Skip to main content

Table 1 Location and main dasometric characteristics of the sites of study for aboveground and belowground biomass measurement and of the literature studies considered for comparison of aboveground biomass predictions

From: Modeling the above and belowground biomass of planted and coppiced Eucalytpus globulus stands in NW Spain

Biomass component

Data

Site N

Planted/coppice

N plots by site

N trees by site

X

Y

N (stem/ha)

Age (years)

hdom (m)

G (m2/ha)

Aboveground

Model calibration

1

Planted

3

13

586.5

4.810.250

1100–1250

5.5–7.0

9.5–12.2

8.1–10.7

  

2

Coppice

3

10

541.3

4.697.500

800–1150

5.5–7.3

8.7–20.3

4.2–22.0

  

3

Planted

5

16

569.5

4.767.500

1050–1300

5.5–11.3

11.4–23.0

9.6–21.0

  

4

Planted

5

17

505.8

4.700.550

900–1150

5.9–10.7

6.6–22.7

2.3–24

  

5

Planted

3

9

534.4

4.750.050

700–1050

5.9–7.1

6.9–11.1

2.3–7.7

  

6

Planted

5

16

513.1

4.680.270

800–1300

7–10.7

10.1–22.2

7.3–23.7

  

7

Coppice

3

11

655

4.822.500

1100–1350

7.3–11.3

14.6–26.3

8.3–26.2

  

8

Coppice

3

11

523.9

4.623.080

950–1250

10.2–12.3

16.7–28.1

21.5–31.1

  

9

Planted

3

12

641.5

4.798.750

1000–1350

10.3–14.3

14.7–24.9

12.4–29.4

  

10

Planted

3

10

545.1

4.775.980

850–1000

9.3–30

20.1–32.8

15.6–52.1

  

11

Coppice

3

12

584.8

4785.81

1050–1150

9.3–25

19.7–31.5

16.5–59.1

  

12

Planted

2

8

508.4

4.740.700

1000–1200

8.5–22

15.8–24.7

12.1–45.5

 

Total model calibration

12

 

41

145

  

700–1350

5.5–30

6.6–32.8

2.3–59.1

 

Model comparison

13

Planted

5

17

531

4681.22

700–1200

6.2–11.4

9.3–22.4

3.7–27.1

  

14

Planted

3

10

521.5

4.762.000

1150–1300

7.5–9.9

13.9–20.5

9.4–27.6

  

15

Coppice

4

12

592

4.386.050

1000–1350

6.5–23

17.5–27.4

12.5–51.3

  

16

Planted

3

10

510.8

4.663.090

900–1100

6.7–25.5

14.3–30.9

14.8–43.4

  

17

Coppice

4

12

609.8

4.834.925

900–1200

7.5–21.3

17.6–28.9

13.7–42.6

  

18

Planted

3

11

573.5

4.750.350

1100–1300

8.7–15.5

14.8–22.1

13.1–45.3

  

19

Coppice

3

13

563.2

4.794.050

1000–1300

8.5–29

18.7–34.2

13.4–52.2

 

Total model comparison

7

 

25

85

  

700–1350

6.2–29

9.3–34.2

3.7–52.2

 

Total aboveground

19

  

230

  

700–1350

5.5–30

6.6–34.2

2.3–59.1

 

Ref 1

9

  

30

N Spain

446–1825

6.0–18

1.1–22.8

0.1–27.8

 

Ref 2

6

  

78

N Spain

1147–2400

13–24

21.6–35.6

22.3–49.6

 

Ref 3 (planted)

26

  

254

Portugal

563–3240

0.5–19

1.8–37.3

0.0–51.8

 
 

Ref 3 (coppice)

6

  

187

Portugal

1605–6400

2.5–13.0

4.5–31.6

4.5–32.9

Belowground

Planted

1

Planted

3

12

544.5

4.650.100

1000–1300

9.4–18.5

20.9–43.6

18.2–46.8

  

2

Planted

4

15

500.6

4.775.010

900–1200

9.9–17.7

22.6–45.4

20.4–51.6

  

3

Planted

2

9

634.5

4.826.550

850–1000

9.7–17.5

21.7–36

19.2–32.3

 

Total planted

3

Planted

9

36

 

1000–1300

9.4–18.5

20.9–45.4

18.2–51.6

 
 

Coppice

4

Coppice

3

11

512.6

4.720.510

2000–4500

9.5–14.7

21.0–45.8

18.3–37.6

  

5

Coppice

2

6

534.5

4.730.100

1800–5500

10.5–14.2

21.3–41.1

18.6–45.4

  

6

Coppice

4

14

510.8

4.770.100

3000–4250

10.1–13.5

23.4–35.5

21.4–32

 

Total coppice

3

Coppice

9

31

 

1800–5500

9.5–14.7

21.0–45.8

18.3–45.4

 
  1. Refs 1, 2, and 3 are studies of Pérez-Cruzado et al. (2011), Merino et al. (2005), and Antonio et al. (2007), respectively
  2. N (stem/ha) stand density (stem/ha), hdom dominant height (m), G basal area (m2/ha)