Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Thinning: An Overview

Written By

Ana Cristina Gonçalves

Submitted: March 20th, 2020 Reviewed: July 21st, 2020 Published: August 18th, 2020

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.93436

Chapter metrics overview

443 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Thinning is one of the primordial silvicultural practices. It has been analysed by its methods and intensities, associated to the tree selection criteria. Yet, while some methods are of generalised use, others were developed for specific purposes. The goal of this review is to compile the existing information regarding tree selection, thinning methods and intensity as well as their effects on trees and stands. The effects of thinning indicate a reduction of density and a trend towards an increase of growth rates at tree level for a short time after thinning. Biomass and volume show similar or smaller values when compared to unthinned stands. Mortality and growth stagnation, especially in stands with low stability or vigour, can also occur. The modifications in stand structure can enhance its role as an adaptive measure.

Keywords

  • method
  • intensity
  • stand structure
  • growth
  • adaptive measure

1. Introduction

Stand and forest management encompasses a set of silvicultural practices which are designed according to its goals. Among these, thinning is of primordial importance as it influences stand structure, tree and stand growth, products, yields and diversity.

In time, the trees of a stand occupy gradually the available growing space, developing simultaneously facilitation and competitive interactions [1]. The balance between these two interactions is dynamic, but competition increases with the decrease of the growing space. The result is that individuals with competitive advantages reallocate the growing space formerly occupied by other individuals with less competitive advantages and suppress them. This originates from the development of a social structure which, when growing space is fully occupied, derives in the death of the suppressed individuals, that is, self-thinning [2].

Thinning implies always the removal of trees with the main goal of allocating the growing space to those better suited to the desired productions and yields [2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. The removal of trees can have both positive and negative effects. The positive, are related to the reduction of competition, anticipation of volume losses due to self-thinning, increase of diameter growth rate, increase of timber value and revenue and reduction of the damages due to the abiotic and biotic disturbances. The negative, are associated with the reduction of total volume, risk of mortality or growth stagnation, cost of the operation, damages in the remaining trees and risk of damages by abiotic and biotic agents [2, 6].

In literature, thinning has been analysed according to its method and intensity as well as with the tree selection criteria. Yet, while some methods are of generalised use, others were developed for specific purposes. The main goal of this review is to compile the existing information regarding tree selection, thinning methods and intensity as well as their effects on trees and stands. The chapter is organised in four sections. Section 2 describes and characterises tree selection criteria. Section 3 analyses the thinning methods and intensity. Section 4 analyses the effects of thinning on stand structure, growth, products and as an adaptive measure.

Advertisement

2. Tree selection

Tree selection plays one of the key roles in thinning, as one of its main objectives is the reallocation of growing space to a set of trees in the stand. Care has to be taken so that the trees maintained in the stand are able to use the growing space made available [2, 6, 7]. Thus, it has to be thought at two complementary levels: (i) at tree level, reallocating the growing space to the trees kept so that they reach the desired growth rates, yields and product quality and (ii) at stand level, optimising yield for the desired production cycle, which is also related to density, spatial arrangement and site quality. These levels derive from two tree development traits, namely, the intrinsic and the external. The former is mainly driven by genetics, preponderant when trees grow isolated. In the latter, the growing space availability determines trees development [1, 2, 8]. These complementary objectives enable balancing interactions to achieve growing space use optimization and improve the overall stand quality and yield.

The need of selecting trees enhanced the development of tools to evaluate growing stock, stability, potential photosynthetic ability and growth rate [1, 2, 3, 6, 9]. One of the mostly used is the tree classification system. Their main advantages are that tree and stand description, evaluation and monitoring (both spatial and temporal) can be carried out with a set of qualitative criteria, needless of forest inventories. The stand evaluation is quick with low costs and helps to implement silvicultural practices. The disadvantages are related to their development or adaptation to stand structure and management goals, to not enabling a quantitative evaluation and to the need of skilled practitioners [2, 6, 7, 8, 10].

Due to the variety of stand structures and management goals, many tree classification systems were developed. They evolved in time, increasing in complexity, as more criteria were included to increase accuracy and precision [7, 8, 11]. Typically, tree classification systems are grouped in two broad classes according to the stand structure and production goals. One is directed towards pure even-aged stands with one main production (timber), for example, of kraft [10], of 1902 [10], English [12], of Assmann [2], Belgian [3], of Meadows and Skojac [11]. The other is directed to pure or mixed uneven-aged systems with one main production or several ones, for example, of Assmann [2], of Florence [8], of IUFRO [7], of Meadows [13] and of Perkey classification [14].

The concept of future trees is related to tree characteristics, moment of selection, number of trees per unit area and their spatial arrangements.

The criteria associated with the future tree characteristics referred in independent studies (e.g. [3, 6, 7, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19]) are similar, and eight criteria can be pointed out: (i) vigour and good sanitary conditions, (ii) social position (dominant or codominant), (iii) suitability of the species mixture, (iv) vertical straight stem, (v) without stem deformation (forks) up to 6–8 m for timber and 2–4 m for bark and fruit production, (vi) wood without serious defects, (vii) final ramification, few small branches in the case of timber production and to be promoted to increase production in the case of bark and fruit and (viii) balanced crown. These criteria can be totally or partially used depending on the management and production goals.

The moment to designate the future trees is not consensual, however, some guidelines have been reported [3, 7, 17, 19]: (i) social position maintenance – young trees have higher probability of social regression than adult ones; (ii) species tolerance to shade – shade-tolerant trees are able to live suppressed and, after release, are able to ascend to dominant positions whether intolerant are not; (iii) low risk of sudden death or break and free of wounds – trees should be vigorous, stable, in good sanitary conditions and without injuries; (iv) stability – trees should be stable enough so that after release they are able to develop with low probability of falling down and (v) longevity – it should be ensured that they are able to reach the end of the production cycle. The selection should then be made as earlier as possible, as soon as the probability of changing social status is low. It can be done when trees reach 10–25 cm of diameter at breast height [3, 17], or 20 m of dominant height [17] or 10–14 m of stem height [17]. When it is convenient to designate future trees very early in time, a preselection of the future trees is recommended, followed by their selection later, for example, after 30–40 years [3, 4, 7].

The number of trees per unit area is determined by the release from the competition of the future trees during the entire production cycle, to optimise their development. A density between 80 and 250 trees ha−1 is suggested [4, 7]. The better the site quality and the shorter the production cycle, the higher their number. The larger the crowns and the lower the shade tolerance, the lower their number [7].

The spatial arrangement of the future trees should be uniform to enable a more efficient and complete use of the growing space while maintaining the growth rate at highest desired levels, which corresponds to a mean spacing of ≈7–12 m, depending on the species ecological and cultural characteristics [4, 7].

Advertisement

3. Thinning method and intensity

Thinning method or type can be defined by the classes and social position of the removed trees, although other parameters such as stem and crown characteristics are also important [2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Nine methods have been identified, namely from below, from above, selective or Schädelin, of dominants, mechanical, free, compensation, crown release and variable density thinning.

Thinning from the belowmain goal is to favour the best trees of the upper layer, of better dimensions and crowns. The removal of the individuals starts with the dead, dying and dominated, and only if necessary the codominant and dominant individuals (mainly, individuals of bad characteristics) are removed. It has low effect in the subsequent growth of the remaining stand. Thus, it only anticipates the normal pattern of tree senescence and dead in an unthinned stand. It is suited for sites where water is a limiting factor [2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. The best results are attained with intolerant species, where the stems of the inferior layers do not have or only have a limited reaction to release [6].

Thinning from the abovemain goal is to favour the best trees of the upper layer until the end of rotation. The trees to be removed are predominantly in the upper layer and in direct competition with the best trees. The inferior layers are maintained with the objectives of enhancing natural pruning, soil protection, reducing spontaneous vegetation development, increasing resistance to wind and maintaining or enhancing wildlife habitat. However, the tree removal in the inferior layers can be considered for aesthetical reasons or to reduce the risk of fire, creating vertical discontinuity [2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. It is better suited for shade or semi-shade-tolerant species, in pure and mixed stands, especially when quality trees are found in an adequate number in the superior layers. It is not suited for shade-intolerant species, especially in the later stages of development [6].

Selectiveor Schädelin thinning’smain assumption is the selection of the future trees. They can be selected in all social classes, according to a set of criteria (cf. Section 2). The thinning is focused on the release of the future trees, with the removal of all competitors and the maintenance of trees that can be useful or do not interfere with them. Also, the future trees should have, as much as possible, a uniform spacing. Its selection is not static in time, especially in young development stages. Thus, before each thinning they have to be checked and, if necessary, reselected [7, 20, 21]. The main goal of this thinning is the optimization of the production in value rather than in volume, favouring at the same time the mechanical and ecological stability [7, 20].

Thinning of dominantsis focused on the upper layers. The dominant and the codominant trees are removed, including the more promising and those of the intermediate and inferior layers are favoured. It is suited for a reduced set of objectives, and care should be taken so that it does not derive in the harvest of the best trees. Three approaches can be considered, as a function of the objectives and number interventions [6]:

  1. Thinning of dominants with temporary character: The goal is to improve the overall stand, with the promotion of lower layers that have individuals with good characteristics, both in growth and quality. It is suited for stands where the irregular or low density has originated dominants of bad quality; for shade-tolerant species, as the stems in the lower layers maintain their vigour and ability to react to release and it is less suited for intolerant species, yet it can be used in young stands where trees have not lost their vigour. It should be done as earlier as possible and should be replaced by the thinning from below as soon as the trees reach the superior layer.

  2. Thinning of dominants with permanent character: The goal is the production of small- and medium-dimension timber. The objective is to promote canopy gaps that enhance regeneration with the largest possible number of individuals with the removal of dominant trees. When the stand is dense and uniform, this method is replaced by the thinning from below. The rotation length is considerably shortened.

  3. Thinning of dominants combined with thinning from below: The goal is forming a superior layer with codominant individuals. It minimises the negative effects of the thinning of dominants, especially in very dense unthinned stands. Its main disadvantage is the tendency to increase the losses due to biotic and abiotic disturbances.

Mechanicalor geometric thinningis associated to large spacing silviculture with selected material, in which the removal of a tree is more related with its location than with its position, because the goal is to maintain a regular cover. It is advantageous in young, very dense unthinned stands. Two subtypes can be identified: spacing, where the trees at a certain distance of the selected tree are removed; and rowor strip, where the individuals of one or several lines are removed [6].

Free thinninggoal is the selection of a set of trees which are maintained in free growth until the end of the rotation in order to produce high quantity of timber with high quality [22]. It is directed to oak species and rotations of less than 100 years. It begins with the selection of the future trees with a density of 60–80 trees ha−1, uniformly spaced. It is followed by the removal of all the trees whose crown distance from a future tree is less than 25% of the mean crown width (assumption to be maintained throughout rotation, to keep future trees in free growth). As a secondary silvicultural practice, pruning is recommended up to a height of 6 m as well as removing the epicormic branches [22, 23]. It has also been used in mixtures of conifers and oaks, and oaks in pure or mixed stands with Fraxinus excelsior, Acer pseudoplatanusand Prunus avium[24].

Compensation thinning’s(éclairci de ratrapage) aim is favouring the future trees that have sufficient stability and well-balanced crowns, being less important in their spatial distribution and their optimal distance. It is frequently linked with the goal of keeping stand stability and should have light intensity. It is preferred in stands without or with thinnings of low intensity in the past. In these cases, only the dominant stems are able to react to release, and thus codominant individuals should be preferably removed. It is especially suited for stands in steep slope areas where it is easy to overestimate distances due to crown overlapping and asymmetry [7].

Crown releasing thinning’s(éclairci misse en lumiére) main goal is regulating future trees in old growth development stage. The trees’ metabolism and growth, capacity of reaction to release and ability to redo their crowns are lower than in the mature ones. The social positions are nearly definite, and the probability of individuals of the inferior social classes to ascend to upper classes is low. Future trees are released from competition from those of the intermediate layers as the dominant competitors were removed in the former thinnings. The objective is to maintain or increase diameter growth, to allow the largest possible increase of productivity in value. The intensity should be light and periodicity should be long, according to the trees’ growth rates [7].

Variable density thinning’sgoal is to promote variability and heterogeneity, both spatial (horizontal and vertical) and structural [25, 26, 27, 28], as well as stimulate late-successional forest structures, reduce stand density, alter species composition [25, 26, 29] and be a restauration tool [27, 30, 31]. It assumes the unevenly removal of trees, creating gradients of density in the stand. This is implemented with the creation of patches with variable spatial distribution, where canopy gaps and patches of different densities coexist [26, 27, 32]. The proportion of each patch type is also variable according to the intended complexity of stand structure, the existing stand structure, the species composition and spatial arrangement [31, 32]. Six protocols are referred, which due to their similarities were grouped in four types [32]:

  1. Randomised grid: Stand area is divided in a grid with cells of equal area and the number of individuals to be maintained is randomly sorted. Two target densities can be chosen, low (≈185 trees ha−1) and moderate (≈370 trees ha−1).

  2. Dx rule: Selected trees define density depending on site variability and tree dimensions. The area of influence of each selected tree is defined by a circle proportional to the diameter at breast height by k-fold (e.g. k = 2). In this area, trees between a diameter range are removed, while those outside it are kept. The upper and lower thresholds can be defined per stand or per species. The areas outside the circles are not thinned.

  3. Spacing thinning: Stand area is divided in a square point grid (e.g. ≈5 × 5 or 6 × 6 m) as well as a buffer for each point (e.g.≈1.2 m). For each buffer area, the best tree larger than a diameter threshold is selected and released from the competition.

  4. Localised release: Stand area is divided in a point square grid associated to a buffer (e.g.7.6 m of radius). In each circular area, three trees are selected irrespective of their spatial arrangement with the same rules as the former type, while the areas outside the buffers are either thinned with about 3.6 m spacing in the row space outside the buffers or remain unthinned (e.g.third or fourth row).

Thinning intensityor degreeis more frequently evaluated by the number of trees or basal area, as function of the amount of removed in relation of the total number of stems (RN=NremNt, where Nrem is the number of removed trees, and Nt is the total number of trees) or basal area (RG=GremGt, where Grem is the basal area removed, and Gt is the total basal area). It is frequently grouped in three classes: light, moderate and heavy. The most consensual ranges for light intensity are ≤25% of the number of trees and <20% of the basal area, for moderate 50% of the number of trees and 20–35% of the basal area and for heavy >50% of the number of trees and >35% of the basal area [33, 34].

Advertisement

4. Thinning effects

The main goals of thinning are to improve residual trees’ efficiency, encompassing to concentrate growth on a selected subset of trees, thus controlling density and reallocating the growing space and reducing competition among trees while promoting their growth [35, 36, 37, 38, 39]. It is also considered as a mean of capturing tree mortality, providing early financial return, increasing future merchantable volume and financial value of timber [39, 40, 41]. Moreover, density threshold (or thinning intensity) enables to keep volume growth [42], which depends too on the species, stand development stage and site [41, 43, 44]. The thinning effects will be discussed for density, stand structure, stability, mortality and growth stagnation, growth, wood, biomass and carbon stocks, soil and understorey and as an adaptive measure.

Regardless of the method and intensity of thinning, densitydecreases always. All thinning methods increase individual tree growth due to the increase in growing space and reduction of competition [45, 46, 47, 48], especially in the long term [47]. The method affects differently tree interactions post thinning. In the thinning from below, the interactions in the upper layer are maintained [7, 49], while in the thinning from above, compensation and crown releasing thinning are reduced [7, 34, 50]. In the thinning of dominants, there is a change in the interactions in the intermediate layer, which is a consequence of the removal of the upper layer [6, 51, 52]. In the free and mechanical thinnings, the spatial pattern of interactions is kept [6, 22, 23]. In the Schädelin and variable density thinnings, future trees are released from competition, resulting in the alteration of the spatial patterns of interaction, both horizontal and vertical [7, 32].

In general, the heavier the thinning intensity, the higher the decrease of density and the lower the competition. This derives in different growth reactions post thinning, which is also related to stand development stage and site quality, with growth rates increasing with thinning intensity and site quality and decreasing from initial to old growth development stages [41, 43, 50, 53].

Stand structureis affected by thinning, producing more or less accentuated changes depending on its method and intensity. This changes with the increase of light, water and nutrients levels (e.g.[54, 55]). These alterations can be observed in the diameter and height distributions, canopy stratification and spatial arrangements of trees. Thinning from below and of dominants narrow the range of diameter and height distributions and decrease canopy stratification due to the preferential removal of trees with smaller and larger dimensions, respectively [52]. Thinning from above and of Schädelin keep the range of diameter and height distributions and maintain or increase canopy stratification [20, 39, 52, 56, 57]. Compensation and crown releasing, free and mechanical thinnings tend to keep diameter and height distribution ranges and canopy stratification [6, 7, 23]. Variable density thinning increases diameter and height distribution ranges and maintains or increases canopy stratification [29, 58, 59, 60]. The tree spatial arrangements after thinning depend on those prior to thinning. A regular spacing was reported for thinnings from below, while from above and of dominants have been referred as a trend towards cluster one at low and intermediate distances [52]. Schädelin thinning tends to derive in a uniform or cluster distribution when future trees are at uniform distances or in clusters [20].

Stand stabilitydepends on individual tree morphology and their spatial arrangement. It is frequently evaluated by diameter at breast height, total height, hdratio (defined as quotient between total height and diameter at breast height, with both variables in the same units), stem taper, crown dimensions, crown eccentricity and crown inclination as well as root architecture [61, 62, 63]. For the same diameter at breast height, the taller the total height, the higher the hdratio and the lower the stability. The increase of stability can be achieved with thinning, as it promotes diameter growth, the hdratio reduction and stem taper increase [21, 61, 63]. The crown dimensions (width and length), eccentricity and inclination depend on stand structure and species traits, which are determined primordially by the amount of light. The higher the light level and the wider the spacing, the higher crown volume, and the higher the shade tolerance, the higher the crown dimensions. The constellation of neighbours reducing or promoting irregular available aerial space can promote the development of eccentric crowns and stem inclination and thus reducing stability [64, 65]. Stability is attained more efficiently with thinnings at younger ages as it enables a more favourable above- and below-ground morphology [21, 66]. Also, heavy thinnings promote tree morphologies that are more stable than moderate or light ones [21, 41, 66]. Thinnings from below increase stability by the removal of trees with the less suited morphologies (e.g.higher hdratio), and increase with the increase of intensity due to the reduction of hdratio and increase of stem taper [37, 67, 68] and crown length and crown ratio (the coefficient between crown length and total height) [69, 70]. Thinnings from above and of dominants removing trees from the upper layer may decrease stability, especially when associated to trees with high hdratio and due to unbalance of aerial/root systems, eccentric crowns and the swaying of trees [35, 52, 71]. Schädelin, variable density and free thinning maintain or improve stability of thinning as the trees more stable are selected [20, 22, 32, 72]. Compensation and crown release thinning maintain stability [7].

Mortalityafter thinning can be caused by increased tree swaying due to wind or snow [71, 73] or is associated to shallow root systems’ water stress [35, 36]. In general, it is higher in the thinning from above and of dominants than from below [52] or Schädelin [72]. Growth stagnation[74] is linked to the reduction of growth increment [75, 76], sometimes associated to drought events [77, 78, 79].

The thinning effects on growthare related to a suite of factors such as method and intensity, age, species traits, density (cf. density section), stand structure (cf. stand structure section) and time after thinning.

In general, thinning increases growing space and favours certain classes of trees. This results in asymmetric competition [80, 81], that is, the share of resources used by larger trees is disproportionally larger than those used by smaller trees, resulting in the growth suppression of the latter [35, 80]. Thus the increase in growth at tree level is maintained or enhanced by the methods where release occurs in the upper layers and/or favours future trees (from above, Schädelin, free, compensation, crown release or variable density thinnings) [7, 20, 23, 30, 31, 39, 59, 60, 8283]. This is especially true if the thinning is carried out before canopy closure and crown recession [47]. It can be explained by two factors: the available growing space and the individual tree growth strategies. In closed canopy stands, the upper layers absorb most radiation, the taller trees cast shade on their smaller neighbours and tree swaying may derive branch abrasion [1]. These three factors promote height growth and constrain crown lateral development [84]. In fact, it has been reported that the dominant height increases with density for broadleaved species [41, 85], due its effects on epinastic control and specificities of stand development at early ages [41]. The inverse has been reported for the conifers [86, 87].

Thinning intensity influences directly density and thus the availability of growing space for individual stems, which in turn affects height, stem and crown growth [69, 88, 89]. Growth, at tree-level basis, increases with thinning intensity [37, 50, 71, 89, 90]. In general, smaller/medium and/or younger trees react faster and with higher growth rates than larger ones [50, 75, 91]. After moderate and heavy thinnings, especially those carried out early, dominant and codominant trees have higher radial growth than supressed ones [37, 38, 67, 71, 75]. Stand age and site also curtails the response to thinning, the younger the stand and the better site quality, the larger the diameter increments [37]. Moreover, dominant trees have higher diameter growth [37] and need less time to react to release [91]. This is especially true with mature trees that have reached their maximum growth potential [35, 71]. However, a positive trend in above-ground biomass has been reported for large trees [92, 93, 94]. This trend seems to be linked with shade tolerance. Shade-intolerant species increase growth with light increase, though reaching maximum annual growth at younger ages conversely to shade-tolerant species [35, 77]. Also, according to Bose et al. [35], thinning intensity plays a less important role in growth increase after thinning in very shade-tolerant species than in shade-intolerant ones as the former are not able to use the increased growing space after thinning (especially light) efficiently.

Differences in tree reaction to thinning with age also depend on the stand history. While in unthinned stands, recovery decreased with stand age, it did not decrease in thinned stands [95], at least partially explained, by the larger crowns in thinned stands that enable a faster recovery of growth [95, 96].

After thinning, the trees increase their growth, frequently 1–3 years after thinning [50, 82] due to the availability of growing space. The growth increase derives in the increase of crown volume (width and length), crown cover [90, 97] and foliar mass enhancing photosynthetic capacity, as the lower parts of the crowns receive more light than unthinned stands [98]. As trees occupy gradually the available growing space, the growth rate decreases [35, 36, 99] after reaching the maximum (about 3 years after thinning), attaining 7–8 years after thinning, growth levels similar to the unthinned stands [50]. Primicia et al. [99] reported that magnitude and duration of thinning effects on growth (stem and crown diameter) as well as on mortality seem to be more related to thinning intensity than with thinning method.

Wood quantityand qualitycan be improved by thinning. In general, quantity per tree increases with thinning intensity [100], though it depends also on the species and their ecological and cultural traits. Light thinnings favour more regular growth rings, especially interesting for timber, though with overall smaller diameter growth, while heavy thinnings promote larger annual growth rings [77, 101]. The counterpart of thinning is the development of large branches that reduce the wood quality. Consequently, a compromise has to be equated between low and high densities as function of the species and its traits (e.g.epinastic control and natural pruning ability), associated frequently to future tree selection, pruning and early silvicultural operations [21, 37, 38, 83], especially in what regards wolf trees, which should be removed as early as possible [102].

In general, thinning reduces biomassand carbon storagewhen compared with unthinned stands, the decrease is higher in thinning from above and of dominants [39, 103] than from below [104, 105]. Yet, the effects of thinning are dependent also on the individual tree development stage, their growth rates and density after thinning [106, 107]. In the short term, thinning of young trees results in a reduction of above-ground carbon even if there is an increase of the individual tree’s growth rate, because they are not able to use all the growing space available, that is, they do not fully occupy the site [104, 108]. In general, increasing thinning intensities result in decreasing standing and deadwood biomass and literfall [109, 110]. At stand level, it seems that biomass and carbon storage is the result of the interaction between the density and size of the overstorey trees. Though with an inverse relationship, they balance each other, resulting in a rather constant above-ground carbon stock, regardless of whether stands are thinned or not [39, 41], especially with early thinning from below [41].

Soiland understoryvegetations are affected by thinning. If biomass residues are kept in the stand, their decomposition incorporates carbon in the soil. Thinning increasing decomposition rates decreases the soil carbon stocks. In the 0–10 cm of the soil layer, carbon stock is higher than in the 10–20 cm layer [39, 40], due to higher decomposition rates [111]. Yet, with time and tree growth, soil carbon stocks tend to be similar in thinned and unthinned stands [112]. Zhang et al. [39] reported that soil carbon stocks prior and 5 years after thinning were similar. Thinnings originate higher light levels in the lower storeys, which can result in higher transpiration and water loss by evaporation (e.g.[54, 55]) and increase of the understorey vegetation, the higher the thinning intensity [39]. This is particularly negative if it is composed mainly by shrub vegetation [39]. Yet, heavy thinnings favour pasture production, a suitable option for agroforestry systems [90, 113].

Thinnings are considered primordial adaptive measures as they can reduce vulnerability to climate change, fires, droughts and increase diversity.

Thinning can reduce vulnerability to climate change [95] as it controls stand density [41]. It can improve tree and stand growth by releasing growing space (e.g.[41, 77, 114]), including increasing water availability and their use efficiency [77, 101], thus mitigating the effects of the droughts (i.e. water deficits) [77, 95, 114, 115].

Fire prevention is enhanced by thinnings (including also pruning) as they reduce the quantity and horizontal and vertical continuity of fuel, [116] enabling stands to withstand surface fires [117] and increase the canopy seed bank storage [118].

Thinning intensity has a primordial effect on the magnitude and duration of the drought effects on trees and stands. The higher the proportion of crown cover removed, the longer the effects of thinning, that is, more water reaches the soil, enabling drought effects’ mitigation [95, 101, 119]. Less-intensive thinnings reach pre-thinning transpiration levels in a few years, [55, 114] while in heavy ones they last longer [119], occasioning tree growth rates’ increase [95, 101, 120]. Broadleaved species seem to have developed resistance mechanisms, mitigating diameter growth reduction [121]. This can be due to the deeper root systems [122] and spring radial growth (especially in the ring-porous species) is much larger than in the autumn one [123]. Conifers seem to have improved recovery and resilience mechanisms, probably due to more precipitation reaching the soil and transpiration reduction [95, 121]. Regardless of tree species, the stronger the drought severity, the longer the recovery period in diameter growth [95], which is probably related to the longer period needed to restore the soil water and to rebuild fine root system [124]. Thus, species with higher expansion rates, increase of leaf area (assimilation ability) and fine roots (water absorption ability), are expected to have more benefits from thinning [115, 125].

An increased diversity in stand structure, especially in pure even-aged stands, particularly in plantations, can be derived from thinning in tree’ dimensions [126] and/or their variability [20, 39, 52, 57] as well as in species and their proportions [127] and produces greater trade-offs with other ecosystem services [128, 129]. This is especially valid with methods that promote variability, such as Schädelin or variable density thinnings.

Advertisement

5. Conclusion

Stand structure and production goals influence the thinning method and its intensity, which in turn affects stand structure and the quantity and quality of the products. Thus, it is of primordial importance the selection of the most suitable methods (that can be more than one during the production cycle) as well as their intensities (which can vary too along the production cycle) that have also to be suited to the products and services desired to the forest stand. Thinning is frequently linked to tree selection. Tree classification systems are quick, low-cost tools that enable thinning implementation and are also a monitoring tool that enables the evaluation of the dynamics of the forest stands.

All thinnings reduce density, however, their effects on density, stand structure, growth, soil, understorey vegetation and diversity depend on the method and intensity of thinning, stand development stage and site quality. The positive effects of thinning are the increase in growth and production, especially in value, and the reduction of the vulnerability of the forest systems to climate change, droughts and fire. The negative effects are related to the reaction of the trees to release, which can cause mortality, growth stagnation or no increase of the growth rates.

Advertisement

Acknowledgments

This work is funded by National Funds through FCT–Foundation for Science and Technology, under the Project UIDB/05183/2020 (MED) and Project UID/EMS/50022/2019 (through IDMEC, under LAETA).

References

  1. 1. Oliver CD, Larson BC. Forest Stand Dynamics. Update ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 1996. pp. 544
  2. 2. Assmann E. The Principles of Forest Yield Study. Pergamon Press; 1970. pp. 506
  3. 3. Boudru M. Forêt et Sylviculture. Le Traitement des Forêts. Vol. Tome 2. Gembloux: Presses Agronomiques de Gembloux; 1989. pp. 344
  4. 4. Lanier L, Badré M, Delabraze P, Dubourdieu J, Flammarion JP. Précis de Sylviculture. Engref: Nancy; 1986. pp. 468
  5. 5. Matthews JD. Silvicultural Systems. Oxford: Claredon Press; 1989. pp. 284
  6. 6. Smith DM, Larson BC, Kelty MJ, Ashton PMS. The Practice of Silviculture. Applied Forest Ecology. 9th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1997. pp. 560
  7. 7. Schütz JP. Sylviculture 1. Principes d’Éducation des Forêts. Lausanne: Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes; 1990. pp. 245
  8. 8. Florence RG. Ecology and Silviculture of Eucalyptus Forests. Csiro Publishing; 1996. pp. 413
  9. 9. O’Hara KL. Multiaged Silviculture Managing for Complex Forest Stand Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014. pp. 213
  10. 10. Pretzsch H. Forest dynamics, growth, and yield. Berlin: Springer; 2009. pp. 664
  11. 11. Meadows JS, Skojac DAA. New tree classification system for Southern Hardwoods. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 2008;32(2):69-79
  12. 12. Kerr G, Haufe J. Thinning Practice—A Silvicultural Guide. 2011. p. 54
  13. 13. Meadows JS, Burkhardt EC, Johnson RL, Hodges JD. A numerical rating system for crown classes of southern hardwoods. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 2001;25:154-158
  14. 14. Perkey AW, Wilkins BL, Smith HC. Crop Tree Management in Eastern Hardwoods. USDA, Forest Service; 1993. pp. 58 (NA-TP-19-93)
  15. 15. Gonçalves AC. Modelação de povoamentos adultos de pinheiro bravo com regeneração de folhosas na Serra da Lousã. Lisboa: Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa; 2003
  16. 16. Gonçalves AC. Estabelecimento de ensaios para avaliação do efeito do primeiro desbaste no desenvolvimento de montados de sobro. 1996
  17. 17. Oswald H. Résultats principaux des places déxpérience de chêne du centre national de recherches forestières. Revue Forestière Française. 1981;XXXIII(no sp):65-85
  18. 18. Polge H. Prodution de chênes de qualité. Revue Forestiére Francaise. 1984;(no sp):34-48
  19. 19. Roy FX. La désignation des arbres de place dans les futaies de chêne destinées à fournir du bois de tranchage. Revue Forestiére Francaise. 1975;XXVII(1):50-60
  20. 20. Boncina A. Comparison of structure and biodiversity in the Rajhenav virgin forest remnant and managed forest in the Dinaric region of Slovenia. Global Ecology and Biogeography. 2000;9(3):201-211
  21. 21. Cameron AD. Importance of early selective thinning in the development of long-term stand stability and improved log quality: A review. Forestry. 2002;75(1):25-35
  22. 22. Jobling J, Pearce ML. Free-growth of oak. Forest Record. 1977;113:3-17
  23. 23. Kerr G. The effect of heavy or “free growth” thinning on oak (Quercus petraeaandQ . robur). Forestry. 1996;69(4):303-317
  24. 24. Kerr G, Evans J. Growing broadleaves for timber. In: Forestry Commission Handbook. London: H.M.S.O; 1993. pp. 95
  25. 25. Carey AB. Active and passive forest management for multiple values. Northwestern Naturalist. 2006;87(1):18
  26. 26. Carey AB. Biocomplexity and restoration of biodiversity in temperate coniferous forest: Inducing spatial heterogeneity with variable-density thinning. Forestry. 2003;76(2):127-136
  27. 27. Comfort EJ, Roberts SD, Harrington CA. Midcanopy growth following thinning in young-growth conifer forests on the Olympic Peninsula western Washington. Forest Ecology and Management. 2010;259(8):1606-1614
  28. 28. Sullivan TP, Sullivan DS, Lindgren PMF, Ransome DB. Stand structure and small mammals in intensively managed forests: Scale, time, and testing extremes. Forest Ecology and Management. 2013;310:1071-1087
  29. 29. Puettmann K, Ares A, Burton J, Dodson E. Forest restoration using variable density thinning: Lessons from Douglas-Fir stands in Western Oregon. Forests. 2016;7(12):310
  30. 30. O’Hara KL, Nesmith JCB, Leonard L, Porter DJ. Restoration of old forest features in Coast Redwood Forests using early-stage variable-density thinning. Restororation Ecology. 2010;18:125-135
  31. 31. Roberts SD, Harrington CA. Individual tree growth response to variable-density thinning in coastal Pacific Northwest forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 2008;255(7):2771-2781
  32. 32. O’Hara KL, Leonard LP, Keyes CR. Variable-density thinning and a marking paradox: Comparing prescription protocols to attain stand variability in Coast Redwood. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 2012;27(3):143-149
  33. 33. del Río M, Bravo-Oviedo A, Pretzsch H, Löf M, Ruiz-Peinado R. A review of thinning effects on Scots pine stands: From growth and yield to new challenges under global change. Forest Systems. 2017;26(2):eR03S
  34. 34. Gradel A, Ammer C, Ganbaatar B, Nadaldorj O, Dovdondemberel B, Wagner S. On the effect of thinning on tree growth and stand structure of White Birch (Betula platyphyllaSukaczev) and Siberian Larch (Larix sibiricaLedeb.) in Mongolia. Forests. 2017;8(4):105
  35. 35. Bose AK, Weiskittel A, Kuehne C, Wagner RG, Turnblom E, Burkhart HE. Does commercial thinning improve stand-level growth of the three most commercially important softwood forest types in North America? Forest Ecology and Management. 2018;409:683-693
  36. 36. Kuehne C, Weiskittel AR, Wagner RG, Roth BE. Development and evaluation of individual tree- and stand-level approaches for predicting spruce-fir response to commercial thinning in Maine, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 2016;376:84-95
  37. 37. Mäkinen H, Isomäki A. Thinning intensity and long-term changes in increment and stem form of Scots pine trees. Forest Ecology and Management. 2004;203(1-3):21-34
  38. 38. Peltola H, Kilpeläinen A, Sauvala K, Räisänen T, Ikonen V-P. Effects of early thinning regime and tree status on the radial growth and wood density of Scots pine. Silva Fennica. 2007;41(3):489-505
  39. 39. Zhang H, Zhou G, Wang Y, Bai S, Sun Z, Berninger F, et al. Thinning and species mixing in Chinese fir monocultures improve carbon sequestration in subtropical China. European Journal of Forest Research. 2019;138(3):433-443
  40. 40. Strukelj M, Brais S, Paré D. Nine-year changes in carbon dynamics following different intensities of harvesting in boreal aspen stands. European Journal of Forest Research. 2015;134(5):737-754
  41. 41. Trouvé R, Bontemps J-D, Collet C, Seynave I, Lebourgeois F. When do dendrometric rules fail? Insights from 20 years of experimental thinnings on sessile oak in the GIS Coop network. Forest Ecology and Management. 2019;433:276-286
  42. 42. Zeide B. Thinning and growth. Journal of Forestry. 2001:20-25
  43. 43. Giuggiola A, Ogée J, Rigling A, Gessler A, Bugmann H, Treydte K. Improvement of water and light availability after thinning at a xeric site: Which matters more? A dual isotope approach. New Phytologist. 2016;210(1):108-121
  44. 44. Taeger S, Zang C, Liesebach M, Schneck V, Menzel A. Impact of climate and drought events on the growth of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestrisL.) provenances. Forest Ecology and Management. 2013;307:30-42
  45. 45. Dwyer JM, Fensham R, Buckley YM. Restoration thinning accelerates structural development and carbon sequestration in an endangered Australian ecosystem: Restoration thinning in natural regrowth. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2010;47(3):681-691
  46. 46. Hoover C, Stout S. The carbon consequences of thinning techniques: Stand structure makes a difference. Journal of Forestry. 2007;105(5):266-270
  47. 47. Horner GJ, Baker PJ, Nally RM, Cunningham SC, Thomson JR, Hamilton F. Forest structure, habitat and carbon benefits from thinning floodplain forests: Managing early stand density makes a difference. Forest Ecology and Management. 2010;259(3):286-293
  48. 48. Schaedel MS, Larson AJ, Affleck DLR, Belote RT, Goodburn JM, Page-Dumroese DS. Early forest thinning changes aboveground carbon distribution among pools, but not total amount. Forest Ecology and Management. 2017;389:187-198
  49. 49. Lei X, Lu Y, Peng C, Zhang X, Chang J, Hong L. Growth and structure development of semi-natural larch-spruce-fir (Larix olgensisPicea jezoensisAbies nephrolepis) forests in northeast China: 12-year results after thinning. Forest Ecology and Management. 2007;240(1-3):165-177
  50. 50. Juodvalkis A, Kairiukstis L, Vasiliauskas R. Effects of thinning on growth of six tree species in north-temperate forests of Lithuania. European Journal of Forest Research. 2005;124(3):187-192
  51. 51. Bradford JB, Palik BJ. A comparison of thinning methods in red pine: Consequences for stand-level growth and tree diameter. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 2009;39(3):489-496
  52. 52. Kuehne C, Weiskittel A, Pommerening A, Wagner RG. Evaluation of 10-year temporal and spatial variability in structure and growth across contrasting commercial thinning treatments in spruce-fir forests of northern Maine, USA. Annals of Forest Science. 2018;75(1):20
  53. 53. Pretzsch H. Stand density and growth of Norway spruce (Picea abies(L.) Karst.) and European beech (Fagus sylvaticaL.): Evidence from long-term experimental plots. European Journal of Forest Research. 2005;124(3):193-205
  54. 54. Brooks JR, Mitchell AK. Interpreting tree responses to thinning and fertilization using tree-ring stable isotopes. New Phytologist. 2011;190(3):770-782
  55. 55. Lagergren F, Lankreijer H, Kučera J, Cienciala E, Mölder M, Lindroth A. Thinning effects on pine-spruce forest transpiration in central Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management. 2008;255(7):2312-2323
  56. 56. Gagné L, Sirois L, Lavoie L. Comparaison du volume et de la valeur des bois résineux issus d’éclaircies par le bas et par dégagement d’arbres-élites dans l’Est du Canada. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 2016;46(11):1320-1329
  57. 57. Schütz J-P, Ammann PL, Zingg A. Optimising the yield of Douglas-fir with an appropriate thinning regime. European Journal of Forest Research. 2015;134(3):469-480
  58. 58. Curtis RO, Harrington CA, Brodie LC. Stand development 18 years after gap creation in a uniform Douglas-Fir plantation. In: Report No.: PNW-RP-610. USDA Forest Service; 2017. p. 38
  59. 59. Davis LR, Puettmann KJ, Tucker GF. Overstory response to alternative thinning treatments in young Douglas-fir forests of Western Oregon. Northwest Science. 2007;81(1):1-14
  60. 60. Willis JL, Roberts SD, Harrington CA. Variable density thinning promotes variable structural responses 14 years after treatment in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management. 2018;410:114-125
  61. 61. Gardiner B, Blennow K, Carnus J-M, Fleischer P, Ingemarson F, Landmann G, et al. Destructive Storms in European Forests. Joensuu: European Forest Institute; 2010. p. 138
  62. 62. Lindström A, Rune G. Root deformation in plantations of container-grown Scots pine trees: Effects on root growth, tree stability and stem straightness. In: Stokes A, editor. The Supporting Roots of Trees and Woody Plants: Form, Function and Physiology. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2000. pp. 31-39
  63. 63. Schmidt M, Hanewinkel M, Kändler G, Kublin E, Kohnle U. An inventory-based approach for modeling single-tree storm damage—Experiences with the winter storm of 1999 in southwestern Germany. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 2010;40(8):1636-1652
  64. 64. Binkley D, Campoe OC, Gspaltl M, Forrester DI. Light absorption and use efficiency in forests: Why patterns differ for trees and stands. Forest Ecology and Management. 2013;288:5-13
  65. 65. Lee MJ, García O. Plasticity and extrapolation in modeling mixed-species stands. Forest Science. 2016;62(1):1-8
  66. 66. Keskitalo E, Bergh J, Felton A, Björkman C, Berlin M, Axelsson P, et al. Adaptation to climate change in Swedish Forestry. Forests. 2016;7(2):28
  67. 67. Mäkinen H, Isomäki A. Thinning intensity and long-term changes in increment and stem form of Norway spruce trees. Forest Ecology and Management. 2004;201(2-3):295-309
  68. 68. Nilsson U, Agestam E, Ekö P-M, Elfving B, Fahlvik N, Johansson U, et al. Thinning of Scots pine and Norway spruce monocultures in Sweden effects of different thinning programmes on standlevel gross- and net stem volume production. Studia Forestalia Suecica. 2010;219:1-46
  69. 69. Sullivan TP, Sullivan DS. Acceleration of old-growth structural attributes in lodgepole pine forest: Tree growth and stand structure 25 years after thinning. Forest Ecology and Management. 2016;365:96-106
  70. 70. Varmola M, Salminen H, Timonen M. Thinning response and growth trends of seeded Scots pine stands at the arctic timberline. Silva Fennica. 2004;38(1):71-83
  71. 71. Peltola H, Miina J, Rouvinen I, Kellomäki S. Effect of early thinning on the diameter growth distribution along the stem of Scots pine. Silva Fennica. 2002;36(4):813-825
  72. 72. Bachofen H, Zingg A. Effectiveness of structure improvement thinning on stand structure in subalpine Norway spruce (Picea abies(L.) Karst.) stands. Forest Ecology and Management. 2001;145(1-2):137-149
  73. 73. Peltola H. Swaying of trees in response to wind and thinning in a stand of Scots pine. Boundary Layer Meteorology. 1996;77(3-4):285-304
  74. 74. Sharma M, Smith M, Burkhart HE, Amateis RL. Modeling the impact of thinning on height development of dominant and codominant loblolly pine trees. Annals of Forest Science. 2006;63(4):349-354
  75. 75. Mäkinen H, Isomäki A. Thinning intensity and growth of Scots pine stands in Finland. Forest Ecology and Management. 2004;201(2-3):311-325
  76. 76. Moulinier J, Brais S, Harvey B, Koubaa A. Response of Boreal Jack Pine (Pinus banksianaLamb.) stands to a gradient of commercial thinning intensities, with and without N fertilization. Forests. 2015;6(12):2678-2702
  77. 77. Aldea J, Bravo F, Bravo-Oviedo A, Ruiz-Peinado R, Rodríguez F, del Río M. Thinning enhances the species-specific radial increment response to drought in Mediterranean pine-oak stands. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 2017;237-238:371-383
  78. 78. Fernández-de-Uña L, Cañellas I, Gea-Izquierdo G. Stand competition determines how different tree species will cope with a warming climate. Liang E, editor. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0122255.
  79. 79. Martín-Benito D, Del Río M, Heinrich I, Helle G, Cañellas I. Response of climate-growth relationships and water use efficiency to thinning in aPinus nigraafforestation. Forest Ecology and Management. 2010;259(5):967-975
  80. 80. Schwinning S, Weiner J. Mechanisms determining the degree of size asymmetry in competition among plants. Oecologia. 1998;113(4):447-455
  81. 81. Thomas AD, Walsh RPD, Shakesby RA. Nutrient losses in eroded sediment after fire in eucalyptus and pine forests in the wet Mediterranean environment of northern Portugal. CATENA. 1999;36(4):283-302
  82. 82. Dobner M, Nicoletti MF, Arce JE. Influence of crown thinning on radial growth pattern ofPinus taedain southern Brazil. New Forests. 2019;50(3):437-454
  83. 83. Liziniewicz M, Ekö PM, Klang F. Effects of five tree-selection strategies when thinning spruce (Picea abies) stands: A case study in a field trail in southern Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research. 2016;31(5):495-506
  84. 84. Trouvé R, Bontemps J-D, Seynave I, Collet C, Lebourgeois F. Stand density, tree social status and water stress influence allocation in height and diameter growth ofQuercus petraea(Liebl.), Mäkelä A, editor. Tree Physiology. 2015;35(10):1035-1046.
  85. 85. Weiskittel A, Kenefic L, Seymour R, Phillips L. Long-term effects of precommercial thinning on the stem dimensions, form and branch characteristics of red spruce and balsam fir crop trees in Maine, USA. Silva Fennica. 2009;43(3):397-409
  86. 86. Anton-Fernandez C, Burkhart HE, Strub M, Amateis RL. Effects of initial spacing on height development of Loblolly Pine. Forest Science. 2011;57(3):201-211
  87. 87. Zhao D, Kane M, Borders BE. Growth responses to planting density and management intensity in loblolly pine plantations in the southeastern USA Lower Coastal Plain. Annals of Forest Science. 2011;68(3):625-635
  88. 88. Schaedel MS, Larson AJ, Affleck DLR, Belote RT, Goodburn JM, Wright DK, et al. Long-term precommercial thinning effects onLarix occidentalis(western larch) tree and stand characteristics. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 2017;47(7):861-874
  89. 89. Valinger E, Sjögren H, Nord G, Cedergren J. Effects on stem growth of Scots pine 33 years after thinning and/or fertilization in northern Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research. 2019;34(1):33-38
  90. 90. Martínez Pastur G, Soler R, Lencinas MV, Cellini JM, Peri PL. Long-term monitoring of thinning for silvopastoral purposes inNothofagus antarcticaforests of Tierra del Fuego, Argentina. Forest Systems. 2018;27(1):e01S
  91. 91. Mehtätalo L, Peltola H, Kilpeläinen A, Ikonen V-P. The response of basal area growth of Scots pine to thinning: A longitudinal analysis of tree-specific series using a nonlinear mixed-effects model. Forest Science. 2014;60(4):636-644
  92. 92. Sillett SC, Van Pelt R, Kramer RD, Carroll AL, Koch GW. Biomass and growth potential ofEucalyptus regnansup to 100 m tall. Forest Ecology and Management. 2015;348:78-91
  93. 93. Sillett SC, Van Pelt R, Koch GW, Ambrose AR, Carroll AL, Antoine ME, et al. Increasing wood production through old age in tall trees. Forest Ecology and Management. 2010;259(5):976-994
  94. 94. Stephenson NL, Das AJ, Condit R, Russo SE, Baker PJ, Beckman NG, et al. Rate of tree carbon accumulation increases continuously with tree size. Nature. 2014;507(7490):90-93
  95. 95. Sohn JA, Saha S, Bauhus J. Potential of forest thinning to mitigate drought stress: A meta-analysis. Forest Ecology and Management. 2016;380:261-273
  96. 96. Guiterman CH, Seymour RS, Weiskittel AR. Long-term thinning effects on the leaf area ofPinus strobusL. as estimated from Litterfall and individual-tree allometric models. Forest Science. 2012;58(1):85-93
  97. 97. Peri PL, Martínez Pastur G, Monelos L. Natural dynamics and thinning response of young lenga (Nothofagus pumilio) trees in secondary forests of Southern Patagonia. Bosque Valdivia. 2013;34(3):5-6
  98. 98. Aussenac G. Interactions between forest stands and microclimate: Ecophysiological aspects and consequences for silviculture. Annals of Forest Science. 2000;57(3):287-301
  99. 99. Primicia I, Artázcoz R, Imbert J-B, Puertas F, Traver M-C, Castillo F-J. Influence of thinning intensity and canopy type on Scots pine stand and growth dynamics in a mixed managed forest. Forest Systems. 2016;25(2):e057
  100. 100. Pretzsch H, Rais A. Wood quality in complex forests versus even-aged monocultures: Review and perspectives. Wood Science and Technology. 2016;50(4):845-880
  101. 101. D’Amato AW, Bradford JB, Fraver S, Palik BJ. Effects of thinning on drought vulnerability and climate response in north temperate forest ecosystems. Ecological Applications. 2013;23(8):1735-1742
  102. 102. Fahlvik N, Ekö P-M, Pettersson N. Influence of precommercial thinning grade on branch diameter and crown ratio inPinus sylvestrisin southern Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research. 2005;20(3):243-251
  103. 103. D’Amato AW, Bradford JB, Fraver S, Palik BJ. Forest management for mitigation and adaptation to climate change: Insights from long-term silviculture experiments. Forest Ecology and Management. 2011;262(5):803-816
  104. 104. Jimenez E, Vega JA, Fernandez C, Fonturbel T. Is pre-commercial thinning compatible with carbon sequestration? A case study in a maritime pine stand in northwestern Spain. Forestry. 2011;84(2):149-157
  105. 105. Skovsgaard JP, Stupak I, Vesterdal L. Distribution of biomass and carbon in even-aged stands of Norway spruce (Picea abies(L.) Karst.): A case study on spacing and thinning effects in northern Denmark. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research. 2006;21(6):470-488
  106. 106. Keyser TL. Thinning and site quality influence aboveground tree carbon stocks in yellow-poplar forests of the southern Appalachians. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 2010;40(4):659-667
  107. 107. Skovsgaard JP. Analysing effects of thinning on stand volume growth in relation to site conditions: A case study for even-aged Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis(Bong.) Carr.). Forestry. 2009;82(1):87-104
  108. 108. De las Heras J, Moya D, López-Serrano FR, Rubio E. Carbon sequestration of naturally regenerated Aleppo pine stands in response to early thinning. New Forests. 2013;44(3):457-470
  109. 109. Blanco JA, Imbert JB, Castillo FJ. Influence of site characteristics and thinning intensity on litterfall production in twoPinus sylvestrisL. forests in the western Pyrenees. Forest Ecology and Management. 2006;237(1-3):342-352
  110. 110. Finkral AJ, Evans AM. The effects of a thinning treatment on carbon stocks in a northernArizona ponderosapine forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 2008;255(7):2743-2750
  111. 111. Jobbágy EG, Jackson RB. The distribution of soil nutrients with depth: Global patterns and the imprint of plants. Biogeochemistry. 2001;53:51-77
  112. 112. Hoover CM, Heath LS. A commentary on ‘Mineral soil carbon fluxes in forests and implications for carbon balance assessments’: A deeper look at the data. GCB Bioenergy. 2015;7(2):362-365
  113. 113. Peri PL, Bahamonde HA, Lencinas MV, Gargaglione V, Soler R, Ormaechea S, et al. A review of silvopastoral systems in native forests ofNothofagus antarcticain southern Patagonia, Argentina. Agroforestry Systems. 2016;90(6):933-960
  114. 114. Bréda N, Granier A, Aussenac G. Effects of thinning on soil and tree water relations, transpiration and growth in an oak forest (Quercus petraea(Matt.) Liebl.). Tree Physiology. 1995;15(5):295-306
  115. 115. Sohn JA, Hartig F, Kohler M, Huss J, Bauhus J. Heavy and frequent thinning promotes drought adaptation inPinus sylvestrisforests. Ecological Applications. 2016;26(7):2190-2205
  116. 116. Fulé PZ, Waltz AEM, Covington WW, Heinlein TA. Measuring forest restoration effectiveness in reducing hazardous fuels. Journal of Forestry-Washington. 2001;99(11):24-29
  117. 117. Fernandes PM, Vega JA, Jiménez E, Rigolot E. Fire resistance of European pines. Forest Ecology and Management. 2008;256(3):246-255
  118. 118. Verkaik I, Espelta JM. Post-fire regeneration thinning, cone production, serotiny and regeneration age inPinus halepensis. Forest Ecology and Management. 2006;231(1-3):155-163
  119. 119. Bren L, Lane P, Hepworth G. Longer-term water use of native eucalyptus forest after logging and regeneration: The Coranderrk experiment. Journal of Hydrology. 2010;384(1-2):52-64
  120. 120. Bréda N, Huc R, Granier A, Dreyer E. Temperate forest trees and stands under severe drought: A review of ecophysiological responses, adaptation processes and long-term consequences. Annals of Forest Science. 2006;63(6):625-644
  121. 121. Sohn JA, Gebhardt T, Ammer C, Bauhus J, Häberle K-H, Matyssek R, et al. Mitigation of drought by thinning: Short-term and long-term effects on growth and physiological performance of Norway spruce (Picea abies). Forest Ecology and Management. 2013;308:188-197
  122. 122. Christina M, Laclau J-P, Gonçalves JLM, Jourdan C, Nouvellon Y, Bouillet J-P. Almost symmetrical vertical growth rates above and below ground in one of the world’s most productive forests. Ecosphere. 2011;2(3):art27
  123. 123. Foster TE, Schmalzer PA, Fox GA. Seasonal climate and its differential impact on growth of co-occurring species. European Journal of Forest Research. 2015;134(3):497-510
  124. 124. Mainiero R, Kazda M. Depth-related fine root dynamics ofFagus sylvaticaduring exceptional drought. Forest Ecology and Management. 2006;237(1-3):135-142
  125. 125. Dieler J, Pretzsch H. Morphological plasticity of European beech (Fagus sylvaticaL.) in pure and mixed-species stands. Forest Ecology and Management. 2013;295:97-108
  126. 126. Crecente-Campo F, Pommerening A, Rodríguez-Soalleiro R. Impacts of thinning on structure, growth and risk of crown fire in aPinus sylvestrisL. plantation in northern Spain. Forest Ecology and Management. 2009;257(9):1945-1954
  127. 127. Peri PL, Dube F, Varella A. Silvopastoral Systems in Southern South America. Heidelberg, New York: Springer; 2016. pp. 270
  128. 128. Martínez Pastur G, Peri PL, Huertas Herrera A, Schindler S, Díaz-Delgado R, Lencinas MV, et al. Linking potential biodiversity and three ecosystem services in silvopastoral managed forest landscapes of Tierra del Fuego, Argentina. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management. 2017;13(2):1-11
  129. 129. Peri PL, López DR, Rusch V, Rusch G, Rosas YM, Martínez Pastur G. State and transition model approach in native forests of Southern Patagonia (Argentina): Linking ecosystem services, thresholds and resilience. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management. 2017;13(2):105-118

Written By

Ana Cristina Gonçalves

Submitted: March 20th, 2020 Reviewed: July 21st, 2020 Published: August 18th, 2020