Trees

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 104–109 | Cite as

Bias in leaf area — sapwood area ratios and its impact on growth analysis in Pinus contorta

  • Thomas J. Dean
  • James N. Long
  • Frederick W. Smith
Article

Summary

Two alternative estimators of individual tree leaf area (A1) area are used to derive estimates of leaf-area index (L) for 40 plots in Pinus contorta Dougl. stands. One estimator of A1 is based on the common assumption of a constant ratio between A1 and sapwood cross-sectional area at breast height (As). The second estimator of A1 accounts for tree-to-tree variation in the relation between A1 and As. The apparent relationship between stand growth and leaf-area index is strongly dependent on the way leaf area is estimated. When L is derived from a constant A1∶As ratio, stand growth appears to be strongly correlated with L. However, when L is based on estmates of A1 that account for tree-to-tree variation in the A1 — As relation, stand growth is seen to be only weakly related to L. Stand structure, quantified as percent live-crown, accounts for a great deal of the observed variation in leaf-area efficiency. These contrasting relationships illustrate the importance of unbiased estimates of L in interpreting the link between stand-level processes and leaf area.

Key words

Leaf area Sapwood cross-sectional area Production Leaf-area efficiency 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albrektson A (1984) Sapwood basal area and needle mass of Scot's pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) trees in Central Sweden. Forestry 57: 35–43Google Scholar
  2. Assmann E (1970) The principles of forest yield study. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Caldwell MM, Dean TJ, Nowak RS, Dzurec RS, Richards JH (1983) Bunchgrass architecture, light interception, and water-use efficiency: assessment by fiber optic point quadrants and gas exchange. Oecologia 59: 178–184Google Scholar
  4. Dean TJ, Long JN (1985) Response of self-thinning to artifically reduced levels of leaf area in monocultures of Trifolium pratense. Ann Bot 55: 361–366Google Scholar
  5. Dean TJ, Long JN (1986) Variation in sapwood area-leaf area relations within two stands of lodgepole pine. For Sci 32: 749–758Google Scholar
  6. Espinosa Bancalari MA, Perry DA, Marshall JD (1987) Leaf area-sapwood area relationships in adjacent young Douglas fir stands with different early growth rates. Can J For Res 17: 174–180Google Scholar
  7. Grier CC, Waring RH (1974) Conifer foliage mass related to sapwood area. For Sci 20: 205–206Google Scholar
  8. Kaufmann MR, Troendle CA (1981) The relationship of leaf area and foliage biomass to sapwood conducting area in four subalpine forest tree species. For Sci 27: 477–482Google Scholar
  9. Keane MG, Weetman GF (1987) Leaf area-sapwood cross-sectional area relationships in repressed stands of lodgepole pine. Can J For Res 17: 205–209Google Scholar
  10. Kittredge J (1944) Estimation of the amount of foliage of trees and stands. J For 42: 905–912Google Scholar
  11. Lang ARG, Yueqin X (1986) Estimation of leaf area index from transmission of direct sunlight in discontinuous canopies. Agric For Meteor 37: 229–243Google Scholar
  12. Long JN (1985) A practical approach to density management. For Chron 61: 23–27Google Scholar
  13. Long JN, Dean TJ (1986) Sapwood area of Pinus contorta stands as a function of mean size and density. Oecologia 68:410–412Google Scholar
  14. Long JN, Smith FW (1984) Relation between size and density in developing stands: a description and possible mechanism. For Ecol Manage 7: 191–206Google Scholar
  15. Lonsdale WM, Watkinson AR (1982) Light and self-thinning. New Pytol 90: 431–445Google Scholar
  16. Maguire DA, Hann DW (1987) Equations for predicting sapwood area at crown base in southwestern Oregon Douglas-fir. Can J For Res 17: 236–241Google Scholar
  17. Marshall JD, Waring RH (1986) Comparison of methods of estimating leaf-area index in old-growth Douglas-fir. Ecology 67: 975–979Google Scholar
  18. Moller C (1947) The effect of thinning, age, and site on foliage, increment, and loss of dry matter. J For 45: 393–404Google Scholar
  19. Monsi M, Uchijima Z, Oikawa T (1973) Structure of foliage canopies and photosynthesis. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4: 301–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oren R, Week KS, Schulze ED (1986) Relationships between foliage and conducting xylem in Picea abies (L.) Karst. Trees 1: 61–69Google Scholar
  21. Panshin AJ, DeZeeuw C (1970) Textbook of wood technology, vol 1. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Pearson JA, Fahey TJ, Knight DH (1984) Biomass and leaf area in contrasting lodgepole pine forests. Can J For Res 14: 259–265Google Scholar
  23. Schimpf DJ, Henderson JA, MacMahon J (1980) Some aspects of succession in the spruce-fir forest zone of Northern Utah. Great Basin Nat 40: 1–26Google Scholar
  24. Waring RH (1983) Estimating forest growth and efficiency in relation to canopy leaf area. Adv Ecol Res 13: 327–354Google Scholar
  25. Waring RH, Schlesinger WH (1985) Forest ecosystems: concepts and management. Academic Press, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  26. Waring RH (1985b) Imbalanced forest ecosystems: assessments and consequences. For Ecol Manage 12: 93–112Google Scholar
  27. Waring RH, Newman K, Bell J (1981) Efficiency of tree crowns and stemwood production at different canopy leaf densities. Forestry 54: 129–137Google Scholar
  28. Whitehead D (1978) The estimation of foliage area from sapwood basal area in Scot's pine. Forestry 51: 137–149Google Scholar
  29. Whitehead D, Edwards WRN, Jarvis PG (1984) Conducting sapwood area, foliage area, and permeability in mature trees of Picea sitchensis and Pinus contorta. Can J For Res 14: 940–947Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas J. Dean
    • 1
  • James N. Long
    • 2
  • Frederick W. Smith
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of ForestryUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Forest Resources and Ecology CenterUtah State UniversityLoganUSA
  3. 3.Department of Forest and Wood SciencesCollege of Forestry and Natural Resources, Colorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations