| Literature DB >> 23527066 |
Chunyu Zhang1, Yanbo Wei, Xiuhai Zhao, Klaus von Gadow.
Abstract
This contribution identifies spatial characteristics of tree diameter in a temperate forest in north-eastern China, based on a fully censused observational study area covering 500×600 m. Mark correlation analysis with three null hypothesis models was used to determine departure from expectations at different neighborhood distances. Tree positions are clumped at all investigated scales in all 37 studied species, while the diameters of most species are spatially negatively correlated, especially at short distances. Interestingly, all three cases showing short-distance attraction of dbh marks are associated with light-demanding shrub species. The short-distance attraction of dbh marks indicates spatially aggregated cohorts of stems of similar size. The percentage of species showing significant dbh suppression peaked at a 4 m distance under the heterogeneous Poisson model. At scales exceeding the peak distance, the percentage of species showing significant dbh suppression decreases sharply with increasing distances. The evidence from this large observational study shows that some of the variation of the spatial characteristics of tree diameters is related variations of topography and soil chemistry. However, an obvious interpretation of this result is still lacking. Thus, removing competitors surrounding the target trees is an effective way to avoid neighboring competition effects reducing the growth of valuable target trees in forest management practice.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23527066 PMCID: PMC3602579 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0058983
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Example of a kernel smoothed intensity map showing the point pattern.
The map colours show the intensities (number of trees per m2) of Syringa reticulata var. amurensis and the elevation contours at 10-m intervals within the 30-ha study area. The unit of the axes is meters.
Figure 2Exemplary results for Syringa reticulata var. amurensis to illustrate the analysis.
Diagram a presents the spatial distribution pattern using the L function. Diagrams b, c and d show the spatial characteristics of the diameter distribution evaluated by the mark correlation function. The significance of a and b was tested by the homogeneous Poisson model, c by the random labeling model, and d by the heterogeneous Poisson model. Dashed lines indicate the confidence envelopes, while solid lines indicate the L or MCF values calculated from the observations. When the solid line was below the lower envelope, inside both envelopes, or above the upper envelope, the pattern was assumed to be significantly regular, spatially random, or significantly aggregated in the L-function analysis. Correspondingly, a solid line above the upper envelope, inside both envelopes, or below the lower envelope, indicates significant positive, independent, or negative correlation of dbh marks in the MCF analysis.
Spatial characteristics of tree locations and tree dbhs at 0–50 m distances.
| Species name | Lightshade | Canopyundergrowth |
| Marked point pattern at different distances | ||
| Homogeneous Poisson model ( | Random labeling model ( | Heterogeneous Poisson model ( | ||||
|
| L | C | 0–50 (+) | 0–50 (r) | 0–50 (r) | 0–6 (−) |
|
| L | C | 0–50 (+) | 0–50 (−) | 0–32 (−) | 0–42,47–50 (−) |
|
| L | U | 0–50 (+) | 0–7 (−) | 0–11 (−) | 0–10 (−) |
|
| L | U | 0–50 (+) | 20–28 (+) | 0–16,20–29 (+) | 0–15,20–30,39–46 (+) |
|
| L | U | 0–50 (+) | 8–26,41–50 (−) | 0–26 (−) | 0–27 (−) |
|
| S | C | 0–50 (+) | 0–50 (r) | 0–50 (r) | 0–50 (r) |
|
| L | C | 0–50 (+) | 0–50 (r) | 0–3 (−) | 0–8 (−) |
|
| S | U | 0–50 (+) | 0–50 (r) | 0–5 (+),35–50 (−) | 0–15 (+),35–50 (−) |
|
| S | U | 0–50 (+) | 22–29,32–34,42–50 (−) | 44–50 (–) | 43–50 (−) |
|
| L | C | 0–50 (+) | 0–50 (r) | 0–15 (−) | 0–15 (−) |
|
| M | U | 0–50 (+) | 0–50 (r) | 0–50 (r) | 0–50 (r) |
|
| L | C | 0–50 (+) | 0–5 (−) | 0–7 (−) | 0–7 (−) |
|
| L | C | 0–50 (+) | 0–50 (r) | 0–50 (r) | 0–2 (−) |
|
| S | U | 0–50 (+) | 0–22 (+) | 0–19 (+) | 0–20 (+) |
|
| L | C | 0–50 (+) | 41–50 (−) | 0–5,17–22,41–50 (−) | 0–5,15–25,35–50 (−) |
|
| L | C | 0–50 (+) | 0–2 (−) | 0–6 (−) | 0–6 (−) |
|
| L | U | 0–50 (+) | 0–50 (r) | 0–50 (r) | 0–50 (r) |
|
| L | U | 0–50 (+) | 0–50 (r) | 0–10 (−) | 0–12 (−) |
|
| L | C | 0–50 (+) | 0–50 (r) | 36–42 (−) | 0–50 (r) |
|
| L | C | 0–50 (+) | 48–50 (+) | 0–50 (r) | 0–50 (r) |
|
| M | U | 0–50 (+) | 0–50 (r) | 0–50 (r) | 0–50 (r) |
|
| L | U | 0–50 (+) | 39–50 (+) | 0–14 (−) | 0–17 (−) |
|
| L | C | 0–50 (+) | 0–50 (r) | 18–45 (−) | 18–45 (−) |
|
| L | C | 0–50 (+) | 0–50 (−) | 0–50 (−) | 0–50 (−) |
|
| L | U | 0–50 (+) | 5–14,19−26 (+) | 0–26 (−) | 0–26 (−) |
|
| M | U | 0–50 (+) | 0–50 (r) | 0–50 (r) | 0–50 (r) |
|
| S | U | 0–50 (+) | 15–50 (−) | 17–26,48–50 (−) | 17–50 (−) |
|
| L | C | 0–50 (+) | 0–50 (r) | 0–50 (r) | 0–50 (r) |
|
| L | C | 0–50 (+) | 0–50 (−) | 0–41 (−) | 0–45 (−) |
|
| S | U | 0–50 (+) | 0–50 (r) | 0–4 (−) | 0–4 (−) |
|
| L | C | 0–50 (+) | 0–24 (−) | 0–19 (−) | 0–24 (−) |
|
| S | C | 0–50 (+) | 3–8 (−) | 0–12 (−) | 0–12 (−) |
|
| S | U | 0–50 (+) | 0–50 (r) | 0–50 (r) | 0–50 (r) |
|
| L | C | 0–50 (+) | 0–50 (r) | 0–4 (−) | 0–4 (−) |
|
| M | C | 0–50 (+) | 0–50 (r) | 0–50 (r) | 0–50 (r) |
|
| L | C | 0–50 (+) | 0–50 (r) | 36–46 (−) | 4–7,36–46 (−) |
|
| L | C | 0–50 (+) | 0–50 (r) | 3–11 (−) | 3–11 (−) |
Note: L means light; S means shade and M means middle. C means canopy trees and U means understory.
Spatial point patterns were tested for randomness using the L-function. The spatial characteristics of tree dbhs were analyzed by the homogeneous Poisson (HomP), random labeling (RLM) and heterogeneous Poisson (HetP). Spatial distances at which tree locations show significant aggregation, regularity and randomness are indicated by the symbols “+” in parenthesis in L-function. Spatial distances at which tree locations and tree dbh marks show significant positive, independent and negative correlation are indicated by the symbols “+”, “r” and “−” in parenthesis, respectively.
Figure 3Proportion of species exhibiting significant departures from randomness.
Diagram presents the proportion of species showing significant suppression of dbh marks (lines with solid circles), attraction of dbh marks (solid lines) and independence of dbh marks (dashed lines) under the heterogeneous Poisson model. For each distance, the three values add up to 100.
Figure 4Pearson's correlations between the coefficient of variation of tree diameters and topographical variables.
*** indicated a significance at the 0.001 level.