1 Faculty of Natural Resources and Marine Science, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran 14115, Iran; 2 Faculty of Natural Resources and Earth Science, University of Shahrekord, Shahrekord 88186, Iran
Above- and below-ground biomass and carbon stocks of different tree plantations in central Iran
1 Faculty of Natural Resources and Marine Science, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran 14115, Iran; 2 Faculty of Natural Resources and Earth Science, University of Shahrekord, Shahrekord 88186, Iran
摘要 In arid and semi-arid lands using industrial wastewater for irrigating tree plantations offers a great opportunity to fulfill the purpose of Clean Development Mechanism by sequestering carbon in living tissues as well as in soil. Selection of tree for plantation has a great effect on the goal achievements, especially when the managers deal with afforestation projects rather than reforestation projects. The objective of this study was to quantify the above- and below-ground biomass accumulation and carbon storages of the 17-year-old monoculture plantations of mulberry (Morus alba L.), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.), Eldar pine (Pinus eldarica Medw.) and Arizona cypress (Cupressus arizonica Greene) planted in central Iran. To assess the potential carbon storage, we destructively measured individual above- and below-ground tree biomass and developed and scaled models at stand level. Furthermore, carbon content at three soil depths (0–15, 15–30, 30–45 cm), the litter and the understory were assessed in sample plots. The results showed that the total amount of carbon stored by Eldar pine (36.8 Mg/hm2) was higher than those stored by the trees in the other three plantations, which were 23.7, 10.0, and 9.6 Mg/hm2 for Arizona cypress, mulberry and black locust plantations, respectively. For all the species, the above-ground biomass accumulations were higher than those of the below-ground. The root mass fractions of the deciduous were larger than those of the coniferous. Accordingly, the results indicate that the potential carbon storages of the coniferous were higher than those of the deciduous in arid regions.
Abstract: In arid and semi-arid lands using industrial wastewater for irrigating tree plantations offers a great opportunity to fulfill the purpose of Clean Development Mechanism by sequestering carbon in living tissues as well as in soil. Selection of tree for plantation has a great effect on the goal achievements, especially when the managers deal with afforestation projects rather than reforestation projects. The objective of this study was to quantify the above- and below-ground biomass accumulation and carbon storages of the 17-year-old monoculture plantations of mulberry (Morus alba L.), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.), Eldar pine (Pinus eldarica Medw.) and Arizona cypress (Cupressus arizonica Greene) planted in central Iran. To assess the potential carbon storage, we destructively measured individual above- and below-ground tree biomass and developed and scaled models at stand level. Furthermore, carbon content at three soil depths (0–15, 15–30, 30–45 cm), the litter and the understory were assessed in sample plots. The results showed that the total amount of carbon stored by Eldar pine (36.8 Mg/hm2) was higher than those stored by the trees in the other three plantations, which were 23.7, 10.0, and 9.6 Mg/hm2 for Arizona cypress, mulberry and black locust plantations, respectively. For all the species, the above-ground biomass accumulations were higher than those of the below-ground. The root mass fractions of the deciduous were larger than those of the coniferous. Accordingly, the results indicate that the potential carbon storages of the coniferous were higher than those of the deciduous in arid regions.
Hormoz SOHRABI, Siavash BAKHTIARVAND-BAKHTIARI, Kourosh AHMADI. Above- and below-ground biomass and carbon stocks of different tree plantations in central Iran[J]. 干旱区科学, 2016, 8(1): 138-145.
Hormoz SOHRABI, Siavash BAKHTIARVAND-BAKHTIARI, Kourosh AHMADI. Above- and below-ground biomass and carbon stocks of different tree plantations in central Iran. Journal of Arid Land, 2016, 8(1): 138-145.
Abdinezhad R. 2012. General laws for urban lands and properties. Organizations and methods improvement department. (in Iranian)Aguirre-Salado C A, Treviño-Garza E J, Aguirre-Calderón O A, et al. 2014. Mapping aboveground biomass by integrating geospatial and forest inventory data through a k-nearest neighbor strategy in North Central Mexico. Journal of Arid Land, 6(1): 80–96.TSI Incorporated. 2004. Combustion analysis basics: an overview of measurements, methods and calculations used in combustion analysis. The USA: TSI Incorporated, 35. http://www.tsi.com/uploadedFiles/_Site_Root/Products/Literature/Handbooks/CA-basic-2980175.pdf.Bauhus J, Messier C. 1999. Soil exploitation strategies of fine roots in different tree species of the southern boreal forest of eastern Canada. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 29(2): 260–273.Bipal J, Mrinmo M. 2010. Impact of Climate Change on Natural Resource Management. Netherlands: Springer.Bloom A J, Chapin F S, Mooney H A. 1985. Resource limitation in plants-an economic analogy. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 16(4): 363–392.Campbell M M, Sederoff R R. 1996. Variation in lignin content and composition (mechanisms of control and implications for the genetic improvement of plants). Plant Physiology, 110(1): 3–13.Clark D A, Brown S, Kicklighter D W, et al. 2001. Measuring net primary production in forests: concepts and field methods. Ecological Applications, 11(2): 356–370. Coyle D R, Coleman M D, Aubrey D P. 2008. Above- and below-ground biomass accumulation, production, and distribution of sweetgum and loblolly pine grown with irrigation and fertilization. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 38(6): 1335–1348. Hansson K. 2011. Impact of tree species on carbon in forest soils. PhD Dissertation. Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Kaul M, Mohren G M J, Dadhwal V K. 2010. Carbon storage and sequestration potential of selected tree species in India. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 15(5): 489–510. Klopatek J M. 2002. Belowground carbon pools and processes in different age stands of Douglas-fir. Tree Physiology, 22(2–3): 97–204. Lal R. 1999. Soil management and restoration for C sequestration to mitigate the accelerated greenhouse effect. Progress in Environmental Science, 1(4): 307–326. Law B E, Thornton P E, Irvine J, et al. 2001. Carbon storage and fluxes in ponderosa pine forests at different developmental stages. Global Change Biology, 7(7): 755–777. Lemus R, Lal R. 2005. Bioenergy crops and carbon sequestration. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 24(1): 1–21. Li Y Q, Zhao X Y, Zhang F X, et al. 2014. Accumulation of soil organic carbon during natural restoration of desertified grassland in China’s Horqin Sandy Land. Journal of Arid Land, 7(3): 382–340. McPherson E G, Simpson J R. 1999. Carbon dioxide reduction through urban forestry: Guidelines for professional and volunteer tree planters. In: USDA Forest Service, PSW General Technical Report. No. PSW-GTR-171. Albany, CA, USA. Minami E, Saka S. 2003. Comparison of the decomposition behaviors of hardwood and softwood in supercritical methanol. Journal of Wood Science, 49(1): 73–78.Mooney H A. 1972. The carbon balance of plants. Annual Review of Ecologyand Systematics, 3(1): 315–346. Poorter H, Nagel O. 2000. The role of biomass allocation in the growth response of plants to different levels of light, CO2, nutrients and water: a quantitative review. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology, 27(6): 595–607. Poorter H, Niklas K J, Reich P B, et al. 2012. Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: Meta-analyses of interspecific variation and environmental control. New Phytologist, 193(1): 30–50. Prihar S S, Hundal S S. 1971. Determination of bulk density of soil clod by saturation. Geoderma, 5(4): 283–286. Reich P B. 2002. Root–shoot relations: optimality in acclimation and adaptation or the ‘Emperor's New Clothes’? In: Waisel Y, Amram E, Kafkafi U. Plant Roots: The Hidden Half (3rd ed.). New York: Marcel Dekker Inc., 205–220. Schulze E D, Beck E, Müller-Hohenstein K. 2005. Plant Ecology. Berlin: Springer. Schumacher B A. 2002. Methods for the determination of total organic carbon (TOC) in soils and sediments. In: Ecological Risk Assessment Support Center. NCEA-C-1282, EMASC-001. Las Vegas: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Thomas S C, Martin A R. 2012. Carbon content of tree tissues: a synthesis. Forests, 3(2): 332–352. Verwijst T, Telenius B. 1999. Biomass estimation procedures in short rotation forestry. Forest Ecology and Management, 121(1–2): 137–146. Waring R H, Running S W. 1998. Forest Ecosystems: Analysis at Multiple Scales. UK: Elsevier Academic Press. Woodbury P B, Smith J E, Heath L S. 2007. Carbon sequestration in the U. S. forest sector from 1990 to 2010. Forest Ecology and Management, 241(1–3): 14–27. Yan F, Wu B, Wang Y J. 2013. Estimating aboveground biomass in Mu Us Sandy Land using Landsat spectral derived vegetation indices over the past 30 years. Journal of Arid Land, 5(4): 521–530. Yang Y S, Chen G S, Guo J F, et al. 2004. Decomposition dynamic of fine roots in a mixed forest of Cunninghamia lanceolata and Tsoongiodendron odorum in mid-subtropics. Annals of Forest Science, 61(4): 65–72. Zheng H, Ouyang Z Y, Xu W H, et al. 2008. Variation of carbon storage by different reforestation types in the hilly red soil region of southern China. Forest Ecology and Management, 255(3–4): 1113–1121.
2016, Vol. 8 
