐LorenzenM. KörnerC.H. SchulzeE.‐D.(2005)Forest diversity and function.Ecological Studies 176.Springer Berlin 399pp.

Schober R., 1975, Ertragstafeln wichtiger Baumarten, 154

10.1017/CBO9780511623523

Wiedemann E., 1942, Der gleichaltrige Fichten‐Buchen‐Mischbestand, Mitteilungen aus Forstwirtschaft und Forstwissenschaft, 13, 1

Zang C., 2011, Zur Baumarteneignung bei Klimawandel: Ableitung der Trockenstress‐Anfälligkeit wichtiger Waldbaumarten aus Jahrringbreiten, Allgemeine Forst- und Jagdzeitung, 182, 98

10.1007/s00468-011-0617-z

10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01944.x

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Plant Biology

Tập 15 Số 3

483-495

Thông tin tác giả