> 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 dramat

> 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?