We were able to differentiate the shading effects and found that for Norway spruce the effect of neighbor competition was more pronounced than the self-shading. Although the relationship of absorbed light to leaf area varied with tree size, we could not detect a different trend between light use efficiency and leaf area efficiency. Both indicated that trees with higher

tree SB203580 molecular weight size not only received more light (leaf area) but also were able to produce more stem volume increment per unit of light (leaf area). We speculate that the higher efficiency in larger trees was not a result of higher productivity, but rather of a lower efficiency in smaller trees. On an individual tree-level, we found that BMS-387032 at a given tree size, individuals from the unthinned plots were more efficient; however at the stand-level the average tree from the thinned plots was more efficient, since the tree sizes were generally higher. Unfortunately, this trend was not consistent

within all plots and does not fully agree with our third hypothesis. This work was funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) by the project “Individual tree growth efficiency of Norway spruce” (P20159-B16). We want to thank the numerous field workers for the tedious sampling and processing. We are also thankful to the Habsburg-Lothringen’schen Gut Persenbeug (Bärnkopf) who allowed us to conduct this research on their sites. We want to give special thanks to the Central Institute for Meteorology and

Geodynamics (ZAMG) Austria for access to their meteorological database. We are also grateful to Remko Duursma from the University of Western Sydney, Australia, who was helping out with parts of Maestra. “
“The authors regret that in this work, they should not have considered in the comparison of specific CO2 emissions of bioenergy system and coal, the difference in their energy content (see unnecessary text in p. 90 and Figure 9). This was because it is already considered in calculation of specific Carnitine palmitoyltransferase II CO2 emissions per unit of energy (see Table 2). Thus, they should have compared directly the values given for bioenergy system in Table 2 against corresponding value of coal (341 kg CO2 MWh−1). In reality, the values shown in bold text in Table 2 represent > 50% less emissions compared to that of coal. Thus, the most of management regimes did output successful substitution. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. “
“The height:diameter ratio is an important measure of tree and stand stability for conifers. Trees with higher ratios are more prone to snow and wind damage than trees with lower ratios.