Yield wood determination for black, Acacia mearnsii De Wild
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X25553Abstract
The present research was undertaken with black wattle, Acacia mearnsii De Wild. The objective was to determine wood yield with shell and without, bark estimated through an equation obtained by a production model, related to age, dominant height and basal area, expressed by the generic model: log V = b0 + bl.h02 + b2.LogG, were V was volume/hectare; G basal area per hectare; h0 the dominant height. This equation showed a high statistical precision. The independent variables, dominant height and basal area exolicated 97,8 and 85,2% of the yield variation with and without bar, respectively.
Downloads
References
ALDER, D. Forest volume estimation and Yield prediction. Roma, FAO., 1980. v.2.194p.
BENETT, F.A.; Mc-GEE, C.E. & CLUTTER, J.L. Yield of old field Slash pine plantations. U.S. Depart. of Agriculture. Southeastern Forest Experiment Station Paper nº 107. 1959. 19p.
CLUTER, J. L. Compatible growth and models for loblolyy pine. For.Sci., 9(3):355-371,1963.
DE HOOGH, R.Y.; DITRICH, A.; AHRENS, S. Classificação de sitio, tabela de volume e produção para povoamento de Araucaria angustifolia. Brasil Florestal, 9(36):58-82, 1978.
HEINSDIJK. D. & SOARES, R.D. Plantações de coniferas no Brasil. Estudos preliminares sobre volumes e rendimentos de Araucaria angustifolia, Cryptomeria japonica, Cunninghamia lanceolata e Pinus elliottii. Ministerio da Agricultura Div. de Silv., 1962. 75p. (Bol.5).
HRADETZKY, J. Modell eines integrierten Ertragstafel-Systems in modular Form. Mitteilungen der Forstlichen Versuchs und Forschungsanstalt Baden-Württemberg, Abteilung Biometrie. 11(45): 15p. 1972.
HUSCH, B. Forest mensuration and statistics. New York, Ronald Press, 1963. 474p.
KENNEL, R. Die Bestimmung des Ertragsniveaus bei der Buche. Hamburg, Forstw.Cbl. 92:226-234. 1973.
MINISTERIO DA AGRICULTURA. Distrito Florestal. Secretaria da Agricultura e Instituto-Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal, 1960. 210p.
MITSHERLICH, G. & SONNTAG, G. Papelversuche: modell für line Resenertrag und Neupotz-Pappel-Ertragstafel im Oberheisgebiet, Allg. Forst und Jg. 153(12) :213-219. 1982.
MORENO, J.A. Clima do Rio Grande do Sul. Porto Alegre, Secretaria da Agricultura-RS, 1961. 41p.
PIO CORREA, M. Dicionário das plantas úteis do Brasil e das exóticas cultivadas. Rio de Janeiro, Imprensa Nacional, 1926. v1. 747p.
SCHNEIDER, P.R. Betriebswirtschaftliche und ertragskundliche grundlagen der Forsteinrichtung in südbrasilen am Beispiel von Pinus elliottii. Freiburg, Albert-Ludwigs-Universitat, 1984. 192p. (Tese de Doutorado).
SCHNEIDER, P.R. & HOSOKAWA, R. T. Estudo de equações volumétricas para tabelas de volume com e sem casca para Acácia negra (Acacia mearnsii de Wild). In: Congresso Florestal Brasileiro, 3, Manaus, 1978. anais ... Silvicultura 14:90-95, 1979.
SCHNEIDER, P.R. & SILVA, J.A. da. Índice de sitio para acácia negra, Acacia mearnsii de•Wild. Brasil Florestal, 36: 58-82, 1980.
SHERRY, S.P. The Black Wattle (Acacia mearnsii). Pietermoritzburg, University of Natal Press, 1971. 402p.
SCHÖNAU, A.P.G. A site evaluation Study in Black Watlle (Acacia mearnsii de Wild.). Ann. Univ. Von Stellenbosch, 44(2A):214p. 1969.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
