In the Northeasternmost Stands in Europe, Beech Shows Similar Wind Resistance to Birch

Abstract

The ongoing shifts in natural vegetation zones predict the expansion of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) into the Eastern Baltic region, suggesting it will become a potential alternative to birch (Betula pendula Roth. and Betula pubescens Ehrh.) in forest regeneration. For a successful application of alternative forest regeneration material, an evaluation of susceptibility to natural disturbances (e.g., wind) is necessary for reliable projections of timber yield in the long term. This study compared the loading resistance of beech growing in the northeasternmost stands in Europe to local birch by applying the static tree-pulling test. Relationships between dimensions of aboveground parts and resistance against intrinsic wood damages (primary failure) and fatal (secondary) failure were similar between species. However, birch, which is more drought sensitive compared to beech, is suggested to have a higher susceptibility to post-storm legacy effects, supporting beech as a potential alternative to birch in terms of wind resistance.

1. Introduction

Under changing climate, diversification of forest regeneration material with transferred genotypes or species is considered among the most effective means for sustaining productivity and reducing environmental risks [1,2]. European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.), which is economically important in Central Europe [3], is predicted to expand into the Eastern Baltic region [4,5,6,7], becoming a potential alternative for forest regeneration, as suggested by high productivity and self-regeneration [7]. There is also evidence of rapid adaptation to local weather conditions [8]. Considering comparable forestry applications (as stand-forming or admixture species) and wood properties [9,10], in the Eastern Baltic region, beech appears as an alternative to birch (Betula pendula Roth. and Betula pubescens Ehrh.), which is susceptible to snow loading [11] and is weather sensitive [12]. Still, information on the susceptibility of alternative forest reproductive material to natural disturbances (e.g., storms) is crucial for reliable projections of timber yield in the long term [13,14].

In Northern European forests, wind is a major disturbance, which causes most of the damage to growing stock [15,16] and leads to severe economic consequences [17], particularly resulting from the post-storm legacy effects such as pests, diseases, and increased susceptibility to water shortage [18,19]. Accordingly, information about tree wind resistance, which is crucial for sustainable management and the accuracy of long-term projections, can be efficiently obtained using the static tree-pulling test [20,21,22]. In addition to the resistance to fatal (secondary) failure, the static tree-pulling test can estimate the occurrence of primary failure, which is internal structural wood damage [23,24,25], hinting at the expectancy of post-storm legacy effects [18,19,26]. Under intensifying effects of storms in the Eastern Baltic region [15,16,27,28], the forestry potential of beech is supported by its evolutionary adaptation to wind loading [29].

The aim of the study was to assess the loading resistance of beech growing in the northeasternmost stand in Europe and compare it with that of local birch. Considering differing stem and crown architecture [30], we hypothesized beech to have higher loading resistance compared to birch.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Sites and Sample Trees

The northeasternmost beech stands of Europe, located in the northwestern part of Latvia (hemiboreal forest zone of the Eastern Baltic region; N 57°14′20″, E 22°40′06″), were studied. In total, 18 beech trees were sampled in 3 stands, which represented the first (established using the planting material of unidentified provenance) and second (progenies of the first transferred trees) generations of trees with the ages of 138 and 48–72 years, respectively (Table 1). These stands have been established as regular plantations (planted in a 2 × 3 m grid), and no stand thinning has been performed, except the removal of dead trees, thus the stand structures have only changed under natural conditions. The distribution of tree stem diameters at breast height among the stands was similar, yet the older stand was less dense, and thus had a lower stand basal area (according to inventory in 2021) (Table 1). Trees in the youngest stand were smaller in height than in the older stand and hence had smaller stem–wood volumes (Table 1).

The study area is situated on flat terrain in lowland (<110 m a.s.l.) with freely draining mesotrophic loamy deep soils (Table 1). The climate of the study area (western part of Latvia) is humid continental [31], which is influenced by air masses from the North Atlantic [32]. The mean annual sum of precipitation is 673.3 mm, and the highest and lowest monthly mean air temperature is in July (17.6 °C) and February (−2.7 °C), respectively [33]. The mean annual wind speed is 3.1 m s⁻¹ [33], and the mean maximum wind speed at the elevation of 10 m is 16.2 m s⁻¹ [34].

In each stand, six canopy trees without visual signs of mechanical damage, pathogen infection, or pest infestation were selected for sampling according to the stem diameter at breast height distribution of the stand. Trees growing close together, as well as edge trees, were avoided to minimize edge effects on the loading resistance. To characterize the differences in loading resistance with local species, previously published data on 43 birch trees from 8 stands [35,36] with similar dimensions and ages were used (Table 1). The birch stands, which represented an area (N 56°40′ to N 57°13′ and E 22°51′ to E 23°53′) with comparable meteorological and site conditions, have been managed conventionally, presuming one to two thinnings during a 70-year rotation cycle.

Soil parameters, such as density and gravimetric water content (Table 1), were determined from the 100 mL volume samples. They were obtained near each soil–root plate at the depths of 0–0.1, 0.1–0.2, 0.2–0.4, and 0.4–0.8 m and stored in sealed bags. Samples were brought to a laboratory and dried for 24 h at 105 °C temperature. The gravimetric water content of the soil was expressed as the difference in weight between the original and dried samples. Soil density was expressed for dried samples.

2.2. Static Tree-Pulling Tests

The loading resistance of beech and birch was estimated using the destructive static tree-pulling tests performed under non-frozen soil conditions during 2019–2022 corresponding to previously applied methodology [22]. Under this approach, a pulling line (rope/cable) on the sample tree was placed on height, which corresponded to 50% of the total height. Prior to pulling, selected sample trees were detopped and pruned to reduce the possible underestimation of the loading resistance caused by the effects of canopy mass above the half height of the sample tree, as well as wind. Sample tree detopping was performed one meter above half of the total height (anchoring point) to prevent the slipping-off of a polyester loop sling Aro Bull (Kong, Monte Marenzo, Italy; static loading limit of 35 kN) used to fix the puling line on the sample tree.

The pulling line was made as a pulley block system, consisting of oppositely placed two double pulleys from Roll Double (Edelrid, Germany; static loading limit of 50 kN), and a 12 mm rope (Capstan Winch Cable, Nordforest, Germany; static loading limit of 17 kN) was used to make the pulling line, which was extended by adding a static polyester rope (Tenex Tec 12; diameter 12 mm; static loading limit of 53 kN; Samson Rope Technologies Inc., Ferndale, WA, USA). All connections of the pulling line were secured using steel carabiners from Big Dan Arborist (ISC, Bangor, Wales, UK; static loading limit of 50 kN).

Tree pulling was performed using a motor winch (1800 Capstan Cable Winch, Nordforest, Germany; static loading limit of 17 kN), anchored at the base of an oppositely located tree at a distance of 30–40 m. Trees were pulled until the occurrence of uprooting or stem breakage (fatal failure). The pulling force and the angle of the pulling line (dynamometer placed between the pulley block system and the extension rope anchored at the sample tree) and stem tilting (inclinometers placed on the stem at the base and at 5 m height) were recorded using the TreeQinetic System (Argus Electronic GmbH, Rostock, Germany).

For each uprooted tree, the dimensions of the soil–root plate were determined. The maximum depth was approximated by penetrating through a measuring rod at the central (thicker) part of the soil–root plate. The height and width of the soil–root plate were determined by measuring five radii (at 0°, 45°, 90°, 135°, and 180°) on the surface from the tree stem base until the edge of the soil–root plate. The length of individual roots, which stretched out from the main body of soil–root plate, was not counted as the edge.

2.3. Data Processing and Analysis

The obtained data on the pulling force and the angle of the pulling line were used to estimate the loading resistance of trees as the bending moment at stem base (BBM, in kNm) as follows:

(1)$\mathrm{BBM}=\mathrm{F}·{\mathrm{h}}_{\mathrm{anchor}}·\cos \left(\mathrm{median}\right({\alpha }_{\mathrm{line}}\left)\right)$

where the recorded force of pulling is F, h_anchor is the attachment height of the pulling line on the sample tree (half of the initial tree height), and the angle between the pulling line and the surface of the ground is α_line.

The inclinometer data on the recorded stem tilting at the base and at 5 m height were used to calculate the deflection of the stem (N_Δ, °) as the difference between them:

N_Δ = N_5m − N_base, (2)

The occurrence of primary (PF) and secondary (SF) failures was estimated according to BBM and N_Δ [22]. As a result of tree bending, the PF occurs under the compression as a structural damage of wood either in roots or stem [23,24,25]. PF was estimated graphically as the end of the proportional increase of BBM and N_Δ [22]. The SF was estimated as the maximum BBM, as the fatal failure either by uprooting or stem breakage occurred.

The volume of the soil–root plate, which is a proxy for tree anchorage [37,38], was approximated as half of an elliptical paraboloid:

(3)$\mathrm{V}=\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)·\pi ·\mathrm{h}·\mathrm{a}·\mathrm{b},$

where h is the depth, and a and b are the shortest and longest radii of the soil–root plate, respectively.

The stem–wood volume was calculated for each of the species according to the local equations by Liepa [39] as follows:

(4)${{V}}_{{beech}}=\left(\frac{0{.785·\mathrm{DBH}}^2·\mathrm{H}}{10000}\right)·\left(0.99·\left(\frac{750}{1500+\mathrm{DBH}}\right)+\frac{2.3}{{\mathrm{DBH}}^2} -\frac{\mathrm{DBH}}{2000}\right),$

(5)${{V}}_{{birch}}=0.0000909·{{H}}^{0.71677}·{{DBH}}^{0.16692·0.4343·{ln}\left({H}\right)+1.7570},$

where H and DBH is tree height (m) and the stem diameter at breast height (cm), respectively.

The differences in the volume of the soil–root plate, as well as in BBM at both the PF and SF between the species were evaluated using the analysis of covariance (linear mixed-effects models) relating to stand and tree dimensions. The models in general form were as:

y_ijk = µ + V_ij + sp_k + V_ij : sp_k + (stand_j) + ε_ij,(6)

where V_ij is the tree size covariate (stem–wood volume) [22,35,36], sp_k is the fixed effect of species, and V_ij : sp_k is the interaction between the covariate and species. In the models, the stand was included as the random effect (stand_j) to account for local specifics, pseudoreplication, as well as unbalanced sample groups. The models were fit with the maximum likelihood approach. The significance of the fixed effects was estimated using Type II Wald’s χ² test. Data analysis was conducted in R (v. 4.2.2) [40] using the package “lme4” [41].

3. Results and Discussion

The resistance against static loading for both species was dependent on the soil–root anchorage, as most of the trees uprooted during the test (except two beeches in the older stand), indicating that stem resistance exceeds the strength of the soil–root anchorage. The prevailing uprooting suggests that a higher volume of quality timber could be retracted using salvage logging, as stems are less likely to be cracked [42]. Still, the occurrence of stem breakage of beech could be related to a more dynamic and adaptive root system [3,43,44], suggesting the capability of stronger root anchoring compared to birch, given that the size and volume of the soil–root plate were similar (Table 1). Accordingly, differences in stem breakage suggested the relevance of root architecture [3,43,44], even though the soil–root plate dimensions are considered a tree stability proxy [37,38]. The prevailing uprooting also suggested that the root system is the main location of PF.

Tree stability is tightly linked to the dimensions of the aboveground parts [45], hence significant (p < 0.001) relationships between the PF and SF and the stem–wood volume were observed for both sampled species (Figure 1, Table 2). Still, these relationships were weaker compared to the other native tree species, such as Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) [46] and common aspen (Populus tremula L.) [22], as suggested by the lower marginal R² (Table 2). Apparently, beech might be more sensitive to microsite conditions, suggesting higher uncertainty in estimating the relationship between tree size and loading resistance against both PF and SF. However, the relationships between tree size and loading resistance for beech appeared to be less influenced by site compared to aspen and spruce [22,46], as indicated by a lower variance in the stand (intraclass correlation; Table 2).

Contrary to the study hypothesis, beech and birch showed similar loading resistance against PF and SF, as indicated by uniform (p > 0.05) relationships between BBM and the stem–wood volume Figure 1, Table 2). This suggests a comparable adaptability of both species to local wind climates, supporting beech as a potential alternative to birch in terms of wind resistance. Under such circumstances, susceptibility to post-storm effects appears as the main concern regarding the selection of species [19]. Trees weakened by wind are more prone to droughts [18,47], as internal structural wood damage disrupts tree hydraulics [24,25], thus increasing the physiological water deficit [48]. This, in turn, can enhance the negative post-storm legacy effects [19] and increase the susceptibility of trees/stands to wind damage [18,26], thus forming a negative feedback loop [48]. In this regard, birch, which is more drought sensitive compared to beech [12,49], appears to increase the forest susceptibility to post-storm legacy effects [18,19], supporting the greater forestry potential of beech under projected climate changes in the Eastern Baltic region [15,28].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Ā.J.; methodology, O.K., R.M. and R.K.; data curation, L.J., R.K. and N.Ī.; formal analysis, O.K. and R.M.; writing—original draft preparation, O.K. and S.Š.; writing—review and editing, R.M., L.J. and S.Š.; supervision, Ā.J.; funding acquisition, Ā.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data available on request due to restrictions, e.g., privacy or ethical.

Acknowledgments

Authors appreciate the input of Andris Seipulis, Artis Karlsons, and Mārtiņš Brizga in data collection.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figure and Tables

Figure 1. The relationships between the stem–wood volume and the basal bending moment of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) and birch (Betula pendula Roth. and Betula pubescens Ehrh.) at the (A) primary (BBMPF) and the (B) secondary (BBMSF) failures. The coloured area indicates a 95% confidence interval.

Table 1

Age, basal area (G), soil density (ρ_soil), and gravimetric water content (θ_g) of the studied stands, and the number (N), mean (±standard error) diameter at breast height (DBH), height (H), stem–wood volume (V_s), depth of soil–root plate (DP_r), and the volume of soil–root plate (V_r) of the sample trees of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) and birch (Betula pendula Roth. and Betula pubescens Ehrh.).

Site	Age	N	DBH(cm)	H(m)	Vs(m3)	DPr(m)	Vr(m3)	G(m2 ha−1)	ρsoil(kg m−3)	θg(%)
Beech
1	72	6	34.7 ± 4.6	30.6 ± 2.1	1.59 ± 0.43	1.01 ± 0.11	2.93 ± 0.49	44.2 ± 3.2	1362 ± 60	15.6 ± 0.6
2	138	6	33.4 ± 4.9	30.0 ± 1.4	1.46 ± 0.38	0.66 ± 0.14	2.57 ± 0.98	33.6 ± 7.3	1324 ± 88	18.7 ± 1.1
3	48	6	32.7 ± 5.3	26.6 ± 0.5	1.23 ± 0.36	1.04 ± 0.18	3.23 ± 1.44	38.8 ± 2.3	1348 ± 59	15.7 ± 1.5
Birch
4	73	9	27.0 ± 1.4	29.0 ± 1.7	0.75 ± 0.09	0.83 ± 0.09	1.71 ± 0.40	48.9 ± 6.0	1233 ± 36	7.3 ± 1.8
5	104	16	34.8 ± 3.7	32.9 ± 1.4	1.42 ± 0.30	0.86 ± 0.05	3.71 ± 1.06	38.1 ± 5.0	1268 ± 50	9.2 ± 1.0
6	46	6	30.0 ± 4.4	30.1 ± 1.0	0.99 ± 0.33	0.86 ± 0.06	1.84 ± 0.69	60.8 ± 3.6	1273 ± 39	10.0 ± 1.8
7	46	6	28.1 ± 3.0	30.6 ± 1.5	0.87 ± 0.21	0.77 ± 0.12	1.60 ± 0.70	69.9 ± 4.7	1260 ± 51	9.0 ± 4.1
8	53	6	29.4 ± 2.6	29.7 ± 1.1	0.92 ± 0.18	0.79 ± 0.12	2.20 ± 0.71	26.3 ± 0.3	1258 ± 10	26.2 ± 3.6

Table 2

Strength (Wald’s χ²) and significance of the fixed effects (model ANOVA) of the stem–wood volume (V_stem) and species on the basal bending moment at primary (BBM_PF) and secondary failures (BBM_SF), as well as the volume of the soil–root plate (V_roots), model performance (R²), and random variances in site for European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) and birch (Betula pendula Roth. and Betula pubescens Ehrh.) on freely draining mineral soil in the Eastern Baltic region. σ²—total variance in the response; τ₀₀—variance associated with random effects (site); ICC—intraclass correlation coefficient.

	BBMPF	BBMSF	VROOTS
Predictors (χ2)	χ2	χ2	χ2
(Intercept)	1.57	0.29	0.11
Vstem	47.71 ***	52.71 ***	19.33 ***
species [birch]	0.23	0.01	0.03
Vstem:species [birch]	1.95	0.90	0.15
Random Effects
σ2	1111.71	1424.36	0.71
τ00	176.50site	423.33site	0.16site
ICC	0.14	0.23	0.19
N	8site	8site	7site
Observations	61	61	53
Marginal R2	0.67	0.69	0.52
Conditional R2	0.71	0.76	0.61

Level of significance: *** p < 0.001

References

1. Stanturf, J.A.; Palik, B.J.; Dumroese, R.K. Contemporary forest restoration: A review emphasizing function. For. Ecol. Manag.; 2014; 331, pp. 292-323. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.07.029]

2. Konnert, M.; Fady, B.; Gömöry, D.; A’Hara, S.; Wolter, F.; Ducci, F.; Koskela, J.; Bozzano, M.; Maaten, T.; Kowalczyk, J. Use and Transfer of Forest Reproductive Material in Europe in the Context of Climate Change; Euforgen, Bioversity International: Rome, Italy, 2015.

3. Bolte, A.; Czajkowski, T.; Kompa, T. The north-eastern distribution range of European beech—A review. Forestry; 2007; 80, pp. 413-429. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpm028]

4. Buras, A.; Menzel, A. Projecting tree species composition changes of European forest for 2061–2090 under RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 scenarios. Front. Plant Sci.; 2019; 9, 1986. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01986] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30687375]

5. Hickler, T.; Vohland, K.; Feehan, J.; Miller, P.A.; Smith, B.; Costa, L.; Giesecke, T.; Fronzek, S.; Carter, T.R.; Cramer, W. et al. Projecting the future distribution of European potential natural vegetation zones with a generalized, tree species-based dynamic vegetation model. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr.; 2012; 21, pp. 50-63. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00613.x]

6. Lindner, M.; Maroschek, M.; Netherer, S.; Kremer, A.; Barbati, A.; Garcia-Gonzalo, J.; Seidl, R.; Delzon, S.; Corona, P.; Kolström, M. et al. Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of European forest ecosystems. For. Ecol. Manag.; 2010; 259, pp. 698-709. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.023]

7. Jansons, Ā.; Matisons, R.; Puriņa, L.; Neimane, U.; Jansons, J. Relationships between climatic variables and tree-ring width of European beech and European larch growing outside of their natural distribution area. Silva. Fenn.; 2015; 49, 1255. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14214/sf.1255]

8. Matisons, R.; Puriņa, L.; Adamovičs, A.; Robalte, L.; Jansons, Ā. European beech in its northeasternmost stands in Europe: Varying climate-growth relationships among generations and diameter classes. Dendrochronologia; 2017; 45, pp. 123-131. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dendro.2017.08.004]

9. Boruvka, V.; Zeidler, A.; Holecek, T.; Dudík, R. Elastic and Strength Properties of Heat-Treated Beech and Birch Wood. Forests; 2018; 9, 197. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f9040197]

10. Dubois, H.; Verkasalo, E.; Claessens, H. Potential of Birch (Betula pendula Roth and B. pubescens Ehrh.) for Forestry and Forest-Based Industry Sector within the Changing Climatic and Socio-Economic Context of Western Europe. Forests; 2020; 11, 336. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f11030336]

11. Venäläinen, A.; Lehtonen, I.; Laapas, M.; Ruosteenoja, K.; Tikkanen, O.P.; Viiri, H.; Ikonen, V.-P.; Peltola, H. Climate change induces multiple risks to boreal forests and forestry in Finland: A literature review. Glob. Chang. Biol.; 2020; 26, pp. 4178-4196. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15183]

12. Matisons, R.; Jansone, D.; Elferts, D.; Schneck, V.; Kowalczyk, J.; Wojda, T.; Jansons, Ā. Silver birch shows nonlinear responses to moisture availability and temperature in the eastern Baltic Sea region. Dendrochronologia; 2022; 76, 126003. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dendro.2022.126003]

13. Ikonen, V.P.; Kilpeläinen, A.; Strandman, H.; Asikainen, A.; Venäläinen, A.; Peltola, H. Effects of using certain tree species in forest regeneration on regional wind damage risks in Finnish boreal forests under different CMIP5 projections. Eur. J. For. Res.; 2020; 139, pp. 685-707. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10342-020-01276-6]

14. Pötzelsberger, E.; Spiecker, H.; Neophytou, C.; Mohren, F.; Gazda, A.; Hasenauer, H. Growing Non-Native Trees in European Forests Brings Benefits and Opportunities but Also Has Its Risks and Limits. Curr. For. Rep.; 2020; 6, pp. 339-353. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40725-020-00129-0]

15. Gregow, H.; Laurila, T.K.; Mäkelä, A.; Rantanen, M. Review on Winds, Extratropical Cyclones and Their Impacts in Northern Europe and Finland; Finnish Meteorological Institute: Helsinki, Finland, 2020.

16. Gregow, H.; Laaksonen, A.; Alper, M.E. Increasing large scale windstorm damage in Western, Central and Northern European forests, 1951–2010. Sci. Rep.; 2017; 7, 46397. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep46397]

17. Romagnoli, F.; Masiero, M.; Secco, L. Windstorm Impacts on Forest-Related Socio-Ecological Systems: An Analysis from a Socio-Economic and Institutional Perspective. Forests; 2022; 13, 939. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f13060939]

18. Csilléry, K.; Kunstler, G.; Courbaud, B.; Allard, D.; Lassègues, P.; Haslinger, K.; Gardiner, B.A. Coupled effects of wind-storms and drought on tree mortality across 115 forest stands from the Western Alps and the Jura mountains. Glob. Chang. Biol.; 2017; 23, pp. 5092-5107. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13773] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28580624]

19. Seidl, R.; Rammer, W. Climate change amplifies the interactions between wind and bark beetle disturbances in forest landscapes. Landsc. Ecol.; 2017; 32, pp. 1485-1498. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-016-0396-4] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28684889]

20. Nicoll, B.C.; Gardiner, B.A.; Rayner, B.; Peace, A.J. Anchorage of coniferous trees in relation to species, soil type, and rooting depth. Can. J. For. Res.; 2006; 36, pp. 1871-1883. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1139/x06-072]

21. Peltola, H.; Kellomäki, S.; Hassinen, A.; Granander, M. Mechanical stability of Scots pine, Norway spruce and birch: An analysis of tree-pulling experiments in Finland. For. Ecol. Manag.; 2000; 135, pp. 143-153. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00306-6]

22. Krišāns, O.; Čakša, L.; Matisons, R.; Rust, S.; Elferts, D.; Seipulis, A.; Jansons, Ā. A Static Pulling Test Is a Suitable Method for Comparison of the Loading Resistance of Silver Birch (Betula pendula Roth.) between Urban and Peri-Urban Forests. Forests; 2022; 13, 127. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f13010127]

23. Wessolly, L. Fracture diagnosis of trees—Part 1: Statics-Integrated Methods-measurement with tension test. Stadt und Grün; 1995; 6, pp. 416-422.

24. Detter, A.; Richter, K.; Rust, C.; Rust, S. Aktuelle Untersuchungen zum Primärversagen von grünem Holz-Current studies on primary failure in green wood. Proceedings of the Conference Deutsche Baumpflegetage; Augsburg, Germany, 5–7 May 2015; pp. 156-167.

25. Detter, A.; Rust, S.; Rust, C.; Maybaum, G. Proceedings of the 18th International Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation of Wood Symposium; Madison, WI, USA, 24–27 September 2013; pp. 24-27.

26. Cawley, K.M.; Campbell, J.; Zwilling, M.; Jaffé, R. Evaluation of forest disturbance legacy effects on dissolved organic matter characteristics in streams at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire. Aquat. Sci.; 2014; 76, pp. 611-622. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00027-014-0358-3]

27. Romeiro, J.M.N.; Eid, T.; Antón-Fernández, C.; Kangas, A.; Trømborg, E. Natural disturbances risks in European Boreal and Temperate forests and their links to climate change—A review of modelling approaches. For. Ecol. Manag.; 2022; 509, 120071. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2022.120071]

28. Mäll, M.; Nakamura, R.; Suursaar, Ü.; Shibayama, T. Pseudo-climate modelling study on projected changes in extreme extratropical cyclones, storm waves and surges under CMIP5 multi-model ensemble: Baltic Sea perspective. Nat. Hazards; 2020; 102, pp. 67-99. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-03911-2]

29. Zipse, A.; Mattheck, C.; Gräbe, D.; Gardiner, B. The Effect of Wind on the Mechanical Properties of the Wood of Beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) Growing in the Borders of Scotland. Arboric. J.; 1998; 22, pp. 247-257. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03071375.1998.9747208]

30. Jucker, T.; Fischer, F.J.; Chave, J.; Coomes, D.A.; Caspersen, J.; Ali, A.; Loubota Panzou, G.J.; Feldpausch, T.R.; Falster, D.; Usoltsev, V.A. et al. Tallo: A global tree allometry and crown architecture database. Glob. Chang. Biol.; 2022; 28, pp. 5254-5268. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16302] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35703577]

31. Belda, M.; Holtanová, E.; Halenka, T.; Kalvová, J. Climate classification revisited: From Köppen to Trewartha. Clim. Res.; 2014; 59, pp. 1-13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3354/cr01204]

32. Jaagus, J.; Briede, A.; Rimkus, E.; Sepp, M. Changes in precipitation regime in the Baltic countries in 1966–2015. Theor. Appl. Climatol.; 2018; 131, pp. 433-443. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00704-016-1990-8]

33. LEGMC Latvian Environment, Geology and Meteorology Centre. Available online: https://klimats.meteo.lv/klimats/latvijas_klimats/ (accessed on 3 January 2023).

34. Karagali, I.; Hahmann, A.N.; Badger, M.; Hasager, C.B.; Mann, J. New European wind atlas offshore. J. Phys. Conf. Ser.; 2018; 1037, 052007. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1037/5/052007]

35. Krišāns, O.; Matisons, R.; Vuguls, J.; Bāders, E.; Rust, S.; Elferts, D.; Saleniece, R.; Jansons, Ā. Regularly Planted Rather than Natural Understory of Norway Spruce (Picea abies H. Karst.) Contributes to the Individual Stability of Canopy Silver Birch (Betula pendula Roth.). Forests; 2022; 13, 942. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f13060942]

36. Krišāns, O.; Matisons, R.; Kitenberga, M.; Donis, J.; Rust, S.; Elferts, D.; Jansons, Ā. Wind Resistance of Eastern Baltic Silver Birch (Betula Pendula Roth.) Suggests Its Suitability for Periodically Waterlogged Sites. Forests; 2020; 12, 21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f12010021]

37. Nicoll, B.C.; Ray, D. Adaptive growth of tree root systems in response to wind action and site conditions. Tree Physiol.; 1996; 16, pp. 891-898. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/treephys/16.11-12.891]

38. Gardiner, B.; Schuck, A.R.T.; Schelhaas, M.J.; Orazio, C.; Blennow, K.; Nicoll, B. What Science Can Tell Us. Living with Storm Damage to Forests; European Forest Institute: Joensuu, Finland, 2013; Volume 13, ISBN 978-952-5980-09-7

39. Liepa, I. Meža taksācija; Latvia University of Agriculture: Jelgava, Latvia, 2018; pp. 26-41. ISBN 978-9934-534-78-2

40. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2022; Available online: http://www.r-project.org/ (accessed on 3 January 2023).

41. Bates, D.; Maechler, M.; Bolker, B.; Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw.; 2015; 67, pp. 1-48. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01]

42. Čakša, L.; Šenhofa, S.; Šnepsts, G.; Elferts, D.; Liepa, L.; Jansons, A. Effect of stem snapping on aspen timber assortment recovery in hemiboreal forests. Forests; 2021; 12, 28. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f12010028]

43. Büttner, V.; Leuschner, C. Spatial and temporal patterns of fine-root abundance in a mixed oak beech forest. For. Ecol. Manag.; 1994; 70, pp. 11-21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-1127(94)90071-X]

44. Curt, T.; Prévosto, B. Root biomass and rooting profile of naturally regenerated beech in mid-elevation Scots pine woodlands. Plant Ecol.; 2003; 167, pp. 269-282. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1023904912712]

45. Gardiner, B. Wind damage to forests and trees: A review with an emphasis on planted and managed forests. J. For. Res.; 2021; 26, pp. 248-266. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13416979.2021.1940665]

46. Šņepsts, G.; Krišāns, O.; Matisons, R.; Seipulis, A.; Jansons, Ā. Cervid Bark-Stripping Is an Explicit Amplifier of Storm Legacy Effects in Norway Spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) Stands. Forests; 2022; 13, 1947. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f13111947]

47. Gardiner, B.; Berry, P.; Moulia, B. Review: Wind impacts on plant growth, mechanics and damage. Plant Sci.; 2016; 245, pp. 94-118. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2016.01.006]

48. Honkaniemi, J.; Ojansuu, R.; Kasanen, R.; Heliövaara, K. Interaction of disturbance agents on Norway spruce: A mechanistic model of bark beetle dynamics integrated in simulation framework WINDROT. Ecol. Model.; 2018; 388, pp. 45-60. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2018.09.014]

49. Rose, L.; Leuschner, C.; Köckemann, B.; Buschmann, H. Are marginal beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) provenances a source for drought tolerant ecotypes?. Eur. J. For. Res.; 2009; 128, pp. 335-343. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10342-009-0268-4]