Claim · model-written summary
The two methods had no essential difference in increment-formula precision.
- Taxon
- Populus euramericana cv Marilandica
Populus ×canadensise1 - Outcome
- precision of the increment formulae0
- Direction
- no essential differencee0
- Comparator
- either methode0
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentSettingValueQualifier
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A t-test for P = 0,01 proves that no essential difference exists between the precision of the increment formula, calculated according to either method.”
e1“height (Yh) and diameter (Yd) of Populus euramericana cv Marilandica”
Title
R. Goossens Silva Gandavensis 1967. doi:10.21825/sg.v3i0.1018
Other claims from this paper (4)
- Method / resource The increment formula gave a very good match to poplar growth and increment table data.
- Method / resource The indirectly determined growth formula had inadmissible systematic errors when early growth data were absent.
- Method / resource The graphic method produced a good match between calculated and given height and diameter growth and increment data.
- Method / resource The graphic method had near-zero average growth-formula errors for height and diameter, compared with 4.6 m and 7.9 cm with Thomasius.