Scientia Silvae Sinicae ›› 2020, Vol. 56 ›› Issue (3): 144-155.doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20200315
• Discussion • Previous Articles Next Articles
Ziqiang Zhang1,Yi Li2,Lan Gao2,*
Received:
2019-03-13
Online:
2020-03-01
Published:
2020-04-08
Contact:
Lan Gao
CLC Number:
Ziqiang Zhang,Yi Li,Lan Gao. Threshold Effect of the Size of Household Forestland Transfer——Empirical Test Based on Monitoring Data of Collective Forest Tenure Reform[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2020, 56(3): 144-155.
Table 1
Variable assignment and descriptive statistics"
变量 Variables | 简称 Abbreviation | 变量说明 Variable description | 均值 Mean | 标准差 Std. deviation |
转出林地面积Transferred forest area/hm2 | Outflow area | 农户已转出林地面积 Total area of farmer’s transferred forestland | 8.628 | 20.512 |
营林规模Forestland management area/hm2 | Forestland | 农户现有林地经营面积 Farmer’s forestland management area | 5.625 | 15.581 |
务农劳动力规模Scale of farming labor force | Labor | 家庭务农劳动力数Number of household labors | 2.860 | 1.371 |
家庭收入水平Household income level | Income | 家庭收入在村里水平的自我评价:较高=3,中 等=2,较低=1 Self-evaluation of family income at village level: higher=3, medium=2, lower=1 | 1.914 | 0.529 |
是否有林权证 Whether it has forest ownership certificate | Certificate | 是=1,否=0 Yes=1, not=0 | 0.901 | 0.3 |
年龄Age/a | Age | 户主年龄Age of head of household | 54.432 | 10.883 |
受教育程度Level of education | Edu | 户主受教育程度:小学及以下=6,初中=9, 高中=12,大专或本科及以上=16 Educational level of householders: primary school and below=6, junior high school=9, senior high school=12, junior college or undergraduate or above=16 | 8.352 | 2.358 |
是否为用材林Whether it is timber forest or not | Timber | 是=1,否=0 Yes=1, not=0 | 0.264 | 0.441 |
是否为经济林 Whether it is economic forest or not | Economic forest | 是=1,否=0 Yes=1, not=0 | 0.171 | 0.377 |
是否为竹林Whether it is bamboo or not | Bamboo | 是=1,否=0 Yes=1, not=0 | 0.075 | 0.264 |
近3年是否有森林灾害Whether it has forest disaster in the past three years or not | Disaster | 是=1,否=0 Yes=1, not=0 | 0.014 | 0.116 |
林地是否流转给本村村民Whether the woodland is transferred to the villagers or not | Native villager | 是=1,否=0 Yes=1, not=0 | 0.250 | 0.434 |
是否有林权抵押贷款Whether participation in forestry mortgage loan or not | Mortgage | 是=1,否=0 Yes=1, not=0 | 0.030 | 0.171 |
是否参与森林保险Whether participation in forest insurance or not | Insurance | 是=1,否=0 Yes=1, not=0 | 0.382 | 0.486 |
对采伐管制满意度 Satisfaction with logging control | Logging | 满意=3,一般=2,不满意=1 Satisfaction=3, general=2, dissatisfaction=1 | 1.950 | 1.250 |
Table 2
Forestland area transferred and managed by farmer households"
变量Variables | 频数Frequency | 频率Rate(%) |
营林规模Forestland management area/hm2 | ||
< 2 | 87 | 37.8 |
[2, 7] | 76 | 33.0 |
(7, 14] | 22 | 9.6 |
>14 | 45 | 19.6 |
转出林地面积Transferred forest area/hm2 | ||
< 2 | 63 | 27.4 |
[2, 7] | 83 | 36.1 |
(7, 14] | 34 | 14.8 |
>14 | 50 | 21.7 |
转出地块数Number of transferred plots | ||
< 2 | 103 | 44.9 |
[2, 4] | 115 | 49.7 |
>4 | 12 | 5.4 |
Table 3
Threshold effect and threshold number test"
解释变量 Explanatory variables | 门限个数 Threshold number | F | P | Crit10 | Crit5 | Crit1 |
Income | 双重门限Double threshold | 26.99*** | 0.000 | 12.717 | 15.199 | 19.337 |
三重门限Triple threshold | 5.94 | 0.470 | 62.857 | 95.217 | 140.190 | |
Labor | 双重门限Double threshold | 15.19** | 0.020 | 9.440 | 10.285 | 22.536 |
三重门限Triple threshold | 7.15 | 0.100 | 5.650 | 17.730 | 17.729 | |
Certificate | 单一门限Single threshold | 10.15 | 0.095 | 9.856 | 12.675 | 15.926 |
双重门限Double threshold | 3.40 | 0.600 | 7.658 | 7.658 | 7.658 |
Table 5
Results of threshold effect estimation on the scale of forest land transferred out by farmers"
变量Variables | 系数1 Coefficient 1 | 标准误1 Standard error 1 | 系数2 Coefficient 2 | 标准误2 Standard error 2 | 系数3 Coefficient 3 | 标准误3 Standard error 3 |
Age | -0.063 | 0.048 | -0.104* | 0.059 | -0.118* | 0.060 |
Edu | 0.079 | 0.213 | 0.142 | 0.260 | 0.132 | 0.263 |
Labor | -0.846** | 0.395 | -0.666 | 0.497 | ||
Income | 1.702* | 1.002 | 1.918* | 1.019 | ||
Timber | 0.585 | 1.818 | 0.407 | 2.229 | -0.116 | 2.336 |
Economic forest | 2.054 | 1.783 | 1.329 | 2.185 | 0.143 | 2.299 |
Bamboo | -0.853 | 2.464 | 0.806 | 2.994 | 1.302 | 3.132 |
Certificate | 0.671 | 1.576 | -0.408 | 1.938 | ||
Disaster | -1.614 | 3.252 | -1.196 | 3.994 | -1.165 | 4.102 |
Native villager | -0.380 | 1.245 | -0.862 | 1.512 | -1.541 | 1.562 |
Mortgage | -76.212*** | 7.601 | -50.145*** | 8.917 | -36.974 | 8.598 |
Insurance | 0.792 | 1.620 | 1.254 | 1.974 | 1.766*** | 2.018 |
Logging | 0.180 | 0.488 | -0.498 | 0.583 | -0.625 | 0.599 |
Constant | 3.246 | 4.537 | 6.853 | 5.494 | 8.540 | 5.636 |
Income(forestland < 18 hm2) | 0.874 | 0.834 | ||||
Income(18 hm2≤forestland < 20 hm2) | 4.157** | 1.890 | ||||
Income(20 hm2≤forestland) | 28.491*** | 2.526 | ||||
Labor (forestland < 18 hm2) | -0.943* | 0.485 | ||||
Labor (18 hm2 ≤forestland < 20 hm2) | 4.022*** | 1.336 | ||||
Labor (20 hm2≤forestland) | -0.019 | 0.816 | ||||
Certificate(forestland < 33.4 hm2) | -1.683 | 1.982 | ||||
Certificate(33.4 hm2≤forestland) | 4.015 | 4.040 | ||||
sigma_u | 61.532 | 75.984 | 78.711 | |||
sigma_e | 82.454 | 101.17 | 104.216 | |||
rho | 0.358 | 0.361 | 0.363 | |||
F | 1.62*** | 1.48** | 1.51** |
Table 6
Robustness test of threshold effect"
变量 Variables | Forestland < 18 hm2 固定效应 Fixed effect | 18 hm2≤Forestland < 20 hm2 固定效应 Fixed effect | Forestland≥20 hm2 随机效应 Random effects | Forestland < 33.4 hm2 固定效应 Fixed effect | Forestland≥33.4 hm2 随机效应 Random effects |
Labor | -0.013 (2.639) | 0.055* (5.322) | -5.472 (67.813) | ||
Income | 0.287* (5.398) | 0.374* (7.540) | 3.184 (65.882) | ||
Certificate | -1.102 (30.094) | 1.654 (21.641) | |||
Control variables | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes |
Constant | -0.575 (29.422) | 0.504 (57.451) | 60.709 (771.711) | 6.584 (85.961) | 13.466 (231.437) |
sigma_u | 32.178 | 24.752 | 52.099 | 79.528 | 133.563 |
sigma_e | 33.976 | 51.364 | 68.376 | 104.671 | 39.993 |
rho | 0.473 | 0.511 6 | 0.367 | 0.366 | 0.918 |
F | 1.78* | 1.64* | 2.57*** | ||
Wald | 17.64* | 76.09*** |
蔡银莺, 王亚运, 朱兰兰. 城市边缘区农户耕地利用功能对土地转出的影响——武汉、成都、苏州1 022户农民的典型实证. 自然资源学报, 2016. 31 (10): 1648- 1661.
doi: 10.11849/zrzyxb.20151255 |
|
Cai Y Y , Wang Y Y , Zhu L L . The effect of farmer households' farmland use function on their land rental decision in urban fringe:a case study of 1 022 farmer households in Suzhou, Chengdu and Wuhan. Journal of Natural Resources, 2016. 31 (10): 1648- 1661.
doi: 10.11849/zrzyxb.20151255 |
|
陈念东, 刘祖军. 集体林权流转弱市场化困境的思考——基于交易费用理论视角. 林业经济问题, 2012. 32 (5): 392- 396.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-9709.2012.05.004 |
|
Chen N D , Liu Z J . The thinking of weak collective forest right circulation trouble based on the transaction cost theory perspective. Issues of Forestry Economics, 2012. 32 (5): 392- 396.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-9709.2012.05.004 |
|
高岚, 徐冬梅. 个体禀赋与认知对农户林地流转行为的影响——基于意愿与行为一致视角分析. 林业科学, 2018. 54 (7): 137- 145. | |
Gao L , Xu D M . Influence of individual endowment and cognition on the behavior of farmers in forestland circulation:based on the view of intention-behavior consistency. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2018. 54 (7): 137- 145. | |
何文剑, 张红霄, 汪海燕. 林权改革、林权结构与农户采伐行为——基于南方集体林区7个重点林业县(市)林改政策及415户农户调查数据. 中国农村经济, 2014. (7): 81- 96. | |
He W J , Zhang H X , Wang H Y . Forest right reform, forest right structure and farmers' cutting behavior——based on the forest reform policy of 7 key forestry counties (cities) and 415 farmer households survey data in southern collective forest region. Chinese Rural Economy, 2014. (7): 81- 96. | |
黄佩红, 李琴, 李大胜. 新一轮确权能促进农地流转吗?. 经济经纬, 2018. (4): 44- 49. | |
Huang P H , Li Q , Li D S . Does the latest rural land right verification promote the transfer of farmland? Economic Survey, (4):44-49. Economic Survey, 2018. (4): 44- 49. | |
柯水发, 英犁, 赵铁珍. 集体林区林地使用权流转分析——政策演进、流转形式及机制. 林业经济, 2012. (3): 12- 16.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-5919.2012.03.007 |
|
Ke S F , Ying L , Zhao T Z . Analysis of forestland usufruct transfer in collective forest areas——policy process, types and mechanisms. Forestry Economics, 2012. (3): 12- 16.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-5919.2012.03.007 |
|
冷智花, 付畅俭, 许先普. 家庭收入结构、收入差距与土地流转——基于中国家庭追踪调查(CFPS)数据的微观分析. 经济评论, 2015. (5): 111- 128. | |
Leng Z H , Fu C J , Xu X P . Family income structure, income gap, and land circulation:a microscopic analysis based on CFPS data. Economic Review, 2015. (5): 111- 128. | |
李博, 李桦. 农户林地未流转行为影响因素分析. 林业经济问题, 2012. 32 (4): 348- 353.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-9709.2012.04.013 |
|
Li B , Li H . Analysis on factors affecting the households' deciding behavior in forest land non-transaction. Issues of Forestry Economics, 2012. 32 (4): 348- 353.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-9709.2012.04.013 |
|
李琴, 李大胜, 李承政. 家庭农地禀赋与农地流转决策——基于非线性关系的考察. 浙江社会科学, 2015. (10): 19- 28. | |
Li Q , Li D S , Li C Z . Household land endowment and land transfer decision——based on the non-linear relationship. Zhejiang Social Sciences, 2015. (10): 19- 28. | |
李彧挥, 方苑, 陈亮. 林农流转出林地意愿的影响因素分析——以湖南省安化县为例. 江汉论坛, 2012. (2): 14- 19.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-854X.2012.02.002 |
|
Li Y H , Fang Y , Chen L . Analysis on the influencing factors of forest farmers' willingness to transfer out of forest land——a case study of Anhua county, Hunan province. Jianghan Tribune, 2012. (2): 14- 19.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-854X.2012.02.002 |
|
林丽梅, 刘振滨, 许佳贤. 家庭禀赋对农户林地流转意愿及行为的影响——基于闽西北集体林区农户调查. 湖南农业大学学报:社会科学版, 2016. 17 (2): 16- 21. | |
Lin L M , Liu Z B , Xu J X . Influence of family endowment on farmers' intention and behavior of forest land circulation:based on the investigation of households in collective forest area of northwest Fujian Province. Journal of Hunan Agricultural University:Social Sciences, 2016. 17 (2): 16- 21. | |
吕杰, 冉陆荣. 林地流转中不同类型农户决策行为博弈分析. 中国土地科学, 2011. 25 (4): 31- 35. | |
Lü J , Ran L R . Game analysis on decision-making behaviors of various types of farmers during forestland transfer. China Land Science, 2011. 25 (4): 31- 35. | |
罗必良. 农地保障和退出条件下的制度变革:福利功能让渡财产功能. 改革, 2013. (1): 66- 75. | |
Luo B L . The institutional change under the circumstance of farmland security and exit conditions:welfare function to property function. Reform, 2013. (1): 66- 75. | |
罗必良. 农地流转的市场逻辑——"产权强度-禀赋效应-交易装置"的分析线索及案例研究. 南方经济, 2014. 32 (5): 1- 24.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6249.2014.05.001 |
|
Luo B L . Market logic of farmland circulation:"strength of property rights-endowment effect-transaction configuration" as a clue and case study. South China Journal of Economics, 2014. 32 (5): 1- 24.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6249.2014.05.001 |
|
普蓂喆, 郑风田. 初始禀赋、土地依赖与农户土地转出行为分析——基于23省5 165个农户样本的实证分析. 华中科技大学学报:社会科学版, 2016. 30 (1): 42- 50. | |
Pu M Z , Zheng F T . Initial endowment, land reliance and land outward transfer in rural China——evidence from 5 165 rural households in 23 provinces. Journal of Huazhong University of Science and Technology:Social Science Edition, 2016. 30 (1): 42- 50. | |
史若昀, 刘伟平. 基于产权强度理论的林地流转行为研究——以福建省10县(市)50村农户调查为例. 东南学术, 2017. (4): 86- 93. | |
Shi R Y , Liu W P . Study on forest land transfer behavior based on the intensity of property rights theory:data from 50 towns in 10 counties and cities in Fujian province. Southeast Academic Research, 2017. (4): 86- 93. | |
王波, 吕士福, 黄和亮, 等. 农户林地流转行为的关键影响因素研究. 林业经济, 2017. (4): 59- 62, 67. | |
Wang B , Lü S F , Huang H L , et al. Study on the key factors of farmers' forestland circulation behavior. Forestry Economics, 2017. (4): 59- 62, 67. | |
王成军, 费喜敏, 徐秀英. 农村劳动力转移与农户间林地流转——基于浙江省两个县(市)调查的研究. 自然资源学报, 2012. 27 (6): 893- 900. | |
Wang C J , Fei X M , Xu X Y . Rural labor transfer and woodland circulation between rural households——research statistics on two counties of Zhejiang province. Journal of Natural Resources, 2012. 27 (6): 893- 900. | |
肖慧婷, 谢芳婷, 杜娟, 等. 农户资源禀赋差异性对林地流转行为影响实证研究——基于江西集体林区10县503农户的调查. 林业经济, 2018. (11): 44- 51. | |
Xiao H T , Xie F T , Du J , et al. An empirical research on the impact of the difference in householder resource endowments on forestland circulation behavior——survey of 503 householders from 10 counties in collective forest regions in Jiangxi province. Forestry Economics, 2018. (11): 44- 51. | |
谢煜, 朱小静, 温作民, 等. 为什么小规模林农没有选择场内交易——来自浙江的实证研究. 农林经济管理学报, 2016. 15 (3): 271- 279. | |
Xie Y , Zhu X J , Wen Z M , et al. Why small-scale forest farmers do not choose public forest tenure trade market:an empirical research of Zhejiang province. Journal of Agro-Forestry Economics and Management, 2016. 15 (3): 271- 279. | |
徐堇寒, 徐秀英. 农户生计非农化对林地转出意愿的影响研究. 林业经济问题, 2018. 38 (2): 17- 22, 103. | |
Xu J H , Xu X Y . Impact of rural households' non-agricultural employment on willingness of forestland outflow. Issues of Forestry Economics, 2018. 38 (2): 17- 22, 103. | |
徐秀英, 石道金, 杨松坤, 等. 农户林地流转行为及影响因素分析——基于浙江省临安、安吉的农户调查. 林业科学, 2010. 46 (9): 149- 157. | |
Xu X Y , Shi D J , Yang S K , et al. Analysis on forestland transferring and the affecting factors:a case study in Lin'an and Anji county in Zhejiang province. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2010. 46 (9): 149- 157. | |
许凯, 张升. 集体林地流转影响因素分析——基于7省3 500个样本农户数据. 林业经济, 2015. (4): 12- 20.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-7789.2015.04.004 |
|
Xu K , Zhang S . Analysis on factors influencing forestland transfer——a study based on survey data of 3 500 households in 7 provinces in China. Forestry Economics, 2015. (4): 12- 20.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-7789.2015.04.004 |
|
乐章. 农民土地流转意愿及解释——基于十省份千户农民调查数据的实证分析. 农业经济问题, 2010. 31 (2): 64- 70. | |
Yue Z . The willingness of farmers' land transaction and explanation:an empirical analysis based on survey data from 1 032 farmers in ten provinces and cities. Issues in Agricultural Economy, 2010. 31 (2): 64- 70. | |
张寒, 杨红强, 陈海滨, 等. 非农就业对林地流转的影响——基于双内生视角的MV Tobit估计. 资源科学, 2018. 40 (8): 1505- 1514. | |
Zhang H , Yang H Q , Chen H B , et al. The effects of off-farm employment on forestland transfer:the MV Tobit estimation with endogeneity perspectives. Resources Science, 2018. 40 (8): 1505- 1514. | |
张舟, 谭荣, 石琛, 等. 林地流转模式的选择机理及其政策启示. 中国土地科学, 2014. 28 (5): 11- 18.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-8158.2014.05.002 |
|
Zhang Z , Tan R , Shi C , et al. The selection mechanism of forestland transfer modes and its policy implications. China Land Science, 2014. 28 (5): 11- 18.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-8158.2014.05.002 |
|
朱文清, 张莉琴. 集体林地确权到户对林地流转的政策效果分析. 资源科学, 2018. 40 (7): 1407- 1417. | |
Zhu W Q , Zhang L Q . The impact of confirming collective forest land property rights to households on the forest land circulation behavior of farmers. Resources Science, 2018. 40 (7): 1407- 1417. | |
Deininger K , Jin S . The potential of land rental markets in the process of economic development:Evidence from China. Journal of Development Economics, 2005. 78 (1): 241- 270.
doi: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2004.08.002 |
|
Dijk T V . Scenarios of central European land fragmentation. Land Use Policy, 2003. 20 (2): 149- 158.
doi: 10.1016/S0264-8377(02)00082-0 |
|
Granovetter M . Threshold models of collective behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 1978. 83 (6): 1420- 1443.
doi: 10.1086/226707 |
|
Hansen B E . Sample splitting and threshold estimation. Econometrica, 2000. 68 (3): 575- 603.
doi: 10.1111/1468-0262.00124 |
|
Heller M . The tragedy of the anticommons:a concise introduction and lexicon. The Modern Law Review, 2013. 76 (1): 6- 25.
doi: 10.1111/1468-2230.12000 |
|
Ilbery B W . Farm fragmentation in the Vale of Evesham. Area, 1984. 16 (2): 159- 165. | |
Kahneman D , Tversky K A . Prospect theory:an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 1979. 47 (2): 263- 292.
doi: 10.2307/1914185 |
|
Schmidt T L , Raile G K . Forest fragmentation in the Lake States. Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters National Convention, 1999. (1): 107- 115. | |
Wang Q Y . Fixed-effect panel threshold model using Stata. The Stata Journal, 2015. 15 (1): 121- 134. |
[1] | Chen Dongsheng, Li Fengri, Sun Xiaomei, Zhang Shougong. Reconstruction Dynamic Models of Height to Crown Base of Larch(Larix olgensis)Plantation Applying Knot Analysis Technique [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2019, 55(9): 103-110. |
[2] | Gao Huilin, Dong Lihu, Li Fengri. Crown Profile Prediction Model for Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica Plantation Based on Modified Kozak Model [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2019, 55(8): 84-94. |
[3] | Li Yacang, Feng Zhongke. Developing a System Climate Sensitive Biomass Compatible Equations for Masson Pine [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2019, 55(5): 65-73. |
[4] | Wang Dongzhi, Zhang Dongyan, Li Yongning, Zhang Zhidong, Li Dayong, Huang Xuanrui. Height-Diameter Relationship for Conifer Mixed Forest Based on Bayesian Nonlinear Mixed-Effects Model [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2019, 55(11): 85-94. |
[5] | Yanyan Ma,Lichun Jiang. Stem Taper Function for Larix gmelinii Based on Nonlinear Quantile Regression [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2019, 55(10): 68-75. |
[6] | Gao Huilin, Dong Lihu, Li Fengri. Crown Shape Model for Larix olgensis Plantation Based on Mixed Effect [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2017, 53(3): 84-93. |
[7] | Cui Shimeng, Xiang Wei. Effects of Thinning and Climate Factors on Larix olgensis Tree-Ring Width [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2017, 53(12): 1-11. |
[8] | Jiang Lichun, Ma Yingli, Li Yaoxiang. Variable-Exponent Taper Models for Dahurian Larch in Different Regions of Daxing'anling [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2016, 52(2): 17-25. |
[9] | Wang Dongzhi, Zhang Dongyan, Zhang Zhidong, Huang Xuanrui. Height-Diameter Relationship for Conifer Mixed Forest Based on Nonlinear Mixed-Effects Model [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2016, 52(1): 30-36. |
[10] | Xiao Shengling, Yang Jialong. Individual Tree Aboveground Biomass of Larix gmelinii Natural Forest in the Northern Greater Khingan Mountains [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2014, 50(8): 22-29. |
[11] | Fu Liyong, Lei Yuancai, Zeng Weisheng. Comparison of Several Compatible Biomass Models and Estimation Approaches [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2014, 50(6): 42-54. |
[12] | Fu Liyong, Sun Hua. Individual Crown Diameter Prediction for Cunninghamia lanceolata Forests Based on Mixed Effects Models [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2013, 49(8): 65-74. |
[13] | Fu Liyong;Zhang Huiru;Li Chunming;Tang Shouzheng. Analysis of Nonlinear Mixed Effects Model Parameter Estimation Methods [J]. , 2013, 49(1): 114-119. |
[14] | Fu Liyong;Zhang Huiru;Tang Shouzheng. Dominant Height for Chinese Fir Plantation Using Nonlinear Mixed Effects Model Based on Linearization Algorithm [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2012, 48(7): 66-71. |
[15] | Fu Liyong;Li Yongci;Li Chunming;Tang Shouzheng. Analysis of the Basal Area for Chinese Fir Plantation Using Two Kinds of Nonlinear Mixed Effects Model(Two Levels) [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2012, 48(5): 36-43. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||