See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317825551

Effects of measurement error in total tree height

and upper-stem diameter on stem volume
prediction

Article June 2017

DOI: 10.5849/FS-2016-087

CITATIONS READS

0 124

3 authors:

Manuel Arias-Rodil Ulises Diguez-Aranda

University of Lisbon University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain
16 PUBLICATIONS 27 CITATIONS 104 PUBLICATIONS 1,279 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Harold E. Burkhart
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
229 PUBLICATIONS 4,701 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SiPlaFor View project

Decision Support System for Sustainable Forest Management in Galicia (Spain) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Harold E. Burkhart on 28 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 For. Sci. 63(3):250 260
FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH https://doi.org/10.5849/FS-2016-087
Copyright 2017 Society of American Foresters

biometrics

Effects of Measurement Error in Total Tree Height

and Upper-Stem Diameter on Stem Volume
Prediction
Manuel Arias-Rodil, Ulises Dieguez-Aranda, and Harold E. Burkhart

In addition to dbh, total tree height and upper-stem diameter have been commonly used to improve tree stem volume estimation. However, measurement error in these
variables has not been accounted for when realized gains on estimating stem volume are assessed. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether height and upper-stem
diameter actually improve accuracy of volume estimation when measurement error is considered and its effect on prediction. dbh was considered to be observed without
measurement error. For this analysis, a volume equation and three stem taper functions (with two algebraic constraining alternatives) were fitted and applied over four
data sets of stem measurements from loblolly pine stands. Several levels of variability of measurement errors were assessed using a Monte Carlo simulation approach.
These conditional predictor variables improved volume prediction when no measurement error was considered, as expected. However, as measurement error increased,
the accuracy of volume estimation decreased. When the three variables were considered for volume estimation, measurement error in height caused a positive bias,
whereas that corresponding to upper-stem diameter yielded a negative bias. Finally, in terms of volume prediction, inclusion of height clearly justifies the effort needed
to measure it, whereas inclusion of upper-stem diameter is only recommended if its measurement error is low.
Keywords: volume equation, stem taper function, algebraic constraint, coefficient of variation, loblolly pine

E
stimation of tree stem volume, which is closely related to
economic value, tree biomass, or carbon content, is a mat-
ter of interest for both researchers and forest practitioners.
The most common approaches to predict stem volume are using
volume equations (e.g., Burkhart 1977, Van Deusen et al. 1981)
or integrating taper equations (e.g., Max and Burkhart 1976,
Byrne and Reed 1986), although other methods such as Monte
Carlo estimators (Valentine et al. 1992) or nonparametric stem
curves (Lappi 2006) have also been used. Both volume and taper
equations use dbh (d ) and total tree height (h) as independent
variables, although h may not appear in the former (Burkhart and
Tome 2012, p. 44). In addition, the inclusion of additional
predictors, such as crown variables, upper-stem diameters, or
even stand variables has been considered in many studies (e.g.,
Petersson 1999, Leites and Robinson 2004, Sharma and Parton
2009). Among additional predictors, the most commonly evalu-
ated variables have been upper-stem diameters (du) (e.g.,
Czaplewski and McClure 1988, Cao and Wang 2015, Sabatia
and Burkhart 2015), gaining even more importance with the
technologic advance in instruments for tree measurement like
laser dendrometers (Clark et al. 2000) or terrestrial laser scan-
ning (Henning and Radtke 2006). Upper-stem diameters have
been considered for volume estimation as a predictor (e.g.,
Berger et al. 2014), as a constraint to force stem taper functions
to pass through a specific point (algebraic constraint) (e.g., Cao
2009), or as additional information to localize stem taper func-
tions fitted by the mixed-effects modeling approach (e.g., Trin-
cado and Burkhart 2006, Arias-Rodil et al. 2015). When alge-
braically constraining stem taper functions through mid-stem
points, authors typically have considered only d or the joint use
of d and du as the points through which the model is forced to
pass (a constraint that the function equals zero at the tree tip is

Manuscript received September 7, 2016; accepted November 12, 2016; published online January 5, 2017.
Affiliations: Manuel Arias-Rodil (manuel.arias.rodil@gmail.com), Unidad de Gestin Forestal Sostenible, Departamento de Ingeniera Agroforestal, Universidade de
Santiago de Compostela. Escuela Politcnica Superior, C/ Benigno Ledo, Campus Terra, 27002 Lugo, Spain. Ulises Dieguez-Aranda (ulises.dieguez@usc.es), Unidad de
Gestin Forestal Sostenible, Departamento de Ingeniera Agroforestal, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. Escuela Politcnica Superior, C/ Benigno Ledo, Campus
Terra, 27002 Lugo, Spain. Harold E. Burkhart (burkhart@vt.edu), Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, 319 Cheatham Hall, 310 West Campus Drive, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0324, United States.
Acknowledgements: This research was conducted when the corresponding author was a Visiting Scholar at the Department of Forest Resources and Environmental
Conservation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, VA. The corresponding author was in receipt of an FPU grant (AP20125337)
from the Ministry of Education of the Spanish Government. The authors would also like to acknowledge the Forest Modeling Research Cooperative at Virginia Tech
for providing the data used in this study.

250 Forest Science June 2017

also commonly imposed). However, the alternative of using only
du remains unexplored, although its evaluation would be of in-
terest, as d is already included as a predictor in stem taper
functions.
When fitting these models, the independent variables are usually
considered free of measurement error (ME). However, in practice,
measurement data are often of lower quality than those used for
parameter estimation (Kangas 1996), which implies that the practi-
cal application of these tools will involve MEs that should be con-
sidered. To illustrate this situation, consider the measurement of
upper-stem diameters: for research purposes they are generally mea-
sured directly with a caliper or diameter tape after climbing or felling
the trees, whereas in practice they are measured from standing trees
(e.g., with a laser dendrometer).
Many studies have dealt with MEs yielded by various instru-
ments used for diameter and height measurement. For example,
Rennie (1979) reported errors between 0.67 and 1.10 m when mea-
suring tree heights with conventional hypsometers, whereas laser
rangefinders proved to be more accurate, as shown by Andersen et al.
(2006) and Larjavaara and Muller-Landau (2013) (errors of 0.21 m
and up to 29.7%, respectively). Kalliovirta et al. (2005) evaluated
the laser relascope, finding errors of 2.2% in total tree height, and
Clark et al. (2000) developed a comprehensive review of studies
about precision of several dendrometers, including errors obtained
for a variety of instruments, procedures, and species. Williams et al.
(1999) compared the Barr & Stroud FP15 and Criterion 400 den-
drometers, reporting MEs for upper-stem diameter of 3 and 5%,
respectively. Henning and Radtke (2006) and Liang et al. (2014)
evaluated terrestrial laser scanning for upper-stem diameter mea-
surement, indicating errors up to 0.6 cm.
MEs affect volume estimation, which has been considered by
some authors. Kozak (1998) fitted a stem taper equation consider-
ing several levels of variability in total tree height and upper-stem
diameter. Williams and Schreuder (2000) compared the results of
MEs on volume equations depending on d and h relative to equa-
tions that only considered d as a predictor. Berger et al. (2014) found
that MEs in upper-stem diameter were the most influential (among
other variables) in tree volume estimation in the Austrian National
Forest Inventory. Lynch (2015a, 2015b) evaluated the effect of MEs
in upper-stem height and upper-stem diameter, respectively, in
Monte Carlo estimators of tree volume. Despite this past research,
the question of how additional variables actually affect volume esti-
mation in the presence of MEs has only been partially addressed by
Kozak (1998) and Williams and Schreuder (2000): they only fo-
cused on fitting information and not on the practical application
over completely independent data sets. Therefore, questions of the
impact of ME on tree stem volume estimation remain open.
Taking into account the large number of studies that have con-
sidered the use of additional variables (besides dbh) to improve
volume estimation, we investigated the following question: Do total
tree height and upper-stem diameter, when affected by ME, actually
improve volume estimation in the practical application of the mod-
els? This question represents therefore the primary aim of the work
reported here. As a secondary objective, we evaluated the level of ME
that can be tolerated in these variables to still be useful in volume
prediction. Related to the algebraic constraint of stem taper func-
tions, the third objective was to assess the suitability of constraining
the model only through upper-stem diameter, rather than through
both dbh and upper-stem diameter.
Table 1. Means and SD of the stem measurements of the four data
sets used in this study.
Data n d (cm) h (m) du (cm) v (m3)
OFP (fitting) 299 15.3 (4.2) 12.5 (3.6) 9.87 (2.7) 0.127 (0.10)
OFP (evaluation) 128 15.0 (4.2) 12.2 (3.6) 9.57 (2.5) 0.118 (0.10)
NS 208 20.8 (5.1) 17.8 (3.4) 13.8 (3.5) 0.318 (0.21)
NIMP 566 16.6 (4.9) 13.9 (3.8) 10.9 (3.3) 0.169 (0.14)
IMP 158 16.6 (2.9) 13.4 (1.9) 10.8 (1.8) 0.141 (0.056)
Data are means (SD), n, number of trees in the data set; d, dbh; h, total tree height;
du, upper-stem diameter at 50% of total tree height; v, total tree volume; OFP,
old-field plantations (split into fitting and validation); NS, natural strands; NIMP,
nonintensively managed plantations; IMP, intensively managed plantations.
Materials and Methods
Data
Data were collected from loblolly pine stands located across the
natural growing region of the species (southeastern USA). Four data
sets with stem measurements were used in this study:
Old-field plantations: information from temporary plots in-
stalled in plantations; see Burkhart et al. (1972b, p. 1 6) for
details.
Natural stands: information from temporary plots installed in
natural stands; see Burkhart et al. (1972a, p. 1 6) for details.
First regionwide thinning study: information from trees not af-
fected by thinning from stands planted in cutover areas that re-
ceived the typical site preparation of the time when they were
established (1980 1982), i.e., nonintensively managed planta-
tions (NIMP); see Burkhart et al. (1985) for details.
Second regionwide thinning study: information from trees not
affected by thinning from intensively managed plantations
(IMP), established during the period 1996 2000; see Amateis et
al. (2006) for details.
The measurements of all data sets were taken according to the
same procedure: dbh (d, cm) and total tree height (h, m) were
measured in each tree; after the tree was felled, at each cross-section
from the stump to 2-in. top diameter (5.08 cm) at 4-ft intervals
(approximately 1.22 m), two diameters were measured and then
averaged (arithmetic mean); and finally, log volumes were com-
puted with Smalians formula (treating the tree tip as a cone) and
accumulated to obtain total tree volume. The old-field plantations
data set was split, selecting randomly 70% of trees for fitting and
retaining the remaining 30% for evaluation. The remaining data
sets were used for evaluation to assess the effect of ME on volume
estimation over completely independent data sets.
As upper-stem diameter was used in this study, we only consid-
ered diameter measured at half of total tree height, as this point
performed best in many studies (e.g., Kozak 1998, Cao 2009, Arias-
Rodil et al. 2015, Sabatia and Burkhart 2015), and it is not within
the scope of this study to evaluate the best stem location to measure
this additional variable. Diameter at half of total tree height was
computed by linear interpolation between stem diameters of those
lower and upper stem sections surrounding 50% of total tree height.
Summary statistics are presented in Table 1.
Methods
As mentioned above, the two most common methods to estimate
tree volume are volume equations, which relate volume with tree
variables directly through an expression, and stem taper functions,
which predict stem diameter at different heights and can be
Forest Science June 2017 251
integrated to obtain volume. Both approaches were used in the
present study to evaluate the increase in accuracy with the se-
quential addition of extra variables and to assess how ME affects
volume estimation.
Volume Equation
In this study, we initially considered a single-entry volume equa-
tion (Equation 1) (Avery and Burkhart 2002, p. 169), which only
depends on dbh (d ):
v b 1d b2
where v is the tree volume (m3), d is the dbh (cm), and bi (i 1, 2)
are the model parameters. Then, we considered the well-known
expression of Spurr (1952) to include the total tree height:
v b 0 b 1d 2h
where h is the total tree height (m) and the rest of variables as
mentioned above. Finally, and after previous analyses, we added a
tree form quotient (Avery and Burkhart 2002, p. 158) including an
upper-stem diameter (du) as follows:
v b 0 b 1 d 2 hF
where F is the form quotient, equal to du/d, and the rest of variables
are as defined before.
Equations 2 and 3 sequentially add h and du as independent
variables, respectively, which allows evaluation of volume estima-
tion improvement resulting from inclusion of these variables. In the
fitting step, we detected heteroscedasticity, which was accounted for
by including a variance function for residuals including the predic-
tion values raised to the power of (parameter to estimate). The
GNLS function of the NLME package (Pinheiro et al. 2015) of the R
software environment (R Core Team 2015) was used for this
purpose.
Stem Taper Function
Stem taper functions are usually classified into three groups
(Dieguez-Aranda et al. 2006, Burkhart and Tome 2012, p. 10):
group i, single equations, which describe the entire taper with a
single equation; group ii, segmented equations, which are based on
submodels linked to describe the whole stem; and group iii, vari-
able-exponent equations, which have an exponent that is variable
along the stem to account for all the parts. In this study, we selected
one representative model from each group to evaluate ME effects on
each functional form. Accordingly, we used a sixth-degree polyno-
mial (Equation 4) equation as representative of group i, the Max and
Burkhart (1976) equation (Equation 5) as representative of group ii,
and the Kozak (2004) equation (Equation 6) for group iii. Note that
the latter has been limited to only six parameters (removing those
with lowest significance, according to the p value, in a preliminary
fit) to maintain the same number of estimated parameters among all
equations tested.
d i2 d 2 b 1 q 1 b 2 q 2 1 b 3 q 3 1 b 4 q 4 1 Appendix. In summary, we considered 9 models: 3 functional
b 5 q 5 1 b 6 q 6 1 (4)
d i2 d 2 b 1 q 1 b 2 q 2 1 b 3 a 1 q 2 I 1
b 4 a 2 q 2 I 2
252 Forest Science June 2017
d i2 d 2 a 0 d a 1 x b 1q b 2x
4 0.1 b
3 d1 b h
4
w
(6)
where di is the diameter along the stem (cm), d is the dbh (cm), h is
the total tree height (m), q (hi/h), hi is the height along the stem
(m), x [w/(1 (1.37/h)13)], w 1 q1/3, ai (i0, 1, 2) and
bi(i 1, , 6) are model parameters, I1 1 if a1 q and zero
otherwise, and I2 1 if a2 q and zero otherwise.
Stem taper functions predict stem diameter (di) at a specific stem
height (hi) from d and h; i.e., di f(hi, d, h). Total tree volume (v,
(1) m3) can then be obtained by integration (Equation 7). The sixth-
degree polynomial and Max and Burkhart (1976) equations are
analytically integrable, whereas the Kozak (2004) function must be
numerically integrated.
(2)
h
v fh i , d, h 2 dh i (7)
40,000
0
To include the upper-stem diameter in volume estimation with
stem taper functions, we used the algebraic constraining approach
(3) originally proposed by Cao (2009), which forces the stem taper
function to pass through one or more observed diameters. This
approach has been explained in detail in previous studies (Cao 2009,
Cao and Wang 2015, Sabatia and Burkhart 2015) and therefore will
not be presented here. Briefly, the algebraic constraining approach
implies solving a system with as many variables and equations as
constraints imposed. The system variables correspond to model pa-
rameters that are modified to allow the stem taper function to be
constrained through the observed stem points. Therefore, several
parameters or sets of parameters (in this case more than one param-
eter was used) can be selected as variables of the system.
According to the studies mentioned, we first considered con-
straining the stem taper functions to pass only through d; i.e., di
d when hi 1.37 m for the case when no upper-stem diameter was
used. In a second step, besides d, the stem taper function was con-
strained to pass through an upper-stem diameter, i.e., di du when
hi 0.5h. Furthermore, and as an objective of the present study, we
also considered the alternative of constraining the models only
through du, which implies removing the d constraint.
Previous analyses showed that the best parameters for constrain-
ing the stem taper functions to pass through d and du were as follows
(we have also included between parentheses those parameters used
for the single constraining through d or du, respectively): b1 and b2
for the polynomial equation (b1 for d and b3 for du); b1 and b3 for the
Max and Burkhart (1976) equation (b3 for d and b2 for du); and a0
and b4 for the Kozak (2004) equation (a0 for d and b4 for du).
Equation systems were analytically solved for the polynomial and
Max and Burkhart (1976) equations and numerically solved for the
Kozak (2004) equation, for which we used the MULTIROOT func-
tion of the ROOTSOLVE package (Soetaert and Herman 2009, chap-
ter 7) of R. Details about analytical solutions are presented in the
forms 3 alternatives of algebraic constraining (only d, only du, and
d and du).
Model fitting was performed by using the unconstrained stem taper
functions. This procedure was accomplished with the GNLS function of
(5) the NLME package of R, to include the following: a power variance
function (based on the predictions) to account for observed heterosce-
dasticity and a CAR(1) error structure to account for observed autocor-
relation (correlation between residuals within the same tree).
ME
Once the models were fitted, we evaluated volume prediction by
including MEs on the independent variables total tree height and
upper-stem diameter. ME associated with dbh was considered neg-
ligible because it is much less than that of the other two variables
(e.g., Clark et al. 2001, Berger et al. 2014), because of being mea-
sured using a contact diameter tape or caliper (Clark et al. 2000).
MEs were assumed to follow a normal distribution with zero mean,
as bias was found to be nonsignificant in many studies (e.g., Clark et al.
2001, Kalliovirta et al. 2005) and variance was obtained from a coeffi-
cient of variation (CV) multiplied by the true values of each tree vari-
able. This procedure scales the variable variance according to tree size,
i.e., bigger trees have a higher ME because measurement points are
farther from the observer, which is supported by findings of several
studies (e.g., Clark et al. 2001, Canavan and Hann 2004).
For total tree height, ME was randomly generated according to
the error distribution and added to its true value. However, upper-
stem diameter is affected by two independent error sources:
1. ME derived from locating the stem point where upper-stem
diameter is measured
a. systematic error derived from calculating 50% of total
tree height (where upper-stem diameter should be mea-
sured), affected by the h ME
b. random error incurred from locating the point where
upper-stem diameter is measured
2. ME of upper-stem diameter
We illustrate the case of ME in upper-stem diameter for a tree
with h 20 m and du 13 cm at 10 m. Consider a measured height
(with ME, denoted by h*) of 20.2 m: error a corresponds to that
caused by using 10.1 m (50% of h*) as the point for measuring
upper-stem diameter, instead of 10 m (i.e., 0.1 m). In addition, error
b will result from the observer locating 10.1 m, e.g., 0.12 m, which
implies that the true stem height at which upper-stem diameter is
measured is 10.22 m. Subsequently, the stem diameter at 10.22 m
will be smaller than at 10 m; assume 12.4 cm instead of 13 cm (error
1 is 0.6 cm). Finally, error 2 (random) will also be present when
the diameter itself is measured, e.g., 12.3 instead of 12.4 cm (i.e.,
0.1 cm). In this example, the upper-stem diameter measurement
(denoted by du*) would be 12.3 cm instead of 13 cm (true value). To
compute the new upper-stem diameter after being affected by error
1, we used linear interpolation between the two closest stem mea-
surements of the tree. After that, error 2 was randomly generated
and added.
Evaluation of ME Effect in Volume Estimation
Eleven levels of variability were invoked for MEs: CV values from
0 to 10%; note that the special case of volume prediction without
ME was included (CV 0 for all independent variables). These
variability levels were selected on the basis of results reported by
Parker and Matney (1999) and Williams et al. (1999), in which
several measurement devices were tested. For those cases in which
both h and du were used in the model, all possible combinations of
variability levels were considered, i.e., 121 combinations (11 for h
11 for du).
For each model, data set, and error variability level (or combina-
tion of error variability levels when both h and du were used), we
repeated the procedure of random error generation and volume
estimation 1,000 times as a Monte Carlo simulation approach. In
each repetition, both root mean square error (RMSE) and bias
(mean difference between observed and predicted values) in volume
were calculated, obtaining subsequently a set of 1,000 values for
each error statistic. This approach simulates results obtained for
1,000 measurements of the trees of each data set.
The seed used for random number generation was kept fixed for
each combination of data set, tree, variable affected by ME, and
simulation repetition. This implies that, for any specific combina-
tion of these variables, the random error is equal between models for
the same variability level, and directly proportional to the magni-
tude of ME variability level considered, enabling a fair comparison
between models and variability levels.
Analysis of results was structured in four successive steps:
1. Analysis of the improvement in volume estimation caused by
inclusion of the additional variables h and du, without consid-
ering ME
2. Evaluation of the effect of ME in h in volume estimation:
results of f(d, h*) compared with those of f(d, h)
3. Evaluation of the effect of ME in h and du in volume estima-
tion: results of f(d, h*, du*) compared with those of f(d, h, du)
4. Tests of whether the addition of variables improves the vol-
ume estimation when ME is considered: results of f(d, h*)
compared with f(d ) and results of f(d, h*, du*) compared with
f(d, h*)
In the first step we also included comparisons between algebraic
constraining alternatives of stem taper functions (d, du, and d and
du). In those cases in which ME was considered, we calculated error
statistics relative to other base models (with no ME or with fewer
independent variables), namely relative RMSE (ratio of the RMSE
with respect to the base model) and bias difference (relative to the
base model). We present only the results for three levels of variability
(CV of 1, 5, and 10%) for the sake of brevity. Finally, we only show
the results corresponding to the NIMP data set, while providing a
brief description of differences in results among the data sets
analyzed.
In step 4, we evaluated the variability level of ME when the
models with fewer independent variables were better than those
with more predictors, i.e., f(d ) better than f(d, h*) and f(d, h*) better
than f(d, h*, du*). For this comparison, we focused on the average
RMSE obtained from the 1,000 simulations.
Results and Discussion
Table 2 shows the parameter estimates obtained in the fitting
step for all the models used in this study. The results obtained across
data sets showed more similarities than differences; therefore, and
for the sake of clarity, only results corresponding to the NIMP data
set are mostly mentioned in this section.
Predictions without Considering ME
Table 3 shows volume prediction error statistics for all models
evaluated in this study, without including ME in the indepen-
dent variables and considering the alternatives of forcing or not
forcing the stem taper functions to pass through d. Generally, the
Forest Science June 2017 253
Table 2. Parameter estimates of volume equations and stem taper functions used in this study.

Equation

Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 6
a0 0.9584
a1 0.7733 1.016
a2 0.1109
b0 4.154 103 2.812 103
b1 6.711 105 3.498 105 5.517 105 11.28 3.480 0.4542
b2 2.706 52.15 1.663 0.3648
b3 133.4 1.088 0.9369
b4 179.4 51.60 0.02835
b5 121.5
b6 32.87
Volume equations: Equation 1 v f(d), Equation 2 v f(d, h), Equation 3 v f(dm h,du). Stem taper functions: Equation 4 (polynomial), Equation 5 (Max and
Burkhart 1976), Equation 6 (Kozak 2004). All parameter estimates were significant at a 95% confidence level.

Table 3. RMSE and bias in volume prediction obtained with volume equations (VE), and stem taper functions applied over different data
sets.

Data set

Statistic Expression Equation ACd OFP NS NIMP IMP

3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(m ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RMSE v f(d) VE 0.0247* 0.0660* 0.0415* 0.0213*
VE 0.0144* 0.0318* 0.0240* 0.0113*
P Y 0.0197 0.0860 0.0374 0.0126
N 0.0229 0.0371 0.0305 0.0162
MB Y 0.0158 0.0381 0.0247 0.0145
N 0.0228 0.0370 0.0305 0.0162
K Y 0.0144* 0.0396 0.0248 0.0125
v f(d, h)
N 0.0153 0.0361 0.0251 0.0132
VE 0.00700 0.0156 0.0153 0.00603
P Y 0.00630* 0.0123* 0.0128* 0.00778
N 0.0131 0.0443 0.0281 0.0130
MB Y 0.00980 0.0152 0.0178 0.0122
N 0.0154 0.0515 0.0319 0.0155
K Y 0.00755 0.0128 0.0151 0.00837
v f(d, h, du)
N 0.0125 0.0264 0.0209 0.0104
Bias v f(d) VE 0.00205* 0.0365* 0.00642* 0.00170*
VE 0.00253 0.0104* 0.00117 0.0000126*
P Y 0.000337* 0.0551 0.0127 0.000837
N 0.00939 0.0139 0.0101 0.00869
MB Y 0.00762 0.0126 0.00310 0.00789
N 0.00933 0.0138 0.00997 0.00862
K Y 0.00533 0.0183 0.000448* 0.00410
v f(d, h)
N 0.00605 0.0139 0.00111 0.00492
VE 0.000889* 0.00342 0.00299* 0.00212*
P Y 0.00295 0.00248* 0.00383 0.00548
N 0.00525 0.0282 0.0136 0.00969
MB Y 0.00684 0.00845 0.00950 0.0103
N 0.00728 0.0344 0.0168 0.0123
K Y 0.00466 0.00274 0.00596 0.00626
v f(d, h, du)
N 0.00597 0.00678 0.00323 0.0056
VE, volume equations; stem taper equations: P, polynomial; MB, Max and Burkhart 1976; K, Kozak; OFP, old-field plantations (split into fitting and validation); NS,
natural strands; NIMP, nonintensively managed plantations; IMP, intensively managed plantations; d, dbh; h, total tree height; v, total tree volume; du, upper-stem diameter
at 50% of total tree height. The ACd column indicates whether stem taper functions were constrained to pass through d or not (Y or N, respectively).
* Best results within each group formed by the set of independent variables used.

lowest RMSE and absolute value of bias were obtained when
these equations were constrained to pass through d. Accordingly,
the d constraint was considered for further analysis, as it was
generally more accurate. Cao (2009) also reported that the d
constraint improved the results over those of nonconstrained
equations, although only for outside-bark diameters. Between
models, the volume equation provided the best results (in RMSE
and bias), although the differences compared with stem taper
equations were slight.
The addition of predictors improved volume estimation (i.e.,
RMSE): for volume equations, from 42 to 52% when h was in-
cluded and from 63 to 76% when both h and du were included; and
for stem taper functions, from 16 to 86% when du was added to the
respective taper function. This contrasts with the results of Sabatia
and Burkhart (2015), who found that an algebraically constrained
stem taper function provided poorer results than a nonconstrained
model for one of the two data sets used in their study. In terms of
bias, no clear pattern of over- or underestimation was observed when

254 Forest Science June 2017

 Volume equation Max & Burkhart (1976) v = f (d, h ); no ME
Polynomial Kozak (2004)

60

40

20 Relative RMSE (%)

0.003

0.002

0.001
Bias difference (m3)

0.000

0.001

0.002

0.003
1 5 10
CVh (%)

Figure 1. Relative RMSE and absolute bias difference of the models that use only dbh (d ) and total tree height (h) as independent
variables, including ME in h, computed relative to those obtained with corresponding models without ME, and applied over the NIMP data
set. The [i]x-axis represents the coefficient of variation of h-ME (CVh).

independent variables were added. Nevertheless, we observed the
same effect on bias from addition of du across models and data sets:
bias differences were highest for the volume equation and lowest for
the polynomial equation, whereas the Max and Burkhart (1976)
and Kozak (2004) equations yielded similar values.
The relative reduction in RMSE associated with the inclusion
of an upper-stem diameter was always highest for the polynomial
stem taper equation; in fact, it was the most accurate and precise
stem taper function when du was considered. It appears that
the sixth-degree polynomial function was more responsive to
inclusion of an upper-diameter constraint than the other taper
equation forms evaluated, because they allow for varying tree
form along the tree stem.
There were some remarkable differences among data sets, mainly
concerning NS and IMP data sets, that should be mentioned. As the
former comprised trees grown in stand conditions different from
those of plantations, which result in different stem shape, this im-
plied that the worst and most biased predictions corresponded to
this data set, but that one also benefited most from including addi-
tional variables, as this extra information became more helpful in
this case. On the other hand, the latter showed the best results (in
RMSE and bias), which is explained because it has the lowest data
variability (Table 1). Finally, it should also be noted that the perfor-
mance of each stem taper function was different for each data set,
without exhibiting any clear hierarchy.
Evaluating ME in Total Tree Height
Figure 1 shows the error statistics obtained from 1,000 simula-
tions with all models that considered d and h for volume prediction
(not du), with ME in h, for the NIMP data set. The base models used
here to compute relative error statistics were those without ME
considered. As expected, the mean value and variability of RMSE

Forest Science June 2017 255

 Volume equation Max & Burkhart (1976) v = f (d, h, d u ); no ME
Polynomial Kozak (2004)

CVh = 1% CVh = 5% CVh = 10%

200

Relative RMSE (%)

150

100

50

0.006

0.004
Bias difference (m3)

0.002

0.000

0.002

0.004

1 5 10 1 5 10 1 5 10
CVd u (%)

Figure 2. Relative RMSE and absolute bias difference, of all the models that use dbh (d ), total tree height (h), and upper-stem diameter
(du) as independent variables, including ME in the h and du, computed relative to those obtained with the corresponding models without
ME, and applied over the NIMP data set. The x-axis represents the coefficient of variation of du-ME (CVdu).

Volume equation Max & Burkhart (1976) v = f (d )

Polynomial Kozak (2004)
increased with h-ME variability, especially for the volume equation,
which was the most affected by h-ME although it was the most 0
accurate when no ME was considered. The polynomial equation
showed the lowest RMSE increase when ME was included, whereas
the Max and Burkhart (1976) and Kozak (2004) equations per- 10
formed similarly. This fact is explained because the relative RMSE
was computed with respect to the model with no ME, and the
Relative RMSE (%)

polynomial equation yielded the highest RMSE values for the base 20
model.
The variability of bias increased with CVh, although the mean
value was not affected, except for a slight positive increase observed 30
for the polynomial and the Max and Burkhart (1976) equations for
the extreme case of CVh 10%. This bias increase results from
height entering nonlinearly in the functional forms of the equations 40
mentioned (see Equations 4 and 5), whereas it enters linearly in the
volume equation (see Equation 2); it also entered almost linearly in
1 5 10
the Kozak (2004) function (graph not shown).
CVh (%)

Evaluating ME in Total Tree Height and Upper-Stem Diameter
Figure 2 shows error statistics obtained with the NIMP data
set from 1,000 simulations for the models that use d, h, and du in
volume prediction and with ME in h and du. These error statistics
were computed relative to the corresponding models without
ME. In terms of the relative RMSE increase, volume equation
results were affected both by CVh and CVdu variation, whereas
those obtained with stem taper functions were more affected by
CVdu. This differential behavior occurs because du is included in
stem taper functions as an algebraic constraint and h as a predic-
tor, whereas both variables are considered as predictors in the
volume equation. This made du more influential than h in stem
Figure 3. Relative RMSE of all the models that use dbh (d ) and
total tree height (h) as independent variables, including ME in h,
computed relative to that obtained with the volume equation, which
depends only on d, and applied over the NIMP data set. The x-axis
represents the coefficient of variation of h-ME (CVh).
shape prediction of stem taper functions and subsequently in
volume estimation.
An increase in the variability of ME in height (CVh) caused an
increase in the positive bias. When h is used together with du, the
h-ME also affects the upper-stem diameter (by 1a error, as explained
in the Methods section). Accordingly, volume is underestimated

256 Forest Science June 2017

 Volume equation Max & Burkhart (1976) v = f (d, h ); ME in h
Polynomial Kozak (2004)

CVh = 1% CVh = 5% CVh = 10%

100
Relative RMSE (%)

50

50

1 5 10 1 5 10 1 5 10
CVd u (%)

Figure 4. Relative RMSE of all the models that use dbh (d ), total tree height (h), and upper-stem diameter (du) as independent variables,
including measurement error in h and du, computed relative to those obtained with the corresponding models that depend on d and h,
with ME in h, and applied over the NIMP data set. The x-axis is the coefficient of variation of du-ME (CVdu).

when the h-ME 0 (i.e., h* lower than h) and overestimated in the
inverse situation. However, the underestimation is greater than the
overestimation, which explains the above-mentioned positive bias
increase. For example, when CVh 10% and CVdu 0%, the
polynomial stem taper function in the NIMP data set showed a
volume underestimation of 2.1% when h-ME 0 and overestima-
tion of 0.4% when h-ME 0, relative to the same model without
ME. In contrast, an increase in CVdu caused a negative bias increase
in stem taper functions. This is because the volume overestimation
when du-ME 0 (i.e., d u* greater than du) is greater than the volume
underestimation in the inverse situation. This situation can be illus-
trated for the NIMP data set and the polynomial stem taper equa-
tion, considering CVh 0% and CVdu 10%, when the overesti-
mation over the model without ME was 8.8% when du-ME 0,
whereas the corresponding underestimation (when du-ME 0) was
7.8%.
When stem taper functions were used, du-ME affected the mag-
nitude of the bias, whereas it was not influential when the volume
equation was used. This result may come from the different way in
which du was considered in these equations: it was included as an
algebraic constraint in the former, varying the predicted stem taper,
whereas it was included as a predictor variable in the volume
equation.
Assessing Inclusion of Additional Variables
Adding Height in Volume Estimation
Figure 3 shows the volume RMSE values obtained with the NIMP
data set when the models that consider d and h (with ME in h) were
used, computed relative to the volume equation in which only d was
considered. Inclusion of total tree height improved volume estimation,
even with a ME of 10%, which agrees with the findings of Williams and
Schreuder (2000), who concluded that height measurement is recom-
mended in volume estimation, even with a ME of 40%. Height
measurement effort is clearly justified in volume estimation.
The bias difference computed relative to f(d ) was not deemed
informative and therefore not included in Figure 3 for two reasons:
only the volume equation considers the alternative of using d alone
as a predictor and therefore bias difference to stem taper functions
that considered d and h, with ME in h, has no bearing on the
determination of whether height should be included in volume es-
timation or not; and the difference in bias between the tree volume
equation which depends only on d and that depending on d and h
(ME in h) presented trends similar to those observed in Figure 1
with respect to CVh but shifted according to the bias variation
showed in Table 3 [f(d, h) versus f(d )] (graph not shown).
Adding Upper-Stem Diameter in Volume Estimation
We compared models that consider d, h, and du for volume
estimation (with ME in h and du) with those that consider only d
and h (with ME in h). The relative RMSE is presented in Figure 4
for the NIMP data set. Generally, the models with du became worse
than those without it for high variability levels of ME (e.g., CVdu
10%); this pattern is clearer for low variability levels of CVh. Con-
cerning bias, we omitted the results of bias difference between
f(d, h*) and f(d, h*, d u*) in Figure 4 as the trends (graphs not shown)
were a result of the combination of the bias variation observed in
Table 3 and variation with CVh and CVdu (Figure 2).
Figure 5 shows the lower limit of ME from which the models that
depend on d and h (with ME in h) provided better results than those
which depend on d, h, and du (with ME in h and du); i.e., the error
levels in h and du from which the upper-stem diameter is no longer
useful to increase the prediction accuracy. The ME level of du at
which using only d and h for volume estimation is better than using
d, h, and du increases with CVh, which is explained because ME in h
influences both estimation alternatives [f(d, h*) and f(d, h*, d u*)] and
the error increase due to ME in h is higher in f(d, h*) than in
f(d, h*, d u*) (Figures 1 and 2, respectively).
The polynomial equation consistently provided better results
than f(d, h*,du*) when du was included except for the IMP data set,
and therefore the corresponding line in Figure 5 is only shown for
the IMP data set. Concerning the remaining models, the ME level of
du at which f(d, h*, d u*) got worse than f(d, h*) is generally lower for
the Max and Burkhart (1976) equation, which agrees with the re-
sults observed in Figure 4 and demonstrates its greater sensitivity to
MEs in du compared with those in volume equations or the Kozak
(2004) stem taper equation. Among data sets, the lowest limits of
error in h and du that define the region where f(d, h*) was better than
f(d, h*, d u*) IMP, which implies that du adds less valuable informa-
tion to volume prediction in this case, supported also by the results
obtained without ME (see RMSE reduction for IMP, Table 3).

Forest Science June 2017 257

 Volume equation
Polynomial
Oldfield plantations (OFP)
CVd u (%)
Nonintensivelymanaged plantations (NIMP)
10
0 2 4 6 8 10
CVh (%)
Figure 5. Lower limits of coefficients of variation of ME in height (CVh) and in upper-stem diameter (CVdu) from which the model that
depends on dbh (d ) and total tree height (h, with ME in this variable) provided better results than the model which includes d, h, and an
upper-stem diameter (du, with ME in h and du), for different data sets.
From the results observed in Figure 5 (supported also by those in
Figure 4), the use of an upper-stem diameter increased volume pre-
diction accuracy even for relatively high levels of ME (mostly up to
710%); therefore, its use is recommended. Nevertheless, we should
consider that even for errors above 4 5%, the volume precision gain
with du may not be worth the measurement effort needed to record
this variable in the field, which is, furthermore, higher in variability
than that of h, as it requires two steps: locating the stem point and
measuring the diameter.
Conclusions
The present study evaluated whether the measurement of vari-
ables height and upper-stem diameter improves volume estimation
when they were affected by ME. When no ME was included, the use
of h and du in addition to d increased volume prediction accuracy.
The lowest precision was obtained for natural stands, as they exhibit
different stem shapes relative to plantations, although they also ex-
hibited the greatest improvements when additional variables were
considered.
The inclusion of ME in h when only d and h were used for
volume estimation increased the volume prediction error, as ex-
pected, although bias was only slightly affected. Although the vol-
ume equation was most accurate when no ME was considered, it was
the most affected by ME in h.
When both h and du were used for volume estimation and af-
fected by ME, the prediction accuracy yielded by the volume equa-
tion was affected by ME in h and du, whereas stem taper functions
were more affected by that of du, as it was considered in the latter as
an algebraic constraint. In terms of bias, the h-ME implied a positive
bias increase, whereas the du-ME caused a negative bias difference.
Finally, although height proved to be valuable information for
258 Forest Science June 2017
Max & Burkhart (1976)
Kozak (2004)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Natural stands (NS)
10
6
5
Intensivelymanaged plantations (IMP)
volume estimation, even for MEs up to 10%, the recommendation
about using upper-stem diameter for volume estimation was more
dependent on the level of ME considered. The effort needed to
measure h is therefore justified, although it may not be warranted for
du if ME is greater than about 5%.
Appendix: Algebraic Constraining of Stem Taper
Functions
As procedures for constraining taper functions have been de-
tailed in previous studies (see, e.g., Cao 2009, Cao and Wang 2015,
Sabatia and Burkhart 2015), we present here the expressions of the
parameters to constrain the polynomial equation and the Max and
Burkhart (1976) equation. For the Kozak (2004) equation, we used
numerical procedures (OPTIMIZE function and MULTIROOT func-
tion of the ROOTSOLVE package [Soetaert and Herman 2009] of R
[R Core Team 2015]) as no analytical solution was available.
Let f(hi, d, h) be the nonconstrained stem taper function, which
yields squared stem diameter (d2i ) for a stem height (hi), a dbh (d ),
total tree height (h), and bi(i 1, , 6) are model parameters.
dbh Constraint
To force the polynomial equation to pass through d, the b1
parameter proved the best in this study, and the expression that
should be incorporated in the equation to constrain the model is
d 2 f1.37, d, h
b *1 b 1 (A1)
d 2 q d 1
where qd (1.37/h).
For the Max and Burkhart (1976) equation and constraining the
b3 parameter, we obtained:
 d 2 f1.37, d, h Literature Cited
b *3 b 3 (A2)
d 2 a 1 q d 2 I 1, d AMATEIS, R.L., S.P. PRISLEY, H.E. BURKHART, AND J. LIU. 2006. The
where I1,d 1 if a1 qd and zero otherwise. Note that a1 0.7651 effect of physiographic region and geographic locale on predicting the
dominant height and basal area of loblolly pine plantations. South.
in this study, and I1,d will be 1 as relative breast height (qd ) is always
J. Appl. For. 30(3):147153.
lower than a1.
ANDERSEN, H.-E., S.E. REUTEBUCH, AND R.J. MCGAUGHEY. 2006. A
rigorous assessment of tree height measurements obtained using air-
Upper-Stem Diameter Constraint borne lidar and conventional field methods. Can. J. Remote Sens.
When the polynomial equation is forced to pass through upper- 32(5):355366.
ARIAS-RODIL, M., U. DIEGUEZ-ARANDA, F. RODRGUEZ PUERTA, C.A.
stem diameter (du) at upper-stem height (hu, in this study 50% of
LOPEZ-SANCHEZ, E. CANGA LBANO, A. CAMARA OBREGON, AND F.
total tree height), the b3 parameter was the most appropriate, whose
CASTEDO-DORADO. 2015. Modelling and localizing a stem taper func-
expression is tion for Pinus radiata D. Don in Spain. Can. J. For. Res. 45(6):647 658.
d 2u fh u , d, h AVERY, T.E., AND H.E. BURKHART. (2002). Forest measurements, 5th ed.
b *3 b 3 (A3) McGraw-Hill, New York. 456 p.
d 2 q d3 u 1 BERGER, A., T. GSCHWANTNER, R.E. MCROBERTS, AND K. SCHADAUER.
2014. Effects of measurement errors on individual tree stem volume
where qdu (hu/h).
estimates for the Austrian National Forest Inventory. For. Sci. 60(1):
The b2 parameter proved best for the du constraint for the Max
14 24.
and Burkhart (1976) equation, and its corresponding expression to BURKHART, H.E. 1977. Cubic-foot volume of loblolly pine to any mer-
include in the constrained equation is chantable top limit. South. J. Appl. For. 1(2):79.
BURKHART, H.E., AND M. TOME. (2012). Modeling forest trees and stands.
d 2u fh u , d, h
b *2 b 2 (A4) Springer, Berlin, Germany. 457 p.
d 2 q d2 u 1 BURKHART, H.E., R.C. PARKER, AND R.G. ODERWALD. (1972a). Yields for
natural stands of loblolly pine. Publ. FWS-2-72, Division of Forestry and
Wildlife Resources, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ.,
dbh and Upper-Stem Diameter Constraint Blacksburg, VA. 63 p.
The stem taper function is constrained in this case to yield d BURKHART, H.E., R.C. PARKER, M.R. STRUB, AND R.G. ODERWALD.
when hi 1.37 m (as in the previous case, qd 1.37/h), and du (1972b). Yields of old-field loblolly pine plantations. Publ. FWS-3-72,
when hi hu; i.e., qdu hu/h. Therefore, we need to adjust two Division of Forestry and Wildlife Resources, Virginia Polytechnic Insti-
equation parameters, which were b1 and b2 in this study for the tute and State Univ., Blacksburg, VA. 51 p.
polynomial equation, whose expressions were BURKHART, H.E., D.C. CLOEREN, AND R.L. AMATEIS. 1985. Yield rela-
tionships in unthinned loblolly pine plantations on cutover, site-pre-
d 2 f1.37, d, h b *2 b 2 q 2d 1d 2 pared lands. South. J. Appl. For. 9(2):84 91.
b *1 b 1
d 2 q d 1 BYRNE, J.C., AND D.D. REED. 1986. Complex compatible taper and vol-
ume estimation systems for red and loblolly pine. For. Sci.
(A5) 32(2):423 443.

CANAVAN, S.J., AND D.W. HANN. 2004. The two-stage method for mea-
d 2u fh u , d, h d 2 f1.37, d, hq d u 1 surement error characterization. For. Sci. 50(6):743756.

d2 d 2 q d 1 CAO, Q.V. 2009. Calibrating a segmented taper equation with two diam-

b2 b2
*
q d 1q d u 1
2 eter measurements. South. J. Appl. For. 33(2):58 61.
q 2d u 1 CAO, Q.V., AND J. WANG. 2015. Evaluation of methods for calibrating a
qd 1 tree taper equation. For. Sci. 61(2):213219.
(A6) CLARK, N.A., R.H. WYNNE, AND D.L. SCHMOLDT. 2000. A review of past
research on dendrometers. For. Sci. 46(4):570 576.
For the Max and Burkhart (1976) equation, we followed the CLARK, N. A., S.J. ZARNOCH, A. CLARK, III, AND G.A. REAMS. 2001.
same procedure for b1 and b3 parameters and obtained Comparison of standing volume estimates using optical dendrometers.
P. 123128 in Proc. of the Second annual Forest Inventory and Analysis
d 2 f1.37, d, h b *3 b 3 a 1 q d 2 I 1, d d 2 symposium, 2000 October 1718, Salt Lake City, UT. USDA For. Serv.,
b *1 b 1
d 2 q d 1 Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-47, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC.
CZAPLEWSKI, R.L., AND J.P. MCCLURE. 1988. Notes: Conditioning a seg-
(A7) mented stem profile model for two diameter measurements. For. Sci.

34(2):512522.
d 2u fh u , d, h d 2 f1.37, d, hq d u 1
DIEGUEZ-ARANDA, U., F. CASTEDO-DORADO, J.G. ALVAREZ-GONZALEZ,
d2 d 2 q d 1 AND A. ROJO. 2006. Compatible taper function for Scots pine planta-

b *3 b 3
a 1 q d 2 I 1, d q d u 1 tions in northwestern Spain. Can. J. For. Res. 365:1190 1205.
a 1 q d u I 1, d u
2
HENNING, J.G., AND P.J. RADTKE. 2006. Detailed stem measurements of
qd 1
standing trees from ground-based scanning lidar. For. Sci. 52(1):67 80.
(A8) KALLIOVIRTA, J., J. LAASASENAHO, AND A. KANGAS. 2005. Evaluation of
the Laser-relascope. For. Ecol. Manage. 204(23):181194.
where I1,d 1 if a1 qd. Given that a1 0.7651 in this study, I1,d KANGAS, A. 1996. On the bias and variance in tree volume predictions due
and I1,du will be 1 because relative breast height and relative upper- to model and measurement errors. Scand. J. For. Res. 11(1 4):281290.
stem height (qd and qdu, respectively) are always lower than a1. KOZAK, A. 1998. Effects of upper stem measurements on the predictive

Forest Science June 2017 259

 ability of a variable-exponent taper equation. Can. J. For. Res. 28(7):
1078 1083.
KOZAK, A. 2004. My last words on taper equations. For. Chron. 80(4):
507515.
LAPPI, J. 2006. A multivariate, nonparametric stem-curve prediction
method. Can. J. For. Res. 36(4):10171027.
LARJAVAARA, M., AND H.C. MULLER-LANDAU. 2013. Measuring tree
height: a quantitative comparison of two common field methods in a
moist tropical forest. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4(9):793 801.
LEITES, L.P., AND A.P. ROBINSON. 2004. Improving taper equations of
loblolly pine with crown dimensions in a mixed-effects modeling frame-
work. For. Sci. 50(2):204 212.
LIANG, X., V. KANKARE, X. YU, J. HYYPPA, AND M. HOLOPAINEN. 2014.
Automated stem curve measurement using terrestrial laser scanning.
IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 52(3):1739 1748.
LYNCH, T.B. 2015a. Effects of measurement error on Monte Carlo inte-
gration estimators of tree volume: Critical height sampling and vertical
Monte Carlo methods. Can. J. For. Res. 45(4):463 470.
LYNCH, T.B. 2015b. Effects of measurement error on Monte Carlo inte-
gration estimators of tree volume: Sample diameters measured at ran-
dom upper-stem heights. Can. J. For. Res. 45(4):471 479.
MAX, T.A., AND H.E. BURKHART. 1976. Segmented polynomial regression
applied to taper equations. For. Sci. 22(3):283289.
PARKER, R.C., AND T.G. MATNEY. 1999. Comparison of optical dendrom-
eters for prediction of standing tree volume. For. Sci. 23(2):100 107.
PETERSSON, H. 1999. A segmented stem profile model for Pinus sylvestris.
For. Ecol. Manage. 124(1):1326.
PINHEIRO, J.C., D.M. BATES, S. DEBROY, D. SARKAR, AND R CORE TEAM.
2015. nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version
260 Forest Science June 2017
View publication stats
3.1-121. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
R CORE TEAM. 2015. R: A language and environment for statistical comput-
ing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 3475 p.
RENNIE, J.C. 1979. Comparison of height-measurement techniques in a
dense loblolly pine plantation. South. J. Appl. For. 3(4):146 148.
SABATIA, C.O., AND H.E. BURKHART. 2015. On the use of upper stem
diameters to localize a segmented taper equation to new trees. For. Sci.
61(3):411 423.
SHARMA, M., AND J. PARTON. 2009. Modeling stand density effects on
taper for jack pine and black spruce plantations using dimensional anal-
ysis. For. Sci. 55(3):268 282.
SOETAERT, K., AND P. HERMAN. 2009. A practical guide to ecological mod-
elling. Using R as a simulation platform. Springer, New York. 372 p.
SPURR, S.H. 1952. Forest inventory. Ronald Press Co., New York. 476 p.
TRINCADO, G., AND H.E. BURKHART. 2006. A generalized approach for
modeling and localizing stem profile curves. For. Sci. 52(6):670 682.
VALENTINE, H.T., C. BEALLE, AND T.G. GREGOIRE. 1992. Comparing
vertical and horizontal modes of importance and control-variate sam-
pling for bole volume. For. Sci. 38(1):160 172.
VAN DEUSEN, P.C., A.D. SULLIVAN, AND T.G. MATVEY. 1981. A predic-
tion system for cubic foot volume of loblolly pine applicable through
much of its range. South. J. Appl. For. 5(4):186 189.
WILLIAMS, M.S., AND H.T. SCHREUDER. 2000. Guidelines for choosing
volume equations in the presence of measurement error in height. Can.
J. For. Res. 30(2):306 310.
WILLIAMS, M.S., K.L. CORMIER, R.G. BRIGGS, AND D.L. MARTINEZ.
1999. Evaluation of the Barr & Stroud FP15 and Criterion 400 laser
dendrometers for measuring upper stem diameters and heights. For. Sci.
45(1):53 61.