Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Effects of additive or multiplicative error structures on self-thinning lines for larch plantations in northeast China.

Created on 30 May 2025

Authors

Lingbo Dong, Guanmou Chen, Woodam Chung, Fengri Li, Zhaogang Liu

Published in

Journal of environmental management. Volume 388. Pages 125992. May 28, 2025. Epub May 28, 2025.

Abstract

Accurately modeling the self-thinning line is crucial for effective forest management, yet the debate continues on whether to use nonlinear regression with additive error on the arithmetic scale or linear regression with multiplicative error on the log-transformed scale. This study examines larch plantations in Northeast China as a case study to evaluate these error structures, incorporating the effects of relative density (RD) and quantile regression (QR) quantiles. Using the optimal error structure, the potential influences of the site index (SI) and the Martonne aridity index (MA) on the self-thinning lines were also analyzed. Results revealed significant differences in slope and intercept estimates between the two error structures, with both estimates positively correlated QR quantiles and RD values. Likelihood analysis identified the multiplicate error structure was superior, underscoring the necessity of logarithmic transformation when modelling the self-thinning lines. The MA index exhibited a significantly greater impact on self-thinning lines compared to SI, increasing the maximum stand density index (SDImax) by approximately 7.37 % under RCP2.6, 7.12 % under RCP4.5, and 9.09 % under RCP8.5. This translates to an additional approximately 25.21-31.08 tCO2 per hectare sequestrated in living biomass when QMD approaches the reference level (25.4 cm).

PMID:
40440941
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 30 May 2025.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 37
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement