01–0.23 cm year−1. Differences between LY294002 molecular weight observed and predicted values were mostly less than 2 cm. Higher values were found for Moses with Scots pine, for Prognaus with Scots pine in Arnoldstein and spruce in Litschau, and for Silva for both species in Litschau. Although not presented here,

we plotted observed and predicted individual tree values for each plot and growth simulator. For spruce, BWIN and Silva in most cases underestimated the diameters of small trees and overestimated the diameters of large trees. For BWIN in particular, observed and predicted dbh matched quite well except that the very large trees were considerably overestimated. In contrast, Prognaus and Moses overestimated the diameters of small trees and underestimated the diameters of large trees. Similarly for pine, all four growth simulators overestimated the size of small trees and underestimated the size of large trees. Predicted heights deviated 0.3–3.5 m from observed values. This corresponds to 0.01–0.12 m year−1. Observed and predicted height growth matched quite well Erastin supplier in Arnoldstein, and there was little deviation between observed and predicted values for both mean and maximum values. In Litschau, however there was poor agreement

with observed values, except for Scots pine height growth predicted by Silva. Moses overestimates the mean height but underestimates the maximum values. This seems to indicate that the shape of the height growth curve is inappropriate. Examining the plots of observed and predicted heights, we found that aminophylline in Arnoldstein all four growth simulators for both species overestimated the height of small trees and underestimated the height of large trees. Patterns were less homogenous in Litschau. For pine, a pattern similar to that in Arnoldstein was prevalent, with an overestimation of small heights and the underestimation of large heights; for spruce the opposite was true except for Prognaus. In many cases observed and predicted height:diameter

ratios agreed fairly well. Within a plot low height:diameter ratios were overestimated and high height:diameter ratios were underestimated, except for predictions of spruce with the simulator Silva in Litschau. Height:diameter ratios are the result of the predictions of height and diameter increment. There are four different cases for the resulting height:diameter ratio: (1) increment and allometry correct, (2) height or diameter increment wrong, allometry distorted, (3) height and diameter increment wrong, allometry correct and (4) height and diameter increment wrong, allometry distorted. Indeed there were cases where neither model largely deviated, but the resulting height:diameter ratios were biased. Also, there were cases were both models deviated, but the resulting height:diameter ratio agreed fairly well with observed values. Compare, for example, the simulation results for Norway spruce in Litschau using Moses in Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8.