Lorey height for vertical stratification of an Alluvial Ombrophilous Forest

Abstract

methods M 2 and M 3 The in contiguous of m², installed in Alluvial The assumption of the method M 1 was analyzed adjusting a Normal Probabilistic Density Function, evaluated by the K-S test. The methods evaluated using discriminant analyses, structural analyses and three-dimensional vertical profiles. the assumption was not met. The discriminant analyses showed that the classification was 100 % correct in methods M 1 and M 3 . The 13 most important species, in descending order, were the same in all three methods. However, from the 13 th , the differences were more remarkable in the method M 1 . Firstly, it is recommended to use the method M 3 , as it is more practical and provides results that are equal to those obtained using the method M 2 . However, if the objective is to obtain a higher level of detail, the option is the method M 2 since it allows obtaining up to five strata with 100 % correct classification. del día 13, las diferencias fueron más notables en el método M1. Primero, se recomienda el uso del método M3, ya que es más práctico y proporciona los mismos resultados que los obtenidos por el método M2. Sin embargo, si el objetivo es obtener un mayor nivel de detalle, la opción es el método M2, ya que permite obtener hasta cinco estratos con una clasificación 100 % correcta. Palabras clave: altura total, estratos verticales, estructura vertical, métodos de estratificación.