Skip Navigation


Forestry Advance Access originally published online on May 25, 2006
Forestry 2006 79(4):389-408; doi:10.1093/forestry/cpl024
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
79/4/389    most recent
cpl024v1
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 (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mountford, E. P.
Right arrow Articles by Bebber, D. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Institute of Chartered Foresters, 2006. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Patterns of regeneration and ground vegetation associated with canopy gaps in a managed beechwood in southern England

Edward P. Mountford 1*, Peter S. Savill and Daniel P. Bebber

Oxford Forestry Institute, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3RB, England

*Corresponding author. E-mail: ed.mountford{at}jncc.gov.uk

In autumn 2001, 15 canopy gaps were selected for study in Rumerhedge Wood, a semi-natural, mesotrophic beechwood in southern England. The gaps were located in mature, beech-dominated stands, and had originated from openings created during a thinning in the early 1980s and wind damage in 1987/1990 and/or the consequent salvage operations. The extent of each gap and surrounding trees were mapped. Tree/shrub regeneration, ground vegetation, bare earth, leaf litter and canopy openness (using a canopy-scope) were measured within and around the gaps using a 5 x 5-m grid and placing a 1 x 1-m quadrat at each grid intersection (total number of quadrats = 400). Most of the gaps were <75 m2 in area. The largest was 241 m2. They were generally irregular in shape and there was little or no understorey present. Most surrounding trees were beech Fagus sylvatica L. Bramble Rubus fruticosus L. formed a moderate to dense ground vegetation below most gaps and declined around the edges only once the gap opening was substantially obscured. Apart from a few larger saplings, most regeneration was small and of beech. Most of the latter appeared to be in their fifth or sixth growing season, were 10–35 cm tall, had an erect base and flat top, had increased by <5 cm in height during 2001 and were not browsed by deer. Their height and growth form was related to (1) their position within gaps, (2) the degree of canopy openness and (3) the cover of ground vegetation. This was translated into the following zonation—(1) around the centre of larger gaps: canopy openness increased to >15 per cent; bramble cover was near complete; litter depth was low; many places had no beech seedlings, but some of the few present were among the tallest, most upright and fastest growing; (2) towards the edges of the large gaps or directly below smaller gaps: canopy openness was about 4–10 per cent; bramble cover was slightly less; beech seedlings were moderately abundant but patchy, generally shorter, more flat topped and slow growing than in the gap centre, albeit some were still among the tallest, most upright and fastest growing; (3) beyond the edge of the large/medium gaps (with the gap only partially visible) or directly below very small gaps: canopy openness was only about 2–3 per cent; bramble was much reduced; beech seedlings were at their most abundant but still patchy in distribution and even shorter, more flat topped and slower growing than in the above zone; (4) in an outer zone beyond or almost beyond the sight of the gaps: canopy openness was <2 per cent; bramble was weak and sparse; beech seedlings were mostly at low densities and predominately short, slow growing and flat topped. This ring pattern of beech regeneration appeared to relate mainly to (1) differences in light availability affecting the survival, growth rate and form of seedlings; (2) competition from bramble and possibly (3) limited dispersal of beech seed into gaps. Recommendations are given for managers who wish to use natural regeneration to restock beech woodland.


Received 18 April 2006.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
ForestryHome page
C. Collet, A. Piboule, O. Leroy, and H. Frochot
Advance Fagus sylvatica and Acer pseudoplatanus seedlings dominate tree regeneration in a mixed broadleaved former coppice-with-standards forest
Forestry, April 1, 2008; 81(2): 135 - 150.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ForestryHome page
K. Kenderes, B. Mihok, and T. Standovar
Thirty years of gap dynamics in a central european beech forest reserve
Forestry, March 19, 2008; (2008) cpn001v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ForestryHome page
R. Dusan, M. Stjepan, A. Igor, and D. Jurij
Gap regeneration patterns in relationship to light heterogeneity in two old-growth beech fir forest reserves in South East Europe
Forestry, October 1, 2007; 80(4): 431 - 443.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



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.