Improving the accuracy of predicted basal-area diameter distribution in advanced stands by determining stem number
Siipilehto J. (1999). Improving the accuracy of predicted basal-area diameter distribution in advanced stands by determining stem number. Silva Fennica vol. 33 no. 4 article id 650. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.650
The objective of this paper was to study to what extent the accuracy of predicted basal-area diameter distributions (DDG) could be improved by means of stem number observations in advanced (H > 10 m) stands. In the Finnish forest management planning (FMP) inventory practice, stem number is determined only in young stands; in older stands stand basal area is used. The study material consisted of sixty stands of Norway spruce (Picea abies Karst.) and ninety-one stands of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) with birch (Betula pendula Roth and B. pubescens Ehrh.) admixtures in southern and eastern Finland. For test data, 167–292 independent, National Forest Inventory-based, permanent sample plots were used. DDGs were estimated with the maximum likelihood method. Species-specific models for predicting the distribution parameters were derived using regression analysis. The two-parameter Weibull distribution was compared to the three-parameter Johnson’s SB distributions in predicting DDGs. The models were based on either predictors that are consistent with current FMP (model G), or assuming an additional stem number observation (model G+N). The predicted distributions were compared in terms of the derived stand variables: stem number, total and timber volumes. The results were similar in modelling and test data sets. Methods, based on the SB distribution obtained with model (G+N), proved to give the most accurate description of the stand structure. Differences were marginal in stand total volumes. However, the error variation in stem number was 20% to 80% lower than when applying model (G). SB and Weibull distributions gave very much the same results if model (G) was applied.
dbh distribution; parameter prediction; Johnson’s SB distribution; Weibull distribution
Received 29 March 1999 Accepted 4 October 1999 Published 31 December 1999
Available at https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.650 | Download PDF