, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 266–272 | Cite as

Allometric relationships for estimating the aboveground phytomass and leaf area of mangrove Kandelia candel (L.) Druce trees in the Manko Wetland, Okinawa Island, Japan

  • Md. Nabiul Islam Khan
  • Rempei Suwa
  • Akio HagiharaEmail author
Original Article


Allometric relationships for estimating the phytomass of aboveground organs (stem, branches, leaves and their sum) and the leaf area in the mangrove Kandelia candel (L.) Druce were investigated. The variable D0.12H (D0.1 stem diameter at a height of H/10, H tree height) showed better accuracy of estimation than D2 (D, DBH) or D2H. A moderate relationship was found when the branch weight, leaf weight and leaf area were plotted against DB2 (DB stem diameter at a height of clear bole length). A strong linear relationship was found between leaf area and leaf weight (R2=0.979). The aboveground weight (wT) showed a strong relationship when plotted against D0.12H (R2=0.958), but very weak relationships were obtained against D2 (R2=0.300) and D2H (R2=0.316). The wT also showed a proportional relationship (R2=0.978) to D0.12H with a proportional constant of 0.04117 kg cm−2 m−1 (R2=0.978). Taking into account the allometric relationships of the weight of aboveground organs or leaf area per tree to different dimensions, such as D2, D2H, DB2 and D0.12H, a standard procedure for estimating the biomass and leaf area index in the K. candel stand, including the shorter trees, is proposed.


Allometric equation Aboveground organs Mangrove Stem diameter at a height of clear bole length Stem diameter at a height of one-tenth of tree height 



We are grateful to the following people who provided invaluable assistance for the collection of data: L. Alhamd, S.M. Feroz and T. Kouda. We would like to thank Frances Mammana who helped with the English style of the manuscript. We also thank the Ministry and Environment, Japan, for access to the wildlife sanctuary, and Tomigusuku Community for permitting us the use of their land. This study was partially supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (nos. 16651009 and 16201009) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan, and by the 21st Century COE program of the University of the Ryukyus.


  1. Amarasinghe MD, Balasubrananiam S (1992) Net primary productivity of two mangrove forests stands on the northwestern coast of Sri Lanka. Hydrobiologia 247:37–47Google Scholar
  2. Attiwill PM (1962) Estimating branch dry weight and leaf area from measurement of branch girth in Eucalyptus. For Sci 8:132–141Google Scholar
  3. Clough BF, Scott K (1989) Allometric relationships for estimating aboveground biomass in six mangrove species. For Ecol Manage 27:117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clough BF, Dixon P, Dalhaus O (1997) Allometric relationships for estimating biomass in multi-stemmed mangrove trees. Aust J Bot 45:1023–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Day JW, Conner WH, Ley-Lou F, Day RH, Navarro AM (1987) The productivity and composition of mangrove forests, Laguna de Términos, Mexico. Aquat Bot 27:267–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Golley F, Odum HT, Wilson RF (1962) The structure and metabolism of a Puerto Rican red mangrove forest in May. Ecology 43:9–19Google Scholar
  7. Hagihara A, Yokota T, Ogawa K (1993) Allometric relations in hinoki (Chamaecyparis obtusa (Sieb. et Zucc.) Endl.) trees. Bull Nagoya Univ For 12:11–29Google Scholar
  8. Hogarth PJ (1999) The biology of mangroves. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Hosokawa T, Tagawa H, Chapman VJ (1977) Mangals of Micronesia, Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines and Oceania. In: Chapman VJ (ed) Wet coastal ecosystems. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 271–291Google Scholar
  10. Khan MNI, Suwa R, Hagihara A, Ogawa K (2004) Interception of photosynthetic photon flux density in a mangrove stand of Kandelia candel (L.) Druce. J For Res 9:205–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kira T (1977) A climatological interpretation of Japanese vegetation zones. In: Miyawaki A, Tüxen R (eds) Vegetation science and environmental protection. Maruzen, Tokyo, pp 21–30Google Scholar
  12. Komiyama A, Havanond S, Srisawatt W, Mochida Y, Fujimoto K, Ohnishi T, Ishihara S, Miyagi T (2000) Top/root biomass ratio of a secondary mangrove (Ceriops tagal (Perr.) C.B. Rob.) forest. For Ecol Manage 139:127–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kusmana C, Sabiham S, Abe K, Watanabe H (1992) An estimation of above ground tree biomass of a mangrove forest in East Sumatra, Indonesia. Tropics 1:243–257Google Scholar
  14. Kvålseth TO (1985) Cautionary note about R2. Am Stat 39:279–285Google Scholar
  15. Lugo AE, Snedaker SC (1974) The ecology of mangroves. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 5:39–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mackey AP (1993) Biomass of the mangrove Avicennia marina (Forsk.) Vierh. near Brisbane, south-eastern Queensland. Aust J Mar Freshwater Res 44:721–725Google Scholar
  17. Monsi M, Saeki T (1953) Über den Lichtfaktor in den pflanzengesellschaften und seine Bedeutung für die Stoffproduktion. Jpn J Bot 14:22–52Google Scholar
  18. Nakasuga T (1979) Analysis of the mangrove stand (in Japanese with English summary). Bull Coll Agric Univ Ryukyus 26:413–519Google Scholar
  19. Nakasuga T, Ôyama H, Haruki M (1974) Studies on the mangrove community. I. The distribution of the mangrove community in Japan (in Japanese with English summary). Jpn J Ecol 24:237–246Google Scholar
  20. Ogawa H, Kira T (1977) Methods of estimating forest biomass. In: Shidei T, Kira T (eds) Primary productivity of Japanese forests. Productivity of terrestrial communities. University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, pp 15–25, 35–36Google Scholar
  21. Ong JE, Gong WK, Wong CH (2004) Allometry and partitioning of the mangrove, Rhizophora apiculata. For Ecol Manage 188:395–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Poungparn S, Komiyama A, Patanaponpaipoon P, Jintana V, Sangatiean T, Tanapermpool P, Piriyayota S, Maknual C, Kato S (2002) Site-independent allometric relationships for estimating above-ground weights of mangroves. Tropics 12:147–158Google Scholar
  23. Putz FE, Chan HT (1986) Tree growth, dynamics, and productivity in a mature mangrove forest in Malaysia. For Ecol Manage 17:211–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ross MS, Ruiz PL, Telesnicki GJ, Meeder JF (2001) Estimating above-ground biomass and production in mangrove communities of Biscayne National Park, Florida (USA). Wetlands Ecol Manage 9:27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Saenger P, Snedaker SC (1993) Pantropical trends in mangrove above-ground biomass and annual litterfall. Oecologia 96:293–299Google Scholar
  26. Sheue C, Liu H, Yong JWH (2003) Kandelia obovata (Rhizophoraceae), a new mangrove species from Eastern Asia. Taxon 52:287–294Google Scholar
  27. Shinozaki K, Yoda K, Hozumi K, Kira T (1964) A quantitative analysis of plant form—the pipe model theory. II. Further evidence of the theory and its application in forest ecology. Jpn J Ecol 14:133–139Google Scholar
  28. Suzuki E, Tagawa H (1983) Biomass of a mangrove forest and a sedge marsh on Ishigaki Island, south Japan. Jpn J Ecol 33:231–234Google Scholar
  29. Tamai S, Nakasuga T, Tabuchi R, Ogino K (1986) Standing biomass of mangrove forests in southern Thailand. J Jpn For Soc 68:384–388Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Md. Nabiul Islam Khan
    • 1
  • Rempei Suwa
    • 1
  • Akio Hagihara
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Laboratory of Ecology and Systematics, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of the RyukyusOkinawaJapan

Personalised recommendations