Journal of Forestry Research

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 23–28 | Cite as

Allometric relationship for estimating above-ground biomass of Aegialitis rotundifolia Roxb. of Sundarbans mangrove forest, in Bangladesh

  • Mohammad Raqibul Hasan Siddique
  • Mahmood Hossain
  • Md. Rezaul Karim Chowdhury
Original Paper


Tree biomass plays a key role in sustainable management by providing different aspects of ecosystem. Estimation of above ground biomass by non-destructive means requires the development of allometric equations. Most researchers used DBH (diameter at breast height) and TH (total height) to develop allometric equation for a tree. Very few species-specific allometric equations are currently available for shrubs to estimate of biomass from measured plant attributes. Therefore, we used some of readily measurable variables to develop allometric equations such as girth at collar-height (GCH) and height of girth measuring point (GMH) with total height (TH) for A. rotundifolia, a mangrove species of Sundarbans of Bangladesh, as it is too dwarf to take DBH and too irregular in base to take Girth at a fixed height. Linear, non-linear and logarithmic regression techniques were tried to determine the best regression model to estimate the above-ground biomass of stem, branch and leaf. A total of 186 regression equations were generated from the combination of independent variables. Best fit regression equations were determined by examining co-efficient of determination (R2), co-efficient of variation (CV), mean-square of the error (MSerror), residual mean error (Rsme), and F-value. Multiple linear regression models showed more efficient over other types of regression equation. The performance of regression equations was increased by inclusion of GMH as an independent variable along with total height and GCH.


Aegialitis rotundifolia allometry biomass mangroves sundarbans 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amarasinghe MD, Balasubramaniam S. 1992a. Structural properties of two types of mangrove stands on the northwestern coast of Sri Lanka. Hydrobiologia, 247: 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amarasinghe MD, Balasubramaniam S. 1992b. Net primary productivity of two-mangrove forest stands on the Northwestern coast of Sri Lanka. Hydrobiologia, 247: 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baskerville GL. 1972. Use of logarithmic regression in the estimation of plant biomass. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 2: 49–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beauchamp JJ, Olson JS. 1973. Corrections for bias in regression estimates after logarithmic transformation. Ecology, 54(6): 1403–1407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown S, Gillespie AJR, Lugo AE. 1989. Biomass estimation methods for tropical forests with applications to forest inventory data. Forest Science, 35(4): 881–902.Google Scholar
  6. Busing RT, Clebsch EEC, White PS. 1993. Biomass and production of southern Appalachian cove forests reexamined. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 23(4): 760–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cairns MA, Olmsted I, Granados J, Argaez J. 2003. Composition and aboveground tree biomass of a dry semi-evergreen forest on Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula. Forest Ecology and Management, 186: 125–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chambers JQ, dos Santos J, Ribeiro RJ, Higuchi N. 2001. Tree damage, allometric relationships, and above-ground net primary production in central Amazon forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 152: 73–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cienciala E, Cerny M, Tatarinov F, Apltauer J. 2006. Biomass functions applicable to Scots pine. Trees, 20: 484–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cintron G, Schaeffer-Novelli Y. 1984. Methods for studying mangrove structure. In: Snedaker, S.C. and Snedaker, J.G. (Eds), The Mangrove Ecosystem: Research Methods. Bungay, United Kingdom: UNESCO, pp. 91–113.Google Scholar
  11. Cintron G, Schaeffer-Novelli Y. 1985. Caracteristicas y desarrolloe structural de los manglares de norte y sur America. Ciencia Inter Americana, 25(1–4): 4–15.Google Scholar
  12. Clark DA, Brown S, Kicklighter W, Chambers JQ, Thomlinson JR, Ni J, Holland EA. 2001. Net primary production in tropical forests: an evaluation and synthesis of existing field data. Ecological Application, 11: 371–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clough BF, Dixon P, Dalhaus O. 1997. Allometric relationships for estimating biomass in multi-stemmed mangrove trees. Australian Journal of Botany, 45: 1023–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clough BF, Scott K. 1989. Allometric relationships for estimating above-ground biomass in six mangrove species. Forest Ecology and Management, 27: 117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Das DK, Alam MK. 2001. Trees of Bangladesh. Chittagong: Bangladesh Forest Research Institute, p. 20.Google Scholar
  16. Fromard F, Vega C, Proisy C. 2004. Half a century of dynamic coastal change affecting mangrove shorelines of French Guiana: A case study based on remote sensing data analyses and field surveys. Marine Geology, 208: 265–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fromard F, Puig H, Mougin E, Marty G, Betoulle JL, Cadamuro L. 1998. Structure, above-ground biomass and dynamics of mangrove ecosystems: new data from French Guiana. Oecologia, 115: 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Golley FB, Mcginnis JT, Clements RG, Child GI, Duever MJ. 1975. Mineral Cycling in a Tropical Moist Forest Ecosystem. Athens: Georgia University Press, p. 248.Google Scholar
  19. Grundy IM. 1995. Wood biomass estimation in dry miombo woodland in Zimbabwe. Forest Ecology and Management, 72(2–3): 109–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Imbert D, Rollet B. 1989. Phytomasseaerienneet production primairedans la mangrove du Grand Cul-De-Sac Marin (Guadeloupe, Antillas Francaises). Bulletin D’Ecologie, 20(1): 27–39.Google Scholar
  21. Kathiresan K, Bingham BL. 2001. Biology of mangroves and mangrove ecosystems. Advances in Marine Biology, 40: 81–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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. Forest Ecology and Management, 146: 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Komiyama A, Havanond S, Srisawatt W, Mochida Y, Fujimoto K, Ohnishi T, Ishihara S, Miyagi T. 2000. Top/root biomass ratio of a secondary mangrove (Ceriops tagal (Perr.) C. B. Rob.) forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 139: 127–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Komiyama A, Jintana V, Sangtiean T, Kato S. 2002. A common allometric equation for predicting stem weight of mangroves growing in secondary forests. Ecological Research, 17: 415–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Komiyama A, Ong JE, Poungparn S. 2008. Allometry, biomass, and productivity of mangrove forests: A review. Aquatic Botany, 89: 128–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Komiyama A, Poungparn S, Kato S. 2005. Common allometric equations for estimating the tree weight of mangroves. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 21: 471–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee SY. 1990. Primary productivity and particulate organic matter flow in an estuarine mangrove wetland in Hong Kong. Marine Biology, 106(3): 453–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Litton CM, Sandquist DR, Cordell S. 2006. Effect of non-native grass invasion on aboveground carbon pools and tree population structure in a tropical dry forest of Hawaii. Forest Ecology and Management, 231: 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mackey AP. 1993. Biomass of the mangrove Avicennia marina (Forsk.) Vierh. near Brisbane, South-Eastern Queensland. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 44(5): 721–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Madgwick HAI, Satoo I. 1975. On estimating the aboveground weights of tree stands. Ecology, 56: 1446–1450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mahmood H, Saberi O, Jaber-Sidik B, Misri K, Rajgopal S. 2004. Allometric Relationship for Estimating Above and Below Ground Biomass of Saplings and Tress of Bruguiera parviflora (White and Arnold), Malaysian Applied Biology, 33(1): 37–45.Google Scholar
  32. Munro DD. 1974. Use of logarithmic regression in the estimation of plant biomass: discussion. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 4: 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ong JE, Gong WK, Clough BF. 1995. Structure and productivity of a 20-year-old stand of Rhizophora apiculata Bl. mangrove forests. Journal of Biogeography, 22: 417–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ong JE, Gong WK, Wong CH, Din ZBH. 1985. Productivity of the mangrove ecosystem-a manual of methods. UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project, RAS/79/002/G/01/13.Google Scholar
  35. Ong JE, Gong WK, Wong CH. 1980. Ecological survey of the Sungai Merbok estuarine mangrove ecosystem. Penang, Malaysia: School of Biological Sciences, Universitiy Sains Malaysia, p. 83.Google Scholar
  36. Ong JE, Gong WK, Wong CH. 2004. Allometry and partitioning of the mangrove Rhizophora apiculata. Forest Ecology and Management, 188: 395–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ong JE., Gong WK, Wong CH, Dhanarajan, G. 1984. Contribution of aquatic productivity in managed mangrove ecosystem in Malaysia. In: Soepadmo, E., A.N. Rao and D.J. Macintosh (eds.), Proceedings of the Asian Symposium on “Mangrove Environment: Research and Management.” Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya, pp. 209–215.Google Scholar
  38. Payandeh B. 1981. Choosing regression models for biomass prediction equations. The Forestry Chronicle, 57: 229–232.Google Scholar
  39. Pilli R, Anfodillo T, Carrer M. 2006. Towards a functional and simplified allometry for estimating forest biomass. Forest Ecology and Management, 237: 583–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ross MS, Ruiz PL, Telesnicki GJ, Meeder JF. 2001. Estimating above-ground biomass and production in mangrove communities of Biscayne National Park, Florida (U.S.A.). Wetland Ecology and Management, 9: 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Saenger P. 2002. Mangrove Ecology, Silviculture and Conservation. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press, p. 360.Google Scholar
  42. Saintilan N. 1997. Above- and below-ground biomasses of two species of mangrove on the Hawkesbury River estuary, New South Wales. Marine and Freshwater Research, 48: 147–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Salis SM, Assis MA, Mattos PP, Piaob ACS. 2006. Estimating the aboveground biomass and wood volume of savanna woodlands in Brazil’s Pantanal wetlands based on allometric correlations. Forest Ecology and Management, 228: 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schacht WH, Long JN, Alechek JC. 1988. Above-ground production in cleared and thinned stands of semiarid tropical woodland. Brazil. Forest Ecology and Management, 23(2–3), 201–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Siddiqi NA. 2001. Mangrove Forestry in Bangladesh. Chittagong: Institute of Forestry & Environmental Science, University of Chittagong, p. 201.Google Scholar
  46. Slim FJ., Gwada P. 1993. Primary producers of the mangrove vegetation. In: Woitchik, A.F. (Eds), Dynamics and Assessment of Kenyan Mangrove Ecosystems: Final Report. Free University of Brussels, Belgium-Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute, TS 2-0240-C, pp. 6–34.Google Scholar
  47. Soares MLG, Schaeffer-Novelli Y. 2005. Above-ground biomass of mangrove species. I. Analysis of models. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 65: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Soares MLG. 1997. Estudo da biomassaaérea de manguezais do sudeste do Brasil e aná lise de modelos, vol. 2. PhD thesis, InstitutoOceanográfico, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil.Google Scholar
  49. Specht A, West PW. 2003. Estimation of biomass and sequestered carbon on farm forest plantations in northern South Wales, Australia. Biomass and Bioenergy, 25: 363–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sprugel, DG. 1983. Correcting for bias in log-transformed allometric equations. Ecology, 64(1): 209–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Steinke TD, Ward CT, Raijh A. 1995. Forest structure and biomass of mangrove in the Mgemi estuary, South Africa. Hydrobiologia, 295(1–3), 159–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Suzuki E, Tagawa H. 1983. Biomass of a mangrove forest and a sedge marsh on Ishigaki island, south Japan. Japanese Journal of Ecology, 33: 231–234.Google Scholar
  53. Tamai S, Nakasuga T, Tabuchi R, Ogino K. 1986. Standing biomass of mangrove forests in southern Thailand. Journal Japanese Forest Society, 68: 384–388.Google Scholar
  54. Toma T, Ogino K. 1995. Soil water movement of a mangrove forest in Halmahera Island, east Indonesia. Tropics, 4: 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Turner IM, Gong WK, Ong JE, Bujang JS, Kohyama T. 1995. The architecture and allometry of mangrove saplings. Functional Ecology, 9(2): 205–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. West PW, Wells KF. 1990. Estimation of leaf weight of standing trees of Eucalyptus regnans. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 20(11): 1732–1738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Westman WE, Rogers RW. 1977. Biomass and structure of a subtropical Eucalypt forest, North Stradbroke Island. Australian Journal of Botany, 25: 171–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Whittaker RH, Marks PL. 1975. Methods of assessing terrestrial productivity. In: Lieth, H. and Whittaker, R.H. (Eds.), Primary Productivity of the Biosphere, vol. 14. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 55–118.Google Scholar
  59. Whittaker RH, Woodwell GM. 1969. Structure, production and diversity of the Oak-pine forest at Brookhaven, New York. Journal of Ecology, 57: 155–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wonnacott TH, Wonnacott RJ. 1980. Introducao a Estatistica. Rio de Janeiro: Livros Tecnicos e Cientificos Editora S.A., p. 589.Google Scholar
  61. Xiao CW, Ceulemans R. 2004. Allometric relationships for below- and above-ground biomass of young Scots pines. Forest Ecology and Management, 203: 177–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zak DR, Host GE, Pregitzer KS. 1989. Regional variability in nitrogen mineralization, nitrification, and overstory biomass in northern lower Michigan (USA). Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 19(12): 1521–1526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zar JH. 1968. Calculation and miscalculation of the allometric equation as a model in biological data. Bioscience, 18: 1118–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zar JH. 1996. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, p. 662.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Northeast Forestry University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammad Raqibul Hasan Siddique
    • 1
  • Mahmood Hossain
    • 1
  • Md. Rezaul Karim Chowdhury
    • 1
  1. 1.Forestry and Wood Technology DisciplineKhulna UniversityKhulnaBangladesh

Personalised recommendations