allometric relationships and community biomass stocks in ... allometric... · squares of the...

national carbonaccounting system

tech

nica

l rep

ort n

o. 3

3

The National Carbon Accounting System provides a complete

accounting and forecasting capability for human-induced sources and

sinks of greenhouse gas emissions from Australian land based

systems. It will provide a basis for assessing Australia’s progress

towards meeting its international emissions commitments.

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au

The lead Commonwealth

agency on greenhouse

matters

William H. Burrows, Madonna B. Hoffmann,John F. Compton and Paul V. Back

Allometric Relationships andCommunity Biomass Stocks in White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) andAssociated Eucalypts of the Carnarvon Area - South Central Queensland (with additional data for Scrub Leopardwood - Flindersia dissosperma)

technical report no. 33Allom

etric Relationships and Comm

unity Biomass Stocks in W

hite Cypress Pine ( Callitris glaucophylla) and Associated Eucalypts of the Carnarvon Area - South CentralQueensland (w

ith additional data for ScrubLeopardw

ood-Flindersiadissosperm

a)

The National Carbon Accounting System:• Supports Australia's position in the international development of policyand guidelines on sinks activity and greenhouse gas emissionsmitigation from land based systems.

• Reduces the scientific uncertainties that surround estimates of landbased greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration in the Australian context.

• Provides monitoring capabilities for existing land based emissions andsinks, and scenario development and modelling capabilities thatsupport greenhouse gas mitigation and the sinks development agendathrough to 2012 and beyond.

• Provides the scientific and technical basis for internationalnegotiations and promotes Australia's national interests in internationalfora.

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ncas

For additional copies of this report phone 1300 130 606

Series 1 Publications Set the framework for development of the National Carbon Accounting System (NCAS) and document initial NCAS-related technical activities (see http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ncas/ publications).

Series 2 Publications Provide targeted technical information aimed at improving carbon accounting for Australian land based systems (see http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ncas/publications).

Series 3 Publications include:27. Biomass Estimation: Approaches for Assessment of Stocks and Stock Change.

28. The FullCAM Carbon Accounting Model: Development, Calibration and Implementation for the National Carbon Accounting System.

29. Modelling Change in Soil Carbon Following Afforestation or Reforestation: PreliminarySimulations Using GRC3 and Sensitivity Analysis.

30. Sensitivity Analysis of the Roth-C Carbon Model (Ver. 26.3 Excel” version).

31. Protocol for Sampling Tree and Stand Biomass.

32. Forest Management in Australia: Implications for Carbon Budgets.

33. Allometric Relationships and Community Biomass Stocks in White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) and Associated Eucalypts of the Carnarvon Area - South CentralQueensland (with Additional Data for Scrub Leopardwood - Flindersia dissosperma).

The Australian Greenhouse Office is the lead Commonwealth agency on greenhouse matters.

ALLOMETRIC RELATIONSHIPS AND COMMUNITYBIOMASS STOCKS IN WHITE CYPRESS PINE

(Callitris glaucophylla) AND ASSOCIATEDEUCALYPTS OF THE CARNARVON AREA –

SOUTH CENTRAL QUEENSLAND (WITH ADDITIONAL DATA FOR SCRUB LEOPARDWOOD-Flindersia dissosperma)


Queensland Beef Industry Institute, Queensland Department Primary Industries,

Tropical Beef Centre and CRC for Greenhouse Accounting

National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report No. 33

February 2001

Australian Greenhouse Officeii

Printed in Australia for the Australian Greenhouse Office© Commonwealth of Australia 2001

This work is copyright. It may be reproduced in whole or part for study or training purposessubject to the inclusion of an acknowledgement of the source and no commercial usage or saleresults. Reproduction for purposes other than those listed above requires the written permission ofthe Communications Team, Australian Greenhouse Office. Requests and inquires concerningreproduction and rights should be addressed to the Communications Team, Australian GreenhouseOffice, GPO Box 621, CANBERRA ACT 2601.

For additional copies of this document please contact National Mailing and Marketing.

Telephone: 1300 130 606. Facsimile: (02) 6299 6040.

Email: [email protected]

For further information please contact the National Carbon Accounting System athttp://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ncas/

Neither the Commonwealth nor the Consultants responsible for undertaking this project acceptsliability for the accuracy of or inferences from the material contained in this publication, or for anyaction as a result of any person’s or group’s interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions inreliance on this material.

February 2001

Environment Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication

Allometric relationships and community biomass stocks in white cypress pine (Callitris glaucophylla)and associated eucalypts of the Carnarvon area-south central Queensland (with additional data forscrub leopardwood – Flindersia dissosperma) / William H. Burrows ... (et al.)

p. cm.

(National Carbon Accounting System technical report; no. 33)

ISSN: 14426838

1. Trees-Queensland-Carnarvon region-Growth-Measurement. 2. Forest biomass-Queensland-Carnarvon region-Measurement. I. Burrows, William H. II. Australian Greenhouse Office. III. Series

571.82’2216-dc21333.9539’099435-dc21

National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report iii

SUMMARYAllometric relationships are presented for aboveground components and coarse root mass ofwhite cypress pine (Callitris glaucophylla) andscrub leopardwood (Flindersia dissosperma) –a sub–dominant species in poplar box woodlandcommunities of central Queensland. The root:shootratio for white cypress pine is approximately doublethat recorded for eucalypt woodland ecosystems inadjacent agro-ecological zones. Stand allometrics arepresented based on data for 17 white cypress pinestands. The above ground biomass/stand basal arearelationship was 4.341 t/m2 basal area. This is veryclose to the value recorded for one scrubleopardwood stand (4.308 t/m2), but appreciablylower than the relationship earlier noted for59 eucalypt woodland stands (6.306 t/m2)

The utility of previously determined eucalyptregressions was tested by harvesting silver leavedironbark (Eucalyptus melanophloia) and poplar boxtrees (E. populnea) some 380 and 495 km, respectively,from the sites where the trees contributing to theoriginal regressions were sampled. It is concludedthat these woodland species regressions are robustover the range of environments sampled, althoughsome variability was detected in the biomass of thesmaller poplar box trees.

Suggestions that tree form (tree basal area x heightrelationships) might aid the selection of appropriate(‘best bet’) allometric regressions for species with noknown allometric were tested by plotting these formrelationships for Callitris glaucophylla, Eucalyptus

crebra, E. melanophloia, E. populnea and F. dissosperma

on the one graph. It is recommended that thisapproach is only considered for species within thesame genus. Across genera species can havedifferent form yet a similar biomass/basal arearelationship and vice versa, leading to the possibilityof large errors in biomass estimation.

Allometric relationships remain of limitedapplication for carbon stock and flux monitoringunless appropriate forest/woodland inventory data(‘independent predictor variables’) are available towhich they can be applied.

Australian Greenhouse Officeiv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary iii

1. Introduction 1

2. Methods 1

(a) Determination of standing biomass relationships 1

(b) Root Mass 2

3. Results and Discussion 3

4. Acknowledgments 15

5. References 15

National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Species attributes on the detailed white cypress pine study plot (50 m x 50 m). 3

Table 2. Biomass and structural relationships for cypress pine (Callitris glaucophylla)trees. Note the different form of the predictor equations and height at which tree circumference is measured (n = number of samples for regression, a = intercept, b = regression coefficient). Residual standard deviation (RSD) and sums of squares of the deviations in x (SSDx) are also given for these equations. 4

Table 3. Distribution of above (white cypress pine – Callitris glaucophylla) and below-ground (to 1 m depth) biomass components in a white cypress pine community.Plot characteristics are given in Table 1. Note annotations on below-ground components. 8

Table 4. Regressions for the sub-dominant scrub leopardwood (Flindersia dissosperma)in a poplar box community at Dingo. All regressions are of the form lny = a + b lnx, where y = above-ground weight (kg) and x = trunk circumference at 30 cm above-ground (cm). Residual standard deviation (RSD) and sums of squares of the deviations in x (SSDx) are also given for these equations. 9

Table 5. Community biomass contributions from scrub leopardwood (Flindersia dissosperma) in a poplar box (Eucalyptus populnea) woodland at Dingo, Central Queensland. Component tree basal areas on this site were 8.681 m2/ha for poplar box and1.487 m2/ha for scrub leopardwood. 11

Australian Greenhouse Officevi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Relationship between stem circumference (cm) measured at 30 cm above-ground level and total above-ground biomass (kg) for white cypress pine (Callitris glaucophylla). 6

Figure 2. Relationship between stem circumference (cm) measured at 130 cm above-ground level and total above-ground biomass (kg) for white cypress pine (Callitris glaucophylla). 6

Figure 3. Relationship between stand basal area (m2/ha) and above-ground biomass (t/ha) of white cypress pine (Callitris glaucophylla) stands. 7

Figure 4. Relationship between trunk circumference (cm) measured 30 cm above-ground and coarse root mass to 1 m depth in white cypress pine (Callitris glaucophylla). 10

Figure 5. Profile diagram for live fine roots in white cypress pine (Callitris glaucophylla). 10

Figure 6. Profile diagram for total (live + dead) fine roots in white cypress pine (Callitris glaucophylla). 11

Figure 7. Allometric regressions for Eucalyptus melanophloia (silver leaved ironbark) trees determined at ‘Summerdel’, Jericho (Burrows et al. 2000) and north of Mitchell (present study) some 380 km distant from the former site. Results for individual site andcombined data are depicted. (There was no significant difference between the slopes of any of these regressions). 12

Figure 8. Allometric regressions for Eucalyptus populnea (poplar box) trees determined at ‘Wandobah’, Dingo (Burrows et al. 2000) and north of Mitchell (present study) some 495 kmdistant from the former site. Results for individual site and combined data are depicted. The slopes of the individual site regressions were significantly different (P < 0.05). 13

Figure 9. Tree form relationships (tree basal area vs tree height) for individual trees of Callitris glaucophylla, Eucalyptus crebra, E. melanophloia, E. populnea andFlindersia dissosperma. 14

National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report 1

1. INTRODUCTION

A large number of allometric relationships have beendeveloped for Australian forest and woodland trees(Eamus et al. 2000, Keith et al. 2000). Neverthelessthere are some notable gaps in this knowledge basefor species which are either representative inwidespread vegetation communities and/or arecommercially important. White cypress pine(Callitris glaucophylla) is one such species which isdominant over some 691,000 ha of New South Walesand Queensland and occurs as a sub-dominant overa further 3,155,000 ha in these States (Binnington1997). Annual sustainable timber yield from thesesources is c. 230,000 m3.

Many of the derived allometrics have been based ondata collected on one site or at closely located sites.But many of our woodland species are distributedover large geographic ranges. This poses thequestion of how reliable allometrics derived atone site are when applied to independentvariables for the same species, but growing somedistance from where the relationship wasdeveloped? Two such widely dispersed eucalypts,with a restricted availability of allometrics, aresilver leaved ironbark (Eucalyptus melanophloia) andpoplar box (E. populnea).

This technical report details both individual tree andstand allometrics for white cypress pine. It then teststhe utility of existing silver leaved ironbark andpoplar box biomass allometrics by comparing thebiomass of trees, harvested some hundreds ofkilometres from sites where the regressions wereestablished, with their predicted biomass derivedfrom the latter regressions. Some related data forscrub leopardwood (Flindersia dissosperma) arealso presented.

2. METHODS

(A) DETERMINATION OF STANDINGBIOMASS RELATIONSHIPS

The basic methodology utilised followed thatoutlined in Burrows et al. (2000). Dimensionalanalysis (allometry) was employed to determineaerial biomass of all tree species studied.Regressions were based on 20 stems for whitecypress pine (Callitris glaucophylla) and 19 for scrubleopardwood (Flindersia dissosperma). An additional5 silver leaved ironbark (Eucalyptus melanophloia)and 7 poplar box (E. populnea) stems were harvestedto supplement data previously sampled for thosespecies at sites c. 380 and 495 km distantrespectively from the present study (see Burrowset al. 2000).

Stems selected for harvest came from a destructiveharvest area adjacent to, but not interfering with,permanent mensuration plots or transects (TRAPS –Back et al. 1999) established in each community type.Each stem harvested was considered to be ‘average’with respect to vigour, foliage cover etc for itsparticular size class. The stems were chosen in astratified fashion to include the range ofcircumferences measured from the stand analysis.Each stem was cut off as close to ground level aspracticable. To minimise loss of stem componentsthe fallen stem and associated leaves, fruiting bodiesand branches were placed on canvas tarpaulins forsubsequent sorting.

Prior to sorting, the height of each stem from base totallest branch tip and crown diameter, asrepresented by horizontal projection of the leaves onthe canvas, were recorded. Apart from the eucalypts,fresh weights of the following fractions wereobtained – live stem (> 4, 1 – 4, < 1 cm diameter),dead stem, leaves and fruiting bodies. The live stemcomponents were separated into wood and barkcomponents for F. dissosperma. Sub samples of eachfraction were retained for determination of dryweight. The eucalypt trees were sampled to test theutility of published biomass regressions determined

Australian Greenhouse Office2

at sites remote from the present harvest area. Totalabove ground weight only was derived for theseindividual stems. Electronic cattle scales wereemployed to weigh large trunk billets, with springscales and portable electronic scales utilised toweigh lighter components and sub samples for dryweight determination.

Lognormal regressions were established for stemcircumferences, x, measured at 30 cm above groundlevel (and at 1.3 m height for C. glaucophylla) againstdependent variables, y, representing each of the treecomponents indicated i.e. ln y = a + b ln x. A bias inbiomass estimates is introduced if antilogs of thepreviously transformed data are simply taken,because the geometric mean rather than the truemean of the estimated value is obtained(Munro 1974). To avoid this problem the stepsoutlined by Beauchamp and Olson (1973) wereadopted. Burrows et al. (2000) had previouslywritten a computer routine to apply thesecorrections after pre validation with data providedin Beauchamp and Olson (1973) as a test set.

Stand allometrics for above ground biomass weredeveloped for C. glaucophylla only. (Suchrelationships are already published forE. melanophloia and E. populnea in Burrows et al.

2000). The individual tree allometrics forC glaucophylla were applied to enumerated standdata available either from the ‘TRAPS’ (6 sites) database (Back et al.1999) or 50 x 50m plots (11 sites)established in the study area as part of the PACRIMremote sensing project (R. Lucas –pers. comm.).This cumulative tree data gave stand biomassestimates which were regressed against stand basalarea for each of the 17 stands enumerated.

(B) ROOT MASSFor C. glaucophylla root mass was estimated bycoring for fine roots and excavation of root buttsand large laterals. Root cores, to a depth of 1 m,were taken with a 120 cm steel tube of 4.35 cminternal diameter. The cores (42) were positioned ina stratified random fashion over the detailed studyplot (50 x 50 m) in the white cypress pinecommunity. Stratification was based on the ratioof estimated canopy/inter-canopy coverage overthe plot.

Each root core was sectioned into 20 cm lengths togive five depth intervals (0 – 20, > 20 – 40, > 40 – 60,> 60 – 80, > 80 – 100 cm). The sections were placedinto individually labelled bags and returned to thelaboratory for root separation. Each section wassoaked in tap water and the roots were thenwashed free of soil while being retained on a 2 mmsieve. ‘Live’ root material (internally white andpossessing some elasticity) was sorted from deadroot material. Charcoal was a common contaminantat all depth intervals and was discarded. Both ‘live’and dead roots were subsequently dried to constantweight at 80°C.

A sub-sample of the root butts of stems (10) selectedfor above ground harvest was identified to cover therange of stem sizes in the detailed study plot of thewhite cypress pine community, or TRAPS transectsin the scrub leopardwood community. A backhoewas employed to excavate these root butts andattached large lateral roots. A minimum excavatedvolume of 1 m3 of soil was removed for each stump.It was necessary to excavate larger volumes of soil toextract the larger root systems. The exposed rootswere carefully brushed free of soil particles and thefresh weight recorded. Sub-samples were retainedfor determination of moisture content. Regressionswere then established between stem circumferenceand root butt/large lateral weight in like manner tothe above ground fractions. Similar estimationprocedures were followed in applying theseregressions to tree populations in censused plots.


3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The detailed white cypress pine study plot waslocated on a deep sand at 25° 40’ S latitude and147° 28’ E longitude. (See Fig. 3 for its basal arearelationship with other plots in the study). Whitecypress pine (C. glaucophylla) was the dominantspecies on the plot although there were alsoprominent smooth barked apple (Angophora leiocarpa)trees present as sub-dominants (Table 1).

There was a very tight relationship (Table 2) betweenwhite cypress pine stem circumference measured at30 cm above ground level and that measured at1.3 m above ground (y1.3 = -1.691 + 0.895 x30,R2 = 0.997, P<0.001). For community estimates the

lower height circumference measure is preferred asthe independent (predictor) variable in allometricequations. This leads to fewer errors in predictingthe biomass of small trees – especially those lessthan 5 m tall (Snowdon et al. 2000). However formost commercial forest plot inventory dbh is takenat 1.3 m height. So prediction equations (Table 2)include tree circumference used as the predictorvariable when measured at both 30 cm and 1.3 mheight. A set of allometrics for the biomass of aboveground fractions is also given using tree height asthe predictor variable. These suggest that heightalone is also a reasonable predictor of above groundbiomass for white cypress pine, but not as good astrunk circumference measured at 30 cm or 1.3 mabove ground.

Species Common name No. recorded No./ha Plot Basal Area Basal Area (m2) (m2/ha)

Callitris glaucophylla White cypress pine 105 420 3.46 13.86

Angophora leiocarpa Smooth-barked apple 7 28 0.89 3.55

Lysicarpus angustifolius Brown hazelwood 3 12 0.04 0.18

Xylomelum pyciforme Woody pear 2 8 0.06 0.23

117 468 4.45 17.82

Table 1. Species attributes on the detailed white cypress pine study plot (50 m x 50 m).


n a b R2 RSD SSDx

Callitris glaucophylla

Circumference range = 7.5 – 135 cm (diameter 2.4-43 cm) at 30 cm above-ground.

(Mean circumference above-ground samples = 66.61 cm. Mean circumference below-ground samples = 62.14 cm.)

Equations in the form: y = a + bxx = ln circ at 30cm (cm), y = ln weight (kg)

Total above-ground 20 -5.506 2.491 0.994 0.161 11.847

Leaf 20 -5.061 1.682 0.953 0.310 11.702

Branches (live + dead) 20 -6.582 2.305 0.948 0.439 11.847

Trunk 20 -6.845 2.727 0.991 0.211 11.847

Stem* 20 -6.068 2.595 0.993 0.176 11.847

Live Branches 20 -6.711 2.249 0.896 0.623 11.847

Coarse Roots 10 -8.034 2.710 0.997 0.157 7.662

x = ln circ at 130cm (cm), y = ln weight (kg)


Leaf 20 -4.325 1.557 0.944 0.336 14.027


Trunk 20 -5.557 2.510 0.994 0.170 14.027

Stem* 20 -4.833 2.386 0.994 0.162 14.027

Live Branches 20 -5.590 2.057 0.885 0.653 14.027

Coarse Roots 10 -6.616 2.455 0.996 0.160 9.640

x = ln height (m), y = ln weight (kg)


Leaf 20 -3.509 2.097 0.874 0.503 7.159


Trunk 20 -4.471 3.475 0.972 0.369 7.159

Stem* 20 -3.743 3.280 0.959 0.430 7.159

Live Branches 20 -4.363 2.705 0.783 0.898 7.159

Lignotubers 10 -5.731 3.457 0.969 0.470 4.576

Table 2. Biomass and structural relationships for cypress pine (Callitris glaucophylla) trees. Note thedifferent form of the predictor equations and height at which tree circumference is measured (n = numberof samples for regression, a = intercept, b = regression coefficient). Residual standard deviation (RSD) andsums of squares of the deviations in x (SSDx) are also given for these equations.


n a b R2 RSD SSDx

Equations in the form: y = a + bxx = ln circ at 130 cm (cm), y = ln height (m)

Height (m) 20 -0.235 0.702 0.965 0.118 14.027

x = ln circ at 30 cm (cm), y= ln height (m)

Height (m) 20 -0.578 0.758 0.951 0.139 11.847

x = circ at 30 cm (cm), y = circ at 130 cm (cm)

Circ at 130 cm (cm) 20 -1.691 0.895 0.997 1.979 28106.84

n a b c R2 RSD

Equations in the form: y = a + be(-x/c)

x = circ at 30 cm (cm), y = total above-ground weight (kg)

Total above-ground 20 -110.512 81.962 -56.704 0.976 37.393

x = circ at 130 cm (cm), y = total above-ground weight (kg)

Total above-ground 20 -110.195 83.251 -50.193 0.989 25.277

* Stem = Branch (live + dead) + trunk.

Table 2. (continued)

Residual standard deviations (RSD) and values forthe sums of squares of deviations in x (SSDx) areprovided (Table 2) to enable Beauchamp and Olson’s(1973) correction factor to be applied to predictionsmade from these lognormal regressions. Baskerville’s(1972) alternative (and computationally simpler)correction factor can be derived from the RSD.

Lognormal regressions are next given for therelationships between circumference measured at30 cm or 1.3 m and tree height. Table 2 also providesarithmetic relationships between circumferencemeasured at 30 cm or 1.3 m above ground and totalabove ground biomass for white cypress pine trees.When these are plotted (Figs 1 & 2) the need tonormalise the data is apparent.

The regression for total above ground biomass ofwhite cypress pine utilising trunk circumference at30cm as the predictor variable (Table 2) was appliedto 6 TRAPS sites as well as 11 PACRIM study siteswhere white cypress pine was the dominant orco–dominant tree species. This produces anabove–ground biomass/stand basal arearelationship of 4.341 t/m2 basal area (Fig. 3).This value is appreciably lower than the meanrecorded for 59 eucalypt woodland sites inQueensland i.e. 6.306 t/m2 basal area (Burrows et al.

in prep.). However it is in keeping with reportedwood densities of around 1000kg/m3 for woodlandeucalypts and 688kg/m3 for white cypress pine(see Boland et al. 1992) (i.e. 4.341/6.306 ≈ 688/1000).


200

400

600

800

0 50 100 150

Stem circumference (cm) at 30 cm height

Abov

e gr

ound

bio

mas

s (k

g)

y = -110.51 + 81.96 e(x/56.70)

(R2 = 0.976, P<0.01)

Figure 1. Relationship between stem circumference (cm) measured at 30 cm above-ground level and totalabove-ground biomass (kg) for white cypress pine (Callitris glaucophylla).

Stem circumference (cm) at 130 cm height

Abov

e gr

ound

bio

mas

s (k

g)

200

400

600

800

0 50 100 150

y = -110.19 + 83.25 e(x/50.19)

(R2= 0.989, P<0.001)

Figure 2. Relationship between stem circumference (cm) measured at 130 cm above-ground level and totalabove-ground biomass (kg) for white cypress pine (Callitris glaucophylla).


y = 4.341x

R2 = 0.959

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Stand Basal Area (m2/ha)

Biom

ass

(t/ha

)

Figure 3. Relationship between stand basal area (m2/ha) and above-ground biomass (t/ha) of whitecypress pine (Callitris glaucophylla) stands. (The detailed study plot had a basal area of 13.9 m2/ha andabove-ground biomass of 57.8 t/ha).


CP114-4 (PAC RIM plot code) Biomass (kg/ha)

Total above-ground (from regression) 57,766

Trunk 41,895

Branches (live + dead) 9,616

Leaf 2,014

Stems* 51,464

Live Branches 7,295

Total (sum of components; trunk, branch, and leaf) 53,525

Coarse Roots white cypress pine only 11,587

Fine Roots (live) – all species on plot (a) 17,436

Fine Roots (dead) – all species on plot 10,023

% Fine Roots (live) – all species on plot 30.18

% Fine Roots (dead) – all species on plot 17.35

White cypress pine fine root (live) – estimated** 13,561

Root:Shoot (coarse + live fine roots only) 0.50

Root:Shoot (coarse + dead fine roots included) 0.68

Root:Shoot (white cypress pine (live) only 0.43

* Stems = Branches + Trunks.** (a) x 13.86/17.82 (based on species basal areas – see Table 1).

Table 3. Distribution of above (white cypress pine – Callitris glaucophylla) and below-ground (to 1 m depth)biomass components in a white cypress pine community. Plot characteristics are given in Table 1.Note annotations on below-ground components.

Tree circumference at 30 cm above ground level is agood predictor of coarse root mass in white cypresspine (Fig. 4). Live and total (live + dead) fine rootprofile diagrams (Figs 5, 6) are based on fine rootsretained on a 2mm sieve. There are predictablepatterns with increasing soil depth suggesting that asample depth of 1m is capturing the majority ofwhite cypress pine fine roots. Coarse roots comprise≈ 46% of total root biomass to 1 m depth in whitecypress pine (Table 3).

The distribution of live + dead standing and belowground biomass for the white cypress pinecommunity characterised in Table 1 is presented inTable 3. The general biomass distribution pattern is

similar to that recorded for the eucalypt species inadjacent environments (Burrows et al. 2000).However root:shoot ratios are approximately doublethose recorded for the eucalypt species in the latterstudy. The eucalypt data reported only includedestimates of live fine root mass. A furthercontributing factor could also be that seasonalconditions preceding the white cypress pine studywere much more favourable for plant growth thanthose preceding the field sampling by Burrows et al.

Nevertheless there is an obvious need to determineroot:shoot ratios for a wider range of species andcommunity types to evaluate the utility of thisrelationship for predicting below-ground biomassstocks and fluxes.


-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2 3 4 5

Ln stem circumference (cm) measured 30cm above ground

ln y = -8.034+2.710 ln x

(R2 = 0.995, P < 0.001)

Ln

coar

se ro

ot m

ass

(kg)

Figure 4. Relationship between trunk circumference (cm) measured 30 cm above-ground and coarse rootmass to 1 m depth in white cypress pine (Callitris glaucophylla).

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

Soil

dept

h (c

m)

Live fine root mass (kg/ha)

Figure 5. Profile diagram for live fine roots in white cypress pine (Callitris glaucophylla).


0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

Soil

dept

h (c

m)

Total fine root mass (kg/ha)

Figure 6. Profile diagram for total (live + dead) fine roots in white cypress pine (Callitris glaucophylla).

Scrub leopardwood (F. dissosperma) is a sub-dominant in poplar box and dry softwood scrubcommunities of central Queensland(Anderson 1993). Regressions for above-groundcomponents (Table 4) for a site in centralQueensland (23° 39’S, 149° 24’E) are presented.A coarse root regression for roots contained within

a 1 m3 excavation beneath the tree trunks is alsoprovided, but fine root mass was not estimated forthis species. Total basal area for the scrubleopardwood on this site was 1.487 m2/ha.Combining this with community biomass estimates(Table 5) gives an above ground/basal arearelationship of 4.308 t/m2 basal area. This is verysimilar to the white cypress pine stand relationship.


Table 5. Community biomass contributions from scrub leopardwood (Flindersia dissosperma) in a poplarbox (Eucalyptus populnea) woodland at Dingo, Central Queensland. Component tree basal areas on thissite were 8.681 m2/ha for poplar box and 1.487 m2/ha for scrub leopardwood.

Scrub leopardwood – Wandobah, Dingo Biomass (kg/ha) SE

Total above-ground (by regression) 6,406 2,024

Leaf 473 131

Branches 3,001 1,023

Trunk 2,431 720

Wood* 4,838 1,540

Bark* 970 317

Stem** 5,803 1,854

Dead Stem** 224 82

Live Stem** 5,846 1,869

Lignotubers 816 294

Total above-ground (by summation) 5,905

* Contains all wood/bark from trunk and branches** Stem = trunk and branches

n a b R2 RSD SSDx

Flindersia dissosperma

Circumference range = 5.3 – 78.7 cm (diameter 1.7 – 25 cm) at 30 cm above-ground. Mean circumference above-ground samples = 39.453 cm. Mean circumference below-ground samples = 41.5 cm.

x = ln circ at 30cm (cm), y = ln weight (kg)


Leaf 19 -6.555 2.132 0.928 0.477 10.881

Branches 19 -7.275 2.862 0.954 0.503 10.881

Trunk 19 -5.784 2.388 0.977 0.296 10.881

Wood* 19 -5.988 2.635 0.986 0.250 10.881

Bark* 19 -7.953 2.727 0.979 0.320 10.881

Stem** 19 -5.853 2.649 0.987 0.243 10.881

Dead Stem** 15 -11.812 3.215 0.673 1.286 4.276

Live Stem** 19 -5.861 2.651 0.985 0.263 10.881

Coarse Roots 10 -9.342 3.050 0.980 0.381 6.108

* Contains all wood/bark from trunk and branches** Stem = trunk and branches

Table 4. Regressions for the sub-dominant scrub leopardwood (Flindersia dissosperma) in a poplar boxcommunity at Dingo. All regressions are of the form ln y = a + b ln x, where y = above-ground weight (kg)and x = trunk circumference at 30 cm above-ground (cm). Residual standard deviation (RSD) and sums ofsquares of the deviations in x (SSDx) are also given for these equations.


There is some concern that applying tree allometricsto communities, distant from that where theregressions were derived, may compound errors ofmeasurement. The robustness of regressionspreviously published by Burrows et al. (2000) forEucalyptus melanophloia (silver leaved ironbark) andE. populnea (poplar box) were therefore tested byharvesting trees of these species at the Carnarvonsite which is 380 and 495 km from those sites wherethe regressions were respectively derived. The datasuggest that one can reasonably apply allometrics

developed at one woodland site to the same speciesat sites which may be hundreds of kilometres awayfrom the site on which the regressions wereestablished (Figs 7, 8). Nevertheless, the poplarbox data are more variable than that for silver leavedironbark, although this variability appears to begreatest within the smaller trees at the one(Dingo) site. The latter also included two smallmulti-stemmed trees which have affected theresponse pattern.

'Jericho' (original) regressionln y = 2.726 ln x - 6.553(R2 = 0.991)

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Ln stem circumference (cm) measured at 30 cm above ground

Ln

Tota

l abo

ve g

roun

d st

andi

ng b

iom

ass

(kg)

'Mitchell' E. melanophloia

'Jericho' E. melanophloia

Combined E. melanophloia

Linear (Combined E. melanophloia)

Linear ('Mitchell' E. melanophloia)

Linear ('Jericho' E. melanophloia)

'Mitchell' (new) regressionln y = 2.499 ln x - 5.547(R2 = 0.963)

Combined regressionln y = 2.700 ln x - 6.434(R2 = 0.988)

Figure 7. Allometric regressions for Eucalyptus melanophloia (silver leaved ironbark) trees determined at‘Summerdel’, Jericho (Burrows et al. 2000) and north of Mitchell (present study) some 380 km distant fromthe former site. Results for individual site and combined data are depicted. (There was no significantdifference between the slopes of any of these regressions).


Ln stem circumference (cm) measured at 30 cm above ground

Ln

Tota

l abo

ve g

roun

d st

andi

ng b

iom

ass

(kg)

'Mitchell' E. populnea

'Dingo' E. populnea

Combined E. populnea

Linear (''Dingo' E. populnea)

Linear ('Mitchell' E. populnea)

Linear (Combined E. populnea)

'Dingo' (original) regressionln y = 1.922 ln x - 2.806(R2 = 0.939)

'Mitchell' (new) regressionln y = 2.669 ln x - 6.109(R2 = 0.992)

Combined regressionln y = 2.070 ln x - 3.432(R2 = 0.935)

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Figure 8. Allometric regressions for Eucalyptus populnea (poplar box) trees determined at ‘Wandobah’,Dingo (Burrows et al. 2000) and north of Mitchell (present study) some 495 km distant from the former site.Results for individual site and combined data are depicted. The slopes of the individual site regressionswere significantly different (P < 0.05).


It has been suggested that choosing a regression todetermine biomass in a species with no knownallometric could be assisted by comparing its form(tree basal area x height relationship) with that ofindividual trees for which allometrics have alreadybeen established (K. Montagu – pers. comm.).Then the form of trees with known allometricswhich most closely matches the basal area/heightrelationship for the tree with no known allometric,would provide a guide as to which equation mightbest “fit” the ‘orphan’ data. However it is clear thatthis may only be a useful approach for specieswithin the one genus (Fig. 9). Thus the

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Tree Basal area (m2)

Tree

Hei

ght (

m)

C. glaucophylla

E. melanophloia

E. crebra

E. populnea

Eucalyptus spp. combined

C. glaucophylla

F. dissosperma

E. populnea

F. dissosperma

E. melanophloia

E. crebra

y = 2.480 ln(x) + 20.304,(R2 = 0.907), (E. melanophloia)

y = 2.785 ln(x) + 23.925, (R2 = 0.881), (E. populnea)

y = 2.900 ln(x) + 23.488,(R2 = 0.844), (Eucalyptus spp.)

y = 3.470 ln(x) + 26.284(R2 = 0.904), (C. glaucophylla)

y = 1.952 ln(x) + 16.371(R2 = 0.882), (F. dissosperma)

y = 3.456 ln(x) + 26.058, (R2 = 0.895) (E. crebra)

Figure 9. Tree form relationships (tree basal area vs tree height) for individual trees of Callitrisglaucophylla, Eucalyptus crebra, E. melanophloia, E. populnea and Flindersia dissosperma.

individual tree basal area/height relationship forCallitris glaucophylla appears to be identical to thesame curve drawn for Eucalyptus crebra (Fig. 9).Yet the above ground biomass/basal arearelationship previously calculated to be 4.341 t/m2

for the former, contrasts with a mean figure of6.74/m2 for E. crebra (Burrows et al. 2000).Likewise the Flindersia dissosperma basal area/heightrelationship is very different to all other speciesdepicted, although its above ground basal arearelationship (4.308 t/m2) is very similar to thatcalculated for C. glaucophylla.


Eamus, D., McGuinness, K. and Burrows, W. (2000).Review of allometric relationships for estimating woody

biomass for Queensland, the Northern Territory and

Western Australia. National Carbon Accounting System

Tech. Rep. No. 5a. Australian Greenhouse Office:Canberra. 56 pp.

Keith, H., Barrett, D. and Keenan R. (2000). Review of

allometric relationships for estimating woody biomass for

New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory,

Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia. National Carbon

Accounting System Tech. Rep. No. 5b. AustralianGreenhouse office: Canberra. 111 pp.

Munro, D.D. (1974). Use of logarithmic regression in

the estimation of plant biomass: discussion. CanadianJournal of Forest Research 4: 149.

Snowdon, P., Eamus, D., Gibbons, P. Khanna, P.K.,Keith, H., Raison,R.J. and Kirschbaum, M.U.F.(2000). Synthesis of allometrics, review of root biomass

and design of future woody biomass sampling strategies.

National Carbon Accounting System Tech. Report No. 17

Australian Greenhouse Office: Canberra. 114 pp.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Don Roberton, Owen Shorten and Vicki-Lee Palmerprovided capable assistance with field sampling.Members of the ARC SPIRT/PACRIM consortiumalso contributed to the initial sampling & providedplot records for the stand analysis. This study formspart of the activities of the Carbon in Woodlandsproject of the CRC for Greenhouse Accounting.

REFERENCES

Anderson, E.R.(1993). Plants of Central Queensland.

Queensland Department of Primary Industries:Brisbane. 272 pp.

Back, P.V., Burrows, W. H. and Hoffmann, M.B.(1999). TRAPS: a method for monitoring the dynamics of

trees and shrubs in rangelands. Proceedings VI th

International Rangeland Congress 2 : 742-744.

Baskerville, G.L. (1972). Use of logarithmic regression in

the estimation of plant biomass. Canadian Journal ofForestry 2: 49-53.

Beauchamp, J.J. and Olson, J.S. (1973). Corrections for

bias in regression estimates after logarithmic

transformation. Ecology 54: 1043-1407.

Binnington, K. (1997). Australian forest profiles 6.White cypress pine. (Bureau of Resource Sciences:Canberra). 12 pp.

Boland, D.J., Brooker, M.I.H., Chippendale, G.M.,Hall, N., Hyland, B.P.M., Johnston, R.D., Kleinig,D.A. and Turner, J.D. (1992). Forest Trees of Australia.

CSIRO Publications: Melbourne. 687 pp.

Burrows, W.H., Hoffmann, M. B., Compton, J.F.,Back, P.V. and Tait, L.J. (2000). Allometric relationships

and community biomass estimates for some dominant

eucalypts in Central Queensland woodlands. AustralianJournal of Botany 48: 707-714.

The National Carbon Accounting System:• Supports Australia's position in the international development of policyand guidelines on sinks activity and greenhouse gas emissionsmitigation from land based systems.

• Reduces the scientific uncertainties that surround estimates of landbased greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration in the Australian context.

• Provides monitoring capabilities for existing land based emissions andsinks, and scenario development and modelling capabilities thatsupport greenhouse gas mitigation and the sinks development agendathrough to 2012 and beyond.

• Provides the scientific and technical basis for internationalnegotiations and promotes Australia's national interests in internationalfora.

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ncas

For additional copies of this report phone 1300 130 606

Series 1 Publications Set the framework for development of the National Carbon Accounting System (NCAS) and document initial NCAS-related technical activities (see http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ncas/ publications).

Series 2 Publications Provide targeted technical information aimed at improving carbon accounting for Australian land based systems (see http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ncas/publications).

Series 3 Publications include:27. Biomass Estimation: Approaches for Assessment of Stocks and Stock Change.

28. The FullCAM Carbon Accounting Model: Development, Calibration and Implementation for the National Carbon Accounting System.

29. Modelling Change in Soil Carbon Following Afforestation or Reforestation: PreliminarySimulations Using GRC3 and Sensitivity Analysis.

30. Sensitivity Analysis of the Roth-C Carbon Model (Ver. 26.3 Excel” version).

31. Protocol for Sampling Tree and Stand Biomass.

32. Forest Management in Australia: Implications for Carbon Budgets.

33. Allometric Relationships and Community Biomass Stocks in White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) and Associated Eucalypts of the Carnarvon Area - South CentralQueensland (with Additional Data for Scrub Leopardwood - Flindersia dissosperma).

national carbonaccounting system

tech

nica

l rep

ort n

o. 3

3

The National Carbon Accounting System provides a complete

accounting and forecasting capability for human-induced sources and

sinks of greenhouse gas emissions from Australian land based

systems. It will provide a basis for assessing Australia’s progress

towards meeting its international emissions commitments.

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au

The lead Commonwealth

agency on greenhouse

matters


Allometric Relationships andCommunity Biomass Stocks in White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) andAssociated Eucalypts of the Carnarvon Area - South Central Queensland (with additional data for Scrub Leopardwood - Flindersia dissosperma)

technical report no. 33Allom

etric Relationships and Comm

unity Biomass Stocks in W

hite Cypress Pine ( Callitris glaucophylla) and Associated Eucalypts of the Carnarvon Area - South CentralQueensland (w

ith additional data for ScrubLeopardw

ood-Flindersiadissosperm

a)

allometric relationships and community biomass stocks in ... allometric... · squares of the...

Documents