Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evolution der Größenverteilung der Bäume in Waldbeständen

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Grundlagen der Waldwachstumsforschung

  • 4634 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

In diesem Kapitel wird gezeigt, wie die Entwicklung der Größenverteilung von Bäumen aus der Anfangsverteilung, dem größenspezifischen Zuwachs und der Mortalität resultiert. Es werden Maßzahlen für die Quantifizierung der drei Komponenten der Verteilungsdynamik eingeführt, also für die Verteilung, ihre Veränderung durch Zuwachs und ihre Veränderung durch Ausfälle (Entnahmen, Mortalität). Anhand der eingeführten Maßzahlen wird gezeigt, wie Alter, Baumart, Bestandsbegründung, Durchforstung und Mischung die Verteilungsdynamik determinieren. Die Charakterisierung der Größenverteilung in Waldbeständen (Lage, Form und Dichte der Verteilung) gründet häufig auf dem Stammdurchmesser, weil dieser einfach zu messen ist. Da der Durchmesser aber eng mit der Baumhöhe, der Kronenschirmfläche oder dem Kronenvolumen zusammenhängt, spiegelt die Durchmesserverteilung und ihre Dynamik auch die Raumbesetzung, Ressourcenaufnahme und das Zuwachspotenzial von Beständen wider. Am Ende des Kapitels erfolgt der Übergang von der Baum- zur Bestandsebene. Es wird gezeigt, wie sich die Größenverteilung von Bäumen auf die Produktivität des Bestands auswirkt.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  • Assmann E (1961) Waldertragskunde. Organische Produktion, Struktur, Zuwachs und Ertrag von Waldbeständen. BLV Verlagsgesellschaft, München, Bonn, Wien (490 S)

    Google Scholar 

  • Assmann E (1970) The principles of forest yield study. Pergamon Press, Oxford, New York (506 S)

    Google Scholar 

  • Avery TE, Burkhart HE (1983) Forest Measurements, 3. Aufl. McGraw‐Hill, New York (331 S)

    Google Scholar 

  • Biging GS, Dobbertin M (1995) Evaluation of competition indices in individual tree growth models. Sci 41:360–377

    Google Scholar 

  • Binkley D, Kashian DM, Boyden S, Kaye MW, Bradford JB, Arthur MA, Fornwalt PJ, Ryna MG (2006) Patterns of growth dominance in forests of the Rocky Mountains, USA. For Ecol Manag 236(2):193–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Binkley D, Stape JL, Bauerle WL, Ryan MG (2010) Explaining growth of individual trees: light interception and efficiency of light use by Eucalyptus at four sites in Brazil. For Ecol Manage 259(9):1704–1713

    Google Scholar 

  • Binkley D, Campoe OC, Gspaltl M, Forrester DI (2013) Light absorption and use efficiency in forests: Why patterns differ for trees and stands. For Ecol Manage 288:5–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdier T, Cordonnier T, Kunstler G, Piedallu C, Lagarrigues G, Courbaud B (2016) Tree size inequality reduces forest productivity: an analysis combining inventory data for ten European species and a light competition model. PLoS ONE 11(3):e151852

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Boyden S, Binkley D, Stape JL (2008) Competition among Eucalyptus trees depends on genetic variation and resource supply. Ecology 89(10):2850–2859

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • de Camino R (1976) Zur Bestimmung der Bestandeshomogenität. Allg Forst- Jagdztg 147:54–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannell MGR, Grace J (1993) Competition for light: detection, measurement, and quantification. Can J For Res 23:1969–1979

    Google Scholar 

  • Coggins SB, Coops NC, Wulder MA (2010) Estimates of bark beetle infestation expansion factors with adaptive cluster sampling. Int J Pest Manag 57(1):11–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Condit R, Hubbell SP, Foster RB (1995) Mortality rates of 205 neotropical tree and shrub species and the impact of a severe drought. Ecol Monogr 65(4):419–439

    Google Scholar 

  • Dirmhirn I (1964) Das Strahlungsfeld im Lebensraum. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellenberg H, Leuschner C (2010) Vegetation Mitteleuropas mit den Alpen in ökologischer, dynamischer und historischer Sicht. Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Enquist BJ, Niklas KJ (2001) Invariant scaling relations across tree-dominated communities. Nature 410(6829):655

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Forrester DI, Collopy JJ, Beadle CL, Baker TG (2012) Interactive effects of simultaneously applied thinning, pruning and fertiliser application treatments on growth, biomass production and crown architecture in a young Eucalyptus nitens plantation. For Ecol Manage 267:104–116

    Google Scholar 

  • von Gadow K (1987) Untersuchungen zur Konstruktion von Wuchsmodellen für schnellwüchsige Plantagenbaumarten. Forstliche Forschungsberichte München, Nr. 77 (147 S)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hara T (1992) Effects of the mode of competition on stationary size distribution in plant populations. Ann Bot 69(6):509–513

    Google Scholar 

  • Hara T (1993) Mode of competition and size-structure dynamics in plant communities. Plant Species Biol 8(2–3):75–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson NL (1949) Systems of frequency curves generated by methods of translation. Biometrika 36:149–176

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kelty MJ (1992) Comparative productivity of monocultures and mixed stands. In: Kelty MJ, Larson BC, Oliver CD (Hrsg) The ecology and silviculture of mixed-species forests. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, S 125–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennel R (1965) Untersuchungen über die Leistung von Fichte und Buche im Rein- und Mischbestand. AFJZ 136:149–161, 173–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer H (1988) Waldwachstumslehre. Parey, Hamburg, Berlin (374 S)

    Google Scholar 

  • van Kuijk M, Anten NPR, Oomen RJ, van Bentum DW, Werger MJA (2008) The limited importance of size-asymmetric light competition and growth of pioneer species in early secondary forest succession in Vietnam. Oecologia 157:1–12

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Liang J, Crowther TW, Picard N, Wiser S, Zhou M, Alberti G, Schulze E-D, McGuire AD, Bozzato F, Pretzsch H, de‐Miguel S, Paquette A, Hérault B, Scherer‐Lorenzen M, Barrett CB, Glick HB, Hengeveld GM, Nabuurs G-J, Pfautsch S, Viana H, Vibrans AC, Ammer C, Schall P, Verbyla D, Tchebakova N, Fischer M, Watson JV, Chen HYH, Lei X, Schelhaas M-J, Lu H, Gianelle D, Parfenova EI, Salas C, Lee E, Lee B, Kim HS, Bruelheide H, Coomes DA, Piotto D, Sunderland T, Schmid B, Gourlet‐Fleury S, Sonké B, Tavani R, Zhu J, Brandl S, Vayreda J, Kitahara F, Searle EB, Neldner VJ, Ngugi MR, Baraloto C, Frizzera L, Bałazy R, Oleksyn J, Zawiła‐Niedźwiecki T, Bouriaud O, Bussotti F, Finér L, Jaroszewicz B, Jucker T, Valladares F, Jagodzinski AM, Peri PL, Gonmadje C, Marthy W, O’Brien T, Martin EH, Marshall AR, Rovero F, Bitariho R, Niklaus PA, Alvarez‐Loayza P, Chamuya N, Valencia R, Mortier F, Wortel V, Engone‐Obiang NL, Ferreira LV, Odeke DE, Vasquez RM, Lewis SL, Reich PB (2016) Positive biodiversity-productivity relationship predominant in global forests. Science 354(6309):aaf8957. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf8957

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Luu TC, Binkley D, Stape JL (2013) Neighborhood uniformity increases growth of individual Eucalyptus trees. For Ecol Manag 289:90–97

    Google Scholar 

  • MCPFE (1993) Resolution H1: General guidelines for the sustainable management of forests in Europe. Proc 2 Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, Helsinki, S 5

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitscherlich G (1971) Band, Waldklima und Wasserhaushalt. Wald, Wachstum und Umwelt, Bd. 2. JD Sauerländer’s Verlag, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Niklas KJ, Enquist BJ (2001) Invariant scaling relationships for interspecific plant biomass production rates and body size. Proc Natl Acad Sci 98(5):2922–2927

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Noss RF (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conserv Biol 4(4):355–364

    Google Scholar 

  • Otto HJ (1994) Waldökologie. Ulmer, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Peltola HM (2006) Mechanical stability of trees under static loads. Am J Bot 93(10):1501–1511

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pretzsch H (1985) Die Fichten‐Tannen‐Buchen‐Plenterwaldversuche in den ostbayerischen Forstämtern Freyung und Bodenmais. Forstarchiv 56(1):3–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Pretzsch H (2005) Stand density and growth of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.). Evidence from long-term experimental plots. Eur J Res 124:193–205

    Google Scholar 

  • Pretzsch H (2009) Forest dynamics, growth and yield. From measurement to model. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (664 S)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pretzsch H (2014) Canopy space filling and tree crown morphology in mixed-species stands compared with monocultures. For Ecol Manage 327:251–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Pretzsch H (2017) Size‐Structure Dynamics in Mixed Versus Monospecific Stands, S 211–269. In: Pretzsch H, Forrester DI, Bauhus J (Hrsg) Mixed‐Species Forests. Ecology and Management. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 653 S. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54553-9

    Google Scholar 

  • Pretzsch H, Biber P (2010) Size-symmetric versus size-asymmetric competition and growth partitioning among trees in forest stands along an ecological gradient in central Europe. Can J For Res 40:370–384

    Google Scholar 

  • Pretzsch H, del Río M, Ammer Ch, Avdagic A, Barbeito I, Bielak K, Brazaitis G, Coll L, Dirnberger G, Drössler L, Fabrika M, Forrester DI, Godvod K, Heym M, Hurt V, Kurylyak V, Löf M, Lombardi F, Matović B, Mohren F, Motta R, den Ouden J, Pach M, Ponette Q, Schütze G, Schweig J, Skrzyszewski J, Sramek V, Sterba H, Stojanović D, Svoboda M, Vanhellemont M, Verheyen K, Wellhausen K, Zlatanov T, Bravo‐Oviedo A (2015) Growth and yield of mixed versus pure stands of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) analysed along a productivity gradient through Europe. Eur F For Res 134(5):927–947. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-015-0900-4

    Google Scholar 

  • Pretzsch H, Schütze G (2014) Size-structure dynamics of mixed versus pure forest stands. For Syst 23(3):560–572

    Google Scholar 

  • Preuhsler T (1981) Ertragskundliche Merkmale oberbayerischer Bergmischwald‐Verjüngungsbestände auf kalkalpinen Standorten im Forstamt KreuthYield characteristics of mature, mixed mountain forest stands growing on alpine limestone sites in the Kreuth forest district in Upper Bavaria. Forstwissenschaftliches Cent 100(1):313–345

    Google Scholar 

  • Prodan M (1951) Messung der Waldbestände. JD Sauerländer’s Verlag, Frankfurt am Main (260 S)

    Google Scholar 

  • Prodan M (1965) Holzmeßlehre. JD Sauerländer’s Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, 644 S

    Google Scholar 

  • Putz FE, Parker GG, Archibald RM (1984) Mechanical abrasion and intercrown spacing. Am Midl Nat 112(1):24–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütz JP (1989) Der Plenterbetrieb. Fachbereich Waldbau, ETH, S 1–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütz JP (1997) Sylviculture 2. La gestion des forˆets irrégulières et mélangées. Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes, Lausanne (178 S)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwinning S, Weiner S (1998) Mechanisms determining the degree of size asymmetry in competition among plants. Oecologia 113:447–455

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pedro SM, Rammer W, Seidl R (2017) Disentangling the effects of compositional and structural diversity on forest productivity. J Veg Sci 28(3):649–658

    Google Scholar 

  • Skov KR, Kolb TE, Wallin KF (2004) Tree size and drought affect ponderosa pine physiological response to thinning and burning treatments. For Sci 50(1):81–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Soares AA, Leite HG, Souza AL, Silva SR, Lourenço HM, Forrester DI (2016) Increasing stand structural heterogeneity reduces productivity in Brazilian Eucalyptus monoclonal stands. For Ecol Manage 373:26–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Utschig H (1999) Reconversion of pure spruce stands into mixed forests: an ecological and economic valuation. In: Olsthoorn AFM, Bartelink HH, Gardiner JJ, Pretzsch H, Hekhuis HJ, Franc A (Hrsg) Management of mixed-species forest: Silviculture and economics. IBN Scientific Contributions, Bd. 15, S 319–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Valinger E, Lundqvist L, Bondesson L (1993) Assessing the risk of snow and wind damage from tree physical characteristics. Forestry 66(3):249–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandermeer JH (1992) The ecology of intercropping. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Verein Deutscher Forstlicher Versuchsanstalten (1902) Beratungen der vom Vereine Deutscher Forstlicher Versuchsanstalten eingesetzten Kommission zur Feststellung des neuen Arbeitsplanes für Durchforstungs- und Lichtungsversuche. AFJZ 78:180–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Weibull W (1951) A statistical distribution function of wide applicability. J Appl Mech 18:293–297

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiner J (1990) Asymmetric competition in plant populations. Trends Ecol Evol 5(11):360–364

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner J, Thomas SC (1986) Size variability and competition in plant monocultures. Oikos 47:211–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenk G, Antanaitis V, Šmelko S (1990) Waldertragslehre. Deutscher Landwirtschaftsverlag, Berlin (448 S)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wichmann L (2001) Annual variations in competition symmetry in even-aged Sitka spruce. Ann Bot 88:145–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Wichmann L (2002) Competition symmetry. Chapter 7. In: Modelling the effects of competition between individual trees in forest stands. Unit of Forestry, Copenhagen, S 67–77 (PhD Thesis)

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeide B (1993) Analyses of growth equations. Sci 39(3):594–616

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeller L, Liang J, Pretzsch H (2018) Tree species richness enhances stand productivity while stand structure can have opposite effects, based on forest inventory data from Germany and the United States of America. For Ecosyst 5(1):4

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeller L, Pretzsch H (2019) Effect of forest structure on stand productivity in Central European forests depends on developmental stage and tree species diversity. Forest Ecology and Management 434:193–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Zöhrer F (1969) Ausgleich von Häufigkeitsverteilungen mit Hilfe der Beta Funktion. Forstarchiv 40(3):37–42

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. TU München, Freising, Deutschland

    Prof. Dr. Hans Pretzsch

Authors
  1. Prof. Dr. Hans Pretzsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hans Pretzsch .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Pretzsch, H. (2019). Evolution der Größenverteilung der Bäume in Waldbeständen. In: Grundlagen der Waldwachstumsforschung. Springer Spektrum, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58155-1_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation