Dear Geoff, Thank you for your precise intervention. All translations in following are provided by Treemail, with full disclaimer as usual. At 02:04 PM 2/13/96 GMT+1200, Geoff Fishrer wrote: >I have no knowledge of the Costa Rica teak plantations other than >what I read in this forum. > >Can Paul Romeijn please provide further information on >1. The sampling system used by bailiff. >I note the statement ".. the measurements were made on both thinner >and thicker stems... the thicker stems were predominantly present" >Were trees selected for measurement by a objective method of random >sampling? Is there stocking (stems/hectare) and height data to go >with the diameter data? Were diameters measured at breast height? There exists no reference to sampling method in bailiff's report or in yield tables based on his report. Diameters were taken at breast height. All diameter measurements recorded were given in previous posting. Measurements according to report are as follows: Teakwood 3: "The average height of the trees is around 8 meters" Teakwood 4: "around 9-10 meters" Teakwood 1: "around 16-18 meters" Yield table: Stocking is "1600 Teaktrees per hectare (distance between trees is 2.5 meters)" >2. Are means and confidence intervals available? No. >3. In what way were the ages of the trees measured verified? Unknown to Treemail, but presumed correct. >4. How were yields projected to year 20? 4 times 25% cut. Losses (disease or otherwise) 40 at 1st; 2nd at 80; 3rd at 80; 4th at 40 trees per hectare. Number of trees harvested at each interval: 360, 320, 320, and 360. Cylinder correction of stem -30%. Mean harvestable (ie suited for processing) height at 4th year 8m (75% of total height); minimal expected height increment havestable after yaer 4 is .75m/year. Table gives harvestable height at year 20 of 20m (75% of total height). year 8: 65 year 12: 143 year 16: 286 year 20: 563 total : 1,057 m3 >I acknowledge that Paul Romeijn's posting states: > >> This is not a scientific study. > >However it also contains the following sentence: > >> This report distances itself from the Centeno report because >> that appears sloppy and not-objective. > >Even if I had never read Professor Centeno's report, I would have >felt the same doubts and concerns that he raised, upon reading the >"bailiff's report". The disclaimer that "This is not a >scientific study" does not provide a license to criticise the work of >a scientist as "sloppy and not-objective". > >Please note my two concerns: >1 The lack of information necessary to substantiate the quantitative >claims made in the posting by Paul Romeijn >2 The gratuitous and apparently unwarranted criticism of the quality >of Professor Centeno's report. To 1: Above possibly provides answers to this, in part. To 2: Treemail shares your concern. >I trust that both concerns will be promptly addressed by the >responsible party(s). Please be advised that part of Ministry of Agricluture NL forestry specialists based at IKC/NBLF are subscribed to this list. It is thereby inconcievable that authors of reports and Ministers authors of answers to questions raised in Parliament as refered to in earlier posting would not be aware of the present discussion; this due to the nature of the information provided. Treemail thereby shares your trust re responsible parties.
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0