, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 91–102 | Cite as

Structural relationships between form factor, wood density, and biomass in African savanna woodlands

  • Matthew S. Colgan
  • Tony Swemmer
  • Gregory P. Asner
Original Paper


Key message

Variation in tree biomass among African savanna species of equal size is driven by a wide inter-specific variation in wood specific gravity.


Tree form and taper is a fundamental component of tree structure and has been used for over a century in forestry to estimate timber yields and in ecological theories of scaling laws. Here, we investigate variation in form factor in the context of biomass in African savannas. Biomass is a fundamental metric of vegetation state, yet in African savannas it remains unclear whether variation in form factor F (taper) or wood specific gravity (G) is a more dominant driver of biomass differences between tree species of equal stem diameter and height. Improving our knowledge of vertical mass distribution in savanna trees provides insight into differences in life strategies, such as tradeoffs between production, disturbance avoidance, and water storage. Here, we destructively harvested 782 stems in a savanna woodland near Kruger National Park, South Africa, and measured whole tree wet mass, wood specific gravity, water content, and form factor. We found that three of four dominant species can vary in mass by over twofold, yet inter-specific variation in taper was low and taper did not vary significantly between common species (P > 0.05) (species-mean form factors ranged from F = 0.57 to 0.77, where cone F = \(0.\bar{3}\), quadratic paraboloid F = 0.5, cylinder F = 1.0). Comparison of a general biomass allometry model to species-specific models supported the conclusion that the large difference in biomass between species of the same size was explained almost entirely (R2 = 0.97) by including species-mean G with D and H in a general allometric equation, where F was constant. Our results suggest that inter-specific variation in wood density, not form factor, is the primary driver of biomass differences between species of the same size. We also determined that a simple analytical volume-filling model accurately relates wood specific gravity of these species to their water and gas content (R2 = 0.68). These results indicate which species use a wide spectrum of water storage strategies in savanna woodlands, adhering to a trade-off between the benefits of denser wood or increased water storage.


Form factor Biomass Destructive harvest Savanna woodland South Africa 

Supplementary material

468_2013_932_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (81 kb)
Supplementary material (PDF 82 kb)


  1. Asner G, Mascaro J, Muller-Landau H, Vieilledent G, Vaudry R, Rasamoelina M, Hall J, van Breugel M (2012) A universal airborne LiDAR approach for tropical forest carbon mapping. Oecologia 168(4):1147–1160. doi:10.1007/s00442-011-2165-z PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atjay GL, Ketner P, Duvigneaud P (1979) Terrestrial primary production and phytomass. In: Bolin B, Degens E, Kempe S, Ketner P (eds) The global carbon cycle, SCOPE 13. Wiley, Chichester, pp 129–182Google Scholar
  3. Baker TR, Phillips OL, Malhi Y, Almeida SAS, Arroyo L, Di Fiore A, Erwin T, Killeen TJ, Laurance SG, Laurance WF, Lewis SL, Lloyd J, Manteagudo A, Neill DA, Patino S, Pitman NCA, Natalino J, Silva M, Martinez RV (2004) Variation in wood density determines spatial patterns in Amazonia forest biomass. Glob Change Biol 10:545–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baskerville G (1972) Use of logarithmic regression in the estimation of plant biomass. Can J For Res (Revue Canadienne De Recherche Forestiere) 2:49–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown S, Gillespie AJR, Lugo AE (1989) Biomass estimation methods for tropical forests with application to forest inventory. For Sci 35:881–902Google Scholar
  6. Cannell M (1984) Woody biomass of forest stands. For Ecol Manag 8(3–4):299–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chave J, Andalo C, Brown S, Cairns MA, Chambers JQ, Eamus D, Fölster H, Fromard F, Higuchi N, Puig H, Riéra B, Yamakura T (2005) Tree allometry and improved estimation of carbon stocks and balance in tropical forests. Oecologia 145:87–99. doi:10.1007/s00442-005-0100-x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chidumayo EN (1990) Above-ground woody biomass structure and productivity in a Zambezian woodland. For Ecol Manag 36(1):33–46. doi:10.1016/0378-1127(90)90062-G CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Colgan MS, Asner GP, Levick SR, Martin RE, Chadwick OA (2012) Topo-edaphic controls over woody plant biomass in South African savannas. Biogeosci Discuss 9(1):957–987. doi:10.5194/bgd-9-957-2012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Colgan MS, Asner GP, Swemmer T (2013) Harvesting tree biomass at the stand level to assess the accuracy of field and airborne biomass estimation in savannas. Ecol Appl 23(5):1170–1184. doi:10.1890/12-0922.1 Google Scholar
  11. Dawkins HC (1961) Estimating total volume of some Caribbean trees. Caribb For 22:62–63Google Scholar
  12. Dawkins HC (1963) The productivity of tropical high-forest trees and their reaction to controlled environment. Ph.D. Thesis, University of OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. de Oliveira AA, Mori SA (1999) A central Amazonian terra firme forest. I. High tree species richness on poor soils. Biodivers Conserv 8(9):1219–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gartner BL, Moore JR, Gardiner BA (2004) Gas in stems: abundance and potential consequences for tree biomechanics. Tree Physiol 24(11):1239–1250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gray HR (1956) The form and taper of forest-tree stems. Imperial Forestry Institute, University of OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Gray H (1966) Principles of forest tree and crop volume growth: a mensuration monograph. Aust Bull For Timber Bur 42Google Scholar
  17. Kellogg RM, Wangaard FF (1969) Variation in the cell-wall density of wood. Wood Fiber Sci 1(3):180–204Google Scholar
  18. King DA (1986) Tree form, height growth, and susceptibility to wind damage in Acer saccharum. Ecology 67(4):980–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. King D, Loucks OL (1978) The theory of tree bole and branch form. Radiat Environ Biophys 15(2):141–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Larson PR (1963) Stem form development of forest trees. For Sci 9(Supplement 5):a0001Google Scholar
  21. McMahon T (1973) Size and shape in biology. Science 179(4079):1201–1204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Metzger K (1893) Der Wind als massgebender Faktor fur das Wachsthum der Baume. Mundener Forstl 3:35–86Google Scholar
  23. Metzger K (1894) Die absoluten Schaftformzahlen der Fichte. Mundener Forstl 6:87–93Google Scholar
  24. Mucina L MC Rutherford, Rutherford MC (2006) Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. South African National Biodiversity Institute, PretoriaGoogle Scholar
  25. Naidoo L, Cho M, Mathieu R, Asner G (2012) Classification of savanna tree species, in the Greater Kruger National Park region, by integrating hyperspectral and LiDAR data in a Random Forest data mining environment. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 69:167–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nickless A, Scholes RJ, Archibald S (2011) A method for calculating the variance and confidence intervals for tree biomass estimates obtained from allometric equations. S Afr J Sci 107(5–6):86–95Google Scholar
  27. Niklas KJ (1993) Influence of tissue density-specific mechanical properties on the scaling of plant height. Ann Bot 72(2):173–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Niklas KJ (1995) Size-dependent allometry of tree height, diameter and trunk-taper. Ann Bot 75(3):217–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Niklas KJ, Spatz H-C (2004) Growth and hydraulic (not mechanical) constraints govern the scaling of tree height and mass. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101(44):15661–15663Google Scholar
  30. Poorter L (2008) The relationships of wood-, gas-and water fractions of tree stems to performance and life history variation in tropical trees. Ann Bot 102(3):367–375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pressler MR (1864) Das Gesetz der Stammbildung. Arnoldische Buchhandlung, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  32. Schwendener S (1874) Das mechanische Prinzip im anatomischen Bau der Monokotylen. Wilhelm Engelmann, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  33. Simpson WT (1993) Specific gravity, moisture content, and density relationship for wood. Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL-GTR-76. USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, WIGoogle Scholar
  34. Stamm AJ (1964) Wood and cellulose science. The Roland Press Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew S. Colgan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tony Swemmer
    • 3
  • Gregory P. Asner
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Global EcologyCarnegie Institution for ScienceStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Department of Environmental Earth System ScienceStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  3. 3.South African Environmental Observation NetworkPhalaborwaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations