Forest Ecology and Management, 28 (1989) 321 321 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam - - Printed in The Netherlands

E r r a t u m

Parresol, B.R. and Thomas, C.E., 1989. A density-integral approach to estimating stem biomass. For. Ecol. Manage., 26: 285-297.

Errors appear in the published version of this paper; the authors request that readers take note of the following corrections:

p. 2 8 6 Para. 2 line 2 "continuous, constant density function" should read "continuous, noncon- stant density function"

p. 2 8 8 Penult imate line "2390) = 6./1" should read "2390) -- 6.1"

p. 2 8 9 Table 3, under column heading for coefficient cl " - 0.15942" should read " - 1.15942" " - 0.16025" should read " - 1.16025"

p. 2 9 0 line 10 "where 59 is dry weight (g)" should read "where & is dry weight (kg)"

p. 291 Table 4 heading should read

Equation bo b, b2 b:~ N FI a S E b

p. 292 Para. 1. The following sentence should be added to the end of the para- graph - - "We used the standard weight-ratio approach for comparison, al- though for perfect comparability a reformulation of the density integral to an upper diameter limit would have been more correct."

pp. 292 a n d 2 9 3 Figs. 2 and 3 y-axis label "RESIDUALS IN LBS" should read "RESIDUALS IN KG"

p. 2 9 4 Solution equation Penult imate line, expression (0.752 - 0.00833 ) 2 should read (0.752 - 0.008332 ) Last line, expression " -14 .282" should read " -0 .14282"

p. 295 (bottom) Solution equation Penult imate line, expression " -15 .838" should read " -0 .15838"

322

Last line, result " + 618.5 kg" should read " = 618.5 kg"

p. 296 Para 2. The last two sentences should be replaced with the following --"Again, we acknowledge a reformulation of the density-integral approach to an upper diameter limit, as in example 2 of the computations, would have been more appropriate for comparing against the weight-ratio approach. Our basic conclusions would not have been greatly affected. Residual patterns are im- proved; however, error variance is comparable".