2002
DOI: 10.1016/s0378-1127(01)00737-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Top height definition and its effect on site index determination in thinned and unthinned loblolly pine plantations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
62
0
7

Year Published

2009
2009
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 85 publications
(69 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
62
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…1 -Th e f or esTr y Ch r on iCl e 25 criticism as it is applied in mixed-species, uneven-aged stands (Monserud 1984b, Monserud 1988, Pokharel and Froese 2009. The concept of using the site tree is the central strength of site index, but the ambiguity associated with its selection and measurement has been widely criticized in the published literature (Monserud 1984b, Monserud 1988, The Technical Advisory Committee 1998, Sharma et al 2002, Mailly et al 2004, Pokharel and Froese 2009. Several ambiguities introduce bias into determining the site index of a particular stand.…”
Section: The Phytocentric Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…1 -Th e f or esTr y Ch r on iCl e 25 criticism as it is applied in mixed-species, uneven-aged stands (Monserud 1984b, Monserud 1988, Pokharel and Froese 2009. The concept of using the site tree is the central strength of site index, but the ambiguity associated with its selection and measurement has been widely criticized in the published literature (Monserud 1984b, Monserud 1988, The Technical Advisory Committee 1998, Sharma et al 2002, Mailly et al 2004, Pokharel and Froese 2009. Several ambiguities introduce bias into determining the site index of a particular stand.…”
Section: The Phytocentric Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several ambiguities introduce bias into determining the site index of a particular stand. Sources of bias that can be introduced include substantial variation in the number and selection criteria of site trees used to estimate top height between organizations and regions (Sharma et al 2002), sampling error variation due to differences in the plot size and site tree location (e.g., site trees in a plot vs. site trees selected adjacent to the plot; Hägglund 1981), and polymorphism in height growth curves that introduces errors in extrapolating the height at a reference age (Jones 1969).…”
Section: The Phytocentric Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, stand top height was calculated as the arithmetic mean of the four tallest trees according to the 100 tallest trees per hectare, and the selection of the tallest trees did not take into account the species to circumvent the limitation [55] that site index models are difficult to apply in mixed stands, where height estimates of dominant trees must be available for each species in a stand [56]. Stand mean height was determined using Lorey mean height [2,9]. Summary statistics of these two stand variables are presented in Table 1.…”
Section: Stand Top and Stand Mean Height Relationshipmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Estimating site productivity is crucial to predict forest growth and yield, as well as to maintain sustainable management of forest resources [2,3]. Site index, which is commonly defined as the mean height of dominant and codominant trees of a stand (hereafter referred to as stand top height) at a pre-specified age [4][5][6], has been accepted and widely used as the most expedient indicator of forest site productivity in Germany and North America since around the end of the 19th century because of its simple calculation and efficacious prediction [3,6,7].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…the tallest or largest diameter, free-growing, uninjured trees in a sample plot (Carmean 1975, Monserud 1984, Carmean and Lenthall 1989, Nigh and Love 1999. As a consequence, H d is generally defined as the height of the largestdiameter tree on a 0.01-ha plot, providing the tree is suitable (e.g., Forest Productivity Council of British Columbia 1998, Sharma et al 2002). For a 0.04-ha plot, this represents the height of 4 top-height trees based on the largest-diameter trees.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%