Tree diameter structural diversity in Central European forests with Abies alba and Fagus sylvatica: managed versus unmanaged forest stands. Issue 2 (30th December 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pach, Maciej; Podlaski, Rafał
• Is Part Of: Ecological research. Volume 30:Issue 2(2015)
• Page Start: 367
• Page End: 384
• Publication Date: 2014-12-30
• Subjects: Structural diversity -- Structural types -- Tree diameter distribution -- Mixture models -- Forest management; Ecology -- Periodicals; Ecology -- Japan -- Periodicals; Écologie; Japon; Ecology; Japan; Ressource Internet (Descripteur de forme); Périodique électronique (Descripteur de forme); Periodicals; 577.05
• DOI: 10.1007/s11284-014-1232-4
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0912-3814

Abstract

Abstract: The biodiversity of forest stands should be analysed from the point of view of not only compositional elements but also structural diversity. The main objective of this study was to compare tree diameter structural diversity of the mixed managed and unmanaged stands with Abies alba and Fagus sylvatica . There were 62 study plots established in the Carpathians (Southern Poland) and in the Świętokrzyskie Mountains (Central Poland) in managed and unmanaged stands. The comparison of the studied stands involved the identification and modelling of size structures, the use of the Gini coefficient and the relative distribution method (including entropy and polarisation). Six structural types were distinguished: three unimodals of a different width of diameter at breast height (DBH) range (mainly for the managed stands), reverse‐J, rotated‐sigmoid and bimodal (for unmanaged stands). Modelling of the distinguished structural types by means of theoretical distributions has shown that the best results of approximation for unimodal skewed and reverse‐J DBH distributions were obtained with the single Weibull and gamma distribution, while in the case of rotated‐sigmoid and bimodal DBH distributions the best results were obtained with mixture models. The comparisons have shown that tree diameter structural diversity was more complex in unmanaged forests compared to managed stands. For managed stands the Gini coefficient assumed values from 0.31 to 0.48, while in the case of the unmanaged forests, from 0.33 to 0.73. One should aim to increase tree diameter structural diversity in managed forests, adopting the close‐to‐nature silviculture concept which consists of imitating natural processes.