Dear all,
Is it just a matter of preference or is there a solid theoretical basis for using the DBH instead basal area as a proxy for the size of a tree?
Hello Neptali; During the Great Depression of the 1930s in the USA a federal public works program (Civilian Conservation Corps) developed a program in which tree species of commercial value were selected for sampling. Individuals of various age classes of each species were literally dug up. Roots, branches and foliage were separately measured and weighed. DBH was selected as the most accurate proxy. That study simply could not be done today! The cost would be prohibitive. My father was a young recruit in that program at the time. :-) Best regards, Jim Des Lauriers
Thanks James, I liked your answer and I have learned something new from the history behind the Great Depression.
Basal area is for determining tree density whereas DBH is used for determining the volume, biomass, and carbon storage of trees :)
Hi Dr. Neptalí, the height-diameter relationship can be found in Poorter et al. 2006
Article Architecture of 54 moist-forest tree species: Traits, trade-...
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology