Can Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) forests harbour natural regeneration of European ash (Fraxinus excelsior L.)?

Krzysztof Turczański; Agnieszka Andrzejewska; Katarzyna Kaźmierczak; Marcin K. Dyderski

doi:10.2478/ffp-2024-0015

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

Can Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) forests harbour natural regeneration of European ash (Fraxinus excelsior L.)?

Folia Forestalia Polonica

Volume 66 (2024): Issue 3 (September 2024)

By: Krzysztof Turczański, Agnieszka Andrzejewska, Katarzyna Kaźmierczak and Marcin K. Dyderski

Open Access

|Sep 2024

Figures & Tables

Ash natural regeneration within pine-ash forest (A), soil profile of Arenic Cambisol (B)

Scheme of study plots establishment. Circles indicate study plots (25 m²) established in pine-ash forest (first two plots) and pine forest without ash in overstory but with ash regeneration. The last two plots in pine forest were located up to a maximum distance of 60 m from mature ash trees (seed source) growing in pine-ash forest. Mature ash trees are marked in grey colour

Result of Principal Components Analysis for soil chemistry variables

Table 1.

Models of ash saplings density (per 25 m²), estimated using Poisson generalized linear mixed-effects models

Independent variable	Predictor	Estimate	SE	z value	Pr(>\|z\|)
Saplings <0.6 m height density per 25 m²	(intercept)	−4.257	0.816	−5.216	<0.001
AICc = 205.6, AICc₀ = 480.9	proportion of drought-damaged saplings	1.269	0.587	2.161	0.031
RE SD < 0.0001	proportion of browsed saplings	1.443	0.531	2.720	0.007
	soil pH	1.293	0.155	8.346	<2e-16
	tree layer cover	0.014	0.008	1.881	0.060
	moss layer cover	−0.072	0.024	−2.966	0.003
	pine proportion	−0.018	0.010	−1.730	0.084
Saplings 0.6–1.3 m height density per 25 m²	(intercept)	−1.158	0.986	−1.174	<0.001
AICc = 91.2, AICc₀ = 119.7	shrub layer cover	0.091	0.031	2.927	0.003
RE SD = 0.8554	oine proportion	−0.018	0.010	−1.730	0.084

[i] SE – standard error, z – test statistic, Pr(>|z|) – p-value, AICc – Akaike’s Information Criterion, with correction for small sample size, AICc₀ – AICc of null model (intercept-only), RE SD – standard deviation of random effect (set of study plots)

Ash saplings density estimated using Poisson generalized linear mixed-effects models (Tab. 1). Dots represent measured values, line – prediction, grey area – 95% confidence interval for prediction

The proportion of disease-damaged (two first rows) and drought-damaged (third row) saplings estimated using GLMM assuming zero-inflated beta distribution of dependent variable (Tab. 2). Dots represent measured values, line – prediction, grey area – 95% confidence interval for prediction

Table 2.

Models of the proportion of damaged saplings estimated using zero-inflated Beta generalized linear mixed-effects models

Independent variable	Predictor	Estimate	SE	z value	Pr(>\|z\|)
Proportion of disease-damaged saplings <0.6 m height (count)	(intercept)	−7.571	1.456	−5.201	<0.001
AICc = −37.8, AICc₀ = 10.5	tree layer cover	0.024	0.012	1.996	0.046
RE SD = 0.0001	soil pH	0.790	0.235	3.363	0.001
(zero-inflated)	(intercept)	62.167	25.851	2.405	0.016
RE SD = 0.011	soil pH	−14.673	6.115	−2.400	0.016
Proportion of disease-damaged saplings 0.6–1.3 m height (count)	(intercept)	2.010	0.613	3.000	0.001
AICc = −42.4, AICc₀ = 47.3	soil pH	0.825	0.000	157,341.000	<0.001
RE SD = 1.668	summer soil moisture	−0.660	0.000	−129,175.000	<0.001
	herb layer cover	0.021	0.000	88,930.000	<0.001
	moss layer cover	−1.123	0.000	−546,917.000	<0.001
(zero-inflated) RE SD = 1.016	(intercept)	1.157	0.594	1.948	0.051
Proportion of drought-damaged saplings <0.6 m height (count)	(intercept)	−1.256	0.675	−1.860	0.063
AICc = −32.0, AICc₀ = −11.4	summer soil moisture	−0.205	0.091	−2.264	0.024
RE SD = 0.1037	pine proportion	0.011	0.004	3.061	0.002
(zero-inflated)	(intercept)	8.044	4.603	1.748	0.081
RE SD = 1.414	soil pH	−2.227	1.146	−1.942	0.052

[i] SE – standard error, z – test statistic, Pr(>|z|) – p-value, AICc – Akaike’s I+nformation Criterion, with correction for small sample size, AICc₀ – AICc of null model (intercept-only), RE SD – standard deviation of random effect (set of study plots)

Table 3.

Models of the proportion of browsed saplings estimated using zero-inflated Beta generalized linear mixed-effects models

Independent variable	Predictor	Estimate	SE	z value	Pr(>\|z\|)
Proportion of browsed saplings <0.6 m height (count)	(intercept)	−4.526	1.490	−3.038	0.002
AICc = −46.3, AICc₀ = 6.9	shrub layer cover	0.016	0.013	1.286	0.198
RE SD = 0.2340	soil pH	0.742	0.337	2.200	0.028
RE SD = 0.2340	pine proportion	−0.005	0.004	−1.208	0.227
(zero-inflated)	(intercept)	825.000	454.600	1.815	0.070
RE SD = 150.6	pH	−208.500	114.900	−1.814	0.070
Proportion of browsed saplings 0.6–1.3 m height (count)	(intercept)	−1.680	1.097	−1.531	0.126
AICc = −5.7; AICc₀ = 25.0	moss layer cover	−1.526	0.426	−3.584	<0.001
RE SD < 0.0001	summer soil moisture	0.823	0.211	3.892	<0.001
(zero-inflated)	(intercept)	337.120	292.560	1.152	0.249
RE SD = 30.35	pH	−76.870	67.800	−1.134	0.257

The proportion of browsed saplings, estimated using generalized linear mixed-effects models assuming zero-inflated Beta distribution of dependent variable (Tab. 3). Dots represent measured values, line – prediction, grey area – 95% confidence interval for prediction

Table S1.

Study plots characteristics

No.	Plot	Mature pine trees (%)	Mature ash trees (%)	Other trees in overstory (%)	Soil Reference Group	Soil texture	Summer groundwater (cm)	Summer soil moisture (%)	SOM (%)	Soil pH
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1.	1	40	20	40Qr	Ochric Dystric Cambisol	LS	165	6.7	2.70	4.49
	2	50	5	40Qr 5A	Ochric Dystric Cambisol	LS	>200	5.7	2.25	4.21
	3	80	0	20Qr	Ochric Brunic Arenosol	S	>200	4.2	1.69	3.70
	4	80	0	20Qr	Ochric Brunic Arenosol	S	>200	4.1	1.60	3.62
2.	5	20	20	50Qr 10B	Arenic Fluvic Cambisol	S	>200	6.1	2.68	4.50
	6	50	5	30Qr 15B	Arenic Dystric Cambisol	S	>200	6.0	2.60	4.14
	7	50	0	30Qr 20B	Ochric Brunic Arenosol	S	>200	5.1	2.23	4.22
	8	90	0	10B	Ochric Brunic Arenosol	S	>200	3.6	1.41	3.38
3.	9	10	20	40A 30Qr	Colluvic Calcaric Cambisol	LS	190	7.7	3.12	4.46
	10	60	10	30Qr	Colluvic Dystric Cambisol	S	>200	7.1	2.16	4.09
	11	80	0	20Qr	Ochric Brunic Arenosol	S	>200	4.7	1.42	3.67
	12	90	0	10Qr	Ochric Brunic Arenosol	S	>200	4.4	1.25	3.46
4.	13	50	40	10Qr	Arenic Calcaric Cambisol	S	>200	5.4	3.45	5.19
	14	50	20	30Qr	Arenic Calcaric Cambisol	S	>200	5.4	3.19	4.58
	15	60	0	30Qr 10T	Ochric Brunic Arenosol	S	>200	4.9	2.27	4.31
	16	60	0	30Qr 10T	Ochric Brunic Arenosol	S	>200	4.8	2.34	4.26
5.	17	20	20	50Qr 10B	Arenic Calcaric Cambisol	S	>200	8.7	2.33	4.79
	18	60	5	30Qr 5B	Ochric Brunic Arenosol	S	>200	5.6	2.25	4.12
	19	70	0	20Qr 10T	Ochric Brunic Arenosol	S	>200	5.5	2.03	4.02
	20	90	0	10Qr	Ochric Brunic Arenosol	S	>200	4.8	1.88	3.68
6.	21	30	20	40Qr 10A	Ochric Brunic Arenosol	S	>200	8.3	3.08	4.60
	22	60	10	30Qr	Ochric Brunic Arenosol	S	>200	8.3	2.98	4.45
	23	70	0	30Qr	Ochric Brunic Arenosol	S	>200	5.5	1.90	4.00
	24	90	0	10Qr	Ochric Brunic Arenosol	S	>200	5.2	1.54	3.81
7.	25	10	10	30A 30L 20T	Colluvic Dystric Cambisol	S	>200	8.0	2.32	4.51
	26	60	5	20L 10A 5Qr	Colluvic Dystric Cambisol	S	>200	5.5	1.90	4.29
	27	90	0	10Qr	Ochric Brunic Arenosol	S	>200	5.0	1.84	3.80
	28	90	0	10Qr	Ochric Brunic Arenosol	S	>200	4.9	1.20	3.40
8.	29	20	10	40A 30C	Colluvic Dystric Cambisol	S	>200	5.7	2.66	4.68
	30	60	5	20Qr 15A	Colluvic Dystric Cambisol	S	>200	5.6	2.18	4.21
	31	80	0	10Qr 10B	Ochric Brunic Arenosol	S	>200	4.0	2.17	3.90
	32	80	0	10Qr 10B	Ochric Brunic Arenosol	S	>200	4.4	2.01	3.86
9.	33	10	30	40Qr 20A	Arenic Dystric Cambisol	S	169	8.3	3.18	5.03
	34	60	5	20Qr 15A	Ochric Brunic Arenosol	S	185	7.2	2.29	4.24
	35	80	0	20Qr	Ochric Brunic Arenosol	S	185	7.1	1.70	4.11
	36	90	0	10Qr	Ochric Brunic Arenosol	S	>200	6.9	1.70	3.60
10.	37	10	10	50B 30Qp	Ochric Brunic Arenosol	S	>200	6.3	2.33	4.28
	38	60	5	20Qp 15B	Ochric Brunic Arenosol	S	>200	5.1	1.90	4.04
	39	90	0	10Qp	Ochric Brunic Arenosol	S	>200	4.9	1,77	3.59
	40	90	0	10Qp	Ochric Brunic Arenosol	S	>200	5.0	1,72	3.40

[i] The reference soil groups and their principal and supplementary qualifiers follow the IUSS Working Group WRB (2022). Abbreviations: tree species – A (Acer platanoides L.); B (Betula pendula Roth); C (Carpinus betulus L.); F (Fraxinus excelsior L.); L (Larix decidua Mill.); P (Pinus sylvestris L.); T (Tilia cordata Mill.); Q (Quercus robur L.); Qp (Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.); soil texture – S (sand), LS (loamy sand); SOM – soil organic matter.

Table S2.

Ash regeneration characteristics (ind./25m² study plot)

No.	Plot	Density of ash <0.6 m	Density of ash 0.6–1.3 m	Hf damaged ind. <0.6 m	HF damaged ind. 0.6–1.3 m	Drought-damaged ind. <0.6 m	Drought-damaged ind.0.6–1.3 m	Browsed ind. <0.6 m	Browsed ind. 0.6–1.3 m
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1.	1	24	2	1	2	0	0	6	2
	2	15	1	0	1	1	0	3	1
	3	6	1	0	0	2	0	1	0
	4	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
2.	5	17	0	2	0	1	0	4	0
	6	11	1	0	0	1	0	2	0
	7	11	0	1	0	2	0	2	0
	8	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
3.	9	22	3	3	1	0	0	5	2
	10	9	0	0	0	0	0	1	0
	11	2	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
	12	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
4.	13	56	10	8	4	9	0	20	8
	14	36	6	4	3	6	0	10	6
	15	17	4	1	2	4	0	4	3
	16	13	4	0	1	3	0	3	3
5.	17	28	5	3	3	3	0	13	5
	18	15	1	1	0	3	0	4	0
	19	11	0	0	0	2	0	1	0
	20	4	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
6.	21	36	3	5	1	3	0	16	3
	22	29	0	2	0	3	0	12	0
	23	13	1	0	0	2	0	3	0
	24	7	0	0	0	1	0	1	0
7.	25	17	0	2	0	1	0	5	0
	26	13	0	1	0	1	0	2	0
	27	5	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
	28	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
8.	29	29	1	2	1	2	0	11	1
	30	14	0	1	0	2	0	2	0
	31	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	32	5	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
9.	33	35	3	5	2	0	0	9	3
	34	12	1	0	0	0	0	2	0
	35	9	0	0	0	1	0	1	0
	36	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
10.	37	14	0	0	0	1	0	2	0
	38	8	0	0	0	1	0	1	0
	39	4	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
	40	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

[i] Hf – Hymenoscyphus fraxineus.

Table S3.

Correlation matrix of studied variables, values of |r|>0.7 bolded

Variable	Ash proportion	Pine proportion	SOM	soil pH	litter pH	soil N	SOC	C:N ratio	soil Ca	soil K	soil Na	spring moisture	summer moisture	canopy cover	shrub cover	herb cover	moss cover	<0.6 m saplings density	0.6–1.3 m saplings density	<0.6 m saplings browsed proportion	0.6–1.3 m saplings browsed proportion	<0.6 m saplings damaged proportion	0.6–1.3 m saplings damaged proportion	<0.6 m saplings drought damaged proportion
Ash proportion	1.00	−0.72	0.84	0.84	0.86	0.71	0.41	−0.60	0.79	0.56	−0.41	0.30	0.56	0.17	0.65	0.72	−0.28	0.89	0.71	0.68	0.64	0.82	0.52	−0.18
Pine proportion	−0.72	1.00	−0.75	−0.83	−0.88	−0.58	−0.19	0.71	−0.70	−0.39	0.64	−0.30	−0.67	−0.13	−0.55	−0.84	0.45	−0.68	−0.37	−0.74	−0.56	−0.74	−0.52	0.19
SOM	0.84	−0.75	1.00	0.89	0.79	0.85	0.49	−0.76	0.88	0.63	−0.64	0.37	0.57	0.17	0.68	0.78	−0.39	0.90	0.64	0.77	0.65	0.77	0.53	0.02
soil pH	0.84	−0.83	0.89	1.00	0.89	0.77	0.32	−0.82	0.95	0.70	−0.68	0.36	0.63	0.15	0.70	0.83	−0.53	0.92	0.65	0.86	0.68	0.80	0.59	0.02
litter pH	0.86	−0.88	0.79	0.89	1.00	0.67	0.35	−0.69	0.78	0.52	−0.54	0.41	0.66	0.20	0.63	0.77	−0.46	0.82	0.51	0.79	0.65	0.84	0.60	−0.20
soil N	0.71	−0.58	0.85	0.77	0.67	1.00	0.74	−0.77	0.84	0.63	−0.44	0.38	0.44	0.12	0.62	0.66	−0.45	0.87	0.64	0.80	0.63	0.66	0.51	0.06
SOC	0.41	−0.19	0.49	0.32	0.35	0.74	1.00	−0.19	0.40	0.32	−0.07	0.28	0.21	0.16	0.38	0.23	−0.22	0.51	0.34	0.41	0.35	0.36	0.28	−0.06
C:N ratio	−0.60	0.71	−0.76	−0.82	−0.69	−0.77	−0.19	1.00	−0.87	−0.62	0.64	−0.41	−0.52	0.01	−0.55	−0.77	0.60	−0.75	−0.51	−0.82	−0.54	−0.60	−0.47	−0.13
soil Ca	0.79	−0.70	0.88	0.95	0.78	0.84	0.40	−0.87	1.00	0.74	−0.63	0.41	0.57	0.12	0.66	0.77	−0.53	0.94	0.70	0.87	0.66	0.73	0.55	0.16
soil K	0.56	−0.39	0.63	0.70	0.52	0.63	0.32	−0.62	0.74	1.00	−0.50	0.34	0.27	0.12	0.39	0.43	−0.34	0.72	0.65	0.58	0.57	0.48	0.55	0.24
soil Na	−0.41	0.64	−0.64	−0.68	−0.54	−0.44	−0.07	0.64	−0.63	−0.50	1.00	−0.19	−0.37	0.14	−0.48	−0.64	0.48	−0.48	−0.17	−0.56	−0.28	−0.42	−0.31	−0.11
spring moisture	0.30	−0.30	0.37	0.36	0.41	0.38	0.28	−0.41	0.41	0.34	−0.19	1.00	0.52	0.29	0.10	0.28	−0.24	0.36	0.15	0.39	0.39	0.26	0.43	−0.06
summer moisture	0.56	−0.67	0.57	0.63	0.66	0.44	0.21	−0.52	0.57	0.27	−0.37	0.52	1.00	0.44	0.34	0.63	−0.23	0.54	0.20	0.65	0.36	0.55	0.29	−0.29
canopy cover	0.17	−0.13	0.17	0.15	0.20	0.12	0.16	0.01	0.12	0.12	0.14	0.29	0.44	1.00	−0.14	−0.05	0.31	0.20	0.15	0.18	0.19	0.30	0.10	−0.04
shrub cover	0.65	−0.55	0.68	0.70	0.63	0.62	0.38	−0.55	0.66	0.39	−0.48	0.10	0.34	−0.14	1.00	0.61	−0.51	0.68	0.57	0.67	0.55	0.61	0.42	−0.01
herb cover	0.72	−0.84	0.78	0.83	0.77	0.66	0.23	−0.77	0.77	0.43	−0.64	0.28	0.63	−0.05	0.61	1.00	−0.49	0.72	0.38	0.77	0.46	0.69	0.39	−0.14
moss cover	−0.28	0.45	−0.39	−0.53	−0.46	−0.45	−0.22	0.60	−0.53	−0.34	0.48	−0.24	−0.23	0.31	−0.51	−0.49	1.00	−0.38	−0.21	−0.46	−0.23	−0.29	−0.22	−0.09
<0.6 m saplings density	0.89	−0.68	0.90	0.92	0.82	0.87	0.51	−0.75	0.94	0.72	−0.48	0.36	0.54	0.20	0.68	0.72	−0.38	1.00	0.79	0.85	0.74	0.81	0.60	0.06
0.6–1.3 m saplings density	0.71	−0.37	0.64	0.65	0.51	0.64	0.34	−0.51	0.70	0.65	−0.17	0.15	0.20	0.15	0.57	0.38	−0.21	0.79	1.00	0.58	0.73	0.57	0.52	0.17
<0.6 m saplings browsed proportion	0.68	−0.74	0.77	0.86	0.79	0.80	0.41	−0.82	0.87	0.58	−0.56	0.39	0.65	0.18	0.67	0.77	−0.46	0.85	0.58	1.00	0.65	0.73	0.55	0.12
0.6–1.3 m saplings browsed proportion	0.64	−0.56	0.65	0.68	0.65	0.63	0.35	−0.54	0.66	0.57	−0.28	0.39	0.36	0.19	0.55	0.46	−0.23	0.74	0.73	0.65	1.00	0.55	0.92	−0.02
<0.6 m saplings damaged proportion	0.82	−0.74	0.77	0.80	0.84	0.66	0.36	−0.60	0.73	0.48	−0.42	0.26	0.55	0.30	0.61	0.69	−0.29	0.81	0.57	0.73	0.55	1.00	0.40	−0.04
0.6–1.3 m saplings damaged proportion	0.52	−0.52	0.53	0.59	0.60	0.51	0.28	−0.47	0.55	0.55	−0.31	0.43	0.29	0.10	0.42	0.39	−0.22	0.60	0.52	0.55	0.92	0.40	1.00	−0.10
<0.6 m saplings drought damaged proportion	−0.18	0.19	0.02	0.02	−0.20	0.06	−0.06	−0.13	0.16	0.24	−0.11	−0.06	−0.29	−0.04	−0.01	−0.14	−0.09	0.06	0.17	0.12	−0.02	−0.04	−0.10	1.00

[i] Abbreviations: SOM – soil organic matter; N – total nitrogen; SOC – soil organic carbon; Ca – calcium; K – potassium; Na – sodium

Table S4.

Values of variance inflation factors (VIF) for variables used in models and for all variables

Variable	VIF
Proportion of Scots pine in stand	4.070
Soil texture	1.448
Soil pH	4.598
Soil moisture in spring	2.113
Soil moisture in spring	3.165
Tree layer cover	1.699
Shrub layer cover	3.042
Herb layer cover	5.000
Moss layer cover	1.211

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ffp-2024-0015 | Journal eISSN: 2199-5907 | Journal ISSN: 0071-6677

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 195 - 214

Submitted on: Jul 11, 2024

Accepted on: Aug 1, 2024

Published on: Sep 12, 2024

Published by: Forest Research Institute

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

Related subjects:

© 2024 Krzysztof Turczański, Agnieszka Andrzejewska, Katarzyna Kaźmierczak, Marcin K. Dyderski, published by Forest Research Institute
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Volume 66 (2024): Issue 3 (September 2024)

Can Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) forests harbour natural regeneration of European ash (Fraxinus excelsior L.)?

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Table 1.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Figure 6.

Table S1.

Table S2.

Table S3.

Table S4.

Paradigm

My account

No.	Plot	Density of ash <0.6 m	Density of ash 0.6–1.3 m	Hf damaged ind. <0.6 m	HF damaged ind. 0.6–1.3 m	Drought-damaged ind. <0.6 m	Drought-damaged ind.0.6–1.3 m	Browsed ind. <0.6 m	Browsed ind. 0.6–1.3 m
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1.	1	24	2	1	2	0	0	6	2
	2	15	1	0	1	1	0	3	1
	3	6	1	0	0	2	0	1	0
	4	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
2.	5	17	0	2	0	1	0	4	0
	6	11	1	0	0	1	0	2	0
	7	11	0	1	0	2	0	2	0
	8	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
3.	9	22	3	3	1	0	0	5	2
	10	9	0	0	0	0	0	1	0
	11	2	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
	12	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
4.	13	56	10	8	4	9	0	20	8
	14	36	6	4	3	6	0	10	6
	15	17	4	1	2	4	0	4	3
	16	13	4	0	1	3	0	3	3
5.	17	28	5	3	3	3	0	13	5
	18	15	1	1	0	3	0	4	0
	19	11	0	0	0	2	0	1	0
	20	4	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
6.	21	36	3	5	1	3	0	16	3
	22	29	0	2	0	3	0	12	0
	23	13	1	0	0	2	0	3	0
	24	7	0	0	0	1	0	1	0
7.	25	17	0	2	0	1	0	5	0
	26	13	0	1	0	1	0	2	0
	27	5	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
	28	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
8.	29	29	1	2	1	2	0	11	1
	30	14	0	1	0	2	0	2	0
	31	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	32	5	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
9.	33	35	3	5	2	0	0	9	3
	34	12	1	0	0	0	0	2	0
	35	9	0	0	0	1	0	1	0
	36	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
10.	37	14	0	0	0	1	0	2	0
	38	8	0	0	0	1	0	1	0
	39	4	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
	40	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

No.	Plot	Density of ash <0.6 m	Density of ash 0.6–1.3 m	Hf damaged ind. <0.6 m	HF damaged ind. 0.6–1.3 m	Drought-damaged ind. <0.6 m	Drought-damaged ind.0.6–1.3 m	Browsed ind. <0.6 m	Browsed ind. 0.6–1.3 m
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1.	1	24	2	1	2	0	0	6	2
	2	15	1	0	1	1	0	3	1
	3	6	1	0	0	2	0	1	0
	4	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
2.	5	17	0	2	0	1	0	4	0
	6	11	1	0	0	1	0	2	0
	7	11	0	1	0	2	0	2	0
	8	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
3.	9	22	3	3	1	0	0	5	2
	10	9	0	0	0	0	0	1	0
	11	2	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
	12	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
4.	13	56	10	8	4	9	0	20	8
	14	36	6	4	3	6	0	10	6
	15	17	4	1	2	4	0	4	3
	16	13	4	0	1	3	0	3	3
5.	17	28	5	3	3	3	0	13	5
	18	15	1	1	0	3	0	4	0
	19	11	0	0	0	2	0	1	0
	20	4	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
6.	21	36	3	5	1	3	0	16	3
	22	29	0	2	0	3	0	12	0
	23	13	1	0	0	2	0	3	0
	24	7	0	0	0	1	0	1	0
7.	25	17	0	2	0	1	0	5	0
	26	13	0	1	0	1	0	2	0
	27	5	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
	28	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
8.	29	29	1	2	1	2	0	11	1
	30	14	0	1	0	2	0	2	0
	31	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	32	5	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
9.	33	35	3	5	2	0	0	9	3
	34	12	1	0	0	0	0	2	0
	35	9	0	0	0	1	0	1	0
	36	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
10.	37	14	0	0	0	1	0	2	0
	38	8	0	0	0	1	0	1	0
	39	4	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
	40	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

No.	Plot	Density of ash <0.6 m	Density of ash 0.6–1.3 m	Hf damaged ind. <0.6 m	HF damaged ind. 0.6–1.3 m	Drought-damaged ind. <0.6 m	Drought-damaged ind.0.6–1.3 m	Browsed ind. <0.6 m	Browsed ind. 0.6–1.3 m
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1.	1	24	2	1	2	0	0	6	2
	2	15	1	0	1	1	0	3	1
	3	6	1	0	0	2	0	1	0
	4	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
2.	5	17	0	2	0	1	0	4	0
	6	11	1	0	0	1	0	2	0
	7	11	0	1	0	2	0	2	0
	8	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
3.	9	22	3	3	1	0	0	5	2
	10	9	0	0	0	0	0	1	0
	11	2	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
	12	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
4.	13	56	10	8	4	9	0	20	8
	14	36	6	4	3	6	0	10	6
	15	17	4	1	2	4	0	4	3
	16	13	4	0	1	3	0	3	3
5.	17	28	5	3	3	3	0	13	5
	18	15	1	1	0	3	0	4	0
	19	11	0	0	0	2	0	1	0
	20	4	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
6.	21	36	3	5	1	3	0	16	3
	22	29	0	2	0	3	0	12	0
	23	13	1	0	0	2	0	3	0
	24	7	0	0	0	1	0	1	0
7.	25	17	0	2	0	1	0	5	0
	26	13	0	1	0	1	0	2	0
	27	5	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
	28	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
8.	29	29	1	2	1	2	0	11	1
	30	14	0	1	0	2	0	2	0
	31	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	32	5	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
9.	33	35	3	5	2	0	0	9	3
	34	12	1	0	0	0	0	2	0
	35	9	0	0	0	1	0	1	0
	36	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
10.	37	14	0	0	0	1	0	2	0
	38	8	0	0	0	1	0	1	0
	39	4	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
	40	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0