  Models at various levels of resolution are commonly used, both for forest
management and in ecological research. They all have comparative advantages and
disadvantages, making desirable a better understanding of the relationships
between the various approaches. It is found that accounting for crown and root
plasticity creates more realistic links between spatial and non-spatial models
than simply ignoring spatial structure. The article reviews also the connection
between distance-independent models and size distributions, and how
distributions evolve over time and relate to whole-stand descriptions. In
addition, some ways in which stand-level knowledge feeds back into detailed
individual-tree formulations are demonstrated. The presentation intends to be
accessible to non-specialists.
  Study implications: Introducing plasticity improves the representation of
physio-ecological processes in spatial modelling. Plasticity explains in part
the practical success of distance-independent models. The nature of size
distributions and their relationship to individual-tree and whole-stand models
are discussed. I point out limitations of various approaches and questions for
future research.
