Modeling the above and belowground biomass of planted and coppiced Eucalytpus globulus stands in NW Spain

Vega-Nieva, Daniel J.; Valero, Enrique; Picos, Juan; Jiménez, Enrique

doi:10.1007/s13595-015-0493-6

Annals of Forest Science

Table 3 Goodness of fit statistics of the aboveground biomass weighted regression models

From: Modeling the above and belowground biomass of planted and coppiced Eucalytpus globulus stands in NW Spain

Dataset		Component	Eq. N.	Variables considered	E	R ²	ȓ	\|r\|	RMSE	AIC
Dataset	Adjustment	Component	Eq. N.	in the allometry	E	R ²	ȓ	\|r\|	RMSE	AIC
Model calibration	Individual	Leaves	1	d	0.816	0.855	−0.22	1.9	3.1
Model calibration			2	d, G	0.838	0.896	−0.22	1.9	2.9
(n = 145)			3	d, cl	0.851	0.899	−0.10	1.8	2.7
			4	d, cl, site (NLM)	0.855	0.875	−0.82	2.0	2.8	521.3
			5	d, cl, h_dom	0.864	0.910	−0.61	1.9	2.6
		Branches	6	d	0.913	0.915	−0.28	3.6	5.6
			7	d, G	0.925	0.924	0.87	3.5	5.0
			8	d, cl	0.936	0.932	0.66	3.0	4.5
			9	d, cl, site (NLM)	0.945	0.937	−2.73	5.0	3.8	701.9
			10	d, cl, h_dom	0.957	0.942	−0.20	3.1	4.4
		Stem (wood + bark)	11	d	0.972	0.974	−0.36	20.4	28.3
		Stem (wood + bark)	12	d, h	0.975	0.983	−5.20	15.5	23.1
			13	d, cl, h (NLM)	0.980	0.981	−13.02	18.3	17.3	1050.5
			14	d, h, h_dom	0.982	0.983	−10.65	18.6	25.6
		Total	15	d, h, h_dom	0.981	0.982	−16.59	21.2	18.6	1089.2
	Simultaneous	Leaves	1	d	0.818	0.858	−0.21	1.90	2.9
			2	d, G	0.822	0.894	−0.23	2.00	2.9
			3	d, cl	0.839	0.897	−0.13	1.90	2.7
			5	d, cl, h_dom	0.850	0.906	−0.60	1.90	2.6
		Branches	6	d	0.911	0.91	−0.31	3.80	5.6
			7	d, G	0.911	0.919	0.95	3.90	5.6
			8	d, cl	0.943	0.939	0.69	3.10	4.5
			10	d, cl, h_dom	0.949	0.935	−0.22	3.00	4.3
		Stem (wood + bark)	11	d	0.974	0.974	−0.33	19.8	27.9
		Stem (wood + bark)	12	d, h	0.983	0.983	−5.05	14.9	22.5
			14	d, h, h_dom	0.983	0.983	−10.52	18.1	22.5
Model comparison		Leaves	1	d	0.78	0.786	0.69	2.38	3.2
Model comparison			Ref 1	d	0.798	0.785	−0.30	2.37	3.4
(n = 85)			2	d, G	0.716	0.740	−2.15	3.70	2.5
			Ref 2	d, G	0.608	0.677	0.48	4.31	6.3
			5	d, cl, h_dom	0.839	0.853	−0.88	1.92	2.6
			Ref 3	d, cl, h_dom	0.703	0.846	−1.73	2.61	5.4
		Branches	6	d	0.838	0.830	5.49	6.31	9.4
			Ref 1	d	0.739	0.896	14.41	14.41	11.3
			7	d, G	0.790	0.909	6.64	7.27	10.5
			Ref 2	d, G	0.554	0.861	−7.45	10.40	13.9
			10	d, cl, h_dom	0.917	0.932	0.26	4.36	6
			Ref 3	d, cl, h_dom	0.697	0.896	11.36	11.44	14.6
		Stem (wood + bark)	12	d, h	0.960	0.964	1.24	24.16	31.3
		Stem (wood + bark)	Ref 1	d, h	0.894	0.974	18.58	25.37	34
			Ref 2	d, h	0.938	0.967	27.92	35.80	43.6
			14	d, h, h_dom	0.961	0.963	5.39	23.97	33
			Ref 3	d, h, h_dom	0.939	0.972	1.14	28.13	40.4

Refs 1, 2, and 3 are Pérez-Cruzado et al. (2011), Merino et al. (2005), and António et al. (2007) studies, respectively. Equations tested in the model comparison are from the simultaneous adjustment
d diameter at breast height (cm), cl tree crown length (m), h tree height (m), h_dom dominant height (m), G basal area (m²/ha), E modeling efficiency, R² coefficient of determination between the measured and estimated values, ȓ model bias (mean of the press residuals), |r| model precision (mean of the absolute values of the press residuals), RMSE root-mean-square error, AIC Akaike information criteria

Back to article page

ISSN: 1297-966X

Contact us

Submission enquiries: annforsci@inrae.fr
General enquiries: info@biomedcentral.com