, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 277–288 | Cite as

Individual biomass factors for beech, oak and pine in Slovakia: a comparative study in young naturally regenerated stands

  • Jozef Pajtík
  • Bohdan Konôpka
  • Martin LukacEmail author
Original Paper


Biomass conversion and expansion factors (BCEF) which convert tree stem volume to whole tree biomass and biomass allocation patterns in young trees were studied in order to estimate tree and stand biomass in naturally regenerated forests. European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.), Sessile oak (Quercus petraea (Mattuschka) Liebl.) and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) stands were compared. Seven forest stands of each species were chosen to cover their natural distribution in Slovakia. Species-specific BCEF are presented, generally showing a steep decrease in all species in the smallest trees, with the only exception in the case of branch BCEF in beech which grows with increasing tree size. The values of BCEF for all tree compartments stabilise in all species once trees reach about 60–70-mm diameter at base. As they grow larger, all species increase their allocation to stem and branches, while decreasing the relative growth of roots and foliage. There are, however, clear differences between species and also between broadleaves and conifers in biomass allocation. This research shows that species-specific coefficients must be used if we are to reduce uncertainties in estimates of carbon stock changes by afforestation and reforestation activities.


Natural regeneration Stem volume Biomass factors Biomass allocation Young tree 



The authors thank Dr J. Merganič for helping with the preparation of the sampling methodology. Mr P. Kaštier, O. Kolenič, M. Konôpka, M. Lipnický and M. Meňuš are acknowledged for their help in the field and laboratory works. We thank Dr M. Teobaldelli, Dr T. Albaugh and Mr T. Sloan for commenting on the manuscript. The study was supported through APVT-27-023504 and APVV-0612-07 projects awarded by the Slovak Research and Development Agency.

Supplementary material

468_2010_504_MOESM1_ESM.doc (243 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 243 kb)


  1. Barna M, Kodrik M (2002) Beech biomass distribution after shelterwood cutting according to tree social status. Ekologia (Bratislava) 21:61–73Google Scholar
  2. Bartelink HH (1998) A model of dry matter partitioning in trees. Tree Physiol 18:91–101PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Cienciala E, Apltauer J, Exnerová Z, Tatarinov F (2008a) Biomass functions applicable to oak trees grown in Central-European forestry. J For Sci 54:109–120Google Scholar
  4. Cienciala E, Exnerova Z, Schelhaas MJ (2008b) Development of forest carbon stock and wood production in the Czech Republic until 2060. Ann For Sci 65:603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dixon RK (1994) Carbon pools and flux of global forest ecosystems. Science 263(5144):185–190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. EEA (2006) European forest types. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark.
  7. Helmisaari HS, Makkonen K, Kellomaki S, Valtonen E, Malkonen E (2002) Below- and above-ground biomass, production and nitrogen use in Scots pine stands in eastern Finland. For Ecol Manag 165:317–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. IPCC (2003) Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama, JapanGoogle Scholar
  9. IPCC (2006) IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories; prepared by the national greenhouse gas inventories programme. In: Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K (eds) IGES. Hayama, Japan. Available at:
  10. Jalkanen A, Makipaa R, Stahl G, Lehtonen A, Petersson H (2005) Estimation of the biomass stock of trees in Sweden: comparison of biomass equations and age-dependent biomass expansion factors. Ann For Sci 62:845–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Janssens IA (2003) The European carbon budget: a gap—response. Science 302:1681aGoogle Scholar
  12. Karjalainen T, Pussinen A, Liski J, Nabuurs GJ, Eggers T, Lapvetelainen T, Kaipainen T (2003) Scenario analysis of the impacts of forest management and climate change on the European forest sector carbon budget. For Policy Econ 5:141–155Google Scholar
  13. King JS, Giardina CP, Pregitzer KS, Friend AL (2007) Biomass partitioning in red pine (Pinus resinosa) along a chronosequence in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Can J For Res 37:93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Konôpka B, Tsukahara H, Netsu A (2000) Biomass distribution in 40-year-old trees of Japanese black pine. J For Res 5:163–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lehtonen A (2005) Estimating foliage biomass in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) and Norway spruce (Picea abies) plots. Tree Physiol 25:803–811PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Lehtonen A, Makipaa R, Heikkinen J, Sievanen R, Liski J (2004) Biomass expansion factors (BEFs) for Scots pine, Norway spruce and birch according to stand age for boreal forests. For Ecol Manag 188:211–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lehtonen A, Cienciala E, Tatarinov F, Makipaa R (2007) Uncertainty estimation of biomass expansion factors for Norway spruce in the Czech Republic. Ann For Sci 64:133–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Levy PE, Hale SE, Nicoll BC (2004) Biomass expansion factors and root: shoot ratios for coniferous tree species in Great Britain. Forestry 77:421–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lindner M, Karjalainen T (2007) Carbon inventory methods and carbon mitigation potentials of forests in Europe: a short review of recent progress. Eur J Forest Res 126:149–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marklund LG (1987) Biomass functions for Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst.) in Sweden, vol 43. SLU, Department of Forest Survey, pp 1–127Google Scholar
  21. Neumann M, Jandl R (2005) Derivation of locally valid estimators of the aboveground biomass of Norway spruce. Eur J Forest Res 124:125–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ovington JD (1957) Dry matter production in Pinus sylvestris. Ann Bot 21:287–314Google Scholar
  23. Pajtík J, Konôpka B, Lukac M (2008) Biomass functions and expansion factors in young Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst) trees. For Ecol Manag 256:1096–1103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peichl M, Arain MA (2007) Allometry and partitioning of above- and belowground tree biomass in an age-sequence of white pine forests. For Ecol Manag 253:68–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schroeder P, Brown S, Mo JM, Birdsey R, Cieszewski C (1997) Biomass estimation for temperate broadleaf forests of the United States using inventory data. For Sci 42:424–434Google Scholar
  26. Somogyi Z, Cienciala E, Makipaa R, Muukkonen P, Lehtonen A, Weiss P (2007) Indirect methods of large-scale forest biomass estimation. Eur J Forest Res 126:197–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Teobaldelli M, Somogyi Z, Migliavacca M, Usoltsev VA (2009) Generalized functions of biomass expansion factors for conifers and broadleaved by stand age, growing stock and site index. For Ecol Manag 257:1004–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tobin B, Nieuwenhuis M (2007) Biomass expansion factors for Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr.) in Ireland. Eur J Forest Res 126:189–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Van Camp N, Vande Walle I, Mertens J, De Neve S, Samson R, Lust N, Lemeur R, Boeckx P, Lootens P, Beheydt D, Mestdagh I, Sleutel S, Verbeeck H, Van Cleemput O, Hofman G, Carlier L (2004) Inventory-based carbon stock of Flemish forests: comparison of European biomass expansion factors. Ann For Sci 61:677–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vande Walle I, Van Camp N, Perrin D, Lemeur R, Verheyen K, Van Wesemael B, Laitat E (2005) Growing stock-based assessment of the carbon stock in the Belgian forest biomass. Ann For Sci 62:853–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vanninen P, Makela A (2005) Carbon budget for Scots pine trees: effects of size, competition and site fertility on growth allocation and production. Tree Physiol 25:17–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Vanninen P, Ylitalo H, Sievanen R, Makela A (1996) Effects of age and site quality on the distribution of biomass in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L). Trees Struct Funct 10:231–238Google Scholar
  33. White MA, Thornton PE, Running SW RRN (2000) Parameterization and sensitivity analysis of the BIOME BGC terrestrial ecosystem model: net primary production controls. Earth Interact 4:1–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wirth C, Schumacher J, Schulze ED (2004) Generic biomass functions for Norway spruce in Central Europe—a meta-analysis approach toward prediction and uncertainty estimation. Tree Physiol 24:121–139PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Yuste JC, Konôpka B, Janssens IA, Coenen K, Xiao CW, Ceulemans R (2005) Contrasting net primary productivity and carbon distribution between neighboring stands of Quercus robur and Pinus sylvestris. Tree Physiol 25:701–712Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Forest CentreForest Research InstituteZvolenSlovak Republic
  2. 2.Department of Agriculture, Development and PolicyUniversity of ReadingReadingUK

Personalised recommendations