The crown ratio model is an important submodel that influences the predictions of diameter increment. It is therefore interesting to know how well the predictions of this submodel agree with observed values. The highest crown ratios would be expected for

open-grown trees. Typically, crown ratios of open-grown SCH772984 cost spruce range from 0.91 to 0.94 (Lässig, 1988 and Stampfer, 1995), and crown ratio of open-grown pine is 0.86 (Stampfer, 1995). The light demanding pine trees can have a number of dying branches even on open-grown trees (Stampfer, 1995), due to self-shading. For stand grown trees, crown ratios would be high in sparse stands and low in dense stands. For open-grown tree, the Palbociclib molecular weight simulated crown ratios of Moses (always 1.0) and Prognaus (>0.96 for spruce, >0.67 for pine) agree well with observations on open-grown trees. Crown ratios

predicted by BWIN and Moses were more variable but they could be as low as 0.5 for spruce and 0.3 for pine. This is clearly too low for open-grown trees and rather corresponds to crown ratios of dominant stand grown trees. Abetz and Künstle (1982) reported crown ratios of 0.3–0.7 for dominant spruce. The high crown ratios of open-grown trees might be underestimated because sparse stands are often lacking in the data sets. BWIN and Silva were both fit from permanent research plots, which are usually fully stocked. On the other hand, Prognaus was fit from Forest Inventory data, which covers a larger variety of stocking degrees. Moses uses a function that forces a crown ratio of 1, if the competition index is 0. For stand-grown

trees, the average crown ratios were predicted well by all four simulators, with deviations being mostly less than 0.06, and Meloxicam only in some cases as high as 0.22. This agrees well with differences of 0.018, 0.02, and 0.246 in crown ratio after a 20-year simulation ( Sterba et al., 2001). The variability in crown ratio is best predicted by a dynamic model, as implemented in Moses. We expected that individual-tree growth models would correctly predict height:diameter ratios. The findings of our investigation generally support these expectations. Height:diameter ratios predicted by all four growth models are within the bounds defined by open-grown trees and very dense stands. Furthermore, all models show an increase of height:diameter ratios with increasing density, a decrease with age, and lower height:diameter ratios for dominant trees than for mean trees. A word about misclassification costs: the cost of under-estimating height:diameter ratios can greatly exceed costs of overestimation. Consider a collection of stands near the 80:1 threshold of stability.

No related posts.