, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 325–337 | Cite as

Comparison of different approaches of radiation use efficiency of biomass formation estimation in Mountain Norway spruce

  • Lenka KrupkováEmail author
  • Irena Marková
  • Kateřina Havránková
  • Radek Pokorný
  • Otmar Urban
  • Ladislav Šigut
  • Marian Pavelka
  • Emil Cienciala
  • Michal V. Marek
Original Article


Key message

Radiation use efficiency values estimation based on the biomass increment (one approach) and on NPP from eddy covariance (two approaches) estimation of NPP brings the values of 0.13, 0.40, and 0.47 g (C) MJ −1 , respectively.


The productivity of terrestrial ecosystems is primarily reliant on the absorption of solar radiation energy and its conversion into biomass. Monteith (1977) first introduced the concept of radiation use efficiency (RUE), which expresses the effectiveness of a plant stand to use solar radiation for the formation of new biomass and to maintain existing biomass. The presented paper uses a long-term, decadal, time series of biomass data, which is based on forest inventory data and an allometric relation, and on the application of eddy covariance (EC) estimation of Net Primary Production (NPP). These approaches provide different values of light use efficiency (LUE). LUE is based on direct carbon exchange estimation, LUE i , which denotes instantaneous efficiency based on the relationship between the daily sum of incident global radiation (GR i ) and NPP and LUES, calculated as the ratio between the sum of NPP and the sum of GR i per growing season. RUE is based on direct yearly biomass increment expressed in carbon units (carbon = 0.5 × biomass) divided by the sum of GR i per year. The obtained values amount to 0.13, 0.40, and 0.47 g(C) MJ−1 for RUE, LUES, and LUE i , respectively. The higher value of LUE i reflects a direct relation with the efficiency of photosynthetic carbon pumping. In contrast, the RUE value, based on biomass inventories, is the result of woody mass formation that is caused by several mutually related physiological processes and “wastages” of radiation utilization.


Solar radiation Biomass increment Carbon flux light use efficiency 



This work was supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of CR within the National Sustainability Program I (NPU I), Grant Number LO1415 and within the CzeCOS program, Grant Number LM2015061. Authors thank Alice Dvorská for the initial cooperation and useful remarks. We also thank Ryan McGloin for valuable language corrections.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All benefits from a state or commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript and to the authors are acknowledged.


  1. Amthor JS (2010) From sunlight to phytomass: on the potential efficiency of converting solar radiation to phyto-energy. New Phytol 188:939–959CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Arkebauer TJ, Weiss A, Sinclair TR, Blum A (1994) In defense of radiation use efficiency: a response to Demetriades-Shah et al. (1992). Agric For Meteorol 68:221–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aubinet M, Grelle A, Ibrom A, Rannik Ü, Moncrieff J, Foken T, Kowalski AS, Martin PH, Berbigier P, Bernhofer Ch, Clement R, Elbers J, Granier A, Grünwald T, Morgenstern K, Pilegaard K, Rebmann C, Snijders W, Valentini R, Vesala T (2000) Estimates of the Antal net carbon and water exchange of European forests: the EUROFLUX methodology. Adv Ecol Res 30:113–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baldocchi D, Hicks B, Meyers T (1988) Measuring biosphere-atmosphere exchanges of biologically related gases with micrometeorological methods. Ecology 69:1331–1340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cai T, Black A, Jassal RS, Morgenstern K, Nesic Z (2009) Incorporating diffuse photosynthetically active radiation in a single-leaf model of canopy photosynthesis for a 56-year-old Douglas-fir forest. Int J Biometeorol 53:135–148CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cannell MGR, Milne R, Sheppard LJ, Unsworth MH (1987) Radiation interception and productivity of willow. J Appl Ecol 24:261–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chapin FS III, Woodwell GM, Randerson JT, Rastetter EB, Lovett GM, Baldocchi DD, Clark DA, Harmon ME, Schimel DS, Valentini R, Wirth C, Aber JD, Cole JJ, Goulden ML, Harden JW, Heimann M, Howarth RW, Matson PA, McGuire AD, Melillo JM, Mooney HA, Neff JC, Houghton RA, Pace ML, Ryan MG, Running SW, Sala OE, Schlesinger WH, Schulze ED (2006) Reconciling carbon-cycle concepts, terminology, and methods. Ecosystems 9:1041–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coombs J, Hall DO, Long SP, Scurlock JMO (1985) Techniques in Bioproductivity and Photosynthesis. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. DeLucia EH, George K, Hamilton JG (2002) Radiation-use efficiency of a forest exposed to elevated concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Tree Physiol 22:1003–1010CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dungan RJ, Whitehead D (2006) Modelling environmental limits to light use efficiency for a canopy of two broad-leaved tree species with contrasting leaf habit. NZJ Ecol 30:251–259Google Scholar
  11. Formánek P, Rejšek K, Vránová V, Klejdus B (2008) Selected diamino acids in soils of differently managed mountain meadow and forest ecosystems: assessment of their role in the ecosystem nutrition. In: Schäfer HA, Wohlbier LM (eds) Diamino Amino Acids, 2nd edn. Nova Science Publishers, New York, pp 182–218Google Scholar
  12. Friedman JH (1991) Multivariate adaptive regression splines. Ann Stat 19:1–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Geider RJ, Delucia EH, Falkowski PG, Finzi AC, Grime JP, Grace J, Kana TM, La Roche J, Long SP, Osborne BA, Platt T, Prentice IC, Raven JA, Schlesinger WH, Smetacek V, Stuart V, Sathyendranath S, Thomas RB, Vogelmann TC, Williams P, Woodward FI (2001) Primary productivity of planet earth: biological determinants and physical constraints in terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Glob Chang Biol 7:849–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gough CM, Vogel CS, Schmid HP, Su HB, Curtis PS (2008) Multi-year convergence of biometric and meteorological estimates of forest carbon storage. Agric For Meteorol 148:158–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grace JC, Jarvis PG, Norman JM (1987) Modelling the interception of solar energy in intensively managed stands. NZJ For Sci 17:193–209Google Scholar
  16. Granier A, Bréda N, Longdoz B, Gross P, Ngao J (2008) Ten years of fluxes and stand growth in a young beech forest at Hesse, North-eastern France. Ann For Sci 65:704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Green CF (1987) Nitrogen nutrition and wheat growth in relation to absorbed solar radiation. Agric For Meteorol 41:207–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hember RA, Coops NC, Black TA, Guy RD (2010) Simulating gross primary production across a chronosequence of coastal Douglas-fir forest stands with a production efficiency model. Agric For Meteorol 150:238–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hilker T, Coops NC, Wulder MA, Black TA, Guy RD (2008) The use of remote sensing in light use efficiency based models of gross primary production: A review of current status and future requirements. Sci Total Environ 404:411–423CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Högberg P, Löfvenius MO, Nordgren A (2009) Partitioning of soil respiration into its autotrophic and heterotrophic components by means of tree-girdling in old boreal spruce forest. For Ecol Manag 257:1764–1767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jarvis PG, Leverenz JW (1983) Productivity of temperate, deciduous and evergreen forests. In: Lange OL, Nobel PS, Osmond CB, Ziegler H (eds) Physiological Plant Ecology IV. Encyclopedia of Plant Physiology, New series, vol. 2D. Springer, New York, pp 233–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jenkins PJ, Richardson AD, Braswell BH, Ollinger SV, Hollinger DY, Smith ML (2007) Refining light-sue efficiency calculations for a deciduous forest canopy using simultaneous tower-based carbon flux and radiometric measurements. Agric For Meteorol 143:64–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jolly WM, Dobbertin M, Zimmermann NE, Reichstein M (2005) Divergent vegetation growth responses to the 2003 heat wave in the Swiss Alps. Geophys Res Lett 32:18. doi: 10.1029/2005GL023252 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kho RM (2000) On crop production and the balance of available resources. Agric Ecosyst Environ 80:71–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kratochvílová I, Janouš D, Marek MV, Barták M, Říha L (1989) Production activity of mountain cultivated Norway spruce stands under the impact of air pollution. 1. General description of problems. Ekol CSFR 8:407–419Google Scholar
  26. Krejza J, Pokorný R, Marková I (2013) Is allometry for aboveground organ’s mass estimation in young Norway spruce stands affected by different type of thinning? Acta Univ Agric et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis 61:1755–1761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lagergren F, Eklund L, Grelle A, Lundblad M, Mölder M, Llankreujer H, Lindhort A (2005) Net primary production and light use efficiency in a mixed coniferous forest in Sweden. Plant Cell Environ 28:412–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Landsberg JJ, Sands P (2010) Physiological ecology of forest production: principles, processes and models. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Li L, Lu S, Chiang V (2006) A genomic and molecular view of wood formation. Crit Rev Plant Sci 25:215–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Linder S (1985) Potential and actual production in Australian forest stands. In: Landsberg JJ, Parson W (eds) Research for forest management. CSIRO, Melbourne, pp 11–35Google Scholar
  31. Litton CM, Raich JW, Ryan MG (2007) Carbon allocation in forest ecosystems. Glob Chang Biol 13:2089–2109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lloyd J, Taylor JA (1994) On the temperature dependence of soil respiration. Funct Ecol 8:315–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Luyssaert S, Inglima I, Jung M, Richardson AD, Reichstein M, Pappale D, PIiao SL, Schulze ED, Wingate L, Matteuci G, Aragao L, Aubinet M, Beer C, Bernhofer C, Black KG, Bonal D, Bonnefond JM, Chambers J, Ciais P, Cook B, Davis KJ, Dolman AJ, Gielen B, Goulden M, Grace J, Granier A, Grelle A, Griffis T, Grünwald T, Guidolotti G, Hanson PJ, Harding R, Hollinger DY, Hutyra IR, Kolari P, Kruijt B, Kutsch W, Lagergren F, Laurila T, Law BE, le Maire G, Lindroth A, Loustau D, Malhi Y, Mateus J, Migliavacca J, Misson I, Montagnani I, Moncrieff J, Moors E, Munger JW, Nnikinmaa E, Ollinger SV, Pita G, Rebmann C, Roupsard O, Saigusa N, Sanz MJ, Ssierra C, Smith ML, Tang J, Valentini R, Vesala T, Janssens IA (2007) CO2 balance of boreal, temperate, and tropical forests derived from a global database. Glob Chang Biol 13:2509–2537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Malcolm GM, Lopéz-Gutierrez JC, Koide RT (2009) Temperature sensitivity of respiration differs among forest floor layers in a Pinus resinosa plantation. Soil Biol Biochem 41:1075–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marek MV, Pirochtová M, Marková I (1992) Production activity of mountain cultivated Norway spruce stands under the impact of air pollution. 2. Vertical distribution of photosynthetic activity in the stand canopy. Ekol CSFR 11:121–132Google Scholar
  36. Marek MV, Marková I, Kalina J, Janouš D (1997) Effect of thinning on parameters of photosynthesis characteristics of Norway spruce canopy 1: Light penetration and photosynthesis. Lesnictvi (Prague) 43:141–153Google Scholar
  37. Marek MV, Šprtová M, Špunda V, Kalina J (1999) Response of sun versus shade foliage photosynthesis to radiation in Norway spruce. Phyton 39:131–138Google Scholar
  38. Marková I, Rožnovský J, Janous D (2003) Evaluation and reconstruction of global radiation at Bílý Kříž (The Czech Republic). Ekol Bratislava 22:85–97Google Scholar
  39. McMurtrie RE (1991) Relationship of forest productivity to nutrient and carbon supply-a modeling analysis. Tree Physiol 9:87–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. McMurtrie RE, Wang YP (1993) Mathematical models of the photosynthetic response of tree stands to rising CO2 concentrations and temperatures. Plant Cell Environ 16:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Medlyn BE (1998) Physiological basis of the light use efficiency model. Tree Physiol 18:167–176CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Monson RK, Lipson DL, Burns SP, Turnipseed AA, Delany AC, Williams MW, Schmidt SK (2006) Winter forest soil respiration controlled by climate and microbial community composition. Nature 439:711–714CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Monteith JL (1972) Solar radiation and productivity in tropical ecosystems. J Appl Ecol 9:747–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Monteith JL (1977) Climate and efficiency of crop production in Britain. Philos Trans R Soc Lond 281:277–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Monteith JL (1994) Discussion validity of the correlation between intercepted radiation and biomass. Agric For Meteorol 68:213–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pendall E, Heisler-White JL et al (2013) Warming reduces carbon losses from grassland exposed to elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide. PLoS One 8:e71921CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Pokorný R, Marek MV (2000) Test of accuracy of LAI estimation by LAI-2000 under artificially changed leaf to wood area proportions. Biol Plant 43:517–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pokorný R, Tomášková I (2007) Allometric relationships for surface area and dry mass of Norway spruce aboveground organs. J For Sci 53:548–554Google Scholar
  49. Pokorný R, Tomášková I, Havránková K (2008) Temporal variation and efficiency of leaf area index in young mountain Norway spruce stand. Eur J For Res 127:359–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reichstein M, Falge E, Baldocchi D et al (2005) On the separation of net ecosystem exchange into assimilation and ecosystem respiration: review and improved algorithm. Glob Chang Biol 11:1424–1439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Roupsard O, Le Maire G, Nouvellon Y, Dauzat J, Jourdan C, Navarro M, Rouzière A (2009) Scaling-up productivity (NPP) using light or water use efficiencies (LUE, WUE) from a two-layer tropical plantation. Agrofor Syst 76:409–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rowland L, Malhi Y, Silva-Espejo J, Farfán-Amézquita F, Halladay K, Doughty CE, Phillips OL (2014) The sensitivity of wood production to seasonal and interannual variations in climate in a lowland amazonian rainforest. Oecologia 174:295–306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Ruimy A, Dedieu G et al (1996) TURC: A diagnostic model of continental gross primary productivity and net primary productivity. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 10:269–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Running SW, Thornton PE, Nemani R, Glassy JM (2000) Global terrestrial gross and net primary productivity from the earth observing system. In: Sala OE, Jackson RB, Mooney HA, Howarth RW (eds) Methods in ecosystem science. Springer, New York, pp 44–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sands PJ (1993) Modelling canopy production. III. Canopy light-utilization efficiency and its sensitivy to physiological and environmental parameters. Aust J Plant Physiol 23:103–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Saura-Mas S, Estiarte M, Peñuelas J, Lloret F (2012) Effects of climate change on leaf litter decomposition across post-fire plant regenerative groups. Environ Exp Bot 77:274–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Trnka M, Eitzinger J, Hlavinka P et al (2009) Climate-driven changes of production regions in Central Europe. Plant Soil Environ 55:257–266Google Scholar
  58. Trnka M, Brazdil R, Dubrovsky M et al (2011) A 200-year climate record in Central Europe: implications for agriculture. Agron Sustain Dev 31:631–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Turner DP, Gower ST, Cohen WB et al (2002) Effects of spatial variability in light use efficiency on satellite based NPP model monitoring. Remote Sens 80:397–405Google Scholar
  60. Turner DP, Urbanski S, Bremer D, Wofsy SC, Meyer T, Gower ST, Gergory M (2003) A cross-biome comparison of daily light use efficiency for gross primary production. Glob Chang Biol 9:383–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wang YP, Jarvis PG (1990) Description and validation of an array model - MAESTRO. Agric For Meteorol 51:257–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wang YP, Jarvis PG, Taylor CMA (1991) PAR absorption and its relation to above-ground dry matter production of Sitka Spruce. J Appl Ecol 28:547–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wang X, Fang J, Zhu B (2008) Forest biomass and root-shoot allocation in northeast China. For Ecol Manag 255:4007–4020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Waring RH (1987) Characteristics of trees predisposed to die. Bioscience 37:569–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Yuan W, Liu S, Zhou G, Tieszen LL, Baldocchi D, Bernhofer C, Gholz H, Goldstein AH, Goulden ML, David Y, Hollinger DY, Hu Y, Lawn BE, Stoy PC, Vesala T, Wofsy SC (2007) Deriving a light use efficiency model from eddy covariance flux data for predicting daily gross primary production across biomes. Agric For Meteorol 143:189–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Global Change Research Institute CASBrnoCzech Republic
  2. 2.MendelGlobe-Climate Change and Managed Ecosystems, Faculty of Forestry and Wood TechnologyMendel UniversityBrnoCzech Republic
  3. 3.IFER-Institute of Forest Ecosystem ResearchJílové u PrahyCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations