Advertisement

Measuring Carbon in Shrubs

  • David C. Chojnacky
  • Mikaila Milton

Abstract

Although shrubs are a small component of the overall carbon budget, shrub lands and shrub cover within forested lands warrant monitoring with consistent procedures to account for carbon in shrubs and to track carbon accumulation as communities change from shrubs to trees and vice versa. Many different procedures have been used to sample and measure shrubs (Bonham 1989) but only three types are selected here, to represent a range from simple and subjective to more time-consuming but objective measurements. Although the goal is to measure shrub carbon, the methods outlined here estimate biomass—which is about 50% carbon. For sample design, we advocate compatibility with the USDA, Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program by using transects, microplots, or quadrats arranged within or near FIA subplots. Three basic methods are suggested for measuring shrub biomass: (1) cover estimations along transects, including point-intercept and line-intercept; (2) visual cover estimates in fixed area units; and (3) diameter measurement within fixed-area sampling frames. The 3rd method for measurement of individual shrub stem-diameters provides the most robust data for estimating biomass (and by extension, carbon) but requires the most field time. The other two methods allow more rapid measurements of shrub cover along transects or within plots. Our summary provides a framework for collecting shrub measurements three different ways; however, more work will likely be needed to develop appropriate equations that equate cover or stem measurements with biomass for various species.

Keywords

Cover measurement diameter measurement microplot shrub transect sampling 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Alaback PB (1986) Biomass regression equations for understory plants in coastal Alaska: effects of species and sampling design on estimates. Northwest Science 60(2): 90–102Google Scholar
  2. Bonham CD (1989) Measurements for terrestrial vegetation. New York: Wiley, 354 pGoogle Scholar
  3. Bechtold WA, Patterson PA (Eds.) (2005) The enhanced Forest Inventory and Analysis program—national sampling design and estimation procedures. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-80. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 85 pGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown JK (1976) Estimating shrub biomass from basal stem diameters. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 6: 153–158Google Scholar
  5. Brown JK, Marsden MA (1976) Estimating fuel weights of grasses, forbs, and small woody plants. Res. Note. INT-210. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 11 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/main/pubs/inventories/int/int_rn/pdf Google Scholar
  6. Canfield R (1941) Application of the line-interception method in sampling range vegetation. Journal of Forestry 39: 388–394Google Scholar
  7. Chojnacky DC (1994) Volume equations for New Mexico’s pinyon-juniper dryland forests. Research Paper INT-471. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Experiment Station, 10 pGoogle Scholar
  8. Chojnacky DC (1998) Double sampling for stratification: a forest inventory application in the Interior West. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-7. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 15 pGoogle Scholar
  9. Chojnacky DC (2002) Allometric scaling theory applied to FIA biomass estimation. In: McRoberts RE, Reams GA, Van Deusen PC, Moser JW (Eds.) Proceedings of third annual forest inventory and analysis symposium, 17–19 October 2001, Traverse City, MI. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-230. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station, pp. 96–102Google Scholar
  10. Cochran WG (1977) Sampling Techniques. Third edn. New York: Wiley, 428 pGoogle Scholar
  11. Daubenmire RF (1959) Canopy coverage method of vegetation analysis. Northwest Science 33: 43–64Google Scholar
  12. Diersing VE, Shaw RB, Tazik DJ (1992) U.S. Army land condition-trend analysis (LCTA) program. Environmental Management 16: 405–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elliott KJ, Clinton BD (1993) Equations for estimating biomass of herbaceous and woody vegetation in early-successional southern Appalachian pine-hardwood forests. Res. Note SE-365. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, 7 pGoogle Scholar
  14. Elzinga, CL, Salzer DW, Willoughby JW (1998) Measuring and monitoring plant populations. BLM Technical Reference 1730-1. Denver, CO: Bureau of Land Management, 477 pGoogle Scholar
  15. Enquist BJ, Niklas KJ (2001) Invariant scaling relations across tree-dominated communities. Nature 410: 655–660PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Enquist BJ, Niklas KJ (2002) Global allocation rules for biomass partitioning in seed plants. Science 295: 1517–1520PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Forest Inventory and Analysis [FIA] (2002) Phase 3 field manual—vegetation diversity and structure, March 2002. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis program, 20 p. http://fia.fs.fed.us/library/field-guides-methods-proc/docs/p3secl3_02-03_pub.pdf
  18. Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) (2004a) FIA tree species codes. In: National core field guide, volume 1: field data collection procedures for phase 2 plots, appendix 3, January 2004. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, pp. 151–163 http://fia.fs.fed.us/library/field-guides-methods-proc/docs/core_ver_2-0_01_04.pdf [accessed June 21, 2005]
  19. Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) (2004b) Phase 3 field manual—down woody materials, March 2004. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis program, 38 p. http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/field-guides-methods-proc/docs/p3_2-0_secl4_3_04.pdf [accessed December 1, 2005]
  20. Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) (2005) Homepage of U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis Program. [accessed June 14, 2005]Google Scholar
  21. Gilliam FS, Turrill NL (1993) Herbaceous layer cover and biomass in a young versus a mature stand of a central Appalachian hardwood forest. Bulletin Torrey Botanical Club 120: 445–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gregoire TG, Valentine HT, Furnival GM (1995) Sampling methods to estimate foliage and other characteristics of individual trees. Ecology 76(4): 1181–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanley TA (1978) A comparison of the line-interception and quadrat estimation methods for determining shrub canopy coverage. Journal of Range Management 31(1): 60–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heady HF, Gibbens RP, Powell RW (1959) A comparison of the charting, line intercept, and line point methods of sampling shrub types of vegetation. Journal of Range Management 12(4): 180–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Humphrey DL (1985) Use of biomass predicted by regression from cover estimates to compare vegetational similarity of sagebrush-grass sites. Great Basin Naturalist 45(1): 94–98Google Scholar
  26. Jenkins JC, Chojnacky DC, Heath LS, Birdsey RA (2003) National-scale biomass estimation for United States tree species. Forest Science 49(1): 12–35Google Scholar
  27. Kimble JM, Heath LS, Birdsey RA (2002) The potential of U.S. forest soils to sequester carbon and mitigate the greenhouse effect. Washington, DC: CRC Press, 429 pGoogle Scholar
  28. Korb, JE, Covington WW, Fule PZ (2003) Sampling techniques influence understory plant trajectories after restoration: an example from ponderosa pine restoration. Restoration Ecology 11(4): 504–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kort J, Turnock B (2003) Biomass production and carbon fixation by prairie shelterbelts: a green plan project. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Supplementary Report 96-5 http://www.agr.gc.ca/pfra/shelterbelt/shbpub63.htm [accessed June 21, 2005]
  30. Lohr SL (1999) Sampling: design and analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press, 494 pGoogle Scholar
  31. McMillin JD, Allen KK (2003) Effects of Douglas-fir beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) infestations on forest overstory and understory conditions in western Wyoming. Western North American Naturalist 63(4): 498–506Google Scholar
  32. Means J, Hansen H, Koerper G, Alaback P, Klopsch M (1994) Software for computing plant biomass-BIOPAK users guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-340. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research StationGoogle Scholar
  33. Meeuwig RO, Budy JD (1981) Point- and line-intersect sampling in pinyon and Utah juniper. Paper INT-104. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 38 pGoogle Scholar
  34. Mitchell, JE, Bartling PNS, O’Brien RO (1987) Understory cover-biomass relationships in the Front Range ponderosa pine zone. Research Note RM-471. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 5 p http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/main/pubs/inventories/rm_rn.pdf.Google Scholar
  35. Nilsson MC, Wardle DA (2005) Understory vegetation as a forest ecosystem driver: evidence from the northern Swedish boreal forest. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 8(30): 421–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ohmann LF, Grigal DF, Brander RB (1976) Biomass estimation for five shrubs from northeastern Minnesota. Journal Series 9468. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota. Minnesota Agriculture Experimentation Station, 11 pGoogle Scholar
  37. Olson CM, Martin RE (1981) Estimating biomass of shrubs and forbs in central Washington Douglas-fir stands. Res. Note PNW-380. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 6 pGoogle Scholar
  38. Peet RK, Wentworth TR, White PS (1998) A flexible multipurpose method for recording vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63: 262–274Google Scholar
  39. Sweeney BA, Cook JE (2001) A landscape-level assessment of understory diversity in upland forest of the North-Central Wisconsin, USA. Landscape Ecology 16: 55–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Small CJ, McCarthy BC (2002) Spatial and temporal variability of herbaceous vegetation in an eastern deciduous forest. Plant Ecology 164: 37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tefler ES (1969) Weight-diameter relationships for 22 woody plant species. Canadian Journal of Botany 47: 1851–1855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yandle DO, Wiant HV (1981) Estimation of plant biomass based on the allometric equation. Canadian Journal Forestry Research 11: 833–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • David C. Chojnacky
    • 1
  • Mikaila Milton
    • 2
  1. 1.US Forest Service Washington, DCUSA
  2. 2.National Science FoundationArlington

Personalised recommendations