General considerations about the use of allometric equations for biomass estimation on the example of Norway spruce in central Europe

Abstract Allometric relations for tree growth modelling have been subject to research for decades, partly as empirical models, and partly as process models such as the pipe model, hydraulic architecture, mechanical approaches or the fractal-like nature of plant architecture. Unlike empirical studies, process models aim at explaining the scaling within tree architecture as a function of biological, physical or mechanical factors and at modelling their effect on functionality and growth of different parts of an individual tree. The goal of the underlying study is to link theoretical explanation to empirical approaches of tree biomass estimation by the example of Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.). Decisively, this article tries to take allometry out of the purely curve-fitting exercise common in literature and derives implications for the use of allometric biomass functions. Our results demonstrate that the dbh as independent variable might be misleading for the comparison of universal scaling laws with empirical studies. We were able to show, that the use of a recalculated diameter in relative stem height by means of a taper form model confirms general biological implications better than the dbh measured at a fixed tree height. We used a compiled dataset of altogether 245 trees that were measured on different sites in central Europe to proof our consideration. As one result we estimated a scaling factor b of 2.65 for the allometric relation (agb = a D 0.1 b ) between a diameter in relative stem height (D0.1) and aboveground biomass (agb), which is close to scaling relations predicted by process models. The standard error of a linear regression model based on the log-transformed variables could be slightly reduced to 0.21 (R2 = 0.98) when we used the diameter in relative tree height.

[1]  James H. Brown,et al.  The fourth dimension of life: fractal geometry and allometric scaling of organisms. , 1999, Science.

[2]  B. Enquist Universal scaling in tree and vascular plant allometry: toward a general quantitative theory linking plant form and function from cells to ecosystems. , 2002, Tree physiology.

[3]  Christian Wirth,et al.  Generic biomass functions for Norway spruce in Central Europe--a meta-analysis approach toward prediction and uncertainty estimation. , 2004, Tree physiology.

[4]  Maurizio Mencuccini,et al.  On simplifying allometric analyses of forest biomass , 2004 .

[5]  A. Cowie,et al.  Developing general allometric relationships for regional estimates of carbon sequestration - an example using 'Eucalyptus pilularis' from seven contrasting sites , 2005 .

[6]  Geoffrey B. West,et al.  Scaling in Biology , 2000 .

[7]  F. Raulier,et al.  Canadian national tree aboveground biomass equations , 2005 .

[8]  K. Niklas Plant allometry: is there a grand unifying theory? , 2004, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[9]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  The role of area 17 in visual imagery: convergent evidence from PET and rTMS. , 1999, Science.

[10]  Robert R. Archer,et al.  Tree Design: Some Biological Solutions to Mechanical Problems , 1979 .

[11]  J. Chambers,et al.  Tree allometry and improved estimation of carbon stocks and balance in tropical forests , 2005, Oecologia.

[12]  James H. Brown,et al.  A general model for ontogenetic growth , 2001, Nature.

[13]  H. H. Bartelink,et al.  A model of dry matter partitioning in trees. , 1998, Tree physiology.

[14]  H. Fitzhugh,et al.  Analysis of growth curves and strategies for altering their shape. , 1976, Journal of animal science.

[15]  J. Huxley Problems of relative growth , 1932 .

[16]  G. Baskerville Use of Logarithmic Regression in the Estimation of Plant Biomass , 1972 .

[17]  James H. Brown,et al.  A general model for the structure and allometry of plant vascular systems , 1999, Nature.

[18]  S. T. Gower,et al.  Direct and Indirect Estimation of Leaf Area Index, fAPAR, and Net Primary Production of Terrestrial Ecosystems , 1999 .

[19]  Q. Ketterings,et al.  Reducing uncertainty in the use of allometric biomass equations for predicting above-ground tree biomass in mixed secondary forests , 2001 .

[20]  D. Gafrey Tree mechanics, hydraulics and needle-mass distribution as a possible basis for explaining the dynamics of stem morphology , 2001 .

[21]  R. Samson,et al.  Inventory-based carbon stock of Flemish forests: a comparison of European biomass expansion factors , 2004 .

[22]  Karl J Niklas,et al.  Global Allocation Rules for Patterns of Biomass Partitioning in Seed Plants , 2002, Science.

[23]  J. Huxley Constant Differential Growth-Ratios and their Significance , 1924, Nature.

[24]  Christian Wirth,et al.  Evaluating tree carbon predictions for beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in western Germany , 2004 .

[25]  James H. Brown,et al.  Allometric scaling of plant energetics and population density , 1998, Nature.

[26]  Kichiro Shinozaki,et al.  A STATICAL MODEL OF PLANT FORM-FURTHER ANALYSIS OF THE PIPE MODEL THEORY , 1979 .

[27]  James H. Brown,et al.  A General Model for the Origin of Allometric Scaling Laws in Biology , 1997, Science.

[28]  Ernst-Detlef Schulze,et al.  Growth and carbon stocks of a spruce forest chronosequence in central Europe , 2002 .

[29]  D. Sprugel,et al.  Correcting for Bias in Log‐Transformed Allometric Equations , 1983 .

[30]  H. Pretzsch,et al.  A Re-Evaluation of Reineke's Rule and Stand Density Index , 2005, Forest Science.

[31]  M. Černý,et al.  Biomass of picea abies (L.) Karst. in midwestern bohemia , 1990 .

[32]  Karl J Niklas,et al.  On the Vegetative Biomass Partitioning of Seed Plant Leaves, Stems, and Roots , 2002, The American Naturalist.

[33]  T. Kira,et al.  A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PLANT FORM-THE PIPE MODEL THEORY : I.BASIC ANALYSES , 1964 .

[34]  R. Ceulemans,et al.  Above- and belowground biomass and net primary production in a 73-year-old Scots pine forest. , 2003, Tree physiology.

[35]  C A Mitchell,et al.  Mechanical stress regulation of plant growth and development. , 1995, Horticultural reviews.

[36]  Raisa Mäkipää,et al.  Biomass and stem volume equations for tree species in Europe , 2005, Silva Fennica Monographs.

[37]  Sandra A. Brown Measuring carbon in forests: current status and future challenges. , 2002, Environmental pollution.

[38]  H. Madgwick,et al.  On Estimating the Aboveground Weights of Tree Stands , 1975 .

[39]  R. Baritz,et al.  Forests and the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory of Germany , 2000 .

[40]  D. J. Finney On the Distribution of a Variate Whose Logarithm is Normally Distributed , 1941 .

[41]  Lindsay B. Hutley,et al.  Allometry for estimating aboveground tree biomass in tropical and subtropical eucalypt woodlands: towards general predictive equations , 2005 .

[42]  Juha Heikkinen,et al.  Biomass expansion factors (BEFs) for Scots pine, Norway spruce and birch according to stand age for boreal forests , 2003 .

[43]  Hans Pretzsch,et al.  Modellierung des Waldwachstums , 2001 .

[44]  B. Parresol Assessing Tree and Stand Biomass: A Review with Examples and Critical Comparisons , 1999, Forest Science.

[45]  P. Duvigneaud,et al.  Biological Cycling of Minerals in Temperate Deciduous Forests , 1973 .

[46]  W. Mendenhall,et al.  A Second Course in Statistics: Regression Analysis , 1996 .

[47]  R. Birdsey,et al.  National-Scale Biomass Estimators for United States Tree Species , 2003, Forest Science.

[48]  Giorgio Alberti,et al.  Aboveground biomass relationships for mixed ash (Fraxinus excelsior L. and Ulmus glabra Hudson) stands in Eastern Prealps of Friuli Venezia Giulia (Italy) , 2005 .

[49]  Matthias Schmidt Prognosemodelle für ausgewählte Holzqualitätsmerkmale wichtiger Baumarten , 2002 .