# Thread: Estimating the volume/mass of a tree?

1. I was reading up on some methods of estimating the mass or volume of a tree, and understand there is a conoid method as well as a paraboloid method.

So I tried using these calculations to estimate both the volume and mass of 1 tree. My parameters used were the tree diameter at breast height, and height of the tree. The paraboloid method always gives a higher estimation than the conoid method, even with data from different trees... it's quite consistent.

I was wondering if this implies any shortcoming with one method over the other? Or is this to be expected?

Am I right to understand that this consistent higher estimate arises from some kind of bias?

Which method is supposed to be more accurate?

2.

3. According to this site, it depends on which part you are measuring.

Tree shape

Parts of a tree stem tend to approximate truncated parts of these common shapes. The base of the tree tends to be neiloid while the tip tends to be conoid. The main part of the bole tends to be paraboloid.

4. Most places seem to emphasize that measurements should be taken at breast height, so that would imply that the paraboloid method is most commonly used. Would there be any bias introduced in this case?

5. I think the idea is that tree trunks are different shapes, so you use the shape that most closely matches what you have. Some models use a combination of shapes for different sections of the tree, others assume either conoid or parabaloid, with some tree varieties approximated best by a conoid, others by a paraboloid. This is just what I gathered from reading a couple of web pages. I don't really know much about it.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement