1994
DOI: 10.1016/0378-1127(94)90026-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Mortality models for mountain and alpine ash

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

1996
1996
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The explanatory variables included factors that potentially influenced the likelihood of mortality and were available from the data: stand density, site quality, age and the type of silvicultural practice. Several possibilities exist to describe stand density, although the most commonly used approaches are the number of trees (N) (Burgman et al 1994;Á lvarez Gonza´lez et al 2004) or the basal area (BA) (Hamilton 1986;Vanclay 1991). Since N and BA were directly determined from the original data and do not rely on functional relationships, as opposed to volume, only these two variables were selected for testing in the present study.…”
Section: Variables and Model Selection For Predicting Survival Probabmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The explanatory variables included factors that potentially influenced the likelihood of mortality and were available from the data: stand density, site quality, age and the type of silvicultural practice. Several possibilities exist to describe stand density, although the most commonly used approaches are the number of trees (N) (Burgman et al 1994;Á lvarez Gonza´lez et al 2004) or the basal area (BA) (Hamilton 1986;Vanclay 1991). Since N and BA were directly determined from the original data and do not rely on functional relationships, as opposed to volume, only these two variables were selected for testing in the present study.…”
Section: Variables and Model Selection For Predicting Survival Probabmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In individual-based models, tree death is predicted based on a range of variables that can be classified roughly as (i) size-related variables (e.g., diameter at breast height (DBH) or tree height; Buchman et al 1983;Buford and Hafley 1985), (ii) growth-related variables (e.g., ring widths or basal area increments; Buchman et al 1983;Kobe 1996;Wyckoff and Clark 2000), (iii) crown-related variables (e.g., leaf area index or crown defoliation; Crow and Hicks 1990;Monserud and Sterba 1999;Dobbertin and Brang 2001), (iv) ratios of crown-related and growth-related variables (e.g., growth efficiency; Coyea and Margolis 1994), and (v) other variables such as age, competition, or social position (Keister 1972;Burgman et al 1994).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…forests of Victoria, south-eastern Australia. It was parameterised using information generated from past studies of mountain ash forests (see Table 1) including: rates of stand growth (Dahl, 1940;Cunningham, 1960;Ashton, 1975a;Ashton, 1975b;Ashton, 1975c;Ashton, 1976 andAshton, 1981), typical stocking rates of trees (Burgman et al, 1995;Ambrose, 1982;Banks, 1993), patterns of cavity ontogeny (Ambrose, 1982;Lindenmayer et al, 1993), and patterns of decay and collapse among hollow-bearing stems (Lindenmayer et al, 1990a andLindenmayer et al, 1997). TABLE 1.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%