Advertisement

Ecosystems

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 261–278 | Cite as

Environmental and Biotic Controls over Aboveground Biomass Throughout a Tropical Rain Forest

  • Gregory P. AsnerEmail author
  • R. Flint Hughes
  • Timothy A. Varga
  • David E. Knapp
  • Ty Kennedy-Bowdoin
Article

Abstract

The environmental and biotic factors affecting spatial variation in canopy three-dimensional (3-D) structure and aboveground tree biomass (AGB) are poorly understood in tropical rain forests. We combined field measurements and airborne light detection and ranging (lidar) to quantify 3-D structure and AGB across a 5,016 ha rain forest reserve on the northeastern flank of Mauna Kea volcano, Hawaii Island. We compared AGB among native stands dominated by Metrosideros polymorpha found along a 600–1800 m elevation/climate gradient, and on three substrate-age classes of 5, 20, and 65 kyr. We also analyzed how alien tree invasion, canopy species dominance and topographic relief influence AGB levels. Canopy vertical profiles derived from lidar measurements were strong predictors (r 2 = 0.78) of AGB across sites and species. Mean AGB ranged from 48 to 363 Mg ha−1 in native forest stands. Increasing elevation corresponded to a 53–84% decrease in AGB levels, depending upon substrate age. Holding climate constant, changes in substrate age from 5 to 65 kyr corresponded to a 23–53% decline in biomass. Invasion by Psidium cattleianum and Ficus rubiginosa trees resulted in a 19–38% decrease in AGB, with these carbon losses mediated by substrate age. In contrast, the spread of former plantation tree species Fraxinus uhdei corresponded to a 7- to 10-fold increase in biomass. The effects of topographic relief at both local and regional scales were evident in the AGB maps, with poorly drained terrain harboring 76% lower biomass than forests on well-drained relief. Our results quantify the absolute and relative importance of environmental factors controlling spatial variation in tree biomass across a rain forest landscape, and highlight the rapid changes in carbon storage incurred following biological invasion.

Key words

airborne remote sensing alien invasive species biological invasion carbon storage Hawaii lidar light detection and ranging substrate age tropical forest vegetation structure 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank R. Martin, D. Okita, G. Sanchez, and the HETF field crew for field, laboratory, airborne, and/or logistical support. We thank M. Keller for early advice on the study. The Carnegie Airborne Observatory is funded by the W.M. Keck Foundation and William Hearst III. Application of the Carnegie Airborne Observatory to this study was supported by the Carnegie Institution and the USDA Forest Service. Access to field sites was provided by the State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources-Division of Forestry and Wildlife.

Supplementary material

10021_2008_9221_MOESM1_ESM.doc (243 kb)
(DOC 243 kb)

References

  1. Aplet GH, Vitousek PM. 1994. An age-altitude matrix analysis of Hawaiian rain-forest succession. Journal of Ecology 82:137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aplet G, Hughes FR, Vitousek PM. 1998. Ecosystem development on Hawaiian lava flows: biomass and species composition. Journal of Vegetation Science 9:17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armstrong RW, Ed. 1983. Atlas of Hawaii. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
  4. Asner GP, Knapp DE, Kennedy-Bowdoin T, Jones MO, Martin RE, Boardman J, Field CB. 2007. Carnegie Airborne Observatory: in-flight fusion of hyperspectral imaging and waveform light detection and ranging (LiDAR) for three-dimensional studies of ecosystems. J Appl Remote Sens 1:doi: 10.1117/1111.2794018
  5. Asner GP, Hughes RF, Vitousek PM, Knapp DE, Kennedy-Bowdoin T, Boardman J, Martin RE, Eastwood M, Green RO. 2008. Invasive plants transform the 3-D structure of rainforests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences  10.1073/pnas.0710811105
  6. Bhatt YD, Rawat YS, Singh SP. 1994. Changes in ecosystem functioning after replacement of forest by Lantana shrubland in the Kumaun Himalaya. Journal of Vegetation Science 5:67–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown S, Lugo AE. 1984. Biomass of tropical forests: a new estimate based on forest volumes. Science 223:1290–1293.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown S, Pearson T, Slaymaker D, Ambagis S, Moore N, Novelo D, Sabido W. 2005. Creating a virtual tropical forest from three-dimensional aerial imagery to estimate carbon stocks. Ecological Applications 15:1083–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlson NK, Bryan LW. 1963. The Honaunau Forest: an appraisal after seven years of planting. Journal of Forestry 61:643–647.Google Scholar
  10. Chadwick OA, Derry LA, Vitousek PM, Huebert BJ, Hedin LO. 1999. Changing sources of nutrients during four million years of ecosystem development. Nature 397:491–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chave J, Chust G, Condit R, Aguilar S, Hernandez A, Lao S, Perez R. 2004. Error propagation and scaling for tropical forest biomass estimates. In: Malhi Y, Phillips O, Eds. Tropical forests and global atmospheric change. Oxford University Press: London. 155–166.Google Scholar
  12. 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. doi:  10.1007/s00442–005-0100-x
  13. Clark DA. 2002. Are tropical forests an important carbon sink? Reanalysis of the long-term plot data. Ecological Applications 12:3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cordell S, Goldstein G, Mueller-Dombois D, Webb D, Vitousek PM. 1998. Physiological and morphological variation in Metrosideros polymorpha, a dominant Hawaiian tree species, along an altitudinal gradient: The role of phenotypic plasticity. Oecologia (Berlin) 113:188–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crews TE, Kitayama K, Fownes JH, Riley RH, Herbert DA, Mueller-Dombois D, Vitousek PM. 1995. Changes in soil phosphorus fractions and ecosystem dynamics across a long chronosequence in Hawaii. Ecology 76:1407–1424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DLNR. 1989. Laupahoehoe natural area reserve management plan. Natural area reserve system. Honolulu, Hawaii: Department of Land and Natural ResourcesGoogle Scholar
  17. Drake JB, Dubayah RO, Knox RG, Clark DB, Blair JB. 2002. Sensitivity of large-footprint lidar to canopy structure and biomass in a neotropical rainforest. Remote Sensing of Environment 81:378–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Drake JB, Knox RG, Dubayah RO, Clark DB, Condit R, Blair JB, Hofton M. 2003. Above-ground biomass estimation in closed canopy neotropical forests using lidar remote sensing: Factors affecting the generality of relationships. Global Ecology and Biogeography 12:147–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ehrenfeld JG. 2003. Effects of exotic plant invasions on soil nutrient cycling processes. Ecosystems 6:503–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Francis JK. 1990. Fraxinus uhdei (Wenzig) Lingelsh. USDA Forest Service Technical Report SO-ITF-SM–28. USDA Forest ServiceGoogle Scholar
  21. Giambelluca TW, Nullet MA, Schroeder TA. 1986. Rainfall Atlas of Hawaii. Honolulu: Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii, p 267Google Scholar
  22. Houghton RA, Skole DL, Nobre CA, Hackler JL, Lawrence KT, Chomentowski WH. 2000. Annual fluxes of carbon from deforestation and regrowth in the Brazilian Amazon. Science 403:301-304.Google Scholar
  23. Huenneke LF, Vitousek PM. 1990. Seedling and clonal recruitment of the invasive tree Psidium cattleianum: implications for management of native Hawaiian forests. Biological Conservation 53:199–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hughes RF, Kauffman JB, Cummings DL. 2002. Dynamics of aboveground and soil carbon and nitrogen stocks and cycling of available nitrogen along a land-use gradient in Rondonia, Brazil. Ecosystems 5:244–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Keller M, Palace M, Hurtt G. 2001. Biomass estimation in the Tapajos National Forest, Brazil: examination of sampling and allometric uncertainties. Forest Ecology and Management 154:371–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Laurance WF, Fearnside PM, Laurance SG, Delamonica P, Lovejoy TE, Rankin-de Merona JM, Chambers JQ, Gascon C. 1999. Relationship between soils and Amazon forest biomass: a landscape-scale study. Forest Ecology and Management 118:127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lefsky MA, Cohen WB, Acker SA, Parker GG, Spies TA, Harding D. 1999. Lidar remote sensing of the canopy structure and biophysical properties of Douglas-fir western hemlock forests. Remote Sensing of Environment 70:339–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lefsky MA, Cohen WB, Harding DJ, Parker GG, Acker SA, Gower ST. 2002a. Lidar remote sensing of above-ground biomass in three biomes. Global Ecology and Biogeography 11:393–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lefsky MA, Cohen WB, Parker GG, Harding DJ. 2002b. Lidar remote sensing for ecosystem studies. BioScience 52:19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lefsky MA, Harding DJ, Keller M, Cohen WB, Carabajal CC, Espirito-Santo FDB, Hunter MO, Oliveira Jr.R. 2005. Estimates of forest canopy height and aboveground biomass using ICESat. Geophysical Research Letters 32:L22S02, doi: 10.1029/2005GL023971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morsdorf F, Kotz B, Meier E, Itten KI, Allgower B. 2006. Estimation of LAI and fractional cover from small footprint airborne laser scanning data based on gap fraction. Remote Sensing of Environment 104:50–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mueller-Dombois D. 1987. Natural dieback in forests. BioScience 37:575–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Palace M, Keller M, Asner GP, Hagen S, Braswell B. 2008. Amazon forest structure from IKONOS satellite data and the automated characterization of forest canopy properties. Biotropica 40:141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Phillips OL, Mahli Y, Higuchi N, Laurance WF, Núñez PV, Vázquez RM, Laurance SG, Fereira LV, Stern M, Brown S, Grace J. 1998. Changes in the carbon balance of tropical forests: Evidence from long-term plots. Science 282:439–442.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Phillips OL, Malhi Y, Vinceti B, Baker T, Lewis SL, Higuchi N, Laurance WF, Vargas PN, Martinez RV, Laurance S, Ferreira LV, Stern M, Brown S, Grace J. 2002. Changes in growth of tropical forests: Evaluating potential biases. Ecological Applications 12:576–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Popescu SC, Wynne RH, Scrivani JA. 2004. Fusion of small-footprint lidar and multispectral data to estimate plot-level volume and biomass in deciduous and pine forests in Virginia, USA. Forest Science 50:551–565.Google Scholar
  37. Porder S, Paytan A, Vitousek PM. 2005. Erosion and landscape development affect plant nutrient status in the Hawaiian Islands. Oecologia (Berlin) 142:440–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Raich JW, Russell AE, Vitousek PM. 1997. Primary productivity and ecosystem development along an elevational gradient on Mauna Loa, Hawaii. Ecology 78:707–722.Google Scholar
  39. Raich JW, Russell AE, Kitayama K, Parton WJ, Vitousek PM. 2006. Temperature influences carbon accumulation in moist tropical forests. Ecology 87:76–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Reyes G, Brown S, Chapman J, Lugo AE. 1992. Wood densities of tropical tree species. In: Service USF, Ed. U.S. Department of Agriculture, p 18Google Scholar
  41. Rothstein DE, Vitousek PM, Simmons BL. 2004. An exotic tree alters decomposition and nutrient cycling in a Hawaiian montane forest. Ecosystems 7:805–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith CW. 1985. Impact of alien plants on Hawaii’s native biota. In: Stone CP, Scott JM, Eds. Hawaii’s terrestrial ecosystems: preservation and management. University of Hawaii, Honolulu: Cooperative National Park Resources Study Unit. p 180–250Google Scholar
  43. Stearns HT. 1985. Geology of the State of Hawaii. Palo Alto: Pacific Books,p 335.Google Scholar
  44. Treuhaft RN, Law BE, Asner GP. 2004. Forest attributes from radar interferometric structure and its fusion with optical remote sensing. Bioscience 54:561–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vitousek PM. 2004. Nutrient cycling and limitation: Hawai’i as a model system. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, p 232.Google Scholar
  46. Vitousek PM, Chadwick OA, Crews TE, Fownes JH, Hendricks DM, Herbert D. 1997. Soil and ecosystem development across the Hawaiian Islands. GSA Today 7:1–8.Google Scholar
  47. Zimmerman N, Hughes RF, Cordell S, Hart P, Chang HK, Perez D, Like RK, Ostertag R. 2007. Patterns of primary succession of native and introduced plants in lowland wet forests in Eastern Hawaii. Biotropica doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2007.00371.x

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregory P. Asner
    • 1
    Email author
  • R. Flint Hughes
    • 2
  • Timothy A. Varga
    • 1
  • David E. Knapp
    • 1
  • Ty Kennedy-Bowdoin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Global EcologyCarnegie InstitutionStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Pacific Islands ForestryUSDA Forest ServiceHiloUSA

Personalised recommendations