The maximum canopy height in STBG was the tallest (30 m), while the maximum canopy height in NPI was the shortest (13.5 m).
For any given structure (i.e. a list of the species, sizes and densities of individual trees), the ITD predicts not only the maximum canopy height (the height of the tallest tree), and the minimum canopy height (Z*), but it also predicts the exact probability distribution of canopy heights.
We also examined the maximum canopy height recorded at each point, or local outer canopy height (LOCH), assuming that the LIDAR system could sample most heights overhead (Parker et al., 2004).
Plot size varied, but all plots were rectangular in plan view and the length of the shorter sides was greater than the maximum canopy height.
The measurements consisted of the following [ 49, 50]: (i) maximum tree height, (ii) height where the maximum canopy diameter occurs, (iii) height of first leaves or potential leaf bearing stems, (iv) maximum canopy diameter, and (v) base diameter of the foliage at the height of the first leaves.
The maximum canopy-photosynthesis benefit for solar tracking (extrapolated to LAI = 0) was about 3% and tracking reduced canopy photosynthesis above LAI = 4.5.
Although similar interactions are observed between both size-frequency distribution estimates (gradient and intercept), the interaction between WSG and maximum canopy height is inverse, with carbon storage only showing positive correlations with maximum canopy height in areas of high WSG.
Additionally, we have also found relative-size asymmetry in the relationship between the relative competitive effect and relative differences in maximum canopy height (Fig. 3B).
This assumption was satisfied because maximum canopy heights measured by LIDAR for each plot were similar to maximum tree heights measured by a clinometer, with slightly lower estimations in LIDAR measurements (Fig. 1).
Maximum canopy diameter was measured as the longest horizontal axis of a ramet.
