Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 66 (2016) 843–851

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

The estimation of basket willow (Salix viminalis) yield – New approach,

Part II: Theoretical model and its practical application
Wojciech Jakubowski a, Wiesław Szulczewski a, Andrzej Żyromski b,
Małgorzata Biniak-Pieróg b,n
a
Department of Mathematics, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, ul. Grunwaldzka 53, 50-357 Wrocław, Poland
b
Institute of Environmental Protection and Development, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, pl. Grunwaldzki 24, 50-363 Wrocław,
Poland

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The paper presents an innovative approach to probabilistic modelling of the amount of biomass of fast-
Received 29 October 2015 growing bushes on the example of basket willow (Salix viminalis). The model was developed on the basis
Received in revised form of results of biometric measurements of randomly selected shoots of basket willow, cut periodically from
15 July 2016
bushes at least 0.5 m tall, cultivated on an experimental plot. The description of the random variation of
Accepted 24 August 2016
willow shoot and bush was made with the use of a two-dimensional gamma distribution describing the
shoot mass and volume, as well as the Pascal distribution characterising the number of shoots in a plant.
Keywords: The result was an estimation of the variation of plant mass under the conditions of observation of one or
Basket willow (Salix viminalis) biomass more shoots. The very good fit of the model to the experimental data indicates that it is justified to accept
Two-dimensional gamma distribution
the model as a basic tool for the estimation of the amount of biomass on a plantation.
Pascal compound distribution
& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Bush mass prediction
Yield calculator

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843
2. The probabilistic model and its estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845
2.1. Materials and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845
2.2. Two-dimensional distribution of mass and volume index of basket willow shoot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 846
2.3. Conditional distribution of basket willow bush mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848
3. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849
4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850
Appendix A. Some properties of two-dimensional gamma distribution of shoot mass and volume index (2) and conditional bush mass (7) . . 850
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851

1. Introduction source is atmospheric precipitation. Due to its random character, it

determines to a significant extent the level of yields of energy
Environmental conditions have a significant effect on the pro- crops, and the kind of soil and the level of fertilisation can con-
ductivity of plants used for power generation purposes. The most tribute additionally to the variation in the yields of those plants.
important factors include the availability of water whose main Those factors are often used as input information for the model-
ling of biomass productivity. However, they require expert
knowledge for their interpretation.
n
Corresponding author. One of the plant species most frequently grown on energy crop
E-mail addresses: wojciech.jakubowski@up.wroc.pl (W. Jakubowski),
plantations in Poland and in the world is Salix viminalis L. [1,2]. Its
wieslaw.szulczewski@up.wroc.pl (W. Szulczewski),
andrzej.zyromski@up.wroc.pl (A. Żyromski), biomass can be acquired in one-, two-, three-, or four-year cycles
malgorzata.biniak-pierog@up.wroc.pl (M. Biniak-Pieróg). of harvest over a period of 20–25 years. Apart from energy

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.048
1364-0321/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
844 W. Jakubowski et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 66 (2016) 843–851
Nomenclature
n total theoretical number of shoots
Qj random variable – mass of j-th shoot (j = 1, … , n)
Vj random variable – volume index of j-th shoot
(j = 1, … , n)
W random variable – number of shoots in plant
W tions h1(q , v ) , h2(q , v )
M = ∑ j = 1 Q j random variable – mass of plant
(Q j, Vj ) binomial random variable – mass and volume index of
j-th shoot
(Q j, |Vj = v0) conditional random variable – mass of j-th shoot
under the condition that its volume index is v0; in the
paper it is assumed that the random variables de-
scribed above have identical distributions, therefore
further on in the text the index j will be omitted
h1(q , v ) , h2(q , v ) density functions of binomial gamma
distribution
h(q , v ) density function of binomial distribution of the
mixture
H1(q , v ) , H2(q , v ) distribution functions of binomial gamma
generation, its wood is also used in soil reclamation, wastewater
purification and in plantings in protective green belts.
Due to the worldwide interest in various cultivars of basket
willow, and especially in their productivity under given environ-
mental conditions, that issue has been the subject matter of re-
search for many years. Models are developed that, due to their
structure, can be used for many plants, as well as such that are
dedicated to specific plant species or even cultivars. Problems re-
lated with the effect of local conditions on productivity are ad-
dressed, even on a regional scale, due to the need for developing
algorithms estimating the amount of biomass on willow planta-
tions [3]. In general, the function of such models is the estimation
of profitability of cultivation of selected plants, and identification
of factors affecting biomass productivity. Research is also con-
ducted in the aspect of the effect of specific plant cultivars on their
productivity, and especially on new willow cultivars with desirable
genetic traits [4–6]. Also important is the problem of variation in
plantation productivity in successive years of its exploitation and
in relation to the variant of cultivation (1-, 2-year and longer
harvest cycles) [7,8]. The above research issues are solved with the
use of empirical and mechanistic methods with varying degree of
detail, both with respect to the model input data and to the time
step of plant growth process simulation. Empirical models are
often limited to the environmental conditions at various geo-
graphic locations. Most frequently they are based on field experi-
ments (e.g. [9,10]), and thus they allow understanding of the effect
of the local environmental parameters on plant yielding.
Whereas, mechanistic models refer to biological and morpho-
logical processes to determine plant growth (e.g. [11–16]). At
present there is more than a dozen models of that type, permitting
the estimation of biomass of selected energy crop plant species, i.e.
miscanthus, switchgrass, sugar cane, willow, poplar, opuntia or
agave. An extensive review of those models has been presented by
Nair et al. [17]. The models differ in terms of the number and
quality of input data, and of the degree of complexity. In a great
majority the application of those models is based on meteor-
ological data, even 24-h, detailed properties of a specific soil, e.g.
knowledge of the permanent wilting point of plants, field water
capacity, porosity. An extreme example can be the model Agro-
BGC [18] which – as input data – requires the determination of
several dozen constant parameters of vegetation, nine parameters
approximated at the stage of model identification, and six diurnal
distribution
H (q , v ) distribution function of binomial distribution of the
mixture
a parameter of the mixture
mqi , mvi , ri, βi , i = 1, 2 parameters of i-th gamma distribution
f1V (v ) , f2V (v ) distribution functions of marginal distributions of
plant volume index, determined from density func-
E1(Q |V = v0) , E2(Q |V = v0) conditional expected value of binomial
gamma distribution
D12(Q |V = v0) , D22(Q |V = v0) conditional variance of binomial
gamma distribution
E (Q |V = v0) conditional expected value of shoot mass under the
condition that its volume index is v0
D2(Q |V = v0) conditional variance of shoot mass under the
condition that its volume index is v0
m number of measured shoots
(qj , vj ) observed pairs of values of mass and volume index of
j-th shoot (j = 1, … , m)
wk observed number of shoots in k-th plant
data concerning the weather conditions. Also necessary is the in-
formation on the diurnal concentration of CO2 and on nitrogen
compounds. Another example is the model CANEGRO [19] which,
among the input data, apart from the meteorological and soil
elements, requires also information on cultivation treatments ap-
plied. A similar set of input data is required for the model EPIC [20]
which has become the basis for the development of models
dedicated to specific plants, unfortunately with even greater de-
gree of complexity, e.g. models ALMANAC or AUSCANE. Relatively
the least data, limited to only several diurnal weather data, are
required for the model EPI, dedicated to opuntia and agave [21].
The model developed for willow, model 3PG, requires detailed
weather data, and information on the leaves, shoots and root
system of the plants, as well as soil parameters [22].
On the other hand, the researchers of the problem still seek a
possibility of reducing the number of input variables for the
models, conducting analyses aimed at the identification of domi-
nant factors that determine plant growth and development. Evans
et al. [23] indicated a high importance of precipitation totals and
air temperatures in the period of willow growth, and a significant
effect of annual precipitation totals and of soil pH and texture.
Aylott et al. [9] tried to identify the dominant factors of growth for
three willow varieties, and in effect indicated the importance of
hydrological factors and soil structure. Likewise, Labrecque and
Teodorescu [24], Bergante [25] indicated in their studies the sig-
nificance of climate data, and precipitations in particular, and of
soil structure, in relation to willow biomass increments.
The models reviewed above, concerning primarily willow, and
the studies on the effect of environmental parameters on yields,
are focused on the analysis of cause-effect relations that transform
environmental features on biomass increment. There is also a
group of models that, on the basis of biometric measurements,
most frequently the diameter and mass of dried shoots of willow
[26,27,15], seek the correlation between shoot mass and diameter.
In the literature, models representing such an approach are de-
fined as allometric models. A similar idea of model construction
was presented by Lupi et al. [28] who determined the mass of a
bush using the mean lengths of the tallest shoots and their
number in a bush. Another method in use is that of digital pho-
tography, in which – on the basis of digital photographs – the
density of a bush is determined and thus its mass is estimated
[29,30]. However, both the processing of digital photos and the
 W. Jakubowski et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 66 (2016) 843–851
direct biometric measurements in the field are time-consuming
and burdened with an error that is hard to estimate.
In view of the above, the authors made an attempt at devel-
oping a model of growth of basket willow (Salix viminalis L.) on the
basis of its simple biometric features. The basis for this approach
was the conclusion that the current value of the biometric features
is determined by parameters affecting plant growth, i.e. that the
current amount of biomass had been determined by earlier me-
teorological, environmental conditions, etc. Another assumption
building the foundations of the study was that the number of
shoots in a plant is a function of the age of the plantation. For this
reason, detailed probabilistic analyses were undertaken concern-
ing the correlation of simple non-destructive biometric measure-
ments and shoot mass and the number of shoots in a bush in
consecutive years of willow vegetation.
2. The probabilistic model and its estimation
2.1. Materials and methods
One of the features of basket willow plantation is its known
spatial structure, i.e. the method of bush plantings, which – to-
gether with the known number of bushes – permits the estimation
of the mass of the entire plantation. In relation with the above, it is
natural to assume that the probabilistic properties of all bushes are
similar and do not depend on their situation in the plantation. In
such a case it becomes necessary to exclude bushes growing on
the plantation perimeter from the modelling. Therefore, those
bushes were treated as the protective belt of the plantation. In
consequence, the construction of a model of a single bush of
basket willow is sufficient for the determination of a probabilistic
model of the mass of the entire plantation. Therefore, a number of
statistical methods whose main function is the analysis of spatial
variability of plantings (see e.g. [31]) cannot find an application in
this case.
When building a model of a bush the fundamental thing is to
take into account the distribution of the number of its shoots.
Then, for the determination of the distribution of the mass of the
whole bush it becomes natural to apply compound distributions,
taking into account also the features of an individual shoot. Dis-
tributions of that type [32] are often used in ecology, e.g. for the
estimation of fish biomass ([33,34] or [35]), or of the biomass of a
selected plant species [36]. Two distributions are estimated: a
discrete one – of the number of individuals (fish shoals, plants etc.)
and a continuous one – of the value of their biomass. Their mixture
estimates the biomass (of fish, plants) within the area under
analysis. In ecology the problem is the discontinuity of the dis-
tribution obtained in that manner. There exists a probability of
zero mass, that corresponds to non-observation of any individual
(e.g. no fish shoal, no plant) within a given area. That problem
does not appear in the estimation of the biomass of a bush of
basket willow.
In relation with the above, the key issue is to develop a method
of estimation of the features of an individual shoot on the basis of
biometric measurements. The literature does not provide devel-
oped methods for conducting such measurements that would be
adopted as a standard. An example of this can be the lack of a rule
for the adoption of the shoot height at which its diameter should
be measured in the course of biometric measurements during the
whole period of vegetation. Amichew et al. [15] measured shoot
diameter at the height of 30 cm above ground surface, Stolarski
et al. [4] adopted the height of 50 cm, while Sevel et al. [5] – 90 cm.
Nordh and Verwijst [26], for the estimation of willow productivity
with a destructive and a non-destructive method, measured shoot
diameters at 3 heights: 55, 85 and 105 cm, while Verwijst and
845
Telenius [37] conducted such measurements at the base of the
shoots.
The consequence of non-systematised methods of measure-
ment of biometric features is the lack of a probabilistic model of
correlation of those features. Some authors restrict themselves to
only the elementary methods of statistics [27,15,31]. There is also
an absence of statistically substantiated studies on the correlation
between shoot features such as the length, diameter or mass,
while such correlations are natural. This suggests the application
of multi-dimensional distributions for their probabilistic descrip-
tion. Unfortunately, serious difficulties appear during the de-
termination of the form of such a compound distribution. In such a
case not only the marginal distributions are of different types, but
also the significant relationships between the individual features
are not always linear [26,38].
An earlier study by these authors [39] was concerned with a
one-dimensional probabilistic description of two biometric fea-
tures, i.e. the volume index determined on the basis of the length
and the diameter at its mid-point and of the mass of an individual
shoot of basket willow (Salix viminalis). Statistical tests demon-
strated that the distribution of those features is a mixture of two
gamma distributions independent of the age of the plantation and
of the time of measurement in the course of the vegetation period.
The features are described correctly by a mixture of gamma dis-
tributions for the second, third and the fourth year of cultivation.
An analysis of the distribution of the number of shoots in a bush in
relation to the age of the plantation was also performed. The
number of shoots in a bush was described by a shifted negative
binomial distribution. In each of the years of cultivation that dis-
tribution described their number in a statistically correct manner.
Those analyses became the basis for the construction of an
innovative two-dimensional probabilistic model, presented fur-
ther on in this paper, permitting the estimation of biomass on a
plantation. In consequence this allows the creation of an easy to
use calculator for the estimation of willow biomass during the
vegetation period for successive years of the plantation.
In the field experiment plants were cultivated on a plot of
4.9 m × 22.8 m , in 7 rows spaced at 70 cm. The spacing of plants in
the rows was 40 cm, which gave a potential stand of 392 plants.
Their cultivation was conducted with the extensive method. The
experimental plantation was established in 2010, while the model
of biomass increments was developed on the basis of measure-
ments conducted on the plants in the period of 2011–2013 (2nd–
4th year of the plantation). In the years adopted for the analyses
varied numbers of plants started their vegetation – 364 plants in
2011 and 347 in the consecutive years.
The measurements were performed for plants with the exclu-
sion of those growing within the buffer belt on the perimeter of
the plot. Three biometric parameters were measured during the
vegetation periods to determine the variation of basket willow
shoots. The measurements consisted in periodical cutting of ran-
dom selected shoots with length over 0.5 m and measuring the
length of the shoots cut, their diameter in the middle of the length,
and then their weighing to determine the mass of the individual
shoots. Every time a sample of similar numbers of shoots was
taken, at uniform time intervals. Over the entire vegetation period
the numbers of shoots cut and measured as described above
amounted to 192 shoots in 2011, 166 shoots in 2012 and 175 shoots
in 2013.
At the end of the vegetation period the number of all shoots
with length over 0.5 m was counted for all the plants growing on
the plantation. The numbers varied from 1312 in 2011 (2nd year of
vegetation) to 2948 in 2013 (4th year of vegetation).
In the study the assumption was adopted that an individual
shoot is characterised by a correlated two-dimensional random
variable (Q , V ), where Q is the shoot mass (including the mass of
846 W. Jakubowski et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 66 (2016) 843–851
leaves) and V is the shoot volume index, what resulted from [39].
The distribution of the variable is a mixture of two two-dimen-
sional gamma distributions. (More information on distributions of
this type can be found in [40].) Chi-squared tests confirmed the
appropriateness of the fitted distribution. Such an approach per-
mitted the determination of shoot mass distribution (destructive
measurement) under the condition of its volume (non-destructive
measurement). This is of particular importance in view of the
application consequences of the method proposed. It was also
demonstrated [39] that the number of shoots in a basket willow
bush is correctly described by the shifted negative binomial dis-
tribution (Pascal distribution). The combination of those two dis-
tributions: the distribution of the number of shoots per plant and
the conditional probability distribution determines the conditional
mass of basket willow bush with the assumption of the volume
index of an individual shoot. Unfortunately, the variance of such a
distribution is large. This means that the application of such a
method, consisting in the measurement of biometric features of a
single shoot and concluding on that basis about the mass of an
average willow bush is burdened with an excessive error – prac-
tical application of the method would not make sense. That error
was reduced analysing the conditional distribution of mean mass
of n bushes with the assumption of the volume index of k shoots.
As expected, the results obtained permitted the reduction of the
scale of the error to a level that can be accepted in the practice of
agricultural production.
Attempts were also made at applying other types of compound
distributions, e.g. based on the Poisson, Pascal or Tweedie dis-
tributions [32]. Good fit was obtained only in the case of the Pascal
distribution. In the case of the other models the results obtained
were not satisfactory, as e.g. in the model based on Poisson dis-
tribution the problem is poor fit of the distribution of the number
of shoots in the plant.
Most of the theoretical calculations and derivations of for-
mulae, including those with the use of the Laplace transform, has
been transferred to the appended Annex.
2.2. Two-dimensional distribution of mass and volume index of
basket willow shoot
In the study we analysed pairs of random variables
(Q j, Vj ) , j = 1, … , n. Basing on the results of the research [39], it
was assumed that the pairs constitute a sequence of independent
random variables with identical distribution. That distribution is a
mixture of two-dimensional gamma distributions with the density
function:
h(q, v) = ah1(q, v) + (1 − a)h2(q, v)
and distribution function H (q , v ) = ∫ ∫ h(u, w )dwdu, where
0 0
a (0 < a < 1) is a parameter of the mixture, and the density func-
tions (i¼1,2)
⎡ ⎤
⎢ βi ⎛ q v ⎞⎥
hi (q, v) = exp⎢ − ⎜⎜ + ⎟⎟
(1 − ri ) ⎝ mqi mvi ⎠⎥
⎣ ⎦
q βi − 1v βi − 1βi2βi
βi
f β (ciqv)
i
( (1 − ri)mqimvi) Γ (βi )
are two-dimensional gamma distributions [41,42] with para-
βi2ri
meters mqi , mvi , ri, βi and ci =
(1 − ri )2mqimvi
defined as follows:
∞ Two-dimensional
zk 1 − βi
f β (z ) = ∑ = z 2 I βi − 1(2 z ),
i
k=0
k!Γ (βi + k )
where Ir(u) is a Bessel function of the first kind. In formulae (1), (2)
variable q denotes mass while v is the volume index of a single
shoot. Parameters mqi – mean mass, mvi – mean volume index and
ri – correlation coefficient of i-th (i = 1, 2) population of shoots, βi
are scale parameters.
The function of conditional density of the mass of a single
shoot, at a determined value of its volume Q |V = v0 has the form:
ah1(q, v0) + (1 − a)h2(q, v0)
h(q|v = v0) =
af1V (v0) + (1 − a)f2V (v0) (4)
where af1V (v0) + (1 − a)f2V (v0) is a marginal distribution – of the
mixture of gamma distributions – Annex (A.4).
Using the conditional expected values and the conditional
variances (A.9) the conditional expected value and the conditional
variance of shoot mass were determined:
af1V (v0)E1(Q |V = v0) + (1 − a)f2V (v0)E2(Q |V = v0)
E(Q |V = v0) =
af1V (v0) + (1 − a)f2V (v0)
af1V (v0)D12(Q |V = v0) + (1 − a)f2V (v0)D22(Q |V = v0)
D2(Q |V = v0) =
af1V (v0) + (1 − a)f2V (v0) (5)
2
a(1 − a)f1V f2V ( E1(Q |V = v0) − E2(Q |V = v0))
+ 2
( af1V (v0) + (1 − a)f2V (v0))
Both values are the functions of moments (A.9). Let us note that
the expected values E1(Q |V = v0), E2(Q |V = v0) and the corresponding
variances D12(Q |V = v0) and D22(Q |V = v0) are linear functions of the
volume index v0, which means that for shoots from a homo-
geneous population both the conditional expected value
E (Q |V = v0) and the conditional variance D2(Q |V = v0) are linear
functions.
The two-dimensional distribution presented above (1) was
used for the estimation of the distribution of observed pairs
(qi , vi )i = 1, … ,533 – mass and volume index of individual shoots. The
data were obtained from measurements taken in the vegetation
periods of the years 2011–2013. The estimation of the unknown
parameters of the distribution (1) was conducted in three steps. In
step one, as in reference [42], it was assumed that the scale
parameters β1, β2 are known and their values are equal to the
means of the estimators determined for the one-dimensional
distributions. In step two the remaining parameters
(mqi , mvi , ri, i = 1, 2) were estimated with the maximum likelihood
method. The final parameter a – showing the proportion of se-
(1) lection of the distributions, was obtained with the use of the ex-
q v pectation-maximisation algorithm [43].
The fit of the observations (qi , vi )i = 1, … ,533 to the two-dimensional
mixture (1) was tested with the goodness-of-fit test χ2. The test
was conducted by dividing the observations into classes according
to the algorithm proposed by [44]. Table 1 presents the calculated
p-values of test χ2 for the two-dimensional distribution and, for
comparison, also for the marginal ones. In each case there were no
grounds for the rejection of the goodness-of-fit hypothesis.
(2) Table 1
χ2 goodness-of-fit test of the observed shoot vo-
lume index and mass to two-dimensional and
marginal mixed gamma distributions (1).
, while function fβ (z ) is
i
Gamma distribution p-Value
0.13
Marginal – volume index 0.11
i = 1, 2
Marginal – mass 0.17
(3)
 W. Jakubowski et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 66 (2016) 843–851
Fig. 1. Two-dimensional estimated density function (1) of shoot mass and volume
indicator, observations from 2011 to 2013.
Fig. 2. Contour line of probability density bounding area with 0.6, 0.7, 0.8 and
0.9 probability, observations from 2011 to 2013.
Fig. 3. Marginal distributions of basket willow shoot mass, observations from 2011
to 2013.
Fig. 4. Marginal distributions of basket willow shoot volume index, observations
from 2011 to 2013.
847
Graphical illustration of the fit is presented in Figs. 1–4.
Fig. 1 presents the estimated two-dimensional density function
(1). The arguments of the function are the volume index and the
mass of an individual shoot. The uni-modal area with a distinct
ridge, describes the variation of probability of basket willow shoot
features. In the graph two curves traversing the bounding area are
plotted that illustrate the variation of the estimated distribution
for preset values of volume index v0 = 40 cm3 and q0 = 50 g .
Projection of the probability density bounding area onto the
plane of shoot mass and volume index is shown in a graph (Fig. 2).
Asterisks are used to indicate the observed features of individual
shoots, and solid lines represent the lines of constant probability
(contour lines). They delineate the most probable areas Dp, such
that the probability of inclusion within each of the areas is p. On
the curves bounding areas D70% , D80% there is an observable change
in the shape of the contour lines. That is an effect of the mixture of
distributions. Up to the inflection point shorter shoots with larger
diameter dominated, beyond that point thinner and longer shoots
were dominant. Table 2 presents also what percentage of the ob-
served masses and volume indices is included within the esti-
mated area. The results obtained confirm the very good fit of the
observed features of basket willow shoots to the proposed theo-
retical distribution (1).
Subsequent graphs (Figs. 3 and 4) present the estimated curves
of marginal densities. They are very similar to the curves obtained
during the estimation of each of the features separately. The
goodness of their fit is not much worse, which results from the fact
that the high correlation between both features is taken into ac-
count in the two-dimensional distribution (Table 3). In the case of
a mixture of two-dimensional gamma distributions defined in
such a manner upon transition to the marginal distribution the
information on the strength of the correlation is lost.
The form of both regression equations also carries important
information. With shoot mass of the order of several hundred
grams in both equations the free argument of the order of a unity
is insignificant. It is the slope of the line that is of primary im-
portance, and here the variation is large. This supports the as-
sumption that we should not model the features of basket willow
shoots as observations from a homogeneous population. This
problem is noticeable in the study by [15], where the authors
adopted the simplifying assumption that only the longest shoots
from a bush are analysed.
Fig. 5 presents the observed shoot masses and volume indices
together with the regression curve (5) determined for the dis-
tribution of the mixture. The regression line (marked double) can
be divided into three sections: lower – up to shoot volume below
100 cm3, central – for shoot volumes within the range from 100 to
200 cm3, and upper – over 200 cm3. That division reflects the
domination of shorter shoots (lower section), and the domination
of long shoots (upper section). The centre interval corresponds to a
mixed situation.
In addition, using the distribution function of the mixed
Table 2
Theoretical probability and observed inclusion of basket willow shoot features to
the most probable areas Dp marked in Fig. 2.
Probability
Area Bounding area Dp [%]
Theoretical Observed
D60% 60 59.7
D70% 70 69.7
D80% 80 82.7
D90% 90 89.7
848 W. Jakubowski et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 66 (2016) 843–851
Table 3
Regressive correlation of shoot mass with its volume index.
Shoot type Regression line
Shorter with a bigger diameter q^ = 1.075v + 1.696
Longer with a smaller diameter q^ = 0.800v + 3.086
Fig. 5. Prediction area of basket willow shoot mass.
density function (A.6) quantiles q10% , q90% were calculated, de-
pendent on the volume index v = v0 , such that
H (q10|v = v0) = 0.1 and H (q90|v = v0) = 0.9
The lines obtained (solid ones on the Fig. 5) constitute 80% of the
conditional prediction area of the shoot mass. Thus, we can esti-
mate the shoot mass, knowing the easily measurable volume
index.
Theoretically, 80% of the observations should fall between the
quantile lines, prediction lines. In the example under analysis it is
78%. Changing the prediction error similar results are obtained.
This means that once again we have confirmation of the very good
fit of the mixed two-dimensional gamma distribution to the ob-
served masses and volume indices of basket willow shoots.
2.3. Conditional distribution of basket willow bush mass
For the determination of the conditional distribution of basket
willow bush mass a compound distribution was used, built on the
basis of the conditional distribution of single sheet mass (4) and
the Pascal distribution describing the variation of the number of
shoots in a bush [39]. The condition was the volume index of a
single shoot. The probability density function of the random event
M|V = v0 has the form
∞ ⎛ −ν ⎞
m(q|v = v0) = ∑ ( − 1)n⎜⎜ ⎟⎟pn (1 − p)ν h(*(n + 1))(q|v)
n= 0 ⎝ n ⎠
where (*n) denotes n-th convolution, while ν and p are parameters
of Pascal distribution.
Sample functions of conditional bush mass density (7) for the
years 2011 and 2012, calculated with the assumption that the
shoot volume index equals 100 cm3, are presented in Fig. 6. The
successive maxima are related with the Pascal distribution of the
number of shoots in a basket willow bush. The density functions
differ notable in terms of shapes and the heights of the local
maxima. The shift of the density function plot to the left, towards
lower bush mass, results from the smaller number of shoots in a
bush in the second year of the plantation (2011). The higher am-
plitudes of local maxima result from greater statistical
Correlation
0.972
0.984
Fig. 6. Estimated conditional basket willow bush mass density function (years
2011, 2012), assuming a shoot volume index of 100 cm3.
homogeneity of individual shoots – in 2011 dominant were shorter
shoots, with larger diameters.
Following a similar procedure as in the case of an individual
shoot, the conditional expected value and the variance of basket
willow bush mass were determined (8). Those values are de-
termined by differentiating a Laplace transform (A.7) or making
use of the properties of a compound distribution (8) [45,46]
E(M|V = v0) = EW E(Q |V = v0)
D2(M|V = v0) = EW D2(Q |V = v0) + D2W E2(Q |V = v0) (8)
2
where EW is the mean value and D W is the variance of the
(6) number of shoots in a bush.
As in the case of a single shoot (5), the regression line obtained
is a function of the volume index V = v0 . The regression lines differ
only in the value of coefficient EW. The situation is different in the
case of the conditional variance. Formula (8) indicates that it is a
quadratic function of the condition V = v0 . This also means that the
error of prediction will increase with increase in the value of the
volume index, in a manner close to linear. This is important during
the application of the method proposed. With increase of the
number of shoots in a bush the value of the term D2WE2(Q |V = v0)
in formula (8) grows rapidly.
In Fig. 7, apart from the regression lines plotted separately for
each of the years 2011–2013, the 80% prediction areas are also
marked. Similarly to (6), the conditional probabilities were de-
termined:
Pr(M ≤ q10|v = v0) = 0.1 and Pr(M ≤ q90|v = v0) = 0.9 (9)
Unfortunately, the prediction area determined in this way is
(7)
Fig. 7. 80% prediction of basket willow bush mass in 2011–2013, with the as-
sumption that the shoot volume index is v.
 W. Jakubowski et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 66 (2016) 843–851
Fig. 8. Conditional density function of (mean) mass of basket willow bush in 2013,
with the assumption that the (mean) shoot volume index is 100 cm3.
Table 4
Intervals of 80% prediction of mean mass [g] of k basket willow bushes in 2013
determined with the assumption that the mean shoot volume index is v .
Number of measurements k v = 100 cm3 v = 150 cm3 v = 200 cm3
1 (532,2213) (713,2963) (885,3676)
3 (829,1822) (1110,2440) (1379,3028)
5 (929,1702) (1244,2280) (1546,2833)
10 (1034,1583) (1385,2125) (1721,2644)
very broad. In the case of measurement of a single shoot with
volume index of 150 cm3, 80% prediction of bush mass in 2011
varied from about 380–1150 g, in 2012 from 790 to 2540 g, and in
2013 – within the range from 710 to 2960 g. This is too big an error
for use in the estimation of biomass on a plantation.
In this situation the number of shoots measured was increased.
Already when the number of measurements was increased to
three the range of variation of mean mass of three bushes was
narrowed notably. This is presented in Fig. 8. For data from 2013
the function of probability density of bush mass or mean mass for
three bushes is shown with the measurement of one, three or ten
shoot volume indices, respectively. The variation of the mean mass
of ten bushes was considerably reduced. It corresponds approxi-
mately to that which can be achieved with the use of the Linde-
berg central limit theorem [47] when measuring 100 shoots.
Table 4 presents sample intervals of estimation of mean bush
mass for various (mean) values of shoot volume indices and
numbers of their measurements. That estimation was performed
for the Pascal distribution [39], for the third year of the plantation.
With increase of the mean volume index the relative error in-
creases and at ten measurements it does not exceed the value of
21.5%.
3. Discussion
Allometric models developed so far, basing on frequently
questionable or subjectively adopted methods of biometric mea-
surements [5,28], that are not substantiated with statistical ana-
lysis, cannot provide a reliable answer to the question of the
probabilistic accuracy of the estimates obtained with their use.
This results from the lack of statistical elaboration of the features
under analysis. The presented results are limited to giving the
coefficient of determination comparing the developed model with
direct measurement data. This may result from the fact, which has
been demonstrated by the authors of this study, that the entire
population of the willow shoot features under analysis (volume
index and mass) can be divided into two homogeneous popula-
tions described with gamma distributions. Those features become
apparent only in the third and fourth years of cultivation. In the
case of other authors' study of biometric features of an entire
849
population with the use of a single group of distributions the
obtained correctness of fit is so low that it cannot be used for
subsequent estimations. Only the application of a mixture of two-
dimensional gamma distributions in the study allowed correct
statistical modelling. As a result, such a procedure not only per-
mits the estimation of the correlation between the geometry of a
shoot and its mass, but also – through the use of compound dis-
tributions – it allows the estimation of the mass of a whole bush of
basket willow on the basis of biometric measurements of one or of
a larger number of shoots.
The proposed innovative model of probabilistic variation of
mass of basket willow allows to estimate the current mean mass of
a plant on the plantation on the basis of non-destructive biometric
measurements. The results obtained permit very good estimation
– with as high as 80% probability – of the mass of a whole bush
with a relative error not exceeding 22%, irrespective of the age of
the plantation and of the weather conditions during the vegeta-
tion period. The only condition is the performance of at least 10
simple non-destructive biometric measurements on random-se-
lected shoots on the willow plantation. Numerical and probabil-
istic analyses demonstrated that increasing the number of bio-
metric measurements of willow shoots had no significant effect on
estimation improvement. This results from the observed variance
of the correlation of shoot mass with volume index, which causes
that any increase in the number of measurements – even up to
several hundred – has no significance. This observation is very
important when using models of this type, as it allows to propose
a procedure that is the least cost- and time-consuming with un-
changed accuracy of yield estimation. The very good results ob-
tained confirm unquestionably that the method of biometric
measurements of basket willow, proposed by these authors, is
correct and provides good statistical description, which allows it to
be proposed as a standard in research of this type.
Extrapolation analyses related with the age of the plantation
permit the formulation of the hypothesis that the correlation of
the willow bush mass with the shoot volume index and the re-
lative error of estimation are of an asymptotic character. In the first
case, with increase of the plantation age there is an increase of the
ratio of bush mass to shoot volume index, but it does not exceed
15, while the relative error, at a minimum of 10 random mea-
surements of shoot volume index does not exceed 25%. For ex-
ample, in the eighth year of the plantation, for the mean shoot
volume index of 150 cm3 the extrapolated relative error of the
obtained estimate increases to 23.5%.
The biometric measurements related with the shoot volume
index and mass were conducted at various moments of vegetation
in different years of plantation cultivation and at notable variation
of weather conditions. That confirms the permanent correlation
between shoot mass and volume index irrespective of those fac-
tors. That last conclusion is of particular importance with regard to
the application of the obtained results in practice. It will allow the
development of a simple software tool for the estimation of the
amount of biomass on a plantation. That tool, on the basis of at
least 10 non-destructive measurements of random-selected
shoots, with a known number of bushes of basket willow, will
permit the estimation of the amount of biomass on the plantation
at any moment during its vegetation. The simple biometric mea-
surements can be made by the farmers themselves, with no fi-
nancial outlays and without causing any major disturbance on the
plantation. And the information acquired in that manner can be
used for the estimation of production capacity for the purpose of
meeting the requirements of specific recipients of biomass for
energy generation.
850 W. Jakubowski et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 66 (2016) 843–851

4. Conclusions This means that density function (2) is infinitely divisible and that
its n-th convolution is also a gamma distribution (two-dimen-
The analyses of the range of applicability of the developed sional). Hence, the distribution of the sum of n shoots (of a single
model of yielding of basket willow, conducted within the scope of type), defined as (Q1 + Q 2 + ⋯ + Q n, V1 + V2 + ⋯ + Vn), also has a
the study, permit the formulation of the following conclusions: gamma distribution, but with an altered scale parameter equalling
nβ .
1. Due to the fact that weather condition have no effect on the The marginal distribution of distribution (A.2) are standard
correlation of the biometric features of shoots and bush of one-dimensional gamma distributions from the density function:
basket willow, the model developed is independent from them.
2. The two-dimensional distribution of the features, i.e. shoot vo- q β − 1 − pq v β − 1 − pv
fQ (q) = e 1 fV (v) = e 2.
lume index and shoot mass, permit the determination of the p1β Γ (β ) p2β Γ (β ) (A.4)
area of the most probable occurrence of correlation of the two
features. It is situated along the line of regression, with a dis- Let us take note that both of the marginal distributions do not
tinctly marked area of transition of short and thick shoots into depend on the coefficient of correlation r. Parameter p12, directly
long and thin ones. related with the coefficient of correlation r, becomes reduced as a
3. The use of compound distributions permits the determination result of integration. This means that the estimators of parameters
of the distribution of mass of basket willow bush in relation to of one-dimensional distributions will differ from the equivalent
the volume index of the individual shoots. estimators of parameters of two-dimensional ones.
4. The theoretical results obtained permit the construction of an Relatively simple calculations allow to determine the moments
easy to use calculator for the estimation of basket willow bio-
(expected values, variance and coefficient of correlation) of dis-
mass on a plantation on the basis of the known structure of its
tribution (2).
plantings. The only input data are standard measurements of
the length and diameter at mid-length of 10 random-selected EQ = mq = qp1 EV = mv = qp2
willow shoots on the plantation, that can be taken by the p1p2 − p12
farmers themselves. D2Q = qp12 D2V = qp22r (Q , V ) =
p1p2 (A.5)
5. The numerical and probabilistic analyses performed in the
scope of the study demonstrated that any increase of the The probability density function of shoot mass, with the as-
number of biometric measurements of willow shoots above 10 sumption that its volume index is v, is as follows:
had no significant effect on improving the quality of the
estimations. ⎛ p q+pv ⎞ β β− 1
v ⎟ p2 q
g (q|v) = exp⎜⎜ − 2 1
+ f β (cqv)
⎝ p12 p2 ⎟⎠ p12
β
(A.6)
Acknowledgements The Laplace transform of conditional density (A.6) is as follows:

Research financed from Polish budget funds for science in the p v

− p1 + pv p2β p12 cv
[g (q|v)](s ) = ω(s ) = e 12 2
β
e p12 s + p2
years 2011–2014 as research Project no. NN305 3835 39. ( p12s + p2) (A.7)

This means that distribution (A.7) is infinitely divisible. Its n-th

Appendix A. Some properties of two-dimensional gamma convolution is a distribution of the same type as (A.6) and has the
distribution of shoot mass and volume index (2) and condi- form:
tional bush mass (7)
⎛ p q + np v ⎞ nβ nβ − 1
nv ⎟ p2 q
g *n(q|v) = exp⎜⎜ − 2 1
+ fnβ (cqnv)
For simplicity, in the formulae below we will omit the index ⎝ p12 p2 ⎟⎠ p12nβ
(A.8)
i, i = 1, 2 numbering the components of the mixture (1). Density
function (2), a component of the mixture, can be written in a Differentiating the Laplace transform (A.7) the moments used
simpler form using the set of parameters {p1, p2 , p12 , β}. They are in formula (5) – conditional expected value and conditional var-
related with parameters mq , mv , β , r in the following way: iance – were determined.
mqmv mq
mq = p1β, mv = p2 β, p12 = (1 − r ) E(Q |V = v) = mq(1 − r ) + rv
β2 (A.1) mv
mq2(1 − r )2 2mq2
In the Annex below all calculations will be conducted in the con- D2(Q |V = v) = + r (1 − r )v
vention of parameters (A.1). β βm v (A.9)
Making use of (A.1), the density function (2) has the form
The conditional expected value informs about the regression
⎛ p q + p v ⎞ q β − 1v β − 1 relation, and the conditional variance about its variation. It is easy
g (q, v) = exp⎜⎜ − 2 1 ⎟
⎟ β f β (cqv) to notice that both values are linear. As the variation of shoot mass
⎝ p12 ⎠ p12 Γ (β ) (A.2)
is characterised by standard deviation (variance square root), it
p1p2 − p12
where c = 2
and fβ (z ) is defined in a similar manner to that means that with an increase of the volume index v the variation of
p12
in Eq. (3). mass and the error of estimation increase proportionally to that
Direct calculations, as well as the results contained in [41], root.
demonstrate that the Laplace transform of the density function The Laplace transform ψ (s ) of the mixture of distributions (1) is
(A.2) is a mixture of transforms (A.7). This means that the distribution of
the mixture is not infinitely divisible. The situation is similar in the
1
[g (q, v)](s , u) = case of the Laplace transform of the conditional distribution of
(1 + sp1 + up2 + sup12) β (A.3) basket willow mass; it has the following form:
 W. Jakubowski et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 66 (2016) 843–851
⎛ 1 − p ⎞ν
[m(x|y)] = ψ (s )⎜ ⎟ [21] de Cortázar VG, Nobel P. Worldwide environmental productivity indices and
⎝ 1 − pψ (s ) ⎠ (A.10)
Hence, the distribution (A.10) is not infinitely divisible. It means
that the analytical form of the mass density function of any two
bushes of basket willow is unknown. In the calculations presented
in Section 2.3 a numeric approximation of convolution (A.10) was
applied during the determination of basket willow mass predic-
tion. The calculations were performed using the Talbot algorithm
[48].
References
[1] Kuzovkina YA, Volk T. The characterization of willow (salix l.) varieties for use
in ecological engineering applications: co-ordination of structure, function
and autecology. Ecol Eng 2009:1178–89.
[2] Krasuska E, Rosenqvist H. Economics of energy crops in Poland today and in
the future. Biomass–Bioenergy 2012;38:23–33.
[3] Mola-Yudegoa B, Aronsson P. Yield models for commercial willow biomass
plantations in sweden. Biomass–Bioenergy 2008;32:829–37.
[4] Stolarski M, Szczukowski S, Tworkowski J, Klasa A. Productivity of seven clone
sof willow coppice in annual and quadrennial cutting cycles. Biomass–Bioe-
nergy 2008;27:1227–34.
[5] Sevel L, Nord-Larsen T, Raulund-Rasmussen K. Biomass production of four
willow clones grown as short rotation coppice on two soil types in Denmark.
Biomass–Bioenergy 2012;46:664–72.
[6] Liu B. Biomass production of willow short-rotation coppice across sites and
determinants of yields for SV1 and SX61 [Ph.D. thesis]. State University of New
York; 2013.
[7] Sleight NJ, Volk T. Recently bred willow (salix spp.) biomass crops show stable
yield trends over three rotations at two sites, [Online; posted 1-April-2016];
April 2016. 〈http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12155-016-9726-2〉.
[8] Sleight NJ, Volk T, Johnson G, Eisenbies M, Shi S, Fabio E, et al. Change in yield
between first and second rotations in willow (salix spp.) biomass crops is
strongly related to the level of first rotation yield. Bioenergy Res 2016;9:270–
87.
[9] Aylott MJ, Casella E, Tubby I, Street N, Smith P, Taylor G. Yield and spatial
supply of bioenergy poplar and willow short-rotation coppice in the UK. New
Phytol 2008;178(2):358–70.
[10] Tallis MJ, Casella P, nad Henshall E, Aylott M, Randle T, Morison J, et al. De-
velopment and evaluation of ForestGrowth-SRC a process-based model for
short rotation coppice yield and spatial supply reveals poplar uses water more
efficiently than willow. GCB Bioenergy 2013;5(1):53–66.
[11] Kiniry J, Williams J, Gassman P, Debaeke P. A general, process-oriented model
for two competing plant species (A). Trans ASAE 1992;35:801–10.
[12] Clifton-Brown J, Neilson B, Lewandowski I, Jones M. The modeled productivity
of Miscanthus x giganteus (GREEF et DEU) in Ireland. Ind Crop Prod 2000:97–
109.
[13] van den Broek R, Vleeshouwers L, Hoogwijka M, van Wijk C, Turkenburg W.
The energy crop growth model SILVA: description and application to eu-
calyptus plantations in Nicaragua. Biomass–Bioenergy 2001;21:335–49.
[14] Sannervik A, Eckersten H, Verwijst T, Kowalik P, Nordh N. Simulation of willow
productivity based on radiation use efficiency, shoot mortality and shoot age.
Eur J Agron 2006;24:156–64.
[15] Amichew B, Hangs R, Van Rees K. A novel approach to simulate growth of
multi-stem willow in bioenergy production systems with a simple process-
based model (3PG). Biomass–Bioenergy 2011;35(1):473–88.
[16] Jing Q, Conijn S, Jongschaap R, Bindraban P. Modeling the productivity of
energy crops in different agro-ecological environments. Biomass–Bioenergy
2012;46:618–33.
[17] Nair SS, Kang S, Zhang X, Miguez F, Izaurralde R, Post W, et al. Bioenergy crop
models: descriptions, data requirements and future challenges. GCB Bioenergy
2012;4:620–33.
[18] Di Vittorio AV, Andersen R, White J, Miller N, Running S. Development and
optimization of an Agro-BGC ecosystem model for C4 perennial grasses. Ecol
Model 2010;221:2038–53.
[19] Inman-Bamber NG. A growth model for sugarcane based on a simple carbon
balance and the ceres maize water balance. S Afr J Plant Soil 1991;8:93–9.
[20] Williams JR, Jones C, Kiniry J, Spanel D. The EPIC crop growth model. Trans
851
ASAE 1989;32:497–511.
yield predictions for a cam plant, Opuntia ficus-indica, included effects of
doubled CO2 levels. Agric For Meteor 1990;49:261–79.
[22] Landsberg J, Waring R. A generalized model of forest productivity using
simplified concepts of radiation-use efficiency, carbon balance and partition-
ing. For Ecol Manag 1997;95:209–28.
[23] Evans S, Baldwin M, Henshall P, Matthews R, Morgan G, Poole J. et al., Yield
models for energy: Coppice of poplar and willow. volume a – empirical
models. Tech. rep., Biometrics Surveys and Statistics Division Forest Research,
Farnham; 2007.
[24] Labrecque M, Teodorescu T. High biomass yield achieved by salix clones in
SRIC following two 3-year coppice rotations on abandoned farmland in
southern Quebec, Canada. Biomass–Bioenergy 2003;25(2):135–46.
[25] Bergante S, Facciotto G, Minotta G. Identification of the main site factors and
management intensity affecting the establishment of short-rotation-coppices
(SRC) in northern Italy through stepwise regression analysis. Cent. Eur. J. Biol.
2010:522–30.
[26] Nordh M, Verwijst T. Above-ground biomass assessments and first cutting
cycle production in willow (salix sp.) coppice – a comparison between de-
structive and non-destructive methods. Biomass–Bioenergy 2004;27:1–8.
[27] Arevalo C, Volk T, Bevilacqua E, Abrahamson L. Development and validation of
aboveground biomass estimations for four salix clones in central New York.
Biomass–Bioenergy 2007;31(1):1–12.
[28] Lupi C, Larocque G, DesRochers A, Labrecque M, Mosseler A, Major J, et al.
Evaluating sampling designs and deriving biomass equations for young
plantations of poplar and willow clones. Biomass–Bioenergy 2015;83:196–
205.
[29] Ens JA, Farrell R, Bélanger N. Rapid biomass estimation using optical stem
density of willow (salix spp.) grown in short rotation. Biomass–Bioenergy
2009;33:174–9.
[30] Hangs RD, Van Rees K, Schoenau J, Guo X. A simple technique for estimating
above-ground biomass in short-rotation willow plantations. Biomass–Bioe-
nergy 2011;35:2156–62.
[31] Zapata-Cuartas M, Sierra C, Alleman L. Probability distribution of allometric
coefficients and bayesian estimation of aboveground tree biomass. For Ecol
Manag 2012;277:173–9.
[32] Scott D, Bravington M. A Poisson-Gamma model for analysis of ecological non-
negative data. Environ Ecol Stat 2013;20:533–52.
[33] Hiroshi S. Application of Tweedie distribution to zero-catch data in CPUE
analysis. Fish Res 2008:154–62.
[34] Tascheri R, Saavedra-Nievas J, Roa-Ureta R. Statistical models to standardize
catch rates in the multi-species trawl fishery for Patagonian grenadier (Ma-
cruronus magellanicus) off Southern Chile. Fish Res 2010;105:200–14.
[35] Lecomte J, Benot M, nad Etienne HP, Bel L, Parent E. Modeling the habitat
associations and spatial distribution of benthic macroinvertebrates: a hier-
archical Bayesian model for zero-infated biomass data. Ecol Model
2013;265:74–84.
[36] Chen J, Shiyomi M, Hori Y, Yamamura Y. Frequency distribution models for
spatial patterns of vegetation abundance. Ecol Model 2008;211:403–10.
[37] Verwijst T, Telenius B. Biomass estimation procedures in short rotation for-
estry. For Ecol Manag 1999;121:137–49.
[38] Mukti RS, Ram P. Allometric biomass models for bark of Cinnamomum tamala
in mid-hill of Nepal. Biomass– Bioenergy 2012;47:44–9.
[39] Żyromski A., Szulczewski W., Biniak-Pieróg M., Jakubowski W. The estimation
of basket willow (Salix viminalis) yield – New approach. Part I: Background
and statistical description. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016; 65: 1118 - 1126.
[40] Balakrishnan N, Chin-Diew L. Continuous bivariate distributions. Springer;
2009.
[41] Bernardoff P. Which multivariate gamma distributions are infinitely divisible?
Bernoulli 2006;12(1):169–89.
[42] Chatelain F, Tourneret J, Inglada J, Ferrari A. Bivariate gamma distributions for
image registration and change detection. IEEE T Image Process 2007;16
(7):1796–806.
[43] McLachlan GJ, Krishnan T, Ng SK. The EM Algorithm, vol. 24. Humboldt:
Universität Berlin, Center for Applied Statistics and Economics (CASE); 2004.
[44] Rosenblatt J. Note on multivariate goodness-of-fit tests. Ann Math Stat
1962;33(2):807–10.
[45] Schmidli H. Risk theory. University of Aarhus; 2006.
[46] Wüthrich M. Non-life insurance: mathematics & statistics.Zurich: ETH; 2013.
[47] Resnick S. A probability path. Birkhauser; 1999.
[48] Murli A, Rizzardi M. ALGORITHM 682, Talbot's method for the laplace inver-
sion problem. ACM Trans Math Softw 1990;16(2):158–68.