At least within the crown measures this is not surprising, since,

At least within the crown measures this is not surprising, since, in contrary to the 2-dimensional crown projection area in the crown surface area the crown length, as additional information of the third dimension, is EX 527 chemical structure included. Obviously, crown surface area shows a more realistic model of the actual crown shape. Furthermore, the coefficients of the log-linear relationship with leaf area did not differ significantly between the stands, and the

common coefficient of this relationship was nearest to one. Thus, within stands, crown surface area can be assumed to be proportional to leaf area. Some other authors who also worked on non-destructive methods for estimating leaf area found their models also improved by adding crown parameters. But, in contrary to our study, they used crown length (Pereira et al., 1997 and Kenefic and Seymore, 1999) or crown ratio (Valentine et al., 1994). Like crown surface area, their influential crown parameters also contained selleck chemical information about the third dimension of the crown. Hence, the importance to consider crown variables describing the length of the crown to find models of high quality for the estimation of leaf area seems to be crucial. Our test to improve the leaf area estimation through additional variables showed that for all stands together, the common relationship with crown surface area and dbh was better than the one with

crown surface area alone. However, this relationship with both variables had significantly different coefficients between the

stands, and therefore Gemcitabine research buy it would have to be parameterized separately in every stand. Thus, the advantages of crown surface area as a measure for leaf area within stands are (i) its high correlation with leaf area, even better than that for sapwood area at breast height (see Table 3 and Table 4), (ii) its property of having a relationship with leaf area with a coefficient not different between stands, and (iii) a coefficient very near 1, so that it can be assumed being proportional to leaf area. All together makes the crown surface area an applicable measure for the leaf area within stands. Because of this strong relationship the crown surface area could also be used to distribute a given stand’s leaf area appropriately to individual trees within this stand. In some studies regarding crown damage and tree growth the crown surface area was used as a kind of substitute for dry needle mass without testing the relationship between these two parameters (Kramer, 1986 and Halmschlager et al., 2007). Given that the leaf area is highly correlated with the dry needle mass (Hager and Sterba, 1985) – in our study leaf area is actually calculated out of the dry needle mass – the results of these studies are justified retrospectively by our results. So far, only the within-stand relationships between leaf area and its surrogates have been discussed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>