You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in German. (June 2016) Click [show] for important translation instructions.
View a machine-translated version of the German article.
Machine translation, like DeepLorGoogle Translate, is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Wikipedia.
Consider adding a topic to this template: there are already 1,948 articles in the main category, and specifying|topic= will aid in categorization.
Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article.
You must provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary is Content in this edit is translated from the existing German Wikipedia article at [[:de:Bestand (Forstwirtschaft)]]; see its history for attribution.
You may also add the template {{Translated|de|Bestand (Forstwirtschaft)}} to the talk page.
Three forest standsStand dynamics stages during succession.
Aforest stand is a contiguous communityoftrees sufficiently uniform in composition, structure, age, size, class, distribution, spatial arrangement, condition, or location on a site of uniform quality to distinguish it from adjacent communities.[1]
Aforest is a "collection of stands" also utilizing the practices of forestry.[2]Stand level modelling is a type of modelling in the forest sciences in which the main unit is a forested stand.
A forest stand is commonly described as in 10ths or 10%s. Thus a ratio could be given of: 3 Ponderosa pines, 2 mangrove trees, 5 silver spruces. If there was a mixed stand that stand mix could be described as mixed up to 10%, mixed 10–40% and a mixed stand over that amount.[citation needed]
The form of mixing of the tree types is commonly given as:
individuals – when there are a few unconnected trees of a type.
troop – up to 5 trees connected of one type.
group – when there are more than 5 trees, but they are shorter than a harvestable tree.
thicket – when there are more than 5 trees, but they are taller than a harvestable tree to around 0.5 ha.
rotten group (cluster) – a packed together standing aggregate of trees, trees in the rotten group have different heights and different depths or a stripwise arrangement. Rotten is from German, Rotte and means pack. These trees are linked together in small rotten groups separated by bigger interstices. This means they are ideal for mountain afforestation.[3]
Stands are not logical, ecologically defined management units. Instead they have evolved from the Normalwald concept, which was predicated on the idea of harvesting efficiency and thus that forest land was primarily to generate income from timber production. Stands allow easier forest inventory and planning. The concept has by way of extension been applied across all forestry practice in the world, but originated in the Mitteleuropa of the late 18th and early 19th century with the mercantilist tradition, Prussian education and emergence of modern silviculture.[citation needed]
Along with the Normalwald concept has come the idea that stands are standardized in terms of size, species mix, age class and other tree metrics and that forestry should aim to impose this on nature where it has not existed up till now.[4]
As stand is from an economic timber forestry perspective, it is very focused on the tree element of forests. It is not considerate of the other elements within a forest such as shrubs, animals or topography and alternative terms may better fit ecological or other land value purposes within forests. The English term grove is one example. Also proposed is eco-unit.[5] Other terms may also work, but be on different scales, such as copseorwoodland. To be useful in silviculture such terms must be clearly defined and consistently applied. Lacking that stand is likely to remain the preferred unit to be used by foresters and others managing forests, despite its limitations.[citation needed]
^Puettmann, Klaus J.; Coates, K. David; Messier, Christian (2009). A Critique of Silviculture: Managing for Complexity. Washington, DC: Island Press. ISBN978-1597261463.
^Oldeman, Roelof A. A. (1990). Forests: Elements of Silvology. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. p. 624. ISBN9783642752117.
