1 / 31

Things just don’t add up with SDI… Martin Ritchie PSW Research Station

Unravel the complexities of SDI in forestry practices. Learn about the limitations, implications, and historical context of SDI metrics. Discover various perspectives and challenges in assessing stand density.

lillied
Télécharger la présentation

Things just don’t add up with SDI… Martin Ritchie PSW Research Station

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. Things just don’t add up with SDI…Martin Ritchie PSW Research Station

  2. Overview • SDI: Concepts, Limitations • Additivity: • Stage (1968) • Curtis/Zeide/Long • Sterba & Monserud (1993) • Implications of maximum crown width functions…

  3. Reineke (1933)

  4. Reineke (1933)

  5. Problems with Reineke’s SDI • Definition of the “maximum” • Applicable to even-aged stands • Not Additive: • No way to determine contribution of individual trees or cohorts to total SDI

  6. Implied Comparability • SDI is meaningful as long as the maximum for a given comparison is a constant. • SDI is meaningful as long as the slope is fixed (you can’t compare across slopes).

  7. Stage (1968) Suppose the following relationship holds for individual-tree sdi:

  8. Stage (1968)

  9. Stage (1968) This reduces to one variable: c=1.605/2, which acts as a weight on diameter-squared

  10. Stage (1968) For individual-trees: Summation over all trees: c= 1.605/2 = 0.8025

  11. Stage (1968) • There are an infinite number of solutions for “c” between 0 and 1 which will solve the equation. • c=.8025 is not necessarily optimal… e.g., c=1, then a=0 and b=SDI/BA.

  12. Curtis (1971) Tree-Area-Ratio (OLS) Approach using “well-stocked” unmanaged natural stands of Douglas-fir: Similar, in effect to traditional Tree-Area-Ratio approach for most diameters:

  13. Zeide (1983) Proposed a different measure of stand diameter; a generalized mean with power = k. Similar in form to Curtis (1971):

  14. Zeide (1983) • The modification of “mean stand diameter” results in an additive function for SDI • SDIz/SDIr=f(c.v.)

  15. Zeide (1983) Taylor Series Expansion about the arithmetic mean for the Generalized Mean: 1st 3rd 4th C=coefficient of variation g=coefficient of skewness p refers to slope of 1.6 for this case

  16. Long (1995) Additivity accounts for changes in stand structure (empirically demonstrated): SDIr=927 SDIz=807

  17. Problem: Implies that the slope and the maximum remain constant with respect to changes in stand structure

  18. Sterba and Monserud (1993) • Slope is a function of stand structure (skewness): -Slope decreases as the skewness of the stand increases. -Change in slope is substantial

  19. Sterba & Monserud (1993) • Additivity is effective within stand structure… • Difficult to make comparisons between stands of different structures…

  20. So what? • Does the relationship really change with maximum or the slope?

  21. Open Grown Trees • Using MCW=f(dbh), • And, some known distribution, with g fixed calculate an implied constant density line:

  22. Uneven-aged Stand C=0.73 g=1.7

  23. Uneven-aged Stand Ln(tpa) Ln(d)

  24. Even-aged Stand C=0.36 g=0.8

  25. Even-aged Stand Ln(tpa) Ln(d)

  26. Ln(tpa) Ln(d)

  27. Ln(tpa) .6*sdi max Ln(d)

  28. Conclusions • Stage’s Solution to additivity is not unique, may or may not be optimal. • Long’s conclusion with uneven aged stands may be naïve, because maximum may change with changes in structure. • Slope may change as well (Sterba & Monserud), causing problems with application • However, MCW functions imply consistency across diameter distributions with a stable slope near Reineke’s 1.6 and a stable maximum for ponderosa pine.

  29. References • Curtis, R.O. 1971. A tree area power function and related stand density measures for Douglas-fir. For. Sci. 17:146-159. • Long, J.N. 1995. Using stand density index to regulate stocking in uneven-aged stands. P. 111-122 In Uneven-aged management: Opportunities, constraints and methodologies. O’Hara, K.L. (ed.) Univ. Montana School of For./ Montana For. And Conserv. Exp. Sta. Misc. Publ. 56. • Long, J.N. and T.W. Daniel. 1990. Assessment of growing stock in uneven-aged stands. West. J. Appl. For. 5(3):93-96 • Reineke, L.H. 1933. Perfecting a stand-density index for even-aged forests. J. Agric. Res. 46:627-638. • Shaw J.D. 2000.Application of stand density index to irregularly structured stands. West. J. Appl. For. 15(1):40-42. • Sterba, H. and R.A. Monserud. 1993. The maximum density concept applied to uneven-aged mixed species stands. For. Sci. 39:432-452. • Sterba, H. 1987. Estimating potential density from thinning experiments and inventory data. For. Sci. 33:1022-1034. • Stage, A.R. 1968. A tree-by-tree measure of site utilization for grand fir related to stand density index. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note INT-77. 7 p. • Zeide, B. 1983. The mean diameter for stand density index. Can. J. For. Res. 13:1023-1024.

  30. Some Other Interesting SDI-Related Stuff • Chisman, H.H. and F.X. Shumacher. 1940. On the tree-area ratio and certain of its applications. J. For. 38:311-317. • Curtis, R.O. 1970. Stand density measures: an interpretation. For. Sci. 16:403-414. • Lexen, B. 1939. Space requirements of ponderosa pine by tree diameter. USDA, Forest Service, Southwestern Forest and Range Experiment Station Res. Note 63. 4 p. • Mulloy, G.A. 1949. Calculation of stand density index for mixed and two aged stands. Canada Dominion Forest Serv. Silv. Leaflet 27. 2p. • Oliver, W.W. 1995. Is self-thinning in ponderosa pine ruled by Dendroctonus bark beetles? In: Eskew, L.G. comp. Forest health through silviculture. Proceedings of the 1995 National Silviculture Workshop; 1995, May 8-11; Mescalero New Mexico. General Technical Report RM-GTR-267. Fort Collins CO: USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 213-218. • Schnur, G.L. 1934. Reviews. J. For. 32(3):355-356. • Spurr, S.H. 1952. Forest Inventory. Ronald Press, New York. Pages 277-288

More Related