4.7 Article

Tree- and Stand-Level Biomass Estimation in a Larix decidua Mill. Chronosequence

Journal

FORESTS
Volume 9, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/f9100587

Keywords

biomass allocation; allometric equation; biomass conversion and expansion factors; carbon content; biomass accumulation; IPCC guidelines

Categories

Funding

  1. National Centre for Research and Development, Warsaw, Poland [BIOSTRATEG1/267755/4/NCBR/2015]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Carbon pool assessments in forests is one of the most important tasks of forest ecology. Despite the wide cultivation range, and economical and traditional importance, the aboveground biomass of European larch (Larix decidua Mill.) stands is poorly characterized. To increase knowledge about forest biomass accumulation and to provide a set of tools for aboveground biomass estimation, we studied a chronosequence of 12 larch forest stands (7-120 years old). From these stands, we measured the biomass of 96 sample trees ranging from 1.9 to 57.9 cm in diameter at breast height. We provided age-specific and generalized allometric equations, biomass conversion and expansion factors (BCEFs) and biomass models based on forest stand characteristics. Aboveground biomass of stands ranged from 4.46 (7-year-old forest stand) to 445.76 Mg ha(-1) (106-year-old). Stand biomass increased with increasing stand age, basal area, mean diameter, height and total stem volume and decreased with increasing density. BCEFs of the aboveground biomass and stem were almost constant (mean BCEFs of 0.4688 and 0.3833 Mg m(-3), respectively). Our generalized models at the tree and stand level had lower bias in predicting the biomass of the forest stands studied, than other published models. The set of tools provided fills the gap in biomass estimation caused by the low number of studies on larch biomass, which allows for better estimation of forest carbon pools.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available