Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine if LiDAR can be used to quantify structural characteristics that are either the cause (e.g., overcrowding) or the consequence (e.g., greater crown thinning or tree mortality) of tree heath and productivity issues.
Principal Investigator: Christopher Hansen, Paul Schaberg, Allan Strong, Shelly Rayback, Gary Hawley
Laboratory: Schaberg Lab
Recommended Citation: Hansen CF, Schaberg PG, Strong, AM, Rayback SA, Hawley GJ. 2020. Sugar maple and yellow birch growth, crown condition and mortality among four LiDAR-derived canopy classes in New Hampshire.
Project Contents: Data for 36 Plots, 333 Trees, 652 Cores
Project Period: 2011-01-01 to 2013-12-31
Data License: What's this?
Description: We measured tree ring growth, crown condition and tree mortality for 333 dominant and codominant sugar maple and yellow birch trees at the Hubbard Brook Experiment Forest in Thorton, New Hampshire and compared these health metrics among four LiDAR-derived canopy classes – 1. high crown, high understory closure, 2. high crown, low understory closure, 3. low crown, high understory closure and 4. low crown, low understory closure.
- Hansen, C.F., Schaberg, P.G., Strong, A.M., Rayback, S.A. and Hawley, G. J. 2020. LiDAR helps differentiate stand health and productivity levels with a northern hardwood forest. Open Journal of Forest View
- HBEF_ACSA_J2X View
- HBEF_BEAL_J2X View
Taxonomic standard used: Other
How plots were selected: Sampling blocks were randomly selected based on four LiDAR-derived canopy structure classifications with nine replicates containing each of the four canopy closure categories. Within each block, we established a 50 m fixed radius plot following standard design and protocols of the USDA Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program.
How trees were selected: At the plot level, five dominant or co-dominant sugar maple and five dominant and co-dominant yellow birch trees were selected for basal area increment analysis.
Exclusion of trees (if any): Trees with bole or crown damage were excluded.
How cores were collected: Two 5 mm increment cores were extracted from each tree at breast height, 180° from each other, and perpendicular to the slope.
How cores were processed: Increment cores were dried, mounted and sanded using standard methods. Tree rings were visually crossdated using the list method, microscopically measured using a Velmex sliding stage unit and MeasureJ2X software (0.001 mm resolution) followed by the use of COFECHA to detect and correct crossdating errors.
Exclusion of cores (if any): A small number of cores were discarded since they were poorly correlated with the master chronology (i.e., below Pearson critical correlation 99% confidence levels) due to unusual growth trends that were not representative of overall growth at the site.
Added to the database: 03/03/2022
Last modified: 11/07/2022