Biomass allocation and allometric growth model of young Catalpa bungei

doi:10.17521/cjpe.2024.0042

Abstract

Abstract:

Aims To explore the biomass allocation of trunk, branch, leaf, coarse root, fine root, total tree, aboveground and belowground of young Catalpa bungei trees, thus to develop corresponding allometric growth models.

Methods Different components of 41 sample trees, with a diameter at breast height (D) ranging from 3.2 to 24.8 cm, were collected from 3 to 8-year-old C. bungei plantation forests at four sampling sites in three neighboring provinces. We utilized the whole mass method to determine the biomass of different components and analyzed their allocation patterns. With D, tree height (H) and their composite form D²H as predictive variables, biomass models for trunk, branch, leaf, coarse root, fine root, total tree, above- and below-ground parts of C. bungei were developed using simple power function. The accuracy of the model was then validated.

Important findings There were obvious allometric growth relationship between the biomass of various components of C. bungei. In average, 80.54% of the total biomass was allocated to above-ground, with an average of 49.29% to the trunks, far exceeding the portion of below-ground biomass, with only 0.29% of the total biomass was allocated to the fine roots. For trees with D≤ 10 cm, the proportion of branch biomass increased, while the coarse root biomass proportion decreased, resulting in a gradual increase in the difference between above- and below-ground biomass with increasing D. Whilst for trees with 10 cm < D< 25 cm, the changes in the proportional biomass of each component diminished. As for allometric models, among the three predictive variables, the accuracy ranking was approximately D > D²H > H. The models using D as a single predictive variable showed highest accuracies for the trunk, branch, leaf, coarse root, total tree, above- and below-ground part biomass, whilst D²H was the best single predictive variable for fine root biomass. Sampling of various diameter classes of C. bungei was used to validate model accuracy, and the results indicated high estimation accuracy of the optimal model for each component. Young C. bungei trees allocated their biomass according to the following order: trunk > branch > coarse root > leaf > fine root. The proportion of above-ground biomass allocation increased as Dincreased. D is the most reliable single variable for predicting the biomass of all components of the C. bungei, except for biomass of the fine roots, which is best predicted by D²H. The optimal allometric growth models constructed can predict the growth rule of young C. bungei accurately, providing significant reference for the selection and breeding of fine C. bungei clones.

Key words: Catalpa bungei, biomass allocation, allometric growth model, growth rule

CHEN Wen-Yi, WANG Zhi-Yong, ZHOU Meng-Yan, MA Wen-Jun, WANG Jun-Hui, LUO Zhi-Bin, ZHOU Jing. Biomass allocation and allometric growth model of young Catalpa bungei[J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2025, 49(2): 356-366.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/10.17521/cjpe.2024.0042

https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/Y2025/V49/I2/356

Figures/Tables 9

References 54

[1]	Ammer C, Wagner S (2005). An approach for modelling the mean fine-root biomass of Norway spruce stands. Trees, 19, 145-153.
[2]	Aneseyee AB, Soromessa T, Elias E, Feyisa GL (2021). Allometric equations for selected Acacia species (Vachellia and Senegalia genera) of Ethiopia. Carbon Balance and Management, 16, 34. DOI: 10.1186/s13021-021-00196-1.
[3]	Bowman DMJS, Brienen RJW, Gloor E, Phillips OL, Prior LD (2013). Detecting trends in tree growth: not so simple. Trends in Plant Science, 18, 11-17. DOI PMID
[4]	Chang L, Liu K, Wang LG, Yang XL, Sun H (2022). First report of Phytophthora nicotianae causing stem canker of Catalpa bungei (Chinese Catalpa) in China. Plant Disease, 106, 1309. DOI: 10.1094/PDIS-08-21-1778-PDN.
[5]	Chen C, Ko SH, Lam TY (2021). Modeling biomass allocation strategy of young planted Zelkova serrata trees in Taiwan with component ratio method and seemingly unrelated regressions. Scientific Reports, 11, 7536. DOI: 10.1038/ s41598-021-87129-7.
[6]	Chen JL, Fang X, Wu AC, Xiang WH, Lei PF, Ouyang S (2024). Allometric equations for estimating biomass of natural shrubs and young trees of subtropical forests. New Forests, 55, 15-46.
[7]	Chen Q (2015). Modeling aboveground tree woody biomass using national-scale allometric methods and airborne lidar. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 106, 95-106.
[8]	Chen W, Zhang Q, Cihlar J, Bauhus J, Price DT (2004). Estimating fine-root biomass and production of boreal and cool temperate forests using aboveground measurements: a new approach. Plant and Soil, 265, 31-46.
[9]	Chen XY, Wang YJ, Li HW, Zhai BQ, Chang J, Wei HM (2021). Preliminary report of demonstration forest test of improved seed of Catalpa bungei. Journal of Henan Forestry Science and Technology, 41(3), 19-21.
	[陈晓燕, 王燕军, 李红伟, 翟宝黔, 常娟, 魏洪敏 (2021). 楸树良种示范林试验初报. 河南林业科技, 41(3), 19-21.]
[10]	Chojnacky DC, Heath LS, Jenkins JC (2014). Updated generalized biomass equations for North American tree species. Forestry, 87, 129-151.
[11]	Dong LH, Zhang LJ, Li FR (2015). Developing additive systems of biomass equations for nine hardwood species in Northeast China. Trees, 29, 1149-1163.
[12]	Dybzinski R, Farrior C, Wolf A, Reich PB, Pacala SW (2011). Evolutionarily stable strategy carbon allocation to foliage, wood, and fine roots in trees competing for light and nitrogen: an analytically tractable, individual-based model and quantitative comparisons to data. The American Naturalist, 177, 153-166. DOI PMID
[13]	Guan ZZ, Lin D, Chen D, Guo Y, Lu Y, Han Q, Li N, Su Y, Li J, Wang J, Ma W, Qiu Q, He Q (2022). Soil microbial communities response to different fertilization regimes in young Catalpa bungei plantation. Frontiers in Microbiology, 13, 948875. DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.948875.
[14]	Han WX, Fang JY (2008). Review on the mechanism models of allometric scaling laws: 3/4 vs. 2/3 power. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 32, 951-960.
	[韩文轩, 方精云 (2008). 幂指数异速生长机制模型综述. 植物生态学报, 32, 951-960.] DOI
[15]	Holland R, Castro G, Chavana-Bryant C, Levy R, Moat J, Robson T, Wilkinson T, Wilkes P, Yang WX, Disney M (2024). Giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) in the UK: carbon storage potential and growth rates. Royal Society Open Science, 11, 230603. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.230603.
[16]	Hossain M, Saha C, Abdullah SMR, Saha S, Siddique MRH (2016). Allometric biomass, nutrient and carbon stock models for Kandelia candel of the Sundarbans, Bangladesh. Trees, 30, 709-717.
[17]	Inagaki Y, Nakanishi A, Tange T (2020). A simple method for leaf and branch biomass estimation in Japanese cedar plantations. Trees, 34, 349-356.
[18]	Ishihara MI, Utsugi H, Tanouchi H, Aiba M, Kurokawa H, Onoda Y, Nagano M, Umehara T, Ando M, Miyata R, Hiura T (2015). Efficacy of generic allometric equations for estimating biomass: a test in Japanese natural forests. Ecological Applications, 25, 1433-1446. PMID
[19]	Jara MC, Henry M, Réjou-Méchain M, Wayson C, Zapata-Cuartas M, Piotto D, Guier FA, Lombis HC, López EC, Lara RC, Rojas KC, Pasquel JD, Montoya AD, Vega JF, Galo AJ, et al. (2015). Guidelines for documenting and reporting tree allometric equations. Annals of Forest Science, 72, 763-768.
[20]	Jucker T, Caspersen J, Chave J, Antin C, Barbier N, Bongers F, Dalponte M, van Ewijk KY, Forrester DI, Haeni M, Higgins SI, Holdaway RJ, Iida Y, Lorimer C, Marshall PL, et al. (2017). Allometric equations for integrating remote sensing imagery into forest monitoring programmes. Global Change Biology, 23, 177-190. DOI PMID
[21]	Kachamba DJ, Eid T, Gobakken T (2016). Above- and belowground biomass models for trees in the miombo woodlands of Malawi. Forests, 7, 38. DOI: 10.3390/f7020038.
[22]	Kaushal R, Islam S, Tewari S, Tomar JMS, Thapliyal S, Madhu M, Trinh TL, Singh T, Singh A, Durai J (2022). An allometric model-based approach for estimating biomass in seven Indian bamboo species in western Himalayan foothills, India. Scientific Reports, 12, 7527. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-11394-3.
[23]	Konôpka B, Murgaš V, Pajtík J, Šebeň V, Barka I (2023). Tree biomass and leaf area allometric relations for Betula pendula Roth based on samplings in the western carpathians. Plants, 12, 1607. DOI: 10.3390/plants12081607.
[24]	Li C, Barclay H, Roitberg B, Lalonde R (2020). Forest productivity enhancement and compensatory growth: a review and synthesis. Frontiers in Plant Science, 11, 575211. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2020.575211.
[25]	Li W (2014). Biomass Allocation Patterns and Allometric Models of Larix gmelinii. Master degree dissertation, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin. 2-45.
	[李巍 (2014). 兴安落叶松生物量分配格局和异速生长模型. 硕士学位论文, 东北林业大学, 哈尔滨. 2-45.]
[26]	Lin KM, Lyu MK, Jiang MH, Chen YM, Li YQ, Chen GS, Xie JS, Yang YS (2017). Improved allometric equations for estimating biomass of the three Castanopsis carlesii H. forest types in subtropical China. New Forests, 48, 115-135.
[27]	Lister AJ, Andersen H, Frescino T, Gatziolis D, Healey S, Heath LS, Liknes GC, McRoberts R, Moisen GG, Nelson M, Riemann R, Schleeweis K, Schroeder TA, Westfall J, Wilson BT (2020). Use of remote sensing data to improve the efficiency of national forest inventories: a case study from the United States national forest inventory. Forests, 11, 1364. DOI: 10.3390/f11121364.
[28]	Ma WJ, Yi F, Xiao Y, Yang GJ, Chen FJ, Wang JH (2020). Isolation of leaf mesophyll protoplasts optimized by orthogonal design for transient gene expression in Catalpa bungei. Scientia Horticulturae, 274, 109684. DOI: 10.1016/j.scienta.2020.109684.
[29]	Meng SW, Zhou G, Liu WH, Yu J, Zhou H, Liu QJ (2024). Species-specific and generalized allometric equations for improving aboveground biomass estimations of 33 understory woody species in northeastern China forest ecosystems. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 54, 524-542.
[30]	Mensah S, Kakaï RG, Seifert T (2016). Patterns of biomass allocation between foliage and woody structure: the effects of tree size and specific functional traits. Annals of Forest Research, 59, 49-60.
[31]	Moussa M, Mahamane L (2018). Allometric models for estimating aboveground biomass and carbon in Faidherbia albida and Prosopis africana under agroforestry parklands in drylands of Niger. Journal of Forestry Research, 29, 1703-1717.
[32]	Pan Y, Birdsey RA, Phillips OL, Jackson RB (2013). The structure, distribution, and biomass of the world’s forests. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 44, 593-622.
[33]	Paul KI, Roxburgh SH, Chave J, England JR, Zerihun A, Specht A, Lewis T, Bennett LT, Baker TG, Adams MA, Huxtable D, Montagu KD, Falster DS, Feller M, Sochacki S, et al. (2016). Testing the generality of above-ground biomass allometry across plant functional types at the continent scale. Global Change Biology, 22, 2106-2124. DOI PMID
[34]	Peichl M, Arain MA (2007). Allometry and partitioning of above- and belowground tree biomass in an age-sequence of white pine forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 253, 68-80.
[35]	Poorter H, Jagodzinski AM, Ruiz-Peinado R, Kuyah S, Luo YJ, Oleksyn J, Usoltsev VA, Buckley TN, Reich PB, Sack L (2015). How does biomass distribution change with size and differ among species? An analysis for 1200 plant species from five continents. New Phytologist, 208, 736-749. DOI PMID
[36]	Qiu FY, Xiao FM, Wu YF, He XS (2019). Growth and biomass distribution of the middle-age and young Phoebe bournei. Hubei Foresty Science and Technology, 48(3), 12-15.
	[邱凤英, 肖复明, 伍艳芳, 何小三 (2019). 中幼龄闽楠生长及生物量分配特征研究. 湖北林业科技, 48(3), 12-15.]
[37]	Quan JE, Ni RY, Wang YG, Sun JJ, Ma MY, Bi HT (2022). Effects of different growth regulators on the rooting of Catalpa bignonioides softwood cuttings. Life, 12, 1231. DOI: 10.3390/life12081231.
[38]	Roxburgh SH, Paul KI, Clifford D, England JR, Raison RJ (2015). Guidelines for constructing allometric models for the prediction of woody biomass: How many individuals to harvest? Ecosphere, 6, 1-27.
[39]	Schindler Z, Seifert T, Sheppard JP, Morhart C (2023). Allometric models for above-ground biomass, carbon and nutrient content of wild cherry (Prunus avium L.) trees in agroforestry systems. Annals of Forest Science, 80, 28. DOI: 10.1186/s13595-023-01196-6.
[40]	Shahabedini S, Ghahramany L, Pulido F, Khosravi S, Moreno G (2018). Estimating leaf biomass of pollarded lebanon oak in open silvopastoral systems using allometric equations. Trees, 32, 99-108.
[41]	Solomon N, Birhane E, Tadesse T, Treydte AC, Meles K (2017). Carbon stocks and sequestration potential of dry forests under community management in Tigray, Ethiopia. Ecological Processes, 6, 20. DOI: 10.1186/s13717-017-0088-2.
[42]	Strand AE, Pritchard SG, McCormack ML, Davis MA, Oren R (2008). Irreconcilable differences: fine-root life spans and soil carbon persistence. Science, 319, 456-458. DOI PMID
[43]	Sun TT, Ren RH, Xing MM, Duan QX, Zhao L, Yan WW, Fang Y, Zhang SY, Dong H, Wang MR, Heng QM, Chen WY, Xu T, Kou LL, Li KP, et al. (2024). Morphological and physiological plasticity of Catalpa bungei roots under partial root-zone drought as affected by nitrogen forms. New Forests, 55, 383-402.
[44]	Tobin B, Black K, Osborne B, Reidy B, Bolger T, Nieuwenhuis M (2006). Assessment of allometric algorithms for estimating leaf biomass, leaf area index and litter fall in different-aged Sitka spruce forests. Forestry, 79, 453-465.
[45]	Wang CK (2006). Biomass allometric equations for 10 co-occurring tree species in Chinese temperate forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 222, 9-16.
[46]	Wang JC, Qin XM, Xu SQ, Zhao MY, Shu PQ, Xu FJ, Ma JY, Sun Y, Dong H, Guo ZY, Long DP, Ma WJ, Lu YZ, Xie XM, Chen YL, Chu J, Wang JH, Zhang Y (2021). Nitrogen availability affects stem development and response to differential root-zone drought stress in Catalpa bungei. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 186, 104429. DOI: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2021.104429.
[47]	Xiang WH, Liu SH, Deng XW, Shen AH, Lei XD, Tian DL, Zhao MF, Peng CH (2011). General allometric equations and biomass allocation of Pinus massoniana trees on a regional scale in southern China. Ecological Research, 26, 697-711.
[48]	Xiao Y, Ma WJ, Lu N, Wang Z, Wang N, Zhai WJ, Kong LS, Qu GZ, Wang QX, Wang JH (2019). Genetic variation of growth traits and genotype-by-environment interactions in clones of Catalpa bungei and Catalpa fargesii f. duclouxii. Forests, 10, 57. DOI: 10.3390/f10010057.
[49]	Xiao Y, Wang JH, Yun HL, Yang GJ, Ma JW, Ma WJ, Qu GZ (2021). Genetic evaluation and combined selection for the simultaneous improvement of growth and wood properties in Catalpa bungei clones. Forests, 12, 868. DOI: 10.3390/f12070868.
[50]	Xie L, Fu L, Widagdo FRA, Dong L, Li F (2022). Improving the accuracy of tree biomass estimations for three coniferous tree species in Northeast China. Trees, 36, 451-469.
[51]	Zeng WS, Chen XY, Yang XY (2021). Developing national and regional individual tree biomass models and analyzing impact of climatic factors on biomass estimation for poplar plantations in China. Trees, 35, 93-102.
[52]	Zhao HB, Zhou GY, Li ZJ, Qiu ZJ, Wu ZM, Wang X (2022). Biomass allocation and allometric growth models of four common tree species in southern subtropical evergreen broad-leaved forest. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 58(2), 23-31.
	[赵厚本, 周光益, 李兆佳, 邱治军, 吴仲民, 王旭 (2022). 南亚热带常绿阔叶林4个常见树种的生物量分配特征与异速生长模型. 林业科学, 58(2), 23-31.]
[53]	Zhao JN (2020). Growth Regularity and Cultivation Technology of Catalpa bungei Plantation. Master degree dissertation, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou.
	[赵江宁 (2020). 楸树人工林生长规律与关键培育技术研究. 硕士学位论文, 华南农业大学, 广州.]
[54]	Zheng CH, Mason EG, Jia LM, Wei SP, Sun CW, Duan J (2015). A single-tree additive biomass model of Quercus variabilis Blume forests in North China. Trees, 29, 705-716.

样地 Sample site	株数 Number of plants	胸径 D (cm)					年龄 Age (a)	造林密度 Afforestation density (ind.·hm^-2)	年降水量 Mean annual precipitation (mm)	年平均气温 Mean annual air temperature (℃)	土壤类型 Soil type
样地 Sample site	株数 Number of plants	0-5	5-10	10-15	15-20	20-25	年龄 Age (a)	造林密度 Afforestation density (ind.·hm^-2)	年降水量 Mean annual precipitation (mm)	年平均气温 Mean annual air temperature (℃)	土壤类型 Soil type
山东菏泽 Heze, Shandong	9	1	2	2	3	1	5	833	782.6 ± 69.5	15.58 ± 0.05	冲积土 Fluvisol
河南永城 Yongcheng, Henan	8	1	2	3	2	0	4	833	888.1 ± 72.6	16.67 ± 0.11	冲积土 Fluvisol
湖北襄阳 Xiangyang, Hubei	12	1	3	3	2	3	5	833	908.6 ± 100.4	16.40 ± 0.09	始成土 Inceptisol
湖北石首 Shishou, Hubei	12	2	2	3	2	3	3, 8	833	1 222.8 ± 77.8	17.77 ± 0.13	淋溶土 Alfisol
总计 Total	41	5	9	11	9	7	-	-	-	-	-
建模组 Modeling group	28	3	7	7	6	5	-	-	-	-	-
验证组 Testing group	13	2	2	4	3	2	-	-	-	-	-

样地 Sample site	株数 Number of plants	胸径 D (cm)					年龄 Age (a)	造林密度 Afforestation density (ind.·hm^-2)	年降水量 Mean annual precipitation (mm)	年平均气温 Mean annual air temperature (℃)	土壤类型 Soil type
样地 Sample site	株数 Number of plants	0-5	5-10	10-15	15-20	20-25	年龄 Age (a)	造林密度 Afforestation density (ind.·hm^-2)	年降水量 Mean annual precipitation (mm)	年平均气温 Mean annual air temperature (℃)	土壤类型 Soil type
山东菏泽 Heze, Shandong	9	1	2	2	3	1	5	833	782.6 ± 69.5	15.58 ± 0.05	冲积土 Fluvisol
河南永城 Yongcheng, Henan	8	1	2	3	2	0	4	833	888.1 ± 72.6	16.67 ± 0.11	冲积土 Fluvisol
湖北襄阳 Xiangyang, Hubei	12	1	3	3	2	3	5	833	908.6 ± 100.4	16.40 ± 0.09	始成土 Inceptisol
湖北石首 Shishou, Hubei	12	2	2	3	2	3	3, 8	833	1 222.8 ± 77.8	17.77 ± 0.13	淋溶土 Alfisol
总计 Total	41	5	9	11	9	7	-	-	-	-	-
建模组 Modeling group	28	3	7	7	6	5	-	-	-	-	-
验证组 Testing group	13	2	2	4	3	2	-	-	-	-	-

胸径 D (cm)	主干 Trunk (kg·plant^-1)		枝条 Branch (kg·plant^-1)		叶 Leaf (kg·plant^-1)		粗根 Coarse root (kg·plant^-1)		细根 Fine root (kg·plant^-1)
胸径 D (cm)	范围 Range	平均值 Mean	范围 Range	平均值 Mean	范围 Range	平均值 Mean	范围 Range	平均值 Mean	范围 Range	平均值 Mean
0-5	0.83-6.56	2.52^Ad	0.15-5.46	1.55^ABc	0.11-0.55	0.27^Bd	0.51-3.21	1.39^ABd	0.01-0.04	0.02^Bc
5-10	3.47-17.30	8.35^Ad	1.12-6.15	3.23^Bc	0.28-3.41	1.30^BCcd	1.63-10.95	3.71^Bcd	0.01-0.07	0.05^Cc
10-15	14.45-37.18	26.49^Ac	7.33-20.09	13.04^Bc	1.29-6.92	4.06^Dbc	4.75-14.74	8.60^Cc	0.04-0.15	0.11^Ec
15-20	41.87-73.16	55.63^Ab	16.95-76.11	32.92^Bb	1.79-16.09	7.21^CDab	8.40-25.44	16.52^Cb	0.10-0.27	0.19^Db
20-25	53.91-116.49	89.22^Aa	35.50-73.64	56.43^Ba	2.87-19.19	9.61^Da	19.78-42.27	31.02^Ca	0.13-0.56	0.30^Da

胸径 D (cm)	主干 Trunk (kg·plant^-1)		枝条 Branch (kg·plant^-1)		叶 Leaf (kg·plant^-1)		粗根 Coarse root (kg·plant^-1)		细根 Fine root (kg·plant^-1)
胸径 D (cm)	范围 Range	平均值 Mean	范围 Range	平均值 Mean	范围 Range	平均值 Mean	范围 Range	平均值 Mean	范围 Range	平均值 Mean
0-5	0.83-6.56	2.52^Ad	0.15-5.46	1.55^ABc	0.11-0.55	0.27^Bd	0.51-3.21	1.39^ABd	0.01-0.04	0.02^Bc
5-10	3.47-17.30	8.35^Ad	1.12-6.15	3.23^Bc	0.28-3.41	1.30^BCcd	1.63-10.95	3.71^Bcd	0.01-0.07	0.05^Cc
10-15	14.45-37.18	26.49^Ac	7.33-20.09	13.04^Bc	1.29-6.92	4.06^Dbc	4.75-14.74	8.60^Cc	0.04-0.15	0.11^Ec
15-20	41.87-73.16	55.63^Ab	16.95-76.11	32.92^Bb	1.79-16.09	7.21^CDab	8.40-25.44	16.52^Cb	0.10-0.27	0.19^Db
20-25	53.91-116.49	89.22^Aa	35.50-73.64	56.43^Ba	2.87-19.19	9.61^Da	19.78-42.27	31.02^Ca	0.13-0.56	0.30^Da

胸径 D (cm)	整株 Total tree (kg·plant^-1)		地上 Aboveground (kg·plant^-1)		地下 Belowground (kg·plant^-1)		根冠比 Root to shoot ratio
胸径 D (cm)	范围 Range	平均值 Mean	范围 Range	平均值 Mean	范围 Range	平均值 Mean	范围 Range	平均值 Mean
0-5	1.69-15.79	5.76	1.17-12.57	4.34	0.52-3.22	1.42	0.26-0.64	0.42^a
5-10	7.61-34.82	16.63	4.87-23.82	12.87	1.63-11.00	3.76	0.15-0.56	0.32^a
10-15	35.13-68.06	52.29	28.74-55.48	43.58	4.79-14.90	8.71	0.14-0.28	0.20^b
15-20	77.64-180.77	112.47	62.55-111.58	95.76	8.63-25.68	16.71	0.08-0.24	0.18^b
20-25	129.19-248.95	186.59	101.02-209.32	155.27	20.08-42.40	31.32	0.15-0.28	0.20^b