1 / 16

BARK THICKNESS SHOULD YOU CARE?

BARK THICKNESS SHOULD YOU CARE?. Jim Flewelling Jim.flew@yahoo.com GMUG, November 15, 2013. OUTLINE. YES – You Should Care . Background: 1994 NW Taper Coop Suspicious volume cutouts. Subsequent volume validations Bark thickness results Background: Structure of Taper Predictions.

josiah-evans
Télécharger la présentation

BARK THICKNESS SHOULD YOU CARE?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. BARK THICKNESSSHOULD YOU CARE? Jim Flewelling Jim.flew@yahoo.com GMUG, November 15, 2013

  2. OUTLINE • YES – You Should Care . • Background: 1994 NW Taper Coop • Suspicious volume cutouts. • Subsequent volume validations • Bark thickness results • Background: Structure of Taper Predictions. • Solutions.

  3. Yes, You should care! • For almost taper and volume equations were derived from data where the key variables included DBH (outside bark), and inside bark volume or stem profile. • If the equations are applied to areas where bark thickness is different, results will be bad.

  4. 1994 West-sideTaper Coop • 726 Douglas fir trees • Across the diameter range within stands. • 7 predefined regions. • Eqns: • Bark thickness at breast height • Inside-bark profiles (conditioned at BH) • Upper stem bark thickness equations • Excellent residuals.

  5. 1994 West-sideTaper Coop

  6. Client was noticing a pattern of low volume cutouts in one of the operating areas. Volume and taper equations are often the innocent “usual suspects” This client put them on trial instead of just complaining. Suspicious volume cutouts

  7. Subsequent volume validations • 11 harvest age DF stands. • 109 trees, selected across the DBH range. • Standing measurements: DBH, HT, and upper stem diameter (17’, 41’). • Felled: Outside bark profile, and bark thickness profile.

  8. Subsequent volume validations • 4% mean underestimate outside bark volume. • 0.0% mean error in outside bark volume • Mean predicted bark ratio = .097 • Mean observed bark ratio = .116 • Do the Math! • No other problems of this magnitude.

  9. Bark Thickness Results -1993 From same client Dble Bark / DBH

  10. Bark Thickness Results -2012

  11. Bark Thickness Ratio (%) • Mean error = 1.68 percentage points. • Mean error by stand range of 7 points. • No clear regional effects.

  12. Bark Thickness Ratio - ANOVA • Y = Bark Thickness Ratio at breast height (%). • Variance between stands =3.95 • Standard error = 1.99 • Variance between trees (within stands)=5.43 • Standard error = 2.33

  13. Background - Structure • Coop equations: • BR eqn at breast height = f(DBH, HT, region). • ib profile = f(DBH, HT, region) • Profiles then conditioned on DBHib • Less common: • ib profile = f(DBH, HT) • Software. Ability to supply DBHib?

  14. Solutions • Cruising can include bark thickness on a small number of trees. • For non-cruise applications, need survey models. • Try to find correlated variables.

  15. Solutions – Few Trees / Stand

  16. SOLUTIONS- CAUSES • Methods? • Climate / region / stand conditions ? • Seed source ? • Recent weather? • ??????

More Related