2009
DOI: 10.14214/df.88
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

From a tree to a stand in Finnish boreal forests: Biomass estimation and comparison of methods

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 78 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These systems of equations for individual trees provide a sound basis for estimating total aboveground stand biomass in commercial logs and residues to complement the existing volume-based stand-level yield information that are most commonly reported and used in resource planning and decision support systems for forest management. When diameter and height measurements of individual trees are available from pre-harvest inventories, aboveground stand biomass in commercial logs and residues can potentially be obtained by scaling up estimates for individual trees, similar to the approach often adopted in forest biomass estimation (Snowdon 1992;Parresol 1999;Liu 2009;Vargas-Larreta et al 2017). This potential can only be fully realised if three additional calculations are made in the scaling up process.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These systems of equations for individual trees provide a sound basis for estimating total aboveground stand biomass in commercial logs and residues to complement the existing volume-based stand-level yield information that are most commonly reported and used in resource planning and decision support systems for forest management. When diameter and height measurements of individual trees are available from pre-harvest inventories, aboveground stand biomass in commercial logs and residues can potentially be obtained by scaling up estimates for individual trees, similar to the approach often adopted in forest biomass estimation (Snowdon 1992;Parresol 1999;Liu 2009;Vargas-Larreta et al 2017). This potential can only be fully realised if three additional calculations are made in the scaling up process.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although process-based and hybrid models that couple conventional estimates of stand volume to a process-based model are sometimes used to derive biomass expansion factors (e.g. Beets et al, 1999;Richards and Evens, 2004;García-Quijano et al, 2007;Simioni et al, 2008), the most common method of forest biomass estimation has been to develop biomass equations and predict forest stand biomass as the sum of predicted biomass of individual trees, i.e., the scaling up approach (Snowdon, 1992;Parresol, 1999;Pattrício et al, 2005;BalboaMurias et al, 2006;Liu, 2009). Biomass equations for individual trees are available for P. radiata in several growing regions (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The NPP of a stand, as well as the biomass increment as its main component, is a function of various stand characteristics, such as stand age, density, and site index as a sign of site productivity (Arp and Oja, 1997). Beside, individual tree biomass is affected by age, species and size of object tree and also by site conditions and management practices of the stand where the object tree is located (Liu, 2009). Therefore, stand age, density, and site index are included as independent variables in biomass increment models as individual tree or stand growth (Avery and Burkhart, 2002).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%