Advertisement

Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 93, Issue 1, pp 241–253 | Cite as

Bayesian and classical biomass allometries for open grown valonian oaks (Q. ithaburensis subs. macrolepis L.) in a silvopastoral system

  • Dimitrios ZianisEmail author
  • Anastasia Pantera
  • Andreas Papadopoulos
  • Maria Rosa Mosquera Losada
Article

Abstract

Allometric models predicting aboveground woody biomass for open grown valonian oak (Q. ithaburensis subs. macrolepis L.) trees growing in a Mediterranean silvopastoral system were built based on Bayesian and classical statistical techniques. The simple power model M = aDb was used for predicting aboveground woody biomass (M), stem (MS) and branch (MB) biomass through tree diameter (D). An informative Bayesian approach (IB) based on prior information about a and b and increasing variance of predicted values in relation to D was applied on 25 destructively sampled trees for estimating M. Non-informative Bayesian (NB), log-linear regression (LR) and non-linear regression were also built for M, MS and MB. Quite similar M distribution was derived from LR and NB across the D range, totally different from IB predictions which provided biologically sound estimates. Tree height, stem length and crown length did not substantially improve predictions for M, MS and MB. Comparisons to oak trees growing in closed stands indicated that open-grown oaks sustain much less stem biomass but maintain larger branch biomass than forest-grown counterparts. Comparisons to published values for open-grown green ash trees supported the hypothesis that open grown broadleaved specimens may sustain similar M values, irrespectively of species, growth conditions and tree size. On the contrary, allocation pattern of organic matter to stem and branches seems to vary by species and/or site conditions. Finally, predictions for b = 2.67 derived from a theoretical model was not supported by this dataset.

Keywords

Mediterranean agroforestry Carbon stocks Regression Scaling Greece 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was co-financed by the European Union (European Social Fund—ESF) and Greek national funds through the Operational Program “Education and Lifelong Learning” of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF)—Research Funding Program: ARCHIMEDES III. Investing in knowledge society through the European Social Fund, MIS 380360. Special permits for the destructive tree sampling were granted by the Special Secretariat for Forests, Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change. Three anonymous referees substantially contributed to the improvement of the submitted manuscript.

References

  1. Brown S (1997) Estimating biomass and biomass change of tropical forests. A primer. Forestry paper, vol 134. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  2. Chiyenda SS, Kozak A (1982) Some comments on choosing regression models for biomass prediction equations. For Chron 58:203–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ducey MJ, Zarin DJ, Vasconcelos SS, Araújo MM (2009) Biomass equations for forest regrowth in the eastern Amazon using randomized branch sampling. Acta Amazon 39:349–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eamus D, McGuinness K, Burrows W (2000) Review of allometric relationships for estimating woody biomass for Queensland, The Northern Territory and Western Australia. National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report 5b. Australian Greenhouse Office, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  5. Ellison AM (2004) Bayesian inference in ecology. Ecol Lett 7:509–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Enquist BJ, Niklas KJ (2001) Invariant scaling relations across tree-dominated communities. Nature 5:655–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Dunson DB, Vehtari A, Rubin DB (2014) Bayesian data analysis, 3rd edn. Chapman and Hall, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  8. Gilks W, Richardson S, Spiegelhalter D (eds) (1995) Markov chain Monte Carlo in practice. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  9. Gitay H, Suarez A, Watson R, Dokken DJ (eds) (2002) Climate change and biodiversity—IPCC Technical Paper V. Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/climate-changes-biodiversity-en.pdf. Accessed 5 Aug 2016
  10. Henry M, Picard N, Trotta C, Manlay RJ, Valentini R, Bernoux M, Saint-André L (2011) Estimating tree biomass of sub-Saharan African forests: a review of available allometric equations. Silva Fenn 45(3B):477–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jenkins JC, Chojnacky DC, Heath LS, Birdsey RA (2004) Comprehensive database of diameter-based biomass regressions for North American tree species. GTR NE-319 USDAGoogle Scholar
  12. Ketterings QM, Noordwijk CMY, Ambagau R, Palm CA (2001) Reducing uncertainty in the use of allometric biomass equations for predicting above-ground tree biomass in mixed secondary forests. For Ecol Manag 146:199–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kort J, Turnock R (1999) Carbon reservoir and biomass in Canadian prairie shelterbelts. Agrofor Syst 44:175–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lunn DJ, Thomas A, Best N, Spiegelhalter D (2000) WinBUGS—a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Stat Comput 10:325–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Makungwa SD, Chittock A, Skole DL, Kanyama-Phiri GY, Woodhouse IH (2013) Allometry for biomass estimation in jatropha trees planted as boundary hedge in farmers’ fields. Forests 4:218–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McCarthy MA (2007) Bayesian methods for ecology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Montagnini F, Nair PKR (2004) Carbon sequestration: an underexploited environmental benefit of agroforestry systems. Agrofor Syst 61:281–295Google Scholar
  18. Muller-Landau HC, Condit RS, Chave J, Thomas SC, Bohlman SA, Bunyavejchewin S et al (2006) Testing metabolic ecology theory for allometric scaling of tree size, growth and mortality in tropical forests. Ecol Lett 9:575–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Murthy IK, Gupta M, Tomar S, Munsi M, Tiwari R et al (2013) Carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry systems in India. J Earth Sci Clim Change 4:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Navar J (2009) Allometric equations for tree species and carbon stocks for forests of northwestern Mexico. For Ecol Manag 257:427–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Navar J (2010) Methods of assessment of aboveground tree biomass. In: Maggy Ndombo M, Momba B. (eds) Biomass InTech. Available: http://www.intechopen.com/books/biomass/methods-of-assessment-of-aboveground-tree-biomass. Accessed 09 Feb 2015
  22. Parresol BR (1999) Assessing tree and stand biomass: a review with examples and critical comparisons. For Sci 45:573–593Google Scholar
  23. Pastor J, Aber JD, Melillo JM (1984) Biomass prediction using generalised allometric regressions for some Northeast tree species. For Ecol Manag 7:265–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Payandeh B (1981) Choosing regression models for biomass prediction equations. For Chron 57:229–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pilli R, Anfodillo T, Carrer M (2006) Towards a functional and simplified allometry for estimating forest biomass. For Ecol Manag 237:583–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. R Development Core Team (2011). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, http://www.R-project.org/
  27. Schoeneberger MM (2009) Agroforestry: working trees for sequestering carbon on agricultural lands. Agroforest Syst 75:27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sileshi GW (2014) A critical review of forest biomass estimation models, common mistakes and corrective measures. For Ecol Manag 329:237–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Spiegelhalter DJ, Thomas A, Best NG, Lunn D (2007) OpenBUGS User Manual version 3.0.2. MRC Biostatistics Unit, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Sprugel DG (1983) Correcting for bias in log-transformed allometric equations. Ecology 64:209–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ter-Mikaelian MT, Korzukhin MD (1997) Biomass equations for sixty-five North American tree species. For Ecol Manag 97:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thomopoulos NT, Johnson AC (2003) Tables and characteristics of the standardized lognormal distribution. In: Proceedings of the Decision Sciences Institute (ed. Decision Sciences Institute) pp 1031–1036Google Scholar
  33. Tredennick AT, Lisa Patrick Bentley LP, Hanan NP (2013) Allometric convergence in savanna trees and implications for the use of plant scaling models in variable ecosystems. PLoS ONE 8:e5824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. West BG, Brown HJ, Enquist JB (1997) A general model for the origin of allometric scaling laws in biology. Science 276:122–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Xiao X, White EP, Hooten MB, Durham SL (2011) On the use of log transformation versus nonlinear regression for analysing biological power laws. Ecology 92:1887–1894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zapata-Cuartas M, Sierra AC, Alleman L (2012) Probability distribution of allometric coefficients and Bayesian estimation of aboveground tree biomass. For Ecol Manag 277:173–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zell J, Bösch B, Kändler G (2014) Estimating above-ground biomass of trees: comparing Bayesian calibration with regression technique. Eur J For Res 133:649–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhou X, Brandle JR, Awada TN, Schoeneberger MM, Martin DL, Xin Y, Tang ZH (2011) The use of forest-derived specific gravity for the conversion of volume to biomass for open-grown trees on agricultural land. Biomass Bioenerg 35:1721–1731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhou X, Schoeneberger MM, Brandle JR, Awada TN, Chu J et al (2014) Analyzing the uncertainties in use of forest-derived biomass equations for open-grown trees in agricultural land. For Sci 60:1–18Google Scholar
  40. Zianis D (2008) Predicting mean aboveground forest biomass and its associated variance. For Ecol Manag 256:1400–1407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zianis D, Mencuccini M (2003) Aboveground biomass relationships for beech (Fagus moesiaca Cz.) trees in Vermio Mountain, Northern Greece, and generalised equations for Fagus spp. An For Sci 60:439–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zianis D, Radoglou K (2006) Comparison between empirical and theoretical biomass allometric models and statistical implications in stem volume predictions. Forestry 79:477–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zianis D, Muukkonen P, Mäkipää R, Mencuccini M (2005) Biomass and stem volume equations for tree species in Europe. Silva Fenn Monogr 4:5–63Google Scholar
  44. Zianis D, Spyroglou G, Tiakas E, Radoglou K (2016) Bayesian and classical models to predict aboveground tree biomass allometry. For Sci 62:247–259Google Scholar
  45. Zou GY, Taleban J, Huo CY (2009) Confidence interval estimation for log-normal data with application to health economics. Comput Stat Data Anal 53:3755–3764CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dimitrios Zianis
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anastasia Pantera
    • 2
  • Andreas Papadopoulos
    • 2
  • Maria Rosa Mosquera Losada
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Forestry and Natural Environment ManagementTEI of ThessalyKarditsaGreece
  2. 2.Department of Forestry and Natural Environment ManagementTEI Stereas ElladasKarpenissiGreece
  3. 3.Crop production Department, Escola Politécnica Superior – Campus LugoUniversidade de Santiago de CompostelaA CoruñaSpain

Personalised recommendations