• Home
  • Prediction of Ecological Succession of the Beech-Hornbeam Stand (Case study: Kheyrood forest, Nooshahr Province)

Share To

Article Url


Manuscript ID : JEST-1805-4279 (R4) Visit : 62 Page: 149 - 162

10.30495/jest.2020.35897.4279

Article Type: Original Research

Prediction of Ecological Succession of the Beech-Hornbeam Stand (Case study: Kheyrood forest, Nooshahr Province)

Subject Areas : natural resorces

Mahdi  Kakavand 1 (Ph.D. of Forestry, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, I.R. Iran *(Corresponding Author))
Khosro  Sagheb-Talebi 2 (Prof., Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, I.R. Iran)
Kiomars  Sefidi 3 (Associate Professor, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran.)
Mohammadreza  Abdoli 4 (Assistant Prof., Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources Technology, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, I.R. Iran)
Mohamad- Reza  Marvi- MOHADJER 5 (Associate Prof., Forest Research Division, Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands, Tehran, I.R. Iran)
Moeteza  Moridi 6 (Ph.D. Student, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Sari, Iran)

Received: 2018-05-04 Accepted : 2018-10-17 Published : 2021-05-22

Keywords: DBH differentiation, Height differentiation, Layering, Deadwood, Competiti,

Abstract :

Background and Objective: Dynamics of Forest communities, before the climax stage, are very high, and small changes in the conditions of the stands would result in sudden responses such as dominant species changing or increasing the number of accessory species in the accessory stand. This study aims to predict the sequence of the beech- hornbeam stand toward beech stand in the semi-virgin forest Hyrcanian of northern Iran.Material& Methodology: After field studies, three sample plots with an area of ​​one hectare (100 × 100 m) were selected, which included hornbeam-beech type (middle stage type of Hyrcanian forest sequence). At first, four species turbulence factors, the ratio of number of seedlings to mother rootstocks, the percentage of abundance of dry matter and the indices of diameter and height differentiation in the sample plots were measured.Findings: Layering Charts of species indicate the conspicuous presence of beech in the understory of three stands with 61.3 percentage on average. In addition, the average number of proportion of seedlings to the number of mother trees in beech and hornbeam were are 30.1 and 2.3, respectively. The highest percentage of dead trees’ (67%) frequency in the plots is related to Hornbeam species. The results of the TDi and THi indexes charts, with averages of 0.13 and 0.1, respectively, demonstrate a dramatic competition between beech and hornbeam.Discussion and Conclusion: Through the measuring of the competition in natural stands and combining results with other factors such as stage and seedling frequency and layering in the stand indicate that beech would be likely to be replaced by hornbeem.

References:


  1. Knapp, H.D., 2005. Die globale Bedeutung der Kaspischen Wälder. In: Nosrati K, Marvie Mohadjer R, Bode W, Knapp HD (Eds) Schutz der Biologischen Vielfalt und integriertes Management der Kaspischen Wälder (nordiran). Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn, pp 45–70
    2.
  2. Sagheb-Talebi, K.h. Final report of National Research Project: Appropriate characteristics of beech stands for application of close to nature Silviculture (selection system). Tehran: Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands; 2014. 123p. (In Persian) 
    3.
  3. Zhu, J., Liu, Z., 2004. A review on disturbance ecology of forest. Journal of applied ecology, Vol. 15(10), pp. 1703-1710
    4.
  4. Pickett, S.T.A., Mcdonnell, M.J., 1989. Changing perspectives in community dynamics: a theory of succession forces. Trends Ecology Evolution, Vol. 4 (8), pp. 241-245
    5.
  5. Oliver, C.D., 1980. Forest development in North America following major disturbances. Forest ecology and management, Vol. 3 (2), pp. 153-168
    6.
  6. Paine, R.T., Levin, S.A., 1981. Intertidal landscapes: disturbance and the dynamics of pattern. Ecological monographs, Vol. 51 (2), pp. 145-178
    7.
  7. Oikonomakis, N., Ganatsas, P., 2012. Land cover changes and forest succession trends in site of Natura 2000 network (Elatia forest), in northern Greece. Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 285, pp. 153-163
    8.
  8. Horn, H. S., 1975. Forest succession. Scientific American, Vol. 232, pp. 90-98. 
    9.
  9.  Clements, E., 1916. Plant succession: an analysis of the development of vegetation. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Vol. 242, pp. 140-143
    10.
  10. Prach, K., Walker, L.R., 2011. Four opportunities for studies of ecological succession. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 26(3), pp. 119-123
    11.
  11. Walker, L.R., Del Moral, R. Primary Succession and Ecosystem Rehabilitation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003. 228p.
    12.
  12. Arroyo-Mora. P. Forest cover assessment, fragmentation analysis and secondary forest detection for the Chorotega Region, Costa Rica. MSc Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton. 2002; 111p
    13.
  13. Kalacska, M., Sanchez-Azofeifa, G.A., Calvo-Alvarado, J.C., Quesada, M.B., Janzen, D.H., 2004. Species composition, similarity and diversity in three successional stages of a seasonally dry tropical forest. Forest ecology and management, Vol. 200(1), pp. 227-247
    14.
  14. Marvie-Mohadjer, M.R. Silviculture, Karaj : University of Tehran Press ; 2013. 387p. (In Persian) 
    15.
  15. Kakavand, M., Marvi-Mohadjer, M.R., Sagheb-Talebi, Kh, Sefdi, K., 2015. Structural diversity of mixed beech stands in the middle stage of succession Case Study: Gorazbon, Forest Kheyrood Noushahr). Iranian Journal of Forest and Poplar Research, Vol. 22(3), pp. 411-422. (In Farsi with English abstract)
    16.
  16. Kakavand, M., Marvi-Mohadjer, M.R., Sagheb-Talebi, Kh. Sefdi, K., 2014. Structure and Composition of Oriental Beech Stands in the Middle Stage of Ecological Succession in the Hyrcanain Region. Journal of Research forest and wood products, Vol. 68 (1), pp. 31-45. (In Farsi with English abstract)
    17.
  17. Mitchell, K. J., 1975. Dynamics and simulated yield of Douglas-fir. Forest Science, Vol. 21(4), pp. 1-39
    18.
  18. Shugart, H.H., Wes, D.C., 1980. Forest succession models. BioScience, Vol. 30(5), pp. 308-313
    19.
  19. Shugart, H.H., West, D.C., Emanuel, W.R., 1981. Patterns and dynamics of forests: an application of simulation models: 74-94. In: West, D.C., Shugart, H.H. and Botkin, D.F. Forest Succession: Concepts and Application. Springer, New York, USA, 516p
    20.
  20. Oliver, C.D.  Larson, B. C. 1996. Forest Stand Dynamics, New York: John Wiley; 520 p.
    21.
  21. Finegan, B., 1984. Forest succession. Nature, Vol. 312(8), pp. 109-114
    22.
  22. Anonymous, Forest management plan of Kheyroud forest; 2003, 375p. (In Persian) 
    23.
  23. Etemad. V. Quantity and quality investigation seed of fagus in the forests of Mazandaran province. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Tehran. 2002; 258p. (In Persian) 
    24.
  24. Korpel. S., 1982. Degree of equilibrium and dynamical changes of the forest on example of natural forests of Slovakia. Acta facultatis forestalis zvolen, Vol. 24, pp. 9-31
    25.
  25. Zobeiry, M. Forest Inventory (Measurement of Tree and Forest). Karaj: University of Tehran Press; 2005. 401p. (In Persian) 
    26.
  26. Dhar, A., Ruprecht, H., Vacik, H., 2008. Population viability risk management (PVRM) for in situ management of endangered tree species (A case study on a Taxus baccata L. population). Forest ecology and management, Vol. 255 (7), pp. 2835-2845
    27.
  27. Pommerening, A., 2002 Approaches to quantifying forest structures. Journal of Forestry Research. Vol. 3 (1), pp. 305-324
    28.
  28. Fuldner, K., 1995. Zur Strukturbeschreibung in Mischbeständen. Forstarchiv. Vlo. 66, pp. 235–240.
    29.
  29. Queenborough, S.A., Burslem, D.F., Garwood, N.C., Valencia, R., 2007. Neighborhood and community interactions determine the spatial pattern of tropical tree seedling survival. Ecology, Vol. 88 (9), pp. 2248-2258
    30.
  30. South, D.B., Barnett, J.P., 1986. Herbicides and planting date affect early performance of container-grown and bare-root loblolly pine seedlings in Alabama. New Forests, Vol. 1 (1), pp. 17-27
    31.
  31. Sefidi, K., C.A. Copenheaver, Kakavand, M., Behjou, F.K., 2015. Structural Diversity within Mature Forests in Northern Iran: A Case Study from a Relic Population of Persian Ironwood (Parrotia persica CA Meyer). Forest Science, Vol. 61 (2), pp. 258-265
    32.
  32. Ruprecht, H., Dhar, A.B., Aigner, G., Oitzinger, R., Klumpp, A. Vacik, H., 2010. Structural diversity of English yew (Taxus baccata L.) populations. European Journal of Forest Research, Vol. 129 (2), pp. 189 –198
    33.
  33. Hajek, P., Seidel, D., Leuschner, C., 2015. Mechanical abrasion, and not competition for light, is the dominant canopy interaction in a temperate mixed forest. Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 348 (2), pp. 108-116.
    34.




 

_||_

  1. Knapp, H.D., 2005. Die globale Bedeutung der Kaspischen Wälder. In: Nosrati K, Marvie Mohadjer R, Bode W, Knapp HD (Eds) Schutz der Biologischen Vielfalt und integriertes Management der Kaspischen Wälder (nordiran). Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn, pp 45–70
    2.
  2. Sagheb-Talebi, K.h. Final report of National Research Project: Appropriate characteristics of beech stands for application of close to nature Silviculture (selection system). Tehran: Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands; 2014. 123p. (In Persian) 
    3.
  3. Zhu, J., Liu, Z., 2004. A review on disturbance ecology of forest. Journal of applied ecology, Vol. 15(10), pp. 1703-1710
    4.
  4. Pickett, S.T.A., Mcdonnell, M.J., 1989. Changing perspectives in community dynamics: a theory of succession forces. Trends Ecology Evolution, Vol. 4 (8), pp. 241-245
    5.
  5. Oliver, C.D., 1980. Forest development in North America following major disturbances. Forest ecology and management, Vol. 3 (2), pp. 153-168
    6.
  6. Paine, R.T., Levin, S.A., 1981. Intertidal landscapes: disturbance and the dynamics of pattern. Ecological monographs, Vol. 51 (2), pp. 145-178
    7.
  7. Oikonomakis, N., Ganatsas, P., 2012. Land cover changes and forest succession trends in site of Natura 2000 network (Elatia forest), in northern Greece. Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 285, pp. 153-163
    8.
  8. Horn, H. S., 1975. Forest succession. Scientific American, Vol. 232, pp. 90-98. 
    9.
  9.  Clements, E., 1916. Plant succession: an analysis of the development of vegetation. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Vol. 242, pp. 140-143
    10.
  10. Prach, K., Walker, L.R., 2011. Four opportunities for studies of ecological succession. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 26(3), pp. 119-123
    11.
  11. Walker, L.R., Del Moral, R. Primary Succession and Ecosystem Rehabilitation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003. 228p.
    12.
  12. Arroyo-Mora. P. Forest cover assessment, fragmentation analysis and secondary forest detection for the Chorotega Region, Costa Rica. MSc Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton. 2002; 111p
    13.
  13. Kalacska, M., Sanchez-Azofeifa, G.A., Calvo-Alvarado, J.C., Quesada, M.B., Janzen, D.H., 2004. Species composition, similarity and diversity in three successional stages of a seasonally dry tropical forest. Forest ecology and management, Vol. 200(1), pp. 227-247
    14.
  14. Marvie-Mohadjer, M.R. Silviculture, Karaj : University of Tehran Press ; 2013. 387p. (In Persian) 
    15.
  15. Kakavand, M., Marvi-Mohadjer, M.R., Sagheb-Talebi, Kh, Sefdi, K., 2015. Structural diversity of mixed beech stands in the middle stage of succession Case Study: Gorazbon, Forest Kheyrood Noushahr). Iranian Journal of Forest and Poplar Research, Vol. 22(3), pp. 411-422. (In Farsi with English abstract)
    16.
  16. Kakavand, M., Marvi-Mohadjer, M.R., Sagheb-Talebi, Kh. Sefdi, K., 2014. Structure and Composition of Oriental Beech Stands in the Middle Stage of Ecological Succession in the Hyrcanain Region. Journal of Research forest and wood products, Vol. 68 (1), pp. 31-45. (In Farsi with English abstract)
    17.
  17. Mitchell, K. J., 1975. Dynamics and simulated yield of Douglas-fir. Forest Science, Vol. 21(4), pp. 1-39
    18.
  18. Shugart, H.H., Wes, D.C., 1980. Forest succession models. BioScience, Vol. 30(5), pp. 308-313
    19.
  19. Shugart, H.H., West, D.C., Emanuel, W.R., 1981. Patterns and dynamics of forests: an application of simulation models: 74-94. In: West, D.C., Shugart, H.H. and Botkin, D.F. Forest Succession: Concepts and Application. Springer, New York, USA, 516p
    20.
  20. Oliver, C.D.  Larson, B. C. 1996. Forest Stand Dynamics, New York: John Wiley; 520 p.
    21.
  21. Finegan, B., 1984. Forest succession. Nature, Vol. 312(8), pp. 109-114
    22.
  22. Anonymous, Forest management plan of Kheyroud forest; 2003, 375p. (In Persian) 
    23.
  23. Etemad. V. Quantity and quality investigation seed of fagus in the forests of Mazandaran province. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Tehran. 2002; 258p. (In Persian) 
    24.
  24. Korpel. S., 1982. Degree of equilibrium and dynamical changes of the forest on example of natural forests of Slovakia. Acta facultatis forestalis zvolen, Vol. 24, pp. 9-31
    25.
  25. Zobeiry, M. Forest Inventory (Measurement of Tree and Forest). Karaj: University of Tehran Press; 2005. 401p. (In Persian) 
    26.
  26. Dhar, A., Ruprecht, H., Vacik, H., 2008. Population viability risk management (PVRM) for in situ management of endangered tree species (A case study on a Taxus baccata L. population). Forest ecology and management, Vol. 255 (7), pp. 2835-2845
    27.
  27. Pommerening, A., 2002 Approaches to quantifying forest structures. Journal of Forestry Research. Vol. 3 (1), pp. 305-324
    28.
  28. Fuldner, K., 1995. Zur Strukturbeschreibung in Mischbeständen. Forstarchiv. Vlo. 66, pp. 235–240.
    29.
  29. Queenborough, S.A., Burslem, D.F., Garwood, N.C., Valencia, R., 2007. Neighborhood and community interactions determine the spatial pattern of tropical tree seedling survival. Ecology, Vol. 88 (9), pp. 2248-2258
    30.
  30. South, D.B., Barnett, J.P., 1986. Herbicides and planting date affect early performance of container-grown and bare-root loblolly pine seedlings in Alabama. New Forests, Vol. 1 (1), pp. 17-27
    31.
  31. Sefidi, K., C.A. Copenheaver, Kakavand, M., Behjou, F.K., 2015. Structural Diversity within Mature Forests in Northern Iran: A Case Study from a Relic Population of Persian Ironwood (Parrotia persica CA Meyer). Forest Science, Vol. 61 (2), pp. 258-265
    32.
  32. Ruprecht, H., Dhar, A.B., Aigner, G., Oitzinger, R., Klumpp, A. Vacik, H., 2010. Structural diversity of English yew (Taxus baccata L.) populations. European Journal of Forest Research, Vol. 129 (2), pp. 189 –198
    33.
  33. Hajek, P., Seidel, D., Leuschner, C., 2015. Mechanical abrasion, and not competition for light, is the dominant canopy interaction in a temperate mixed forest. Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 348 (2), pp. 108-116.
    34.




 

Related articles

The rights to this website are owned by the Raimag Press Management System.
Copyright © 2021-2024

Home| Login| About Us| Contact Us|
[فارسی] [العربية] [fa] [ar]