Volume 6, Issue 1 (2018)
ECOPERSIA 2018, 6(1): 1-10 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Ghasemi Aghbash F. Soil Carbon Sequestration and Understory Plant Diversity under Needle and Broad-leaved Plantations (Case Study: Shahed Forest Park of Malayer City). ECOPERSIA 2018; 6 (1) :1-10
URL: http://ecopersia.modares.ac.ir/article-24-15540-en.html
URL: http://ecopersia.modares.ac.ir/article-24-15540-en.html
Department of Forest Engineering, Faculty of Natural Resources and Environment Science, Malayer University, Malayer, Iran , f.ghasemi@malayeru.ac.ir
Abstract: (8297 Views)
Aims: In relation to global climate changes, the issue of how forest ecosystems could affect biomass and soil carbon sequestration is essential.
Materials & Methods: To do this research, ailanthus (Ailanthus altissima Mill.) and Arizona cypress (Cupressus arizonica Greene) plantations were selected each one with an area of 20 hectare in forest park of Malayer, Western Iran. An adjacent area with no tree was selected as control. In each of the plantations and control area, ten plots of 20 × 20 m2 deployed and biomass of trees, biodiversity indices (Shannon–Wiener, Simpson, Menhinick, and Margalef indices), and carbon sequestration of aboveground tree biomass, belowground biomass, leaf litter, grass, and soil were measured.
Findings: The results showed that the carbon sequestration in Arizona cypress plantation (32.32 t ha−1) and the soil under it (11.15 t ha−1) was higher than that in ailanthus plantation and the soil under it (17.99 and 7.6 t ha−1, respectively). However, the soil carbon sequestration under both plantations was higher than that in control area (5.28 t ha−1). According to the results, it was found that herbaceous understory of ailanthus plantation had stored carbon more than arizona cypress plantation. Furthermore, the results indicated that there is a significant difference between two plantations from the point view of the understory plant diversity (Menhinick index in ailanthus and Arizona cypress plantations was 3.17 and 2.44, respectively).
Conclusion: This research confirms that plantation with Arizona cypress tree is more efficient in soil and tree biomass carbon sequestration than plantation with ailanthus trees. Furthermore, according to the results, the understory plant richness in ailanthus plantation was higher than that in arizona cypress.
Materials & Methods: To do this research, ailanthus (Ailanthus altissima Mill.) and Arizona cypress (Cupressus arizonica Greene) plantations were selected each one with an area of 20 hectare in forest park of Malayer, Western Iran. An adjacent area with no tree was selected as control. In each of the plantations and control area, ten plots of 20 × 20 m2 deployed and biomass of trees, biodiversity indices (Shannon–Wiener, Simpson, Menhinick, and Margalef indices), and carbon sequestration of aboveground tree biomass, belowground biomass, leaf litter, grass, and soil were measured.
Findings: The results showed that the carbon sequestration in Arizona cypress plantation (32.32 t ha−1) and the soil under it (11.15 t ha−1) was higher than that in ailanthus plantation and the soil under it (17.99 and 7.6 t ha−1, respectively). However, the soil carbon sequestration under both plantations was higher than that in control area (5.28 t ha−1). According to the results, it was found that herbaceous understory of ailanthus plantation had stored carbon more than arizona cypress plantation. Furthermore, the results indicated that there is a significant difference between two plantations from the point view of the understory plant diversity (Menhinick index in ailanthus and Arizona cypress plantations was 3.17 and 2.44, respectively).
Conclusion: This research confirms that plantation with Arizona cypress tree is more efficient in soil and tree biomass carbon sequestration than plantation with ailanthus trees. Furthermore, according to the results, the understory plant richness in ailanthus plantation was higher than that in arizona cypress.
Article Type: Original Research |
Subject:
Aquatic Ecology
Received: 2017/08/21 | Accepted: 2018/01/12 | Published: 2018/03/23
Received: 2017/08/21 | Accepted: 2018/01/12 | Published: 2018/03/23
References
1. Dayamba SD, Djoudi H, Zida M, Sawadogo L, Verchot L. Biodiversity and carbon stocks in different land use types in the Sudanian Zone of Burkina Faso, West Africa. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2016;216:61-72. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.agee.2015.09.023]
2. Chen Y, Yu Sh, Liu S, Wang X, Zhang Y, Liu T, et al. Reforestation makes a minor contribution to soil carbon accumulation in the short term: evidence from four subtropical plantations. For Ecol Manag. 2017;384:400-5. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.foreco.2016.10.053]
3. Keith H, Lindenmayer D, Mackey B, Blair D, Carter L, McBurney L, et al. Managing temperate forests for carbon storage: Impacts of logging versus forest protection on carbon stocks. Ecosphere. 2014;5(6):1-34. [Link] [DOI:10.1890/ES14-00051.1]
4. Reside AE, VanDerWal J, Moran C. Trade-offs in carbon storage and biodiversity conservation under climate change reveal risk to endemic species. Biol Conserv. 2017;207:9-16. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.biocon.2017.01.004]
5. Chen FS, Zeng DH, Fahey TJ, Liao PF. Organic carbon in soil physical fractions under different-aged plantations of Mongolian pine in semi-arid region of Northeast China. Appl Soil Ecol. 2010;44:42-8. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.apsoil.2009.09.003]
6. Potvin C, Mancilla L, Buchmann N, Monteza J, Moore T, Murphy M, et al. An ecosystem approach to biodiversity effects: carbon pools in a tropical tree plantation. For Ecol Manag. 2011;261(10):1614-24. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.foreco.2010.11.015]
7. Nair PKR, Kumar BM, Nair VD. Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci. 2009;172(1):10-23. [Link] [DOI:10.1002/jpln.200800030]
8. Snell HSK, Robinson D, Midwood AJ. Tree species' influences on soil carbon dynamics revealed with natural abundance 13C techniques. Plant Soil. 2016;400(1-2):285-96. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11104-015-2731-y]
9. Wang H, Liu S, Wang J, Shi Z, Lu L, Zeng J, et al. Effects of tree species mixture on soil organic carbon stocks and greenhouse gas fluxes in subtropical plantations in China. For Ecol Manag. 2013;300:4-13. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.foreco.2012.04.005]
10. Mirzaei J, Moradi M, Seyedi F. Carbon sequestration in the leaf, litter and soil of eucalyptus camaldulensis, prosopis juliflora and ziziphus spina-christi species. ECOPERSIA. 2016;4(3):1481-91. [Link] [DOI:10.18869/modares.ecopersia.4.3.1481]
11. Marín-Spiotta E, Sharma S. Carbon storage in successional and plantation forest soils: A tropical analysis. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2013;22(1):105-17. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/j.1466-8238.2012.00788.x]
12. Goodarzi M, Ranjbar M, Bayramvand R. Assessing carbon sequestration impacts of Sorkhehhesar in relieving climate change effects. Iran J Watershed Mang Sci Eng. 2016;10(34):27-34. [Persian]. [Link]
13. Parvizi Y, Heshmati M, Gheituri M. Intelligent approaches to analysing the importance of land use management in soil carbon stock in a semiarid ecosystem, west of Iran. ECOPERSIA. 2017;5(1):1699-709. [Link] [DOI:10.18869/modares.ecopersia.5.1.1699]
14. Mandal RA, Dutta IC, Jha PK, Karmacharya S. Relationship between carbon stock and plant biodiversity in collaborative forests in Terai, Nepal. ISRN Bot. 2013;2013:625767. [Link] [DOI:10.1155/2013/625767]
15. Hicks C, Woroniecki S, Fancourt M, Bieri M, Garcia Robles H, Trumper K, et al. The relationship between biodiversity, carbon storage and the provision of other ecosystem services: Critical review for the forestry component of the International Climate Fund. Cambridge: United Nations Environment Programme; 2014. [Link]
16. Aslani F. Investigating the relationship of some soil characteristics and Undesirable plants (case study lashgardar rangelands of Malayer) [Dissertation]. Gorgan: Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources; 3013. [Persian] [Link]
17. Ghorbani M. Introduction to the economic geology of Iran. Tehran: Geological Survey & Mineral Explorations of Iran (GSI); 2002. [Persian] [Link]
18. Varamesh S, Hosseini SM, Abdi N. Estimate atmospheric carbon sequestration in urban forest resource. J Ecol. 2011;37(57):113-20. [Persian] [Link]
19. Ponce-Hernandez R, Koohafkan P, Antoine J. Assessing carbon stocks and modeling win-win scenarios of carbon sequestration through land-use changes. Rome: FAO; 2004. [Link]
20. Mann LK. Changes in soil carbon storage after cultivation. Soil Sci. 1986;142(5):1-10. [Link] [DOI:10.1097/00010694-198611000-00006]
21. Lemma B, Kleja DB, Nilsson I, Olsson M. Soil carbon sequestration under different exotic tree species in the Southwestern highlands of Ethiopia. Geoderma. 2006;136(3-4):886-98. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.geoderma.2006.06.008]
22. Subedi BP, Pandey SS, Pandey A, Rana EB, Bhattarai S, Banskota TR, et al. Guidelines for measuring carbon stocks in community- managed forests. Oslo: Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation; 2010. [Link]
23. Magurran AE. Measuring biological diversity. New Jersey: Wiley; 2004. [Link]
24. Azadi A, Hojati SM, Jalilvand H, Naghavi H. Investigation on soil carbon sequestration and understory biodiversity of hard wood and soft wood plantations of Khoramabad city (Makhamalkoh site). Iran J For Poplar Res. 2014;21(4):702-15. [Persian]. [Link]
25. Dube F, Zagal E, Stolpe N, Espinosa M. The influence of land-use change on the organic carbon distribution and microbial respiration in a volcanic soil of the Chilean Patagonia. For Ecol Manag. 2009;257(8):1695-704. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.01.044]
26. Lal R. Carbon sequestration. Philos Trans R Soc B. 2008;363(1492):815-30. [Link] [DOI:10.1098/rstb.2007.2185]
27. Abdi N. Estimate the carbon sequestration capacity by Astragalus in Markazi and Isfahan provinces [Dissertation]. Tehran: Islamic Azad University; 2005. [Persian]. [Link]
28. Nobakht A, Pourmajidian M, Hojjati SM. A comparison of soil carbon sequestration in hardwood and softwood monocultures (Case study: dehmian forest management plan, Mazindaran). Iran J For. 2011;3(1):13-23. [Persian]. [Link]
29. Crosby C, Ford A, Free Ch, Hofmann C, Horvitz E, May E, et al. Carbon sequestration and its relationship to forest management and biomass harvesting in Vermont, environmental studies senior seminar. Middlebury: Middlebury college es faculty; 2010. [Link]
30. Dinakaran J, Krishnayya NSR. Variations in type of vegetal cover and heterogeneity of soil organic carbon in affecting sink capacity of tropical soils. Curr Sci. 2008;94(9):1144-50. [Link]
31. Liu J, Diamond J. China's environment in a globalizing world. Nature. 2005;435:1179-86. [Link] [DOI:10.1038/4351179a]
32. Thomas SC, Malczewski G. Wood carbon content of tree species in Eastern China: Interspecific variability and the importance of the volatile fraction. J Environ Manag. 2007;85(3):659-62. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.04.022]
33. Berg B, McClaugherty C. Plant litter: De¬composition, humus formation, carbon sequestra¬tion. Berlin: Springer; 2009. [Link]
34. Azlan A, Aweng ER, Ibrahim CO, Noorhaidah A. Correlation between soil organic matter, total organic matter and water content with climate and depths of soil at different land use in Kelantan, Malaysia. Appl Sci Environ Manag. 2012;16(4):353-8. [Link]
35. Sakin E. Relationships between of carbon, nitrogen stocks and texture of the harran plain soils in southeastern Turkey. Bulg J Agric Sci. 2012;18(4):626-34. [Link]
36. Jiménez JJ, Lal R, Leblanc HA, Russo RO. Soil organic carbon pool under native tree plantations in the Caribbean lowlands of Costa Rica. For Ecol Manag. 2007;241(1-3):134-44. [Link]
37. Ashrafi MH, Sanei Shariat Panahy M, Adeli E. Investigation on forest herbaceous plant covers in softwood and hardwood plantations at Javaherdeh local area. J Agri Sci. 2007;13(2):355-65. [Persian] [Link]
38. Cusack D, Montagnini F. The role of native species plantations in recovery of understory Woody diversity in degraded pasturelands of Costa Rica. For Ecol Manag. 2004;188(1-3):1-15. [Link]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |