Skip Navigation


Forestry Advance Access originally published online on March 6, 2006
Forestry 2006 79(2):149-158; doi:10.1093/forestry/cpl006
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
79/2/149    most recent
cpl006v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Álvarez-Álvarez, P.
Right arrow Articles by Diéguez-Aranda, U.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Institute of Chartered Foresters, 2006. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Differentiation of sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) cultivars by leaf, nut and burr dimensions

Pedro Álvarez-Álvarez1,*, Marcos Barrio-Anta2 and Ulises Diéguez-Aranda2

1 Departamento de Producción Vegetal, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Escuela Politécnica Superior, Campus Universitario, 27002 Lugo, Spain
2 Departamento de Ingeniería Agroforestal, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Escuela Politécnica Superior, Campus Universitario, 27002 Lugo, Spain

* Corresponding author. E-mail: palvarez{at}lugo.usc.es

Morphological traits including leaf, nut and burr dimensions were measured in chestnut stands in Fonsagrada (Galicia, north-west Spain). A total of 5760 data (720 measurements of eight variables) from 72 chestnuts belonging to the three main cultivars growing in the area (Lemos, Parede and Portuguesa) were available for analysis. Two discriminant linear rules/models for classifying chestnut specimens as one of the three cultivars were developed. The models differed in terms of the sampling effort involved – the ‘full’ model included all the analysed variables (leaf-, nut- and burr-related variables) and the ‘leaf and nut’ model included only variables related to leaves and nuts. The full model performed best and correctly classified 79 per cent of the Lemos, 96 per cent of the Parede and 100 per cent of the Portuguesa cultivars, according to the results of the cross-validation method used to assess the misclassified cultivars. High accuracy was also achieved with the leaf and nut model, with only a slight increase in misclassification compared with the full model. Therefore, when time consumption is an important concern for users, the leaf and nut model is recommended as a good compromise between accuracy and sampling effort.

Received 27 April 2005.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.