Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Konopka, Bohdan; Pajtik, Jozef; Marusak, Robert; Bosela, Michal; Lukac, Martin (2016)
Publisher: Elsevier
Languages: English
Types: Article
European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) and Norway spruce (Picea abies Karst.) are two of the most ecologically and economically important forest tree species in Europe. These two species co-occur in many locations in Europe, leading to direct competition for canopy space. Foliage characteristics of two naturally regenerated pure stands of beech and spruce with fully closed canopies were contrasted to assess the dynamic relationship between foliage adaptability to shading, stand LAI and tree growth. We found that individual leaf size is far more conservative in spruce than in beech. Individual leaf and needle area was larger at the top than at the bottom of the canopy in both species. Inverse relationship was found for specific leaf area (SLA), highest SLA values were found at lowest light availability under the canopy. There was no difference in leaf area index (LAI) between the two stands, however LAI increased from 10.8 to 14.6 m2m-2 between 2009 and 2011. Dominant trees of both species were more efficient in converting foliage mass or area to produce stem biomass, although this relationship changed with age and was species-specific. Overall, we found larger foliage plasticity in beech than in spruce in relation to light conditions, indicating larger capacity to exploit niche openings.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Albrektson, A., 1984. Sapwood basal area and needle mass of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) trees in central Sweden. Forestry 57, 35-43.
    • Aranda, I., Pardo, F., Gil, L., Pardos, J.A., 2004. Anatomical basis of the change in leaf mass per area and nitrogen investment with relative irradiance within the canopy of eight temperate tree species. Acta Oecol 25, 187-195.
    • Barna, M., 2004. Adaptation of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) to different ecological conditions: leaf size variation. Pol J Ecol 52, 35-45.
    • Bolstad, P.V., Gower, S.T., 1990. Estimation of leaf area index in fourteen southern Wisconsin forest stands using a portable radiometer. Tree Phys 7, 115-124.
    • Bréda, N.J.J., 2003. Ground-based measurements of leaf area index: A review of methods, instruments and current controversies. J Exp Bot 54, 2403-2417.
    • Bussotti, F., Borghini, F., Celesti, C., Leonzio, C., Bruschi, P., 2000. Leaf morphology and macronutrients in broadleaved trees in central Italy. Trees 14, 361-368.
    • Canham, C.D., 1988. Growth and canopy architecture of shade-tolerant trees: response to canopy gaps. Ecology 69, 786-795.
    • Chen, J.M., Rich, P.M., Gower, S.T., Norman, J.M., Plummer, S., 1997. Leaf area index of boreal forests: theory, techniques, and measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984-2012) 102, 29429-29443.
    • Cienciala, E., Exnerova, Z., Schelhaas, M.J., 2008. Development of forest carbon stock and wood production in the Czech Republic until 2060. Ann For Sci 65, -.
    • Claesson, S., Sahlén, K., Lundmark, T., 2001. Functions for biomass estimation of young Pinus sylvestris, Picea abies and Betula spp. from stands in northern Sweden with high stand densities. Scand J For Res 16, 138-146.
    • Closa, I., Irigoyen, J.J., Goicoechea, N., 2010. Microclimatic conditions determined by stem density influence leaf anatomy and leaf physiology of beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) growing within stands that naturally regenerate from clear-cutting. Trees 24, 1029-1043.
    • Delagrange, S., Messier, C., Lechowicz, M.J., Dizengremel, P., 2004. Physiological, morphological and allocational plasticity in understory deciduous trees: importance of plant size and light availability. Tree Phys 24, 775-784.
    • Dombroskie, S.L., Aarssen, L.W., 2012. The leaf size/number trade-off within species and within plants for woody angiosperms. Plant Ecology and Evolution 145, 38-45.
    • Ellenberg, H., Leuschner, C., 1996. Vegetation mitteleuropas mit den alpen. Ulmer, Stuttgart.
    • Fehrmann, L., Kleinn, C., 2006. General considerations about the use of allometric equations for biomass estimation on the example of Norway spruce in central Europe. For Ecol Manage 236, 412-421.
    • Ford, E.D., 1982. High productivity in a polestage Sitka spruce stand and its relation to canopy structure. Forestry 55, 1-17.
    • Gebauer, R., Volařík, D., Urban, J., Børja, I., Nagy, N.E., Eldhuset, T.D., Krokene, P., 2011. Effect of thinning on anatomical adaptations of Norway spruce needles. Tree Phys 31, 1103-1113.
    • Hager, H., Sterba, H., 1985. Specific leaf area and needle weight of Norway spruce (Picea abies) in stands of different densities. Can J For Res 15, 389-392.
    • Hallik, L., Niinemets, Ü., Wright, I.J., 2009. Are species shade and drought tolerance reflected in leaf-level structural and functional differentiation in Northern Hemisphere temperate woody flora? New Phytol 184, 257-274.
    • Herbert, D.A., Fownes, J.H., 1999. Forest productivity and efficiency of resource use across a chronosequence of tropical montane soils. Ecosystems 2, 242-254.
    • Jack, B.S., Sheffield, M.C.P., McConville, D.J., others, 2002. Comparison of growth efficiency of mature longleaf and slash pine trees. General Technical Report SRS-48, 81-85.
    • Johansson, T., 1996. Estimation of canopy density and irradiance in 20-to 40-year-old birch stands (Betula pubescens Ehrh. and Betula pendula Roth). Trees 10, 223-230.
    • Kantor, P., Šach, F., Černohous, V., others, 2009. Development of foliage biomass of young spruce and beech stands in the mountain water balance research area. J For Sci 55, 51- 62.
    • King, D.A., 1990. The adaptive significance of tree height. Am Nat, 809-828.
    • Konôpka, B., Pajtík, J., Moravčík, M., Lukac, M., 2010. Biomass partitioning and growth efficiency in four naturally regenerated forest tree species. Basic Appl Ecol 11, 234-243.
    • Konôpka, B., Pajtík, J., Šebeň, V., Bošeľa, M., Máliš, V., Priwitzer, T., Pavlenda, P., 2013. The research site Vrchslatina - an experimental design and the main aims. Lesnícky časopis - Forestry Journal 59, 203-213.
    • Kraft, G., 1884. Beiträge zur lehre von den durchforstungen, schlagstellungen und lichtungshieben. Klindeorth.
    • Kull, O., Broadmeadow, M., Kruijt, B., Meir, P., 1999. Light distribution and foliage structure in an oak canopy. Trees 14, 55-64.
    • Leuschner, C., Vo\s s, S., Foetzki, A., Clases, Y., 2006. Variation in leaf area index and stand leaf mass of European beech across gradients of soil acidity and precipitation. Plant Ecol. 186, 247-258.
    • Long, J.N., Smith, F.W., 1990. Determinants of stemwood production in Pinus contorta var. latifolia forests: the influence of site quality and stand structure. J Appl Ecol, 847-856.
    • Marshall, J.D., Waring, R.H., 1986. Comparison of methods of estimating leaf-area index in old-growth Douglas-fir. Ecology, 975-979.
    • Merilo, E., Tulva, I., Räim, O., Kükit, A., Sellin, A., Kull, O., 2009. Changes in needle nitrogen partitioning and photosynthesis during 80 years of tree ontogeny in Picea abies. Trees 23, 951-958.
    • Milla, R., Reich, P.B., Niinemets, Ü., Castro-Díez, P., 2008. Environmental and developmental controls on specific leaf area are little modified by leaf allometry. Funct Ecol 22, 565- 576.
    • [a 3000
    • lee 2000
  • Inferred research data

    The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    Title Trust
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article