Stand composition shapes canopy structure, competition, and soil properties in virgin oriental beech forests

1. Forrester, D. I. Ecological and physiological processes in mixed versus monospecific stands. In Mixed-species forests: Ecology and Management (73–115). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. (2017).

   Google Scholar 

2. Lwila, A. S., Post-Leon, A., Ammer, C. & Mund, M. Site properties, species identity, and species mixture affect fine root production, mortality, and turnover rate in pure and mixed forests of European beech, Norway spruce, and Douglas-fir. Ecol. Ind. 147, 109975 (2023).

   Google Scholar 

3. Touzot, L. et al. Shade tolerance controls the spectrum of crown sizes and its response to local competition across European and North American tree species. Implications for light interception strategies. Oikos, p.e10603. (2025).

4. Ye, X. et al. Are small trees more responsive to nutrient addition than large trees in an evergreen broadleaved forest? Forest Ecology and Management, 543, p.121129. (2023).

5. Kovács, B., Tinya, F. & Ódor, P. Stand structural drivers of microclimate in mature temperate mixed forests. Agric. For. Meteorol. 234, 11–21 (2017).

   Google Scholar 

6. Azaryan, M., Abrari Vajari, K., Amanzadeh, B. Variations in humus and fine root properties related to development stages in a temperate natural Beech forest. European Journal of Forest Research, 140(2), 307-316 (2021).

   Google Scholar 

7. Shovon, T. A., Kang, S., Scherer-Lorenzen, M. & Nock, C. A. Changes in the direction of the diversity–productivity relationship over 15 years of stand development in a planted temperate forest. J. Ecol. 110 (5), 1125–1137 (2022).

   Google Scholar 

8. Bayer, D., Seifert, S. & Pretzsch, H. Structural crown properties of Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica [L.]) in mixed versus pure stands revealed by terrestrial laser scanning. Trees 27 (4), 1035–1047 (2013).

   Google Scholar 

9. Pretzsch, H. & Schütz, G. J. Size-structure dynamics of mixed versus pure forest stands. For. Syst. 23 (3), 560–572 (2014).

   Google Scholar 

10. Pretzsch, H. et al. Comparison between the productivity of pure and mixed stands of Norway spruce and European beech along an ecological gradient. Annals of Forest Science, 67(7), p.712. (2010).

11. Juchheim, J., Ehbrecht, M., Schall, P., Ammer, C. & Seidel, D. Effect of tree species mixing on stand structural complexity. Forestry: Int. J. For. Res. 93 (1), 75–83 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

12. del Río, M., Condés, S. & Pretzsch, H. Analyzing size-symmetric vs. size-asymmetric and intra-vs. inter-specific competition in beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) mixed stands. For. Ecol. Manag. 325, 90–98 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

13. Vanninen, P. & Mäkelä, A. Carbon budget for Scots pine trees: effects of size, competition and site fertility on growth allocation and production. Tree Physiol. 25 (1), 17–30 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

14. Zou, H., Zhang, H., Zheng, Y., Bai, Z. & Zhen, X. Unravelling the effects of stand structural diversity and tree competition on aboveground biomass in species-poor forests. Eur. J. For. Res. 144 (3), 481–493 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

15. Ji, Y., Zhang, P. & Shen, H. Competition intensity affects growing season nutrient dynamics in Korean pine trees and their microhabitat soil in mixed forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 539, 121018 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

16. Sariyildiz, T., Tufekcioglu, A. & Küçük, M. Comparison of decomposition rates of beech (Fagus orientalis Lipsky) and spruce (Picea orientalis (L.) Link) litter in pure and mixed stands of both species in Artvin, Turkey. Turkish J. Agric. Forestry. 29 (6), 429–438 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

17. Salehi, M. et al. Seasonal variations of throughfall chemistry in pure and mixed stands of Oriental beech (Fagus orientalis Lipsky) in Hyrcanian forests (Iran). Ann. For. Sci. 73 (2), 371–380 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

18. Penne, C., Ahrends, B., Deurer, M. & Boettcher, J. The impact of the canopy structure on the spatial variability in forest floor carbon stocks. Geoderma 158 (3–4), 282–297 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

19. Descheemaeker, K. et al. Litter production and organic matter accumulation in exclosures of the Tigray highlands, Ethiopia. For. Ecol. Manag. 233 (1), 21–35 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

20. Kleber, M. et al. Dynamic interactions at the mineral–organic matter interface. Nat. Reviews Earth Environ. 2 (6), 402–421 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

21. Azaryan, M., Abrari Vajari, K., Marcu, M. V. & Sadeghi, S. M. M. Integrating multiscale ecological indicators to assess ecosystem functioning in virgin Hyrcanian beech forests. Front. Forests Global Change. 8, 1726336 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

22. Marvie Mohadjer, M. R. Silviculture, 387 (University of Tehran, 2011).

23. Mamadashvili, G. Biodiversity drivers in European and Oriental beech forests (Doctoral dissertation, Bayerische Julius-Maximilians-Universitaet Wuerzburg (Germany)). (2024).

24. Haghverdi, K. & Kooch, Y. Effects of diversity of tree species on nutrient cycling and soil-related processes. Catena 178, 335–344 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

25. Kooch, Y., Moghimian, N. & Alberti, G. C and N cycle under beech and hornbeam tree species in the Iranian old-growth forests. Catena 187, 104406 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

26. Pour, M. J., Etemad, V. & Petritan, I. C. Structural dynamics of deciduous mixed stands in the Hyrcanian forests, northern Iran. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca. 52 (4), 13879–13879 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

27. Azaryan, M., Vajari, K. A. & Amanzadeh, B. Soil properties and fine root morphological traits in relation to soil particle-size fractions in a broad-leaved beech (Fagus orientalis Lipsky) forest. Acta Oecol. 117, 103852 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

28. Amanzadeh, B. Investigation of stand structure, developmental stages, and ecological characteristics of gaps in the mixed broadleaf forest of Asalem. PhD dissertation. Faculty of Natural Resources, Sari University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, 208 p. (2015).

29. Moran, P. A. Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena. Biometrika 37 (1/2), 17–23 (1950).

    Google Scholar 

30. Konopka, J., Petras, R. & Toma, R. Slenderness coefficient of the major tree species and its importance for static stability of stands. Lesnictvi (Prague). 33, 887–904 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

31. Forrester, D. I., Benneter, A., Bouriaud, O. & Bauhus, J. Diversity and competition influence tree allometric relationships–Developing functions for mixed-species forests. J. Ecol. 105 (3), 761–774 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

32. Chave, J. et al. Towards a worldwide wood economics spectrum. Ecol. Lett. 12, 351–366 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

33. Hegyi, F. A simulation model for managing jack-pine stands simulation. RoyalColl Res. Notes. 30, 74–90 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

34. Rouvinen, S. & Kuuluvainen, T. Structure and asymmetry of tree crowns in relation to local competition in a natural mature Scots pine forest. Can. J. For. Res. 27 (6), 890–902 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

35. Schröder, J. & Gadow, K. V. Testing a new competition index for Maritime pine in northwestern Spain. Can. J. For. Res. 29 (2), 280–283 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

36. Benneter, A., Forrester, D. I., Bouriaud, O., Dormann, C. F. & Bauhus, J. Tree species diversity does not compromise stem quality in major European forest types. For. Ecol. Manag. 422, 323–337 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

37. Abrari Vajari, K. Assessing the intra-specific competition and its relation with tree structure in a beech forest (Fagus orientalis Lipsky). Brazilian J. Bot. 44 (4), 957–961 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

38. Plaga, B. N., Bauhus, J., Pretzsch, H., Pereira, M. G. & Forrester, D. I. Influence of crown and canopy structure on light absorption, light use efficiency, and growth in mixed and pure Pseudotsuga menziesii and Fagus sylvatica forests. Eur. J. For. Res. 143 (2), 479–491 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

39. Serra-Maluquer, X. et al. Wood density and hydraulic traits influence species’ growth response to drought across biomes. Glob. Change Biol. 28 (12), 3871–3882 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

40. Yang, H. et al. Global patterns of tree wood density. Glob. Change Biol. 30 (3), e17224 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

41. Fajardo, A. Wood density is a poor predictor of competitive ability among individuals of the same species. For. Ecol. Manag. 372, 217–225 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

42. Holmes, M. J. & Reed, D. D. Competition indices for mixed species northern hardwoods. For. Sci. 37 (5), 1338–1349 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

43. Sun, Z., Wang, Y., Pan, L. & Sun, Y. Hegyi competition index decomposition to improve estimation accuracy of Larix olgensis crown radius. Ecol. Ind. 143, 109322 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

44. Britton, T. G., Richards, S. A. & Hovenden, M. J. Quantifying neighbour effects on tree growth: Are common ‘competition’indices biased? J. Ecol. 111 (6), 1270–1280 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

45. Firmino, P. N., Faias, S. P., Tomé, M. & Paulo, J. A. Contribution of competition indices and edaphoclimatic variables to the prediction of undercork diameter growth of adult cork oak trees in the Portuguese Montado. Eur. J. For. Res. 144 (6), 1367–1380 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

46. Petritan, A. M., Bouriaud, O., Frank, D. C. & Petritan, I. C. Dendroecological reconstruction of disturbance history of an old-growth mixed sessile oak–beech forest. J. Veg. Sci. 28 (1), 117–127 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

47. Walkley, A. & Black, I. A. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil. Sci. 37, 29–38 (1934).

    Google Scholar 

48. Kjeldahl, J. Medd Carlsberg Lab. Z. Anal. Chem. 22. 1, 366 (1883). 2.

    Google Scholar 

49. Bouyoucos, G. J. A recalibration of the hydrometer method for making mechanical analysis of soils. Agron. J. 43, 434–438 (1951).

    Google Scholar 

50. Vance, E. D., Brookes, P. C. & Jenkinson, D. S. An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass C. Soil Biol. Biochem. 19 (6), 703–707 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

51. Brookes, P. C., Landman, A., Pruden, G. & Jenkinson, D. S. Chloroform fumigation and the release of soil nitrogen: a rapid direct extraction method to measure microbial biomass nitrogen in soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 17 (6), 837–842 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

52. Brookes, P. C., Powlson, D. S. & Jenkinson, D. S. Measurement of microbial biomass phosphorus in soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 14 (4), 319–329 (1982).

    Google Scholar 

53. Pang, C. et al. Divergent microbial metabolic limitations across soil depths after two decades of high nitrogen inputs in a primary tropical forest. Glob. Change Biol. 31 (8), e70440 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

54. Shankar, A., Kashyap, K. & Garkoti, S. C. Influence of vegetation and soil properties on carbon stocks in Shorea robusta forests under different disturbance regimes. J. Environ. Manage. 380, 124916 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

55. Zhang, C. et al. Long-term nitrogen deposition suppresses microbial necromass carbon with depth-and season-specific patterns in forest soils. Soil and Tillage Research, 256, p.106831. (2026).

56. Zhao, W. et al. Microbial life history strategies regulate soil organic carbon sequestration in response to thinning depending on microbial nutrient limitations. For. Ecol. Manag. 599, 123259 (2026).

    Google Scholar 

57. Alef, K. & Nannipieri, P. Methods in Applied Soil Microbiology and Biotechnology 1st edn (Academic, 1995).

58. Paul, E. A. & Clark, F. E. Soil Microbiology and Biochemistry p. 340 (Academic, 1996).

59. Versace, S. et al. Species interactions in pure and mixed-species stands of silver fir and European beech in Mediterranean mountains. iForest-Biogeosciences Forestry. 14 (1), 1 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

60. Neirynck, J., Mirtcheva, S., Sioen, G. & Lust, N. Impact of Tilia platyphyllos Scop., Fraxinus excelsior L., Acer pseudoplatanus L., Quercus robur L. and Fagus sylvatica L. on earthworm biomass and physico-chemical properties of a loamy topsoil. For. Ecol. Manag. 133 (3), 275–286 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

61. Rothe, A. & Binkley, D. Nutritional interactions in mixed species forests: a synthesis. Can. J. For. Res. 31 (11), 1855–1870 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

62. Jacob, M. Productivity and nutrient relations of trees in deciduous forests differing in tree species diversity, PhD Dissertation. University of Gottingen, Germany, 147 p. (2010).

63. Knops, J. M. H., Bradley, K. L. & Wedin, D. A. Mechanisms of plant species impacts on ecosystem nitrogen cycling. Ecol. Lett. 5 (3), 454–466 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

64. Augusto, L., Ranger, J., Binkley, D. & Rothe, A. Impact of several common tree species of European temperate forests on soil fertility. Ann. For. Sci. 59 (3), 233–253 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

65. Kooch, Y. & Bayranvand, M. Composition of tree species can mediate spatial variability of C and N cycles in mixed beech forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 401, 55–64 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

66. Židó, J., Šumichrast, L., Kucbel, S. & Gömöryová, E. The effect of stand structure on soil physico-chemical and biological properties in a primary beech forest. Forests 13 (9), 1344 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

67. Bakhshandeh-Navroud, B., Vajari, A., Pilehvar, K., Kooch, Y. & B., & The interactions between tree-herb layer diversity and soil properties in the oriental beech (Fagus orientalis Lipsky) stands in Hyrcanian forest. Environ. Monit. Assess. 190 (7), 425 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

68. Marefat, S., Eshaghi Rad, J. & Khanalizadeh, A. Effects of mixed beech and hornbeam stands on soil properties and plant species diversity indices in Hyrcanian forests of Iran. Madera y Bosques 26(3),(2020).

    Google Scholar 

69. Dawud, S. M. et al. Is tree species diversity or species identity the more important driver of soil carbon stocks, C/N ratio, and pH? Ecosystems 19 (4), 645–660 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

70. Dawud, S. M., Vesterdal, L. & Raulund-Rasmussen, K. Mixed-species effects on soil C and N stocks, C/N ratio and pH using a transboundary approach in adjacent common garden Douglas-fir and beech stands. Forests 8 (4), 95 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

Download references