Response of Beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) Trees to Competition - New Insights from Using Fractal Analysis

Individual tree architecture and the composition of tree species play a vital role for many ecosystem functions and services provided by a forest, such as timber value, habitat diversity, and ecosystem resilience. However, knowledge is limited when it comes to understanding how tree architecture changes in response to competition. Using 3D-laser scanning data from the German Biodiversity Exploratories, we investigated the detailed three-dimensional architecture of 24 beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) trees that grew under different levels of competition pressure. We created detailed quantitative structure models (QSMs) for all study trees to describe their branching architecture. Furthermore, structural complexity and architectural self-similarity were measured using the box-dimension approach from fractal analysis. Relating these measures to the strength of competition, the trees are exposed to reveal strong responses for a wide range of tree architectural measures indicating that competition strongly changes the branching architecture of trees. The strongest response to competition (rho = −0.78) was observed for a new measure introduced here, the intercept of the regression used to determine the box-dimension. This measure was discovered as an integrating descriptor of the size of the complexity-bearing part of the tree, namely the crown, and proven to be even more sensitive to competition than the box-dimension itself. Future studies may use fractal analysis to investigate and quantify the response of tree individuals to competition.

[1]  H. Kreft,et al.  How a measure of tree structural complexity relates to architectural benefit‐to‐cost ratio, light availability, and growth of trees , 2019, Ecology and evolution.

[2]  Yonten Dorji,et al.  Identifying architectural characteristics that determine tree structural complexity , 2019, Trees.

[3]  Norbert Pfeifer,et al.  International benchmarking of terrestrial laser scanning approaches for forest inventories , 2018, ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing.

[4]  D. Seidel.  A holistic approach to determine tree structural complexity based on laser scanning data and fractal analysis , 2017, Ecology and evolution.

[5]  Peter Annighöfer,et al.  How management intensity and neighborhood composition affect the structure of beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) trees , 2017, Trees.

[6]  D. Seidel,et al.  Canopy space filling rather than conventional measures of structural diversity explains productivity of beech stands , 2017 .

[7]  S. Wood.  Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R, Second Edition , 2017 .

[8]  R. Fournier,et al.  Response of sugar maple (Acer saccharum, Marsh.) tree crown structure to competition in pure versus mixed stands , 2016 .

[9]  F. M. Danson,et al.  Terrestrial Laser Scanning for Plot-Scale Forest Measurement , 2015, Current Forestry Reports.

[10]  Olivier Bouriaud,et al.  Crown plasticity enables trees to optimize canopy packing in mixed-species forests , 2015 .

[11]  D. Seidel,et al.  Relationship between tree growth and physical dimensions of Fagus sylvatica crowns assessed from terrestrial laser scanning , 2015 .

[12]  D. Seidel,et al.  How neighborhood affects tree diameter increment – New insights from terrestrial laser scanning and some methodical considerations , 2015 .

[13]  AstrupRasmus,et al.  Approaches for estimating stand-level volume using terrestrial laser scanning in a single-scan mode , 2014 .

[14]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[15]  E. Schulze,et al.  Crown modeling by terrestrial laser scanning as an approach to assess the effect of aboveground intra- and interspecific competition on tree growth , 2013 .

[16]  M. Vastaranta,et al.  Stem biomass estimation based on stem reconstruction from terrestrial laser scanning point clouds , 2013 .

[17]  Hans Pretzsch,et al.  Structural crown properties of Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica [L.]) in mixed versus pure stands revealed by terrestrial laser scanning , 2013, Trees.

[18]  P. Prusinkiewicz,et al.  Computational models of plant development and form. , 2012, The New phytologist.

[19]  M. Schröter,et al.  Crown plasticity and neighborhood interactions of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in an old-growth forest , 2011, European Journal of Forest Research.

[20]  C. Leuschner,et al.  Crown plasticity in mixed forests—Quantifying asymmetry as a measure of competition using terrestrial laser scanning , 2011 .

[21]  Jens Nieschulze,et al.  Implementing large-scale and long-term functional biodiversity research: The Biodiversity Exploratories , 2010 .

[22]  T. Ledermann,et al.  Evaluating the performance of semi-distance-independent competition indices in predicting the basal area growth of individual trees , 2010 .

[23]  H. Pretzsch,et al.  Transgressive overyielding in mixed compared with pure stands of Norway spruce and European beech in Central Europe: evidence on stand level and explanation on individual tree level , 2009, European Journal of Forest Research.

[24]  C. Ammer,et al.  Converting Norway spruce stands with beech - a review of arguments and techniques. , 2008 .

[25]  Christian Ammer,et al.  Admixing broadleaved to coniferous tree species: a review on yield, ecological stability and economics , 2008, European Journal of Forest Research.

[26]  Fernando Valladares,et al.  Ecological limits to plant phenotypic plasticity. , 2007, The New phytologist.

[27]  P. Comeau,et al.  Competitive interactions between aspen and white spruce vary with stand age in boreal mixedwoods , 2007 .

[28]  Alan Y. Chiang,et al.  Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction With R , 2007, Technometrics.

[29]  P. Radtke,et al.  Ground-based Laser Imaging for Assessing Three-dimensional Forest Canopy Structure , 2006 .

[30]  Dehai Zhao,et al.  Modeling neighborhood effects on the growth and survival of individual trees in a natural temperate species-rich forest , 2006 .

[31]  C. Canham,et al.  A neighborhood analysis of canopy tree competition : effects of shading versus crowding , 2004 .

[32]  V. Grimm,et al.  Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures , 2004 .

[33]  J. Jankovic,et al.  Silvicultural Strategies for Conversion , 2004, Norway Spruce Conversion.

[34]  L. Zhang,et al.  Local Analysis of Tree Competition and Growth , 2003 .

[35]  Annabel Porté,et al.  Modelling mixed forest growth: a review of models for forest management , 2002 .

[36]  Douglas A. Maguire,et al.  Patterns in vertical distribution of foliage in young coastal Douglas-fir , 1996 .

[37]  C. Oliver,et al.  Forest stand dynamics: updated edition. , 1996 .

[38]  Gregory S. Biging,et al.  Evaluation of Competition Indices in Individual Tree Growth Models , 1995, Forest Science.

[39]  Nirupam Sarkar,et al.  An Efficient Differential Box-Counting Approach to Compute Fractal Dimension of Image , 1994, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst..

[40]  Harold E. Burkhart,et al.  Distance-Dependent Competition Measures for Predicting Growth of Individual Trees , 1989, Forest Science.

[41]  Benoit B. Mandelbrot,et al.  Fractal Geometry of Nature , 1984 .

[42]  F. A. Bazzaz,et al.  Plant Species Diversity in Old‐Field Successional Ecosystems in Southern Illinois , 1975 .