45 to 4.91. The Alectinib mw lowest values of LAI were observed in the plots from the RW18 study, and they corresponded to the thinned plots which
had an average of 16 trees distributed in a 400–470 m2 plot area. Leaf area index assessment in these plots was expected to be low, not only due to the reduced number of trees, but also due to the difficulty of using an indirect method to measure it. The highest LAI values were observed in the control plots in Henderson. Regardless of the other treatments applied to these plots (harvesting and site preparation), the control plots had consistently higher LAI than the vegetation control plots. In most plots, the presence of competing vegetation (mostly hardwood trees) increased the LAI as much as twice the LAI value from the plots with vegetation control. Lidar ground returns were lowest (131) at the control plots in Henderson (Table 3). This set of plots can be compared to the vegetation control plots (297) from the same study and to the fertilized plots (223) from RW18, which Lapatinib chemical structure had comparable tree densities. However, when the number of vegetation returns are taken into account, the proportion of ground pulses relative to the total number of pulses (LPI = 0.08) shows that the canopy in the control plots from Henderson generated more returns (1601) and hence did not penetrate to the ground as much as
the other two set of plots. The opposite was observed in the thinned plots from RW18, which had the highest LPI (0.42 and 0.50), and the lowest
number of trees per plot, ground penetration was high (461 and 427), and canopy interception low (478 and 670). Heights of vegetation returns were consistently lower than the tree heights measured on the ground, except for a few returns that were a few centimeters higher than the maximum tree height of the plot. These minor anomalies could be attributable to measurement and estimation errors. Fertilized plots showed higher intensity mean values than control plots; however, as expected, Henderson control plots had higher Dapagliflozin intensity means than the treated plots, since classification of these plots is not based on nutrient additions but on competing vegetation control. The vertical profiles (Fig. 3) show graphically the range of heights for the vegetation returns according to their frequency. The mode for each of the sites is highlighted on the profiles; this metric had a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.92 with the mean mid-crown height of the individual plots (n = 109). The frequency of returns at the Henderson site, and at the RW18 and RW19 sites ( Fig. 3) show that there are a number of returns that come from below the canopy, whereas SETRES and NSD frequencies are closer to zero. The latter two sites have been maintained with no understory vegetation. RW18 unthinned plots are also free of understory vegetation, but they represent only 4 of the 19 plots used from this study. The site that showed less frequency of returns was RW18 ( Fig.