You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
METHODS OF ASSESSING SITE CAPACITY
P. J. RENNIE
The Commonwealth Forestry Review
Vol. 42, No. 4 (114) (December 1963), pp. 306-317
Published by: Commonwealth Forestry Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42603452
Page Count: 12
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Increasing pressure on land for agricultural, forestry and urban usages has prompted progressive communities to integrate these demands to get the maximum value from a given area. An essential precursor of such integrated development, however, is an ability to appraise land for different types of utilization. This paper critically reviews the various methods used for the complex task of assessing forest-site capacity. Methods may be direct or indirect. Direct mensurational techniques record a growth characteristic of interest and by their objectivity are of fundamental and long-standing importance. Indirect procedures employ one or other of the related criteria— climate, ground vegetation, soil properties, foliar characteristics and ecological site mapping. For their reliablity they depend on the validity of the relationship between growth and the criterion selected. Their use may permit growth to be more easily measured and more reliably sustained. Consideration of the methods as applied in various countries to nursery, newly forested and natural-forest areas suggests greater emphasis be placed on the selection and refinement of criteria more intimately related to physiological growth processes, and more attention be focused on basic studies in soil-forest relationships.
The Commonwealth Forestry Review © 1963 Commonwealth Forestry Association