Advertisement

Methods of Estimating Aboveground Net Primary Productivity

  • Osvaldo E. Sala
  • Amy T. Austin

Abstract

Estimating net primary productivity (NPP) has been a central goal of basic and applied ecologists. Very important questions rely on good estimates of NPP: the global carbon balance, the location of the missing carbon sink, and predictions of global climate change (see Chapter 3). Primary productivity represents the major input of carbon and energy into ecosystems and McNaughton (1989) proposed NPP as an integrative variable of the functioning of the whole ecosystem because of its relationships with animal biomass, secondary productivity, and nutrient cycling. From an applied perspective, primary production of grasslands determines forage availability and constrains animal carrying capacity whereas primary production of forests is directly related to wood yield.

Keywords

Green Biomass Peak Biomass Litter Trap Plant Canopy Analyzer Global Carbon Balance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aber, J.D.; Melillo, J.M. Terrestrial Ecosystems. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1991.Google Scholar
  2. Binkley, D.; O’Connell, A.; Sankaran, K. Stand development and productivity. In: Sadanandan N.; Brown A., eds. Management of Soil, Nutrients and Water in Tropical Plantation Forests. Canberra: Australian Centre for International Agriculture Research; 1997: 419–441.Google Scholar
  3. Biondini, M.E.; Lauenroth, W.K.; Sala, O.E. Correcting estimates of net primary production: Are we overestimating plant production in rangelands? J. Range Manage. 44:194–197; 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bormann, B.T.; Gordon, J.C. Stand density effects in young red alder plantations: Productivity, photosynthate partitioning, and nitrogen fixation. Ecology 65:394–402; 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, S.; Iverson, L.R. Biomass estimates for tropical forests. World Resourc. Rev. 4:366–384; 1992.Google Scholar
  6. Currie, P.O.; Morris, M.J.; Neal, D.L. Uses and capabilities of electronic capacitance instruments for estimating standing herbage. Part 2. Sown Ranges. J. Br. Grassland Soc. 28:155–160; 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Curtin, R.A. Dynamics of tree and crown structure in Eucalyptus obliqua. For. Sci. 16:321–328; 1970.Google Scholar
  8. Curtis, R.O.; Reukema, D.L. Crown development and site estimates in a Douglas fir plantation spacing test. For. Sci. 16:287–301; 1970.Google Scholar
  9. Fernández, R.J.; Sala, O.E.; Golluscio, R.A. Woody and herbaceous aboveground production of a Patagonian steppe. J. Range Manage. 44:434–437; 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frank, D.A.; McNaughton, S.J. Aboveground biomass estimation with the canopy intercept method: A plant growth form caveat. Oikos 57:57–60; 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Freedman, B. The relationship between the aboveground dry weight and diameter for a wide size range of erect land plants. Can. J. Bot. 62:2370–2374; 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Greig-Smith, P. Quantitative Plant Ecology. Oxford: Blackwell; 1983.Google Scholar
  13. Lauenroth, W.K.; Hunt, H.W; Swift, D.M.; Singh, J.S. Estimating aboveground net primary production in grasslands: A simulation approach. Ecol. Model. 33:297–314; 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Li-Cor. LAI 2000 Plant Canopy Analyzer Operating Manual. Lincoln, NE: Li-Cor Inc.; 1992.Google Scholar
  15. McNaughton, S.J.; Oesterheld, M.; Frank, D.A.; Williams, K.J. Ecosystem-level patterns of primary productivity and herbivory in terrestrial habitats. Nature 341:142–144; 1989.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Neal, D.L.; Currie, P.O.; Morris, M.J. Sampling herbaceous native vegetation with an electronic capacitance instrument. J. Range Manage. 29:74–77; 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Neal, D.L.; Neal, J.L. Uses and capabilities of electronic capacitance instruments for estimating herbage. Part 1. History and development. J. Br. Grassland Soc. 28:81–89; 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Newbould, P. Methods for Estimating the Primary Production of Forests. Oxford: Blackwell; 1970.Google Scholar
  19. Odum, E. Fundamentals of Ecology. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1971.Google Scholar
  20. Ogden, A.E.; Schmidt, M.G. Litterfall and soil characteristics in canopy gaps occupied by vine maple in a coastal western hemlock forest. C. J. Soil Sci. 77:703–711; 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. O’Neill, R. Error analysis of ecological models. In: Nelson O., ed. Radionuclides in Ecosystems. Washington, DC: USAEC-CONF Technical Information Division; 1973: 898–908.Google Scholar
  22. Raich, J.W.; Russell, A.E.; Vitousek, P.M. Primary productivity and ecosystem development on Mauna Loa, Hawaii. Ecology 78:707–721; 1997.Google Scholar
  23. Sala, O.; Deregibus, V.; Schlichter, T.; Alippe, H. Productivity dynamics of a native temperate grassland in Argentina. J. Range Manage. 34:48–51; 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sala, O.E.; Biondini, M.E.; Lauenroth, W.K. Bias in estimates of primary production: An analytical solution. Ecol. Model. 44:43–55; 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Scheaffer, R.; Mendenhall, W.; Ott L. Elementary Survey Sampling. North Scituate, Ma: Duxbury; 1979.Google Scholar
  26. Singh, J.S.; Lauenroth, W.K.; Hunt, H.W.; Swift, D.M. Bias and random errors in estimators of net root production: A simulation approach. Ecology 65:1760–1764; 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Singh, J.S.; Lauenroth, W.K.; Steinhorst, R.K. Review and assessment of various techniques for estimating net aerial primary production in grasslands from harvest data. Bot. Rev. 41:181–232; 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Singh, S.P.; Adhikari, B.S.; Zobel, D.B. Biomass, productivity, leaf longevity and forest structure in the central Himalaya. Ecol. Monogr. 64:401–421; 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vickery, P.J.; Bennett, I.L.; Nicol, G.R. An improved electronic capacitance meter for estimating herbage mass. Grass Forage Sci. 35:247–252; 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Whittaker, R.; Marks, P. Methods of assessing terrestrial productivity. In: Lieth H.; Whittaker R., eds. Primary Productivity of the Biosphere. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1975:55–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Whittaker, R.H.; Woodwell, G.M. Dimension and production relations of trees and shrubs in the Brookhaven Forest, New York. J. Ecol. 56:1–25; 1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wiegert, R.; Evans, F.C. Primary production and the disappearance of dead vegetation on an old field. Ecology 45:49–63; 1964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wright, S.J.; Cornejo, F.H. Seasonal drought and leaf fall in a tropical forest. Ecology 71:1165–1175; 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Osvaldo E. Sala
  • Amy T. Austin

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations