Journal of Forestry Research

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 575–582 | Cite as

‘Relationships between relationships’ in forest stands: intercepts and exponents analyses

  • Vladimir L. Gavrikov
Original Paper


Relationships between diameter at breast height (dbh) versus stand density, and tree height versus dbh (height curve) were explored with the aim to find if there were functional links between correspondent parameters of the relationships, exponents and intercepts of their power functions. A geometric model of a forest stand using a conic approximation suggested that there should be interrelations between correspondent exponents and intercepts of the relationships. It is equivalent to a type of ‘relationship between relationships’ that might exist in a forest stand undergoing self-thinning, and means that parameters of one relationship may be predicted from parameters of another. The predictions of the model were tested with data on forest stand structure from published databases that involved a number of trees species and site quality levels. It was found that the correspondent exponents and intercepts may be directly recalculated from one another for the simplest case when the total stem surface area was independent of stand density. For cases where total stem surface area changes with the drop of density, it is possible to develop a generalization of the model in which the interrelationships between correspondent parameters (exponents and intercepts) may be still established.


Total stem surface area Self-thinning Conic approximation Power function Exponent Intercept Scots pine 



Dr. G. Kofman read the manuscript and made useful suggestions which are gratefully acknowledged. The author thanks two anonymous reviewers who made useful comments that helped to improve the manuscript.

Supplementary material

11676_2017_475_MOESM1_ESM.docx (138 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 137 kb)


  1. Chapman HH (1921) Forest mensuration. Wiley, New York, p 553Google Scholar
  2. Gavrikov VL (2014) A simple theory to link bole surface area, stem density and average tree dimensions in a forest stand. Eur J For Res 133(6):1087–1094. doi: 10.1007/s10342-014-0824-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gavrikov VL (2015) An application of bole surface growth model: a transitional status of ‘−3/2’ rule. Eur J For Res 134(4):715–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Inoue A (2004) Relationships of stem surface area to other stem dimensions for Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria japonica D. Don) and Japanese cypress (Chamaecyparis obtusa Endl.) trees. J For Res 9(1):45–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Inoue A (2009) Allometric model of the maximum size–density relationship between stem surface area and stand density. J For Res 14(5):268–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Inoue A, Nishizono T (2015) Conservation rule of stem surface area: a hypothesis. Eur J For Res 134(4):599–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Larjavaara M (2010) Maintenance cost, toppling risk and size of trees in a self-thinning stand. J Theor Biol 265(1):63–67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Niklas KJ, Spatz HC (2004) Growth and hydraulic (not mechanical) constraints govern the scaling of tree height and mass. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101(44):15661–15663CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Pretzsch H (2006) Species-specific allometric scaling under self-thinning: evidence from long-term plots in forest stands. Oecologia 146(4):572–583CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Pretzsch H, Biber P (2005) A re-evaluation of Reineke’s rule and stand density index. For Sci 51(4):304–320Google Scholar
  11. Reineke LH (1933) Perfecting a stand-density index for even-aged forests. J Agric Res 46(7):627–638Google Scholar
  12. Sterba H (1987) Estimating potential density from thinning experiments and inventory data. For Sci 33(4):1022–1034Google Scholar
  13. Usoltsev VA (2010) Eurasian forest biomass and primary production data. Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Yekaterinburg, p 570 (in Russian) Google Scholar
  14. van Laar A, Akça A (2007) Forest mensuration. In: Gadow KV, Pukkala T, Tomé M (eds) Managing forest ecosystems, vol 13. Springer, Dordrecht, p 384Google Scholar
  15. Vanclay JK, Sands PJ (2009) Calibrating the self-thinning frontier. For Ecol Manag 259(1):81–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Yoda K, Kira T, Ogawa H, Hozumi K (1963) Intraspecific competition among higher plants. XI. Self-thinning in over-crowded pure stands under cultivated and natural conditions. J Biol Osaka City Univ 14:107–129Google Scholar
  17. Zhang Z, Zhong Q, Niklas KJ, Cai L, Yang Y, Cheng D (2016) A predictive nondestructive model for the covariation of tree height, diameter, and stem volume scaling relationships. Sci Rep 6:31008. doi: 10.1038/srep31008 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Northeast Forestry University and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Ecology and Geography, Chair of Ecology and Environmental StudiesSiberian Federal UniversityKrasnoyarskRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations