查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- 六龜試驗林臺灣杉人工林不同栽植密度胸高斷面積生長收穫模式比較
- 臺大實驗林臺灣杉種子園研究概況
- 臺灣杉心材抗菌成分之研究(1)正己烷可溶部抗菌成分之分離與鑑定
- 與木材顏色有關之抽出成分
- 不同齡級對臺灣杉造林木材質之影響
- The Genetics and Embryology of Taiwan Fir (Abies Kawakamii (Hayata) Ito)
- SPOT綠度與森林生育地因子於臺灣杉材積推估之探討
- 三種臺灣針葉樹材香味成分之分離與鑑定
- 臺灣杉心材三種木酚素-Savinin, Taiwanin C 和 Dimethylmatairesinol之結構解析
- 氧氣指數評估耐燃處理材之效果
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 六龜試驗林臺灣杉人工林不同栽植密度胸高斷面積生長收穫模式比較=Basal Area Growth and Yield Model for Taiwania Plantations of Different Planting Densities in the Liukuei Experimental Forest: a Comparison |
---|---|
作 者 | 陳麗琴; 黃進睦; | 書刊名 | 臺灣林業科學 |
卷 期 | 14:3 1999.09[民88.09] |
頁 次 | 頁345-349 |
分類號 | 436.25 |
關鍵詞 | 臺灣杉; 栽植密度; 生長收穫模式; Taiwania; Planting densities; Growth and yield models; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 一個好的生長收穫模式應具備有生物生長解釋能力,預測能力及應用簡單性。本研究應用Nautiyal and Cauto (1982)與Chang (1984)以經濟生產函數層面所發展之生長收穫模式建立六龜地區不同栽植密度胸高斷面積之預測模式分別為: BA =exp[4.4470 – 12.8016/t – 449768.8726/(pd2)] (模式I)及 BA = exp[4.0753 –69.7224/(t2) – 8535.1872/(t×pd)] (模式II)。其R2 分別為 0.74及0.72,相差不多,模式I之數學結構是可經過原點的,隨時間變化,不同栽植密度有不同的胸高斷面積,不會隨著時間增加而收歛,其連年胸高斷面積生長量(CAI)的高峰點不受栽植密度影響,皆在同一林齡上,且胸高斷面積年生長率均相同,就整個林木生長生命週期而言並不適當;模式II可說是模式I 的改良,在不同栽植密度下,最終會導至相同之胸高斷面積,連年胸高斷面積之生長高峰點隨栽植密度而不同,栽植密度高者高峰點較早,反之,高峰點則較晚,因此更接近林分生長的生物性質。以台灣杉人工林不同栽植密度 31年生胸高斷面積為檢測資料,二個模式經4種準則所得驗證結果皆顯示模式 Ⅱ生長預測能力較好。 |
英文摘要 | A good growth model should be capable of explaining biological growth, and predicting trends, as well as being simple to use. In this study, Nautiyal and Cauto (1982) and Chang's (1984) growth models based on economical production function were applied to establish predictive growth and yield models for Taiwania plantations of different planting densities in the Liukuei area: Model I: BA = exp [4.4470 – 12.8016/t – 449768.8726/(pd2)] Model II: BA = exp[4.0753 – 69.7224/(t2) – 8535.1872/(t×pd)]. R2 for these 2 models at 0.74 and 0.72, respectively, are similar. However, the 1st model will pass through the origin, and the basal area of different planting densities will change, but will not converge with time. The peak of the current annual increment (CAI) occurs at the same age and all stand growth is at the same growth rate. It was not proper for describing the biological life cycle of trees. As for the 2nd model, it will converge to the same basal area over time for different planting densities, and allows the CAIs to reach their peaks at different ages. It is more reasonable in describing biological growth characteristics. Based on 4 criteria, the 31- yr-old planting density trial plantations validated that model II would have better predictive power for the growth and yield of the basal areas of these plantations. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。