Journal of Forestry Research

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 13–22 | Cite as

Spatial variation and prediction of forest biomass in a heterogeneous landscape

Original Paper

Abstract

Large areas assessments of forest biomass distribution are a challenge in heterogeneous landscapes, where variations in tree growth and species composition occur over short distances. In this study, we use statistical and geospatial modeling on densely sampled forest biomass data to analyze the relative importance of ecological and physiographic variables as determinants of spatial variation of forest biomass in the environmentally heterogeneous region of the Big Sur, California. We estimated biomass in 280 forest plots (one plot per 2.85 km2) and measured an array of ecological (vegetation community type, distance to edge, amount of surrounding non-forest vegetation, soil properties, fire history) and physiographic drivers (elevation, potential soil moisture and solar radiation, proximity to the coast) of tree growth at each plot location. Our geostatistical analyses revealed that biomass distribution is spatially structured and autocorrelated up to 3.1 km. Regression tree (RT) models showed that both physiographic and ecological factors influenced biomass distribution. Across randomly selected sample densities (sample size 112 to 280), ecological effects of vegetation community type and distance to forest edge, and physiographic effects of elevation, potential soil moisture and solar radiation were the most consistent predictors of biomass. Topographic moisture index and potential solar radiation had a positive effect on biomass, indicating the importance of topographicallymediated energy and moisture on plant growth and biomass accumulation. RT model explained 35% of the variation in biomass and spatially autocorrelated variation were retained in regession residuals. Regression kriging model, developed from RT combined with kriging of regression residuals, was used to map biomass across the Big Sur. This study demonstrates how statistical and geospatial modeling can be used to discriminate the relative importance of physiographic and ecologic effects on forest biomass and develop spatial models to predict and map biomass distribution across a heterogeneous landscape.

Keywords

forest biomass landscape heterogeneity spatial variation semivariogram regression tree regression kriging Big Sur California 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Asbjornsen H, Ashton MS, Vogt DJ, Palacios S. 2004. Effects of habitat fragmentation on the buffering capacity of edge environments in a seasonally dry tropical oak forest ecosystem in Oaxaca, Mexico. Agricultuer Ecosystems and Environment, 103: 481–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson LO, Malhi Y, Ladle RJ, Aragão LEOC, Shimabukuro Y, Phillips OL, Baker T, Costa ACL, Espejo JS, Higuchi N, Laurance WF, López-González G, Monteagudo A, Núñez-Vargas P, Peacock J, Quesada CA, Almeida S, Vásquez R. 2009. Influence of landscape heterogeneity on spatial patterns of wood productivity, wood specific density and above ground biomass in Amazonia. BiogeoscienceDiscussions, 6: 2039–2083.Google Scholar
  3. Baccini A, Friedl MA, Woodcock CE, Warbington R. 2004. Forest biomass estimation over regional scales using multisource data. Geophysical Research Letters, 31: L10501–L10504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beyer HL. 2004. Hawth’s Analysis Tools for ArcGIS. Available at http://www.spatialecology.com/htools
  5. Blackard JA, Finco MV, Helmer EH, Holden GR, Hoppus ML, Jacobs DM, Lister AJ, Moisen GG, Nelson MD, Riemann R, Reufenacht B, Salajanu D, Weyermann DL, Winterberger KC, Brandeis TJ, Czaplewski RL, McRoberts RE, Patterson PL, Tymico RP. 2008. Mapping US forest biomass using nationwide forest inventory data and moderate resolution information. Remote Sensing of Environment, 112: 1658–1677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borchert M, Lopez A, Bauer C, Knowd T. 2004. Field guide to coastal sage scrub and chaparral alliances of Los Padres National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Vallejo, CA.Google Scholar
  7. Breiman L, Friedman J, Olshen R, Stone C. 1984. Classification and regression trees. Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth..Google Scholar
  8. Brown S. 2002. Measuring carbon in forests; current status and future challenges. Environmental pollution, 116: 363–372.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown SL, Schroeder P, Kern JS. 1999. Spatial distribution of biomass in forests of the eastern USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 123: 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown S, Sathaye J, Cannell M, Kauppi P. 1996. Management of forests for mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. In R.T Watson, M.C. Zinyowera, and R.H. Moss (eds.), Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses. Contribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 775–794.Google Scholar
  11. Callaway RM, Davis FW. 1993. Vegetation dynamics, fire and the physical environment in coastal central California. Ecology, 74(5): 1567–1578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen J, Saunders SC, Crow RR, Naiman RJ, Brosofske KD, Mroz GD, Brookshire BL, Franklin JF. 1999. Microclimate in forest ecosystem and landscape ecology. BioScience, 49:558 288–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark DB, Clark DA. 2000. Landscape-scale variation in forest structure and biomass in a tropical rain forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 137: 185–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Daly C, Talyon GH, Gisbon WP, Parzybok TW, Johnson GL, Pasteris P. 2001. High-quality spatial climate data sets for the United States and beyond. Trans. ASAE, 43: 1957–1962.Google Scholar
  15. Davis FW, Borchert MI, Flint A, Meentemeyer RK, Rizzo DM. 2010. Preimpact forest composition and ongoing tree mortality associated with sudden oak death disease in the Big Sur Region, California. Forest Ecology and Management, 259(12): 2342–2354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DeAth G, Fabricius KE. 2000. Classification and regression trees: a powerful yet simple technique for ecological data analysis. Ecology, 81(11): 3178–3192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dixon RK, Andrasko KJ, Sussman FG, Lavinson MA, Trexler MC, Vinson TS. 1993. Forest sector carbon offset projects: near-term opportunities to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 70: 561–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dubayah RC. 1994. Modeling a solar radiation topoclimatology for the Rio Grande river basin. Journal of Vegetation Science, 5: 627–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. FRAP (Fire Resources and Management Program). 1995. Fire management for California ecosystems. California Department of Forest and Fire Protection. Available at 〈http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/>
  20. Freeman EA, Moisen GG. 2007. Evaluating kriging as a tool to improve moderate resolution of forest biomass. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 128: 395–410.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fried JS, Zhou X. 2008. Forest inventory-based estimation of carbon stocks and flux in California forests in 1990. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Technical Report, PNW-GTR 750, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  22. Gesch, DB. 2007. The National Elevation Dataset. In Maune, D. (ed.), Digital Elevation Model Technologies and Applications: The DEM Users Manual, 2nd Edition: Bethesda, Maryland: American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, pp. 99–118.Google Scholar
  23. Gilbert B, Lowell K. 1997. Forest attributes and spatial autocorrelation and interpolation: effects of alternative sampling locations schemata in the boreal forest. Landscape and Urban Planning, 37: 235–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goovaerts P. 1997. Geostatistics for natural resources evaluation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Goovaerts P. 2001. Geostatistical modeling of uncertainty in soil science. Geoderma 103: 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. He HS, Shang BZ, Crow TR., Gustafson EJ, Shifley SR. 2004. Simulating forest fuel and fire risk dynamics across landscapes — LANDIS fuel module design. Ecological Modelling, 180: 135–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hengl T, Heuvelink GBM, Stein A. 2004. A generic framework for spatial prediction of soil variables based on regression-kriging. Geoderma, 120: 75–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Henson P, Usner DJ. 1996. The natural history of Big Sur. University of California Press.Google Scholar
  29. Houghton RA. 1999. The annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from changes in land use 1850-1990. Tellus, 51B: 298–313.Google Scholar
  30. Houghton RA. 2005. Aboveground forest biomass and the global carbon balance. Global Change Biology, 11: 945–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hu H, Wang GG. 2008. Changes in forest biomass carbon storage in the South Carolina Piedmont between 1936 and 2005. Forest Ecology and Management, 255: 1400–1408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jenkins JC, Chojnacky DC, Health LS, Birdsey RA. 2003. National-scale biomass estimators for United States tree species. Forest Science, 49(1): 12–35.Google Scholar
  33. Klaasen W, van Bruegel PB, Moors EJ, Nieveen JP. 2002. Increased heat fluxes near a forest edge. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 72: 231–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lamsal S, Grunwald S, Bruland GL, Bliss CM, Comerford NB. 2006. Regional hybrid geospatial modeling of soil nitrate-nitrogen in the Santa Fe River Watershed. Geoderma, 135: 233–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Legendre P. 1993. Spatial autocorrelation: trouble or new paradigm. Ecology 74(6): 1659–1673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lovett GM, Jones CG, Turner MG, Weathers KC. 2005. Ecosystem functions in heterogeneous landscapes. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Maloney PE, Lynch SC, Kane SF, Jensen CE, Rizzo DM. 2005. Establishment of an emerging generalist pathogen in redwood forest communities. Journal of Ecology, 93: 899–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McDonald RI, Urban DL. 2006. Spatially varying rules of landscape change: lessons from a case study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 74: 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Meentemeyer RK, Moody A. 2002. Distribution of plant life history types in California chapparal: the role of topographically-determined drought severity. Journal of Vegetation Science, 13(1): 67–78.Google Scholar
  40. Meentemeyer RK, Rank NE, Shoemaker DA, Oneal CB, Wickland AC, Frangioso, KM, Rizzo, DM. 2008. Impact of sudden oak death on tree mortality in the Big Sur ecoregion of California. Biological Invasions, 10: 1243–1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Meng Q, Cieszewski C, Madden M. 2007. Large area forest inventory using Landsat ETM+: a geostatistical approach. Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 64: 27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mickler RA, Earnhardt TS, Moore JA. 2002. Regional estimation of current and future forest biomass. Environmental Pollution, 116: S7–S16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moore ID, Grayson RB, Ladson, AR. 1991. Digital terrain modelling: a review of hydrological, geomorphological, and biological applications. Hydrological Processes, 5: 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nanos N, Gonazález-Martínez SC, Bravo F. 2004. Studying within-stand structure and dynamics with geostatistical and molecular marker tools. Forest Ecology and Management, 189: 223–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Návar J. 2008. Allometric equations for tree species and carbon stocks for forests of northwestern Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management, 257: 427–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ohmann JL, Crecory MJ, Spies TA. 2007. Influence of environment, disturbance, and ownership on forest vegetation of coastal Oregon. Ecological Applications, 17: 18–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Overmars KP, de Koning GHJ, Veldkamp A. 2003. Spatial autocorrelation in multi-scale land use models. Ecological Modeling, 164: 257–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Poulos HM. 2009. Mapping fuels in the Chihuahuan desert horderlands using remote sensing, geographic information systems, and biophysical modeling. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 39: 1917–1927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Poulos HM, Camp AE, Gatewood RG, Loomis L. 2007. A hierarchical approach for scaling forest inventory and fuels data from local to landscape scales in the Davis Mountains, Texas, USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 244: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Saatchi S, Halligan K, Despain DG, Crabtree RL. 2007. Estimation of forest fuel load from radar remote sensing. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 45(6): 1726–1740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Saatchi S, Malhi Y, Zutta B, Buermann W, Anderson LO, Araujo AM, Phillips OL, Peacock J, ter Steege H, Lopez Gonzalez G, Baker T, Arroyo L, Almeida S, Higuchi N, Killeen T, Monteagudo A, Neill D, Pitman N, Prieto A, Salomão R, Silva N, Vásquez Martínez R, Laurance W, Ramírez HA. 2009. Mapping landscape scale variations of forest structure, biomass, and productivity in Amazonia. Biogeosciences Discuss, 6: 5461–5505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sales MH, Souza CM, Kyriakidis PC, Roberts DA, Vidal E. 2007. Improving spatial distribution estimation of forest biomass with Geostatistics: a case study of Randônia, Brazil. Ecological Modelling, 205: 221–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schlamadinger B, Marland G. 1996. The role of forest and bioenergy strategies in the global carbon cycle. Biomass and Energy, 10: 275–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Scholz RW, Schnabel U. 2006. Decision making uncertainty in case of soil remediation. Journal of Environmental Management, 80: 132–147.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schreuder HT, Gregoire TG, Wood GB. 1993. Sampling methods for multiresource forest inventory. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  56. Smith WB. 2002. Forest inventory and analysis: a national inventory and monitoring program. Environmental Pollution, 116: S233–S242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vanwalleghem T, Meentemeyer RK. 2009. Predicting forest microclimate in heterogeneous landscape. Ecosystems, 12(7): 1158–1172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Webster R, Oliver MA. 2007. Geostatistics for Environmental Scientists. Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Northeast Forestry University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geography and Earth SciencesUniversity of North CarolinaCharlotteUSA
  2. 2.Department of Plant PathologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations