Sampling a tree for total volume, biomass, and carbon

Journal of Forestry

Volumn 109, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 131-135

  van Deusen, Paul ^a   Roesch, Francis A ^b  

^a NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR AIR AND STREAM IMPROVEMENT   (United States)

^b USDA FOREST SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

Importance sampling; Pipe model theory

Indexed keywords

DRY WEIGHT; IMPORTANCE SAMPLING; PIPE MODEL THEORY; SAMPLING METHOD; SPECIFIC GRAVITY; STANDING TREE; STEM HEIGHT; TREE CROWNS; TREE FORM;

BIOMASS; FORESTRY; PIPE;

PLANT EXTRACTS;

BIOMASS; CARBON CYCLE; HEIGHT; MODELING; SAMPLING; STAND STRUCTURE; TREE; VOLUME;

BIOMASS; CARBON; EXTRACTIVES; FORESTRY; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PLANTS; SAMPLING;

EID: 79957852495     PISSN: 00221201     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Gregoire, T.G., H.T. Valentine, and G.M. Furnival. 1995. Sampling methods to estimate foliage and other characteristics of individual trees. Ecology 76(4):1181-1194.
2. Gregoire, T.G., and H.T. Valentine. 2008. Sampling strategies for natural resources and the environment. Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton, FL. 474 p.
3. Husch, B., T.W. Beers, and J.A. Kershaw. 2003. Forest mensuration, 4th Ed. John Wiley & Son, Hoboken, NJ. 443 p.
4. Miles, P.D., and W.B. Smith. 2009. Specific gravity and other properties of wood and bark for 156 tree species found in North America. US For. Serv. Res. Note NRS-38, North. Res. Stn., Newtown Square, PA. 35 p.
5. Pallardy, S.G., and T.T. Kozlowski. 2008. Physiology of woody plants, 3rd Ed. Academic Press, Burlington, MA. 454 p.
6. Rubinstein, R.Y., and D.P. Kroese. 2008. Simulation and the Monte Carlo method. John Wiley & Son, Hoboken, NJ. 345 p.
7. Senelwa, K., and R.E.H. Sims. 1998. Tree biomass equations for short rotation eucalypts grown in New Zealand. Biomass Bioenerg. 13(3):133-140.
8. Shinozaki, K., K. Yoda, K. Hozumi, and T. Kira. 1964. A quantitative analysis of plant form-The Pipe Model Theory II. Further evidence of the theory and its application in forest ecology. Jpn. J. Ecol.14(4):133-139.
9. Smith, J.E., L.S. Heath, K.E. Skog, and R.A. Birdsey. 2006. Methods for calculating forest ecosystem and harvested carbon with standard estimates for forest types of the United States. US
10. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-343, Northeast. Res. Stn., Newtown Square, PA. 216 p.
11. Valentine, H.T., L.M. Tritton, and FurnivaL, G.M. 1984. Subsampling trees for biomass, volume, or mineral content. For. Sci. 30(3):673-681.
12. Van deusen, P.C. 1995. Difference sampling as an alternative to importance sampling. Can. J. For. Res. 25:487-490.
13. Van deusen, P.C., and T.B. Lynch. 1987. Efficient unbiased tree-volume estimation. For. Sci. 33(2):583-590.
14. Wiant, H.V. JR., G.B. Wood, and T.G. Gregoire. (1992). Practical guide for estimating the volume of a standing sample tree using either importance or centroid sampling. For. Ecol. Manag. 49:333-339.
15. Wood, G.B., H.V. Wiant JR., R.J. Loy, and J.A. Miles. 1990. Centroid sampling: A variant of importance sampling for estimating the volume of sample trees of radiata pine. For. Eco. Manag. 36(2):233-243.