Assessing components of a competition index to predict growth in an even-aged Pinus nigra stand

The relationship between tree growth and competition may depend on some subjective choices that are commonly left to the researcher. Among these are the neighborhood radius, the number of years of growth that are integrated, and tree age. We have evaluated the importance of these factors when relating growth and competition in a forest stand with contrasted densities of the dominant tree species (Pinus nigra) and understory shrub species (Adenocarpus decorticans). Previous to this evaluation we performed a randomization test to assess the relationship between tree growth and neighbors. By using Daniels index of competition we found that the use of a fixed neighborhood radius underestimated the importance of tree competition. The coefficient of determination (r2) of the relationship between tree growth and Daniels index increased asymptotically with the number of years considered. Five years of growth gave high r2 independently of the density of trees and shrubs. The intensity of competition was weakly affected by the characteristics of the plot (tree and shrub densities), and did not change with time. In contrast, the potential growth at equal competition – as represented by constant “a” in the allometric model – changed with time suggesting a gradual decrease in potential tree growth in the plots with higher tree density, and a gradual increase in those plots with high density of shrubs. These results may reflect tree canopy closure and the senescence of Adenocarpus decorticans. A method is suggested to select optimum neighborhood radius and growing period for the calculation of competition indices. By applying this method we were able to explain as much as 79–84% of the variability in tree growth of this stand.

[1]  John A. Silander,et al.  Neighborhood predictors of plant performance , 1985, Oecologia.

[2]  Juan F. Silva,et al.  Competition effects and responses to variable numbers of neighbours in two tropical savanna grasses in Venezuela , 1995, Journal of Tropical Ecology.

[3]  Jacob Weiner,et al.  A Neighborhood Model of Annual‐Plant Interference , 1982 .

[4]  James B. Grace,et al.  Perspectives on Plant Competition , 1991 .

[5]  R. Greenberg.  Biometry , 1969, The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine.

[6]  T. Mitchell-Olds.  Analysis of Local Variation in Plant Size , 1987 .

[7]  Joseph H. Connell,et al.  On the Prevalence and Relative Importance of Interspecific Competition: Evidence from Field Experiments , 1983, The American Naturalist.

[8]  Peter J. Diggle,et al.  Statistical analysis of spatial point patterns , 1983 .

[9]  D. Brand.  A competition index for predicting the vigour of planted Douglas-fir in Southwestern British Columbia , 1986 .

[10]  Thomas W. Schoener,et al.  Field Experiments on Interspecific Competition , 1983, The American Naturalist.

[11]  Deborah E. Goldberg,et al.  NEIGHBORHOOD COMPETITION IN AN OLD-FIELD PLANT COMMUNITY' , 1987 .

[12]  D. Morris,et al.  EVALUATION OF MORPHOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES AS RESPONSE VARIABLES TO PERENNIAL COMPETITION FOR 4-YEAR-OLD BLACK SPRUCE AND JACK PINE SEEDLINGS , 1990 .

[13]  Competition and succession in an aspen-white-pine forest , 1995 .

[14]  C. Welden,et al.  The Intensity of Competition Versus its Importance: An Overlooked Distinction and Some Implications , 1986, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[15]  Philip J. Burton,et al.  Some limitations inherent to static indices of plant competition , 1993 .

[16]  B. Shorrocks,et al.  Competition on a Divided and Ephemeral Resource: A Simulation Model , 1981 .

[17]  C. Welden,et al.  Competition and Abiotic Stress Among Trees and Shrubs in Northwest Colorado , 1988 .

[18]  J. Puigdefabregas,et al.  Role of vegetation cover in the biogeochemical balances of a small afforested catchment in southeastern Spain , 1994 .

[19]  Craig G. Lorimer,et al.  Tests of age-independent competition indices for individual trees in natural hardwood stands , 1983 .

[20]  B. Shorrocks,et al.  Spatial patchiness and community structure: coexistence and guild size of drosophilids on ephemeral resources , 1987 .

[21]  L. Firbank,et al.  On the analysis of competition at the level of the individual plant , 2004, Oecologia.

[22]  Richard F. Daniels,et al.  Simple Competition Indices and Their Correlation with Annual Loblolly Pine Tree Growth , 1976 .

[23]  John A. Silander,et al.  5 – The Application of Plant Population Dynamic Models to Understanding Plant Competition , 1990 .

[24]  P. Marshall,et al.  Assessing components of competition indices for young boreal plantations , 1990 .

[25]  Jacob Weiner,et al.  Neighbourhood interference amongst Pinus rigida individuals , 1984 .

[26]  John L. Harper,et al.  INTERFERENCE IN DUNE ANNUALS: SPATIAL PATTERN AND NEIGHBOURHOOD EFFECTS , 1977 .

[27]  D. Reed,et al.  Competition indices for mixed species northern hardwoods , 1991 .

[28]  John L. Harper,et al.  Population Biology of Plants. , 1978 .

[29]  I. Bella,et al.  A New Competition Model for Individual Trees , 1971 .

[30]  Richard F. Daniels,et al.  A comparison of competition measures for predicting growth of loblolly pine trees , 1986 .

[31]  E. Edgington.  Validity of Randomization Tests for one-Subject Experiments , 1980 .

[32]  Jacob Weiner,et al.  Including competitive asymmetry in measures of local interference in plant populations , 1989, Oecologia.

[33]  J. Weiner,et al.  Asymmetric competition in plant populations. , 1990, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[34]  Jacob Weiner,et al.  Growth Variation in a Naturally Established Population of Pinus Sylvestris , 1994 .

[35]  P. Charlesworth,et al.  COMPETITION ON A DIVIDED AND EPHEMERAL RESOURCE , 1979 .