{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019390581717451522, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002770083102493075, 'mean_word_length': 5.025, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Comparison Between Plot-Count and Nearest-Tree Method in Assessing Tree Regeneration Features

Assessing tree regeneration is important, in particular the proportion of saplings browsed due to the increasing number of ungulates. However, results of surveys differ depending on the method used. We investigated the differences between the plotcount method and the nearest-tree method for their use in tree regeneration inventories using simulations and field surveys at 11 study sites. The methods use differing references, i.e. number of trees vs. stand area. We focus in our comparison on aspects of practicability from a silvicultural point of view and not on comparing the estimators from a statistical point of view.