4.4 Article

Analysis of stand density effects on the stem form of Norway spruce trees and volume miscalculation by traditional form factor equations using terrestrial laser scanning (TLS)

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH
卷 50, 期 1, 页码 51-64

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/cjfr-2019-0121

关键词

tree and stand volume; stem wood; volume function; form factor; competition

类别

资金

  1. Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF, Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung) [033RK046A]
  2. European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie [778322]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tree and stand volume estimates are relevant for forest inventories, forest sales, and carbon stock evaluations. Forest practice commonly uses generalized stem-wood volume functions; however, such generalized approaches neglect the stem form in detail. Hence, trees of a given species with the same diameter at breast height (d(1.3)) and height (h) are always assumed to have the same form factor and thus the same volume. This case study focused on stem form variation of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) due to competition effects. Using terrestrial laser scanning (TLS), we measured the stem shape of 868 trees from a long-term spacing and thinning experiment in Germany. The plots covered a broad density range. We analysed the effect of competition and compared the TLS-determined stem volume estimates with those determined conventionally. TLS-based volume estimations showed that the lower the competition was, the lower the tree volume was with a given d(1.3) and h. Commonly used functions underestimated the volume stock overall by 4.2%, disregarding any levels. At plot level, underestimation varied from 0.7% to 7.0%. At tree level, the volume was under- and over-estimated by -10% to +10%, respectively. The more precise the examination was, the more suitable the application of TLS was for enhancing volume estimation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据