INFLUENCES OF SPECIES MIXTURE ON BIOMASS OF NORWAY SPRUCE (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) FORESTS IN THE DUSSELDORF DISTRICT IN GERMANY

Öz

Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) is an important tree species for forest plantation in Germany. The

planting tree has a very large area especially in Düsseldorf province. And pattern of growing is mixture of with

Norway spruce and other tree species. The effect of tree diversity on productivity is poorly understood in

subtropical forests in Germany. We investigated the biomass of tree, understory vegetation, coarse roots and fine

roots with varying proportions of Norway spruce mixed other tree species at the stands in the same age. With an

increase proportion of Norway spruce, biomass of tree and understory biomass increased at first, and then

gradually decreased. As expected, biomass of fine roots decreased with soil depth. Stands with 40-60% of

Norway spruce had the highest biomass, while stands with <20% of Norway spruce had the least biomass.

Stands with <20% Norway spruce had the least understory biomass, while those with 20-40% Masson pine had

the least fine root biomass.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Norway spruce

INFLUENCES OF SPECIES MIXTURE ON BIOMASS OF NORWAY SPRUCE (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) FORESTS IN THE DUSSELDORF DISTRICT IN GERMANY

Abstract

Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) is an important tree species for forest plantation in Germany. The planting tree has a very large area especially in Düsseldorf province. And pattern of growing is mixture of with Norway spruce and other tree species. The effect of tree diversity on productivity is poorly understood in subtropical forests in Germany. We investigated the biomass of tree, understory vegetation, coarse roots and fine roots with varying proportions of Norway spruce mixed other tree species at the stands in the same age. With an increase proportion of Norway spruce, biomass of tree and understory biomass increased at first, and then gradually decreased. As expected, biomass of fine roots decreased with soil depth. Stands with 40-60% of Norway spruce had the highest biomass, while stands with <20% of Norway spruce had the least biomass. Stands with <20% Norway spruce had the least understory biomass, while those with 20-40% Masson pine had the least fine root biomass. 

Keywords

• Norway spruce,mixed forest,biomass,arboreal stratum,undergrowth

References

1. Arthur M A, Fahey T J.(1992).Biomass and nutrients in an Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir forest in north central Colorado: pool, annual production and internal cycling. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 22: 315-325.
2. Cardinale B J, Wright J P, Cadotte M W. (2007). Impacts of plant diversity on biomass production increase through time because of species complementarity radley. PANS 104:18123-18128.
3. Fogel R, Hunt G. (1979).Fungal and arboreal biomass in a western Oregon Douglas-fir ecosystem: distribution patterns and turnover. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 9: 245-256.
4. Gill R A, Jackson R B. (2000).Global patterns of root turnover for terrestrial ecosystems. New Phytologist 147: 13-31.
5. Grier C C, Vogt K A, Keyes M R (1981). Biomass distribution and above-and below-ground production in young and mature Abies amabilis zone ecosystem of the Washington Cascades. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 11: 155-167.
6. Hall, D.O. (1997). Biomass energy in industrialised countries – a view of the future. Forest Ecology and Management 91: 17–45.
7. Hendrick R L, Pregitzer K S. (1993).The dynamics of fine root, length, biomass, and nitrogen content in two northern hardwood ecosystems. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 23: 2507-2520.
8. Hooper D U, Chapin F S, Ewel J. J. (2005).Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs 75:3-35.

9. Isbell, F I, Polley H W, Wilsey,B J. (2009). Biodiversity, productivity and the temporal stability of productivity: patterns and processes. Ecology Letters 12:443-451
10. Jackson R B, Mooney H A, Schulze E D. (1997). A global budget for fine root biomass, surface area and nutrient contents. PANS 94: 7362-7366.
11. Jenkins, J.C., Chojnacky, D.C., Heath, L.S. & Birdsey, R.A. (2003). National-scale biomass estimators for United States tree species. Forest Science 49: 12–35.
12. Loreau M, Hector A. (2001). Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 412:72–76.
13. Loreau M ,Naeem S, Inchausti P. (2001). Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Current Knowledge and Future Challenges. Science 294:804-808
14. Marquard, E., Weigelt, A., Temperton, V.M. (2009). Plant species richness and functional composition drive overyielding in a six-year grassland experiment. PANS 90:3290–3302.
15. Pande, P. K. (2005). Biomass and productivity in some disturbed tropical dry deciduous teak forests of Satpura plateau, Madhya Pradesh .Tropical Ecology 46: 229-239
16. Pregitzer K S, Hendrick R L, Fogel R..(1993). The demography of fine roots in response to patches of water and nitrogen. New Phytologist 125: 575-580.
17. Saraçoğlu, N. (1991). Kızılağaç gövde hakim ve biyokütle tablolarının düzenlenmesi. İ.Ü Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, Seri A, Cilt:41, Sayı:1, 121-139.
18. Saraçoğlu, N. (1998). Kayın biyokütle tabloları. TÜBİTAK Türk Tarım ve Ormancılık Dergisi, Cilt:22, Sayı:1, 93-100.
19. Saraçoğlu, N. (2011). Construction of tree biomass tables in Turkey for estimating of biomass potential for energy. Energy Sources, Part B, 6: 96-105.
20. Spehn, E.M., Hector, A., Joshi, J. (2005). Ecosystem effects of biodiversity manipulations in European grasslands. Ecological Monographs 75:37–63.
21. Tilman D, Wedin D. Knops J. (1996). Productivity and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Nature 379:718–720.
22. Tilman D (1999).The ecological consequences of changes in biodiversity: a search for general principles. Ecology 80:1455–1474
23. Usman S, Singh S P, Rawat Y S. (2000). Fine root decomposition and nitrogen mineralization patterns in Quercus leucotrichophora and Pinus roxburghii forests in central Himalaya. Forest Ecology and Management 131: 191-199.
24. Vogt K. A, Crier C. C, Gower S T. (1986). Overestimation of net root production: A real or imaginary problem. Ecology 67: 577-579.
25. Zianis, D., Muukkonen, P., Mäkipää, R. & Mencuccini, M. (2005). Biomass and stem volume equations for tree species in Europe. Silva Fennica Monographs 4. 63 p.