IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v483y2023ics0304380023001412.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Competition in forest plantations: Empirical and process-based modelling in pine and eucalypt plantations

Author

Listed:
  • Barbosa, Lorena Oliveira
  • dos Santos, Juscelina Arcanjo
  • Gonçalves, Anny Francielly Ataide
  • Campoe, Otávio Camargo
  • Scolforo, José Roberto Soares
  • Scolforo, Henrique Ferraço

Abstract

Competition for resources among trees, shrubs and weeds in forest plantations is an important factor that directly interferes with the growth and production of forests. Understanding the ways in which plantation trees compete for resources during their development helps to more accurately estimate tree growth and wood production in models. Growth and production models are classified as empirical or process-based models. For both types of models, competition is added either directly as a numerical variable or indirectly through submodels that quantify the use of available resources for growth among plants. The first part of this article is a contextualization of how competition is embedded in empirical (G&YM) and process-based (PBM) growth and production models. The second part is a systematic review between the years 1999–2021 that seeks to answer the questions “Which species in Brazil has the highest number of publications on competition in G&YM and PBM? Which competition assessment methods are used in studies on G&YM and PBM in Pinus and Eucalyptus plantations in Brazil? What were the advances in studies on competition in G&YM and PBM in Pinus and Eucalyptus plantations?” The largest number of articles published during the period studied was in Eucalyptus plantations, which is because there is a larger area of these plantations in Brazil compared to Pinus plantations. The review showed that competition in most articles is treated indirectly using basal area, number of trees, density, and Beer-Lambert law. Competition is a complex process to assess, however, not neglected by the models. The contrary, studies have advanced and shown direct ways to competition by incorporating processes and indices in either G&YM and PBM.

Suggested Citation

  • Barbosa, Lorena Oliveira & dos Santos, Juscelina Arcanjo & Gonçalves, Anny Francielly Ataide & Campoe, Otávio Camargo & Scolforo, José Roberto Soares & Scolforo, Henrique Ferraço, 2023. "Competition in forest plantations: Empirical and process-based modelling in pine and eucalypt plantations," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 483(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:483:y:2023:i:c:s0304380023001412
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2023.110410
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380023001412
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2023.110410?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Forrester, David I. & Tang, Xiaolu, 2016. "Analysing the spatial and temporal dynamics of species interactions in mixed-species forests and the effects of stand density using the 3-PG model," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 319(C), pages 233-254.
    2. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    3. Sainte-Marie, J. & Saint-André, L. & Nouvellon, Y. & Laclau, J.-P. & Roupsard, O. & le Maire, G. & Delpierre, N. & Henrot, A. & Barrandon, M., 2014. "A new probabilistic canopy dynamics model (SLCD) that is suitable for evergreen and deciduous forest ecosystems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 290(C), pages 121-133.
    4. Martha Swamila & Damas Philip & Adam Meshack Akyoo & Julius Manda & Lutengano Mwinuka & Philip J. Smethurst & Stefan Sieber & Anthony Anderson Kimaro, 2021. "Profitability of Gliricidia-Maize System in Selected Dryland Areas of Dodoma Region, Tanzania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Curtis L. VanderSchaaf & Harold E. Burkhart, 2007. "Relationship Between Maximum Basal Aarea Carrying Capacity and Maximum Size-density Rrelationships," Modern Applied Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 1(4), pages 1-3, November.
    6. Masae Iwamoto Ishihara & Yasuo Konno & Kiyoshi Umeki & Yasuyuki Ohno & Kihachiro Kikuzawa, 2016. "A New Model for Size-Dependent Tree Growth in Forests," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, April.
    7. Michel Loreau & Andy Hector, 2001. "Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments," Nature, Nature, vol. 412(6842), pages 72-76, July.
    8. Monty, Arnaud & Lejeune, Philippe & Rondeux, Jacques, 2008. "Individual distance-independent girth increment model for Douglas-fir in southern Belgium," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 212(3), pages 472-479.
    9. Gupta, Rajit & Sharma, Laxmi Kant, 2019. "The process-based forest growth model 3-PG for use in forest management: A review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 397(C), pages 55-73.
    10. Caplat, Paul & Anand, Madhur & Bauch, Chris, 2008. "Symmetric competition causes population oscillations in an individual-based model of forest dynamics," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 211(3), pages 491-500.
    11. Pretzsch, Hans & Forrester, David I. & Rötzer, Thomas, 2015. "Representation of species mixing in forest growth models. A review and perspective," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 313(C), pages 276-292.
    12. Michel Loreau & Andy Hector, 2001. "Erratum: Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments," Nature, Nature, vol. 413(6855), pages 548-548, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sarah R. Weiskopf & Forest Isbell & Maria Isabel Arce-Plata & Moreno Di Marco & Mike Harfoot & Justin Johnson & Susannah B. Lerman & Brian W. Miller & Toni Lyn Morelli & Akira S. Mori & Ensheng Weng &, 2024. "Biodiversity loss reduces global terrestrial carbon storage," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, December.
    2. Xie, Yalin & Lei, Xiangdong & Shi, Jingning, 2020. "Impacts of climate change on biological rotation of Larix olgensis plantations for timber production and carbon storage in northeast China using the 3-PGmix model," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 435(C).
    3. Garba, Ismail I. & Bell, Lindsay W. & Chauhan, Bhagirath S. & Williams, Alwyn, 2024. "Optimizing ecosystem function multifunctionality with cover crops for improved agronomic and environmental outcomes in dryland cropping systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    4. Gabriela Woźniak & Monika Malicka & Jacek Kasztowski & Łukasz Radosz & Joanna Czarnecka & Jaco Vangronsveld & Dariusz Prostański, 2022. "How Important Are the Relations between Vegetation Diversity and Bacterial Functional Diversity for the Functioning of Novel Ecosystems?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-16, December.
    5. Chun-Wei Chang & Takeshi Miki & Hao Ye & Sami Souissi & Rita Adrian & Orlane Anneville & Helen Agasild & Syuhei Ban & Yaron Be’eri-Shlevin & Yin-Ru Chiang & Heidrun Feuchtmayr & Gideon Gal & Satoshi I, 2022. "Causal networks of phytoplankton diversity and biomass are modulated by environmental context," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-11, December.
    6. Guangzhou Wang & Haley M. Burrill & Laura Y. Podzikowski & Maarten B. Eppinga & Fusuo Zhang & Junling Zhang & Peggy A. Schultz & James D. Bever, 2023. "Dilution of specialist pathogens drives productivity benefits from diversity in plant mixtures," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.
    7. Yuxin Liu & Chenjing Fan & Dongdong Xue, 2024. "A Review of the Effects of Urban and Green Space Forms on the Carbon Budget Using a Landscape Sustainability Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-29, February.
    8. Nölte, Anja & Yousefpour, Rasoul & Hanewinkel, Marc, 2020. "Changes in sessile oak (Quercus petraea) productivity under climate change by improved leaf phenology in the 3-PG model," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 438(C).
    9. Jonathan S. Lefcheck & Graham J. Edgar & Rick D. Stuart-Smith & Amanda E. Bates & Conor Waldock & Simon J. Brandl & Stuart Kininmonth & Scott D. Ling & J. Emmett Duffy & Douglas B. Rasher & Aneil F. A, 2021. "Species richness and identity both determine the biomass of global reef fish communities," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-9, December.
    10. Luiz A. Domeignoz-Horta & Seraina L. Cappelli & Rashmi Shrestha & Stephanie Gerin & Annalea K. Lohila & Jussi Heinonsalo & Daniel B. Nelson & Ansgar Kahmen & Pengpeng Duan & David Sebag & Eric Verrecc, 2024. "Plant diversity drives positive microbial associations in the rhizosphere enhancing carbon use efficiency in agricultural soils," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, December.
    11. D. G. Kapayou & E. M. Herrighty & C. Gish Hill & V. Cano Camacho & A. Nair & D. M. Winham & M. D. McDaniel, 2023. "Reuniting the Three Sisters: collaborative science with Native growers to improve soil and community health," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(1), pages 65-82, March.
    12. Chuangang Gong & Dazhi Ni & Yuna Liu & Yalei Li & Qingmei Huang & Yu Tian & Hao Zhang, 2024. "Herbaceous Vegetation in Slope Stabilization: A Comparative Review of Mechanisms, Advantages, and Practical Applications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-18, September.
    13. Barbara Emmenegger & Julien Massoni & Christine M. Pestalozzi & Miriam Bortfeld-Miller & Benjamin A. Maier & Julia A. Vorholt, 2023. "Identifying microbiota community patterns important for plant protection using synthetic communities and machine learning," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-15, December.
    14. Liting Zheng & Kathryn E. Barry & Nathaly R. Guerrero-Ramírez & Dylan Craven & Peter B. Reich & Kris Verheyen & Michael Scherer-Lorenzen & Nico Eisenhauer & Nadia Barsoum & Jürgen Bauhus & Helge Bruel, 2024. "Effects of plant diversity on productivity strengthen over time due to trait-dependent shifts in species overyielding," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-14, December.
    15. György Barabás & Christine Parent & Andrew Kraemer & Frederik Perre & Frederik Laender, 2022. "The evolution of trait variance creates a tension between species diversity and functional diversity," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, December.
    16. Ulrich, Werner & Gotelli, Nicholas J. & Strona, Giovanni & Godsoe, William, 2024. "Reconsidering the Price equation: Benchmarking the analytical power of additive partitioning in ecology," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 491(C).
    17. Douglas Toledo & Cristiane Akemi Umetsu & Antonio Fernando Monteiro Camargo & Idemauro Antonio Rodrigues Lara, 2022. "Flexible models for non-equidispersed count data: comparative performance of parametric models to deal with underdispersion," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 106(3), pages 473-497, September.
    18. Pinnschmidt, Arne & Yousefpour, Rasoul & Nölte, Anja & Hanewinkel, Marc, 2023. "Tropical mixed-species plantations can outperform monocultures in terms of carbon sequestration and economic return," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    19. Lessa Derci Augustynczik, Andrey & Yousefpour, Rasoul, 2021. "Assessing the synergistic value of ecosystem services in European beech forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    20. Sergei Schaub & Nadja El Benni, 2024. "How do price (risk) changes influence farmers’ preferences to reduce fertilizer application?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 55(2), pages 365-383, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:483:y:2023:i:c:s0304380023001412. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.