Close Home
iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry
vol. 9, pp. 394-401
Copyright © 2016 by the Italian Society of Silviculture and Forest Ecology
doi: 10.3832/ifor1600-008

Research Articles

Relationship between environmental parameters and Pinus sylvestris L. site index in forest plantations in northern Spain acidic plateau

Teresa Bueis (1-2), Felipe Bravo (1-3), Valentín Pando (1-4), María-Belén Turrión (1-2)Corresponding author

Introduction 

Site productivity determination is needed to carry out sustainable management of stands. Productivity estimation at early stages allows defining appropriate silvicultural treatments to be applied. Forest productivity is usually estimated using site and stand factors. Site index (stand dominant height at a reference age) is widely used because it strongly correlates with wood production ([35], [46]). Dominant height is also easy to measure and is unaffected or lightly affected by usual silvicultural practices such as systematic, semisystematic or low thinning ([53]). However, other kinds of practices such as high thinning or high grading modify the dominant height of the stand, causing the underestimation of site index when dominant height is used as a predictor of productivity ([11]). In these cases, the use of soil-site relationships is more suitable for estimating site quality.

Pinus sylvestris L. is the most widely distributed pine species worldwide. Spanish stands constitute the southern limit of its distribution, where it occupies 1.28 million hectares ([43]). Knowing the environmental parameters that determine Pinus sylvestris L. site index is very helpful for developing tools aimed to predict site index when stand factors such as dominant height are unavailable.

Several studies have examined the relationships between site quality and environmental parameters, notably, soil (physical and chemical), physiographic and climatic variables.

Soil physical properties are often included in models as predictor variables to estimate site index from site factors ([9], [2], [3], [12], [44]). Soil chemical properties ([36], [44]) and organic horizon parameters ([39], [1]) are less frequently considered. Studies including biochemical aspects are scarce, despite the fact that microorganisms are known to be a key factor in soil quality ([47], [17]).

Bravo & Montero ([11]) developed a discriminant model for Pinus sylvestris in the Ebro Basin that included silt and clay content and cation exchange capacity as predictors, and correctly classified 64% of plots within their site index classes. White ([55]) found that the rate of height growth of Pinus sylvestris in Great Britain was mainly related to solar radiation, soil texture and soil moisture content. Hagglund & Lundmark ([18]) developed several models to predict Pinus sylvestris site index in Sweden with latitude, altitude, soil depth and texture as predictors. For the same species, Aertsen et al. ([1]) found that granulometric fractions and litterfall N content were the best predictors for forest productivity in Flanders, while Sharma et al. ([45]) included several physiographic factors (latitude, aspect, slope) as well as soil depth, year of stand origin and sum of temperatures in their equations to predict site index for Scots pine in Norway. A discriminant model developed by Bravo-Oviedo & Montero ([9]) for Pinus pinea L. in southeastern Spain also included textural parameters and, together with altitude, correctly classified 75% of the plots into their site index classes. Bravo et al. ([12]) developed a discriminant model for Pinus pinea in Calabria (Italy) which correctly classified 61% of the stands using only two predictor variables: clay content and slope. Consequently, textural parameters (as well as physiographic parameters such as slope, latitude or altitude) are often included in site index models ([11], [10], [1], [44], [45]).

Bravo-Oviedo et al. ([10]) developed two equations to predict Pinus pinaster Ait. site index in Spanish stands by using multiple linear regression, with altitude, autumn and winter precipitation and mean annual temperature as predictor variables for the first model, and altitude, autumn and winter precipitation and clay content as predictor variables for the second model. For the same species, Pacheco ([36]) also predicted site index in Portugal using multiple linear regression with minimum autumn temperature, available K, porosity and sand content as predictors. Alvarez-Alvarez et al. ([3]) found that soil depth and mean summer temperature were the main factors that explained Pinus pinaster productivity in Asturias (Spain). Studies on Pinus radiata D. Don frequently used soil chemical properties related to nutrients because the species has a high nutrient demand ([40], [39], [2]).

The principle aim of this study was to develop a discriminant model to estimate site index for Pinus sylvestris L. plantations on the acid plateau in northern Spain using soil (physical, chemical and biochemical), climatic and physiographic parameters.

Material and methods 

Study area and sampling plots

According to the Third National Forest Inventory ([14]), Pinus sylvestris accounts for more than 79 000 ha in northern Spain’s acid plateau (in the Castilla y León region) and is mainly found between 800 and 1600 m a.s.l. These stands are mainly protective and productive.

This study used 35 plots belonging to the Sustainable Forest Management Research Institute (Fig. 1) located in the acid plateau in northern Spain (Castilla y León region). The 35 plots were located in Pinus sylvestris monospecific stands originated from afforestation. The understory was dominated by Calluna vulgaris (L.) Hull, Erica australis L., Halimium alysoides (Lam.) Spach and Pterospartum tridentatum L. Stand ages ranged from 28 to 54 years. Plots were located between 926 and 1180 m a.s.l. Most plots presented zero slope and the maximum slope found was 12%. Mean annual temperature of the study area was 9.5 °C and mean annual precipitation was 730 mm. Soils were classified as Inceptisols ([22]). They were strongly acidic (pH 3.7-5.6) and the amount of available P was very low because of its immobilization by acid cations such as Fe and Al, with which phosphorus forms insoluble compounds. According to Lang, Martonne and the Annual Hydric indexes, the study area was classified as humid. Summary statistics for stand characteristics for the sample plots are presented in Tab. 1.

Fig. 1 - Location of the plots analyzed in this study.
Tab. 1 - Stand characteristics of Pinus sylvestris L. plots (n=35) used to develop a discriminant model to predict site index on acidic plateau plantations in northern Spain. (SD): standard deviation.

Dominant height (H0), defined according to the Assmann ([4]) criterion (medium height of the 100 thickest trees per ha), and age were determined for every plot. Site index of each plot was calculated based on the current dominant height and age of each plot, using the equation developed by Rio et al. ([38] - eqn. 1):

\begin{equation} H_{02} = \frac{40.3331} {1- \left (1- {\frac{40.3331} {H_{01}}} \right ) \left (\frac{T_1} {T_2} \right )^{1.5003} } \end{equation}

where H01 is the current dominant height in meters (at current age T1) and H02 is the site index, i.e., the dominant height at the reference age of 50 years (T2). The plots were assigned to quality classes based on their site index, and the site index limits between classes established by Río et al. ([38]). Five quality classes were assigned to the plots based on Río et al. ([38]): Class I = 24 m of dominant height at a reference age of 50 years (one plot); Class II = 21 m (12 plots); Class III = 18 m (8 plots); Class IV = 15 m (13 plots); and Class V = 12 m (one plot).

Classes I and V were represented by only one plot; therefore, we pooled Classes I and II; we also merged Classes IV and V. Finally, three different site productivity classes were redefined as follows: (i) high productivity (Classes I and II); (ii) medium productivity (Class III); and (iii) low productivity (Classes IV and V).

Sampling

Sampling was done on the organic horizon and 10-cm mineral topsoil according to the method by Jokela et al. ([26]), which has also been adopted by Bravo & Montero ([11]) and Bravo et al. ([12]), because environmental changes are more strongly reflected in this layer.

Four sampling points were established on each plot in the N, S, E and W directions at a distance of 5 m from the center of the plot. One undisturbed sample and one disturbed sample were taken from the mineral soil at each point. A steel cylinder (5 cm diameter and 5 cm height) was used to take undisturbed samples to keep their primitive structure. The four disturbed samples from each plot were thoroughly mixed to get a composite soil sample per plot.

Organic horizon thickness (OHT) on the soil surface was measured in the field. It was also sampled at the same 4 points in 20×20 cm quadrants and then thoroughly mixed to get a composite sample per plot of each fraction. Two fractions at the organic horizon were separated: almost undecomposed litter fraction (L), and fragmented fraction plus humified fraction (FH).

Physical, chemical and biochemical soil analysis

Disturbed soil samples were air dried to constant weight, sieved through a 2-mm mesh and used to determine physical, chemical and biochemical properties, in duplicate samples. Undisturbed soil samples were used to determine bulk density and field capacity.

Physical parameters included percentage of coarse particles (>2 mm - CO) and fine particles (< 2 mm - FI), particle distribution determined by pipette method; porosity (PO) using bulk density (BD) and real density (RD) determination, and available water (AW) as the difference between water contents at field capacity (FC) and permanent wilting point (WP) determined using a pF equipment (Eijkelkamp, Giesbeek, Netherlands).

Chemical parameters included: pH using a 1:2.5 (soil:water) suspension ([29]); total C (TC) and total N (TN) by dry combustion using a Leco CHN 2000® elemental analyser (LECO Inc., St. Joseph, Michigan, USA); easily oxidizable carbon (EOC - [54]); cation exchange capacity (CEC); exchangeable acidity (EA - [31]); exchangeable cations (Ca+2, Mg+2, K+ and Na+) by means of extracting with 1N ammonium acetate (pH=7 - [42]) and then determining the cations in the extract using an atomic absorption/emission spectrometer; base saturation (SAT) as the ratio between total exchangeable cations and cation exchange capacity; available P (AP) extracted using anion exchange membranes ([51]) and colorimetric determination of P in the extracts ([33]); amorphous Fe, Al and Mn (FeA, AlA, MnA) extracted with 0.2 M (pH=3) ammonium oxalate ([8]); organically bound Fe, Al and Mn (FeO, AlO, MnO) extracted with 0.1M Na4P2O7 ([5]); exchangeable Al (AlE) extracted with 1M KCl ([6]). Subsequently, Fe, Al and Mn were determined in all these extracts using inductively coupled plasma/ optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES). Inorganic Al (AlI) was determined as the difference between amorphous and organically bound fractions of this element ([30]).

Biochemical parameters included: mineralizable C (Cmin - [23]); microbial biomass C, N and P (Cmic, Nmic and Pmic) using the fumigation-extraction method ([52]) with determination of C and N content in extracts with a Skalar TOC autoanalyser® (Skalar Inc., Breda, Netherlands) and colorimetric determination of P content ([33]). The relationships Cmic/Nmic, Cmic/TC, Cmin/TC and the microbial metabolic quotient (qCO2 = Cmin/Cmic) were also calculated.

Organic horizon samples were dried at 60 °C and weighed to determine the amount of biomass per hectare for L (OL) and FH (OFH) fractions. A representative portion was ground and analyzed with Leco CHN 2000® element analyser to determine total C and total N concentrations of L fraction ([TC]L, [TN]L) and FH fraction ([TC]FH, [TN]FH), as well as their [TC/TN]L and [TC/TN]FH ratios.

Climatic and physiographic data

Climatic and physiographic data were also considered. The Digital Climatic Atlas of the Iberian Peninsula ([34]) was used to obtain precipitation and temperature data. The climatic parameters calculated were: mean seasonal precipitation (PW: winter precipitation; PSP: spring precipitation; PSU: summer precipitation; PA: autumn precipitation), annual total precipitation (TP), mean annual temperature (MAT), mean temperature of the coldest/ warmest months (MTCM, MTWM), mean minimum temperature in the coldest month (MMCM), mean maximum temperature in the warmest month (MMWM), potential evapotranspiration (PET), real evapotranspiration (RET), deficit (DEF), surplus (SUR), Martonne Index, Lang Index and Annual Hydric Index (Ih - [50]).

The physiographic parameters studied were elevation (ELV), latitude (LAT) and slope (SLP).

Statistical analysis

The software Statgraphics Centurion® XVI ([48]) was used to carry out the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) on each group of variables (physical, chemical and biochemical soil variables; climatic variables; physiographic variables; and those related to organic horizon) to select non-correlated variables that contained most of the site variability. This analysis was applied to the groups of variables because multiple correlations are thought to appear among variables of the same group. We selected principal components that, as a whole, accounted for 70% of the site variation and presented an eigenvalue greater than 0.7. For each principal component, the variable with the highest absolute value coefficient (loading) was chosen, as proposed by Jolliffe ([27]).

The selected variables were tested for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk’s test, and those showing lack of normality were transformed using the functions log(X), exp(X), 1/X, X2 and √X. Transformed variables showing lack of normality were excluded from subsequent analysis. Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated among the selected variables to avoid including strongly correlated variables into the Discriminant Analysis.

Finally, Discriminant Analysis were performed to obtain a discriminant model to predict site index from selected variables. Discriminant Analysis is a classification technique through which a new case is assigned to an established group according to its properties. Discriminant functions are a linear combination of the original variables that best discriminate among groups. Classification functions have the following general structure (eqn. 2):

\begin{equation} Y_{i} = \beta_0+ \sum_{i=1}^{n} {\beta_{i}X_{i}} \end{equation}

where Yi is the score obtained for each group (i), β0, β1, …, βn are the obtained coefficients and Xi the values of the n variables selected as predictors that represent soil, physiographic and climatic factors ([19]). New observations are classified into the i group whose function present the largest value. This classification technique has previously been used in similar studies ([20], [11], [9], [12]). Prior probabilities of belonging to a group were considered equal for the three groups in the discriminant analysis. The model was evaluated by means of cross-validation, a procedure which consists of excluding one datum each time and then fitting the model with the remaining data points, and validating the model with the omitted observation ([53], [25]). Models were tested with three, four and five variables as predictors. Those that were biologically consistent and presented a higher correct cross-validated rate (percentage of plots correctly classified into their actual quality class) were selected. We preferred the models containing a smaller number of predictor variables, as well as models that correctly classified a higher percentage of plots within the highest quality class, because forest management efforts are concentrated on these classes.

Pearson’s correlation coefficient was calculated to determine the correlations between latitude and climate-related parameters.

Results 

Summary statistics for soil, climatic and physiographic variables used to develop a discriminant model to predict site index for Pinus sylvestris in acidic plateau plantations in northern Spain are reported in Appendix 1 (Tab. S1, Tab. S2, Tab. S3, respectively),

Four principal components were selected from the PCA performed on the soil physical variables, which accounted for 93.5% of the total site variation. Sand defined following ISSS criteria (SANDIS), CO, silt defined following USDA criteria (SILTUS) and PO were selected as the best soil physical variables. From the PCA of the soil chemical variables, four principal components accounted for 84.6% of the variability. Soil chemical variables selected were AlE, EOC, AlI and TC/TN. Two principal components were selected from PCA performed on the soil biochemical variables, with 87.4% of the total variation explained. The variables selected were Cmic and Cmin/TC. Three principal components were selected from PCA of organic horizon variables accounting for 79.6% of variability. The variables selected were [TC/TN]FH, OHT and [TC/TN]L. Two principal components were selected from the PCA of climatic variables explaining 96% of the total variability. The climatic variables selected were Lang Index and MTWM . Finally, two principal components accounting for 97.4% of the variability were selected from the physiographic variables; the variables selected were LAT and ELV. Tab. 2 summarizes the statistics obtained from the PCA for the 17 selected variables.

Tab. 2 - Summary of principal component analysis and variables selected for each principal component. (SANDIS): Sand following ISSS criteria; (CO): Coarse particles; (SILTUS): Silt following USDA criteria; (PO): Porosity; (AlE): Exchangeable Al; (EOC): Easily Oxidizable Carbon; (AlI): Inorganic Al; (TC/TN): Total C/Total N; (Cmic): Microbial Biomass C; (Cmin/TC): Mineralizable C/Total C; ([TC/TN]FH): Total C/Total N in fragmented plus humified fraction of organic horizon; (OHT): Organic Horizon Thickness; ([TC/TN]L): Total C/Total N in litter fraction of organic horizon; (LANG): Lang Index; (MTWM): Mean Temperature of the Warmest Month; (LAT): Latitude; (ELV): Elevation.

Using Shapiro-Wilk’s test with α = 0.05, significant departures from normality was detected for several variables: SILTUS, AlE, AlI, Cmin/TC, MTWM and ELV. Several transformations were applied to these variables (log (X), exp (X), 1/X, X2, and √X). ELV and MTWM also showed lack of normality after transformation and were not considered further. The remaining variables were transformed as follows: 1/SILTUS, exp (AlE), √AlI, log (Cmin/TC).

Finally, the variables selected to be used in the discriminant analysis were SANDIS, CO, SILTUS, PO, exp (AlE), EOC, √AlI, TC/TN, Cmic, log (Cmin/TC), [TC/TN]FH, OHT, [TC/TN]L, LAT and Lang Index.

The pairwise correlation matrix for the 15 variables selected (Tab. 3) shows that LAT and Lang Index, LAT and AlE, AlE and SILTUS, SANDIS and SILTUS were strongly correlated (Pearson’s correlation coefficient > 0.7). Consequently, these pairs of variables were not used in the discriminant analysis. Therefore, variables used in the classification functions studied were normally distributed and not strongly correlated. Twelve models were biologically consistent and presented a cross-validated error (percentage of plots classified into an incorrect quality class) lower than 35%. The selected discriminant models are shown in Tab. 4. The cross-validated error rates of the selected discriminant models ranged from 28.6% (models 3, 6, 7, 9 and 11) to 34.3% (models 4 and 10). Model 12 misclassified 31.4% of plots within an incorrect quality class with only three parameters (Tab. 4). However, misclassifications of the model 12 were considerable for the highest quality class (46% error rate). Models 3, 6, 7, 9 and 11 classified correctly 78.6% of plots belonging to the lowest quality class, 75.0% belonging to the medium quality class and 61.5% of plots belonging to the highest quality class. Nevertheless, models 3, 7, 9 and 11 misassigned 7.1% of plots belonging to the lowest quality class into the highest quality class. With model 6, no inferior-quality plot was misassigned to the highest quality class (Tab. 5). A plot of the discriminant functions of the model is displayed in Fig. 2 . Function 1 (mainly influenced by latitude and AlI) discriminated quite well among the lowest quality class and the others. Function 2 (mainly influenced by porosity and Cmic) discriminated between the medium and highest quality classes. Function 1 was negatively influenced by AlI but positively influenced by latitude. Function 2 was positively influenced by porosity and Cmic. As can be seen in Fig. 2, the lower quality class presents lower latitude and higher inorganic aluminium content. Medium and higher quality classes present higher latitude and lower inorganic aluminium content. Medium and higher quality classes differ as to their porosity and Cmic (both are higher in the highest quality class). For forest management purposes, we aimed to identify the most productive stands accurately in order to focus managerial attention. It is important to select models with a high correct classification rate for the higher quality class. Model 6 was consequently selected to predict site index class of Pinus sylvestris plantations located in Northern Spain acidic plateau. The parameters of model 6 are shown in Tab. 6.

Tab. 3 - Pairwise correlation matrix for the 15 variables selected. Pearson’s correlation coefficients (r) are shown. (LAT): Latitude; (TC/TN): Total C/Total N; (AlI): Inorganic Al; (AlE): Exchangeable Al; (EOC): Easily Oxidizable Carbon; (CO): Coarse particles; (SANDIS): Sand ISSS criteria; (SILTUS): Silt following USDA criteria; (PO): Porosity; (Cmic): Microbial Biomass C; (Cmin/C): Mineralizable C/Total C; ([C/N]FH): Total C/Total N in fragmented plus humified fraction of organic horizon; ([C/N]L): Total C/Total N in litter fraction of organic horizon; (OHT): Organic Horizon Thickness; (LANG): Lang Index.
Tab. 4 - Discriminant models studied and correct classification rates. (LAT): Latitude; (TC/TN): Total C/Total N; (AlI): Inorganic Al; (CO): Coarse particles; (SANDIS): Sand ISSS criteria; (PO): Porosity; (Cmic): Microbial Biomass C; (Cmin/TC): Mineralizable C/Total C; ([TC/TN]FH): Total C/Total N in fragmented plus humified fraction of organic horizon; ([TC/TN]L): Total C/Total N in litter fraction of organic horizon.
Tab. 5 - Correct classification cross-validated rates of model 6.
Fig. 2 - Plot of discriminant functions for the discriminant model selected to predict site quality for Pinus sylvestris L. plantations in northern Spain acidic plateau (blue squares represent the lowest quality class, red triangles represent the medium quality class and pink circles represent the highest quality class)
Tab. 6 - Classification functions in the model selected (Model 6) to predict site index class of Pinus sylvestris L. plantations in northern Spain acidic plateau. (LAT): Latitude; (AlI): Inorganic Al; (PO): Porosity; (Cmic): Microbial Biomass C.

Discussion 

The 12 models selected included the latitude as a predictor variable, which means that latitude is a determinant factor of forest productivity in the area studied. All these models contained one soil physical variable (PO, CO or SANDIS) and one soil chemical variable (TC/TN or AlI). Some of them also included a biochemical variable (Cmic or Cmin/TC) and/or an organic horizon related variable ([TC/TN]L or [TC/TN]FH).

The model selected to predict site index class for Pinus sylvestris (model 6) included LAT, AlI, PO and Cmic as predictor variables. These variables represent three environmental aspects that affect tree growth: physiography, soil physics and nutrient availability.

The physiographic variable included in the model was LAT, an easily obtainable variable. Positive significant correlations (p< 0.05) were found between latitude and climatic parameters such as precipitations, SUR and Lang, Martone and Hydric indexes. The correlations between LAT and temperatures and DEF were significant and negative (p<0.05). Therefore, LAT indirectly includes climatic information in the model. Pinus sylvestris is sensitive to drought ([16]) and growth is partly driven by water availability. In this area, lower latitudes present higher hydric deficit and tree growth is lower, as observed in previous studies ([13], [41], [49]). Hagglund & Lundmark ([18]) and Sharma et al. ([45]) also found that latitude was a good predictor variable for Pinus sylvestris L. site index in Sweden and Norway stands.

Soil porosity (spaces between soil particles) adds soil physical information into the model. This variable combines textural and structural information and determines the aeration of soil and its water retention capacity. Together with LAT, PO determines soil water availability for the trees. Textural parameters have frequently been used to predict Pinus sylvestris L. forest productivity all over Europe ([18], [55], [11], [1], [44], [45]). AlI and Cmic represent the nutritional aspect. Trees require the same nutrients to grow and reproduce as other superior plants. However, due to nutrient cycling and the deep roots of most tree species, as well as mycorrhizal associations that allow the uptake of minimally available nutrients from soil, nutrient deficiencies are rare in forests ([37]). Nevertheless, some studies in northern and northeastern Spain have shown nutrient deficiencies in several Pinus species stands, mainly due to P in acidic soils ([39], [2]). Available P is an important factor in the studied area because the soils are strongly acidic. Soil acidity is related to limiting nutrient (such as P) availability and also influences soil microbial populations and their activity ([7]). Sewerniak & Piernik ([44]) found than pH was one of the best variables to describe site index for Pinus sylvestris L. in southwestern Poland. Molina et al. ([32]) found that inorganic Al correlated significantly with P immobilization, so this variable introduces information about P availability into the model. The biochemical variable included in the model was Cmic. This parameter reflects the amount of microflora present in the soil; this is a very active soil component as it takes part in mineralization processes ([15]), playing a key role in nutrient cycling ([24]) and determining the availability of nutrients such as N, P and S for plants ([21]). Mahía et al. ([28]) found higher values of biochemical parameters (such as microbial biomass C) in higher site index stands of Pinus sylvestris and Pinus pinaster in northwestern Spain.

The soil-site method developed allows predicting site index by means of a relatively small set of easily measurable parameters.

Conclusions 

Our results showed that soil physical, chemical and biochemical parameters, as well as physiographic parameters, are driving factors in determining site index for Pinus sylvestris in acidic plateau plantations of northern Spain. The model selected to predict site index included four predictor variables: LAT, PO, AlI and Cmic. LAT in the studied area was strongly positively correlated with precipitations and water surplus. Along with PO, which relates with soil aeration and water retention capacity of soils, the model showed that forest productivity in the study area was partly driven by water availability. AlI reflected the strong acidity of soils that provoked nutrient immobilization and limited forest growth, while Cmic related to the amount of microflora present in the soil and the turnover rate of nutrients.

The selected model correctly classified 71% of cases, higher than usual in this kind of studies. No plots belonging to the lower quality class were misclassified in the higher quality class using this model, which is very important for forest managers. Soil and physiographic parameters included in the model are easily obtainable in the field or by means of simple laboratory analysis, so our results can be integrated in operational forestry to determine site quality.

Acknowledgements 

TB carried out the field and laboratory work, ran the data analysis, discussed the results and wrote the paper; FB coordinated the research project, designed the experiment and corrected the manuscript; VP supported TB with the statistical analysis and corrected the manuscript and MBT designed the experiment, supported TB with the laboratory analysis, supervised the progress of the work and corrected the manuscript.

The authors are grateful to Elisa Mellado, Temesgen Desalegn, Olga López and Carlos Alejandro Mendoza for their assistance in the field work, and to Carmen Blanco and Juan Carlos Arranz for their advice in laboratory analysis.

This work was funded by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of the Spanish Government (AGL2011-29701-C02-02, AGL2014-51964-C2-1-R) and the University of Valladolid and Banco Santander (predoctoral grant to TB).

References

(1)
Aertsen W, Kint V, De Vos B, Deckers J, Van Orshoven J, Muys B (2012). Predicting forest site productivity in temperate lowland from forest floor, soil and litterfall characteristics using boosted regression trees. Plant and Soil 354: 157-172.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(2)
Afif-Khouri E, Obregon MAC, Oliveira-Prendes JA, Gorgoso-Varela JJ, Canga-Libano E (2010). Relationship among soil parameters, tree nutrition and site index of Pinus radiata D. Don in Asturias, NW Spain. Forest Systems 19: 77-88.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(3)
Alvarez-Alvarez P, Khouri EA, Camara-Obregon A, Castedo-Dorado F, Barrio-Anta M (2011). Effects of foliar nutrients and environmental factors on site productivity in Pinus pinaster Ait. stands in Asturias (NW Spain). Annals of Forest Science 68: 497-509.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(4)
Assmann E (1970). The principles of forest yield study. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 506.
::Google Scholar::
(5)
Bascomb CL (1968). Distribution of pyrophosphate-extractable iron and organic carbon in soils of various groups. Journal of Soil Science 19: 251-268.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(6)
Bertsch PM, Bloom PR (1996). Aluminum. In: “Methods of Soil Analysis (Part 3) - Chemical Methods” (Sparks DL, Page AL, Helmke PA, Loeppert RH, Soltanpour PN, Tabatai MA, Johnston CT, Sumner ME eds). SSSA, Madison, WI, USA, pp. 517-550.
::Google Scholar::
(7)
Binkley D, Ortíz MG, Pérez RO (1993). Nutrición forestal: prácticas de manejo [Forest nutrition: management practices]. Limusa, DF, México, pp. 340. [in Spanish]
::Google Scholar::
(8)
Blakemore LC, Searle PL, Daly BK (1987). Methods for chemical analysis of soils. NZ Soil Bureau Scientific Report 80: 71-76.
::Google Scholar::
(9)
Bravo-Oviedo A, Montero G (2005). Site index in relation to edaphic variables in stone pine (Pinus pinea L.) stands in south west Spain. Annals of Forest Science 62: 61-72.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(10)
Bravo-Oviedo A, Roig S, Bravo F, Montero G, Río M (2011). Environmental variability and its relationship to site index in Mediterranean maritine pine. Forest Systems 20: 50-64.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(11)
Bravo F, Montero G (2001). Site index estimation in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) stands in the high Ebro basin (northern Spain) using soil attributes. Forestry 74: 395-406.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(12)
Bravo F, Luca M, Mercurio R, Sidari M, Muscolo A (2011). Soil and forest productivity: a case study from Stone pine (Pinus pinea L.) stands in Calabria (southern Italy). iForest 4: 25-30.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(13)
Candel-Perez D, Linares JC, Vinegla B, Lucas-Borja ME (2012). Assessing climate-growth relationships under contrasting stands of co-occurring Iberian pines along an altitudinal gradient. Forest Ecology and Management 274: 48-57.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(14)
DGCN (2002). El Tercer Inventario Forestal Nacional. [Third National Forest Inventory]. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Dirección General para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, Madrid, Spain. [in Spanish]
::Google Scholar::
(15)
Duchaufour P (1984). Edafología 1. Edafogénesis y Clasificación [Pedology 1: pedogenesis and classification]. Masson, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 493. [in Spanish]
::Google Scholar::
(16)
Eilmann B, Rigling A (2012). Tree-growth analyses to estimate tree species’ drought tolerance. Tree Physiology 32: 178-187.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(17)
Gartzia-Bengoetxea N, Gonzalez-Arias A, Kandeler E, De Arano IM (2009). Potential indicators of soil quality in temperate forest ecosystems: a case study in the Basque Country. Annals of Forest Science 66 (3): 303.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(18)
Hagglund B, Lundmark JE (1977). Site index estimation by means of site properties. Scots pine and Norway Spruce in Sweden. Studia Forestalia Suecica 138: 38.
::Google Scholar::
(19)
Hair JF, Suárez MG, Tatham L, Black C (1999). Análisis multivariante [Multivariate analysis]. Prentice Hall. Madrid, Spain. pp. 832. [in Spanish]
::Google Scholar::
(20)
Harding RB, Grigal DF, White EH (1985). Site quality evaluation for white spruce plantations using discriminant analysis. Soil Science Society of America Journal 49: 229-232.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(21)
He ZL, Wu J, O’Donnell AG, Syers JK (1997). Seasonal responses in microbial biomass carbon, phosphorus and sulphur in soils under pasture. Biology and Fertility of Soils 24: 421-428.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(22)
Herrero de Aza C, Bravo F, Turrión MB (2011). Cuantificación de C en el suelo y en la hojarasca en pinares y rebollares del norte de España [Quantifying soil and litter C on Pinus and Quercus pyrenaica stands in Northern Spain]. In: “Materia orgánica edáfica y captura de carbono en sistemas iberoamericanos” (García Oliva F, Turrión MB, García-Trujillo GC, Madejón E eds). Editorial SiFyQA, Salamanca, Spain, pp. 249-266. [in Spanish]
::Google Scholar::
(23)
Isermeyer H (1952). Eine einfache Methode sur Bestimmung der Bodenatmung und der Carbonate im Boden [A simple method to determine soil respiration and carbonates in soil]. Zeitschrift Pflanzenernährung und Bodenkunde 56: 26-38. [in German]
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(24)
Jenkinson DS, Ladd JN (1981). Microbial biomass in soils: measurement and turnover. In: “Soil Biochemistry” (Paul EA, Ladd JN eds). Marcel Dekker, New York, USA, pp. 415-417.
::Google Scholar::
(25)
Johnson DE (1998). Applied multivariate methods for data analysts. Duxbury Press, Pacific Grove, CA, USA, pp. 567.
::Google Scholar::
(26)
Jokela EJ, White EH, Berglund JV (1988). Predicting norway spruce growth from soil and topographic properties in New York. Soil Science Society of America Journal 52: 809-815.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(27)
Jolliffe IT (1973). Discarding variables in a principal component analysis. II: Real data. Applied Statistics 22: 21-31.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(28)
Mahía J, Pérez-Ventura L, Cabaneiro AM, Díaz-Raviña M (2006). Soil microbial biomass under pine forests in the northwestern Spain: influence of stand age, site index and parent material. Investigación agraria. Sistemas y recursos forestales 15: 152-159.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(29)
MAPA (1993). Métodos oficiales de análisis. Tomo III [Official methods of analysis. Volume III]. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación. Gobierno de España, Madrid, Spain, pp. 532. [in Spanish]
::Google Scholar::
(30)
McKeague J, Brydon I, Miles N (1971). Differentiation of forms of extractable iron and aluminium in soils. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 35: 33-38.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(31)
Mehlich A (1953). Rapid determination of cation and anion exchange properties and pH of soils. Journal of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists 36: 445-457.
::Google Scholar::
(32)
Molina E, Bornemisza E, Sancho F, Kass D (1991). Soil aluminum and iron fractions and their relationships with P immobilization and other soil properties in andisols of Costa Rica and Panama. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 22: 1459-1476.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(33)
Murphy J, Riley JP (1962). A modified single solution method for the determination of phosphorus in natural waters. Analytica Chimica Acta 27: 31-36.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(34)
Ninyerola M, Pons i Fernández X, Roure JM (2005). Atlas climático digital de la Península Ibérica: metodología y aplicaciones en bioclimatología y geobotánica [Digital climatic atlas of the Iberian Peninsula: methodology and applications for bioclimatology and geobotany]. Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 45. [in Spanish]
::Google Scholar::
(35)
Ortega A, Montero G (1988). Evaluación de la calidad de las estaciones forestales. Revisión bibliográfica. [Forest site quality assessment. A literature review]. Ecología 2: 155-184. [in Spanish]
::Online::Google Scholar::
(36)
Pacheco C (1991). Evaluating site quality of even-aged maritime pine stands in northern Portugal using direct and indirect methods. Forest Ecology and Management 41: 193-204.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(37)
Pritchett WL (1986). Suelos forestales: propiedades, conservación y mejoramiento [Forest soils: properties, conservation and improvement]. Limusa, DF, México, pp. 635. [in Spanish]
::Google Scholar::
(38)
Río M, López E, Montero G (2006). Manual de gestión para masas procedentes de repoblación de Pinus pinaster Ait., Pinus sylvestris L. y Pinus nigra Arn. [Management manual for Pinus pinaster Ait., Pinus sylvestris L. and Pinus nigra Arn. stands originated by afforestation]. Consejería de Medio Ambiente, Junta de Castilla y León, Castilla y León, Spain, pp. 102. [in Spanish]
::Google Scholar::
(39)
Romanya J, Vallejo VR (2004). Productivity of Pinus radiata plantations in Spain in response to climate and soil. Forest Ecology and Management 195: 177-189.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(40)
Sanchez-Rodriguez F, Rodriguez-Soalleiro R, Espanol E, Lopez CA, Merino A (2002). Influence of edaphic factors and tree nutritive status on the productivity of Pinus radiata D. Don plantations in northwestern Spain. Forest Ecology and Management 171: 181-189.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(41)
Sanchez-Salguero R, Navarro-Cerrillo RM, Swetnam TW, Zavala MA (2012). Is drought the main decline factor at the rear edge of Europe? The case of southern Iberian pine plantations. Forest Ecology and Management 271: 158-169.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(42)
Schollenberger CJ, Simon RH (1945). Determination of exchange capacity and exchangeable bases in soil - ammonium acetate method. Soil Science 59: 13-24.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(43)
Serrada R, González GM, Reque JA (2008). Compendio de selvicultura aplicada en España [Compendium of applied silviculture in Spain]. Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria, Madrid, Spain, pp. 1178. [in Spanish]
::Google Scholar::
(44)
Sewerniak P, Piernik A (2012). Regression models for impact of soil properties on site index class of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) stands in south-western Poland. Sylwan 156: 563-571.
::Google Scholar::
(45)
Sharma RP, Brunner A, Eid T (2012). Site index prediction from site and climate variables for Norway spruce and Scots pine in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 27: 619-636.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(46)
Skovsgaard JP, Vanclay JK (2008). Forest site productivity: a review of the evolution of dendrometric concepts for even-aged stands. Forestry 81: 13-31.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(47)
Staddon WJ, Duchesne LC, Trevors JT (1999). The role of microbial indicators of soil quality in ecological forest management. Forestry Chronicle 75: 81-86.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(48)
Statgraphics (2014). Statgraphics Centurion XVII user manual. StatPoint Technologies Inc., Warrenton, VA, USA, pp. 319.
::Google Scholar::
(49)
Taeger S, Zang C, Liesebach M, Schneck V, Menzel A (2013). Impact of climate and drought events on the growth of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) provenances. Forest Ecology and Management 307: 30-42.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(50)
Thornthwaite C (1949). A rational approach to the classification of climate. Geographical review 38: 55-94.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(51)
Turrión MB, Gallardo JF, González MI (1997). Nutrient availability in forest soils as measured with anion exchange membranes. Geomicrobiology Journal 14: 51-64.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(52)
Vance ED, Brookes PC, Jenkinson DS (1987). An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass-C. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 19: 703-707.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(53)
Vanclay JK (1994). Modelling forest growth and yield: applications to mixed tropical forests. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 312.
::Online::Google Scholar::
(54)
Walkley A, Black IA (1934). An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science 37: 29-38.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(55)
White EJ (1982). Relationship between height growth of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and site factors in Great Britain. Forest Ecology and Management 4: 225-245.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::

Download

Paper Contents

Paper Sections

Paper Figures

Paper Tables

Supplementary Material

 
 
Close

 

Bueis T, Bravo F, Pando V, Turrión M-B (2016).
Relationship between environmental parameters and Pinus sylvestris L. site index in forest plantations in northern Spain acidic plateau
iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry 9: 394-401. - doi: 10.3832/ifor1600-008
Close
First Previous Next Last
 
Close
© iForest

Download Reference

Paper ID# ifor1600-008
Title Relationship between environmental parameters and Pinus sylvestris L. site index in forest plantations in northern Spain acidic plateau
Authors Bueis T, Bravo F, Pando V, Turrión M-B
Format
Close Download