Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 205–210 | Cite as

Understory cover/biomass relationships in Alabama forest types

  • Linda A. Joyce
  • John E. Mitchell


Foliar cover is often selected over biomass as the variable to sample when inventorying agroforestry systems. To assess forage production, biomass and cover must be satisfactorily correlated. Significant cover/biomass relationships were developed for four major Alabama forest types. Conversion factors varied by forest type. These relationships provide practical application of understory cover measurements taken in forest inventories for use in multiresource assessments and in designing agroforestry systems.

Key words

Forage production understory cover forest range 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Allen DM and Caddy FB (1984) Analyzing experimental data by regression. Wadsworth Publishers, Belmont, California (394 pp)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allen TFH, O'Neil RV and Hoekstra TW (1984) Interlevel relations in ecological research and management: some working principles from hierarchy theory. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-110 (11 pp)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Betters DR (1988) Planning optimal economic strategies for agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems 7: 17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Birdsey RA and McWilliams WH (1986) Midsouth forest area trends. USDA Forest Service Resource Bulletin SO-107 (17 pp)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Daubenmire R (1959) A canopy-coverage method of vegetational analysis. Northwest Science 33: 43–64Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eyre FH, ed (1980) Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC (148 pp + map)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Halls LK and Schuster JL (1965) Tree-herbage relations. Journal of Range Management 63: 282–283Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Humphrey LD (1985) Use of biomass predicted by regression from cover estimates to compare vegetational similarity of sagebrush-grass sites. Great Basin Naturalist 45: 95–98Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Joyce LA and Hoekstra TW (1981) A national perspective on information needs from inventories. In: G. Lund (ed). Forest land inventory workshop: preparing for the 21st century. pp. 218–227. USDA Forest Service, Timber Management, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mitchell JE (1983) Analysis of forage production for assessments and appraisals. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-98 (26 pp)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mitchell JE, Bartling PNS and O'Brien R (1987) Understory cover-biomass relationships in the Front Range ponderosa pine zone. USDA Forest Service Research Note RM-471 (5 pp)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mitchell JE, Bartling PNS and O'Brien R (1988) Comparing cover-class macroplot data with direct estimates from small plots. American Midland Naturalist 120: 70–78Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    O'Brien R and Van Hooser D (1983) Understory vegetation inventory: an efficient procedure. USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-232 (6 pp)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pearson HA and Sternitzke HS (1974) Forest-range inventory: a multiple-use survey. Journal of Range Management 27: 404–407Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pearson HA and Whitaker LB (1974) Yearlong grazing of slash pine ranges: effects on herbage and browse. Journal of Range Management 27: 195–197Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    USDA Forest Service (1984) Forest regeneration of small areas within large grazing allotments. FS-SO-1701–3.8. USDA Southern Forest Experiment Station, Alexandria, Louisiana (31 pp)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wolters GL (1973) Southern pine overstories influence herbage quality. Journal of Range Management 35: 443–446Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linda A. Joyce
    • 1
  • John E. Mitchell
    • 1
  1. 1.Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment StationFt. CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations