@article {Brown:1989:0015-749X:881,
title = "Biomass Estimation Methods for Tropical Forests with Applications to Forest Inventory Data",
journal = "Forest Science",
parent_itemid = "infobike://saf/fs",
publishercode ="saf",
year = "1989",
volume = "35",
number = "4",
publication date ="1989-12-01T00:00:00",
pages = "881-902",
itemtype = "ARTICLE",
issn = "0015-749X",
url = "http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/saf/fs/1989/00000035/00000004/art00003",
keyword = "ratio estimators, regression analysis, Global carbon cycle, expansion factors",
author = "Brown, Sandra and Gillespie, Andrew J. R. and Lugo, Ariel E.",
abstract = "This paper contains a strategy for estimating total aboveground biomass of tropical forests. We developed regression equations to estimate aboveground biomass of individual trees as a function of diameter at breast height, total height, wood density, and Holdridge life zone (sensu Holdridge 1967). The regressions are applied to some 5,300 trees from 43 independent sample plots, and 101 stand tables from large-scale forest inventories in four countries, to estimate commercial and total aboveground biomass per unit area by forest type, and to estimate expansion factors defined as the ratio of aboveground to commercial biomass. The quadratic stand diameter (QSD, i.e., the diameter of a tree of average basal area) in a given forest stand influences the magnitude of the expansion factor. Stands of small trees have large expansion factors (up to 6.4), and as QSD increases, the expansion factor decreases to a constant value (about 1.75). For undisturbed forests in moist, moist transition to dry, and dry life zones respectively, the expansion factors for total aboveground biomass were 1.74, 1.95, and 1.57 respectively. For undisturbed, logged, and nonproductive forest categories used by the FAO to report global commercial wood volume data, we estimated expansion factors of 1.75, 1.90, and 2.00 respectively. Applying these factors to FAO data results in a 28 to 47% increase in previous volume-derived estimates of tropical forest biomass. However, estimates of tropical forest biomass based on small destructive samples continue to be high relative to estimates based on volume data. For. Sci. 35(4):881-902.",
}