Linking hypothesized causal factors to aboveground biomass growth in forests of Alabama and the eastern United States
Abstract
Aim of study: We analyzed the hypothesized causal effects of relative density, density, height, species richness, species diversity, temperature, precipitation, and slope on above ground biomass growth (AGBG).
Area of study: Eastern region of the USA.
Materials and methods: We used the USDA Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) database. A total of 2554 plots from all stand ages, regardless of disturbance history, were selected from the state of Alabama and 967 plots of stand age under 30 years and no prior disturbance were selected from the eastern US. We analyzed the data using descriptive statistics and structural equation modeling.
Main results: Relative stand density exhibited a strong positive direct effect on AGBG, especially in the young forests (path coefficient 0.79), but a weaker indirect effect through species richness/diversity. Tree height influenced positively AGBG directly and indirectly through relative density and species richness. The effect of temperature and slope was greater than the effect of species richness/diversity on AGBG in the young forests of the eastern US.
Research highlights: For the forests of the eastern US, greater tree species diversity did not appear to result in neither greater nor lower productivity. The diversity-productivity relationship was negative in forests of Alabama, however, where prior management likely resulted in removal of select dominant trees from valuable species (i.e., high-grading).
Downloads
References
Alabama Dept. of Conserv. Nat. Resour., 2006. Alabama's comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy, Chapter 2. Wildlife Habitat—Alabama's Ecological Framework. http://www.outdooralabama.com/sites/default/files/Chapter2.pdf
Alabama Forestry Commission, 2010. Forests at the Crossroads- Alabama Statewide Forest Assessment and Resource Strategy. http://www.forestry.alabama.gov/PDFs/Forests_at_the_Crossroads-AL-State_Assessement.pdf
Ali A, Yan ER, Chen HYH, Chang SX, Zhao YT, Yang XD, Xu MS, 2016. Stand structural diversity rather than species diversity enhances aboveground carbon storage in secondary subtropical forests in Eastern China. Biogeosciences 13: 4627-4635. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-4627-2016
Bechtold WA, Patterson PL (eds), 2005. The enhanced forest inventory and analysis program-national sampling design and estimation procedures. General Technical Report SRS-80. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/20371. [2016, Nov 18].
Beers TW, Dress PE, Wensel LC, 1966. Aspect transformation in site productivity research. J For 64: 691-692.
Behera SK, Sahu N, Mishra AK, Bargali SS, Behera MD, Tuli R, 2017. Aboveground biomass and carbon stock assessment in Indian tropical deciduous forest and relationship with stand structural attributes. Ecol Eng 99: 513-524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.11.046
Caspersen JP, Pacala SW, 2001. Successional diversity and forest ecosystem function. Ecol Res 16: 895-903. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1703.2001.00455.x
Chase JM, Leibold MA, 2002. Spatial scale dictates the productivity-biodiversity relationship. Nature 416: 427-430. https://doi.org/10.1038/416427a
Coulston JW, Wear DN, Vose JM, 2015. Complex forest dynamics indicate potential for slowing carbon accumulation in the southeastern United States. Sci Rep 5: 8002. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep08002
Cramer CS, Wehner TC, Donaghy SB, 1999. PATHSAS: A SAS Computer program for path coefficient analysis of quantitative data. J Hered 90: 260-262. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/90.1.260
Curtis JT, McIntosh RP, 1951. An upland forest continuum in the prairie-forest border region of Wisconsin. Ecology 32: 476. https://doi.org/10.2307/1931725
Dănescu A, Albrecht AT, Bauhus J, 2016. Structural diversity promotes productivity of mixed, uneven-aged forests in southwestern Germany. Oecologia 182: 319-333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-016-3623-4
Fichtner A, Forrester DI, Härdtle W, Sturm K, Oheimb G von, 2015. Facilitative-Competitive interactions in an old-growth forest: The importance of large-diameter trees as benefactors and stimulators for forest community assembly. PLOS ONE 10: e0120335. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120335
Firn J, Erskine PD, Lamb D, 2007. Woody species diversity influences productivity and soil nutrient availability in tropical plantations. Oecologia 154: 521-533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-007-0850-8
Forrester DI, Bauhus J, 2016. A review of processes behind diversity-productivity relationships in forests. Curr For Rep 2: 45-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-016-0031-2
Grace JB, 2008. Structural equation modeling for observational studies. J Wildl Manag 72: 14-22. https://doi.org/10.2193/2007-307
Grace JB, Anderson TM, Seabloom EW, Borer ET, Adler PB, Harpole WS, Hautier Y, Hillebrand H, Lind EM, Pärtel M, et al., 2016. Integrative modelling reveals mechanisms linking productivity and plant species richness. Nature 529: 390-393. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16524
Hartsell AJ, Cooper JA, 2013. Alabama's forests, 2010. Resour Bull SRS-RB-193 Asheville NC USDA For Serv South Res Stn 87 P. 193: 1-87.
He JS, Wolfe-Bellin KS, Schmid B, Bazzaz FA, 2005. Density may alter diversity-productivity relationships in experimental plant communities. Basic Appl Ecol 6: 505-517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2005.04.002
Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen M, 2008. Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electron J Bus Res Methods 6: 53-60.
Hooper DU, Chapin Iii FS, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, Lavorel S, Lawton JH, Lodge DM, Loreau M, Naeem S, et al., 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr 75: 3-35. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-0922
Innes JC, Ducey MJ, Gove JH, Leak WB, Barrett JP, 2005. Size density metrics, leaf area, and productivity in eastern white pine. Can J For Res 35: 2469-2478. https://doi.org/10.1139/x05-174
Jenkins JC, Chojnacky DC, Heath LS, Birdsey RA, 2003. National-scale biomass estimators for United States tree species. For Sci 49: 12-35.
Kelty MJ, 1992. Comparative productivity of monocultures and mixed-species stands. In: The ecology and silviculture of mixed-species forests; Kelty MJ, Larson B & Oliver CD (Eds.). pp: 125-141. Kluwer Acad Publ, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8052-6_8
Lam TY, Maguire DA, 2012. Structural Equation modeling: theory and applications in forest management. Int J For Res 2012: e263953. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/263953
Larjavaara M, 2014. The world's tallest trees grow in thermally similar climates. New Phytol 202: 344-349. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12656
Legendre P, Legendre LFJ, 2012. Numerical Ecology, Vol 24. 3rd ed. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Liang J, Buongiorno J, Monserud RA, Kruger EL, Zhou M, 2007. Effects of diversity of tree species and size on forest basal area growth, recruitment, and mortality. For Ecol Manag 243: 116-127.
Liang J, Crowther TW, Picard N, Wiser S, Zhou M, Alberti G, Schulze ED, McGuire AD, Bozzato F, Pretzsch H, et al., 2016. Positive biodiversity-productivity relationship predominant in global forests. Science 354 (6309): aaf8957. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf8957
Long JN, Daniel TW, 1990. Assessment of growing stock in uneven-aged stands. West J Appl For 5: 93-96.
Ma W, He JS, Yang Y, Wang X, Liang C, Anwar M, Zeng H, Fang J, Schmid B, 2010. Environmental factors covary with plant diversity-productivity relationships among Chinese grassland sites: Diversity-productivity relationships in Chinese grassland. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 19: 233-243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2009.00508.x
Magurran AE, 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton University Press; NJ, USA. https://books.google.es/books/about/Ecological_Diversity_and_Its_Measurement.html?hl=es&id=iHoOAAAAQAAJ. [2017, Feb 10]. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7358-0
McMinn JW, 1992. Diversity of woody species 10 years after four harvesting treatments in the oak-pine type. Can J For Res 22: 1179-1183. https://doi.org/10.1139/x92-156
Miles PD, Smith BW, 2009. Specific gravity and other properties of wood and bark for 156 tree species found in North America. Newtown square PA 19073-3294: USDA For Serv North Res Stat. http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/rn/rn_nrs38.pdf
Nadal-Romero E, Petrlic K, Verachtert E, Bochet E, Poesen J, 2014. Effects of slope angle and aspect on plant cover and species richness in a humid Mediterranean badland. Earth Surf Process Landf 39: 1705-1716. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3549
Nadrowski K, Wirth C, Scherer-Lorenzen M, 2010. Is forest diversity driving ecosystem function and service? Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2: 75-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.02.003
Paquette A, Messier C, 2011. The effect of biodiversity on tree productivity: from temperate to boreal forests: The effect of biodiversity on the productivity. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 20: 170-180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00592.x
Pärtel M, Zobel M, 2007. Dispersal limitation may result in the unimodal productivity-diversity relationship: A new explanation for a general pattern. J Ecol 95: 90-94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2006.01185.x
Pärtel M, Laanisto L, Zobel M, 2007. Contrasting plant productivity-diversity relationships across latitude: the role of evolutionary history. Ecology 88: 1091-1097. https://doi.org/10.1890/06-0997
Potter KM, Woodall CW, 2014. Does biodiversity make a difference? Relationships between species richness, evolutionary diversity, and aboveground live tree biomass across U.S. forests. For Ecol Manag 321: 117-129.
Pretzsch H, 2009. Forest dynamics, growth and yield. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-540-88307-4. [2016, Aug 28]. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88307-4_1
Pugesek BH, Tomer A, Eye A von, 2003. Structural equation modeling: Applications in ecological and evolutionary biology. Cambridge University Press, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511542138
Reineke LH, 1933. Perfecting a stand-density index for even-aged forests. J Agric Res 46: 627-638.
Rodríguez-Loinaz G, Onaindia M, Amezaga I, Mijangos I, Garbisu C, 2008. Relationship between vegetation diversity and soil functional diversity in native mixed-oak forests. Soil Biol Biochem 40: 49-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.04.015
Ryan MG, 2010. Temperature and tree growth. Tree Physiol 30: 667-668. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpq033
Shipley B, 2000. Cause and correlation in biology: a user's guide to path analysis, structural equations, and causal inference. Cambridge University Press, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605949
Thoms C, Gattinger A, Jacob M, Thomas FM, Gleixner G, 2010. Direct and indirect effects of tree diversity drive soil microbial diversity in temperate deciduous forest. Soil Biol Biochem 42: 1558-1565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.05.030
Tilman D, Pacala S, 1993. The maintenance of species richness in plant communities. In: Species Divers Ecol Communities; Ricklefs RE, Schluter D (eds). University of Chicago Press; pp: 13-25. Available from: http://www.cfbiodiv.org/userfiles/Tilman%201994%20species%20diversity.pdf. [2017 Mar 3]
Timilsina N, Escobedo FJ, Staudhammer CL, Brandeis T, 2014. Analyzing the causal factors of carbon stores in a subtropical urban forest. Ecol Complex 20: 23-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2014.07.001
Vilà M, Vayreda J, Gracia C, Ibáñez JJ, 2003. Does tree diversity increase wood production in pine forests? Oecologia 135: 299-303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-003-1182-y
Vilà M, Inchausti P, Vayreda J, Barrantes O, Gracia C, Ibáñez JJ, Mata T, 2005. Confounding factors in the observational productivity-diversity relationship in forests. In: For Divers Funct Temp Boreal Syst; Scherer-Lorenzen M, Körner C, Schulze ED (eds). Vol 176, p. 65-86. [place unknown]: Springer. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/3-540-26599-6_4. [2016, Oct 22]. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-26599-6_4
Vilà M, Vayreda J, Comas L, Ibáñez JJ, Mata T, Obón B, 2007. Species richness and wood production: A positive association in Mediterranean forests. Ecol Lett 10: 241-250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01016.x
Weiskittel AR (eds), 2011. Forest growth and yield modeling. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, USA. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119998518
Woodall CW, Miles PD, Vissage JS, 2005. Determining maximum stand density index in mixed species stands for strategic-scale stocking assessments. For Ecol Manag 216: 367-377.
Woodall CW, D'Amato AW, Bradford JB, Finley AO, 2011. Effects of stand and inter-specific stocking on maximizing standing tree carbon stocks in the eastern United States. For Sci 57: 365-378.
Woudenberg SW, Conkling BL, O'Connell BM, LaPoint EB, Turner JA, Waddell KL, 2010. The forest inventory and analysis database: Database description and users manual version 4.0 for Phase 2. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/37446. [2016, May 20].
Zhang Y, Chen HYH, 2015. Individual size inequality links forest diversity and above-ground biomass. J Ecol 103: 1245-1252. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12425
Zifan A. 2016, USA map of Köppen climate classification https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USA_map_of_K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification.svg. [2017, Feb 23].
Zuo XA, Knops JMH, Zhao XY, Zhao HL, Zhang TH, Li YQ, Guo YR, 2012. Indirect drivers of plant diversity-productivity relationship in semiarid sandy grasslands. Biogeosciences 9: 1277-1289. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-1277-2012
© CSIC. Manuscripts published in both the printed and online versions of this Journal are the property of Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, and quoting this source is a requirement for any partial or full reproduction.
All contents of this electronic edition, except where otherwise noted, are distributed under a “Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International” (CC BY 4.0) License. You may read here the basic information and the legal text of the license. The indication of the CC BY 4.0 License must be expressly stated in this way when necessary.
Self-archiving in repositories, personal webpages or similar, of any version other than the published by the Editor, is not allowed.
