Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42093937›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2026

Canopy Definitions Shape Canopy Space Filling-Productivity Relationships: Evidence From Terrestrial Laser Scanning.

Tama Ray, Andreas Fichtner, Matthias Kunz, Michaela Hildebrand, Helge Bruelheide, Catherine Potvin, Florian Schnabel, Goddert von Oheimb

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Tama RayInstitute of General Ecology and Environmental Protection TUD Dresden University of Technology Tharandt Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9265-5431
Andreas FichtnerInstitute of Ecology Leuphana University of Lüneburg Lüneburg Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0499-4893
Matthias KunzGFZ Helmholtz Centre for Geosciences Potsdam Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0541-3424
Michaela HildebrandThüringenForst, Forestry Research and Competence Centre Gotha Germany.
Helge BruelheideGerman Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig Leipzig Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3135-0356
Catherine PotvinDepartment of Biology McGill University Montréal Québec Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-6516-6144
Florian SchnabelChair of Silviculture Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources Freiburg Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8452-4001
Goddert von OheimbInstitute of General Ecology and Environmental Protection TUD Dresden University of Technology Tharandt Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7408-425X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many important processes in forest ecosystems are influenced by the spatial structure of the canopy. The spatial arrangement of trees and their branches within the canopy is crucial for light interception, often resulting in a positive relationship between canopy space filling and stand productivity. To date, there is no universal definition of canopy space. However, different parts of the canopy have distinct characteristics, making it crucial to assess the significance of varying canopy definitions. In this study, we investigated how canopy space filling changes with four different definitions of canopy space by using a canopy space filling index (CSFI) derived from terrestrial laser scanning. Moreover, we assessed the relative importance of these definitions in explaining stand productivity. Using data from a tropical tree diversity experiment, we found that CSFI strongly varied with the specific delineation of the canopy space. Across canopy definitions, stand productivity was significantly and positively affected by CSFI, indicating that this relationship was generally robust to varying definitions of canopy space. However, excluding the uppermost part and including the lowest part of the canopy space resulted in a distinct decline of explained variance in productivity. In addition, CSFI played a more important role in regulating productivity in mixtures compared to monocultures. Our results highlight the importance of different layers of the canopy space and tree species richness for a better understanding and assessment of forest dynamics and ecosystem functions. Further research is needed on the relationship between canopy space filling and stand productivity based on different canopy space definitions for mature forests and from different biomes.

Indexed as

biodiversitycanopy space definitioncanopy space filling indexSardinilla BEF experimentstand productivityvoxelisation

Identifiers

PMID42093937
PMCPMC13139647

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.