Do different indices of forest structural heterogeneity yield consistent results?

IF 1.5 4区 农林科学 Q2 FORESTRY Iforest - Biogeosciences and Forestry Pub Date : 2022-10-31 DOI:10.3832/ifor4096-015
KF Reich, M. Kunz, AW Bitter, G. von Oheimb
{"title":"Do different indices of forest structural heterogeneity yield consistent results?","authors":"KF Reich, M. Kunz, AW Bitter, G. von Oheimb","doi":"10.3832/ifor4096-015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Forest management with a focus on high structural heterogeneity is a major goal in modern forestry to increase multifunctionality. The assessment and quantification of forest structures has, therefore, gained much attention in recent years. However, there is no standardized approach to surveying forest heterogeneity; instead, a variety of structural indices, which have been developed over past decades, are used. This makes it difficult to interpret the results of different studies and to base management decisions on such data. In this study, we compared six structural indices that differ in terms of their complexity and the method of data acquisition. These included the Gini coefficient of the diameter at breast height and of tree height, the Shannon index of tree species diversity, two complex indices of structural heterogeneity, one based on conventional inventory data and one on terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) data, and a simple-holistic TLS-based stand structural complexity index. For the comparison of these six indices, we used data from 84 plots in 12 different forest stand types in two study areas in Germany. The stand types con-sisted of different dominant tree species and included different age classes. The degree of correlations among the different indices was highly variable. In addition, we did not find a clear age-dependency of the indices. We conclude that the choice of a specific index plays an important role in the evaluation and interpretation of forest structural heterogeneity. Because TLS data offer multiple benefits in terms of precision, reproducibility and comprehensive-ness, we recommend to use TLS-based indices of structural heterogeneity.","PeriodicalId":13323,"journal":{"name":"Iforest - Biogeosciences and Forestry","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Iforest - Biogeosciences and Forestry","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor4096-015","RegionNum":4,"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: 1

Abstract

Forest management with a focus on high structural heterogeneity is a major goal in modern forestry to increase multifunctionality. The assessment and quantification of forest structures has, therefore, gained much attention in recent years. However, there is no standardized approach to surveying forest heterogeneity; instead, a variety of structural indices, which have been developed over past decades, are used. This makes it difficult to interpret the results of different studies and to base management decisions on such data. In this study, we compared six structural indices that differ in terms of their complexity and the method of data acquisition. These included the Gini coefficient of the diameter at breast height and of tree height, the Shannon index of tree species diversity, two complex indices of structural heterogeneity, one based on conventional inventory data and one on terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) data, and a simple-holistic TLS-based stand structural complexity index. For the comparison of these six indices, we used data from 84 plots in 12 different forest stand types in two study areas in Germany. The stand types con-sisted of different dominant tree species and included different age classes. The degree of correlations among the different indices was highly variable. In addition, we did not find a clear age-dependency of the indices. We conclude that the choice of a specific index plays an important role in the evaluation and interpretation of forest structural heterogeneity. Because TLS data offer multiple benefits in terms of precision, reproducibility and comprehensive-ness, we recommend to use TLS-based indices of structural heterogeneity.
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
不同的森林结构异质性指标是否得出一致的结果?
以高度结构异质性为重点的森林管理是现代林业增加多功能性的主要目标。因此,森林结构的评价和量化近年来受到了广泛的关注。然而,没有标准化的方法来调查森林异质性;相反,使用了过去几十年来发展起来的各种结构指数。这使得解释不同研究的结果和根据这些数据作出管理决策变得困难。在本研究中,我们比较了六种结构指数在其复杂性和数据获取方法方面的差异。其中包括胸径和树高的基尼系数、树种多样性的Shannon指数、基于常规清查数据和基于地面激光扫描(TLS)数据的结构异质性复合指数以及基于地面激光扫描(TLS)数据的简单整体林分结构复杂性指数。为了比较这6个指标,我们使用了德国2个研究区12种不同林分类型的84个样地的数据。林分类型由不同的优势树种组成,包括不同的林龄。不同指标之间的相关程度变化很大。此外,我们没有发现指数明显的年龄依赖性。研究结果表明,指标的选择对森林结构异质性的评价和解释具有重要作用。由于TLS数据在准确性、可重复性和全面性方面提供了多种好处,我们建议使用基于TLS的结构异质性指数。
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
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The journal encompasses a broad range of research aspects concerning forest science: forest ecology, biodiversity/genetics and ecophysiology, silviculture, forest inventory and planning, forest protection and monitoring, forest harvesting, landscape ecology, forest history, wood technology.
期刊最新文献
How biomass and other tree architectural characteristics relate to the structural complexity of a beech-pine forest Performance assessment of two plotless sampling methods for density estimation applied to some Alpine forests of northeastern Italy A WebGIS tool to support forest management at regional and local scale Variations in the performance of hybrid poplars subjected to the inoculation of a microbial consortium and water restriction Effects of silvicultural thinning on stand structure and coarse woody debris in the deciduous Arasbaran forest, Iran
×
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