Using segmented regression to estimate stages and phases of stand development

Forest Science

Volumn 54, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 167-175

  VanderSchaaf, Curtis L ^a   Burkhart, Harold E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS   (United States)

^b VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Loblolly pine; Pinus taeda; Plantations; Self thinning; Size density trajectories

Indexed keywords

MATHEMATICAL MODELS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

PLANTING DENSITY; SIZE-DENSITY TRAJECTORIES;

FORESTRY;

FORESTRY; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PINUS TAEDA; PLANTATIONS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

PINUS TAEDA;

EID: 42049087268     PISSN: 0015749X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. AKAIKE, H. 1974. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans. Autom. Cont. AC-19:716-723.
2. ARISMAN, H., S. KURINOBU, AND E. HARDIYANTO. 2004. Minimum distance boundary method: Maximum size-density lines for unthinned Acacia mangium plantations in South Sumatra, Indonesia. J. For. Res. 9:233-237.
3. BARRETO, L.S. 1989. The '3/2 power law': A comment on the specific constancy of K. Ecol. Model. 45:237-242.
4. BORDERS, B.E. 1989. Systems of equations in forest stand modeling. For. Sci. 35:548-556.
5. BREDENKAMP, B.V., AND H.E. BURKHART. 1990. An examination of spacing indices for Eucalyptus grandis. Can. J. For. Res. 20:1909-1916.
6. BURKHART, H.E., R.L. AMATEIS, J.A. WESTFALL, AND R.F. DANIELS. 2004. PTAEDA 3.1: Simulation of individual tree growth, stand development and economic evaluation in loblolly pine plantations. Sch. For. Wildl. Res. Virginia Polytechnical Inst. and State Univ. 23 p.
7. CAO, Q.V., T.J. DEAN, AND V.C. BALDWIN. 2000. Modeling the size-density relationship in direct-seeded slash pine stands. For. Sci. 46:317-321.
8. CHRISTENSEN, N.L., AND R.K. PEET. 1981. Secondary forest succession on the North Carolina Piedmont. P. 230-245 in Forest Succession: Concepts and application, West, D.C., H.H. Shugart, and D.B. Botkin (eds.). Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
9. DEL RIO, M., G. MONTERO, AND F. BRAVO. 2001. Analysis of diameter-density relationships and self-thinning in non-thinned even-aged Scots pine stands. For. Ecol. Manag. 142:79-87.
10. DREW, T.J., AND J.W. FLEWELLING. 1979. Stand density management: an alternative approach and its application to Douglas-fir plantations. For. Sci. 25:518-532.
11. HARMS, W.R. 1981. A competition function for tree and stand growth models. P. 179-183 in Proc. of the First biennial southern silvicultural research conference, Barnett, J.P. (ed.). US For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-GTR-34. 386 p.
12. HARMS, W.R., C.D. WHITESELL, AND D.S. DEBELL. 2000. Growth and development of loblolly pine in a spacing trial planted in Hawaii. For. Ecol. Manag. 126:13-24.
13. HYNYNEN, J. 1993. Self-thinning models for even-aged stands of Pinus sylvestris, Picea abies, and Betula penula. Scand. J. For. Res. 8:326-336.
14. JOHNSON, G. 2000. ORGANON calibration for western hemlock project: Maximum size-density relationships. Willamette Industries, Inc. Intern. Res. Rep. 8 p. Available online at www.cof.orst.edu/cof/fr/research/ organon/orgpubdl.htm; last accessed Feb. 21, 2008.
15. LANDSBERG, J.J., AND R.H. WARING. 1997. A generalised model of forest productivity using simplified concepts of radiation-use efficiency, carbon balance and partitioning. For. Ecol. Manag. 95:209-228.
16. LEITES, L.P., AND A.P. ROBINSON. 2004. Improving taper equations of loblolly pine with crown dimensions in a mixed-effects modeling framework. For. Sci. 50:204-212.
17. LIN, C., AND P.M. MORSE. 1975. A compact design for spacing experiments. Biometrics 31:661-671.
18. LONSDALE, W.M. 1990. The self-thinning rule: Dead or alive? Ecology 71:1373-1388.
19. MCCARTER, J.B., AND J.N. LONG. 1986. A lodgepole pine density management diagram. West. J. Appl. For. 1:6-11.
20. MONSERUD, R.A., T. LEDERMANN, AND H. STERBA. 2004. Are self-thinning constraints needed in a tree-specific mortality model? For. Sci. 50:848-858.
21. PEET, R.K., AND N.L. CHRISTENSEN. 1980. Succession: A population process. Vegetatio 43:131-140.
22. PITTMAN, S.D., AND E.C. TURNBLOM. 2003. A study of self-thinning using coupled allometric equations: implications for coastal Douglas-fir stand dynamics. Can. J. For. Res. 33: 1661-1669.
23. POAGE, N.J., D.D. MARSHALL, AND M.H. MCCLELLAN. 2007. Maximum stand-density index of 40 western hemlock-Sitka spruce stands in southeast Alaska. West. J. Appl. For. 22:99-104.
24. PRETZSCH, H., AND P. BIBER. 2005. A re-evaluation of Reineke's rule and stand density index. For. Sci. 51:304-320.
25. REINEKE, L.H. 1933. Perfecting a stand-density index for even-age forests. J. Agric. Res. 46:627-638.
26. SAS INSTITUTE INC. 2000. SAS OnlineDoc (RTM), Version 8. Cary, NC.
27. SCHABENBERGER, O., AND F.J. PIERCE. 2002. Contemporary statistical models for the plant and soil sciences. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 738 p.
28. SHARMA, M., H.E. BURKHART, AND R.L. AMATEIS. 2002. Modeling the effect of density on the growth of loblolly pine trees. South. J. Appl. For. 26:124-133.
29. SMITH, N.J., AND D.W. HANN. 1984. A new analytical model based on the -3/2 power rule of self-thinning. Can. J. For. Res. 14:605-609.
30. STRUB, M.R., AND B.V. BREDENKAMP. 1985. Carrying capacity and thinning response of Pinus taeda in the CCT experiments. South Afr. For. J. 2:6-11.
31. TURNBLOM, E.C., AND T.E. BURK. 2000. Modeling self-thinning of unthinned Lake States red pine stands using nonlinear simultaneous differential equations. Can. J. For. Res. 30:1410-1418.
32. VANDERSCHAAF, C.L., AND H.E. BURKHART. 2007. Comparison of methods to estimate Reineke's maximum size-density relationship species boundary line slope. For. Sci. 53:435-442.
33. WELLER, D.E. 1987. A reevaluation of the -3/2 power rule of plant self-thinning. Ecol. Monogr. 57:23-43.
34. WELLER, D.E. 1990. Will the real self-thinning rule please stand up? - A reply to Osawa and Sugita. Ecology 71:1204-1207.
35. WELLER, D.E. 1991. The self-thinning rule: Dead or unsupported? - A reply to Lonsdale. Ecology 72:747-750.
36. WILLIAMS, R.A. 1994. Stand density management diagram for loblolly pine plantations in north Louisiana. South. J. Appl. For. 18:40-45.
37. YANG, Y., AND S.J. TITUS. 2002. Maximum size-density relationship for constraining individual tree mortality functions. For. Ecol. Manag. 168:259-273.
38. ZEIDE, B. 1985. Tolerance and self-tolerance of trees. For. Ecol. Manag. 13:149-166.
39. ZEIDE, B. 1987. Analysis of the 3/2 power law of self-thinning. For. Sci. 33:517-537.
40. ZEIDE, B. 1995. A relationship between size of trees and their number. For. Ecol. Manag. 72:265-272.
41. ZEIDE, B. 2005. How to measure stand density. Trees 19:1-14.
42. ZHANG, L., H. BI, J.H. GOVE, AND L.S. HEATH. 2005. A comparison of alternative methods for estimating the self-thinning boundary line. Can. J. For. Res. 35:1-8.