Sentence examples for mean tree density from inspiring English sources

Mean tree density, size and total canopy cover were significantly greater with compost applied at 60 t ha−1 to overburden than with all other treatments, especially those on topsoil where tree growth was inhibited by undesired species.

Mean tree density at Site 803, with a range from 382 to 509 kg m-3, and average of 439 kg m-3, followed a similar trend.

Burned stands had the lowest mean tree density, as the majority of each burn was characterized by near-complete stand replacement in which only snags remained.

Aspen stands had the greatest mean tree density in both years (P ≤ 0.004) when compared to other managed or disturbed forests, which did not differ (P ≥ 0.383) (Table 7).

Mean tree density, mean H and mean DBH of the trees in the studied Rhizophora stylosa closed canopy stand were 2.26 m−2 ± 0.14 m−2 (SE), 3.93 m ± 0.72 m and 4.16 cm ± 3.70 cm, respectively.

Mean tree density distributed across 79 species increased slightly between 2005 and 2009, respectively, from 548 to 587 trees ha-1.

Current mean tree densities are more than four times greater than values recorded in the historical cruise, and current basal area is approximately two times greater.

Four vegetation variables differed significantly among the 2D complexity groups: the standard deviation of the Enhanced Vegetation Index, the coefficient of variation of density per transect (CV density), mean tree diameter (DBH), and foliage height diversity (FHD).

Tree mortality resulted in significant reductions in basal area, tree density, stand density index, and mean tree diameter for ponderosa pine and for all species combined in these forests.

Correlation analysis that included data from all 15 plots (and therefore data from both beech and birch forest and both mountains) suggested that the aboveground vegetation properties, such as aboveground biomass, mean tree height, and stand density, were strongly correlated with the SOC stock.

Overall, some combination of stand density, mean tree size and average competition index were significant predictors of size inequality at all sites.