2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2005.10.046
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An evaluation of different diameter diversity indices based on criteria related to forest management planning

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

3
175
0
7

Year Published

2013
2013
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 198 publications
(193 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
3
175
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…1a,b) and its shift from 2000 to 2012. This observation is in accordance with Lexerød and Eid (2006), who showed the highest discriminant ability and best logical ranking for the Gini index. Also Valbuena et al (2012) pointed out a certain inconsistency of diversity indices when comparing forest structural types and recommended measures of equitability of tree sizes.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…1a,b) and its shift from 2000 to 2012. This observation is in accordance with Lexerød and Eid (2006), who showed the highest discriminant ability and best logical ranking for the Gini index. Also Valbuena et al (2012) pointed out a certain inconsistency of diversity indices when comparing forest structural types and recommended measures of equitability of tree sizes.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…An additional advantage of these three selected indices is that the index value does not change when the density of each diameter class is raised in the same proportion. This makes it possible to compare diameter diversity in different stands or in one stand over time, independently of the stand density (Lexerød, Eid 2006). Indices ranging between 0 and 1 are also easy to interpret and allow a quick comparison between each other.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…DBH) (Lexerød, Eid 2006;Sterba 2008;Zenner et al 2015). It can take values in the range of GI Î (0, 1), wherein the low values indicate that the trees are characterised by, for example, a diameter close to the mean (little variation in the characteristic), whilst higher values indicate greater GI diversity in the population's analysed characteristics.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Compared with other measures of stand structure diversity, the two stand structural diversity indexes described above offer many advantages, among which are their ease of calculation and wide usage, an important requisite for adoption by practitioners (Latham et al 1998, Schulte & Buongiorno 1998, Lexerød & Eid 2006.…”
Section: Measurementioning
confidence: 99%