Open Access
Silva Lusitana
Volume 30, Number 1, 2022
Page(s) 17 - 40
Published online 29 August 2022
  • Alegria, C., Roque, N., Albuquerque, T., Fernandez, P., Ribeiro, M.M., 2021. Modelling Maritime Pine (Pinus pinaster Aiton) Spatial Distribution and Productivity in Portugal: Tools for Forest Management. Forests 12: 368. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Alegria, C., Tomé, M., 2013. A tree distance-dependent growth and yield model for naturally regenerated pure uneven-aged maritime pine stands in central inland of Portugal. Ann. For. Sci. 70: 261-276. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Alves, A.A.M., Almeida, H., Goes, A., 2018. Plantações florestais. ISAPRESS. 312 pp. [Google Scholar]
  • Ashton, M.S., Kelty, M.J., 2018. The practice of silviculture. Applied forest ecology. 10th ed. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 758 pp. [Google Scholar]
  • Boudru, M., 1989. Forêt et Sylviculture. Le Traitement des Forêts. Presses Agronomiques de Gembloux. 344 pp. [Google Scholar]
  • Correia, A.V., Oliveira, A.C., 2003. Principais espécies florestais com interesse para Portugal: zonas de influência atlântica. Direcção-Geral das Florestas. 322 pp. [Google Scholar]
  • Correia, A.V., Oliveira, A.C., 1999. Principais espécies florestais com interesse para Portugal: zonas de influência mediterrânica. Direcção-Geral das Florestas. 318 pp. [Google Scholar]
  • Cox, L.E., York, R.A., Battles, J.J., 2021. Growth and form of giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) in a plantation spacing trial after 28 years. Forest Ecology and Management 488:119033. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Ferreira, A.G., Gonçalves, A.C., Pinheiro, A.C.A., Gomes, C.P., Ilhéu, M., Neves, N., Ribeiro, N.A., Santos, P., 2001. Plano específico de ordenamento florestal para o Alentejo. Universidade de Évora, 200 pp. [Google Scholar]
  • Forrester, D.I., 2014. The spatial and temporal dynamics of species interactions in mixed-species forests: From pattern to process. Forest Ecology and Management 312: 282-292. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Forrester, D.I., Bauhus, J., 2016. A Review of Processes Behind Diversity—Productivity Relationships in Forests. Current Forestry Reports 2: 45-61. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Gonçalves, A.C., 2017. Multi-Species Stand Classification: Definition and Perspectives. In Forest Ecology and Conservation, Chakravarty, S., Shukla, G. (Eds.). InTechOpen, pp. 3-23 [Google Scholar]
  • Gonçalves, A.C., 2021. Thinning: An Overview. In Silviculture, Gonçalves, A.C. (Ed.). IntechOpen, pp. 41-58. [Google Scholar]
  • Gonçalves, A.C., 2022. Influence of Stand Structure on Forest Biomass Sustainability. In Natural Resources Conservation and Advances for Sustainability, Jhariya, M.K., Meena, R.S., Banerjee, A., Meena, S.N. (Eds.). Elsevier, pp. 327-352. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Gonçalves, A.C., Dias, S.S., Ferreira, A.G., 2008a. Definição de Modelos de Silvicultura à Escala dos Planos de Ordenamento Florestal. Silva Lusitana nº especial: 97-110. [Google Scholar]
  • Gonçalves, A.C., Dias, S.S., Ferreira, A.G., 2008b. Alterações de Composição e Estrutura dos Povoamentos Florestais. Silva Lusitana nº especial: 111-124. [Google Scholar]
  • Gonçalves, A.C., Oliveira, A.C., 2010. Evolution in Multi-Species High Forest Stands in Serra da Lousã: diversity Analysis. Silva Lusitana nº especial: 79-90. [Google Scholar]
  • Grossiord, C., Gessler, A., Granier, A., Pollastrini, M., Bussotti, F., Bonal, D., 2014. Interspecific competition influences the response of oak transpiration to increasing drought stress in a mixed Mediterranean forest. Forest Ecology and Management 318: 54-61. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • IFN6, 2019. 6º Inventário florestal nacional. Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e das Florestas. 26 pp. [Google Scholar]
  • Jobling, J., Pearce, M.L., 1977. Free-growth of oak. Forest Record, Forestry Comission 113: 3-17. [Google Scholar]
  • Louro, G., Marques, H., Salinas, F., 1999. Elementos de apoio à elaboração de projectos florestais. Direcção-Geral das Florestas. 126 pp. [Google Scholar]
  • Lundqvist, L., 2017. Tamm Review: Selection system reduces long-term volume growth in Fennoscandic uneven-aged Norway spruce forests. Forest Ecology and Management 391: 362-375. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Lundqvist, L., Ahlström, M.A., Axelsson, E.P., Mörling, T., Valinger, E., 2019. Multi-layered Scots pine forests in boreal Sweden result from mass regeneration and size stratification. Forest Ecology and Management 441: 176-181. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Natividade, J.V., 1950. Subericultura. Ministério da Agricultura, Pescas e Alimentação, Direção Geral das Florestas. 387 pp. [Google Scholar]
  • O'hara, K.L., 2014. Multiaged Silviculture Managing for Complex Forest Stand Structures. Oxford University Press. 213 pp. [Google Scholar]
  • Paulo, J.A., Palma, J.H.N., Gomes, A.A., Faias, S.P., Tomé, J., Tomé, M., 2015. Predicting site index from climate and soil variables for cork oak (Quercus suber L.) stands in Portugal. New Forests 46: 293-307. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Peracca, G.G., O'hara, K.L., 2008. Effects of Growing Space on Growth for 20-Year-Old Giant Sequoia, Ponderosa Pine, and Douglas-Fir in the Sierra Nevada. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 23: 156-165. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Schütz, J.-P., 1999. Close-to-nature silviculture: is this concept compatible with species diversity? Forestry 72: 359-366. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Schütz, J.-P., 2002. Silvicultural tools to develop irregular and diverse forest structures. Forestry 75: 329-337. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Schütz, J.-P., 1997. Sylviculture 2. La Gestion des Forêts Irrégulières et Mélangées. Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes, 178 pp. [Google Scholar]
  • Smith, D.M., Larson, B.C., Kelty, M.J., Ashton, P.M.S., 1997. The Practice of Silviculture. Applied Forest Ecology, 9th ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 560 pp. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.