> A 10 cm trunk diameter pine is not a tree, is a... (let's invent a new word for this) a 'treeddler', a baby.
The claim is that the number of trees was dramatically underestimated in previous studies. Which definition of tree was used doesn't make a difference as long as the same definition was used in the previous studies. Unfortunatly this is not made explicit in the article, anyone knows?
The claim is that the number of trees was dramatically underestimated in previous studies. Which definition of tree was used doesn't make a difference as long as the same definition was used in the previous studies. Unfortunatly this is not made explicit in the article, anyone knows?