What Would a Tree Say About Its Size?

Larjavaara, Markku (2021) What Would a Tree Say About Its Size? Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 8. ISSN 2296-701X

[thumbnail of pubmed-zip/versions/1/package-entries/fevo-08-564302/fevo-08-564302.pdf] Text
pubmed-zip/versions/1/package-entries/fevo-08-564302/fevo-08-564302.pdf - Published Version

Download (415kB)

Abstract

When developing theories, designing studies, and interpreting the results, researchers are influenced by their perception of tree size. For example, we may compare two trees of the same size belonging to different species, and attribute any differences to dissimilarities between the species. However, the meaning of “same size” depends on the measures of size used. Wood density influences certain measures, such as biomass, but does not influence e.g., trunk diameter. Therefore, the choice of the measure of size can reverse any conclusions. Hence, it is import to consider which measure of size should be used. I argue that the most common measure of size, i.e., trunk diameter, is often a bad choice when wood density varies, as diameter is then not directly related to processes important in evolution. When trees with equal diameters but differing wood densities are compared, the tree with denser wood is larger if the measure of size is related to construction cost or trunk strength, a proxy of leaf area. From this perspective, the comparison is then conducted between a biologically larger heavy-wooded tree and a smaller light-wooded tree, and the differences between the trees may be caused by size instead of wood density. Therefore, trunk biomass and strength may often be more suitable measures of size, as they reflect the construction cost and biomechanical potency linked to leaf area crown height, often too challenging to estimate more directly. To assess how commonly inadequate measures of tree size have been used, I reviewed 10 highly cited journal articles. None of these 10 articles discussed the impact of wood density on biological size, and instead based the analyses on diameters or basal areas. This led to conclusions that could change or even reverse in an analysis based on biomass or strength. Overall, I do not suggest avoiding the use of diameter, but I recommend considering result sensitivity to the measure of size, particularly in studies ones with variable wood densities.

Item Type: Article
Subjects: STM Article > Social Sciences and Humanities
Depositing User: Unnamed user with email support@stmarticle.org
Date Deposited: 17 Jul 2023 08:02
Last Modified: 05 Mar 2024 04:15
URI: http://publish.journalgazett.co.in/id/eprint/1862

Actions (login required)

View Item
View Item