Dikili ağaçların hacim tahmini için bazı metotların karşılaştırılması

Öz

Hacim tahmini, büyüme ve hasılat modellerinin en önemli parçalarından birisidir. Bu nedenle, ağaç hacimlerinin gereceğe yakın bir şekilde tahmini için güvenilir metotlara ihtiyaç vardır. Ancak halen kullanılmakta olan ağaç hacim tabloları ve gövde çapı modelleri gibi tahmin yöntemlerinin herhangi bir alanda kullanımadan önce uygunluğunun test edilmesi gerekmektedir. Bu, masraflı ve zaman gerektiren bir işlemdir. Bu çalışmanın amacı; ağaç hacim tablosu ve gövde çapı modeli ile elde edilen hacimleri, daha genel metotlar olan Centroid, Paracone ve Hossfeld yöntemleri ile elde edilen hacimlerle karşılaştırmak ve hangi metodun daha doğru sonuçlar verdiğini ortaya koymaktır. Bu amaçla, 292 adet kızılçam ağacı kesilmiş, bu ağaçlar üzerinde 1 m aralıkla çaplar ölçülmüş ve bu çaplar yardımıyla örnek ağaçların gerçek hacmi olarak kabul edilecek değerler hesaplanmıştır. İkinci aşamada, ağaç hacim tablosu, gövde çapı modeli, Centroid, Paracone ve Hossfeld yöntemleri ile ağaçların hacmi tahmin edilmiş ve gerçek hacim değerleri ile karşılaştırılmıştır. Sonuç olarak, Paracone, Centroid ve Hossfeld metotlarının yanlı sonuçlar üretmesine karşın, daha düşük tolerans aralığı (TA) ve hata kareler ortalaması (MSE) değerleri ortaya koyması nedeniyle hacim tablosu ve gövde çapı modeline tercih edilebileceği görülmüştür. Ancak, envanterin önemi ve maliyeti gibi kriterler dikkate alındığında, ağaç hacim tahminleri için hangi metodun kullanılacağına karar verecek olan uygulayıcıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Hacim tahmini,Centroid,Paracone,Hossfeld,Hacim denklemi

Comparison of some methods for estimating volume of standing trees

Öz

Volume estimation is one of the most components of growth and yield models. There is a need to reliable and accurate methods to accurately determine the volume of trees. Current methods include the use of volume tables or taper models which should be tested for applicability before use in a stand. This can be costly and time consuming. The purpose of this paper was to compare the estimates made using accepted volume table and taper model and the more generic methods as Centroid, Paracone, and Hossfeld and determine which gives the best results. For this aim, 292 brutian pine trees were harvested, diameter measurements were taken every 1 m and then these measurements were used to calculate the true volumes of each tree. The appropriate tree volume tables and taper model for brutian pine trees and Centroid, Paracone, and Hossfeld methods were used to estimate the tree volumes and these estimates were compared with true volumes. Overall, the Paracone, Centroid, and Hossfeld methods performed well in comparison with the other techniques but results generally were significantly biased, although these biases were small. Precision was better for the Paracone and Centroid methods than the other methods.  In determining the method to apply for estimating the volume of the trees in filed, the forester will have to decide whether which method to use.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Volume estimation,Centroid,Paracone,Hossfeld,Volume equation

Kaynakça

1. Alemdağ, Ş., 1962. Türkiye’deki Kızılçam Ormanlarının Gelişimi, Hasılat ve Amenajman Esasları. Ormancılık Araştırma Enstitüsü, Teknik Bülten No:11, Ankara.
2. Avery, T.E., Burkhart, H.E., 2002. Forest Measurements. 5th Ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
3. Bailey, R.L., 1995. Upper stem volumes from stem analysis data: An overlapping bolts method. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 25:170-173.
4. Brooks, J.R., Wiant, H.V., 2008. Ecoregion based local volume equations for appalachian hardwoods. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 25(2): 87-92.
5. Castedo-Dorado, F., Gomez-Garcia, E., Dieguez-Aranda, U., Barrio-Anta, M., Crecente-Campo, F., 2012. Aboveground stand-level biomass estimation: a comparison of two methods for major forest species in northwest Spain. Annals of Forest Science, 69:735-746.
6. Cao, Q.V., Wang, J., 2011. Calibrating fixed-and mixed-effects taper equations. Forest Ecology and Management, 262:671-673.
7. Coble, D.W., Lee, Y.J., 2003. Use of the centroid method to estimate volumes of Japanese red cedar trees in Southern Korea. The Korean Journal of Ecology, 26:123-127.
8. Crecente-Campo, F., Alboreca, A.R., Diéguez-Aranda, U., 2009. A merchantable volume system for Pinus sylvestris L. in the major mountain ranges of Spain. Annals of Forest Science, 66:1-12.

9. Devore, J.L., 1982. Probability and Statistics for Engineering and the Sciences. Brooks/Cole Pub., Monterey, CA.
10. de-Miguel, S., Mehtatalo, L., Shater, Z., Kraid, B., Pukkala, T., 2012. Evaluating marginal and conditional predictions of taper models in the absence of calibration data. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 42:1383-1394. Dieguez-Aranda, U., Castedo-Dorado, F., Alvarez-Gonzalez, J.G., Rojo, A., 2006. Compatible taper function for scots pine plantations in nortwestern Spain. Canadian Journal of Forest, 36(5):1190-1205.
11. Ducey, M.J., Williams, M.S., 2011. Comparison of Hossfeld’s method and two modern methods for volume estimation of standing trees. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 26:19-23.
12. Fang, Z., Borders, B.E., Bailey, R.L,. 2000. Compatible volume-taper models for loblolly and slash pine based on a system with segmented-stem form factors. Forest Science, 46:1–12.
13. Forslund, R.R., 1982. A geometrical tree volume model based on the location of the centre of gravity of the bole. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 12:215-221.
14. Furnival, G.M., Valentine, H.T., Gregoire, T.G., 1986. Estimation of log volume by importance sampling. Forest Science, 32:1073-1078.
15. Gomez-Garcia, E., Crecente-Campo, F., Barrio-Anta, M., Dieguez-Aranda, U., 2015. A disaggregated dynamic model for predicting volume, biomass and carbon stocks in even-aged pedunculate oak stands in Galicia (North-West Spain). European Journal of Forest Research, 134:569-583.
16. Graves, H.S., 1906. Forest Mensuration. John Wiley and Sons.
17. Gregoire, T.G., Valentine, H.T., Furnival, G.M., 1986. Estimation of bole volume by importance sampling. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 16:554-557.
18. Gregoire, T.G., Valentine, H.T., Furnival, G.M., 1987. Sampling methods for estimating stem volume and volume increment. Forest Ecology and Management, 21:311-323.
19. Gribko, L.S., Wiant, Jr., H.V., 1992. A SAS template program fort the accuracy test. The Compiler, 10:48-51.
20. Max, T.A., Burkhart, H.E., 1976. Segmented polynomial regression applied to taper equations. Forest Science, 22:283-289.
21. Özçelik, R., Wiant, H.V., Jr., Brooks, J.R., 2006. Estimating log volumes of three species in Turkey by six formulae. Forest Products Journal, 56:84-86.
22. Özçelik, R., 2008. Comparison of formulae for estimating tree bole volumes of Pinus sylvestris. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 23:412-418.
23. Özçelik, R., Wiant, H.V., Jr., Brooks, J.R., 2008. Accuracy using xylometry of log volume estimates for two tree species in Turkey. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 23:272-277.
24. Özçelik, R., Yavuz, H., Karatepe, Y., Gürlevik, N., Kırış, R., 2012. Burdur yöresi kızılçam meşcereleri için uyumlu gövde çapı ve gövde hacim denklemlerinin geliştirilmesi. Turkish Journal of Forestry, 13:85-91.
25. Patterson, D.W., Wiant. H.V. Jr, Wood, G.B., 1993. Comparison of the centroid method and taper systems for estimating tree volumes. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 10(1):8-9.
26. Pillsbury, N.H., McDonald, P.M., Simon, V., 1995. Reliability of Tanoak volume equations when applied to different areas. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 10(2):72-78.
27. Rauscher, H.M., 1986. Testing prediction accuracy. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report, NC-107.
28. Reynolds, M.R., 1984. Estimating the error in model prediction. Forest Science, 30:454-469.
29. Rodríguez, F., Lizarralde, I., Fernandez-Landa, A., Condes, S., 2014. Non-destructive measurement techniques for taper equation development: a study case in the Spanish Northern Iberian Range. European Journal of Forest Research, 133:213-223.
30. Van Laar, A., Akça, A., 1997. Forest Mensuration. Cuvilier Verlag, Göttingen.
31. West, P.W., 2004. Tree and Forest Measurement. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York. ISBN:3-540-40390-6.
32. Wiant, H.V. Jr., Wood, G.B., Forslund, R.R., 1991. Comparison of centroid and paracone estimates of tree volume. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 21:714-717.
33. Wiant, H.V. Jr.,, Wood, G.B., Gregoire, T.G., 1992a. Practical guide for estimating the volume of a standing sample tree using either importance or centroid sampling. Forest Ecology and Management, 49:333-339.
34. Wiant, H.V. Jr., Wood, G.B., Furnival, G.M., 1992b. Estimating log volume using the centroid position. Forest Science, 38(1):187-191.
35. Wiant, H.V. Jr., Wood, G.B., Williams, M., 1996. Comparison of three modern methods for estimating volume of sample trees using one or two diameter measurements. Forest Ecology and Management, 83:13-16.
36. Wiant, H.V. Jr.,, Spangler, M.L., Baumgras, J.E., 2002. Comparison of estimates of hardwood bole volume using importance sampling, the centroid method, and some taper equations. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 19(3):141-142.
37. Wood, G.B., Wiant Jr., H.V., 1990. Estimating the volume of Australian hardwoods using centroid sampling. Australian Journal of Forestry, 53:271-274.
38. Wood, G.B., Wiant Jr., H.V., Roy, R.J., Miles, J.A., 1990. Centroid sampling: A variant of importance sampling for estimating the volume of sample trees of Radiata pine. Forest Ecology and Management, 36:233-243.
39. Wood, G.B., Wiant, H.V. Jr.,, 1992. Test of application of centroid and importance sampling in a point -3P forest inventory. Forest Ecology and Management, 53:107-115.
40. Yavuz, H., 1999. Comparison of the centroid method and four standard formulas for estimating log volumes. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 23:597-602.