Estimating wood volume from canopy area in deciduous woodlands of Zimbabwe

References

• Abbot P, Lowore J, Werren M. 1997. Models for the estimation of single tree volume in four Miombo woodland types. Forest Ecology and Management 97: 25–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amoah M, Becker G. 2009. Assessment of logging efficiency and development of allometric models for predicting stumpage volume of some commercial tree species in Ghana. International Forestry Review 11: 1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banks PF, Burrows PM. 1966. Preliminary local volume tables for Baikiaea plurijuga, Guibourtia coleosperma and Pterocarpus angolensis in Rhodesia. Commonwealth Forest Review 45: 256–264.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown S, Gillespie AJR, Lugo AE. 1989. Biomass estimation methods for tropical forests with applications to forest inventory data. Forest Science 35: 881–902.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown S, Lugo AE. 1984. Biomass of tropical forests: a new estimate based on forest volume. Science 223: 1290–1293.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Gier A. 2003. A new approach to woody biomass assessment in woodlands and shrublands. In: Roy P (ed.), Geoinformatics for tropical ecosystems. Dehra Dun: Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh. pp 161–198.
   Google Scholar
• Frost P. 1996. The ecology of Miombo woodlands. In: Campbell B (ed.), The miombo in transition: woodlands and welfare in Africa. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research. pp 11–57.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs HK, Brown S, Niles JO, Foley JA. 2007. Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDD a reality. Environmental Research Letters 2(4): 045023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillespie AJR, Brown S and Lugo AE. 1992. Tropical forest biomass estimation from truncated stand tables. Forest Ecology and Management 48: 69–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hemery GE, Savill PS and Pryor SN. 2005. Applications of the crown diameter–stem diameter relationship for different species of broadleaved trees. Forest Ecology and Management 215: 285–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ILUA (Integrated Land Use Assessment). 2008. Integrated Land Use Assessment 2005–2008 Republic of Zambia. Lusaka: Zambia Forestry Department.
   Google Scholar
• Ketterings QA, Coe R, van Noordwijk M, Ambagau Y, Palm CA. 2001. Reducing uncertainity in the use of allometric biomass equations for predicting above-ground tree biomass in mixed forests. Forest Ecology and Management 146: 199–209.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuuluvainen T. 1991. Relationships between crown projected area and components of above-ground biomass in Norway spruce trees in even-aged stands: empirical results and their interpretation. Forest Ecology and Management 40: 243–260.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Losia CJ, Siccama TG, Condit R, Morales JE. 2003. Analysis of alternative methods for estimating carbon stock in young tropical plantations. Forest Ecology and Management 184: 355–368.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu D. 2006. The potential and challenge of remote sensing-based biomass estimation. International Journal of Remote Sensing 27: 1297–1328.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahman MM, Csaplovics E, Koch B. 2008. Satellite estimation of forest carbon using regression models. International Journal of Remote Sensing 29: 6917–6936.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malimbwi RE, Solberg B, Luoga E. 1994. Estimation of biomass and volume in miombo woodland at Kitulangalo Forest Reserve, Tanzania. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 7: 230–242.
   Google Scholar
• Northup BK, Zitzer SF, Archer S, McMurtry CR, Boutton TW. 2005. Above-ground biomass and carbon and nitrogen content of woody species in a subtropical thornscrub parkland. Journal of Arid Environments 62: 23–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozdemir I. 2008. Estimating stem volume by tree crown area and tree shadow area extracted from pan-sharpened Quickbird imagery in open Crimean juniper forests. International Journal of Remote Sensing 29: 5643–5655.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sah JP, Ross MS, Koptu RS, Snyder JR. 2004. Estimating aboveground biomass of broadleaved woody plants in the understory of Florida Keys pine forests. Forest Ecology and Management 203: 319–329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Segura M, Kanninen M. 2005. Allometric models for tree volume and total aboveground biomass in a tropical humid forest in Costa Rica. Biotropica 37: 2–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selanniemi T, Chakanga M, Angombe S. 2000. Inventory report on the woody resources in the Omusati region. Windhoek: Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Directorate of Forestry, Namibia.
   Google Scholar
• Shinozaki K, Yoda K, Hozumi K, Kira T. 1964a. A quantitative analysis of plant form—the pipe model theory I. Basic analyses. Japanese Journal of Ecology 14: 97–105.
   Google Scholar
• Shinozaki K, Yoda K, Hozumi K, Kira T. 1964b. A quantitative analysis of plant form—the pipe model theory II. Further evidence of the theory and its application in forest ecology. Japanese Journal of Ecology 14: 133–139.
   Google Scholar
• Soares MLG, Schaeffer-Novelli Y. 2005. Above-ground biomass of mangrove species. I. Analysis of models. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 65: 1–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van TK, Rayachhetry MB, Center TD. 2000. Estimating above-ground biomass of Melaleuca quinquenervia in Florida, USA. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 38: 62–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang X, Li Z, Liu X, Deng G, Jiang Z. 2007. Estimating stem volume using QuickBird imagery and allometric relationships for open Populus xiaohei plantations. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology 49: 1304–1312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams CA, Hanan NP, Neff JC, Scholes RJ, Berry J, Denning AS, Baker DF. 2007. Africa and the global carbon cycle. Carbon Balance and Management 2: 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Zianis D, Muukkonen P, Mäkipää R, Mencuccini M. 2005. Biomass and stem volume equations for tree species in Europe. Silva Fennica Monographs 4. Helsinki: Finnish Society of Forest Science, Finnish Forest Research Institute.
   Google Scholar