4.7 Article

Tree damage, allometric relationships, and above-ground net primary production in central Amazon forest

期刊

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
卷 152, 期 1-3, 页码 73-84

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00591-0

关键词

net ecosystem production; carbon cycling; tropical forest; coarse wood litter; tree mortality; forest fragmentation; NPP

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The loss of tree mass over time from damage can lead to underestimates in above-ground net primary productivity (ANPP) if not accounted for properly. Bias in the allometric relationship between trunk base diameter (D-b, at 1.3 m height or above the buttresses) and mass can also lead to systematic errors in ANPP estimates. We developed an unbiased model of the relationship between D-b and tree mass using data from 315 trees (greater than or equal to5 cm D-b) harvested in the central Amazon. This model was compared with other theoretical (n = 1) and empirical models (n = 4). The theoretical model, and one empirical model, made predictions that differed substantially form our central Amazon model. The other three empirical models made predictions that were consistent with our model despite being developed in different tropical forests. Models differed mostly in predicting large tree mass. Using permanent forest inventory plot data, our D-b versus tree mass model, and a bole volume model, we estimated that tree damage amounts to 0.9 Mg ha(-1) per year (dry mass) of litter production. This damage should be included as a mass loss term when calculating ANPP. Incorporating fine litter data from published studies, we estimated that average ANPP for central Amazon plateau forests is at least 12.9 Mg ha(-1) per year (or 6.5 Mg C ha(-1) per year). Additional sources of error as described in the text can raise this estimate by as much as 4 Mg ha(-1) per year. We hypothesize that tree damage in old-growth forests accounts for a significant portion of age related decline in productivity. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据