Annals of Forest Science

, Volume 68, Issue 4, pp 727–736 | Cite as

Estimation of tree biomass, carbon pool and net primary production of an old-growth Pinus kesiya Royle ex. Gordon forest in north-eastern India

  • Ratul Baishya
  • Saroj Kanta BarikEmail author
Original Paper


• Background

The data on carbon pool and biomass distribution pattern of old-growth Pinus kesiya Royle ex. Gordon forests are not available.

• Methods

The forest carbon pool and annual net primary production (NPP) were assessed in three old-growth P. kesiya forest stands in north-eastern India, using biomass equations developed from 40 harvested trees between 9 and 63 cm in diameter at breast height (DBH) range.

• Results

Regression models of the form Log(Y) = a + b logD + c (logD)2 + d (logD)3 were the best fits for biomass estimation of total tree and its various components. The total forest biomass (which includes live and dead compartments of trees, shrubs, and herbs) was 460.5 Mg ha−1, of which 91.2% was in the aboveground and 8.8% in the belowground compartment. P. kesiya contributed 77%, broad-leaved tree species 13.5%, shrubs 0.12%, herbs 0.03% and litter 0.5% to the total forest biomass. The total ecosystem carbon content of the forest including soil organic carbon pool was 283.1 Mg C ha−1. The annual net primary production (NPP) of the forest was 17.5 Mg ha−1 yr−1.

• Conclusion

The estimated total forest biomass and carbon pool of the P. kesiya forest were greater than for the other pine forests studied world-wide.


Old-growth Pinus kesiya forest Tree biomass estimation models Total forest carbon pool Net primary production 



The first author is thankful to CSIR-UGC, Government of India, for financial assistance in the form of UGC-NET (SRF) fellowship. The authors are thankful to the Forest Department, Government of Meghalaya for giving permission to conduct the study in the reserved forest. The support received from Dr. Krishna Upadhaya, Dr. Dibyendu Adhikari, Dr. Nigyal John Lakadong and Mr. Arun Chettri during the field study is gratefully acknowledged.


  1. Anderson JM, Ingram JSI (1993) Tropical soil biology and fertility. A handbook of methods. C.A.B. International, Wallingford UK, 221 pGoogle Scholar
  2. Arunachalam A, Maithani K, Pandey HN, Tripathi RS (1996) The impact of disturbance on detrital dynamics and soil microbial biomass of a Pinus kesiya forest in north-east India. For Ecol Manage 88:273–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baishya R, Barik SK, Upadhaya K (2009) Distribution pattern of aboveground biomass in natural and plantation forests of humid tropics in northeast India. Trop Ecol 50:295–304Google Scholar
  4. Barik SK, Tripathi RS, Pandey HN, Rao P (1996) Tree regeneration in a subtropical humid forest: effect of cultural disturbance on seed production, dispersal and germination. J Appl Ecol 33:1551–1560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baskerville G (1972) Use of logarithmic regression in the estimation of plant biomass. Can J For Res 2:49–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beauchamp JJ, Olson JS (1973) Corrections for the bias in regression estimates after logarithmic transformation. Ecology 54:1403–1407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown S (1996) Tropical forests and the global carbon cycle: Estimating state and change in biomass density. In: Apps M, Price D (eds) Forest Ecosystems. Forest Management and the Global Carbon Cycle. NATO ASI Series. Springer, Berlin, pp 135–144Google Scholar
  8. Brown S (1997) Estimating biomass and biomass change of tropical forests: a primer. FAO Forestry paper 134. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, 55 pGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown S, Lugo AE (1992) Aboveground biomass estimates for tropical moist forests of the Brazilian Amazon. Interciencia 17:8–18Google Scholar
  10. Brown S, Gillespie A, Lugo A (1989) Biomass estimation methods for tropical forests with applications to forest inventory data. For Sci 35:881–902Google Scholar
  11. Cairns MAS, Brown S, Helmer EH, Baumgardner GA (1997) Root biomass allocation in the world’s upland forest. Oecologia 111:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chambers JQ, dos Santos J, Ribeiro RJ, Higuchi N (2001) Tree damage, allometric relationships, and aboveground net primary production in central Amazon forest. For Ecol Manage 152:73–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Champion HG, Seth SK (1968) Revised survey of forest types of India. Managers of publications. Govt. of India, New Delhi, p 404Google Scholar
  14. Changala EM, Gibson GL (1984) Pinus oocarpa Schiede international provenance trial in Kenya at eight years. In: Barnes RD, Gibson GL (eds) Provenance and genetic improvement strategies in tropical forest trees. Mutate Zimbabwe, Commonwealth Forestry Institute, Oxford. Forest Research Centre, Harare, pp 191–200Google Scholar
  15. Chaturvedi OP, Singh JS (1982) Total biomass and biomass production in P. roxburghii trees growing in all aged natural forest. Can J For Res 12:632–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chaturvedi OP, Singh JS (1987) The structure and function of pine forest in Central Himalaya. I. Dry matter dynamics. Ann Bot 60:237–252Google Scholar
  17. Clark DA, Brown S, Kicklighter D, Chambers JQ, Thomlinson JR, Ni J (2001) Measuring net primary production in forests: concepts and field methods. Ecol Appl 11:356–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clark KL, Gholz HL, Castro M (2004) Carbon dynamics along a chronosequence of slash pine plantations in North Florida. Ecol Appl 14:1154–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Das AK, Ramakrishnan PS (1987) Aboveground biomass and nutrient contents in an age series of Khasi pine (Pinus kesiya). For Ecol Manage 18:61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Delrio M, Barbeito I, Bravo-Oviedo A, Calama R, Canellas I, Herrero C, Bravo F (2008) Carbon sequestration in Mediterranean pine forests. In: Bravo F, Jandl R, LeMay V, Gadow K (eds), Managing forest ecosystems: The challenge of climate change. Springer Science+Business Media, Dordrecht, pp 221–245Google Scholar
  21. Desai AR, Bolstad PV, Cook B, Davis KJ, Carey EV (2005) Comparing net ecosystem exchange of carbon dioxide between an old-growth and mature forest in the upper Midwest. USA Agric For Meteorol 128:33–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gower ST, Gholz HL, Nakane K, Baldwin VC (1994) Production and carbon allocation patterns of pine forests. Ecol Bull 43:115–135Google Scholar
  23. Haridasan K, Rao RR (1985–1987). Forest flora of Meghalaya. Vol. I and II. Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehra Dun India, 937 pGoogle Scholar
  24. Haynes BE, Gower ST (1995) Belowground carbon allocation in unfertilized and fertilized red pine plantations in northern Wisconsin. Tree Physiol 15:317–325PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. John B, Pandey HN, Tripathi RS (2001) Vertical distribution and seasonal changes of fine and coarse root mass in Pinus kesiya Royle Ex.Gordon forest of three different ages. Acta Oecol 22:293–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Karizumi N (1974) The mechanism and function of tree root in the process of forest production. I. Method of investigation and estimation of the root biomass. Bull Gov For Exp Stn 259:1–99Google Scholar
  27. Kira T, Shidei T (1967) Primary production and turnover of organic matter in different forest ecosystems of the Western Pacific. Jpn J Ecol 17:70–87Google Scholar
  28. Knohl A, Schulze ED, Kolle O, Buchmann N (2003) Large carbon uptake by an unmanaged 250-year-old deciduous forest in Central Germany. Agric For Meteorol 118:151–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kurz WA, Apps MJ (1995) An analysis of future carbon budgets of Canadian boreal forests. Water Air Soil Pollut 82:321–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Law BE, Sun OJ, Campbell JL, Van Tuyl S, Thornton E (2003) Changes in carbon storage and fluxes in a chronosequence of ponderosa pine. Glob Chang Biol 9:510–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Li R, Weiskittel AR (2010) Comparison of model forms for estimating stem taper and volume in the primary conifer species of the North American Acadian Region. Ann For Sci 67:302–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Luo TX, Li WH, Zhu HZ (2002) Estimated biomass and productivity of natural vegetation on the Tibetan Plateau. Ecol Appl 12:980–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ma QY (1988) A study on biomass and primary productivity of Chinese Pine (Pinus tabulaeformis Carr.). Ph.D. thesis. Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, 96 pGoogle Scholar
  34. Malhi Y, Baldocchi DD, Jarvis PG (1999) The carbon balance of tropical, temperate and boreal forests. Plant Cell Environ 22:715–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Melillo JM, McGurie AD, Kicklighter DW, Moore BIII, Vorosmarty CJ, Schloss AL (1993) Global climate change and terrestrial net primary production. Nature 263:234–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Misra R (1968) Ecology workbook. Oxford & IBH Publishing Co, Calcutta, India, 244 pGoogle Scholar
  37. Muller RN (1982) Vegetation pattern in the mixed mesophytic forest of eastern Kentucky. Ecology 63:1901–1917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ovington JD, Madgwick HAI (1959) Distribution of organic matter and plant nutrients in a plantation of Scots pine. For Sci 5:344–355Google Scholar
  39. Ovington JD, Olson JS (1970) Biomass and chemical content of El Verde lower montane rain forest plants. In: Odum HT, Pigeon RF (eds) A tropical rainforest. US Atomic Energy Commission, National Technical Information Services. US Department of Commerce, Springfield, pp 35–61Google Scholar
  40. Persson H (1978) Root dynamics in a young Scots Pine stand in Central Sweden. Oikos 30:508–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rana BS, Singh SP, Singh RP (1989) Biomass and net primary productivity in Central Himalayan forest along an altitudinal gradient. For Ecol Manage 27:199–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ravindranath NH, Somashekhar BS, Gadgil M (1997) Carbon flow in Indian forests. Clim Change 35:297–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Richter DD, Markewitz D, Dunsomb JK, Wells CG, Stuanes A, Allen HL, Urrego B, Harrison K, Bonani G (1995) Carbon cycling sink and for the concept of soil. In: Mcfee WW, Kelly JM (eds) Carbon forms and functions in forest soils. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, pp 233–251Google Scholar
  44. Schmidt A, Poulain M, Klein D, Krause K, Peña-Rojas K, Schmidt H, Schulte A (2009) Allometric above-belowground biomass equations for Nothofagus pumilio (Poepp. & Endl.) natural regeneration in the Chilean Patagonia. Ann For Sci 66:513–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schroeder P, Brown S, Mo J, Birdsey R, Cieszewski C (1997) Biomass estimation for temperate broadleaf forests of the United States using inventory data. For Sci 43:424–434Google Scholar
  46. Son Y, Hwang JW, Kim ZS, Lee WK, Kim JS (2001) Allometry and biomass of Korean pine (Pinus koraiensis) in central Korea. Biores Technol 78:215–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tanabe H, Nakano T, Mimura M, Abe Y, Mariko S (2003) Biomass and net primary production of a Pinus densiflora forest established on a lava flow of Mt. Fuji in central Japan. J For Res 8:247–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Terakunpisut J, Gajaseni N, Ruankawe N (2007) Carbon sequestration potential in aboveground biomass of Thong Pha Phun national forest. Thailand. Appl Ecol Environ Res 5:93–102Google Scholar
  49. Ter-Mikaelian MT, Korzukhin MD (1997) Biomass equations for sixty five North American tree species. For Ecol Manage 97:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Valentini R, Matteucci G, Dolman AJ et al (2000) Respiration as the main determinant of carbon balance in European forests. Nature 404:861–865PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vogt KA, Grier GC, Vogt DJ (1986) Production, turnover and nutrient dynamics of above- and below-ground detritus of world forests. Adv Ecol Res 15:303–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vogt KA, Vogt DJ, Palmiotto PA, Boon P, O’Hara J, Asbjornsen H (1996) Review of root dynamics in forest ecosystems grouped by climate, climatic forest type and species. Plant Soil 187:159–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BotanyUniversity of DelhiDelhiIndia
  2. 2.Centre for Advanced Studies in Botany, School of Life SciencesNorth-Eastern Hill UniversityShillongIndia

Personalised recommendations