Üksikpuu diameetri juurdekasvu hindamine kahe erineva meetodiga
Laen...
Kuupäev
2021
Kättesaadav alates
08.09.2021
Autorid
Ajakirja pealkiri
Ajakirja ISSN
Köite pealkiri
Kirjastaja
Eesti Maaülikool
Abstrakt
Eesti on metsarikas maa ning metsade majandamisel on üheks suureks väljakutseks
usaldusväärsete andmete hankimine. Metsanduses on pidevalt vaja uusi andmeid, et mõista
puude ja puistu kasvu dünaamikat. Juurdekasvu andmete põhjal arvutatakse näiteks
raiemahud, raievanused või otsustatakse metsa mittemajandamine. Töö eesmärk on uurida
hariliku männi (Pinus sylvestris) diameetri juurdekasvu andmeid kahe erineva meetodiga –
koorepealse ning koorealuse meetodiga. Töö käigus koguti 60 puursüdamikku viielt erinevalt
proovitükilt. Puursüdamikud koguti rinnaskõrguselt ehk 1,3 m kõrguselt. Laboris loeti
aastarõngad kokku ning mõõdeti iga aastasrõnga pikkus ja järgmiseks viidi andmed sobivasse
formaati, et neid edaspidi oleks lihtsam töödelda. Andmeanalüüsi käigus arvutati mõlema
meetodi puhul juurdekasv ning prognoositav koore juurdekasv ja võrreldi neid omavahel.
Tulemuseks leiti, et kahe meetodi puhul juurdekasvu erinevus oli keskmiselt 16-23 mm.
Arvutati ka teoreetilise koore paksus ning seda võrreldi Simsi (2015) mudeliga ning
statistiliselt oluliselt erinevust ei tuvastatud. Kahe meetodi abil saadud tulemuste erinevust
võib seletada mitut moodi. Tihtipeale võib olla vea tekitajaks inimene ise, kas puu diameeter
on mõõdetud erinevalt kõrguselt, kas puursüdamiku lugeja on teinud vea, või võib seletada
erinevust sellega, et mõõtmisvahendite täpsused on erinevad. Paremate seoste loomiseks ja
tulemuste saamiseks tuleks teemat põhjalikumalt uurida ning suurendada uurimuses olevate
puude arvu.
Over half of Estonia is covered in forests and needs to be properly managed. One of the key challenges in sustainable forest management is collecting reliable data. In forestry, new data is constantly needed to understand the dynamic of tree and stand growth. Harvesting volumes and felling cycles are determined on the basis of the radial growth data. The aim of this Bachelor’s thesis was to study and compare the radial growth of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) with two different methods – reading growth with a microscope and the data collected from sample plots. During this research 60 samples were collected from five different sample plots and these samples were further studied. The samples were then examined under a microscope and all the tree-ring info was studied. During data analysis radial growth was measured with both methods and then compared with each other. Results showed that the difference between two methods was 16-23 mm. The thickness of the bark was also calculated and it was compared with the Sims (2015) bark model and no statistically significant differences were found. The difference between the results obtained by the two methods can be explained in several ways. Often the error can be caused by the measurer himself, whether the diameter of the tree is measured at different heights, whether the reader of the sample has made an error, or the difference can be explained by the differences of accuracy of the measuring instruments. In order to make better connections and get better results, the topic should be studied further and the number of trees in the study should be increased.
Over half of Estonia is covered in forests and needs to be properly managed. One of the key challenges in sustainable forest management is collecting reliable data. In forestry, new data is constantly needed to understand the dynamic of tree and stand growth. Harvesting volumes and felling cycles are determined on the basis of the radial growth data. The aim of this Bachelor’s thesis was to study and compare the radial growth of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) with two different methods – reading growth with a microscope and the data collected from sample plots. During this research 60 samples were collected from five different sample plots and these samples were further studied. The samples were then examined under a microscope and all the tree-ring info was studied. During data analysis radial growth was measured with both methods and then compared with each other. Results showed that the difference between two methods was 16-23 mm. The thickness of the bark was also calculated and it was compared with the Sims (2015) bark model and no statistically significant differences were found. The difference between the results obtained by the two methods can be explained in several ways. Often the error can be caused by the measurer himself, whether the diameter of the tree is measured at different heights, whether the reader of the sample has made an error, or the difference can be explained by the differences of accuracy of the measuring instruments. In order to make better connections and get better results, the topic should be studied further and the number of trees in the study should be increased.
Kirjeldus
Bakalaureusetöö
Metsanduse õppekaval
Märksõnad
bakalaureusetööd, aastarõngad, puursüdamik, juurdekasv, proovitükk