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
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.
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.
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.