Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T03:19:51.333Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reconstruction of Tertiary Metasequoia forests. I. Test of a method for biomass determination based on stem dimensions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Christopher J. Williams ,
Arthur H. Johnson ,
Ben A. LePage ,
David R. Vann  and
Karen D. Taylor
Christopher J. Williams
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Environmental Science, University of Pennsylvania, 240 South Thirty-third Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-6316. E-mail: cjwillia@sas.upenn.edu
Arthur H. Johnson
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Environmental Science, University of Pennsylvania, 240 South Thirty-third Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-6316. E-mail: cjwillia@sas.upenn.edu
Ben A. LePage
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Environmental Science, University of Pennsylvania, 240 South Thirty-third Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-6316. E-mail: cjwillia@sas.upenn.edu
David R. Vann
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Environmental Science, University of Pennsylvania, 240 South Thirty-third Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-6316. E-mail: cjwillia@sas.upenn.edu
Karen D. Taylor
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Environmental Science, University of Pennsylvania, 240 South Thirty-third Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-6316. E-mail: cjwillia@sas.upenn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Accurate reconstruction of the biomass, structure, and productivity of ancient forests from their fossilized remnants remains an interesting challenge in paleoecology. In well-preserved Tertiary fossil Metasequoia forests of Canada's Arctic, in situ stumps and fragments of stems, treetops, and branches contain substantial information about tree dimensions that can be used to determine tree height, stand biomass, and other characteristics such as canopy depth and structure, and the history of stand development. To validate a method for reconstructing the biomass of the Eocene floodplain Metasequoia forests of Axel Heiberg Island, we measured stump diameters and spacing, and stem, branch, and treetop characteristics in living Metasequoia glyptostroboides and Chamaecyparis thyoides stands in ways that simulate the limited measurements that can be made in well-preserved fossil forests in Canada and probably elsewhere. We used those limited measurements to estimate tree height and volume, branch and foliar dry weights, and tree biomass. The estimates derived from the limited data set are usually within 15% of the estimates derived from the methods currently used in forest ecology for determining those metrics in modern forests. Under appropriate conditions, the biomass of ancient forests can be estimated with reasonable confidence.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , Spring 2003 , pp. 256 - 270
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Assmann, E. 1970. The principles of forest yield. Pergamon, Oxford.Google Scholar
Basinger, J. F., McIver, E. E., and LePage, B. A. 1988. The fossil forests of Axel Heiberg Island. Muskox 36:50–55.Google Scholar
Beerling, D. J. 1999. Quantitative estimates of changes in marine and terrestrial primary productivity over the past 300 million years. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 266:1821–1827.Google Scholar
Beerling, D. J. 2000. Increased terrestrial carbon storage across the Palaeocene-Eocene boundary. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 161:395–405.Google Scholar
Bell, J. F., Ek, A. R., Hitchcock, H. C. III, Iles, K., Miller, C. I., and Moser, J. W. Jr. 1984. Timber measurement. Pp. 253–360in Wenger, F. W., ed. Forestry handbook. Wiley-Interscience, Toronto.Google Scholar
Bertram, J. E. A. 1989. Size-dependent differential scaling in branches: the mechanical design of trees revisited. Trees 3:241–253.Google Scholar
Bylin, C. V. 1982. Estimating DBH from stump diameter for 15 southern species. USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Research Note SO-286.Google Scholar
DeBell, J. D., Tappeiner, J. C., and Krahmer, R. L. 1994. Wood density of western hemlock: effect of ring width. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 24:638–641.Google Scholar
Farrar, J. L. 1961. Longitudinal variation in the thickness of the annual ring. Forestry Chronicle 37:323–330.Google Scholar
Forest Products Laboratory. 1999. Wood handbook: wood as an engineering material. General Technical Report-GTR-113. U.S. Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. Madison, Wisc.Google Scholar
Francis, J. E. 1991. The dynamics of polar fossil forests: Tertiary fossil forests of Axel Heiberg Island, Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Geological Survey of Canada Bulletin 403:29–38.Google Scholar
Gilmore, D. W., and Seymour, R. S. 1997. Crown architecture of Abies balsamea from four canopy position. Tree Physiology 17:71–80.Google Scholar
Gholz, H. T., Grier, C. C., Cambell, A. G., and Brown, A. T. 1979. Equations for estimating biomass and leaf area of plants in the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Forest Research Lab Research Paper 41.Google Scholar
Gower, S. T., Grier, C. C., Vogt, D. D., and Vogt, K. A. 1987. Allometric relations of deciduous (Larix occidentalis) and evergreen conifers (Pinus contorta and Pseudotsuga menziesii) of the Cascade Mountains in central Washington. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 17:630–634.Google Scholar
Gower, S. T., Vogt, K. A., and Grier, C. C. 1992. Carbon dynamics of Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir: influence of water and nutrient availability. Ecological Monographs 61:33–51.Google Scholar
Haygreen, J. G., and Bowyer, J. L. 1989. Forest products and wood science: an introduction. Iowa State University Press, Ames.Google Scholar
Henwood, K. 1973. A structural model of forces in buttressed tropical rain forest trees. Biotropica 5:83–93.Google Scholar
Husch, B., Miller, C. T., and Beers, T. W. 1993. Forest mensuration. Krieger, Malabar, Fla.Google Scholar
Kershaw, J. A., and Maguire, D. A. 1995. Crown structure in western hemlock, Douglas-fir, and grand fir in western Washington: trends in branch-level mass and leaf area. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 25:1897–1912.Google Scholar
Korstian, C. F., and Brush, W. D. 1931. Southern white cedar. U.S. Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin No. 251.Google Scholar
Kozak, A. 1988. A variable-exponent taper equation. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 18:1363–1368.Google Scholar
Laderman, A. D. 1989. The ecology of the Atlantic white cedar wetlands: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.21).Google Scholar
Larson, P. R. 1963. Stem development of forest trees. Forest Science Monograph 5. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
LeBlanc, D. C., Raynal, D. J., and White, E. H. 1987. Acidic deposition and tree growth. I. The use of stem analysis to study historical growth patterns. Journal of Environmental Quality 16:325–333.Google Scholar
Lehman, T. M., and Wheeler, E. A. 2001. A fossil dicotyledonous woodland/forest from the Upper Cretaceous of Big Bend National Park, Texas. Palaios 16:102–108.Google Scholar
Max, T. A., and Burkhart, H. E. 1976. Segmented polynomial regression applied to taper equations. Forest Science 22:283–289.Google Scholar
McMahon, T. A., and Kronauer, R. E. 1976. Tree structures: deducing the principle of mechanical design. Journal of Theoretical Biology 59:443–466.Google Scholar
Morgan, J., and Cannell, M. G. R. 1987. Structural analysis of tree trunks and branches: tapered cantilever beams subject to large deflections under complex loading. Tree Physiology 3:365–374.Google Scholar
Mosbrugger, V. 1990. The tree habit in land plants. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
Mosbrugger, V., Gee, C. T., Belz, G., and Ashraf, A. R. 1994. Three-dimensional reconstruction of an in-situ Miocene peat forest from the Lower Rhine Embayment, northwestern Germany: new methods in palaeovegetation analysis. Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology and Palaeoecology 110:295–317.Google Scholar
Nichol, B. C., and Ray, D. 1996. Adaptive growth of tree root systems in response to wind action and site conditions. Tree Physiology 16:891–898.Google Scholar
Niklas, K. J. 1984. Morphometric relationships and rates of evolution among Paleozoic vascular plants. Evolutionary Biology 11:509–543.Google Scholar
Niklas, K. J. 1992. Plant biomechanics: an engineering approach to plant form and function. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Niklas, K. J. 1994. Predicting the height of fossil plant remains: an allometric approach to an old problem. American Journal of Botany 81:1235–1242.Google Scholar
Niklas, K. J., and Banks, H. P. 1992. Taper of some Early Palaeozoic plants. Paleaeobotanist 41:58–66.Google Scholar
Ojasvi, P. R., and Bruggink, J. 1991. Stump diameter and DBH relationships for white oak and black oak in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 21:1596–1600.Google Scholar
Oliver, C. D., and Larson, B. C. 1990. Forest stand dynamics. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Parresol, B. R., Hotvedt, J. E., and Cao, Q. V. 1987. A volume and taper prediction system for baldcypress. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 17:250–259.Google Scholar
Pole, M. 1999. Structure of a near-polar latitude forest from the New Zealand Jurassic. Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology 147:121–139.Google Scholar
Polman, J. E., Michon, S. G. L., Militz, H., and Helmink, A. T. F. 1999. The wood of Metasequoia glyptostroboides (Hu et Cheng) of Dutch origin. Holz als Roh- und Werkstoff 57:215–221.Google Scholar
Pregitzer, K. S., Reed, D. D., Bornhorst, T. J., Foster, D. R., Mroz, G. D., McLachlan, J. S., Laks, P. E., Stokke, D. D., Martin, P. E., and Brown, S. E. 2000. A buried spruce forest provides evidence at the stand and landscape scale for the effects of environment on vegetation at the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary. Journal of Ecology 88:45–53.Google Scholar
Retallack, G. J. 1999. Postapocalyptic greenhouse paleoclimate revealed by earliest Triassic paleosols in the Sydney Basin, Australia. GSA Bulletin 111:52–70.Google Scholar
Reynolds, P. E., Carlson, K. G., Fromm, T. W., Gigliello, K. A., and Kaminski, R. J. 1979. Comparative biomass characteristics for three southern New Jersey lowland forests. Pp. 677–694in Frayer, W. E., ed. Forest resources inventories, Vol. II. Workshop proceedings (IUFRO). Colorado State University, Fort Collins.Google Scholar
Rex, G. M., and Chaloner, W. G. 1983. The experimental formation of plant compression fossils. Palaeontology 26:231–252.Google Scholar
Satoo, T. 1974. Materials for the studies of growth in forest stands. XIII. Primary production relations of a young stand of Metasequoia glyptostroboides planted in Tokyo. Bulletin of the Tokyo University Forests 66:153–164.Google Scholar
Siccama, T. G., Hamburg, S. P., Arthur, M. A., Yanai, R. D., Bormann, F. H., and Likens, G. E. 1994. Corrections to allometric equations and plant tissue chemistry for Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest. Ecology 75:246–248.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R., and Rolhf, F. J. 1995. Biometry, 3d ed.W. H. Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
Sprugel, D. 1983. Correcting for bias in log-transformed allometric equations. Ecology 64:209–210.Google Scholar
Taylor, E. L., Taylor, T. N., and Cuneo, N. R. 1998. Permian and Triassic high latitude paleoclimates: evidence from fossil biotas. Pp. 321–350in Huber, B. T., MacLeod, K., and Wing, S., eds. Warm climates in earth history. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Tritton, L. M., and Hornbeck, J. W. 1982. Biomass equations for major tree species of the Northeast. Broomall, PA: Northeast Forest Experiment Station. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report NE-69.Google Scholar
Vann, D. R., Palmiotto, P. A., and Strimbeck, G. R. 1998. Allometric equations for two South American conifers: test of a nondestructive method. Forest Ecology and Management 106:55–71.Google Scholar
Whittaker, R. H., and Woodwell, G. M. 1968. Dimension and reproduction relations of trees and shrubs in the Brookhaven Forest, New York. Journal of Ecology 56:1–25.Google Scholar
Whittaker, R. H., Bormann, F. H., Likens, G. E., and Siccama, T. G. 1974. The Hubbard Brook ecosystem study: forest biomass and production. Ecological Monographs 44:233–254.Google Scholar
Williams, C. J., Johnson, A. H., LePage, B. A., Vann, D. R., and Sweda, T. 2003a. Reconstruction of Tertiary Metasequoia Forests. II. Structure, biomass, and productivity of Eocene floodplain forests in the Canadian Arctic. Paleobiology 29:270–291 [this volume].Google Scholar
Williams, C. J., LePage, B. A., Vann, D. R., Tange, T., Ikeda, H., Ando, M., Kusakabe, T., Tsuzuki, T., and Sweda, T. 2003b. Structure, allometry, and biomass of plantation Metasequoia glyptostroboides in Japan. Forest Ecology and Management (in press).Google Scholar