Canopy closure altered biomass allocation in young spruce stand
Konôpka Bohdan, Pajtík Jozef, Marušák Róberthttps://doi.org/10.17221/101/2014-JFSCitation:Bohdan K., Jozef P., Róbert M. (2015): Canopy closure altered biomass allocation in young spruce stand. J. For. Sci., 61: 62-71.
Growth intensity of particular tree components is controlled by a variety of factors and as a consequence, biomass allocation also changes over time. Since allocation of biomass controls the carbon regime in a forest stand, tree standing stock and biomass structure (with regards to tree components) was estimated in young Norway spruce (Picea abies) stand based on repetitive tree sampling and allometric equations (modelled for 2009 and 2013). Large differences were found between the two models in the contribution of the tree components to above-ground biomass. Between the years 2009 and 2013, below-ground to above-ground biomass ratio dropped from 0.36 to 0.23 and short-lived to long-lived tree part ratio from 0.65 to 0.25. At the same time, the stand possibly reached maximum standing stock of both needles and fine roots. It is concluded that for biomass allocation estimates in young stands, not only stand-specific but also time-specific allometric relations should be constructed and implemented. Further, there appears to be a canopy closure threshold beyond which there is biomass allocation different from the status in sparse young spruce stands.Keywords:tree allometry, repetitive sampling, tree components, Picea abies, carbon sequestration and cyclingReferences:
Baskerville G. L. (1972): Use of Logarithmic Regression in the Estimation of Plant Biomass. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 2, 49-53 https://doi.org/10.1139/x72-009Bernier P.Y., Lamhamedi M.S., Simpon D.G. (1995): Shoot: root ratio is of limited use in evaluating the quality of container conifers stock. Tree Planters Notes, 46: 102–106.Brunner I., Bakker M. R., Björk R. G., Hirano Y., Lukac M., Aranda X., Børja I., Eldhuset T. D., Helmisaari H. S., Jourdan C., Konôpka B., López B. C., Miguel Pérez C., Persson H., Ostonen I. (2013): Fine-root turnover rates of European forests revisited: an analysis of data from sequential coring and ingrowth cores. Plant and Soil, 362, 357-372 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1313-5Cienciala E., Černý M., Tatarinov F., Apltauer J., Exnerová Z. (2006): Biomass functions applicable to Scots pine. Trees, 20, 483-495 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-006-0064-4Claveau Yves, Messier Christian, Comeau Philip G, Coates K Dave (2002): Growth and crown morphological responses of boreal conifer seedlings and saplings with contrasting shade tolerance to a gradient of light and height. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 32, 458-468 https://doi.org/10.1139/x01-220Dowell R.C., Gibbins D., Rhoads J.R., Pallardy S.G. (2009): Biomass production physiology and soil carbon dynamics in short-rotation-grown Populus deltoides and P. deltoides ×P. nigra hybrids. Forest Ecology and Manegement, 257: 134–142.Dutca I., Abrudan I.V., Stancioiu P.T., Blujdea V. (2010): Biomass conversion and expansion factors for young Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) trees planted on non-forest lands in Eastern Carpathians. Notuale Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca, 38: 286–292.Enquist B. J. (): Global Allocation Rules for Patterns of Biomass Partitioning in Seed Plants. Science, 295, 1517-1520 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1066360Harris R.W. (1992): Root: shoot ratios. Journal of Arboriculture, 18: 39–42.Helmisaari Heljä-Sisko, Makkonen Kirsi, Kellomäki Seppo, Valtonen Esko, Mälkönen Eino (2002): Below- and above-ground biomass, production and nitrogen use in Scots pine stands in eastern Finland. Forest Ecology and Management, 165, 317-326 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00648-XKantola Anu, Mäkelä Annikki (2006): Development of biomass proportions in Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.). Trees, 20, 111-121 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-005-0018-2King J S, Giardina C P, Pregitzer K S, Friend A L (2007): Biomass partitioning in red pine ( Pinus resinosa ) along a chronosequence in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 37, 93-102 https://doi.org/10.1139/x06-217Konôpka B., Pajtík J., Moravčík M., Lukac M. (2010): Biomass partitioning and growth efficiency in four naturally regenerated forest tree species. Basic and Applied Ecology, 11, 234-243 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2010.02.004Konôpka B., Pajtík J., Šebeň V., Bošeľa M., Máliš F., Priwitzer T., Pavlenda P. (2013): The Research Site Vrchslatina – an experimental design and the main aims. Lesnícky časopis – Forestry Journal, 59: 203–213.Kroon H., Visser W.J.W. (2003): Root Ecology. Ecological Studies, Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag: 400.Lehtonen A, Mäkipää R, Heikkinen J, Sievänen R, Liski J (2004): Biomass expansion factors (BEFs) for Scots pine, Norway spruce and birch according to stand age for boreal forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 188, 211-224 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2003.07.008LITTON CREIGHTON M., RAICH JAMES W., RYAN MICHAEL G. (2007): Carbon allocation in forest ecosystems. Global Change Biology, 13, 2089-2109 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01420.xLuo Yunjian, Wang Xiaoke, Zhang Xiaoquan, Booth Trevor H., Lu Fei (2012): Root:shoot ratios across China’s forests: Forest type and climatic effects. Forest Ecology and Management, 269, 19-25 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.01.005Lutz James A., Halpern Charles B. (2006): TREE MORTALITY DURING EARLY FOREST DEVELOPMENT: A LONG-TERM STUDY OF RATES, CAUSES, AND CONSEQUENCES. Ecological Monographs, 76, 257-275 https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9615(2006)076[0257:TMDEFD]2.0.CO;2Makita Naoki, Hirano Yasuhiro, Mizoguchi Takeo, Kominami Yuji, Dannoura Masako, Ishii Hiroaki, Finér Leena, Kanazawa Yoichi (2011): Very fine roots respond to soil depth: biomass allocation, morphology, and physiology in a broad-leaved temperate forest. Ecological Research, 26, 95-104 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-010-0764-5Marklund L.G. (1987): Biomass functions for Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst.) in Sweden. Umeå, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences: 27.Metslaid M., Ilisson T., Vicente M., Nikinmaa E., Jogiste K. (2005): Growth of advance regeneration of Norway spruce after clear-cutting. Tree Physiology, 25, 793-801 https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/25.7.793Olesinski J., Lavigne M. B., Krasowski M. J. (): Effects of soil moisture manipulations on fine root dynamics in a mature balsam fir (Abies balsamea L. Mill.) forest. Tree Physiology, 31, 339-348 https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpr006Ostonen Ivika, Lõhmus Krista, Pajuste Katrin (2005): Fine root biomass, production and its proportion of NPP in a fertile middle-aged Norway spruce forest: Comparison of soil core and ingrowth core methods. Forest Ecology and Management, 212, 264-277 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.03.064Pajtík Jozef, Konôpka Bohdan, Lukac Martin (2008): Biomass functions and expansion factors in young Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst) trees. Forest Ecology and Management, 256, 1096-1103 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.06.013Pajtík Jozef, Konôpka Bohdan, Lukac Martin (2011): Individual biomass factors for beech, oak and pine in Slovakia: a comparative study in young naturally regenerated stands. Trees, 25, 277-288 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-010-0504-zPoorter Hendrik, Nagel Oscar (2000): The role of biomass allocation in the growth response of plants to different levels of light, CO2, nutrients and water: a quantitative review. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology, 27, 1191- https://doi.org/10.1071/PP99173_COSeidl Rupert, Rammer Werner, Bellos Panagiotis, Hochbichler Eduard, Lexer Manfred J. (2010): Testing generalized allometries in allocation modeling within an individual-based simulation framework. Trees, 24, 139-150 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-009-0387-zSchall Peter, Lödige Christina, Beck Michael, Ammer Christian (2012): Biomass allocation to roots and shoots is more sensitive to shade and drought in European beech than in Norway spruce seedlings. Forest Ecology and Management, 266, 246-253 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.11.017Schmidt-Vogt H. (1977): Die Fichte. Band I. Taxomomie - Verbre-Band I. Taxomomie – Verbreitung – Morphologie Ökologie – Waldgesellschaften. Hamburg-Berlin, Verlag Paul Parey: 647.Skovsgaard Jens Peter, Bald Caroline, Nord-Larsen Thomas (2011): Functions for biomass and basic density of stem, crown and root system of Norway spruce ( Picea abies (L.) Karst.) in Denmark. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 26, 3-20 https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2011.564381Vogt Kristiina A., Vogt Daniel J., Moore Erin E., Fatuga Babatunde A., Redlin Mark R., Edmonds Robert L. (1987): Conifer and Angiosperm Fine-Root Biomass in Relation to Stand Age and Site Productivity in Douglas-Fir Forests. The Journal of Ecology, 75, 857- https://doi.org/10.2307/2260210Waring R., Schlesinger W.H. (1985): Forest Ecosystems: Concepts and Management. Orlando, Academic Press: 340.West P.W. (2009): Tree and Forest Measurement. Dordrecht, Springer: 190.Wirth C., Schumacher J., Schulze E.-D. (2004): Generic biomass functions for Norway spruce in Central Europe--a meta-analysis approach toward prediction and uncertainty estimation. Tree Physiology, 24, 121-139 https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/24.2.121Wullschleger Stan D, Yin T M, DiFazio S P, Tschaplinski T J, Gunter L E, Davis M F, Tuskan G A (2005): Phenotypic variation in growth and biomass distribution for two advanced-generation pedigrees of hybrid poplar. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 35, 1779-1789 https://doi.org/10.1139/x05-101Xiao C.-W., Yuste J. C., Janssens I. A., Roskams P., Nachtergale L., Carrara A., Sanchez B. Y., Ceulemans R. (2003): Above- and belowground biomass and net primary production in a 73-year-old Scots pine forest. Tree Physiology, 23, 505-516 https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/23.8.505Yuste J. C., Konopka B., Janssens I. A., Coenen K., Xiao C. W., Ceulemans R. (2005): Contrasting net primary productivity and carbon distribution between neighboring stands of Quercus robur and Pinus sylvestris. Tree Physiology, 25, 701-712 https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/25.6.701