Understanding Growth and Yield of

Pinus occidentalis Sw. in

La Sierra, Dominican Republic

Santiago Wigberto Bueno López

Department of Forest and Natural Resources Management, SUNY ESF

Introduction
•Pinus occidentalis
•Importance
•Ecological
•Economical
•Social
•Current management:
what we know
 Current needs

• Demand for products from P. occidentalis

• Management plan development

– One-time forest inventory
– No provisions to quantify /estimate growth and yield
– Subjective (unfounded) determination of harvest
 Role of growth/yield models

• Forest: dynamic biological systems

• Needs: project changes to obtain information
about future conditions based on current
conditions
• Using: growth/yield models which, by exploring
different silvicultural alternatives, allow the
development of
– Annual allowable cuts estimates
– Plans for sustained yield
– Evaluation of economic outputs
– Quantification of ecological services (carbon
sequestration)
 Developing plans for sustained yield

It is required to know
• Timing of treatments
• Amount of timber available in future times
• Tree and volume distribution by DBH classes
• Thinning opportunities
• Differences in stand structures
• Influence of different management strategies
• Current/future assortment of timber products
 Goals and Objectives
Goal: Gain an understanding on how P. occidentalis grow
in three ecological zones within the study area,
determine which zone is best in terms of forest
production, and find by appropriate selection and
testing, the needed tools to assist in planning for
sustain yield.

• Objective 1: Estimate merchantable bole volume

content of individual trees.
• Objective 2: Characterize the diameter
distribution within plots.
• Objective 3: Estimate the diameter growth of
individual trees.
Geographic location of the
Dominican Republic
Range of Pinus occidentalis
(Critchfield and Little 1966)
 Current land cover and soil use

Source: SEMARENA, 2004

La Sierra
 General climatic conditions

Ecological Zone

Dry Intermediate Humid

Average Annual Rain Fall (mm) 900 1100 1400

Average Elevation (m) 500 650 800

Average Annual Temperature (°C) 24 24 22

Stands in the different zones
 Objective 1: Estimation of merchantable bole
volume

• Sub-objectives
– Compare four total bole volume equations.
– Estimate volume proportion for predefined upper
stem diameters.
– Estimate merchantable volume with the best TVPR
system.
– Compare two taper models in terms for merchantable
volume estimation.
– Compare volume estimation with the best taper and
TVPR models.
– Life zone comparisons.
Objective 1: Data collection methods

Dry Intermediate Humid

TVPR
system Number of trees
Calibration 55 77 59
Validation 75 90 85

Taper
models Upper stem diameters
Calibration 1775 812 1102
Validation 444 228 275
Objective 1: Total bole volume and volume
proportion models
Vol ib = b 0D 2
H + ε

Vol ib = b 0 + b 1D 2
+ b 2H + b 3D 2
H + ε

Vol ib = b 0 + b 1D 2
H + ε

Vol ib = e b1
D b 2
H b 3
ε

R = 1 − b 0 (d b
i
1
D b 2
)
Objective 1: Taper models

ln(d) = ln(a 0 ) + a1ln(D) + ln(a 2 )D + b1ln(X)Z2 + b 2ln(X)ln(Z + 0.001)

+ b3ln(X) Z + b 4ln(X)eZ + b5ln(X)(D/H)

b1Z2 + b 2ln(Z+ 0.001)+ b3 Z + b 4e Z + b5 ( D H)

d = a 0D a X a1 D
2
where :
X = f(Z, p)
d i = up stem diameter
D = diameter at breast height
Z = relative height
p = location of inflection point
Objective 1: Data analyses
Objective 1: Fit statistics of TVPR and Taper
models for volume content in the
Dry Zone
B%
B ias
14 cm

RMSE
MSE
Upper Stem Diameters

-0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10
B%
B ias
8 cm

RMSE
MSE

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10
B%
B ias
4 cm

RMSE
MSE

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10

cm T aper
TVPR
Objective 1: Fit statistics of TVPR and Taper
models for volume content in the
Intermediate Zone
B%
B ia s
14 cm

RMSE
Upper Stem Diameters

MSE

0 .00 0 .02 0 .0 4 0 .0 6 0 .08

B%
B ia s
8 cm

RMSE
MSE

0 .00 0 .0 1 0 .02 0 .03 0 .0 4 0 .05 0 .0 6 0 .0 7 0 .08 0 .0 9

B%
B ia s
4 cm

RMSE
MSE

0 .00 0 .0 1 0 .02 0 .03 0 .0 4 0 .05 0 .0 6 0 .0 7 0 .08 0 .0 9

Taper
cm TVPR
 Objective 1: Fit statistics of TVPR and Taper
models for volume content in the
Humid Zone
B%
Bias
14 cm

RMSE
MSE
Upper Stem Diameters

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14

B%
Bias
8 cm

RMSE
MSE

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14

B%
Bias
4 cm

RMSE
MSE

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14

cm Taper
TVPR
Objective 1: Summary

• Tree form varies by zones

– Β0 coefficient on combined variables model
• Volume estimation to upper stem diameters
– TVPR system better for estimating volume up to 8 and
4 cm.
– Taper models better for estimating volume up to 14
cm.
– Being logs with an upper diameter of 14 cm the most
valuable product, taper models should be applied to
estimate bole volume content on individual P.
occidentalis trees.
Objective 2: Characterizing diameter
distributions
Sub-objectives:
• Estimate three-parameter Weibull equations using:
– Parameter prediction method (PPM)
• Maximum Likelihood (ML)
• Modified Moment Estimators (MME)
– Parameter recovery method (PRM)
• Percentiles (PCT )
• Cumulative Density Function (CDF)
• Compare each of the four methods above in terms of:
– Estimated volume in each plot and overall
– Estimated amount of trees by diameter class in each plot
and overall
Objective 2: Data collection methods
• 25 permanent plots
– established at random in 1984 or 1988
• 1544 trees
– remeasured periodically through 1995
• Variables
– DBH
– Height of 15% dominant trees
– quadratic mean diameter
– basal area per hectare
– trees per hectare
– stand density index (Reineke, 1933)
– site index
– age
Objective 2: PPM-(ML & MME)
Objective 2: PRM-PCT
Objective 2: PRM-CDF
Objective 2: Stem frequencies by DBH class

Weibull
Parameters Stem
estimated by Frequencies
by DBH Class
PPM and PRM
Objective 2: Estimating volume of plot
Objective 2: Ranking of methods according to
yield predictions and number of trees
per hectare in each diameter class
Parameter Prediction Parameter Recovery
Modified
Maximum Method of CDF
Statistic Likelihood Moments Percentiles Regression
RMSE 81.61 111.49 121.35 93.14
BIAS 53.44 94.63 101.64 64.45
BIAS (%) 23.84 34.23 53.07 33.66
SSRR 10.63 5.63 31.03 17.86
Error Index* 346 397 333 295
RankGFS 1 3 4 2
RankEI 3 4 2 1
*Reynolds et al. 1988.
Objective 2: Coefficients and fit statistics for the
independent variables of the
PRM_CDF method
Standard
AIC BIC
Parameter Effect Estimate Error P Value Variance Structure

Intercept 16.632 3.048 <.0001

Age 0.186 0.063 0.0042
Dm Autoregressive 473.8 481.1
TPH -0.012 0.002 <.0001
SI 0.285 0.093 0.005
Intercept 19.081 0.993 <.0001
Age 0.033 0.017 0.049
Dq HT 0.115 0.036 0.002 Autoregressive 57.4 66.0
TPH -0.018 0.0009 <.0001
SDI 0.055 0.003 <.0001
Objective 2: Predicted and observed tree
frequencies on plot 116

P P M -M L
65
P R M -C D F
60
P R M -P C T
55 P P M -M M E
50 O BSERVED

45
Tree Frequency

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
20 25 30 35
D B H C lass (cm )
Objective 2: Summary on diameter distributions

• Yield predictions
– Limitations
• Flexibility of the Weibull
• Suitable stand characteristics to predict the
Weibull parameters
– AGE, TPH, SI, SDI, HT
Objective 3: Predicting individual diameter
growth for P. occidentalis, Sw.

Sub-objectives
• Predict future diameter (FDM) using OLS and
mixed models,
– choose the best model approach to predict FD
• Predict periodic annual diameter increment
(PADIM) using OLS and mixed models,
– choose the best model approach to model PADI
• Estimate both FD and PADI with the best FDM
• Estimate both FD and PADI with the best PADIM
– Choose the best model (FDM or PADIM) to predict
growth of individual P. occidentalis trees
Objective 3: Data collection methods
• Calibration set: 1047 trees,
• Validation set: 204 trees
• Age range: 21 - 46 years
• Density: 192 - 950 stems per ha
• Basal area: 9.26 - 33.39 m2
• Site density index (Reineke): 91.18 - 273.22
• Site index (40 year index age): 13 - 30.
Objective 3: Year of measurement in each of
the plots
Plot # 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
Humid
8 X X X X X
9 X X X X X
10 X X X X
13 X X X X X
14 X X X X X
15 X X X X X
16 X X X X X
17 X X X
18 X X X X
Intermediate
1 X X X X X
3 X X X X X
5 X X X X X
6 X X X X
11 X X X
12 X X X
17 X X X
Dry
101 X X X X X X X
102 X X X X X X X X
103 X X X X
108 X X X X
109 X X X X
110 X X X X
111 X X X X
112 X X X X
115 X X
116 X X
Objective 3: Explanatory variables for
individual diameter growth
prediction
• Predictor variables used for model building were related to
time, individual tree size, stand competition and site
productivity.
• Stand competition was measured by density related
variables,
– TPH,
– BAPH (m2 ha−1),
– SDI (Reineke’s)
– CCI (tree status )
– BAL (competition index)
• Measure of site productivity, (site index, base age 40)
• Individual tree size (DBH)
• Time (linear, quadratic)
Objective 3: Selection of best model to predict
diameter growth
Objective 3: Goodness-of-fit statistics to estimate
periodic annual diameter increment
CALIBRATION VALIDATION
MIXED MIXED
STATISTIC OLS MODEL OLS MODEL
MODEL MODEL
MSE 0.0690 0.0552 0.0679 0.0550
RMSE 0.2620 0.2349 0.2605 0.2340
BIAS 0.0910 -0.0003 0.0958 0.0140
RELATIVE
29.5100 0.0980 30.1937 4.6500
BIAS
MAD 0.1940 0.1793 0.2000 0.1850
R2 N/A 0.1650 N/A 0.1700
Objective 3: Goodness-of-fit statistics to
estimate future diameter
CALIBRATION VALIDATION
MIXED MIXED
STATISTIC OLS MODEL OLS MODEL
MODEL MODEL
MSE 12.2156 0.4108 15.257 0.075
RMSE 3.4951 0.6409 3.906 0.037
BIAS 0.5863 -0.0610 0.199 0.407
RELATIVE
2.8456 0.2959 0.905 1.853
BIAS
MAD 2.7170 0.4489 15.257 1.075
R2 0.7575 0.9918 0.716 0.980
Objective 3: Distribution of errors when
predicting future diameter
1-YEAR HENCE 2-YEAR HENCE PADIM
2
FDM 2 PADIM 2
FDM 2
RESIDUAL (cm)

RESIDUAL (cm)

RESIDUAL (cm)

RESIDUAL (cm)
0 0 0 0

-2 -2 -2 -2
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50

PRED_FDM (c m) PRED_PADIM (c m) PRED_FDM (cm) PRED_PADIM (cm)

2
3-YEAR HENCE 2 2
4-YEAR HENCE 2
RESIDUAL (cm)

RESIDUAL (cm)

RESIDUAL (cm)

RESIDUAL (cm)
0 0 0 0

-2 -2 -2 -2
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50

PRED_FDM (c m) PRED_PADIM (c m) PRED_FDM (cm) PRED_PADIM (cm)

2
5-YEAR HENCE 2 2
6-YEAR HENCE 2
RESIDUAL (cm)

RESIDUAL (cm)

RESIDUAL (cm)

RESIDUAL (cm)
0 0 0 0

-2 -2 -2 -2
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50

PRED_FDM (c m) PRED_PADIM (c m) PRED_FDM (cm) PRED_PADIM (cm)

Objective 3: MSE behavior when predicting
periodic annual diameter
increment with FDM and PADIM
1 Y E A R IN C R E M E N T

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0 .1 4 3 YE A R IN C R E M E N T
0 .1 2
MSE-PADIM

0 .1 0
0 .0 8
0 .0 6
0 .0 4
0 .0 2
0 .0 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
4 YE A R IN C R E M E N T

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
D B H C la s s (c m ) P A D IM
FDM
Objective 3: MSE behavior when predicting
future diameter with FDM and
PADIM
2.0
0.8
1 YEAR HENCE 2 YEAR HENCE
0.6 1.5

0.4
ERROR_FDM

ERROR_FDM
1.0
0.2
0.5
0.0

-0.2 0.0

-0.4
-0.5
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

D B H C las s (c m ) D B H C las s (c m )
3 1.6
3 YEAR HENCE 1.4 4 YEAR HENCE
1.2
2 1.0
0.8
0.6
ERROR_FDM

ERROR_FDM
MSE

1 0.4
0.2
0.0
0 -0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-1 -0.8
-1.0
-1.2
-2
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

D B H C las s (c m ) D B H C las s (c m )
2.0 5.5
1.8
1.6 5 YEAR HENCE 5.0
4.5
6 YEAR HENCE
1.4 4.0
1.2
1.0 3.5
3.0
ERROR_FDM

ERROR_FDM

0.8
0.6 2.5
0.4 2.0
0.2 1.5
0.0 1.0
-0.2 0.5
-0.4 0.0
-0.6
-0.8 -0.5
-1.0 -1.0
-1.2 -1.5
-1.4 -2.0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

D B H C las s (c m ) D B H C las s (c m )
FDM
D B H C la s s (c m )
P A D IM
Objective 3: Advantages and disadvantages of
FDM and PADIM

MODEL ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

• Best in estimating • Very low values for the coefficient of
PADI. determination statistic (R2) .
• Increasing trend in bias and MSE for
estimating future diameter.
PADIM • Error distribution for this model is also
concentrated mostly above the zero
reference line, indicating that there is
a systematic underestimation of future
diameter.
• Best in estimating • Did not accurately predict periodic
FDM
future diameter. annual diameter increment.
 Conclusions

• Ecological implications
• Social implications
• Model use
• Limitations
• Future Research
 Contributions to scholarship

• First detailed quantitative study on the biometrics

of P. occidentalis
• Objective 1
– Variation in tree form between zones
• Objective 2
– Variation over time for DBH distribution
• Objective 3
– Lack of variation in diameter growth between zones
– Short term non linear growth
 Acknowledgements

• J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board

• SUNY ESF Teaching Assistantship program
• Dissertation Committee Members
– Dr. Ralph D Nyland
– Dr. Ed White
– Dr. Lianjun Zhang
• Examiner
– Dr. Steve Stehman
• Dr. Eddie Bevilacqua
• Him