In fact, this approach for restoration of complex age structure is widely practiced in the context

of variable retention harvesting regimes (Gustafsson et al., 2012). Thinning treatments in established stands are generally modeled on natural decline and mortality of trees that occurs during stand development; natural thinning augmented by small-scale disturbances contribute to spatial heterogeneity of stand structure (Franklin et al., 2002). Standard thinning is intended to anticipate natural competition-induced mortality by removing suppressed trees before they die from resource limitations (thinning from below) or by removing dominant trees and thus allow sub-dominant and suppressed trees to increase in growth (thinning from above). Traditionally, standard thinning Gemcitabine solubility dmso in plantations is implemented in a way that deliberately creates an evenly distributed population UMI-77 supplier of crop trees, all having similar access to light, water, and soil nutrients, often times through use of row thinning. In naturally regenerated stands, thinning also focuses on reducing competition

on crop trees but spatial distribution is less uniform. In contrast, passively managed stands undergoing competitive thinning and non-competitive mortality often display some spatial variation in tree densities, growth rates, and tree sizes. It is this kind of variation in structure that restorationists may desire to create in simplified stands and to do so in a way that accelerates the development of structural heterogeneity that otherwise may take decades to develop passively. From a restoration perspective, the goal of this type of thinning is to create structural heterogeneity throughout the stand, rather than to concentrate growth on selected trees and create spatially uniform stands, as in a traditional forest management approach. Structural heterogeneity can be developed using an approach

known as variable density thinning Cyclic nucleotide phosphodiesterase or VDT (Aubry et al., 1999, Vanha-Majamaa and Jalonen, 2001, Pastur et al., 2009, O’Hara et al., 2010, Baker and Read, 2011, Lencinas et al., 2011 and Ribe et al., 2013) (Fig. 13). Prescriptions for VDT have been formulated and implemented in a variety of ways, but one popular and easily conceptualized approach is known as “skips and gaps” thinning. With this approach, VDT prescriptions provide for unthinned areas (referred to as “skips”) and heavily thinned patches (“gaps”), along with intermediate levels of thinning and residual density throughout the bulk of the stand matrix (Lindenmayer and Franklin, 2002). The result is greater spatial variability in stand densities and, consequently, greater structural complexity and heterogeneity of structure than occurs with standard thinning.