Allometric relationship and biomass expansion factors (BEFs) for above- and below-ground biomass prediction and stem volume estimation for ash (Fraxinus excelsior L.) and oak (Quercus robur L.)

Author

• Jan KrejzaEmail author
• Jan Světlík
• Pavel Bednář

1. 1.
2. 2.
3. 3.

Original Article

First Online: 

26 April 2017

DOI: 10.1007/s00468-017-1549-z

Cite this article as:

Krejza, J., Světlík, J. & Bednář, P. Trees (2017). doi:10.1007/s00468-017-1549-z

Abstract

Key message

Complex overview of biomass structure for oak and ash tree species and wide range of allometric relationships for predicting above- and below-ground biomass components.

Abstract

Due to changing climate conditions, trends in the proportion of the area of major tree species in Europe will tend to show a greater share of lowland tree species composition. The estimation of tree biomass and its components is needed to determine the amount of carbon held in trees and to plan forest resources. This study presents the biomass functions applicable for ash (Fraxinus excelsior L.) and oak (Quercus robur L.) trees growing in floodplain forest of the Czech Republic, which could subsequently be grouped into more efficient generic model for the particular tree species in the Central Europe. It is based on a detailed destructive analysis of six ash and seven oak trees. The range of the basic predictors of sampled trees included: diameter at breast height (DBH) from 21.3 to 69.7 cm, height (H) from 21.0 to 33.9 m, crown length (CL) from 7.6 to 16.3 m and width of crown (CW) from 3.8 to 14.3 m. The allometric relationships were constructed to derive leaf- (LB), shoot- (BsB), branch- (BB), stem- (SB) and root- (RB) biomass components and to derive aboveground- (TAB), which contains SB and BB, and total biomass (TB) comprising all biomass components. Equations for estimating stem volume were developed, which are required for forest management and it is necessary for planning the availability of commercially valuable wood. Finally, biomass expansion factors (BEFs) converting stem volume into biomass components were constructed. The BEFs were slightly positively linear DBH dependent for BsB, BB, TAB and TB, whereas for LB, SB and RB they were shown to be DBH independent across the diameter distribution of the sampled trees.

Keywords

Floodplain forest Root biomass Leaf biomass Branch biomass Shoot biomass Allometry Stem volume Biomass expansion factor 

Communicated by R. Matyssek.

References

1. Albrektson A, Valinger E, Jonson C (1984) Några funktioner för bestämning av tallars biomassa i södra Norrland. Sveriges Skogsvårdsförbunds Tidskrift 82(6):5–12Google Scholar
2. Avery TE, Burkhart H (2002) Forest measurements. McGraw-Hill Companies Inc, New York. ISBN 10: 0073661767
3. Bartelink H (1997) Allometric relationships for biomass and beech leaf area (Fagus sylvatica L.). Ann For Sci 62:39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Beaudet M, Messier C (1998) Growth and morphological responses of yellow birch, sugar maple and beech seedlings growing under a natural light gradient. Can J For Res 28:1007–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Brandini P, Tabacchi G (1996) Biomass and volume equations for holm oak and strawberry-tree in coppice stands of Southern Sardinia. ISAFA Communicazioni di Ricerca 96(1):59–69Google Scholar
6. Briggs EF, Cunia T (1982) Effect of cluster sampling in biomass tables construction: linear regression models. Can J For Res 12(2):255–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Brown S, Schreder P, Kern J (1999) Spatial distribution of biomass in forests of the eastern USA. For Ecol Manag 123(1999):81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Bunce RGH (1968) Biomass and production of trees in a mixed deciduous woodland. I. Girth and height as parameters for the estimation of tree dry weight. J Ecol 56:759–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Chen W, Zhang W, Cihlar J, Bauhus J, Price DT (2004) Estimating fine root biomass and production of boreal and cool temperate forests using aboveground measurements: a new approach. Plant Soil 265:31–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Chroust L (1985) Above-ground biomass of young pine forests (Pinus sylvestris) and its determination. Communicationes Instituti Forestalis Cechosloveniae 14:127–145Google Scholar
11. Cienciala E, Černý M, Alptauer J, Exnerová Z (2005) Biomass functions applicable to European beech. J For Sci 51(4):147–154Google Scholar
12. Cienciala E, Černý M, Tatatinov F, Apltauer J, Exnerová Z (2006) Biomass functions applicable to Scots pine. Trees Struct Funct 20:483–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Cienciala E, Apltauer J, Exnerová Z, Tatarinov F (2008) Biomass functions applicable to oak trees grown in Central-European forestry. J For Sci 54:109–120Google Scholar
14. Curt T, Coll L, Prévosto B, Balandier P, Kunstler G (2005) Plasticity in growth, biomass allocation and root morphology in beech seedlings as induced by irradiance and herbaceous competition. Ann For Sci 62:51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Drexhage M, Chauviere M, Colin F, Nielsen CCN (1999) Development of structural root architecture and allometry of Quercus petraea. Can J For Res 29:600–608. doi:10.1139/x99-027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. FOREST EUROPE (2015) State of Europe’s Forests 2015. Ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe. http://www.foresteurope.org/docs/fullsoef2015.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2017
17. Gschwantner T, Schadauer K (2006) Branch biomass functions for broadleaved tree species in Austria. Aust J For Sci 123:17–34Google Scholar
18. Hanewinkel M, Cullmann DA, Schelhaas MJ, Nabuurs GJ, Zimmermann NE (2013) Climate change may cause severe loss in economic value of European forest land. Nat Clim Change 3:203–207. doi:10.1038/nclimate1687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Hochbichler E (2002) Vorläufige Ergebnisse von Biomasseninventuren in Buchen- und Mittelwaldbeständen. In: Dietrich HP, Raspe S, Preushsler T (eds) Inventur von Biomasse- und Nährstoffvorräten in Waldbeständen. Forstliche Forschungsberichte, Heft 186. LWF, München, Germany, pp 37–46Google Scholar
20. Hochbichler E, Bellos P, Lick E (2006) Biomass functions for estimating needle and branch biomass of spruce (Picea abies) and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) and branch biomass of beech (Fagus sylvatica) and oak (Quercus robur and petraea). Aust J For Sci 123:35–46Google Scholar
21. Iorio A, Lasserre B, Scippa GS, Chiatante D (2005) Root system architecture of Quercus pubescens trees growing on different sloping conditions. Ann Bot 95:351–361CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
22. IPCC (2006) IPCC Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, IGES, JapanGoogle Scholar
23. Jarčuška B, Barna M (2011) Plasticity in above-ground biomass allocation in Fagus sylvatica L. saplings in response to light availability. Ann For Res 54(2):151–160Google Scholar
24. Johansson T (1999) Biomass production of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) growing on abandoned farmland. Silva Fennica 33(4):261–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Joosten R, Schumacher J, Wirth C, Schulte A (2004) Evaluating tree carbon predictions for beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in western Germany. For Ecol Manag 189:87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Kauppi PE, Mielikainen K, Kusela K (1992) Biomass and carbon budget of European forests, 1971 to 1990. Science 256:70–74CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
27. Kint V, Hein S, Campioli M, Muys B (2010) Modelling self-pruning and branch attributes for young Quercus robus L. and Fagus sylvatica L. trees. For Ecol Manag 260(11):2023–2034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Konôpka B, Pajtík J, Marušák R (2015) Biomass allocation influenced by canopy closure in a young spruce stand. J For Sci 61(2):62–71Google Scholar
29. Korsmo H (1995) Weight equations for determining biomass fractions of young hardwoods from natural regenerated stand. Scand J For Res 10:333–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Krejza J, Pokorný R, Marková I (2013) Is allometry for aboveground organ’s mass estimation in young Norway spruce stands affected by different type of thinning? Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis 61(6):1755–1761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31. Krejza J, Světlík J, Pokorný R (2015) Spatially explicit basal area growth of Norway spruce. Trees Struct Funct 29(10):1545–1558. ISSN: 0931-1890. doi:10.1007/s00468-015-1236-x
32. Kunstler G, Curt T, Bouchaud M, Lepart J (2005) Growth, mortality, and the morphological response of European beech and downy oak along a light gradient in a sub-Mediterranean forest. Can J For Res 35:1657–1668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33. Laitat E, Lebègue C, Perrin D, Pissart G (2003) Séquestration du carbone par les forêts selon l’affectation des terres. Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Ruralité, Ministère de la Région Wallonne, Division de la Nature et des Forêts, FuSAGxp
34. Landsberg J, Sands P (2011) Physiological ecology of forest production: principles, processes and models, vol 4. Elsevier, Academic Press, London. ISBN:978-0-12-374460-9
35. Ledermann T, Neumann M (2006) Biomass equations from data of old long-term experimental plots. Aust J For Sci 123:47–64Google Scholar
36. Lee DH (2001) Relationship between above- and below-ground biomass for Norway spruce (Picea abies): estimating root system biomass from breast height diameter. J Korean For Soc 90(3):338–345Google Scholar
37. Lehtonen A (2005) Estimating foliage biomass in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) and Norway spruce (Picea abies) plots. Tree Physiol 25:803–811CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
38. Lehtonen A, Makipaa R, Heikkinen J, Sievanen R, Liski J (2004) Biomass expansion factors (BEFs) for Scots pine, Norway spruce and birch according to stand age for boreal forests. For Ecol Manag 188:211–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39. Lehtonen A, Cienciala E, Tatarinov F, Mäkipää R (2007) Uncertainty estimation of biomass expansion factors for Norway spruce in the Czech Republic. Ann For Sci 64:133–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40. Mälkönen E (1974) Annual primary production and nutrient cycle in some Scots pine stands. Communicationes Instituti Forestalis Fenniae 84(5):1–87Google Scholar
41. Marklund LG (1988) Biomass functions for pine, spruce and birch in Sweden. Department of Forest Surveying, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Report 45, 73s
42. Militký J, Meloun M (1993) Use of the mean quadratic error of prediction for the construction of biased linear models. Anal Chim Acta 277(193):267–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43. Moriasi DN, Arnold JG, Van Liew MW, Bingner RL, Harmel RD, Veith TL (2007) Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans ASABE 50(3):885–900. doi:10.13031/2013.23153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44. Mund M, Kummetz E, Hein M, Bauer GA, Schulze ED (2002) Growth and carbon stocks of a spruce forest chronosequence in Central Europe. For Ecol Manag 171:275–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45. Muukkonen P, Mäkipää R (2006) Biomass equations for European trees: addendum. Silva Fennica 40(4):763–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46. Nihlgård B (1972) Plant biomass, primary production and distribution of chemical elements in a beech and a planted spruce forest in South Sweden. Oikos 23:69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47. Pajtík J, Konôpka B, Lukac M (2011) Individual biomass factors for beech, oak, and pine in Slovakia: a comparative study in young naturally regenerated stands. Trees 25:277–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48. Pautasso M, Aas G, Queloz V, Holdenrieder O (2013) European ash (Fraxinus excelsior) dieback—a conservation biology challenge. Biol Conserv 158(2013):37–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49. Pelíšek J (1975) The dynamics of ecological soil properties in floodplain forest of southern Moravia (Lednice). In: Anonymous (ed) Funkce, produktivita a struktura ekosystému lužního lesa. Vysoká škola zemědělská v Brně, Brno, In Czech, pp 25–40
50. Petrotam AM, Von Lüpke B, Petritan IC (2009) Influence of light availability on growth, leaf morphology and plant architecture of beech (Fagus sylvatica), maple (Acer pseudoplatanus) and ash (Fraxinus excelsior) saplings. Eur J For Res 128:61–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51. Picard N, Saint-André L, Henry M (2012) Manual for building tree volume and biomass allometric equations. From field measurement to prediction. FAO and CIRAD, Rome, Italy, and Montpellier, France. http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3058e/i3058e.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2017
52. Pokorný R, Tomášková I (2007) Allometric relationships for surface area and dry mass of young Norway spruce aboveground organs. J For Sci 53(12):548–554Google Scholar
53. QCExpert 3.3 (2015) TriloByte Statistical Software, Staré Hradiště (CZ), trilobyte.cz
54. Quitt E (1971) Klimatické oblasti Československa: climatic regions of Czechoslovakia. Geografický ústav ČSAV, 1971. Studia Geographica, Brno
55. Roxburgh SH, Paul KI, Clifford D, England JR, Raison RJ (2015) Guidelines for constructing allometric models for the prediction of woody biomass: how many individuals to harvest? Ecosphere 6(3):38. doi:10.1890/ES14-00251.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
56. Šály R (1978) Poda, zaklad lesnej produkcie. Príroda, BratislavaGoogle Scholar
57. Schroeder P, Brown S, Mo J, Birdsey R, Cieszewski C (1997) Biomass estimation for temperate broadleaf forests of the United States using inventory data. For Sci 43:424–434Google Scholar
58. Somogyi Z, Cienciala E, Mäkipää R, Muukkonen P, Lehtonen A, Weiss P (2007) Indirect methods of large scale forest biomass estimation. Eur J For Res 126(2):197–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
59. Tatarinov F, Urban J, Čermák J (2008) The application of “clump technique” for root system studies of Quercus robur and Fraxinus excelsior. For Ecol Manag 255:495–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
60. Thuiller W, Albert C, Araújo M, Berry P, Cabeza M, Guisan A, Hickler T, Midgley G, Paterson J, Schurr F, Sykes M, Zimmermann E (2008) Predicting global change impacts on plant species’ distributions: future challenges. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 9:137–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
61. Thuiller W, Lavergne S, Roquet C, Boulangeat I, Lafourcade B, Araujo M (2011) Consequences of climate change on the tree of life in Europe. Nature 470:531–534CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
62. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) (1997) Kyoto Protocol. http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php. Accessed 1 Dec 2016
63. Van Hees AFM (1997) Growth and morphology of pedunculate oak (Quercus pedunculata) and beech (Fagus sylvatica) seedlings in relation to shading and drought. Ann Sci For 54:9–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
64. Vanninen P, Ylitalo H, Sievänen R, Mäkelä A (1996) Effects of age and site quality on the distribution of biomass in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). Trees 10:231–238Google Scholar
65. Vyskot M (1976) Tree story biomass in lowland forests in South Moravia. Rozpravy CSAV 86(10) Academia, PrahaGoogle Scholar
66. Wirth C, Schumacher J, Schulze ED (2004) Generic biomass functions for Norway spruce in Central Europe a meta-analysis approach toward prediction and uncertainty estimation. Tree Physiol 24:121–139CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
67. Yuste JC, Konôpka B, Janssens I, Coenen K, Xiao CW, Ceulemans R (2005) Contrasting net primary productivity and carbon distribution between neighbouring stands of Quercus robur and Pinus sylvestris. Tree Phyiol 25:701–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
68. Zianis D, Muukkonen P, Mäkipää R, Mencuccini M (2005) Biomass and stem volume equations for tree species in Europe. Silva Fennica Monogr 4:63Google Scholar
69. Zlatnik A (1976) Lesnicka Fytocenologie. SZN Praha

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

For further details log on website :
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00468-017-1549-z