Interaction between stem damage, crown vitality and growth performance of European yew in Central–East Europe
, , , y
31 dic 2020
Acerca de este artículo
Categoría del artículo: Regular Articles
Publicado en línea: 31 dic 2020
Páginas: 35 - 53
Recibido: 29 jul 2019
Aceptado: 29 may 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/geochr-2020-0029
Palabras clave
© 2020 D. Sedmáková., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.
Fig 1

Fig A1

Fig A2

Fig 2

Fig 3

Fig 4

Fig 5

Fig 6

Fig 7

Fig 8

Fig 9

Basic statistics of European yew tree-ring series and standardised chronologies for the common periods in four localities of Slovakia
Locality | Raw series | Standardised chronology | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Time span | Nt | MSL | TRW | SD | MSs | AC1 | RBT | EPS | |
1766-2015 | 37 | 127 | 0.713 | 0.44 | 0.251 | 0.81 | 0.526 | 0.976 | |
1897-2015 | 48 | 94 | 0.885 | 0.52 | 0.257 | 0.76 | 0.303 | 0.952 | |
1782-2015 | 30 | 204 | 0.551 | 0.32 | 0.236 | 0.83 | 0.187 | 0.869 | |
1755-2015 | 35 | 185 | 0.495 | 0.27 | 0.270 | 0.88 | 0.224 | 0.967 |
Parameter estimates and goodness-of-fit statistics of the generalised linear regression model applied to test the relationship of stand canopy closure (shading) and crown damage (transparency) of yew adult trees_
Parameter estimates | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Effect | Level of effect | Column | Estimate | SE | |||
Intercept n1 | 1 | 0.11 | 0.36 | 0.77 | 0.77 | ||
Intercept n2 | 2 | 2.48 | 0.44 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||
Intercept n3 | 3 | 4.94 | 0.65 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||
Gt | 4 | −30.09 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||
Scale | 1.00 | 0.00 | |||||
Deviance | Scaled deviance | Pearson’s chi2 | Scaled P. chi2 | AIC | BIC | Loglikelyhood | |
Df | 359 | 359 | 359 | 359 | |||
Statistic | 263.04 | 263.04 | 383.01 | 383.01 | 271.04 | 282.23 | −131.52 |
Stat/Df | 0.73 | 0.73 | 1.07 | 1.07 |
Stand characteristics Gtrees, Gnekro, Gt, Gbeech and Pbeech surrounding central yew trees, their mean values and inter-correlations
Mean | SD | Gnekro(m2ha-1) | Gtrees(m2ha-1) | Gt | GBeech(m2ha-1) | PBeech (%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
13.0 | 11.60 | 1.00 | 0.01 | ||||
31.1 | 8.50 | 1.00 | 0.04 | ||||
17.0 | 9.36 | 1.00 | 0.06 | ||||
18.6 | 6.98 | 1.00 | |||||
59.6 | 18.54 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.06 | 1.00 |
Description of the study sites
Study area | Lackov Grun | Pavelcovo | Strazov | Velka Fatra |
---|---|---|---|---|
Orographic unit | Stare Hory Mts. | Stare Hory Mts. | Strazov Mts | Great Fatra |
Name | LAG | PAV | STR | VFA |
Type of management | managed forest with the main protection function—soil erosion, water retention | managed forest with the main wood production function, 7% of plots are special purpose forests with main protection function | 52%—managed forest with the main protection function—soil erosion, water retention 48%—managed forest with the main wood production function | managed forest with the main protection function—soil erosion, water retention, 10%—managed forest with the main wood production function |
Altitude (m asl) | 603–688 | 640–720 | 710–930 | 940–1,030 |
Exposition | NE | S, NE | NW–N–NE | NW–N–NE |
Slope inclination | 20–40° | 10–30° | 25–45° | 20–40° |
Ground surface | sampling plots had no parent rock present on the surface ground | sampling plots had no parent rock present on the surface ground | 13% of sampling plots had parent rock present on the surface ground | 25% of sampling plots had parent rock present on the surface ground |
Canopy cover estimation | 0.7–1.0 all plots placed inside the forest stands | 0.7–1.0 57% of plots placed inside the forest stand 43% of plots placed in cut forest where yew trees were present in group of trees of remaining mature stand | 0.4–1.0 83% of plots placed inside the forest stands 17% of plots placed in cut forest where yew trees grow solitary or in small groups of trees | 0.7–1.0 all plots placed inside the forest stands |
Sign of disturbance (based on stumps being present on the sampling plot) | all plots | all plots except two | all plots | 1/3 of plots were recorded as having no disturbance sign |
Relief | 93% of plots were established in the middle and upper part of the hill (slope) | except one, all plots were established in the middle and upper part of the hill (slope) | plots were established mainly (74%) in the middle part of the hill (slope) | plots were established in the middle and upper part of the hill (slope) |
Number of plots | 30 | 30 (13-fieldmapped) | 23 | 31 |
Size of the plot (m2) | 500 | 500 (one plot—2,500) | 500 (1x300; 2x200) | 500 |
Radius (m) | 12.62 | 12.62 | 12.62 (1x9.77; 2x7.98) | 12.62 |
Number of tree species | 13 | 10 | 9 | 9 |
Year of the sampling | 2017 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 |
Disturbance | small scale signs of disturbance—selfthining or windthrow of trees | regeneration cut has begun in forest stands | small scale signs of disturbance—selfthinning 17% of plots—finished regeneration cut | small scale signs of disturbance—selfthining or windthrow of trees 6% of plots—regeneration cut |
Two-way table showing no relationship between stem and crown damage of European yew trees expressed in relative frequencies (Pearson’s chi-square = 15_69; Df = 9; p < 0_07)
Degree | Stem damage | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
3.33 | 2.00 | 30.67 | |||
4.67 | 40.67 | ||||
2.00 | 6.67 | 4.00 | 23.33 | ||
0.67 | 2.00 | 2.67 | 0.00 | 5.33 | |
18.00 | 43.33 | 28.00 | 10.67 | 100.00 |
Basic description of sampled male and female trees of European yew at four localities in Slovakia
Locality | Sex | Trees | DBH (cm) | Height (m) | G(cm2) | Crown width (m) | Crown length (m) | Pith age (years) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nt | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||
♂ | 16 | 23.9 | 3.70 | 11.2 | 1.49 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 5.5 | 0.94 | 8.0 | 1.16 | 137 | 33.3 | |
♀ | 21 | 21.6 | 4.79 | 9.8 | 2.69 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 5.8 | 0.95 | 7.4 | 2.48 | 135 | 22.0 | |
♂ | 27 | 21.1 | 7.14 | 10.1 | 2.07 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 5.1 | 1.37 | 7.1 | 2.05 | 101 | 10.8 | |
♀ | 21 | 20.3 | 5.64 | 10.6 | 2.33 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 5.0 | 1.25 | 7.6 | 2.31 | 102 | 10.6 | |
♂ | 17 | 30.3 | 7.77 | 9.6 | 2.65 | 0.08 | 0.04 | 7.1 | 1.55 | 7.4 | 2.31 | 206 | 33.3 | |
♀ | 13 | 26.3 | 9.25 | 8.1 | 2.01 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 6.2 | 1.30 | 5.7 | 1.89 | 223 | 11.8 | |
♂ | 18 | 26.1 | 7.99 | 9.3 | 2.24 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 5.0 | 1.12 | 7.1 | 2.14 | 187 | 52.9 | |
♀ | 15 | 21.6 | 4.52 | 7.7 | 1.15 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 4.8 | 0.94 | 5.3 | 1.27 | 199 | 35.7 | |
○ | 2 | 27.0 | 4.17 | 8.8 | 0.78 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 4.7 | 0.40 | 6.2 | 1.06 | 235 | 5.0 | |
150 | 23.6 | 7.12 | 9.7 | 2.34 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 5.5 | 1.37 | 7.0 | 2.15 | 154 | 53.9 |
Results of ANOVA showing summary of all effects (locality and sex) of trees in stand characteristics Gtrees, Gnekro, Gt, Gbeech and Pbeech surrounding focal yew trees
Gnekro (m2ha-1) | Gtrees (m2ha-1) | Gt | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Df | SS | MS | F | SS | MS | F | SS | MS | F | ||||
1 | |||||||||||||
3 | |||||||||||||
1 | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.0 | 0.96 | |||||||||
114 | 10557 | 92.6 | 5619 | 49.3 | 5900 | 51.7 | |||||||
118 | 15882 | 8567 | 10485 | ||||||||||
Df | SS | MS | F | SS | MS | F | |||||||
1 | |||||||||||||
3 | |||||||||||||
1 | 168.7 | 169 | 0.55 | 0.46 | |||||||||
114 | 4939 | 43.3 | 34859 | 305.8 | |||||||||
118 | 5697 | 40973 |