Search

Volume growth and survival (VGS) graphs, which show volume growth rate and risk of mortality for individual trees (or tree size classes), have been proposed as a tool for assessing the validity of models that describe the development over time of tree size distributions within forest stands. We examined the utility of the VGS method in evaluating four process-based models. The performance of the models FORSKA, 4C, MORG, and PipeQual is analyzed against long-term data from a Scots pine stand in Evo, Finland, and the models FORSKA and 4C are also assessed with respect to data from a beech stand in Fabrikschleichach, Germany. Comparison of the measurement-based VGS graphs with those produced from the model-based data shows that although the models yield similar stand-level predictions, they can differ widely in their projections of individual tree growth and size distributions. Examination of the discrepancies between models and data in the context of the VGS graphs reveals several areas in which the models could be improved. We conclude that the method is useful in model evaluation, especially if used in combination with indicators of stand structure, such as the height/diameter ratio. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

We investigated the relationships within forest stands between tree size and (a) stem volume growth rate and (b) risk of mortality for individual trees. Values of both x and y variables were plotted relative to the largest value in the stand. We refer to the resultant presentations as relative volume growth and relative survival graphs (VGSs). A pair of VGSs can be produced readily from an individual-tree growth model. It can also be constructed from consecutive sets of field measurements. Comparison of VGSs derived from model and measurement data provides a test of the validity of the components of the growth model.We have analyzed VGSs based on measurement data for Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) in central Finland and for beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in southern Germany. The graphs based on measurement data varied as a consequence of differences in competition, stand management, and tree species.We analyzed the relationship between VGSs and stand dynamics using a simple growth model. We found that different features of the VGSs imply characteristic tree size distributions in subsequent years. Thus, we conclude that if the VGSs generated by a model do not correspond to those based on field measurements, the model cannot be relied on to reproduce the development of tree-size distribution correctly. Relative growth and survival graphs thus provide a tool for evaluating complicated growth models. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]