1991
DOI: 10.1139/x91-095
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The reliability of tree crown position classification

Abstract: Traditionally, forest crown position is classified into one of four categories: dominant, codominant, intermediate, and suppressed. The crown definitions have two primary components: a tree's stature relative to the stand's canopy level and the amount and type of light received by its crown. While this classification is meant primarily for even-aged, single level canopy stands, it is applied widely to uneven-aged stands and to those with multilevel canopies. The objective of this study was to examine the repea… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

1993
1993
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Ten plots with a size of 600 m 2 (20 m × 30 m) were set up, and DBH, tree height, height to crown base (HCB) and crown width (four directions) for each tree were measured in each plot. After that, all the trees were divided into three social status classes including dominant, mean and suppressed trees according to the widely adopted system (Kraft class) described by Nicholas et al [20], since the stands had been thinned three times and no dying trees existed. For each social status class, 1-2 trees in each plot (34 trees in total) were sampled for stem analysis (Table 2).…”
Section: Sampling and Measurementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ten plots with a size of 600 m 2 (20 m × 30 m) were set up, and DBH, tree height, height to crown base (HCB) and crown width (four directions) for each tree were measured in each plot. After that, all the trees were divided into three social status classes including dominant, mean and suppressed trees according to the widely adopted system (Kraft class) described by Nicholas et al [20], since the stands had been thinned three times and no dying trees existed. For each social status class, 1-2 trees in each plot (34 trees in total) were sampled for stem analysis (Table 2).…”
Section: Sampling and Measurementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a result, primarily the largest diameter A. balsamea, which tend to grow more rapidly than P. rubens early in stand development [51], were retained during thinning and smaller individuals were removed, which would further narrow the size distribution. Another possible explanation is that the subjectivity of crown class determination [35] is exacerbated when plots that have been precommercially thinned are scrutinized during field measurements.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For each of these trees, measurements included DBH; bark thickness, measured at breast height on the north and east sides of the tree; height; height to the lowest live branch. Crown class designations were given to each tree [19,22,35]. Two increment cores per tree were taken 90…”
Section: Field Measurementsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…: see Miller and Clover 1991). With practice, observers can become reasonably consistent (minimizing repeat sampling error) at categorizing or estimating the condition of crowns of even very large trees (Zedaker and Nicholas 1991;Nicholas et al 1991). However, a source of variation that has not been addfessed is observer bias.…”
Section: Variation In Efficacy Measuresmentioning
confidence: 99%