Height-Age Growth Model for Liquidambar formosana in Guangdong Using the Classified Height Method

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2018.05.009

Abstract

Abstract:

All 90 sample trees of Liquidambar formosana were obtained in 10 diameter classes including 40 stem analysis,based on the 8th Consecutive Forest Inventory data of the distribution of camphor in Guangdong Province in 2012,the growth models of different site grades of Liquidambar formosana were studied.The results showed that:(1) optimal equations to simulate the growth process of DBH,tree height and volume were of Gompertz,which were as follows: $D=43.100e^{(-3.277e^{-0.067T})},H=19.404e^{(-2.336e^{-0.111T})},V=1.244e^{(-6.992e^{-0.069T})}$ .Using Gompertz equations to establish the tree height-age classified model and determine the site classification of each tree.The optimal models of DBH were as follows: $D_1=61.724(1-e^{-0.049T} )^{1.915},D_2=51.992/(1+12.946e^{-0.088T}),D_3=36.135e^{(-3.090e^{-0.060T})}$ .The optimal models of tree height were as follows: $H_1=26.704e^{(-1.997e^{-0.099T})},H_2=20.035e^{(-2.234e^{-0.099T})},H_3=15.031e^{(-2.471e{-0.099T})}$ .The optimal models of volume were as follows: $V_1=3.335(1-e^{-0.044T} )^{3.798},V_2=1.629e^{(-7.434e^{-0.060T})},V_3=1.087/(1+163.827e^{-0.127T})$ .(3) The optimal model of classified and unclassified method is different,the fitting models of using classified method in DBH,tree height,volume were better than unclassified model.

Key words: graded height-age model, stem analysis, growth model, Liquidambar formosana, Guangdong

CLC Number:

S758.2
S792

XU Qihu, LIN Liping, XUE Chunquan, LUO Yong, YANG Jiazhi, LEI Yuancai. Height-Age Growth Model for Liquidambar formosana in Guangdong Using the Classified Height Method[J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2018, (5): 47-53.

Figures/Tables 8

Tab.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

Fig.1

Tab.4

Tab.5

Tab.6

Fig.2

References 17

[1]	吴恒, 党坤良, 田相林, 等. 秦岭林区天然次生林与人工林立地质量评价[J]. 林业科学, 2015,51(4):78-88. doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20150410
[2]	刘平书. 云南普洱县森林立地质量评价[J]. 林业调查规划, 2004,29(3):13-15.
[3]	曾春阳, 唐代生, 唐嘉锴. 森林立地指数的地统计学空间分析[J]. 生态学报, 2010,30(13):3465-3471.
[4]	吴晓丽, 杨春玉. 森林立地质量定量评价方法[J]. 内蒙古林业调查设计, 2015,38(1):29-31.
[5]	Fonweban J N, Tchanou Z, Defo M. Site index equations for Pinus kesiya in Cameroon[J]. Journal of Tropical Forest Science, 1995,8(1):24-32.
[6]	Bruce K. Site Index Systems for Major Young-growth Forest and Woodland Species in Northern California[D].PhD Thesis San Diego, CA:University of California, 2005.
[7]	Cieszewski C J. Comparing fixed and variable-base-age site equations having single versus multiple asymptotes[J]. Forest Science, 2002,48(1):7-23.
[8]	Sharma R P, Brunner A, Eid T, et al. Modelling dominant height growth from national forest inventory individual tree data with short time series and large age errors[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2011,262(12):2162-2175. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2011.07.037
[9]	朱光玉, 康立, 何海梅, 等. 基于树高-年龄分级的杉木人工林多形立地指数曲线模型研究[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报. 2017,37(7):18-29.
[10]	郑聪急, 贾黎明, 段劫, 等. 华北地区栓皮栎天然次生林地位指数表的编制[J]. 林业科学, 2013,49(2):79-85. doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20130212
[11]	孟宪宇. 测树学[M]. 北京: 中国林业出版社. 2006.
[12]	段劼, 马履一, 贾黎明, 等. 北京低山地区油松人工林立地指数表的编制及应用[J]. 林业科学, 2009,45(3):7-12. doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20090302
[13]	曾伟生, 唐守正, 黄国胜, 等. 全国立木生物量建模总体划分与样本构成研究[J].林业资源管理, 2010(3):16-23.
[14]	翁琳琳, 蒋家淡, 张鼎华, 等. 乡土树种枫香的研究现状与发展前景[J]. 福建林业科技, 2007,34(2):184-189.
[15]	国家林业局. LY/T2259-2014, 立木生物量建模样本采集技术规程[S].北京:中国林业出版社, 2014.
[16]	周火明, 贺勇, 侯梅, 等. 红安县枫香天然次生林生长规律研究[J]. 湖北林业科技, 2015,44(4):17-20.
[17]	周火明, 毛燕, 向莉, 等. 鄂东北枫香混交林生长规律研究[J]. 华东森林经理, 2017,31(1):37-40.

数据	变量	平均值	最小值	最大值	标准差
建模数据 (n=89)	年龄/a	15.35	1.00	41.00	9.43
	胸径/cm	13.57	1.80	39.60	9.82
	树高/m	11.39	3.00	26.60	5.21
	材积/m³	0.169	0.001	1.180	0.259
树干解析数据 (n=39)	年龄/a	24.17	11.00	41.00	7.67
	胸径/cm	22.79	11.60	39.60	8.47
	树高/m	16.20	8.90	26.60	3.67
	材积/m³	0.369	0.057	1.180	0.302

指标	最优模型	a	b	c	R²	ME	MAE	RMSE
D	Gompertz	43.100	3.277	0.067	0.850	0.001	2.781	4.146
H	Gompertz	19.404	2.336	0.111	0.790	0.009	1.910	2.471
V	Gompertz	1.244	6.992	0.069	0.745	-0.002	0.080	0.152

树高分级数	a	b	c	R²	ME	MAE	RMSE
I级	26.704	1.997	0.099	0.870	1.136	1.573	2.193
II级	20.035	2.234	0.099	0.914	-0.188	1.100	1.456
III级	15.031	2.471	0.099	0.911	-0.764	1.123	1.334

立地分级	变量	平均值	最小值	最大值	标准差	样木数
I级	年龄/a	14.26	1.0	31.0	8.93	20
	胸径/cm	16.56	2.1	39.6	12.51
	树高/m	13.92	3.8	26.6	5.73
	材积/m³	0.291	0.001	1.180	0.391
II级	年龄/a	16.00	2.0	41.0	9.63	47
	胸径/cm	13.76	2.4	39.0	9.29
	树高/m	11.68	3.5	20.5	4.85
	材积/m³	0.160	0.002	0.907	0.223
III级	年龄/a	14.90	4.0	35.0	9.75	22
	胸径/cm	10.44	1.8	26.5	7.47
	树高/m	8.49	3.0	15.5	4.23
	材积/m³	0.078	0.001	0.379	0.112

指标	树高分级数	模型形式	a	b	c	R²	ME	MAE	RMSE
	I级	Richards	61.724	0.049	1.915	0.954	0.125	1.917	2.840
D	II级	Logistic	51.992	12.946	0.088	0.905	-0.064	2.104	2.932
	III级	Gompertz	36.135	3.090	0.060	0.896	-0.044	1.830	2.543
	I级	Gompertz	26.704	1.997	0.099	0.870	1.136	1.573	2.193
H	II级	Gompertz	20.035	2.234	0.099	0.914	-0.188	1.100	1.456
	III级	Gompertz	15.031	2.471	0.099	0.911	-0.764	1.123	1.334
	I级	Richards	3.335	0.044	3.798	0.920	-0.003	0.061	0.117
V	II级	Gompertz	1.629	7.434	0.060	0.927	0.001	0.038	0.061
	III级	Logistic	1.087	163.827	0.127	0.903	-0.002	0.024	0.030