ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2021
Bark thickness models for oak forests being converted from coppice to high forests in Northwestern Turkey.
Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The research was carried out in the coppice-originated pure oak stands that are being converted to high forests in northwest Turkey. The main goal of the research was to determine the bark thickness (BT) based on tree variables, such as tree diameter at breast height (DBH), total tree height (H), crown diameter (CD), and age (AGE) of the stem sections taken from a total of 350 trees that were destructively sampled from different sites, different oak species (Quercus petraea, Quercus frainetto, Quercus cerris), and different development stages. Models were developed with stepwise multiple regression analysis to predict BT based on the variables. For all oak species, all models obtained by stepwise multiple regression analysis were found to be significant at p = 0.001 level. In Quercus petraea, only the DBH-dependent model explained the variation in BT at a rate of 73%, estimating with an absolute error rate of 21%. The fit statistics of the models (based on DBH and DBH-H explanatory variables) obtained for Quercus frainetto are very close to each other, and they explained the variation in BT at a rate of 69% and estimated with an error rate of 26%. Models (based on DBH and DBH-H explanatory variables) explain the variation in BT in Turkey oak at a rate of 91%, indicating species-specific results. The models based on only DBH can be used with high accuracy to estimate BT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34657980What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.