Advertisement

Trees

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 807–817 | Cite as

Evaluating a non-destructive method for calibrating tree biomass equations derived from tree branching architecture

  • David W. MacFarlane
  • Shem Kuyah
  • Rachmat Mulia
  • Johannes Dietz
  • Catherine Muthuri
  • Meine Van Noordwijk
Original Paper

Abstract

Key message

Functional branch analysis (FBA) is a promising non-destructive method that can produce accurate tree biomass equations when applied to trees which exhibit fractal branching architecture.

Abstract

Functional branch analysis (FBA) is a promising non-destructive alternative to the standard destructive method of tree biomass equation development. In FBA, a theoretical model of tree branching architecture is calibrated with measurements of tree stems and branches to estimate the coefficients of the biomass equation. In this study, species-specific and mixed-species tree biomass equations were derived from destructive sampling of trees in Western Kenya and compared to tree biomass equations derived non-destructively from FBA. The results indicated that the non-destructive FBA method can produce biomass equations that are similar to, but less accurate than, those derived from standard methods. FBA biomass prediction bias was attributed to the fact that real trees diverged from fractal branching architecture due to highly variable length–diameter relationships of stems and branches and inaccurate scaling relationships for the lengths of tree crowns and trunks assumed under the FBA model.

Keywords

Tree biomass Functional branch analysis Fractal geometry Allometry 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the World Wildlife Fund and the Global Environmental Facility of the United Nations, members of the Carbon Benefits Project at Michigan State University and ICRAF offices in Kisumu and Nairobi, Kenya, without whose support the data used in this study would not have been generated. The authors would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers for suggestions to improve the quality of this manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to report regarding this submission.

References

  1. Brown S (1997) Estimating biomass and biomass change of tropical forests: a primer. FAO Forestry Paper-134. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown SAJ, Gillespie JR, Lugo AE (1989) Biomass estimation methods for tropical forests with application to forest inventory data. For Sci 35(4):881–902Google Scholar
  3. Burgess I (1988) Provenance trials of Eucalyptus grandis and E. saligna in Australia. Silvae Genetica 37:221–227Google Scholar
  4. Chave J, Riera B, Dubois M (2001) Estimation of biomass in a neotropical forest of French Guiana: spatial and temporal variability. J Trop Ecol 17:79–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chave J, Andalo C, Brown S, Cairns MA, Chambers JQ, Eamus D, Fölster H, Fromard F, Higuchi N, Kira T, Lescure J-P, Nelson BW, Ogawa H, Puig H, Riéra B, Yamakura T (2005) Tree allometry and improved estimation of carbon stocks and balance in tropical forests. Oecologia 145(1):78–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark NA, Wynne RA, Schmoldt DL (2000) A review of past research on dendrometers. For Sci 46(4):570–576Google Scholar
  7. Eloy C (2011) Leonardo’s rule, self-similarity and wind-induced stresses in trees. Phys Rev Lett 107:1–5. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.258101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Enquist BJ (2002) Universal scaling in tree and vascular plant allometry: toward a general quantitative theory linking plant form and function from cells to ecosystems. Tree Physiol 22:1045–1064PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gibbs HK, Brown S, Niles JO, Foley JA (2007) Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDD a reality. Environ Res Lett 2:045023. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/2/4/045023
  10. Henry M, Tittonell P, Manlay RJ, Bernoux M, Albrecht A, Vanlauwe B (2009) Biodiversity, carbon stocks and sequestration potential in aboveground biomass in smallholder farming systems of western Kenya. Agric Ecosyst Environ 129:238–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kuyah S, Dietz J, Muthuri C, Jamnadass R, Mwangi P, Coe R, Neufeldt H (2012) Allometric equations for estimating biomass in agricultural landscapes: I. aboveground biomass. Agric Ecosyst Environ 158:216–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mäkelä A, Valentine HT (2006) Crown ratio influences allometric scaling in trees. Ecology 87(12):2967–2972PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ozier-Lafontaine H, Lecompte F, Sillon JF (1999) Fractal analysis of the root architecture of Gliricidia sepium for the spatial prediction of root branching, size and mass: model development and evaluation in agroforestry. Plant Soil 209:167–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rousseeuw PJ (1984) Least median of squares regression. J Am Stat Assoc 79(388):871–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Salas E, Ozier-lafontaine H, Nygren P (2004) A fractal root model applied for estimating the root biomass and architecture in two tropical legume tree species. Ann For Sci 61:337–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Santos-Martin F, Navarro-Cerrillo R, Mulia R, van Noordwijk M (2010) Allometric equations based on a fractal branching model for estimating aboveground biomass of four native tree species in the Philippines. Agrofor Syst 78:193–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shinozaki K, Yoda K, Hozumi K, Kira T (1964a) A quantitative analysis of plant form—the pipe model theory I. Basic analysis. Jpn J Ecol 14:97–105Google Scholar
  18. Shinozaki K, Yoda K, Hozumi K, Kira T (1964b) 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
  19. Smith DM (2001) Estimation of tree root lengths using fractal branching rules: a comparison with soil coring for Grevillea robusta. Plant Soil 229:295–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Souter NJ, Watts RA, White MG, George AK, McNicol KM (2010) A conceptual model of tree behaviour improves the visual assessment of tree condition. Ecol Ind 10:1064–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Van Noordwijk M, Mulia R (2002) Functional branch analysis as tool for fractal scaling above- and belowground trees for their additive and non-additive properties. Ecol Model 149:41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Van Noordwijk M, Purnomosidhi P (1995) Root architecture in relation to tree-soil-crop interactions and shoot pruning in agroforestry. Agrofor Syst 30:161–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Van Noordwijk M, Spek LY, De Willigen P (1994) Proximal root diameter as predictor of total root size for fractal branching models I. Theory. Plant Soil 164:107–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. West P (2009) Tree and Forest measurement, 2nd edn. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. West GB, Brown JH, Enquist BJ (1999) A general model for the structure and allometry of plant vascular systems. Nature 400:664–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wiemann MC, Williamson GB (2011) Testing a novel method to approximate wood specific gravity of trees. For Sci 58(6):577–591Google Scholar
  27. Zeide B (1998) Fractal analysis of foliage distribution in loblolly pine crowns. Can J For Res 28:106–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • David W. MacFarlane
    • 1
  • Shem Kuyah
    • 2
    • 3
  • Rachmat Mulia
    • 4
  • Johannes Dietz
    • 5
  • Catherine Muthuri
    • 2
    • 3
  • Meine Van Noordwijk
    • 4
  1. 1.Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT)NairobiKenya
  3. 3.World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)NairobiKenya
  4. 4.World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)BogorIndonesia
  5. 5.World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)Lima 12Peru

Personalised recommendations