Predicting Aboveground Biomass in Second Growth Coast Redwood: Comparing Localized with Generic Allometric Models
AbstractBiomass amounts predicted by generalized models are often not applicable for small regions. Localized allometric models were developed relating tree/biomass components to diameter at breast height (dbh) for coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens (D. Don) Endl.) from an industrial timberland in northwestern California, USA. dbh for the candidate trees ranged from 2.54 cm to 84.07 cm. Biomass of tree components, such as bole, foliage, bark, live and dead branches, along with the total aboveground biomass (TAGB) were estimated. Other tree dimensions such as tree height, height to live crown, weight and volume of bole wood were also modeled. Localized allometric models were able to explain more than 93% of the variability for most of the tree components (p < 0.001). Biomass amounts predicted from the widely used generalized models were different from that estimated by the localized allometric model developed from this study. However, the results presented in this study should be used carefully to predict the biomass components, if applied outside the stated dbh range or stand conditions on which this study was based. View Full-Text
Scifeed alert for new publicationsNever miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
- Get alerts for new papers matching your research
- Find out the new papers from selected authors
- Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
- Define your Scifeed now
Kizha, A.R.; Han, H.-S. Predicting Aboveground Biomass in Second Growth Coast Redwood: Comparing Localized with Generic Allometric Models. Forests 2016, 7, 96.
Kizha AR, Han H-S. Predicting Aboveground Biomass in Second Growth Coast Redwood: Comparing Localized with Generic Allometric Models. Forests. 2016; 7(5):96.Chicago/Turabian Style
Kizha, Anil R.; Han, Han-Sup. 2016. "Predicting Aboveground Biomass in Second Growth Coast Redwood: Comparing Localized with Generic Allometric Models." Forests 7, no. 5: 96.
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.