Methods for use in the characterization of the diametric distribution of the tocantins Cerrado
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X89144Keywords:
Forest inventory, Uneven forest, ProbabilityAbstract
The “inverted-J” characteristic, which refers to the tendency of the diameter distribution (d.d.) of native forests, is widely used to guide forestry management. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the d.d. generated through different empirical and statistical methods in a 30.0-ha fragment of Cerrado stricto sensu. To this end, a forest inventory was conducted with five rectangular plots of 1,000.0 m² each, representing, on average, 6.0 ha of forest per plot. The evaluation criteria adopted were graphical analysis of the tendency of an “inverted-J” and the results of fitting three regression models, considering: significance in the estimated coefficients, coefficient of determination, residual standard error (RSE), and residual plots. The method that stood out in the development of d.d. was used to fit the Weibull and Sb-Johnson probability distributions, which were evaluated by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test. It was concluded that using fixed diameter classes of 5,0 cm, combined with the nonlinear fit, is more appropriate to characterize the negative exponential curve with an RSE of 12.5 trees/ha, better than the respective linear fit with an RSE of 24.1 trees/ha. Regarding the probability distributions, better adherence to the observed data of the d.d. of Tocantins cerrado was obtained by applying the Sb-Johnson function with dn = 0.0091ns, being 50.5% lower than the value obtained by the Weibull distribution (dn = 0.0137ns).
Downloads
References
BARRA, O. S. V. ; SANQUETA, C. R.; ARCE, J. E.; MACHADO, S. A.; CORTES, A. P. D. Proposta metodológica para ajuste ótimo da distribuição diamétrica Weibull 3P. Revista Floresta, v.34, n.3, p.387-393, set./dez. 2004.
BRAZ, E. M.; SCHNEIDER, P. R.; MATTOS, P. P.; THAINES, F.; SELLE, G. L.; OLIVEIRA, M. F.; OLIVEIRA, L. C. Manejo da estrutura diamétrica remanescente de florestas tropicais. Ciência Florestal, Santa Maria, v. 22, n. 4, p. 787-794, 2012. https://doi.org/10.5902/198050987559.
CERQUEIRAC. L.; LISBOA, G. S.; STEPKA, T. F.; FRANÇA, L. C. J.; FONSECA, N. C.; ABREU, Y. K. L.; SANTOS, J. C. Florística, Fitossociologia e Distribuição Diamétrica em um Remanescente de Cerrado sensu stricto, Brasil. Revista ESPACIOS, v. 38, n. 23, 2017.
CYSNEIROS, V.C.; AMORIM, T. A.; 2, MENDONÇA JÚNIOR, J. O.; GAUI, T. D.; MORAES, J. C. R.; BRAZ, D. M.; MACHADO, S. A. Distribuição diamétrica de espécies da floresta ombrófila densa no sul do estado do Rio de Janeiro. Pesquisa Florestal Brasileira, v.37, n.89, p.1-10, jan./mar. 2017.
FERREIRA, D. F. Estatística básica. 2a ed. Lavras: Ed. UFLA, 2009. 664p.
GUILHERME, S. S.; ATAÍDE, D. H. S.; SILVA, L. C.; ROCHA, P. V.; CURTO, R. A.; ARAÚJO, E. J. G. Aderência de funções de distribuição diamétrica em diferentes amplitudes de classes de um fragmento de floresta inequiânea. BIOFIX Scientific Journal, v. 5, n. 2, p. 239-245, 2020. DOI 10.5380/biofix.v5i2.71815.
IMANA-ENCINAS, J.; CONCEIÇÃO, C. A.; SANTANA, O. A.; IMAÑA, C. R.; PAULA, J. E. Distribuição diamétrica de um fragmento de Floresta Atlântica no município de Santa Maria de Jetibá, ES. Floresta, v. 43, n. 3, p. 385-394, 2013.
KUCHLA, W. J.; STEPKA, T. F.; SAWCZUK, A. R.; LISBOA, G. S. Florística, estrutura horizontal e distribuição diamétrica em área de transição de Cerrado e Floresta Aluvial no município de Campos de Júlio-MT. Ambiência (UNICENTRO). v. 11, p. 13-30, 2015.
MARANGON, G.P. ; FERREIRA, R. L.C.; SILVA, J. A. A.; SCHNEIDER, P. R.; LOUREIROG. H. Modelagem da distribuição diamétrica de espécies lenhosas da caatinga, semiárido pernambucano. Ciência Florestal, v.26, n.3, p.863-874, jul./set. 2016.
NASCIMENTO, R. G. M; MACHADO, S. A.; FIGUEIREDO FILHO, A.; HIGUCHI, N. Modelagem da sobrevivência, mortalidade e recrutamento de uma floresta na Amazônia Central. Scientia Forestalis, Piracicaba, v. 41, n. 99, p. 319-330, set. 2013.
PICARD, N.; GASPAROTTO, D. Liocourt’s law for tree diameter distribution in forest stands. Annals of Forest Science. v. 73, p. 751–755, 2016. DOI 10.1007/s13595-016-0563-4.
RANGEL, M. S.; CALEGARIO, N.; de MELLO, A. A.; LEMOS, P. C. Melhoria na precisão da prescrição de manejo para floresta natural. Cerne, v. 12, n. 2, p. 145-156, 2006.
SANTOS R. O.; ABREU, J. C.; LIMA, R. B.; APARÍCIO, P. S.; SOTTA, E. D.; LIMA, R. C. Distribuição diamétrica de uma comunidade arbórea na Floresta Estadual do Amapá, Brasil. Biota Amazônia, v.6, n.2, p.24-31, 2016.
SCHIKOWSKI, A. B.; MARTINS, A. P. M.; SCHIAVO, B. N. V.; STANG, M. B.; CORTE, A. P. D.; PÉLLICO NETTO, S.; SANQUETTA, C. R. dinâmica da distribuição diamétrica de Araucária angustifolia em um remanescente de floresta ombrófila mista no Paraná. Revista Brasileira de Biometria, Lavras, v.34, n.1, p.163-182, 2016.
SCOLFORO, J. R. S. Biometria Florestal: modelos de crescimento e produção florestal. Lavras: Ed. UFLA, 2006. 393p.
TÉO, S. J.; MARCON, F.; 2, SCHNEIDER, C. R.; SANTOS, F. B.; CHIARELLO, K. M. A.; FIORENTIN, L. D. Modelagem da distribuição diamétrica de um fragmento de floresta ombrófil mista em Leblon Régis, SC. Floresta, v. 45, n. 2, p. 337–348, abr./jun. 2015. DOI 10.5380/rf.v45i2.34733.
VENTUROLI, F.; CARVALHO, F. A.; SILVA NETO, C. M.; Douglas César de MORAES, D. C.; MARTINS, T. O.; SOUZA, D. M. Manejo Florestal no bioma Cerrado: uma opção para conservar e lucrar. Scientia Forestalis, v. 43, n. 107, p. 617-626, 2015.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ciência e Natura
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International 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.
