Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Aboveground stand-level biomass estimation: a comparison of two methods for major forest species in northwest Spain

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Annals of Forest Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

The scaling-up approach (which requires the use of individual tree biomass equations and data) is one of the most commonly used methods for estimating stand biomass at a local scale. However, biomass prediction over large management areas requires more efficient methods.

Aims

Two methods of estimating aboveground stand biomass were developed and compared: stand biomass equations (SBE) including observed stand variables, and SBE including biomass expansion factors (BEF) and stand volume.

Methods

Two types of systems of additive equations were fitted simultaneously for components and total aboveground stand biomass, to ensure additivity. Inherent correlations among biomass components were also taken into account in the fitting process.

Results

The systems explained a high percentage of the observed variability. The SBE systems that included observed stand variables provided more accurate estimates than those that included BEF and stand volume. However, the latter were found to be more precise for stem wood and total aboveground biomass prediction.

Conclusions

Both approaches provide a direct link between forest inventory data, outputs from whole-stand growth models, and biomass estimates at stand level. Taking into account that the inventory effort is similar for both alternatives, the choice of which to use will depend on the data available and on the relative importance of the biomass components for the end-users.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albaugh TJ, Bergh J, Lundmark T, Nilsson U, Luiz Stape J, Allen HE, Linder S (2009) Do biological expansion factors adequately estimate stand-scale aboveground component biomass for Norway spruce? For Ecol Manage 258:2628–2637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antonio N, Tomé M, Tomé J, Soares P, Fontes L (2007) Effect of tree, stand, and site variables on the allometry of E. globulus tree biomass. Can J For Res 37:895–906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balboa-Murias M, Rodríguez Soalleiro R, Merino A, Álvarez González JG (2006) Temporal variations and distribution of carbon stocks in aboveground biomass of radiata pine and maritime pine pure stands under different silvicultural alternatives. For Ecol Manage 237:29–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bi H, Birk E, Turner J, Lambert M, Jurskis V (2001) Converting stem volume to biomass with additivity, bias corrections and confidence bands for two Australian tree species. N Z J For Sci 31:298–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Bi H, Turner J, Lambert M (2004) Additive biomass equations for native eucalypt forest trees of temperate Australia. Trees 18:467–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bi H, Long Y, Turner J, Lei Y, Snowdon P, Li Y, Harper R, Zerihun A, Ximenes F (2010) Additive prediction of aboveground biomass for P. radiata (D. Don) plantations. For Ecol Manage 12:2301–2314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks JR, Wiant HV (2004) A simple technique for estimating cubic volume yields. For Ecol Manage 203:373–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chave J, Condit R, Aguilar S, Hernandez A, Lao S, Perez R (2004) Error propagation and scaling for tropical forest biomass estimates. Phil Trans R Soc Lond 359:409–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crecente-Campo F, Tomé M, Soares P, Diéguez-Aranda U (2010) A generalized nonlinear mixed-effects height–diameter model for E. globulus L. in northwestern Spain. For Ecol Manage 259:943–952

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diéguez-Aranda U, Rojo Alboreca A, Castedo-Dorado F, Álvarez González JG, Barrio-Anta M, Crecente-Campo F, González González JM, Pérez-Cruzado C, Rodríguez Soalleiro R, López-Sánchez CA, Balboa-Murias MA, Gorgoso Varela JJ, Sánchez Rodríguez F (2009) Herramientas selvícolas para la gestión forestal sostenible en Galicia. Dirección Xeral de Montes, Consellaría do Medio Rural, Xunta de Galicia, Santiago de Compostela. http://www.usc.es/uxfs/Libros,44. Accessed 20 Oct 2011

  • Faias SP, Paulo J, Soares P, Patrício MS, Freire JP, Tomé M (2009) Modelling biomass expansion factors for the most important forest tree species in Portugal. Dissertation, pp. 18–38, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa

  • Gómez-García E (2011) Modelos dinámicos de crecimiento para rodales regulares de B. pubescens Ehrh. y Q. robur L. en Galicia. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela

  • Greene WH (1999) Econometric analysis, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Husch B, Beers TW, Kershaw JA (2003) Forest mensuration, 4th edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2003) Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Japan. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html. Accessed 29 Feb 2011

  • Jalkanen A, Mäkipää R, Ståhl 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 62:84–851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins JC, Chojnacky DC, Heath LS, Birdseyn R (2003) National-scale biomass estimators for United States tree species. For Sci 49:12–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozak A, Kozak R (2003) Does cross validation provide additional information in the evaluation of regression models? Can J For Res 33:976–987

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehtonen A, Mäkipää R, Heikkinenb J, Sievänena R, Liskic J (2004) Biomass expansion factors (BEFs) for Scots pine, Norway spruce and birch according to stand age for boreal forests. For Ecol Manage 188:211–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy E, Hale SE, Nicoll BC (2004) Biomass expansion factors and root: shoot ratios for coniferous tree species in Great Britain. Forestry 77:421–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madgwick HAI, Oliver GR (1985) Dry matter content and production of close-spaced P. radiata. N Z J For Sci 15:135–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Monserud RA, Onuchin AA, Tchebakova NM (1996) Needle, crown, stem, and root phytomass of P. sylvestris stands in Russia. For Ecol Manage 82:59–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montero G, Ruiz-Peinado R, Muñoz M (2005) Producción de biomasa y fijación de CO2 por los bosques españoles. Monografías INIA: Forestales nº 13, Madrid

  • Myers RH (1990) Classical and modern regression with applications, 2nd edn. PWS-Kent, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Parresol BR (1999) Assessing tree and stand biomass: a review with examples and critical comparisons. For Sci 45:573–593

    Google Scholar 

  • Parresol BR (2001) Additivity of nonlinear biomass equations. Can J For Res 31:865–878

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabaté S, Gracia C, Vayreda J, Ibáñez J (2005) Differences among species in aboveground biomass expansion factors in Mediterranean forests. In: Mäkipää R, et al. (eds). Effective exploitation of existing information related to BEF ensured and gaps of knowledge on BEFs of different tree species by regions identified and reported. CarboInvent. Final report for Deliverable 2.2. Document No. WP2-D2.2-Metla

  • SAS Institute Inc (2008) SAS/ETS® 9.2 User’s Guide. SAS Institute Inc, Cary

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaiek O, Loustau D, Trichet P, Meredieu C, Bachtobji B, Garchi S, Hédi EL, Aouni M (2011) Generalized biomass equations for the main aboveground biomass components of maritime pine across contrasting environments. Ann For Sci 68:443–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snowdon P (1992) Ratio methods for estimating forest biomass. N Z J For Sci 22:54–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Soares P, Tomé M (2004) Analysis of the effectiveness of biomass expansion factors to estimate stand biomass. In: Hasenauer H, Makela A (eds.) Modeling forest production. Proceedings of the International Conference, Vienna, pp 368–374

  • Somogyi Z, Cienciala E, Mäkipää R, Muukkonen P, Lehtonen A, Weiss P (2007) Indirect methods of large-scale forest biomass estimation. Eur J For Res 126:197–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UN-ECE/FAO (2000) Forest resources of Europe, CIS, North America, Australia, Japan and New Zealand (industrialized temperate/boreal countries), UN-ECE/FAO Contribution to the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000, Main Report United Nations, New York

  • Vanclay JK, Skovsgaard JP (1997) Evaluating forest growth models. Ecol Model 98:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang J, Zhang C, Xia F, Zhao X, Wu L, Kv G (2011) Biomass structure and allometry of Abies nephrolepis (Maxim) in Northeast China. Silva Fenn 45:211–226

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wirth C, Schumacher J, Schulze ED (2004) Generic biomass functions for Norway spruce in central—a meta-analysis approach toward prediction and uncertainty estimation. Tree Physiol 24:121–139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yang Y, Monserud RA, Huang S (2004) An evaluation of diagnostic tests and their roles in validating forest biometric models. Can J For Res 34:619–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

Funding for this research was provided by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Education, project No AGL2007-66739-C02-01/FOR, and by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, project No AGL2008-02259/FOR. Part of this research was developed during a research stay at the University of León, funded by the Galician Government and cofounded with FSE founds.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Ingeniería y Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad de León. Escuela Superior y Técnica de Ingeniería Agraria, Avda. de Astorga s/n, 24400, Ponferrada, León, Spain

    Fernando Castedo-Dorado

  2. Departamento de Ingeniería Agroforestal, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. Escuela Politécnica Superior, R/ Benigno Ledo, Campus Universitario, 27002, Lugo, Spain

    Esteban Gómez-García, Ulises Diéguez-Aranda & Felipe Crecente-Campo

  3. Departamento de Biología de Organismos y Sistemas, Universidad de Oviedo. Escuela Politécnica de Mieres, C/Gonzalo Gutiérrez Quirós, 33600, Mieres, Asturias, Spain

    Marcos Barrio-Anta

Authors
  1. Fernando Castedo-Dorado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Esteban Gómez-García
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ulises Diéguez-Aranda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marcos Barrio-Anta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Felipe Crecente-Campo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fernando Castedo-Dorado.

Additional information

Handling Editor: Matthias Dobbertin

Contribution of the co-authors

Fernando Castedo-Dorado and Felipe Crecente-Campo analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. Esteban Gómez-García, and Marcos Barrio-Anta provided part of the experimental data and the individual-tree biomass equations used and revised the text. Ulises Diéguez-Aranda provided technical assistance in model fitting and supervised the writing of the manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Castedo-Dorado, F., Gómez-García, E., Diéguez-Aranda, U. et al. Aboveground stand-level biomass estimation: a comparison of two methods for major forest species in northwest Spain. Annals of Forest Science 69, 735–746 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-012-0191-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-012-0191-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation