How exactly is it that it is incorrect? And how do you know it is incorrect? Allometric equations are usually highly accurate for total volume, and from volume it is just a matter of determining density and adding in the root to shoot ratio. Work we did with EDF indicated that this method is about 85% accurate for most all well documented trees in the world. A little additional information on why and where you think the error is coming from might help.
Do you think that estimate biomass of palms with models developed for trees is correct?
Here in National institute for Amazonian Research, our method estimates 97% of total biomass and our error is 4.8%, you can see more in http://cadaf.inpa.gov.br/.
Tell me please. How you estimate biomass of palms.?
I would think that yes, the model developed with palms are fairly accurate, especially in plantations settings. Unlike most allometric equations DBH does not work well with palms, but height is typically a very strong indicator of total biomass. It seems that your method is extremely accurate though...error under 5% for carbon biomass is very good.
If you have any paper about biomass of palm, please send me.
I attached a image from exploratory study. Please, see the error of the models to estimate biomass of palm in central amazon. We collect data on the total biomass of 30 palms and developed this Allometric model. We think this issue needs much more research. So I ask my colleagues, about what is being studied.
Aloha Fernando. I unfortunately donʻt have a paper on palms specifically. The assessment we did was for carbon assessment measures in forestry in general, and allometric equation usage was one of the several methods we assessed. It sure seems like your equation is working very well based on that graph. Did you look at an alometric equation based on height? What type of palms are you looking at?