Comparison of four alternative survey methods in assessing dead wood at the stand level

IF 1.8 3区 农林科学 Q2 FORESTRY Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research Pub Date : 2023-05-19 DOI:10.1080/02827581.2023.2216946
J. Siitonen, Hannes Pasanen, Matti Ylänne, L. Saaristo
{"title":"Comparison of four alternative survey methods in assessing dead wood at the stand level","authors":"J. Siitonen, Hannes Pasanen, Matti Ylänne, L. Saaristo","doi":"10.1080/02827581.2023.2216946","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\n Many forestry practitioners need information on the amount of dead wood for various purposes, often at the level of individual stands. Our aim was to compare four simple dead-wood inventory methods of which systematic circular plot inventory is a well-known method, while relascope plot inventory (using the ordinary horizontal angle relascope also for downed trees), diameter class counting and total inventory are new methods. Seven surveyors tested the methods in four stands in southern Finland. All the methods produced rather accurate volume estimates. Mean percent error was the smallest (−5.7%) in total inventory and the largest (−12.4%) in diameter class counting. Precision differed significantly between the methods. Variation among individual measurements, expressed as percentage SD, was 15.9% in total inventory, 24.8% in diameter counting, 36.6% in relascope inventory and 43.0% in circular plot inventory. Diameter counting was by far the fastest method. Relascope inventory and circular plot inventory took about twice as much time, and total inventory over three times as much time as diameter counting. In conclusion, diameter class counting is a cost-effective dead-wood assessment method, if the purpose is to get an estimate of the total volume of dead wood within a forest stand with a reasonable precision.","PeriodicalId":21352,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research","volume":"38 1","pages":"244 - 253"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2023.2216946","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"FORESTRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Many forestry practitioners need information on the amount of dead wood for various purposes, often at the level of individual stands. Our aim was to compare four simple dead-wood inventory methods of which systematic circular plot inventory is a well-known method, while relascope plot inventory (using the ordinary horizontal angle relascope also for downed trees), diameter class counting and total inventory are new methods. Seven surveyors tested the methods in four stands in southern Finland. All the methods produced rather accurate volume estimates. Mean percent error was the smallest (−5.7%) in total inventory and the largest (−12.4%) in diameter class counting. Precision differed significantly between the methods. Variation among individual measurements, expressed as percentage SD, was 15.9% in total inventory, 24.8% in diameter counting, 36.6% in relascope inventory and 43.0% in circular plot inventory. Diameter counting was by far the fastest method. Relascope inventory and circular plot inventory took about twice as much time, and total inventory over three times as much time as diameter counting. In conclusion, diameter class counting is a cost-effective dead-wood assessment method, if the purpose is to get an estimate of the total volume of dead wood within a forest stand with a reasonable precision.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
林分水平枯木评估的四种调查方法的比较
摘要许多林业从业者需要各种目的的枯木数量信息,通常是在单个林分的水平上。我们的目的是比较四种简单的枯木盘点方法,其中系统的圆形地块盘点是一种众所周知的方法,而重新定位地块盘点(也对倒下的树木使用普通的水平角重新定位仪)、直径类别计数和总盘点是新方法。七名测量人员在芬兰南部的四个林分中测试了这些方法。所有的方法都产生了相当准确的数量估计。平均百分比误差在总库存中最小(−5.7%),在直径类别计数中最大(−12.4%)。两种方法的精密度差异很大。以SD百分比表示的单个测量值之间的差异在总库存中为15.9%,在直径计数中为24.8%,在相关库存中为36.6%,在圆形地块库存中为43.0%。直径计数是迄今为止最快的方法。中继盘点和循环地块盘点所花费的时间大约是直径盘点的两倍,总盘点所花费时间是直径盘点时间的三倍。总之,如果目的是以合理的精度估计林分内的枯木总量,那么直径类别计数是一种具有成本效益的枯木评估方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.60%
发文量
26
审稿时长
3.3 months
期刊介绍: The Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research is a leading international research journal with a focus on forests and forestry in boreal and temperate regions worldwide.
期刊最新文献
Thinning strategies impact the productivity, perpetuity and profitability of mixed stands Open geospatial data can predict the early field performance of Scots pine, Norway spruce and silver birch seedlings in Nordic boreal forests The influence of forest site types on the distribution of moose Alces alces in north-eastern Poland Private forest owners’ climate adaptation measures and the motivations behind them in a south Swedish county Birch distribution and changes in stand structure in Sweden’s young forests
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1