Using a stand-level model to predict light absorption in stands with vertically and horizontally heterogeneous canopies

Forest Ecosystems

Table 5 Statistical information that describes the relationship between the predicted f from Maestra and that predicted by the stand-level models using Equation 2 or Equation 12

	e%	MAE%	RMSE	Accuracy test
Stand 1 – Equation 2
E. nitens	2.9	12.6	0.0106	20
Stand 2 – Equation 2
E. grandis	−16.5	18.9	0.0304	40
A. mangium	5.7	24.8	0.0061	15
Stand total	−12.7	16.8	0.0268	40
Stand 3 – Equation 2
A. mangium	−0.0	14.2	0.0119	20
H. odorata	2.3	32.6	0.0001	10
Stand total	−1.9	13.5	0.0120	20
Stand 4 – Equation 2
C. eyrei	−18.8	19.6	0.0010	10
C. sclerophylla	−0.3	17.2	0.0149	25
C. lanceolata	−11.8	17.2	0.0165	25
C. glauca	9.5	9.5	0.0012	10
L. formosana	16.1	22.2	0.0088	20
Other species	23.3	27.1	0.0009	10
Stand total	−6.5	15.4	0.0180	25
Stand 4 – Equation 12
C. eyrei	−16.5	16.5	0.0006	10
C. sclerophylla	4.5	23.5	0.0323	35
C. lanceolata	−5.8	16.3	0.0204	27
C. glauca	11.0	19.5	0.0033	10
L. formosana	12.5	27.8	0.0212	26
Other species	−4.4	24.6	0.0007	10
Stand total	−17.3	27.6	0.0831	55
Stand 5 – Equation 2
A. alba	−10.5	14.4	0.0082	20
F. sylvatica	27.8	29.6	0.0021	10
P. abies	7.4	16.6	0.0043	15
Stand total	−2.1	11.1	0.0128	25
Stand 5 – Equation 12
A. alba	−10.0	13.8	0.0069	16
F. sylvatica	52.4	52.4	0.0057	13
P. abies	5.8	18.0	0.0056	14
Stand total	7.1	13.2	0.0162	25

Parameters include the relative average error (average bias, e%, Equation 8), the relative mean absolute error (MAE%, Equation 9), and the mean square error (MSE, Equation 10). The accuracy test shows that predictions from Maestra and those from the stand-level model differed by less than the percent indicated (under Accuracy test) with a 95% confidence limit (Freese [1960]).