Measurements of stem diameter: implications for individual- and stand-level errors.

Stem diameter is one of the most common measurements made to assess the growth of woody vegetation, and the commercial and environmental benefits that it provides (e.g. wood or biomass products, carbon sequestration, landscape remediation). Yet inconsistency in its measurement is a continuing source of error in estimates of stand-scale measures such as basal area, biomass, and volume. Here we assessed errors in stem diameter measurement through repeated measurements of individual trees and shrubs of varying size and form (i.e. single- and multi-stemmed) across a range of contrasting stands, from complex mixed-species plantings to commercial single-species plantations. We compared a standard diameter tape with a Stepped Diameter Gauge (SDG) for time efficiency and measurement error. Measurement errors in diameter were slightly (but significantly) influenced by size and form of the tree or shrub, and stem height at which the measurement was made. Compared to standard tape measurement, the mean systematic error with SDG measurement was only -0.17 cm, but varied between -0.10 and -0.52 cm. Similarly, random error was relatively large, with standard deviations (and percentage coefficients of variation) averaging only 0.36 cm (and 3.8%), but varying between 0.14 and 0.61 cm (and 1.9 and 7.1%). However, at the stand scale, sampling errors (i.e. how well individual trees or shrubs selected for measurement of diameter represented the true stand population in terms of the average and distribution of diameter) generally had at least a tenfold greater influence on random errors in basal area estimates than errors in diameter measurements. This supports the use of diameter measurement tools that have high efficiency, such as the SDG. Use of the SDG almost halved the time required for measurements compared to the diameter tape. Based on these findings, recommendations include the following: (i) use of a tape to maximise accuracy when developing allometric models, or when monitoring relatively small changes in permanent sample plots (e.g. National Forest Inventories), noting that care is required in irregular-shaped, large-single-stemmed individuals, and (ii) use of a SDG to maximise efficiency when using inventory methods to assess basal area, and hence biomass or wood volume, at the stand scale (i.e. in studies of impacts of management or site quality) where there are budgetary constraints, noting the importance of sufficient sample sizes to ensure that the population sampled represents the true population.

Testing the generality of above-ground biomass allometry across plant functional types at the continent scale.

Accurate ground-based estimation of the carbon stored in terrestrial ecosystems is critical to quantifying the global carbon budget. Allometric models provide cost-effective methods for biomass prediction. But do such models vary with ecoregion or plant functional type? We compiled 15 054 measurements of individual tree or shrub biomass from across Australia to examine the generality of allometric models for above-ground biomass prediction. This provided a robust case study because Australia includes ecoregions ranging from arid shrublands to tropical rainforests, and has a rich history of biomass research, particularly in planted forests. Regardless of ecoregion, for five broad categories of plant functional type (shrubs; multistemmed trees; trees of the genus Eucalyptus and closely related genera; other trees of high wood density; and other trees of low wood density), relationships between biomass and stem diameter were generic. Simple power-law models explained 84-95% of the variation in biomass, with little improvement in model performance when other plant variables (height, bole wood density), or site characteristics (climate, age, management) were included. Predictions of stand-based biomass from allometric models of varying levels of generalization (species-specific, plant functional type) were validated using whole-plot harvest data from 17 contrasting stands (range: 9-356 Mg ha(-1) ). Losses in efficiency of prediction were <1% if generalized models were used in place of species-specific models. Furthermore, application of generalized multispecies models did not introduce significant bias in biomass prediction in 92% of the 53 species tested. Further, overall efficiency of stand-level biomass prediction was 99%, with a mean absolute prediction error of only 13%. Hence, for cost-effective prediction of biomass across a wide range of stands, we recommend use of generic allometric models based on plant functional types. Development of new species-specific models is only warranted when gains in accuracy of stand-based predictions are relatively high (e.g. high-value monocultures).