Quantitative validation and comparison of a range of forest growth model types

By Guy L. Pinjuv, E. Mason, M. Watt. 2006

66 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Mechanical Engineering, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/db93ef265a4341016e4634ca35786160eb22bb90

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Global and Planetary Change

1. Jerome K. Vanclay
2. John A. Kershaw
3. Aaron Weiskittel
4. D. Hann
5. K. Kramer
6. J. P. Skovsgaard
7. Thomas Rötzer
8. Harald Bugmann

In Mechanical Engineering

1. Jerome K. Vanclay
2. Aaron Weiskittel
3. John A. Kershaw
4. J. P. Skovsgaard
5. D. Hann

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. Jerome K. Vanclay
2. John A. Kershaw
3. Aaron Weiskittel
4. D. Hann
5. K. Kramer
6. J. P. Skovsgaard
7. Thomas Rötzer
8. Harald Bugmann

Citations in the corpus

• Models for supporting forest management in a changing environment (2011, background): “In addition, there are cases where comparisons of forest models have shown that PBMs perform as well as, or even better than, traditional statistical growth and yield models from a forest management perspective (Fontes et al., 2006; Miehle et al., 2009; Pinjuv et al., 2006).”
• Forest Growth and Yield Modeling (2011, methodology): “Both Mason et al. (2007) and Pinjuv et al. (2006) used output from a process-based model, but avoided the difficulties in estimating NPP accurately.”