Advertisement

Journal of Forestry Research

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 157–170 | Cite as

Assessment of biomass and net primary productivity of a dry tropical forest using geospatial technology

  • Tarun Kumar ThakurEmail author
  • S. L. Swamy
  • Arvind Bijalwan
  • Mammohan J. R. Dobriyal
Original Paper
  • 150 Downloads

Abstract

This study quantifies biomass, aboveground and belowground net productivity, along with additional environmental factors over a 2–3 year period in Barnawapara Sanctuary of Chhattisgarh, India through satellite remote-sensing and GIS techniques. Ten sampling quadrates 20 × 20, 5 × 5 and 1 × 1 m were randomly laid for overstorey (OS), understorey (US) and ground vegetation (GS), respectively. Girth of trees was measured at breast height and collar diameters of shrubs and herbs at 0.1 m height. Biomass was estimated using allometric regression equations and herb biomass by harvesting. Net primary productivity (NPP) was determined by summing biomass increment and litter crop values. Aspect and slope influenced the vegetation types, biomass and NPP in different forests. Standing biomass and NPP varied from 18.6 to 101.5 Mg ha−1 and 5.3 to 12.7 Mg ha−1 a−1, respectively, in different forest types. The highest biomass was found in dense mixed forest, while net production recoded in Teak forests. Both were lowest in degraded mixed forests of different forest types. OS, US and GS contributed 90.4, 8.7 and 0.7%, respectively, for the total mean standing biomass in different forests. This study developed spectral models for the estimation of biomass and NPP using Normalized Difference Vegetation Index and other vegetation indices. The study demonstrated the potential of geospatial tools for estimation of biomass and net productivity of dry tropical forest ecosystem.

Keywords

Allometric regression equations Fine root biomass Litter fall LAI NDVI Spectral models 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to the Indira Gandhi Agricultural University, Raipur, Chhattisgarh and Forest department of Chhattisgarh for their support and cooperation during the study. The authors also express sincere thanks to anonymous reviewers to improve this manuscript.

References

  1. Anup KC, Manandhar R, Paudel R, Ghimire S (2017) Increase of forest carbon biomass due to community forestry management in Nepal. J For Res.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-017-0438-z Google Scholar
  2. Bawa K, Rose J, Ganeshaiah KN, Barve N, Kiran MC, Umashaanker R (2002) Assessing biodiversity from space: an example from the Western Ghats, India. Conserv Ecol 6(2):7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beer C, Reichstein M, Tomelleri E, Ciais P, Jung M, Carvalhais N, Rodenbeck C, Altaf Arain M, Baldocchi D, Bonan GB, Bondeau A, Cescatti A, Lasslop G, Lindroth A, Lomas M, Luyssaert S, Margolis H, Oleson KW, Roupsard O, Veenendaal E, Viovy N, Williams C, Woodward FI, Papale D (2010) Terrestrial gross carbon dioxide uptake: global distribution and covariation with climate. Science 329:834–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bijalwan A, Swamy SL, Sharma CM, Sharma NK, Tiwari AK (2010) Land use, biomass and carbon estimation of Chhattisgarh region in India using satellite remote sensing and GIS techniques. J For Res 21(2):161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown S, Lugo AE (1982) The storage and production of organic matter in tropical forests and their role in global carbon cycle. Biotropica 14:161–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown S, Gillespie AJR, Lugo AE (1989) Biomass estimation methods for tropical forests with application to forest inventory data. For Sci 35:881–902Google Scholar
  7. Champion HG, Seth SK (1968) A Revised Survey of Forest Types of India, Govt. of India Press, New Delhi, p 404Google Scholar
  8. Chaturvedi OP, Singh JS (1987) The structure and function of pine forest in central Himalayas. I. Dry matter dynamics. Ann Bot 60:237–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chave J, Olivier J, Bongers F, Châtelet P, Forget PM, van der Meer P, Norden N, Riera B, Charles-Dominique P (2008) Above-ground biomass and productivity in a rain forest of eastern South America. J Trop Ecol 24:355–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark DA, Brown S, Kicklighter DW, Chambers JQ, Thomlinson JR, Ni J (2001a) Measuring net primary production in forests: concepts and field methods. Ecol Appl 11(2):356–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark DA, Brown S, Kicklighter DW, Chambers JQ, Thomlinson JR, Ni J, Holland EA (2001b) Net primary production in tropical forests: an evaluation and synthesis of existing field data. Ecol Appl 11(2):371–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coombs J, Hall DO, Long SP, Scourlock JMO (1987) Techniques in bioproductivity and photosynthesis, 2nd edn. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 76:1407–1424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Das DK, Chaturvedi OP (2003) Litter quality effects and decomposition rates of forestry plantations. Trop Ecol 44:259–262Google Scholar
  15. Davis JP, Haines B, Coleman D, Hendrick R (2004) Fine root dynamics along an elevational gradient in the southern Appalachian Mountains, USA. For Ecol Manage 187:19–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Djomo AN, Knohl A, Gravenhorst G (2011) Estimations of total ecosystem carbon pools distribution and carbon biomass current annual increment of a moist tropical forest. For Ecol Manage 261:1448–1459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Doughty CE, Metcalfe DB, da Costa MC, de Oliveira AAR, Neto GFC, Silva JA, Aragão LEOC, Almeida SS, Quesada CA, Girardin CAJ, Halladay K, da Costa AC, Malhi Y (2013) The production, allocation and cycling of carbon in a forest on fertile terra preta soil in eastern Amazonia compared with a forest on adjacent infertile soil. Plant Ecol Diversity 7:41–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dutt CBS, Jha CS, Rao DBB (1994) Carrying capacity of grasslands of Srisailam tiger reserve—Nagarjunasagar, Andhra Pradesh. Technical report submitted in NRSAGoogle Scholar
  19. Fogel R (1983) Root turnover and productivity of coniferous forests. Plant Soil 71:71–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gautam TP, Mandal TN (2013) Soil characteristics in moist tropical forest of Sunsari district, Nepal. Nepal J Sci Techol 14:35–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gautam TP, Mandal TN (2016) Effect of disturbance on biomass, production and carbon dynamics in moist tropical forest of eastern Nepal. For Ecosyst 3:11.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-016-0070-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Girardin CAJ, Espejob JES, Doughty CE, Huasco WH, Metcalfe DB, Durand-Baca L, Marthews TR, Aragao LEOC, Farfán-Rios W, García-Cabrera K, Halladay K, Fisher JB, Galiano-Cabrera DF, Huaraca-Quispe LP, Alzamora-Taype I, Eguiluz-Mora L, Salinas-Revilla N, Silman MR, Meir P, Malhi Y (2014) Productivity and carbon allocation in a tropical montane cloud forest in the Peruvian Andes. Plant Ecol Divers 7:107–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gomez KA, Gomez AA (1984) Statistical procedures for agricultural research, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Goward SN, Kerber A, Dye DG, Kalb V (1987) Comparison of North and South American biomes from AVHRR observations. Geocarto Int 2(1):27–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haripriya GS (2000) Estimates of biomass in Indian forests. Biomass Bioenergy 19(250):245–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Houghton RA, Unruh JD, Lefebure PA (1993) Current land cover in the tropics and its potential for sequestering carbon. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 7(2):305–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jaramillo VJ, Kaufmann JB, Rentaría-Rodríguez L, Cummings DL, Ellingson LJ (2003) Biomass, carbon and nitrogen pools in Mexican tropical forest landscapes. Ecosystems 6:609–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kho LK, Malhi Y, Tan SKS (2013) Annual budget and seasonal variation of aboveground and belowground net primary productivity in a lowland dipterocarp forest in Borneo. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 118:1282–1296.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrg.20109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. King AW, Wilfred M, Post M, Wullschleger SD (1997) The potential response of terrestrial carbon storage to changes in climate and atomospheric CO2. Clim Change 35:199–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Majdi H, Anderson P (2005) Fine root production and turnover in a Norway spruce stands in northern Sweden: effects or nitrogen and water manipulation. Ecosystems 8(2):191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Malhi Y, Doughty C, Galbraith D (2011) The allocation of ecosystem net primary productivity in tropical forests. Philos Trans R Soc B 366(1582):3225–3245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Malhi Y, Farfán Amézquita F, Doughty CE, Silva-Espejo JE, Girardin CAJ, Metcalfe DB, Aragão LEOC, Huaraca-Quispe LP, Alzamora-Taype I, Eguiluz-Mora L, Marthews TR, Halladay K, Quesada CA, Robertson AL, Fisher JB, Zaragoza- Castells J, Rojas-Villagra CM, Pelaez-Tapia Y, Salinas N, Meir P, Phillips OL (2014) The productivity, metabolism and carbon cycle of two lowland tropical forest plots in south-western Amazonia, Peru. Plant Ecol Divers 7:85–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Murphy PG, Lugo AE (1986a) Structure and biomass of a subtropical dry forest in Puerto Rico. Biotropica 18:89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Murphy PG, Lugo AE (1986b) Ecology of tropical dry forest. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 17:67–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Olson JS, Watts JA, Allison LJ (1993) Carbon in live vegetation of major world ecosystems. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Environment Science. Publications 1997, ORNI-5862Google Scholar
  36. Pan YD, Birdsey RA, Fang JY, Houghton R, Kauppi PE, Kurz WA, Phillips OL, Shvidenko A, Lewis SL, Canadell JG, Ciais P, Jackson RB, Pacala SW, McGuire AD, Piao SL, Rautiainen A, Sitch S, Hayes D (2011) A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333:988–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Post WM, Emmanuel WR, Zinke PJ, Stangenberger AG (1982) Soil carbon pools and world life zones. Nature 298:156–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Prasad R, Mishra GP (1985) Standing biomass of various plant parts in selected tree species of dry deciduous teak forest of M.P. Indian For 110(8):765–782Google Scholar
  39. Prince SD, Goward SM (1995) Global primary production: a remote sensing approach. J Biogeogr 22:815–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rai SN, Proctor J (1986) Ecological studies on four rainforests in Karnataka, India. II. Litterfall. J Ecol 74:455–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Raich JW, Russell AE, Vitousek PM (1997) Primary productivity and ecosystem development along an elevational gradient on Mauna Loa, Hawai’i. Ecology 78:707–721Google Scholar
  42. Rawat YS, Singh JS (1988) Structure and function of oak forests in Central Himalaya. II. Nutrient dynamics. Ann Bot 62(4):413–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Roy PS, Ravan SA (1996) Biomass estimation using satellite remote sensing data—an investigation on possible approaches for natural forest. J Biosci 21(4):535–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shepherd D, Montagnini F (2001) Above ground carbon sequestration potential in mixed and pure tree plantations in the humid tropics. J Trop For Sci 13(3):450–459Google Scholar
  45. Shirima DD, Pfeifer M, Platts PJ, Totland Ø, Moe SR (2015) Interactions between canopy structure and herbaceous biomass along environmental gradients in moist forest and dry miombo woodland of Tanzania. PLoS ONE 10(11):e0142784.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142784 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Singh KP, Mishra R (1979) Structure and functioning of natural modified and silvicultural ecosystems of eastern Uttar Pradesh. Final technical report (1975–1978). MAB Research Project-Banaras Hindu University IndiaGoogle Scholar
  47. Singh JS, Singh SP (1987) Forest vegetation of the Himalaya. Bot Rev 53:82–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Singh VP, Singh JS (1989) Man and forests: a case study from the dry tropics of India. Environ Conserv 16:129–136Google Scholar
  49. Singh L, Singh JS (1991) Species structure, dry matter dynamics and carbon flux of a dry tropical forest in India. Ann Bot 68:263–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Spanner MA, Pierce IL, Peterson DL, Running SW (1990) Remote sensing of temperate coniferous forest leaf area index: the influence of canopy closer understorey vegetation back ground reflectance. Int J Remote Sens 11:195–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sundarapandian SM, Swamy PS (1996) Fine root biomass distribution and productivity patterns under open and closed canopies of tropical forest ecosystems at Kodayar in Western Ghats. South India For Ecol Manage 86(1):181–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Swamy SL (1998) Estimation of Net Primary Productivity (NPP) in an Indian tropical evergreen forest using remote sensing data. Ph.D. thesis, Jawaharlal Nehru Technology University, Hyderabad, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  53. Thenkabail PS, Gamage MSDN, Smakhtin VU (2004) The use of remote sensing data for drought assessment and monitoring in Southwest Asia. Research report 85. International Water Management Institute, ColomboGoogle Scholar
  54. Tiwari AK (1994) Mapping forest biomass through digital processing of IRS-1A data. Int J Remote Sens 15(9):1849–1866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tucker CJ, Choundhury BH (1987) Satellite remote sensing of drought conditions. Remote Sens Environ 23:243–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Unni NUM, Murthy MSR, Swamy SL, Dutt CBS (1992) Fuelwood sustainability in rural areas—a model study using satellite remote sensing data. Technical report submitted in NRSA Hyderabad, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  57. Vitousek PM, Sanford RL (1986) Nutrient cycling in moist tropical forest. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 17:137–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vogt KA, Grier CC, Vogt DJ (1986) Production, turnover, and nutrient dynamics of above- and belowground detritus of world forest. Adv Ecol Res 15:303–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vogt KA, Vogt DS, Palmiotto PA, Boon P, Hara JO, Asbjornsen H (1996) Review of root dynamics in forest ecosystem grouped by climate, climatic forest type and species. Plant Soil 187:159–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wang XC, Wang SD, Dai LM (2017) Estimating and mapping forest biomass in northeast China using joint forest resources inventory and remote sensing data. J For Res.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-017-0504-6 Google Scholar
  61. Zheng DL, Rademacher J, Chen JQ, Crow T, Bresee M, Moine JL, Ryu SR (2004) Estimating aboveground biomass using landsat 7 ETM+ data across a managed landscape in northern Wisconsin, USA. Remote Sens Environ 93(3):402–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Northeast Forestry University and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tarun Kumar Thakur
    • 1
    Email author
  • S. L. Swamy
    • 2
  • Arvind Bijalwan
    • 3
  • Mammohan J. R. Dobriyal
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Environmental ScienceIndira Gandhi National Tribal University (IGNTU)AmarkantakIndia
  2. 2.Department of ForestryIndira Gandhi Agricultural UniversityRaipurIndia
  3. 3.Faculty of Technical ForestryIndian Institute of Forest ManagementBhopalIndia
  4. 4.Navsari Agriculture UniversityGujratIndia

Personalised recommendations