EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
53,214,146
Abstracts:
29,074,682
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on Google+Follow on Google+
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

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



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



Silva Fennica 34(4): 331-349



The objective of this paper was to predict a model for describing stand structure in terms of tree height (h) and diameter at breast height (dbh). The research material consisted of data collected from 64 stands of Norway spruce (Picea abies) and 91 stands of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) located in southern Finland. Both stand types contained birch (Betula pendula and B. pubescens) admixtures.

(PDF 0-2 workdays service: $29.90)

Accession: 003342147

Download citation: RISBibTeXText



Related references

The application of parameter prediction models and parameter recovery models to the analysis of tree growth and stand structure in Taiwan. Quarterly Journal of Chinese Forestry 22(1): 53-71, 1989

A new parameter for stand spatial structure-Neighbourhood comparison. Forest Research 12(1): 1-6, 1999

Evaluation of Weibull-based parameter prediction equation systems for black spruce and jack pine stand types within the context of developing structural stand density management diagrams. Canadian journal of forest research 35(12): 2996-3010, 2005

Estimating stand tables from aerial attributes: a comparison of parametric prediction and most similar neighbour methods. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 18(3): 279-288, 2003

Comparison of different methods of ecological prediction prediction of ecosystem structure as exemplified by the problem of geobotanical indication. Ekologiya (Moscow) (4): 5-12, 1980

Genomic-scale comparison of sequence- and structure-based methods of function prediction: does structure provide additional insight?. Protein Science 10(5): 1005-1014, 2001

Spatial methods for quantifying forest stand structure development: a comparison between nearest-neighbor indices and variogram analysis. Forest Science 49(1): 36-49, 2003

Structure prediction of polyglutamine disease proteins: comparison of methods. Bmc Bioinformatics 15 Suppl 7(): S11-S11, 2014

Comparison of probabilistic combination methods for protein secondary structure prediction. Bioinformatics 20(17): 3099-3107, 2004

Pattern matching methods in protein sequence comparison and structure prediction. Protein Engineering 2(2): 77-86, 1988

Topology prediction of Brucella abortus Omp2b and Omp2a porins after critical assessment of transmembrane beta strands prediction by several secondary structure prediction methods. Journal of Biomolecular Structure & Dynamics 17(4): 747-757, 2000

Stand structure of undrained and drained peatland forests in central Finland. Suo (Helsinki) 47(4): 125-135, 1996

Parameter Study on Prediction Methods for TBM Penetration Rate. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 31(2): 783-791, 2013

Comparison between Generalized-Born and Poisson-Boltzmann methods in physics-based scoring functions for protein structure prediction. Journal of Molecular Modeling 12(1): 101-110, 2005

Research on the estimation and prediction methods of the stand increments.. Bull. For. Exp. Sta., Meguro, Tokyo. 129, 1-159, 1961