Determination of form factor for three species (Pinus brutia, Pinus pinea and Cupressus sempervirens) in the Arabdagh reforests, Golestan province

Document Type : Complete scientific research article

Authors

1 University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Forest Sciences, Gorgan

2 Forestry department, Forest sciences faculty, Gorgan University of agricultural sciences and natural resources

Abstract

Abstract
Background and objectives: Knowledge of forest inventory and estimation the exact volume of trees is one of the important features in planning for forest resources. The form factor is one of the most important factors in determining the exact volume of trees. To estimate the actual volume of trees, the form factor must be calculated. The aim of this study, determination of form factor for three species (Pinus brutia, Pinus pinea and Cupressus sempervirens) in the Arabdagh reforests, and comparison of the real form factor with the natural, artificial, and Hohnadl factors.

Materials and methods: In this research four types of form factors including real, natural, artificial, and Hohnadl factors for three species (Pinus brutia, Pinus pinea and Cupressus sempervirens) were evaluated in the Arabdagh reforests, Golestan province. For this purpose, 39 trees )13 trees for each species) randomly selected in different diameter at breast height classes from 7.5 to 42.5 cm (2 trees of each diameter class). In each tree, height, diameter at breast height (D.B.H) and diameter at 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7 and 0.9 of tree height were measured, then 2-meter length logs from every tree were cut and separated and their diameter at two tops of 2 m length logs were measured. In addition, the height and diameter of the clog and the length of the tree was also measured. To calculate the exact volume of the trunk from the sum of 2 m long logs volumes and log using the Smalian formula. Then the form factors (real, natural, artificial, and Hohnadl) were calculated for every 3 species.

Results: The results showed that true, natural, artificial, and Hohnadl form factor value were 0.49, 0.49, 0.41 and 0.45 (Pinus brutia) respectively. In addition, there was a significant statistical difference between artificial with true form factor (α = 0.05), but There was no significant difference between natural and Hohnadl form factor with the true form factor. The form factors (Pinus pinea) using real, natural, artificial and Hohnadl formulas was obtained 0.51, 0.47, 0.41 and 0.45 respectively. There was a significant difference between the real form factor with artificial and Hohnadl form factors. However, there was no significant difference between natural form factor with the real form factor. The form factors (Cupressus sempervirens) using real, natural, artificial and Hohnadl formulas were 0.55, 0.53, 0.48, and 0.48 respectively. There was a significant difference between the Hohnadl and real form factor. However, there was no significant difference between the real, natural and artificial form factors

Conclusion: According to the results of this research, we can conclude that the natural form factor can be used as an appropriate form factor for Pinus brutia, Pinus pinea, and Cupressus sempervirens, and Hohnadl form factor for Pinus brutia and artificial form factor for Cupressus sempervirens can ability replace the real form factor.

Keywords: Form factor; Pinus brutia; Pinus pinea; Cupressus sempervirens; Arabdagh

Keywords

References

1.Adekunle, V.A.J., Nair, K.N., Srivastava, A.K., and Singh, N.K. 2013. Models and form factors for stand volume estimation in natural forest ecosystems: a case study of Katarniaghat Wildlife Sanctuary (KGWS), Bahraich District, India. J. of Forestry Research. 24: 2. 217-226.
2.Ahmadi, A., Fallah, A., Jalilvand, H.,and Kooch, Y. 2008. Determining the Best Form Factor Formula for
Zarbin (Cupressus sempervirence var. horzontalis) in North of Iran. Asian J. of Biological. 1: 1. 39-44. (In Persian)
3.Amini, M., Namiranian, M., Saghebtalebi, Kh., Parsapajouh, D., and Amini, R. 2007. Trunk of beech trees (Fagus orientalis Lipsky) on biometrical and silvicultural criteria (Case study: Haftkhal Forest, sari, north of Iran). Iranian J. of Natural Resources.60: 3. 843-858. (In Persian)
4.Asli, A., Behgel, D., and Zobetri, M. 1976. Volume table for beech species in Patom series of Kheiroudke forest. Iranian J. of Natural Resources. 34: 1-20. (In Persian)
5.Bonyad, A.E., Torkaman, J., and Rohi, A. 2013. Growth stages and site components influence on form factors of beech (Fagus orientalis Lipsky). Iranian J. of Forest.5: 2. 109-117. (In Persian)
6.Bonyad, A.S., and Rahimnejad, S. 2004. Volume table estimation for Loblolly Pine (Pinus Taeda) in the north of Iran. Pajouhesh and sazandegi, 66: 1. 84-88. (In Persian) 7 .Booklet, training plan of Arabdagh reforests. 2017.
8.Colgan, M.S., Swemmer, T., and Asner, G.P. 2014. Structural relationships between form factor, wood density and biomass in African savanna woodlands. Trees. 28: 1. 91-102.
9.Eslamdoust, J., Hosseini, S.M., Sohrabi, H., and Moradi, Z. 2016. Assessment of Different Methods of Form Factor Determination for Volume Estimation of Planted Populus deltoides and Taxodium distichum Trees (Klodeh Region- Mazandaran Province). Iranian J. of Applied Ecology. 4: 12. 67-75. (In Persian)
10.Fadaei, F., Fallah, A., Latifi, H., and Mohammadi, K. 2008. Determining the best form factor formula for Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) plantations at the age of 18, in Guilan-northern Iran. Caspian J. of Environmental Sciences. 6: 1. 19-24. (In Persian)
11.Inoue, A. 2006. A model for the relationship between form-factors for stem volume and those for stem surface area in coniferous species. J. of Forest Research. 11: 4. 289-294.
12.Kalantari, H., Fallah, A., Hodjati, S.M., and Parsakhoo, A. 2012. Determination of the most appropriate form factor equation for Cupresus sempervirence L. var horizentalis in the north of Iran. Pelagia Research Library. 3: 2. 644-648.
13.Kordi, M.R., Mohammadi, V., Moayyeri, M.H., and Sadeghian, V. 2018. Determination of form factor for oriental beech (Fagus orientalis Lipsky) in Golestan province. Iranian J. of Forest and Poplar Research. 25: 4. 598-608.(In Persian)
14.Mahinpour, M. 2002. Quantitative Investigation and Volume Estimation of Eliotty Pine in Lakan- Guilan. M.Sc. dissertation. University of Guilan, Faculty of Natural Resources. 83p. (In Persian)
15.Mohadjr, M.R. 2006. Silviculture. University of Tehran Press, 388p. (In Persian)
16.Mohamed, N.H. 2016. Determining The Best Form Factor Equation for Some Tree Species Commonly Used in Egypt to Fit the Actual Volume. Agricultural Research Center, Horticulture Research Institute. 61: 2. 83-91.
17.Namiranian, M. 2006. Tree Measurement and Forest Biometry. University of Tehran Press. 574p. (In Persian)
18.Ostakh, E., Soosani, J., Pilehvar, B., Khosravi, M., Poursartip, L., and Hedayati, L. 2017. The best form factor formula for Pinus brutia Ten in Khorramabad city. Forest and Wood Products. 70: 3. 461-468. (In Persian)
19.Socha, J., and Kulej, M. 2007.Variation of the tree form factor and taper in European larch of Polish provenances tested under conditions of the Beskid Sadecki mountain range (southern Poland). J. of Forest Science. 53: 12. 538-547.
20.Zobeiry, M. 2006. Forest Inventory. Fifth edition, University of Tehran Press, Tehran, 401p. (In Persian)
21.Zobeiry, M., and Najaran, G.H. 1985. Study of tree form factor of oriental beech (Fagus orientalis Lipsky) in Vaysar forest. Iranian J. of Natural Resources. 38: 33-37. (In Persian)
Journal of Wood and Forest Science and Technology
Volume 27, Issue 1
May 2020
Pages 31-44

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics