A Modified Stand Table Projection Growth Model for Unmanaged Loblolly and Slash Pine Plantations in East Texas

Allen, Micky; Coble, Dean W.; Cao, Quang V.; Yeiser, Jimmie L.; Hung, I‐Kuai

doi:10.1093/sjaf/35.3.115

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The version of the truncated Weibull distribution used in many recent stand projection models (Nepal and Somers 1992, Cao and Baldwin 1999a, 1999b, Cao 2007, Allen et al 2011) was based on the method of moments. It was found to be just a mediocre performer, ranking 3.79 overall (Table 4).…”

Section: Which Distribution To Use?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nepal and Somers (1992) introduced a method in which a truncated Weibull was used to describe the distribution of trees in each diameter class. This approach was later adopted by other researchers (Cao and Baldwin 1999a, 1999b, Cao 2007, Allen et al 2011. To date, no study has been conducted to determine whether the uniform, truncated Weibull, or other distributions would be most appropriate for fitting the stand table data.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Deriving a Diameter Distribution from Stand Table Data

Cao¹,

Coble²

2014

Forest Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stand tables list numbers of trees per unit area for each diameter class. A stand table projection model, which projects a stand table through time, requires knowledge of the distribution of tree diameters in each class so that it can predict the movements of trees from one diameter class into another. In this study, we evaluated different statistical distributions for modeling stand table diameter data. The distributions were uniform, truncated and segmented Weibull, and truncated and segmented S B. Results indicated that the truncated Weibull with parameters obtained from the least-squares method was overall the best method.

show abstract

Section: Which Distribution To Use?mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Deriving a Diameter Distribution from Stand Table Data

Cao¹,

Coble²

2014

Forest Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Size-class models deal with diameter classes. These models can be stand table-projection models that projects the number of trees in each diameter class into the future (Clutter and Jones 1980, Nepal and Somers 1992, Cao and Baldwin 1999, Allen et al 2011, or diameterdistribution models that use a probability density function (pdf) to model the frequency of tree diameters (Smalley and Bailey 1974, Matney and Sullivan 1982, Jiang and Brooks 2009, Carretero and Alvarez 2013.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because outputs from models of different resolutions might be inconsistent with one another, linking models having different levels of resolution have recently received a lot of D r a f t Deriving a Tree Model -Page 3 attention. Bridges have been established to connect a whole-stand model to a diameterdistribution model (Matney and Sullivan 1982;Baldwin and Feduccia 1987), to a stand table projection model (Clutter and Jones 1980, Nepal and Somers 1992, Cao and Baldwin 1999, Cao 2007, Allen et al 2011, or to an individual-tree model (Yue et al 2008, Zhang et al 2010, Hevia et al 2015, Cao 2014, 2017. The latter is called the disaggregation approach (Ritchie and Hann 1997), in which information obtained from the tree model is used to disaggregate stand growth (predicted by a whole-stand model) among trees in the tree list.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deriving a tree growth model from any existing stand growth model

Cao

2022

Can. J. For. Res.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, a new method was developed to derive a tree survival and diameter growth model from any existing stand-level model, without the need for individual-tree growth data. Predictions from the derived tree model are constrained to match number of trees and basal area per ha as outputted by the stand model. The tree models derived from three different stand models were evaluated against a tree model, in both unadjusted and disaggregated forms. For the same stand-level model, the derived tree model outperformed its counterpart, the disaggregated tree model. Furthermore, except for one stand model with poor performance, the tree models derived from the remaining two stand models delivered comparable results to those obtained from the unadjusted tree model. The tree model derived from one stand model even performed slightly better than the unadjusted tree model. This is significant because the coefficients of the unadjusted and disaggregated tree models had to be estimated from tree-level growth data, whereas the derived tree model required no tree growth data at all. The methodology presented in this study should be applicable when there is no ingrowth or recruitment.

show abstract

“…Size-class models deal with trees classified into diameter classes. These models include stand-table projection models, which predict the frequency in each diameter class (Nepal & Somers 1992, Allen et al 2011, and diameter-distribution models, which use a probability density function to model the diameter distributions (Carretero & Alvarez 2013). Individual-tree models, on the other hand, provide detailed tree information such as tree diameter growth (Subedi & Sharma 2011), tree survival (Monserud & Sterba 1999), or both (Mabvurira & Miina 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deriving tree growth models from stand models based on the self-thinning rule of Chinese fir plantations

Zhang¹,

Cao²,

Qu³

et al. 2022

iForest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-thinning due to density-dependent mortality usually occurs during the forest development. To improve predictions of such processes during forest successions under climate change, reliable stand-level models are needed. In this study, we developed an integrated system of tree-and stand-level models by deriving tree diameter and survival models from stand growth and survival models based on climate-sensitive self-thinning rule of Chinese fir plantations in subtropical China. The resulting integrated system, having a unified mathematical structure, should provide consistent estimates at both tree and stand levels. Predictions were reasonable at both stand and tree levels. Because stand-level values aggregated from the tree model outputs are different from those predicted directly from the stand models, the disaggregation approach was applied to provide numerical consistency between models of different resolutions. Compared to the unadjusted approach, predictions from the disaggregation approach were slightly worse for tree survival but slightly better for tree diameter. Because the stand models were developed under the climatesensitive self-thinning trajectory, the integrated system could offer reasonable predictions that could aid in managing Chinese fir plantations under climate change.

show abstract

A Modified Stand Table Projection Growth Model for Unmanaged Loblolly and Slash Pine Plantations in East Texas

Cited by 10 publications

References 4 publications

Deriving a Diameter Distribution from Stand Table Data

Deriving a Diameter Distribution from Stand Table Data

Deriving a tree growth model from any existing stand growth model

Deriving tree growth models from stand models based on the self-thinning rule of Chinese fir plantations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About