Skip Navigation

Forestry 2003 76(2):209-219; doi:10.1093/forestry/76.2.209
© 2003 by Institute of Chartered Foresters
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (7)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jõgiste, K.
Right arrow Articles by Sendrós, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Restoration of former agricultural fields in Estonia: comparative growth of planted and naturally regenerated birch

Kalev Jõgiste1, Aivo Vares1 and Marc Sendrós2

1 Department of Silviculture, Estonian Agricultural University, Kreutzwaldi 5, 51014 Tartu, Estonia 2 Department of Agronomy and Forestry, Lleida University, Alcalde Rovira Roure, 177, 25198 Lleida, Catalonia, Spain

We examined the growth of birch (Betula pendula Roth. and Betula pubescens Ehrh.) regenerated on 22 former agricultural fields in Estonia. Birch stands on half of the former fields were planted, while the other half were from natural regeneration. After 2 years of data collection, stem and crown variables were correlated with growth indices, revealing differences between individual stem growth in plantations and naturally regenerated stands. Live crown ratios of birch correlated with growth variables in plantations, but not in natural stands. This finding is attributed to differences in competition levels and stand densities between natural and planted stands. The growth model was composed using increments of consecutive years for plantations (R2 = 0.37). The live crown ratio was selected as an additional variable for multiple regression (R2 = 0.35). Our results are discussed within the context of ecological, growth and yield, and economic aspects of establishing forests on former agricultural fields.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.