Please wait a minute...
Journal of Arid Land
Journal of Arid Land  2020, Vol. 12 Issue (5): 766-774    DOI: 10.1007/s40333-020-0027-4
Research article     
Biomass and carbon stocks in three types of Persian oak (Quercus brantii var. persica) of Zagros forests in a semi-arid area, Iran
Ali MAHDAVI1,*(), Soghra SAIDI1, Yaghob IRANMANESH2, Mostafa NADERI1
1Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Ilam University, Ilam 69315516, Iran
2Research Division of Natural Resources, Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, AREEO, Shahrekord 8818434141, Iran
Download: HTML     PDF(252KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      

Abstract  

Persian oak (Quercus brantii var. persica) is a dominant tree species of Zagros forests in a semi-arid area, western Iran. However, the capacity of biomass and carbon stocks of these forests is not well studied. We selected three types of oak, i.e., seed-originated oak, coppice oak and mixed (seed-originated and coppice) oak of Zagros forests in Dalab valley, Ilam Province, Iran to survey the capacity of biomass and carbon stocks in 2018. Thirty plots with an area of 1000 m2 were systematically and randomly assigned to each type of oak. Quantitative characteristics of trees, such as diameter at breast height (DBH), height, crown diameter and the number of sprouts in each plot were measured. Then, aboveground biomass (AGB), belowground biomass (BGB), aboveground carbon stock (AGCS) and belowground carbon stock (BGCS) of each tree in plots were calculated using allometric equations. The litterfall biomass (LFB) and litterfall carbon stock (LFCS) were measured in a quadrat with 1 m×1 m in each plot. One-way analysis of variance and Duncan's test were performed to detect the differences in biomass and carbon stocks among three types of oak. Results showed that AGB, BGB and BGCS were significantly different among three types of oak. The highest values of AGB, AGCS, BGB and BGCS in seed-originated oak were 76,043.25, 14,725.55, 36,737.79 and 7362.77 kg/hm2, respectively. Also, the highest values of LFB and LFCS in seed-originated oak were 3298.33 and 1520.48 kg/hm2, respectively, which were significantly higher than those of the other two types of oak. The results imply the significant role of seed-originated oak for the regeneration of Zagros forests. Further conservation strategy of seed-originated oak is an important step in the sustainable management of Zagros forests in Iran.

Key words： biomass      carbon stock      seed-originated forest      coppice forest      Zagros forest     
Received: 18 December 2018      Published: 10 September 2020
Corresponding Authors:
About author: *Corresponding author: Ali MAHDAVI (E-mail: mahdaviali56@gmail.com)
Service
E-mail this article
Add to my bookshelf
Add to citation manager
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
MAHDAVI Ali
SAIDI Soghra
IRANMANESH Yaghob
NADERI Mostafa
Cite this article:

Ali MAHDAVI, Soghra SAIDI, Yaghob IRANMANESH, Mostafa NADERI. Biomass and carbon stocks in three types of Persian oak (Quercus brantii var. persica) of Zagros forests in a semi-arid area, Iran. Journal of Arid Land, 2020, 12(5): 766-774.

URL:

http://jal.xjegi.com/10.1007/s40333-020-0027-4     OR     http://jal.xjegi.com/Y2020/V12/I5/766

Type DBH (cm) Number of trees Percentage of trees (%) Height (m) Number of trees Crown
diameter (m)		 Number of trees
Coppice oak <30 357 93.7 <5 161 <5 229
30-60 21 5.5 5-15 220 5-15 152
>60 3 0.8 - - >15 0
Total 381 100.0 Total 381 Total 381
Seed-originated oak <30 96 33.1 <5 12 <5 26
30-60 177 61.03 5-15 278 5-15 261
>60 17 5.87 - - >15 3
Total 290 100.0 Total 290 Total 290
Mixed oak <30 239 65.5 <5 200 <5 292
30-60 125 34.2 5-15 165 5-15 73
>60 1 0.3 - - >15 0
Total 365 100.0 Total 365 Total 365
Table 1 Diameter at breast height (DBH), height and crown diameter in the three types of Persian oak
Type Size AGB (kg/hm2) AGCS (kg/hm2) BGB (kg/hm2) BGCS (kg/hm2) LFB (kg/hm2) LFCS (kg/hm2)
Coppice oak Sprout 152.33b 73.81b 121.86b 60.93b - -
Plot 1934.57b 937.32b 1547.65b 773.82b 0.13b 0.06b
Hectare 19,345.73b 9373.20b 15,476.58b 7738.29b 1334.00b 598.90b
Seed-originated oak Tree 786.65a 380.05a 629.32a 314.66a - -
Plot 7604.25a 3673.77a 6083.46a 3041.70a 0.33a 0.10a
Hectare 76,043.25a 36,737.79a 60,834.60a 30,417.30a 3298.33a 1520.48a
Mixed oak Tree or sprouts 113.02c 53.71c 90.41c 45.20c - -
Plot 1375.00c 653.46c 1100.00c 550.00c 0.08c 0.04c
Hectare 13,750.90c 6534.65c 11,000.72c 5500.36c 812.33c 379.91c
Table 2 Biomass and carbon stocks in the three types of Persian oak
Fig. 1 Percentage of AGCS (aboveground carbon stock) in different DBH (diameter at breast height) classes of the three types of oak. C, coppice oak; SO, seed-originated oak; M, mixed oak.
Source of variation Sum of square df Mean of square F P
DBH Between groups 67,160.89 2 33,580.44 224.23 0.00**
Within groups 154,547.61 1033 149.75
Total 221,708.50 1035
Height Between groups 2869.45 2 1434.72 341.69 0.00**
Within groups 4337.48 1033 4.19
Total 7206.93 1035
Crown diameter Between groups 3261.06 2 1630.53 406.23 0.00**
Within groups 4146.25 1033 4.01
Total 7407.32 1035
AGB Between groups 89,483,666.69 2 44,741,833.34 259.96 0.00**
Within groups 177,789,569.70 1033 172,109.94
Total 267,273,236.40 1035
AGCS Between groups 20,956,004.11 2 10,478,002.05 259.12 0.00**
Within groups 41,771,163.30 1033 40,436.75
Total 62,727,167.41 1035
BGCS Between groups 10,854,014.11 2 5,427,007.05 219.11 0.00**
Within groups 31,761,162.30 1033 30,746.52
Total 42,615,176.41 1035
LFCS Between groups 20,000,198.00 2 10,990,000.00 118.03 0.00**
Within groups 8,101,614.98 1033 93,122,011.00
Total 300,000,008.00 1035
Table 3 Results of ANOVA for the quantitative characteristics of oak forests
Fig. 2 Mean values of variables of the three types of oak. DBH, diameter at breast height; AGB, aboveground biomass; AGCS, aboveground carbon stock; BGCS, belowground carbon stock; LFCS, litterfall carbon stock; C, coppice oak; SO, seed-originated oak; MF, mixed oak. Different lowercase letters indicate significant difference among the three types of oak at P<0.05 level.
Fig. 3 Carbon stocks in different carbon pools of the three types of oak. AGCS, aboveground carbon stock; BGCS, belowground carbon stock; LFCS, litterfall carbon stock. C, coppice oak; SO, seed-originated oak; MF, mixed oak. Different lowercase letters indicate significant difference among the three types of forest at P<0.05 level.
[1]   Ali A, Yan E R, Chen H Y H, et al. 2016. Stand structural diversity rather than species diversity enhances aboveground carbon storage in secondary subtropical forests in eastern China. Biogeosciences, 13: 4627-4635.
doi: 10.5194/bg-13-4627-2016
[2]   Alinejadi S, Basiri R, Tahmasebi K P, et al. 2016. Estimation of biomass and carbon sequestration in various forms of Quercus brantii Lindl. stands in Balout Boland, Dehdez. Iranian Journal of Forest, 8(2): 129-139. (in Persian)
[3]   Allen M R, Gillett N P, Kettleborough J A, et al. 2006. Quantifying anthropogenic influence on recent near-surface temperature change. Surveys in Geophysics, 27: 491-544.
doi: 10.1007/s10712-006-9011-6
[4]   Allen S E, Grimshaw H M, Rowland A P. 1986. Chemical analysis. In: Moore P D, Chapman S B. Methods in Plant Ecology London: Blackwell Scientific Publication, 285-344.
[5]   Askari Y, Soltani A, Akhavan R, et al. 2017. Assessment of root-shoot ratio biomass and carbon storage of Quercus brantii Lindl. in the central Zagros forests of Iran. Journal of Forest Science, 63(6): 282-289.
doi: 10.17221/JFS
[6]   Becknell J M, Powers J S. 2014. Stand age and soils as drivers of plant functional traits and aboveground biomass in secondary tropical dry forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 44(6): 604-613.
doi: 10.1139/cjfr-2013-0331
[7]   Brown S. 1996. Tropical forests and the global carbon cycle: estimating state and change in biomass density. In: Apps M J, Price D T. Forest Ecosystems, Forest Management and the Global Carbon Cycle. Heidelberg: Springer, 40.
[8]   Brown S. 2002. Measuring carbon in forests: Current status and future challenges. Environmental Pollution, 116(3): 363-372.
doi: 10.1016/s0269-7491(01)00212-3 pmid: 11822714
[9]   Chave J, Andalo C, Brown S, et al. 2005. Tree allometry and improved estimation of carbon stocks and balance in tropical forests. Oecologia, 145: 87-99.
doi: 10.1007/s00442-005-0100-x
[10]   Chen H Y H, Yong L. 2015. Net aboveground biomass declines of four major forest types with forest ageing and climate change in western Canada's boreal forests. Global Change Biology, 21: 3675-3684.
doi: 10.1111/gcb.12994 pmid: 26136379
[11]   Hernandez R, Koohafkan P, Antoine J. 2004. Assessing Carbon Stocks and Modeling Win-win Scenarios of Carbon Sequestration through Land-use Changes. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 18-24.
[12]   Iranmanesh Y. 2013. Assessment on biomass estimation methods and carbon sequestration of Quercus brantii Lindl. in Chaharmahal & Bakhtiari forests. PhD Dissertation. Tehran: Tarbiat Modares University, 107. (in Persian)
[13]   Iranmanesh Y, Sagheb-Talebi K, Sohrabi H, et al. 2014. Biomass and carbon stocks of Brant's oak (Quercus brantii Lindl.) in two vegetation forms in Lordegan, Chaharmahal & Bakhtiari forests. Iranian Journal of Forest and Poplar Research, 22(4): 749-762. (in Persian)
[14]   Jepsen M R. 2006. Above-ground carbon stocks in tropical fallows, Sarawak, Malaysia. Forest Ecology and Management, 225(1-3): 287-295.
doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2006.01.005
[15]   Karjalainen T. 1996. Dynamics and potentials of carbon sequestration in managed stands and wood products in Finland under changing climatic conditions. Forest Ecology and Management, 80(1-3): 113-132.
doi: 10.1016/0378-1127(95)03634-2
[16]   Lexerød N L, Eid T. 2006. An evaluation of different diameter diversity indices based on criteria related to forest management planning. Forest Ecology and Management, 222(1-3): 17-28.
doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2005.10.046
[17]   Lorenz K, Lal R. 2010. Carbon Sequestration in Forest Ecosystems. New York: Springer, 277.
[18]   MacDicken K G. 1997. A Guide to Monitoring Carbon Storage in Forestry and Agroforestry Projects. Arlington: Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development, 84-87.
[19]   Mensah S, Veldtman R, Du T B, et al. 2016. Aboveground biomass and carbon in a South African Mistbelt forest and the relationships with tree species diversity and forest structures. Forests, 7(79): 1-17.
doi: 10.3390/f7010001
[20]   Nunes L, Lopes D, Rego F C, et al. 2013. Aboveground biomass and net primary production of pine, oak and mixed pine-oak forests on the Vila Real District, Portugal. Forest Ecology and Management, 305: 38-47.
doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2013.05.034
[21]   Pearson T R H, Brown S L, Birdsey R A. 2007. Measurement guidelines for the sequestration of forest carbon. In: General Technical Report NRS18. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. Tennessee, USA.
[22]   Peichl M, Arain M A. 2007. Allometry and partitioning of above and belowground tree biomass in an age-sequence of white pine forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 253(1-3): 68-80.
doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2007.07.003
[23]   SaghebTalebi K, Sajedi T, Pourhashemi M. 2014. Forest of Iran, a Treasure from the Past, a Hope for the Future. New York: Springer, 157.
[24]   Sanquetta A P, Silva F S. 2011-Biomass expansion factor and root-to-shoot ratio for Pinus in Brazil. Carbon Balance and Management, 6(6): 1-8.
doi: 10.1186/1750-0680-6-1
[25]   Sohrabi H, Bakhtiarvand-Bakhtiari S, Ahmadi K. 2016. Above and belowground biomass and carbon stocks of different tree plantations in central Iran. Journal of Arid Land, 8(1): 138-145.
doi: 10.1007/s40333-015-0087-z
[26]   Soltani A, Angelsen A, Eid T. 2014. Poverty, forest dependence and forest degradation links: evidence from Zagros, Iran. Environment and Development Economics, 19(5): 607-630.
doi: 10.1017/S1355770X13000648
[27]   Tran D B, Dargusch P, Herbohn J, et al. 2013. Interventions to better manage the carbon stocks in Australian Melaleuca forests. Land Use Policy, 35: 417-420.
doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.04.018
[28]   Wang K B, Deng L, Ren Z P, et al. 2016. Dynamics of ecosystem carbon stocks during vegetation restoration on the Loess Plateau of China. Journal of Arid Land, 8(2): 207-220.
doi: 10.1007/s40333-015-0091-3
[29]   Wang W, Lei X, Ma Z, et al. 2011. Positive relationship between aboveground carbon stocks and structural diversity in spruce dominated forest stands in New Brunswick, Canada. Forest Science, 57: 506-515.
[30]   Wang Y, Amundson R, Trumbore S. 1999. The impact of land use change on C turnover in soils. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 13(1): 47-57.
doi: 10.1029/1998GB900005
[31]   Zhang Y, Chen H Y H. 2015. Individual size inequality links forest diversity and aboveground biomass. Journal of Ecology, 103: 1245-1252.
doi: 10.1111/1365-2745.12425
[32]   Zianis D, Muukkonen P, Mäkipää R, et al. 2005. Biomass and stem volume equations for tree species in Europe. Silva Fennica. Monographs 4: 63.
[1] Selam LJALEM, Emiru BIRHANE, Kassa TEKA, Daniel H BERHE. Parkland trees on smallholder farms ameliorate soil physical-chemical properties in the semi-arid area of Tigray, Ethiopia[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(1): 1-13.
[2] Teame G KEBEDE, Emiru BIRHANE, Kiros-Meles AYIMUT, Yemane G EGZIABHER. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi improve biomass, photosynthesis, and water use efficiency of Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Miller under different water levels[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(8): 975-988.
[3] LIU Yulin, LI Jiwei, HAI Xuying, WU Jianzhao, DONG Lingbo, PAN Yingjie, SHANGGUAN Zhouping, WANG Kaibo, DENG Lei. Carbon inputs regulate the temperature sensitivity of soil respiration in temperate forests[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2022, 14(9): 1055-1068.
[4] André L CARVALHO, Renato A ARAÚJO-NETO, Guilherme B LYRA, Carlos E P CERRI, Stoécio M F MAIA. Impact of rainfed and irrigated agriculture systems on soil carbon stock under different climate scenarios in the semi-arid region of Brazil[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2022, 14(4): 359-373.
[5] HUI Rong, TAN Huijuan, LI Xinrong, WANG bingyao. Variation of soil physical-chemical characteristics in salt-affected soil in the Qarhan Salt Lake, Qaidam Basin[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2022, 14(3): 341-355.
[6] Laura B RODRIGUEZ, Silvia S TORRES ROBLES, Marcelo F ARTURI, Juan M ZEBERIO, Andrés C H GRAND, Néstor I GASPARRI. Plant cover as an estimator of above-ground biomass in semi-arid woody vegetation in Northeast Patagonia, Argentina[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2021, 13(9): 918-933.
[7] WANG Lei, FAN Lianlian, JIANG Li, TIAN Changyan. Elevated CO2 increases shoot growth but not root growth and C:N:P stoichiometry of Suaeda aralocaspica plants[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2021, 13(11): 1155-1162.
[8] HUANG Xiaotao, LUO Geping, CHEN Chunbo, PENG Jian, ZHANG Chujie, ZHOU Huakun, YAO Buqing, MA Zhen, XI Xiaoyan. How precipitation and grazing influence the ecological functions of drought-prone grasslands on the northern slopes of the Tianshan Mountains, China?[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2021, 13(1): 88-97.
[9] JIN Xiaoming, YANG Xiaogang, ZHOU Zhen, ZHANG Yingqi, YU Liangbin, ZHANG Jinghua, LIANG Runfang. Ecological stoichiometry and biomass response of Agropyron michnoi Roshev. under simulated N deposition in a sandy grassland, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2020, 12(5): 741-751.
[10] PEI Yanwu, HUANG Laiming, SHAO Ming'an, ZHANG Yinglong. Responses of Amygdalus pedunculata Pall. in the sandy and loamy soils to water stress[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2020, 12(5): 791-805.
[11] ZHANG Zhenchao, LIU Miao, SUN Jian, WEI Tianxing. Degradation leads to dramatic decrease in topsoil but not subsoil root biomass in an alpine meadow on the Tibetan Plateau, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2020, 12(5): 806-818.
[12] DONG Yiqiang, SUN Zongjiu, AN Shazhou, JIANG Shasha, WEI Peng. Community structure and carbon and nitrogen storage of sagebrush desert under grazing exclusion in Northwest China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2020, 12(2): 239-251.
[13] WEN Jing, QIN Ruimin, ZHANG Shixiong, YANG Xiaoyan, XU Manhou. Effects of long-term warming on the aboveground biomass and species diversity in an alpine meadow on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau of China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2020, 12(2): 252-266.
[14] YANG Yuling, LI Minfei, MA Jingjing, CHENG Junhui, LIU Yunhua, JIA Hongtao, LI Ning, WU Hongqi, SUN Zongjiu, FAN Yanmin, SHENG Jiandong, JIANG Ping'an. Changes in the relationship between species richness and belowground biomass among grassland types and along environmental gradients in Xinjiang, Northwest China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2019, 11(6): 855-865.
[15] Lianlian FAN, Junxiang DING, Xuexi MA, Yaoming LI. Ecological biomass allocation strategies in plant species with different life forms in a cold desert, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2019, 11(5): 729-739.