Loading...
Pubblicazioni Scientifiche
Filtri di ricerca 2 risultati
Pubblicazioni per anno
Comparative analysis of taper models for Pinus nigra Arn. using terrestrial laser scanner acquired data
Boukhris
,
Issam
,
Puletti
,
Nicola
,
Vonderach
,
Christian
,
Guasti
,
Matteo
,
Lahssini
,
Said
,
Santini
,
Monia
,
Valentini
,
Riccardo
forest mensuration
b-splines
environmental management
forest as-sessment
max and burkhart
random forest
taper equations
tls
volume equations
Mostra abstract
Taper equations are indispensable tools for characterizing the stem profile of trees, providing valuable insights for forest management, timber inventory, and optimal assortments allocation. The recent progress in Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS) has revolutionized forest inventory practices by enabling non-destructive data collection. In this study, four taper models from three different model categories were established based on point cloud data of 219 Pinus nigra trees. The taper equations fitted with TLS data were used to predict the diameter at specific stem heights and the total stem volume. The results show that among fitted models, the Max and Burkhart segmented model calibrated by the means of a mixed-effects approach provided the best estimate of the diameter at different heights and the total stem volume evaluated for different diameter at breast height (DBH) classes. In numerical terms, this model es-timated the diameter and the volume with a respective overall error of 0.781 cm and 0.021 m<sup>3</sup>. The predicted profile also shows that above a relative height of 0.7, the diameter error tends to increase due to the low reliability of data collected beyond the base of the crown primarily caused by interference from branches and leaves. Nevertheless, this study shows that TLS technology presents a compelling opportunity and a promising non-destructive alternative for generating taper profiles and estimating tree volume. © SISEF.
One to rule them all? Assessing the performance of sustainable forest management indicators against multitaxonomic data for biodiversity conservation
Paillet
,
Yoan
,
Zapponi
,
Livia
,
Schall
,
Peter
,
Monnet
,
Jean Matthieu
,
Ammer
,
Christian
,
Balducci
,
Lorenzo
,
Boch
,
Steffen
,
Brazaitis
,
Gediminas
,
Campanaro
,
Alessandro
,
Chianucci
,
Francesco
,
Doerfler
,
Inken
,
Fischer
,
Markus
,
Gosselin
,
Marion
,
Goßner
,
Martin M.
,
Heilmann-Clausen
,
Jacob
,
Hofmeister
,
Jeňýk
,
Hošek
,
Jan
,
Jung
,
Kirsten G.
,
Kepfer-Rojas
,
Sebastian
,
Ódor
,
Péter
,
Tinya
,
Flóra
,
Trentanovi
,
Giovanni
,
Vacchiano
,
Giorgio
,
Vandekerkhove
,
Kris
,
Weisser
,
Wolfgang W.
,
Wohlwend
,
Michael Rudolf
,
Burrascano
,
Sabina
Mostra abstract
Several regional initiatives and reporting efforts assess the state of forest biodiversity through broad-scale indicators based on data from national forest inventories. Although valuable, these indicators are essentially indirect and evaluate habitat quantity and quality rather than biodiversity per se. Therefore, their link to biodiversity may be weak, which decreases their usefulness for decision-making. For several decades, Forest Europe indicators assessed the state of European forests, in particular their biodiversity. However, no extensive study has been conducted to date to assess their performance – i.e. the capacity of the indicators to reflect variations in biodiversity – against multitaxonomic data. We hypothesized that no single biodiversity indicator from Forest Europe can represent overall forest biodiversity, but that several indicators would reflect habitat quality for at least some taxa in a comprehensive way. We tested the set of Forest Europe's indicators against the species richness of six taxonomic and functional groups across several hundreds of sampling units over Europe. We showed that, while some indicators perform relatively well across groups (e.g. deadwood volume), no single indicator represented all biodiversity at once, and that a combination of several indicators performed better. Forest Europe indicators were chosen for their availability and ease of understanding for most people. However, we showed that gaps in the monitoring framework persist, and that surveying certain taxa along with stand structure is necessary to support policymaking and tackle forest biodiversity loss at the large scale. Adding context (e.g. forest type) may also contribute to increase the performance of biodiversity indicators. © 2024 Elsevier Ltd