Stephenson et al.'s ecological fallacy

TL;DR

The paper critiques Stephenson et al.'s claim that tree mass increment increases continuously, highlighting that their analysis suffers from ecological fallacy, thus questioning the validity of their conclusions about tree growth patterns.

Contribution

It identifies and explains the ecological fallacy in Stephenson et al.'s analysis, challenging their conclusion of continuous mass increment increase.

Findings

Stephenson et al. claim continuous mass growth in trees.

Their analysis is affected by ecological fallacy.

The conclusion about growth patterns is unsupported.

Abstract

After more than a century of research the typical growth pattern of a tree was thought to be fairly well understood. Following germination height growth accelerates for some time, then increment peaks and the added height each year becomes less and less. The cross sectional area (basal area) of the tree follows a similar pattern, but the maximum basal area increment occurs at some time after the maximum height increment. An increase in basal area in a tall tree will add more volume to the stem than the same increase in a short tree, so the increment in stem volume (or mass) peaks very late. Stephenson et al. challenge this paradigm, and suggest that mass increment increases continuously. Their analysis methods however are a textbook example of the ecological fallacy, and their conclusions therefore unsupported.