At 11:08 AM 25/10/94 +0200, YAO YINGMOU (KJAL) wrote: >Your question should have been answered by some one(s) from forest >measurition easily. I don't know why you have not get proper answeres >yet. However, here I am trying to answered your question. I would like to briefly represent the forest mensurationists (despite not being one). Both answers from YingMou and Ken cover many good points, but there are a few other to consider as well. The most commonly cited reason that I have come across for the use of 1.3m/4.5ft or whatever as a measurement point (breast height) is that of history - all the volume tables have been developed using it, all the data bases have it included in their collections, and it would be too expensive to change. So now, although we know that there are better (in the sense of more efficient) places to measure on the bole (e.g. the centroid; those interested should see Wiant, H.V. Jr. et al. (1991)), mostly, it would be too expensive to change the system. As to the reason why these points were chosen in the first place, I direct your attention to previous posts in this thread! Wiant, H.V. Jr., Wood, G.B., Forslund, R.R. (1991) Comparison of centroid and paracone estimates of tree volume. Can. J. For. Res. 21:5 p714-717 Andrew. Andrew Robinson, Phone : + 1 612 625 5765 (work) Dept. of Forest Resources, : + 1 612 644 5512 (home) University of Minnesota, FAX : + 1 612 625 5212 115 Green Hall 1530 North Cleveland Ave. St Paul, 55108-6112, Mn, USA now hit d
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0