While in general I concur with Wayne's view that "all kinds" of site variables 
can affect tree height and dbh - most meaningfully, asymptotic tree height - I 
disagree with the flip statement that "mean annual anything as independent 
variables are next to worthless". My colleagues and I have a paper we are about 
to submit that predicts max tree height from two "mean anything" environmental 
variables over a 600-km transect with an r2 = 0.88. That is NOT "next to 
worthless".

Thomas J. Givnish
Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany
University of Wisconsin

[email protected]
http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html




On 03/08/13, Wayne Tyson  wrote:
> Dev (and Ecolog):
> 
> Climate is highly variable from place-to-place, even in the "same" location, 
> and "all kinds" of site variables can affect tree height and dbh (not to 
> mention age). Mean annual anything as independent variables are next to 
> worthless (or worse, misleading) unless you have years, decades, to devote to 
> the project (and even then they are very questionable), largely because such 
> variable can vary too much from year to year. DBH is a very crude measure, 
> and cores are also crude (except for the single tree being cored).
> 
> I must be missing something if this is the way "most contemporary studies" 
> are done. I hope someone can point out the errors of my thinking.
> 
> WT
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "D Chakraborty" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 5:51 AM
> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] need help
> 
> 
> Dear Colleagues
> I am working on developing growth response functions to investigate the
> effects of climate on growth performance of Douglas fir provenances. Most
> of the contemporary studies use multivariate models with tree height at
> specific age as dependent variable and climate parameters(eg. Mean annual
> temperature, degree days , Annual heat mositure index etc) as independent
> variable.
> 
> We all know that tree height is least influenced by management and
> therefore its most logical to use tree height as the dependent variable.
> However in my case I have very little tree height data.
> 
> In this circumstance I am looking for your valuable opinion that can
> justify the use of DBH as a dependent variable.
> 
> Looking forward to hearing from you.
> best regards
> Dev
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Debojyoti Chakraborty
> Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter
> Department of forest and soil sciences, Universität für Bodenkultur Wien
> Ph: Vienna +43 6764871296 (m)
> 
> Lecturer, Amity Institute of Global Warming and Ecological Studies
> Amity University campus, Block D, II floor,Sector 125, NOIDA
> India www.amity.edu/aigwes
> India +919868001750 (M India), 01204392562 (O) 0120-4392606 (Fax)
> alternate email id: [email protected], [email protected]
> skype: d-chakraborty
> 
> 
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1430 / Virus Database: 2641/5656 - Release Date: 03/08/13

--

Reply via email to