Wetlands Ecology and Management

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 157–164 | Cite as

Standing crop and aboveground biomass partitioning of a dwarf mangrove forest in Taylor River Slough, Florida

  • C. Coronado-Molina
  • J.W. Day
  • E. Reyes
  • B.C. Perez


The structure and standing crop biomass of a dwarf mangrove forest, located in the salinity transition zone ofTaylor River Slough in the Everglades National Park, were studied. Although the four mangrove species reported for Florida occurred at the study site, dwarf Rhizophora mangle trees dominated the forest. The structural characteristics of the mangrove forest were relatively simple: tree height varied from 0.9 to 1.2 meters, and tree density ranged from 7062 to 23 778 stems ha−1. An allometric relationship was developed to estimate leaf, branch, prop root, and total aboveground biomass of dwarf Rhizophora mangle trees. Total aboveground biomass and their components were best estimated as a power function of the crown area times number of prop roots as an independent variable (Y = B × X−0.5083). The allometric equation for each tree component was highly significant (p<0.0001), with all r2 values greater than 0.90. The allometric relationship was used to estimate total aboveground biomass that ranged from 7.9 to 23.2 ton ha−1. Rhizophora mangle contributed 85% of total standing crop biomass. Conocarpus erectus, Laguncularia racemosa, and Avicennia germinans contributed the remaining biomass. Average aboveground biomass allocation was 69% for prop roots, 25% for stem and branches, and 6% for leaves. This aboveground biomass partitioning pattern, which gives a major role to prop roots that have the potential to produce an extensive root system, may be an important biological strategy in response to low phosphorus availability and relatively reduced soils that characterize mangrove forests in South Florida.

Aboveground biomass Allometric equation Biomass allocation Rhizophora mangle 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Azocar P., Mansilla A. and Silva H. 1981. Método de estimación de la fitomasa util de Atriplex repanda. Av. Prod. Anim. 6: 21-28.Google Scholar
  2. Ball M. 1988. Ecophysiology of mangroves. Trees 2: 129-142.Google Scholar
  3. Boto K.G. and Wellington J.T. 1983. Phosphorus and nitrogen nutritional status of a northern Australian mangrove forest. Marine Ecology and Progress Series 11: 63-69.Google Scholar
  4. Brown S. and Lugo A.E. 1982. A comparison of structural and functional characteristics of saltwater and freshwater wetlands. In: Gopal B., Turner R. and Wetzel R. (eds), Wetlands Ecology and Management. International Scientific Publishers, Jaipur, India, pp. 109-130.Google Scholar
  5. Causton D.R. 1985. Biometrical, structural, and physiological relationships among tree parts. In: Cannell M.G.R. and Jackson J.E. (eds), Attributes of Trees as Crop Plants. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Huntingdom, UK, pp. 139-159.Google Scholar
  6. Chen E. and Gerber J.F. 1990. Climate. In: Myers R.L. and Ewel J.J. (eds), Ecosystems of Florida. University of Florida Press, Gainsville, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Chen R. and Twilley R.R. 1999. A simulation model of organic matter and nutrient accumulation in mangrove wetland soils. Biogeochemestry 44: 93-118.Google Scholar
  8. Cintrón G. and Schaeffer-Novelly Y. 1984. Methods for studying mangrove structure. In: Snedaker S. and Snedaker J. (eds), The Mangrove Ecosystem: Research Methods. Monographs on Oceanographic Methodology 8. UNESCO, Paris, pp. 91-113.Google Scholar
  9. Clough B.F. and Scott K. 1989. Allometric relationships for estimating above-ground biomass in six mangrove species. Forest Ecology and Management 27: 117-127.Google Scholar
  10. Clough B.F. 1992. Primary productivity and growth of mangrove forests. In: Robertson A.I. and Alongi D.M. (eds), Tropical Mangrove Ecology. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Clough B.F., Dixon P. and Dalhaus O. 1997. Allometric relationships for estimating biomass in multi-stemmed mangrove trees. Australian Journal of Botany 45: 1023-1031.Google Scholar
  12. Cottam G. and Curtis J.T. 1956. The use of distance measures in phytosociological sampling. Ecology 37: 451-460.Google Scholar
  13. Crow T. 1978. Common regressions to estimate tree biomass in tropical stands. Forestry Science 24: 110-114.Google Scholar
  14. Day J.W., Conner W.H., Ley-Lou F., Day R.H. and Machado A.N. 1987. The productivity and composition of mangrove forests, Laguna de Términos, México. Aquatic Botany 27: 267-284.Google Scholar
  15. Day J.W., Coronado-Molina C., Vera-Herrera F.R., Twilley R., Rivera-Monroy V.H., Alvarez-Guillen H. et al. 1996. A seven year record of above-ground net primary production in a southeastern Mexican mangrove forest. Aquatic Botany 55: 39-60.Google Scholar
  16. Ettiene M. 1989. Non-destructive methods for evaluating shrub biomass: a review. Acta Oecologica 10: 115-128.Google Scholar
  17. Feller I.C. 1995. Effects of nutrient enrichment on growth and herbivory of dwarf red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle). Ecological Monographs 65: 477-505.Google Scholar
  18. Feller I.C., Whigham D.F., O'Neill J.P. and McKee K.L. 1999. Effects of nutrient enrichment on within-stand cycling in a mangrove forest. Ecology 80: 2193-2205.Google Scholar
  19. Fromard F., Puig H., Mougin E., Marty G., Betoulle J.L. and Cadamuro L. 1998. Structure, above-ground biomass and dynamics of mangrove ecosystems: new data from French Guiana. Oecologia 115: 39-53.Google Scholar
  20. Golley F., Odum H.T. and Wilson R. 1962. A synoptic study of the structure and metabolism of a red mangrove forest in southern Puerto Rico in May. Ecology 43: 9-18.Google Scholar
  21. Golley F.B., McGinnis J.T., Clements R.G., Child G.I. and Duever M.J. 1975. Mineral Cycling in a Tropical Moist Forest Ecosystem. University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia, USA, 248 p.Google Scholar
  22. Hela J. 1952. Remarks on the climate of southern Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science 2: 438-447.Google Scholar
  23. Koch S.M. 1997. Rhizophora mangle L. seedling development into sapling stage across resource and stress gradients in subtropical Florida. Biotropica 29: 427-439.Google Scholar
  24. Koslowski T.T., Kramer P.J. and Pallardy S.G. 1991. The Physiological Ecology of Wood Plants. Academic Press, San Diego, 657 pp.Google Scholar
  25. Landsberg J.J. 1986. Physiological Ecology of Forest Production. Academic Press, London, 198 pp.Google Scholar
  26. Lin G., Sternberg L. and da S. 1992. Differences in morphology, photosynthesis, and carbon isotope ratios between scrub and fringe mangroves. Aquatic Botany 42: 303-313.Google Scholar
  27. Lugo A.E. and Snedaker S.C. 1974. The ecology of mangroves. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5: 39-64.Google Scholar
  28. McKee K.L. 1993. Soil physicochemical patterns and mangrove species distribution-reciprocal effects? Journal of Ecology 81: 477-487.Google Scholar
  29. Ong J.E., Gong W.K. and Wong C.H. 1982. Productivity and nutrient status of litter in a managed mangrove forest. Symposium on Mangrove forest ecosystems productivity. BIOTROP-UNESCO, Bogor, Indonesia.Google Scholar
  30. Pezeshki S.R., DeLaune R.D. and Meeder J.F. 1997. Carbon assimilation and biomass partitioning in Avicennia germinans and Rhizophora mangle seedlings in response to soil redox conditions. Environmental and Experimental Botany 37: 161-171.Google Scholar
  31. Pool D.J., Snedaker S.C. and Lugo A.E. 1977. Structure of mangrove forests in Florida, Puerto Rico, Mexico and Central America. Biotropica 9: 195-212.Google Scholar
  32. Putz F.E. and Chan H.T. 1986. Tree growth dynamics, and productivity in a mature mangrove forest in Malaysia. Forest Ecology and Management 17: 211-230.Google Scholar
  33. Rittehnhouse L. and Sneva F. 1977. A technique for estimating Big Sage Brush production. Journal of Range Management 30: 68-70.Google Scholar
  34. Ross M.S., Ruiz P.L., Telesnicki G.J. and Meeder J.F. 2001. Estimating above-ground biomass and production in mangrove communities of Biscayne National Park, Florida (USA). Wetland Ecology and Management 9: 27-37.Google Scholar
  35. SAS Institute 2000. SAS User's Guide: Statistics. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  36. Tam N.F.Y., Wong Y.S., Lan C.Y. and Chen G.Z. 1995. Community structure and Standing crop biomass of a mangrove forest in Futian Nature Reserve, Shenzhen, China. Hydrobilogia 295: 193-201.Google Scholar
  37. Twilley R.R., Snedaker S.C., Yañez-Arancibia A. and Medina E. 1996. Biodiversity and ecosystem processes in tropical estuaries: perspectives of mangrove ecosystems. In: Mooney H.A., Cushman J.H., Medina E., Sala O.E. and Shultze E.D. (eds), Functional Roles of Biodiversity: Global Perspectives. John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  38. Uresk D., Gilbert R. and Rickerd W. 1977. Sampling Big Sagebrush for Phytomass. Journal of Range Management 30: 311-314.Google Scholar
  39. Wang J.D., Vandekreeke J., Krishnan N. and Smith D. 1994. Wind and tide responses in Florida Bay. Bulletin of Marine Science 54: 579-601.Google Scholar
  40. Woodroffe C.D. 1985. Studies of a mangrove basin, Tuff Crater, New Zealand: I. Mangrove biomass and production of detritus. Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science 20: 265-280.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Coronado-Molina
    • 1
  • J.W. Day
    • 1
  • E. Reyes
    • 1
  • B.C. Perez
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences and Coastal Ecology Institute, School of the Coast and the EnvironmentLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA
  2. 2.National Wetland Research CenterUS Geological SurveyLafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations