Choice between the approaches may simply be a matter of preferenc

Choice between the approaches may simply be a matter of preference PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor drugs or convenience or data availability. Similarly, no important differences were found between spatial and non-spatial models (Biging and Dobbertin, 1995 and Windhager, 1999). Nevertheless, some notable

features emerged. Particularly good performance seems to coincide with strengths of certain models with respect to functional form or data used. For example, Moses, which uses open-grown tree relationships, performs particularly well for the prediction of open-grown trees. The strength of Prognaus is the prediction of poor sites, because it was fit from national inventory data. Silva and BWIN are considerably better in the prediction of pine than Moses and Prognaus, probably because pine is better represented in their datasets. We found that the expected general patterns of height:diameter ratio development are predicted well by all four individual-tree growth models. This indicates that

all four simulators were built using a general scientific concept that is logical and biologically reasonable. However, the results are highly variable, depending on the geographic region. There is excellent fit in some areas, whereas the fit in other areas is rather poor. It is interesting to note that areas of good fit seem to coincide for all four individual-tree growth models (e.g., Arnoldstein), Compound C clinical trial even though they use a different model structure and were fit from different data. Probably frequently occurring growth patterns are well represented, whereas patterns of local importance are not so well described. Deviations in diameter increment models, height increment models, and crown ratio models are within a reasonable range for all four Sulfite dehydrogenase simulators. Model performance depends strongly on the region where it is applied (compare Arnoldstein

vs. Litschau). Similarly, Schmid et al. (2006) found that efficiencies of the same model in different study areas can range from 0.583 (indicating very good model performance) to −0.911 (indicating bias). Coefficients of determination in their study between observed and predicted values ranged from 0.031 to 0.680, underlining highly variable performance. Height:diameter ratios can be a rather sensitive measure, because moderate deviations in either the height growth model or the diameter growth model can cause comparatively large discrepancies. Differences between observed and predicted height:diameter ratios can be as much as 13 units on average. This is large, given that differences between light and heavy thinning in growth and yield experiments can be as little as 1.8 at the beginning of the experiment and are as large as 25.3 units at the end (Röhle, 1995).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>