Jouni Siipilehto

A comparison of two parameter prediction methods for stand structure in Finland

Siipilehto J. (2000). A comparison of two parameter prediction methods for stand structure in Finland. Silva Fennica vol. 34 no. 4 article id 617. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.617

Abstract

The objective of this paper was to predict a model for describing stand structure of tree heights (h) and diameters at breast height (dbh). The research material consisted of data collected from 64 stands of Norway spruce (Picea abies Karst.) and 91 stands of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) located in southern Finland. Both stand types contained birch (Betula pendula Roth and B. pubescent Ehrh.) admixtures. The traditional univariate approach (Model I) of using the dbh distribution (Johnson’s SB) together with a height curve (Näslund’s function) was compared against the bivariate approaches, Johnson’s SBB distribution (Model II) and Model Ie. In Model Ie within-dbh-class h-variation was included by transforming a normally distributed homogenous error of linearized Näslund’s function to concern real heights. Basal-area-weighted distributions were estimated using the maximum likelihood (ML) method. Species-specific prediction models were derived using linear regression analysis. The models were compared with Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests for marginal distributions, accuracy of stand variables and the dbh-h relationship of individual trees. The differences in the stand characteristics between the models were marginal. Model I gave a slightly better fit for spruce, but Model II was better for pine stands. The univariate Model I resulted in clearly too narrow marginal h-distribution for pine. It is recommended applying of a constrained ML method for reasonable dbh-h relationship instead of using a pure ML method when fitting the SBB model.

Keywords
Pinus sylvestris; Picea abies; parameter prediction; dbh and height distribution; Johnson’s SBB distribution; Näslund’s height curve

Received 18 February 2000 Accepted 21 September 2000 Published 31 December 2000

Views 5837

Available at https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.617 | Download PDF