Carbon Accounting and Evaluation for Natural and Planted Forest Stands in South China

Article Preview

Abstract:

Three forest stands, i.e., natural secondary broadleaved mixed stand, 3-year-old eucalypt stand and 1-year-old eucalypt stand, were selected for study in Dongguan, south China, for forest carbon accounting and evaluation. The results showed that forest tree carbon stocks for the three stands were 85.6745 t, 17.5570 t, and 6.5469 t for broadleaved mixed stand, 3-year-old eucalypt stand, and 1-year-old eucalypt stand, respectively, while the forest soil carbon stocks for the three forest stands in a descending order were: 3-year-old eucalypt stand (97.0984 t), 1-year-old eucalypt forest stand (96.7272 t), and broadleaved mixed forest (84.6288 t), respectively. Using a carbon tax criterion, we evaluate the monetary benefit of carbon stock for each forest stand, with the broadleaved forest stand having the highest total value. This study suggested that the perennial broadleaved forest stand has significant advantage over 1-year or 3-year-old eucalypt stands in biomass carbon stocks, however, eucalypt stands have great potentials in soil carbon stock due to more organic material return from litter.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

Info:

Periodical:

Advanced Materials Research (Volumes 610-613)

Pages:

3328-3331

Citation:

Online since:

December 2012

Export:

Price:

Permissions CCC:

Permissions PLS:

Сopyright:

© 2013 Trans Tech Publications Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Share:

Citation:

[1] Vitousek P.M. Beyond global warming: ecology and global change. Ecology, 1994, 75: 1861-1876.

DOI: 10.2307/1941591

Google Scholar

[2] Rind D. Complexity and climate. Science, 1999, 284: 105-107.

Google Scholar

[3] Aanderud Z.T, Richards J H, Svejcar T, et al. A Shift in Seasonal Rainfall Reduces Soil Organic Carbon storage in a Cold Desert. Ecosystems, 2010, 13(5): 673-682.

DOI: 10.1007/s10021-010-9346-1

Google Scholar

[4] Caroline R. Coupled simulation of potential natural vegetation, terrestrial carbon balance and physical land-surface properties with the ALBIOC model. Ecological Modeling, 2001, 143(3): 191-214.

DOI: 10.1016/s0304-3800(01)00331-3

Google Scholar

[5] Cruickshank M.M., Tomlinson R.W, Trew S. Application of CORINE land-cover mapping to estimate carbon stored in the vegetation of Ireland. Journal of Environmental Management, 2000, 58(4): 269-287.

DOI: 10.1006/jema.2000.0330

Google Scholar

[6] Bradley R.I, Milne R, Bell J, et al. A soil carbon and land use database for the United Kingdom. Soil Use and Management, 2005, 21(4): 363-369.

DOI: 10.1079/sum2005351

Google Scholar

[7] Zhang Q.Z., Wang C.K. Carbon density and distribution of six Chinese temperate forests. Scientia Sinica (Vitae), 2010, 40(7): 621-631.

Google Scholar

[8] Bao S.D. Soil and Agricultural Chemistry Analysis. Beijing: China Agricultural Press, 2000. 56-57.

Google Scholar

[9] Hu Y.Q., Ke X.D., Su Z.Y. Stand structure and carbon accounting for subtropical forests along the Dongjiang River Basin, South China. Advanced Materials Research, Vols. 518-523 (2012): 5335-5340.

DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.518-523.5335

Google Scholar

[10] Li J.P., Sun D. Su Z.Y. Soil C:N:P stoichiometry across forest communities in eastern Guangdong, China. Advanced Materials Research, Vols. 518-523 (2012): 5324-5329.

DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.518-523.5297

Google Scholar

[11] Law B.E, Thornton P.E, Irvine J, et al. Carbon storage and fluxes in ponderosa pine forests at different developmental stages. Global Change Biology, 2001, 7: 755-777.

DOI: 10.1046/j.1354-1013.2001.00439.x

Google Scholar

[12] Litton C.M, Ryan M.G., Knight D.H. Effects of tree density and stand age on carbon allocation patterns in postfire lodgepole pine. Ecological Applications, 2004, 14(2): 460-475.

DOI: 10.1890/02-5291

Google Scholar

[13] Peichl M., Arain M.A. Above- and belowground ecosystem biomass and carbon pools in an age-sequence of temperate pine plantation forests. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2006, 140(1-4): 51-63.

DOI: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2006.08.004

Google Scholar