A critical review of forest biomass estimation models, common mistakes and corrective measures
By G. Sileshi. 2014
420 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Environmental Engineering, Global and Planetary Change, Nature and Landscape Conservation
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/85138a16b88772e686c7813151de9a3e9ca57aac
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Environmental Engineering
In Global and Planetary Change
- D. Forrester
- Jürgen Bauhus
- Olivier Bouriaud
- Bonaventure Sonké
- Adam Benneter
- Vivien Rossi
- Uta Berger
- M. Henry
In Nature and Landscape Conservation
- D. Forrester
- Jürgen Bauhus
- Olivier Bouriaud
- Bonaventure Sonké
- Adam Benneter
- Vivien Rossi
- Pierre Couteron
- Uta Berger
Citations in the corpus
- Closing a gap in tropical forest biomass estimation: taking crown mass variation into account in pantropical allometries (2016, background): “For instance, models m1 and m2 calibrated on DataCM2 led to a variance inflation factor (VIF) of 5.4 and 8.8, respectively, which is higher than the range of values commonly considered as critical (2–5; Sileshi, 2014).”
- Diversity and competition influence tree allometric relationships – developing functions for mixed‐species forests (2017, background): “In reality, however, many studies have shown that b is not invariant for any of these relationships and that the frequency distribution of b is not necessarily centered on the value of b predicted by the geometric or metabolic scaling theories (Coomes 2006; Pretzsch 2006; Ducey 2012; Lines et al. 20”