Root biomass of carbon plantings in agricultural landscapes of southern Australia: Development and testing of allometrics

Paul, Keryn I.; Roxburgh, Stephen H.; England, Jacqueline R.; Brooksbank, Kim; Larmour, John S.; Ritson, Peter; Wildy, Dan T.; Sudmeyer, R. A.; Raison, R. J.; Hobbs, Trevor; Murphy, Simon; Sochacki, S.J.; McArthur, Geoff; Barton, Craig V. M.; Jonson, Justin; Theiveyanathan, S.; Carter, Jennifer

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2013.12.007

Cited by 23 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Kuyah et al 2012;Mugasha et al 2013;Green et al 2007;Ryan et al 2010;Ruiz-Peinado et al 2011;Paul et al 2014); in most of those studies the root system was not fully excavated (Green et al 2007;Ryan et al 2010;Ruiz-Peinado et al 2011;Kuyah et al 2012;and Paul et al 2014), the excavation was done to a certain predefined depth or the fine roots were not considered; or a sort of sampling The major components and their values are indicated in bold font procedure was used (Kuyah et al 2012;Mugasha et al 2013). These procedures of estimating BGB lead to underestimation or to less accurate estimates (Mokany et al 2006;Mugasha et al 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Live above- and belowground biomass of a Mozambican evergreen forest: a comparison of estimates based on regression equations and biomass expansion factors

Magalhães

2015

For. Ecosyst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Biomass regression equations are claimed to yield the most accurate biomass estimates than biomass expansion factors (BEFs). Yet, national and regional biomass estimates are generally calculated based on BEFs, especially when using national forest inventory data. Comparison of regression equations based and BEF-based biomass estimates are scarce. Thus, this study was intended to compare these two commonly used methods for estimating tree and forest biomass with regard to errors and biases. Methods: The data were collected in 2012 and 2014. In 2012, a two-phase sampling design was used to fit tree component biomass regression models and determine tree BEFs. In 2014, additional trees were felled outside sampling plots to estimate the biases associated with regression equation based and BEF-based biomass estimates; those estimates were then compared in terms of the following sources of error: plot selection and variability, biomass model, model parameter estimates, and residual variability around model prediction. Results: The regression equation based below-, aboveground and whole tree biomass stocks were, approximately, 7.7, 8.5 and 8.3 % larger than the BEF-based ones. For the whole tree biomass stock, the percentage of the total error attributed to first phase (random plot selection and variability) was 90 and 88 % for regression-and BEF-based estimates, respectively, being the remaining attributed to biomass models (regression and BEF models, respectively). The percent bias of regression equation based and BEF-based biomass estimates for the whole tree biomass stock were −2.7 and 5.4 %, respectively. The errors due to model parameter estimates, those due to residual variability around model prediction, and the percentage of the total error attributed to biomass model were larger for BEF models (than for regression models), except for stem and stem wood components. Conclusions: The regression equation based biomass stocks were found to be slightly larger, associated with relatively smaller errors and least biased than the BEF-based ones. For stem and stem wood, the percentages of their total errors (as total variance) attributed to BEF model were considerably smaller than those attributed to biomass regression equations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Live above- and belowground biomass of a Mozambican evergreen forest: a comparison of estimates based on regression equations and biomass expansion factors

Magalhães

2015

For. Ecosyst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Scenarios based on modeled C sequestration suggest that mixed-species plantings are an economically viable option in lower rainfall regions (<1000 mm yr À1 , Crossman et al, 2011;Polglase et al, 2013). However, there has been little effort to measure biomass accumulation extensively in mixed-species plantings (Paul et al, 2013(Paul et al, , 2014 and even fewer have measured associated changes in soil C (Resh et al, 2002;Kasel et al, 2011).…”

Section: Forest Fieldmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reforestation with native mixed‐species plantings in a temperate continental climate effectively sequesters and stabilizes carbon within decades

Cunningham

Cavagnaro

Nally

et al. 2014

Global Change Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reforestation with native mixed-species plantings in a temperate continental climate effectively sequesters and stabilizes carbon within decades Global Change Biology, 2015; 21(4):1552-1566 This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Shaun C. Cunningham, Timothy R. Cavagnaro, Ralph MacNally, Keryn I. Paul, Patrick J. Baker, Jason Beringer, James R. Thomson Self-archiving of the accepted version is subject to an embargo period of 12-24 months. The embargo period is 12 months for scientific, technical, and medical (STM) journals and 24 months for social science and humanities (SSH) journals following publication of the final article.The accepted version may be placed on:• the author's personal website • the author's company/institutional repository or archive • certain not for profit subject-based repositories such as PubMed Central as listed below Articles may be deposited into repositories on acceptance, but access to the article is subject to the embargo period. Reforestation has large potential for mitigating climate change through carbon sequestration. 33Native mixed-species plantings have a higher potential to reverse biodiversity loss than do 34 plantations of production species, but there are few data on their capacity to store carbon. A 35 chronosequence (5-45 yr) of 36 native mixed-species plantings, paired with adjacent pastures, 36 was measured to investigate changes to stocks among C pools following reforestation of 37 agricultural land in the medium rainfall zone (400-800 mm yr -1 ) of temperate Australia. These 38 mixed-species plantings accumulated 3.09 ± 0.85 t C ha -1 yr -1 in aboveground biomass and 0.18 ± 39 0.05 t C ha -1 yr -1 in plant litter, reaching amounts comparable to those measured in remnant 40woodlands by 20 yr and 36 yr after reforestation, respectively. Soil C was slower to increase, with 41 increases seen only after 45 yr, at which time stocks had not reached the amounts found in 42 remnant woodlands. The amount of trees (tree density and basal area) was positively associated 43with the accumulation of carbon in aboveground biomass and litter. However, changes to soil C 44 were most strongly related to the productivity of the location (a forest productivity index and soil 45 N content in the adjacent pasture). At 30 yr, native mixed-species plantings had increased the 46 stability of soil C stocks, with higher amounts of recalcitrant C and higher C:N ratios than their 47 adjacent pastures. Reforestation with native mixed-species plantings did not significantly change 48 the availability of macronutrients (N, K, Ca, Mg, P and S) and micronutrients (Fe, B, Mn, Zn and 49 Cu), content of plant toxins (Al, Si), acidity, or salinity (Na, electrical conductivity) in the soil. In 50 this medium rainfall area, native mixed-species plantings provided comparable rates of C 51 sequestration to local production species, with the probable additional benefit of providing better 52 quality habitat for native biota. Thes...

show abstract

“…Differences among stem definitions (e.g., different stump height or different minimum top diameter, stump considered as part of the stem) would affect the biomass estimates, especially stem and root biomasses. Different estimates of root biomass could also be found if the root system was partially removed, as performed by many authors (e.g., [41,[51][52][53][54]), if the depths of excavation were predefined [41,51,55], if fine roots were excluded [56,57], and if root sampling procedures were applied, for example, where only a number of roots from each root system are fully excavated, and then the information from the excavated roots is used to estimate biomass for the roots not excavated [58][59][60].…”

Section: Effect Of the Measurement Procedures On The Estimatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomass Modelling ofAndrostachys johnsoniiPrain: A Comparison of Three Methods to Enforce Additivity

Magalhães

Seifert

2015

International Journal of Forestry Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three methods of enforcing additivity of tree component biomass estimates into total tree biomass estimates for Androstachys johnsonii Prain were studied and compared, namely, the conventional (CON) method (a method that consists of using the same independent variables for all tree component models, and for total tree model, and the same weights to enforce additivity), seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) with parameter restriction, and nonlinear seemingly unrelated regression (NSUR) with parameter restriction. The CON method was found to be statistically superior to any other method of enforcing additivity, yielding excellent fit statistics and unbiased biomass estimates. The NSUR method ranked second best but was found to be biased. The SUR method was found to be the worst; it exhibited large bias and had a poor fit for the biomass. Therefore, we recommend that only the CON and NSUR methods should be used for further estimates, provided that their limitations are considered, that is, exclusion of contemporaneous correlations for the CON method and consideration of the significant bias of the NSUR method.

show abstract

Root biomass of carbon plantings in agricultural landscapes of southern Australia: Development and testing of allometrics

Cited by 23 publications

References 50 publications

Live above- and belowground biomass of a Mozambican evergreen forest: a comparison of estimates based on regression equations and biomass expansion factors

Live above- and belowground biomass of a Mozambican evergreen forest: a comparison of estimates based on regression equations and biomass expansion factors

Reforestation with native mixed‐species plantings in a temperate continental climate effectively sequesters and stabilizes carbon within decades

Biomass Modelling ofAndrostachys johnsoniiPrain: A Comparison of Three Methods to Enforce Additivity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About