Submitted:
24 October 2024
Posted:
28 October 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract

Keywords:
Introduction
Material and Methods
Site Description
Treatments, Experimental Design and Management
- Eucalyptus globulus monoculture,
- Eucalyptus globulus + Hygenia abysinica,
- Eucalyptus globulus + Podocarpus falcatus,
- Eucalyptus globulus + Cupressus lusitanica and
- Eucalyptus globulus + Juniporus procera.




Data Collection
Data Analysis
Relative Yield
Result and Discussion
Survival
| Treatment | Height (m) | RCD (cm) | Survival | Branch |
| E. globulus + Cupressus lusitanica | 1.16 | 1.53 | 92.57 | 16.87 |
| E. globulus + Podocarpus falcatus | 1.02 | 1.73 | 88.87 | 14.57 |
| E. globulus + Juniporous procera | 1.28 | 1.93 | 96.27 | 20.33 |
| E. globulus + Hygenia abysinica | 0.94 | 1.7 | 75.9 | 15.87 |
| E. globulus only | 1.04 | 1.53 | 85 | 16.6 |
| CV | 22.73 | 26.29 | 13.8 | 19.37 |
| LSD | NS | NS | NS | NS |
Height
| Treatment | Height | DBH | Basal Area | Log Volume |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E.globulus +C. lustanica | 5.24a | 4.93 | 26.84 | 289.48a |
| E. globulus + P. falcatus | 4.83ab | 4.77 | 24.08 | 213.39ab |
| E. globulus +J. procera | 4.82ab | 4.82 | 23.89 | 146.8b |
| E. Globulus + H. abysinica | 4.57b | 4.77 | 25.11 | 185.79b |
| E. globulus Mono | 4.56b | 4.6 | 22.76 | 136.85 |
| CV | 14.67 | 11.75 | 26.73 | 49.95 |
| LSD | 0.58 | NS | NS | 80.28 |
Year Effect on Growth and Yield of E. globulus
| Treatment | Height | DBH | Basal Area m2/ha | Log Volume ton/ha | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Planting System | ||||
| Yea one | E. globulus +C. lustanica | 1.15fg | 1.55e | 1.99f | 2.59d |
| E. globulus + P. falcatus | 1.02g | 1.71e | 2.41f | 2.76d | |
| E. globulus +J. procera | 1.28efg | 1.92e | 3.11f | 3.38d | |
| E. Globulus + H. abysinica | 0.94g | 1.68e | 2.25f | 2.04d | |
| E. globulus Mono | 1.04g | 1.55e | 1.95f | 1d | |
| year two | E. globulus + C. lustanica | 2.38de | 3.23d | 8.26ef | 22.27d |
| E. globulus + P. falcatus | 2.45d | 3.17d | 7.98ef | 20.74d | |
| E. globulus + J. procera | 2.53d | 3.16d | 8.04ef | 16.68d | |
| E. Globulus + H. abysinica | 2.25def | 2.94d | 6.81f | 14.02d | |
| E. globulus Mono | 2.35de | 3.01d | 7.22f | 13.34d | |
| year three | E. globulus + C. lustanica | 5.84c | 5.06c | 20.13d | 131.9d |
| E. globulus + P. falcatus | 5.58c | 5.22c | 21.47d | 125.25d | |
| E. globulus + J. procera | 6.12c | 5.34c | 22.46d | 109.84d | |
| E. Globulus + H. abysinica | 5.52c | 4.82c | 18.37de | 93.78d | |
| E. globulus Mono | 5.65c | 3.01c | 19.83d | 86.91d | |
| year Four | E. globulus + C. lustanica | 11.57a | 9.89a | 76.98a | 100.17a |
| E. globulus + P. falcatus | 10.27b | 8.97ab | 64.48bc | 704.45b | |
| E. globulus + J. procera | 9.35b | 8.88b | 61.95c | 457.31c | |
| E. Globulus + H. abysinica | 9.53b | 9.64ab | 73ab | 633.35b | |
| E. globulus Mono | 9.23b | 8.85b | 62.05c | 445.56c | |
| CV | 14.67 | 11.75 | 26.73 | 49.95 | |
| LSD | 1.17 | 0.92 | 10.84 | 160.56 | |
Year Effect on the Relative Growth Performance and Yield of E. globulus
| Treatment | Height | DBH | Basal Area m2/ha | Log Volume ton/ha | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Planting System | ||||
| Yea one | E. globulus +C. lustanica | 1.12ab | 105 | 1.27 | 2.16ab |
| E. globulus + P. falcatus | 0.98ab | 1.11 | 1.22 | 1.68ab | |
| E. globulus +J. procera | 1.22ab | 1.22 | 1.5 | 1.91ab | |
| E. Globulus + H. abysinica | 0.94b | 1.15 | 1.4 | 1.87ab | |
| E. globulus Mono | 1ab | 1 | 1 | 1b | |
| year two | E. globulus +C. lustanica | 1.01ab | 1.08 | 1.16 | 1.71ab |
| E. globulus + P. falcatus | 1.05ab | 1.05 | 1.12 | 1.58ab | |
| E. globulus +J. procera | 1.08ab | 1.05 | 1.09 | 1.2b | |
| E. Globulus + H. abysinica | 1.17ab | 0.99 | 0.99 | 1.14b | |
| E. globulus Mono | 1ab | 1 | 1 | 1b | |
| year three | E. globulus + C. lustanica | 1.03ab | 1.02 | 1.05 | 1.57ab |
| E. globulus + P. falcatus | 0.98ab | 1.05 | 1.11 | 1.47ab | |
| E. globulus + J. procera | 1.08ab | 1.07 | 1.14 | 1.27ab | |
| E. Globulus + H. abysinica | 0.97ab | 0.97 | 0.94 | 1.1b | |
| E. globulus Mono | 1ab | 1 | 1 | 1b | |
| year Four | E. globulus + C. lustanica | 1.26a | 1.13 | 1.303 | 2.45a |
| E. globulus + P. falcatus | 1.13ab | 1.04 | 1.13 | 1.85ab | |
| E. globulus + J. procera | 1.01ab | 1.01 | 1.04 | 1.07b | |
| E. Globulus + H. abysinica | 1.03ab | 1.09 | 1.22 | 1.52b | |
| E. globulus Mono | 1ab | 1 | 1 | 1b | |
| CV | 16.72 | 15.3 | 32.14 | 49.95 | |
| LSD | 0.291 | NS | NS | 1.21 | |
Growth Rate of Height and RCD



Relative Yield
| Yield | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | Relative Height | Relative DBH | Basal Area |
| E. globulus with Juniporus procera | 1.3a | 1.11a | 10.9 |
| E. globulus with Cupressus lustanica | 1.06ab | 1.05ab | 10.23 |
| E. globulus with Hygenia abysinica | 1.03ab | 1.03ab | 9.89 |
| E. globulus with Podocarpus falcatus | 1.01b | 1.07ab | 10.61 |
| E. globulus only | 1b | 1b | 10.1 |
| LSD | 0.28 | 0.09 | ns |
| CV | 10.96 | 8.9 | 46.44 |

Relative Yield Increment of E. globulus under Mixed Plantation Compared to Mono-Crop at Different Year
Relative Height and Diameter at Brest Height (DBH) Increment
Pattern of Relative Growth and Yield

Carbon Density
| Treatment | Above Ground Biomass (ton) | Above Ground Carbon Density (ton) | Below Ground Carbon Density (ton) |
|---|---|---|---|
| E. globulus +C. lustanica | 28.3ab | 13.3ab | 3.19ab |
| E. globulus + P. falcatus | 31.4a | 14.76a | 3.54a |
| E. globulus +J. procera | 21.3 ab | 10.03ab | 2.41ab |
| E. Globulus + H. abysinica | 19.2 b | 9.02b | 2.16b |
| E. globulus mono | 29.3 ab | 13.74ab | 3.29ab |
| CV | 21.99 | 22.01 | 22.04 |
| LSD | 10.3 | 4.87 | 1.17 |
Conclusions and Recommendations
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- FAO, “Chapter: Illegal activities and Corruption in the Forest Sector,” State World’s For. 2001, pp. 88–101, 2001, [Online]. Available online: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/003/y0900e/y0900e02.pdf.
- J. Evans and J. W. Turnbull, Plantation forestry in the tropics: The role, silviculture, and use of planted forests for industrial, social, environmental, and agroforestry purposes., no. 3. ed. Oxford University Press, 2004.
- D. Lamb, P. D. Erskine, and J. A. Parrotta, “Restoration of degraded tropical forest landscapes,” Science (80-. )., vol. 310, no. 5754, pp. 1628–1632. [CrossRef]
- P. D. Erskine, D. Lamb, and M. Bristow, “Tree species diversity and ecosystem function: Can tropical multi-species plantations generate greater productivity?,” For. Ecol. Manage., vol. 233, no. 2–3, pp. 205–210, 2006. [CrossRef]
- T. Payn et al., “Changes in planted forests and future global implications,” For. Ecol. Manage., vol. 352, pp. 57–67, 2015. [CrossRef]
- J. D. Nichols, M. Bristow, and J. K. Vanclay, “Mixed-species plantations: Prospects and challenges,” For. Ecol. Manage., vol. 233, no. 2, pp. 383–390, 2006. [CrossRef]
- F. Montagnini, E. Gonzalez, and C. Porras, “Mixed and pure forest plantations in the humid neotropics: a comparison of early growth, pest damage and establishment costs,” Commonw. For. Rev., vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 306–314, 1995.
- P. J. and J. Pender, “the Role of Trees for Sustainable Management of Less-Favored Lands: the Case of Eucalyptus in Ethiopia,” Int. Food Policy Res. Inst. 2033 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 U.S.A., no. 65, 2000.
- T. M. Tyynelä, “Species diversity in Eucalyptus camaldulensis woodlots and miombo woodland in Northeastern Zimbabwe,” New For., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 239–257. [CrossRef]
- F. Senbeta, D. Teketay, and B. Naslund, “Native woody species regeneration in exotic tree plantations at Munessa-Shashemene Forest, southern Ethiopia,” New For., vol. 24, pp. 131–145, 2002. [CrossRef]
- S. Alem and T. Woldemariam, “A comparative assessment on regeneration status of indigenous woody plants in Eucalyptus grandis plantation and adjacent natural forest,” J. For. Res., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 31–36, 2009. [CrossRef]
- D. I. Forrester, A. L. Cowie, J. K. Vanclay, and E. Science, “Mixed-species plantations of Eucalyptus with nitrogen fixing trees: A review,” vol. 233, pp. 211–230, 2006. [CrossRef]
- M. Bristow, J. D. Nichols, and J. K. Vanclay, “Improving productivity in mixed-species plantations,” For. Ecol. Manage., vol. 233, no. 2–3, pp. 193–194, 2006,. [CrossRef]
- Temesgen and L. Estifanos, “Determinants of internal audit effectiveness: Evidence from Gurage Zone Ethiopia,” IISTE, vol. 9, 19, pp. 51–72, 2018. [CrossRef]
- J. Atta-Boateng and J. W. Moser Jr, “A method for classifying commercial tree species of an uneven-aged mixed species tropical forest for growth and yield model construction,” For. Ecol. Manage., vol. 104, no. 1–3, pp. 89–99, 1998.
- W. A. Hoffmann and H. Poorter, “Avoiding bias in calculations of relative growth rate,” Ann. Bot., vol. 90, no. 1, pp. 37–42, 2002. [CrossRef]
- J. Chave et al., “Improved allometric models to estimate the aboveground biomass of tropical trees,” Glob. Chang. Biol., vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 3177–3190, 2014. [CrossRef]
- IPCC, “INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas inventories.,” Inst. Glob. Environ. Strateg., 2006.
- H. K. Gibbs, S. Brown, J. O. Niles, and J. A. Foley, “Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: Making REDD a reality,” Environ. Res. Lett., vol. 2, no. 4, 2007. [CrossRef]
- R. Ponce-Hernandez, P. Koohafkan, and J. Antoine, Assessing carbon stocks and modelling win-win scenarios of carbon sequestration through land-use changes, vol. 1. Food & Agriculture Org., 2004.
- C. Li, H. Barclay, B. Roitberg, and R. Lalonde, “Forest Productivity Enhancement and Compensatory Growth: A Review and Synthesis,” Front. Plant Sci., vol. 11, no. September, pp. 1–19, 2020. [CrossRef]
- D. S. Debell, T. G. Cole, and C. D. Whitesell, “Growth, development, and yield in pure and mixed stands of Eucalyptus and Albizia.,” vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 286–298, 1997.
- D. S. Debell, C. D. Whitesell, and T. H. Schubert, “Mixed Plantations of Eucalyptus and Leguminous Trees Enhance Biomass Production,” For. Serv. U.S. departmemt Agric., p. 6, 1997.
- J. A. Parrotta, D. D. Baker, and M. Fried, “Application of 15N-enrichment methodologies to estimate nitrogen fixation in Casuarinaequisetifolia,” Can. J. For. Res., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 201–207, Feb. 1994. [CrossRef]
- S. Dutta and M. K. Hossain, “Effects of Mixed Plantation on Growth and Biomass Yield of Two Common Plantation Trees,” vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 22–32, 2017.
- V. C. Griess and T. Knoke, “Growth performance, windthrow, and insects: meta-analyses of parameters influencing performance of mixed-species stands in boreal and northern temperate biomes,” Can. J. For. Res., vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1141–1159, 2011.
- L. Drössler, R. Övergaard, P. M. Ekö, H. Böhlenius, and P. Gemmel, “to the manuscript Early development of pure and mixed tree species plantations in Snogeholm , southern Sweden submitted to the Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research * Corresponding author : Lars.drossler@slu.se Table S1 . Total production of standing vo,” South. SwedenScand. J. For. Res., vol. 30 (4), no. 1005127, pp. 304–316, 2015.
- M. Hossain et al., “Stem and Total Above-Ground Biomass Models for the Tree Species of Freshwater Wetlands Forest, Coastal Areas and Dry Areas of Bangladesh: Using a Non-Destructive Approach,” Open J. For., vol. 11, no. 02, pp. 73–82, 2021. [CrossRef]
- M. J. Kelty, “The role of species mixtures in plantation forestry,” Forest Ecology and Management, vol. 233, no. 1. Elsevier, pp. 195–204, 2006. [CrossRef]
- D. Piotto, “A meta-analysis comparing tree growth in monocultures and mixed plantations,” For. Ecol. Manage., vol. 255, no. 3–4, pp. 781–786, 2008.
- H. Pretzsch, K. Bielak, J. Block, and A. Bruchwald, “Productivity of mixed versus pure stands of oak ( Quercus petraea ( MATT .) LIEBL . and Quercus robur L .) and European beech ( Fagus sylvatica L .) along an Productivity of mixed versus pure stands of oak ( Quercus petraea ( M ATT .) L IEBL . and Quercus,” no. March, 2013. [CrossRef]
- S. Alem, J. Pavlis, J. Urban, and J. Kucera, “Pure and Mixed Plantations of Eucalyptus camaldulensis and Cupressus lusitanica : Their Growth Interactions and Effect on Diversity and Density of Undergrowth Woody Plants in Relation to Light,” no. April, pp. 375–386, 2015.
- M. Chomel, A. DesRochers, V. Baldy, M. Larchevêque, and T. Gauquelin, “Non-additive effects of mixing hybrid poplar and white spruce on aboveground and soil carbon storage in boreal plantations,” For. Ecol. Manage., vol. 328, pp. 292–299, 2014. [CrossRef]
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. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).