Trunk scatter cannot alone explain forest high-frequency sound attenuation

Evidence

The conclusion may be drawn that scattering by trunks is not the only factor involved in the high-frequency attenuation, even for the spruce monoculture (site 2). Branches and leaves must also contribute. Moreover, the results of data fitting indicate that scattering by trunks accounts for a considerably higher proportion of the attenuation for the spruce monoculture (site 2) and the mixed woodland (site 1 in winter) than for the mixed coniferous (site 3) or the mixed woodland (site 1 ) in summer. This is consistent with the physical differences in the foliage between the various sites since the mixed woodland has considerably more undergrowth and foliage (in summer) than the spruce monoculture, an• the mixed coniferous woodland forms a denser barrier of branches and foliage than that offered by the other two sites. — Margaret A. Price, Keith Attenborough, and Nicholas W. Heap, Sound Attenuation through Trees, 87

Categorization

  • XREF: Core evidence for the leaf-off hypothesis: foliage is an independent attenuator proportional to foliage density, so measuring the same site leaf-on vs leaf-off isolates foliage. — connects to: Woodland attenuation shows a characteristic peak-dip-rise spectral shape — Margaret A. Price, Keith Attenborough, and Nicholas W. Heap, Sound Attenuation through Trees:…, 105; Branch transverse vibrations are the active oscillators in tree sound absorption. — T. F. W. Embleton, Sound Propagation in Homogeneous…, 2; Tree branches, not leaves or twigs, resonate as forced acoustic oscillators near 275-450 cps. — T. F. W. Embleton, Sound Propagation in Homogeneous…, 49 (+6 more)
  • QUESTION: Could the leaf-off leaf-on contrast at one site map onto site-to-site foliage-density gradations reported here as a validity check?

Broader Connections