Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fractal analysis of canopy architectures of Acacia angustissima, Gliricidia sepium, and Leucaena collinsii for estimation of aboveground biomass in a short rotation forest in eastern Zambia

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Forestry Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A study was conducted at Msekera Regional Agricultural Research Station in eastern Zambia to (1) describe canopy branching properties of Acacia angustissima, Gliricidia sepium and Leucaena collinsii in short rotation forests, (2) test the existence of self similarity from repeated iteration of a structural unit in tree canopies, (3) examined intra-specific relationships between functional branching characteristics, and (4) determine whether allometric equations for relating aboveground tree biomass to fractal properties could accurately predict aboveground biomass. Measurements of basal diameter (D10) at 10cm aboveground and total height (H), and aboveground biomass of 27 trees were taken, but only nine trees representative of variability of the stand and the three species were processed for functional branching analyses (FBA) of the shoot systems. For each species, fractal properties of three trees, including fractal dimension (Dfract), bifurcation ratios (p) and proportionality ratios (q) of branching points were assessed. The slope of the linear regression of p on proximal diameter was not significantly different (P < 0.01) from zero and hence the assumption that p is independent of scale, a pre-requisite for use of fractal branching rules to describe a fractal tree canopy, was fulfilled at branching orders with link diameters >1.5 cm. The proportionality ration q for branching patterns of all tree species was constant at all scales. The proportion of q values >0.9 (f q ) was 0.8 for all species. Mean fractal dimension (Dfract) values (1.5–1.7) for all species showed that branching patterns had an increasing magnitude of intricacy. Since Dfract values were ≥1.5, branching patterns within species were self similar. Basal diameter (D10), proximal diameter and Dfract described most of variations in aboveground biomass, suggesting that allometric equations for relating aboveground tree biomass to fractal properties could accurately predict aboveground biomass. Thus, assessed Acacia, Gliricidia and Leucaena trees were fractals and their branching properties could be used to describe variability in size and aboveground biomass.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen AP, Pockman WT, Restrepo C, Milne BT. 2008. Allometry, growth and population regulation of the desert shrub Larrea tridentata. Functional Ecology, 22: 197–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betram JEA. 1989. Size-dependent differential scaling in branches: the mechanical design of trees revisited. Trees, 4: 241–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berntson GM. 1996. Fractal geometry scaling and description of plant root. In: A. Eshel and U. Kafkafi (eds), The hidden half. New York: Marcel Dekker, pp. 259–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown S. 1997. Estimating biomass and biomass change of tropical forests: a primer. FAO Forestry Paper, 134, Rome Italy.

  • Brown IF, Martineri LA, Thomas WW, Moreira MZ, Ferreira CAC, Victoria RA. 1995. Uncertainty in biomass of Amazonian forests: an example from Rondonia, Brazil. Forest Ecology and Management, 75: 175–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JH, Gillooly JH, Allen AP, Savage VM, West GB. 2004. Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology, 85: 1771–1789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown TB, Witschey WRT, Liebovitch LS. 2005. The broken past: Fractals in archaeology. Journal of Archeological Method and Theory, 12(1): 37–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camarero JJ, Siso S, Gil-Pelgrin E. 2003. Fractal dimension does not adequately describe the complexity of leaf margins of Quercus species. Real Jardin Botanico de Madrid, 60(1): 63–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannel MGR. 1983. Plant management in agroforestry: manipulation of trees, population densities and mixtures of trees and herbaceous crops. In: P.A. Huxley (ed), Plant Research and Agroforestry. Nairobi, Kenya: ICRAF,, pp. 455–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Claesson S, Sahlen K, Lundmark T. 2001. Functions for biomass estimation of young Pinus sylvestris, Picea abies and Betula spp. from stands in Northern Sweden with high stand densities. Scandinavian Journal of forestry, 16: 138–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delitti, WBC, Pausas JG. 2006. Biomass and mineralmass estimates in a “cerrado” ecosystem. Revista Brasileira Botânica, 29(4): 531–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dzerzon H, Sievänen R, Kurth W, Pertunen J, Sloboda B. 2003. Enhanced possibilities for analyzing tree strctures as provided by interface between different modeling systems. Silva Fennica, 37(1): 31–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enquist BJ. 2002. Universal scaling in tree and vascular plant allometry: toward a general quantitative theory linking plant form and functions from cells to ecosystems. Tree Physiology, 22: 1045–1064.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Enquist BJ, Brown JH. West GB. 1998. Allometric scaling of plant energetic and population density. Nature, 395: 163–165.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fitter AH, Stickland TR. 1992. Fractal characterization of root system architecture. Functional Ecology, 6: 632–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gisiger T. 2001. Scale invariance in biology: coincidence or footprint of a universal mechanism. Biological Review 76: 161–209.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Halley JM, Hartley S, Kallimanis AS, Kunin WE, Lennon JJ, Sgardelis SP. 2004. Uses and abuses of fractal methodology in ecology. Ecology Letters, 7(3): 254–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrington G. 1979. Estimating aboveground biomass of trees and shrubs in a Eucalyptus populnea F. Mull. Woodland by regression of mass on tree trunk diameter and plant height. Australian Journal of Botany, 27: 135–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC. 2006. Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. IGES, ISBN 4-88788-032-4.

  • IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Basic Summary for Policy Makers. Available at http://ipccwg1.ucar.edu/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_PlenaryApproved.pdf.

  • Jackson NA, Griffiths H, Zeron M. 1995 Aboveground biomass of seedling and semi-mature Sesbania sesban, a multipurpose tree species, estimated using allometric regressions. Agroforestry Systems, 29: 103–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kale M, Sing S, Roy PS, Desothali V, Ghole VS. 2004. Biomass equations of dominant species of dry deciduous forests in Shivupuri district, Madya Pradesh. Current Science, 87(5): 683–687.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaonga ML, Coleman L. 2008. Modelling soil organic turnover in improved fallows in eastern Zambia using the RothC model. Forest Ecology and Management, 256(5): 1160–1166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaonga ML, Bayliss-Smith TP. 2009. Carbon pools in tree biomass and the soil in improved fallows in eastern Zambia. Agroforestry Systems, 76: 37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaonga ML, Bayliss-Smith TP. 2010. Allometric models for estimation of aboveground carbon stocks in improved fallows in eastern Zambia. Agroforestry Systems, 78: 217–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ketterings QM, Coe R, van Noordiwijk M, Ambagau Y, Palm CA. 2001. Reducing uncertainty in the use of allometric equations for predicting aboveground biomass in mixed secondary forests. Forest Ecology Management, 146: 199–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koziowski J, Konarzewski M. 2004. Is West Brown and Enquist’s model of allometric scaling mathematically correct and biologically relevant. Functional Ecology, 18: 283–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar VSK, Tewari VP. 1999. Aboveground biomass tables for Azadrachta indica a. Juss. International Forest Review, 1(2): 109–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litton CM, Kauffman JB. 2008. Allometric models for predicting aboveground biomass in two widespread plants in Hawaii. Biotropica, 40(3): 313–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lott JE, Howard SB, Black CR, Ong CK. (2000) Allometric estimation of above-ground biomass and leaf area in managed Grevillea robusta agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems, 49: 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makela A, Valentine H. 2006. Crown ratio influences allometric scaling in trees. Ecology, 87(12): 2967–2972.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Masi CEA, Maranville JW. 1998. Evaluation of sorghum root branching using fractals. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 131: 259–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMahon TA, Kronauer RE. 1976: Tree structures: deducing the principles of mechanical design. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 50: 443–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niklas KJ. 1995. Size-dependent allometry of tree height and trunk diameter. Journal of Botany, 75: 217–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nygren P, Berninger F, Ozier-Lafontaine H, Lecompte F, Ramirez C, Salas E. 1998. Modelling of tree systems in agroforestry. Paper presented at the National Root Seminar, University of Joensuu, 1–2 December 1998.

  • Ong JE, Gong, WK, Wong CH. 2004. Allometry and partitioning of the mangrove, Rhizophora apiculata. Forest Ecology and Management, 188(1–3): 395–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otieno K, Onim JFM, Bryant MJ, Dzowela BH. 1991. The relation between biomass yield and linear measures of growth in Sesbania sesban in western Kenya. Agroforestry Systems, 13: 131–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozier-Lafontaine H, Lecompte F, Sillon JN. 1999. Fractal analysis of root architecture of Gliricidia for spatial prediction of root branching, size and mass: model development and evaluation in agroforestry. Plant Soil, 209: 167–180.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Price CA, Enquist B. 2007. Scaling mass and morphology in leaves:an extension of the WBE model. Ecology, 88(5): 1132–1141.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson AD, zu Dohna H. 2003. Predicting root biomass from branching patternsof Douglas-fir rooting systems. Oikos, 100: 96–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saatchi SS, Houghton A, Dos Santos Alvala RC, Soare JV, Yu Y. 2007. Distribution of aboveground biomass in the Amazon. Global Change Biology, 13: 816–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sağlan B, Kűcűki O, Bilgili E, Durmaz D, Basal I. 2008. Estimating fuel biomass of some shrub species (Maquis) in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Agriculture, 32: 349–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saint-André L, M’bou Mabiala A, Mouvondy W, Jourdan C, Roupsard A, Deleporte P, Hamel O, Nouvellon Y. 2005. Age-related equations for above- and below-aground biomass of Eucalyptus hybrid in Congo. Forest Ecology and Management, 205: 199–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith DM. 2001 Estimation of tree root lengths using fractal branching rules: a comparison with soil coring for Grevillea robusta. Plant Soil, 229: 295–301.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Snowdon P. 1991 A ratio estimator for bias correction in logarithmic regressions. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 21: 720–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spek LY, Van Noordwijk M. 1994 Proximal root diameter as a predictor of total root size for fractal models. II. Numerical model. Plant soil, 164: 119–127.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sugihala G, May RM. 1990 Applications of fractals in ecology. Tree, 5(3):79–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucote DL, Pelletier JD, Newman WI. 1998. Networks with side branching in biology. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 193: 577–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van TK, Rayachhetry MB, Centre D. 2000. Estimating aboveground biomass of Melaleuca quinquenenervia in Florida, USA. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management, 38, 62–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Noordwijk M, Mulia R. 2002. Functional branch analysis as a tool for fractal scaling above- and belowground trees for their additive and nonadditive properties. Ecological Modelling, 149: 41–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Noordwijk M, Spek LY, De Willigen P. 1994. Proximal root diameters as predictors of total root size for fractal branching models. I. Theory. Plant Soil, 164: 107–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West GB, Brown JH, Enquist BJ. 1999: A general model for the structure and allometry plant vascular systems. Nature, 400: 664–667.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • William N. 1997. Fractal geometry gets measure of life scales. Science 276: 34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. A Rocha International, Sheraton House, Castle Park, Cambridge, CB3 0AX, UK

    Martin L. Kaonga

Authors
  1. Martin L. Kaonga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin L. Kaonga.

Additional information

Founadition project: The study was funded by the Gates Cambridge Trust at Cambridge University.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kaonga, M.L. Fractal analysis of canopy architectures of Acacia angustissima, Gliricidia sepium, and Leucaena collinsii for estimation of aboveground biomass in a short rotation forest in eastern Zambia. Journal of Forestry Research 23, 1–12 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-012-0227-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-012-0227-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation