Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 121, Issue 1–3, pp 519–542 | Cite as

Relation Between Individual Tree Mortality and Tree Characteristics in a Polluted and Non-Polluted Environmentx

  • Romualdas Juknys
  • Jone Vencloviene
  • Nerijus Jurkonis
  • Edmundas Bartkevicius
  • Janina Sepetiene


Data on individual tree mortality in relatively healthy (Berezinskiy biosphere reserve) and damaged (surroundings of the mineral fertilizer plant ‘Achema’) even-aged Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) stands are presented. Tree size and competition intensity were found to be the most significant predictors of individual tree mortality in all age groups of the relatively healthy Scots pine stands, however, an essential reduction in the closeness of relations between the tree mortality rate and these variables was determined with the aging of stands. An exponential decrease in tree mortality probability with an increase of tree size is characteristic for trees suffering different competition intensity, however, this decrease becomes much more pronounced as the competition pressure increases. The relations of different tree and stand variables with tree mortality probability have been found to become much weaker in the polluted environment. An exponential increase in tree mortality probability with an increase of crown defoliation was characteristic of damaged Scots pine stands, however, the rate of the increase was different in different age and diameter classes. The impact of crown defoliation on tree mortality rate increased with the aging of stands. At the same defoliation level, individual tree mortality probability was much higher for smaller suppressed trees, however, a relative increase in tree mortality probability along with an increase of crown defoliation was more pronounced for dominant trees. Conclusion: a higher mortality of damaged (defoliated) trees should be considered while assessing losses in forest productivity in a polluted environment.


crown defoliation logistic regression pollution tree mortality 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Armolaitis, K.: 1998, (Nitrogen pollution on the local scale in Lithuania: Vitality of forest ecosystems), Environ. Pollut. 102, 55–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barclay, H. J. and Layton, C. R.: 1990, (Growth and mortality in managed Douglas fir: Relation to a competition index), For. Ecol. Manage. 36, 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bigler, Ch. and Bugmann, H.: 2003, (Growth-dependent tree mortality models based on tree rings), Can. J. For.Res. 33, 210–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buchman, R. G., Pedersen, S. P. and Walters, N. R.: 1983, (A tree survival model with application to species of theGreat Lakes region), Can. J. For. Res. 13, 601–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burgman, M., Incoll, W., Ades, P., Ferguson, I., Fletcher, T. and Wholers, A.: 1994, (Mortality models for mountainand alpine ash), For. Ecol. Manage. 67, 319–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cannell, M. G. R., Rothery, P. and Ford, E. D.: 1984, (Competition within stands of Picea sitchensis and Pinus contorta), Ann. Bot. 53, 349–362.Google Scholar
  7. Crow, G. R. and Hicks, Jr., R. R.: 1990, (Predicting mortality in mixed oak stands following spring insectsdefoliation), For. Sci. 36, 831–841.Google Scholar
  8. Dahms, W. G.: 1983, (Growth simulation model for lodgepole pine in central Oregon), Research Paper, PNW–302, USDA Forest Service, pp. 22.Google Scholar
  9. Daniels, R. F.: 1976, (Simple competition indices and their correlation with annual loblolly pine tree growth), For. Sci. 22, 454–456.Google Scholar
  10. Dobbertin, M. and Brang, P.: 2001, (Crown defoliation improves tree mortality models), For. Ecol. Manage. 141, 271–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eid, T. and Tuhus, E.: 2001, (Models for individual tree mortality in Norway), For. Ecol. Manage. 154, 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Franklin, J. F., Shugart, H. H. and Harmon, M. E.: 1997, (Tree death as an ecological process), BioScience 37, 550–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gottschalk, K. W., Colbert, J. J. and Feicht, D. L.: 1998, (Tree mortality risk of oak due to gypsy moth), Eur. J.For. Path. 28, 121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hamilton, D. A.: 1974, (Event probabilities estimated by regression), General Technical Report, INT-152, USDA Forest Service, pp. 18.Google Scholar
  15. Hamilton, D. A.: 1986, (A logistic model of mortality in thinned and unthinned mixed conifer stands of northernIdaho), For. Sci. 32, 989–1000.Google Scholar
  16. Hill, G.: 1993, (Untersuchungen über den Einfluss des Witterungsverlaufes auf Absterbevorgänge in älterenKiefernbeständen (Pinus sylvestris L.)), Forstarchiv 64, 3–9 (in German).Google Scholar
  17. Hosmer, D. W. and Lemeshow, S.: 1989, Applied Logistic Regression, John Wiley and Sons, NewYork, pp. 307.Google Scholar
  18. Juknys, R.: 1990, (Growth and productivity of even-aged Scots pine stands in the polluted environment), Thesis of Habilitation Work, Sukachov Institute of Forest and Wood, Krasnoyarsk, Russia, pp. 40(in Russian).Google Scholar
  19. Juknys, R., Vencloviene, J. and Stravinskiene, V.: 2002, (Tree-ring analysis for the assessment of anthropogenicchanges and trends), Environ. Monit. Assess. 77, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Juknys, R., Vencloviene, J. and Stravinskiene, V.: 2003, (Scots pine growth and condition in a pollutedenvironment: From decline to recovery), Environ. Pollut. 125, 205–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kramer, H.: 1986, (Relation between crown parameters and volume increment of Picea abies stands damaged byenvironmental pollution), Scan. J. For. Res. 1, 251–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lorimer, C. G.: 1983, (Test of age-independent competition indices for individual trees in natural hardwood stands), For. Ecol. Manage. 6, 343–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lynch, T. B., Huebschmann, M.M. and Murphy, P.A.: 1998, (A survival model for individual shortleaf pine trees ineven-aged natural stands), in M. Hansen and T. Burk (eds), ( Integrated Tools for Natural ResourcesInventories in the 21st Century), An International Conference on the Inventory and Monitoring of ForestedEcosystems, Boise, North Central Research Station, USDA Forest Service, pp. 533–538.Google Scholar
  24. Monserud, R. A.: 1976, (Simulation of forest tree mortality), For. Sci. 22, 438–444.Google Scholar
  25. Monserud, R. A. and Sterba, H.: 1999, (Modeling individual tree mortality for Austrian forest species), For.Ecol. Manage. 113, 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Munro, D. D.: 1974, (Forest growth models – a prognosis), in Proceedings of the Congress IUFRO S4-01-4 (Growth Models for Tree and Stand Simulation), Royal College of Forestry, Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 7–21.Google Scholar
  27. Nagelkerke, N. J. D.: 1991, (A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination), Biometrika. 78, 691–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ozolincius, R., Miksys, V. and Stakenas, V.: 2004, (Tree damage and mortality in Lithuanian forests), Transactions of the Faculty of Forestry, Estonian Agricultural University 37, 75–79.Google Scholar
  29. Palahia, M., Pukkalab, T., Miinac, J. and Monterod, G.: 2003, (Individual-tree growth and mortality models for Scotspine in north-east Spain), Ann. For. Sci. 60, 1–10.Google Scholar
  30. Pedersen, B. S.: 1998, (Modeling tree mortality in response to short- and long-term environmental stresses), Ecol. Model. 105, 347–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Petras, R., Nociar, V. and Pajtik, J.: 1993, (Changes in increment of spruce damaged by air pollution), Lesnictvi-Forestry 39, 116–122.Google Scholar
  32. Soderberg, U.: 1991, (The relation between increment and defoliation on spruce-fir stand development in Sweden), in: IUFRO Workshop on Monitoring Air Pollution Impact on Permanent Sample Plots (Data Processing and ResultInterpretation), Prachatice, CSFR, 2-6 September, pp. 119–127.Google Scholar
  33. Solomon, D. S., Zhang, L. B., Thomas, B. and Larrick, D. S.: 2003, (Mortality patterns following spruce budworminfestation in unprotected spruce-fir forests in Maine), North. J. Appl. For. 20, 148–153.Google Scholar
  34. Sutherland, E. K. and Martin, B.: 1990, (Growth response of Pseudotsuga menziesii to air pollution from coppersmelting), Can. J. For. Res. 20, 1020–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Steinman, J. R. and MacLean, D. A.: 1994, (Predicting effects of defoliation on spruce-fir stand development: Amanagement-orientated growth and yield model), For. Ecol. Manage. 69, 283–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Walker, S. H. and Dunkan, D. B.: 1967, (Estimation of the probability of an event as a function of several independentvariables), Biometrika 54, 167–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wykoff, W. R., Crookston, N. L. and Stage, A. R.: 1982, (User's guide to the Stand Prognosis Model). GeneralTechnical Report, INT-133, USDA Forest Service, pp. 112.Google Scholar
  38. UN/ECE, 1994, (Manual on methods and criteria for harmonized sampling, assessment, monitoring and analysis of theeffects of air pollution on forests), Geneva, pp. 172.Google Scholar
  39. Yang, Y., Titus, S. J. and Huang, S.: 2003, (Modeling individual tree mortality for white spruce in Alberta), Ecol. Model. 163, 209–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yao, X., Titus, S. J. and MacDonald, S. E.: 2001, (A generalized logistic model of individual tree mortality for aspen, white spruce and lodgepole pine in Alberta mixedwood forests), Can. J. For. Res. 31, 283–291.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Romualdas Juknys
    • 1
  • Jone Vencloviene
    • 1
  • Nerijus Jurkonis
    • 2
  • Edmundas Bartkevicius
    • 3
  • Janina Sepetiene
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Environmental SciencesVytautas Magnus UniversityKaunasLithuania
  2. 2.Environmental Research CentreVytautas Magnus UniversityKaunasLithuania
  3. 3.Faculty of ForestryLithuanian Agricultural UniversityKaunas RegionLithuania

Personalised recommendations