DIGITALNA ARHIVA ŠUMARSKOG LISTA
prilagođeno pretraživanje po punom tekstu



ŠUMARSKI LIST 3-4/2012 str. 48     <-- 48 -->        PDF

 
prediction method; and (3) the difference equation me­thod. One-time (single) measurement of stand height and age on temporary plots is sufficient for the guide curve method whereas the implementation of the others require either measurement of height and age over time with monumental trees or plots (the parameter prediction method), or reconstruction of height/age development patterns for individual trees through stem analyses (the difference equation method). Shortcomings of using stem analyses data in the case of the current study has already been discussed. Measurement over time was also avoid­ed due to the mass occurring of chestnut dieback in Belasita mountain caused by the ascomycete fungus Cryphonectria parasitica (Murrill) Barr. According to Zlatanov et al. (2011), each year many trees are infected by the fungus in a rather chaotic manner. The guide curve method assumes that the full range of site indices is comparatively well presented in all age classes within the sample (Clutter et al. 1983), which is the case with respect to the current study data set. Still, we are aware that the guide curve method derives anamorphic site index curves, only asymptote coefficient is changed while the shape of the curves stays constant. Most studies (Garcia Abejon 1981; Alemdag 1988) suggest that the shape of the curves might also vary from site to site.
It can be generalized from the results of the current study that the growth model based on the Richards growth function best fitted the age – dominant height relationship for the studied Castanea sativa dominated stands (Figure 1, Table 1), hence the Richards guide curve (Eq. 7) being employed for the construction of the population site index curves. It is recommended that the growth model and the site index curves elaborated in the current study are used within the data range 10−110 years.
Acknowledgements
Zahvala
The study was funded by Europe EEA Grants as part of the project BG 0031 EEA: State and prospects of the Castanea sativa population in Belasitsa mountain: climate change adaptation; maintenance of biodiversity and sustainable ecosystem management. We thank Dr. Tatyana Stankova, Dr. Thomas Groen and Stjepan Dekanić for their helpful suggestions.
References
Literatura
Alemdag, I., 1988: Site index equations for White Spruce in the Northwest Territories, Canada, For Ecol Manage, 23: 61–580.
Alvares, A., E. Varela, A. Obregon, E. Khoury, 2010: Relating growth and nutrition to site factors in young chestnut plantations established on agricultural and forest land in northern Spain, Agroforest Syst, 79: 291–301.
Amaro, A., D. Reed, M. Tome, I. Themido, 1998: Modelling dominant height growth: eucalyptus plantations in Portugal. For Sci 44: 37–46.
Avery, T., E. Burkhart, 2002: Forest Measurement, 5th ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, 456 pp.
Bratanova-Doncheva, S., V. Dimitrova, M. Lyubenova, S. Mihaylov 2005: Ecological characteristics of Castanea sativa Mill. ecosystems in Bulgaria. In: Abreu C, E Rosa, A Monteiro (eds.) Proc. IIIrd Intl. Chestnut Congress. ISHS Acta Hort 693: 353–365.
Cailliez, F., D. Alder, 1980: Forest Volume Estimation and Yield Prediction. Vol. 2. Yield Prediction. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome., pp. 201.
Clutter, J., J. Fortson, L. Pienaar, G. Brister, R. Bailey, 1983: Timber management: A quantitative approach. John Wiley& Sons, New York, pp. 335.
Cohen, J., 1986: Statistical power analyses for behavioural sciences, 2nd ed. Academic Press, New York, pp. 569.
Dobrev, H., 1914: Chestnut stands in Belasitsa mountain. Forest chronicles (Gorski pregled, Bulgaria) 9: 350–352.
Draper, N., H. Smith, 1981: Applied regression analysis. Wiley, New York, pp. 709.
Galabov, Zh. (ed.)., 1973: Atlas of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria. Main Bureau of Geodesy and Cartography, Sofia, 168 pp.
Garcia Abejon, J., 1981: Tablas de produccion de densidad variable para Pinus sylvestris en el Sistema Iberico. Comunicaciones I.N.I.A Serie: Recursos Naturales, No. 10, pp. 47.
Eichhorn, F., 1904: Beziehungen zwischen Bestandshohe und Bestandsmasse. Allgemiene Forst und Jagdzeitung 80: 45–49.
Everard, J., J. Christie, 1995: Sweet chestnut: silviculture, timber quality and yield in the Forest of Dean. Forestry 68: 133−144.
Elfving, B., A. Kiviste, 1997: Construction of site index equations for Pinus sylvestris L. using permanent sample plots data in Sweden. For Ecol Manage 98: 125–134.
Field, A., 2009: Discovering statistics using SPSS, 3th ed. SAGE Publications Ltd, London.
Fontes, L., M. Tome, M. Coelho, H. Wright, J. Luis, P. Savil, 2003: Modelling dominant height growth of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) in Portugal. Forestry 76: 509−523.
Haltofová, P., D. Palovciková, L. Jankovský, 2005: Distribution and health condition of sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) in the Czech Republic. In: Abreu, C., E. Rosa, A. Monteiro (eds.) Proc. IIIrd Intl. Chestnut Congress. ISHS Acta Hort 693: 159−164.
Hamilton, G., 1981: The effects of high intensity thinning on yield. Forestry 54: 1−15.
Kostov, S., 1979: Chestnut forests in Belasitsa mountain. Forestry (Bulgaria) 8: 44–47.
Lauteri, M., M. Monteverdi, G. Scarascia-Mugnozza, 2009: Preservation of chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) genetic resources and Adaptive potential in relation to environmental changes. In: Bounous, G., G. Becarro (eds.) Proc. Ist Eur. congress on chestnut. ISHS Acta Hort 866: 677−682.
Manetti, M., E. Amorini, C. Becagli, M. Conedera, F. Giudici, 2001: Productive potential of chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) stands in Europe. For Snow Landsc Res 76: 471–476.
Palahí, M., M. Tomé, T. Pukkala, A. Trasobares, G. Montero, 2004: Site index model for Pinus sylvestris in north-east Spain. For Ecol Manage 187: 35−47.
Pienaar, L., K. Turnbull, 1973: The Chapman-Richards generalization of Von Bertalanffy’s growth model for basal area growth and yield in even-aged stands. For Sci 19: 2–22.