Carbon density characteristics of sparse Ulmus pumila forest and Populus simonii plantation in Onqin Daga Sandy Land and their relationships with stand age

doi:10.17521/cjpe.2015.1080

Abstract

Abstract:

Aims
Sparse Ulmus pumila forest is an intrazonal vegetation in Onqin Daga Sandy Land, while Populus simonii has been widely planted for windbreak and sand dune stabilization in the same region. Our objective was to compare the differences in carbon (C) density of these two forests and their relationships with stand age.
Methods
We measured the C content of tree organs (leaf, twig, stem, and root), herb layers (above ground vegetation and below ground root) and soil layers (up to 100 cm) in sparse Ulmus pumila forests and Populus simonii plantations of different stand ages, and then computed C density and their proportions in total ecosystem carbon density. In addition, we illustrated the variation in carbon density-stand age relationship for tree layer, soil layer and whole ecosystem. We finally estimated the C sequestration rates for these two forests by the space-for-time substitution approach.
Important findings
The average C contents of tree layer and soil layer for sparse Ulmus pumila forests were lower than those for Populus simonii plantations. The total C density of sparse Ulmus pumila forests was half of that of Populus simonii plantations. The carbon density of soil and tree layers accounted for more than 98% of ecosystem C density in the two forests. Irrespective of forest type, the C density ratios of soil to vegetation decreased with stand age. This ratio was 1.66 for sparse Ulmus pumila forests and 1.87 for Populus simonii plantations when they were over-matured. The C density of tree layer, soil layer, and total ecosystem in both forests increased along forest development. There were significantly positive correlations between tree layer’s C density and stand age in both forests and between the total ecosystem C density of sparse Ulmus pumila forests and stand age. The C sequestration rate of tree layer was 5-fold higher in Populus simonii plantation than in sparse Ulmus pumila forest. The ecosystem-level C sequestration rate was 0.81 Mg C·hm^-2·a^-1 for sparse Ulmus pumila forest and 5.35 Mg C·hm^-2·a^-1 for Populus simonii plantation. These findings have implications for C stock estimation of sandy land forest ecosystems and policy-making of ecological restoration and C sink enhancement in the studied area.

http://jtp.cnki.net/bilingual/detail/html/ZWSB201604005

Key words: carbon content, carbon density, carbon sequestration rate, Populus simonii plantation, sparse Ulmus pumila forest, stand age

Wei ZHAO, Zhong-Min HU, Hao YANG, Lei-Ming ZHANG, Qun GUO, Zhi-Yan WU, De-Yi LIU, Sheng-Gong LI. Carbon density characteristics of sparse Ulmus pumila forest and Populus simonii plantation in Onqin Daga Sandy Land and their relationships with stand age[J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2016, 40(4): 318-326.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/10.17521/cjpe.2015.1080

https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/Y2016/V40/I4/318

Figures/Tables 7

Table 1 The characteristics of tree layer of sparse Ulmus pumila forests and Populus simonii plantations (mean ± SE)

样地位置 Plot location	类型 Type	林龄 Stand age (a)	龄组¹⁾ Stand age group¹⁾	龄组代码 Code of stand age group	平均胸径 Mean DBH (cm)	平均树高 Mean tree height (m)	乔木平均密度 (ind.·hm^-2) Mean density of trees
多伦 Duolun	小叶杨人工林 Populus simonii plantation	9	幼龄林 Young forest	P-1	7.66 ± 0.15	5.22 ± 0.10	746 ± 51
		18	近熟林 Nearly-mature forest	P-2	13.05 ± 0.18	10.09 ± 0.14	616 ± 62
		30	成熟林 Mature forest	P-3	14.33 ± 0.18	11.36 ± 0.09	661 ± 67
		49	过熟林 Over-mature forest	P-4	27.52 ± 0.81	21.02 ± 0.43	488 ± 63
西乌珠穆沁旗 Xiwuzhumuqin	榆树疏林 Sparse Ulmus pumila forest	15	幼龄林 Young forest	E-1	6.81 ± 0.22	2.93 ± 0.34	367 ± 22
		33	中龄林 Middle-age forest	E-2	12.79 ± 0.21	3.88 ± 0.08	402 ± 56
		48	近熟林 Nearly-mature forest	E-3	19.83 ± 0.35	6.83 ± 0.10	506 ± 23
		90	过熟林 Over-mature forest	E-4	24.76 ± 1.11	7.90± 0.24	206 ± 23

Table 2 The allometric equations for estimating Ulmus pumila and Populus simonii tree biomass (Li, 2006; Zha, 2007)

器官 Organ	榆树 Ulmus pumila	小叶杨 Populus simonii
叶 Leaf	W = 0.033 × D^1.7241	W = 0.63 × (D²H)^1.17
枝 Twig	W = 0.0303 × D^2.3445	W = 1.2 × (D²H)^1.13
干 Stem	W = 0.0146 × D^2.5837	W = 23.11 × (D²H)^0.93
根 Root	W = 0.0146 × D^2.893	W = 4.02 × (D²H)^2.86

Fig. 1 Carbon content of different tree organs of sparse Ulmus pumila forests and Populus simonii plantations (mean ± SE). Different capital letters indicate significant differences in the organ carbon content of sparse Ulmus pumila forests (p < 0.05). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences in the organ carbon content of Populus simonii plantations (p < 0.05). Asterisks indicate significant differences between the carbon content of same organ in sparse Ulmus pumila forests and Populus simonii plantations (ns, not significant, p > 0.05; *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01).

Fig. 2 The variation of soil carbon content with stand age and soil depth for sparse Ulmus pumila forests (A) and Populus simonii plantations (B) (mean ± SE). Different capital letters indicate significant differences in soil carbon content among stand ages (p < 0.05). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences in soil carbon content among soil depths (p < 0.05). For explanation of the legend symbols, see Table 1 (code of stand age group).

Fig. 3 Carbon density of ecosystem and its component (herb layer, tree layer and soil layer) carbon density and their proportion for sparse Ulmus pumila forests (A, C) and Populus simonii plantations (B, D) (mean ± SE). *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; ***, p < 0.001. For explanation of the legend symbols, see Table 1 (code of stand age group).

Fig. 4 Variation of the carbon density ratios of soil to vegetation with stand age of sparse Ulmus pumila forests (●) and Populus simonii plantations (▽). For explanation of the symbols in x-axis, see Table 1 (code of stand age group).

Fig. 5 The relationship between the carbon density and stand age for sparse Ulmus pumila forests (○) and Populus simonii plantations (△) (mean ± SE).

References 38

1	Ahlström A, Raupach MR, Schurgers G, Smith B, Arneth A, Jung M, Reichstein M, Canadell JG, Friedlingstein P, Jain AK, Kato E, Poulter B, Sitch S, Stocker BD, Viovy N, Wang YP, Wiltshire A, Zaehle S, Zeng N (2015). The dominant role of semi-arid ecosystems in the trend and variability of the land CO2 sink.Science, 348, 895-899.
2	Anderson TM, Dong Y, McNaughton SJ (2006). Nutrient acquisition and physiological responses of dominant Serengeti grasses to variation in soil texture and grazing.Journal of Ecology, 94, 1164-1175.
3	Bao SD (2000). Soil Agricultural Chemistry Analysis. 3rd edn. China Agriculture Press, Beijing. (in Chinese)[鲍士旦 (2000). 土壤农化分析. 第3版. 中国农业出版社, 北京.]
4	Bárcena TG, Kiær LP, Vesterdal L, Stefánsdóttir HM, Gundersen P, Sigurdsson BD (2014). Soil carbon stock change following afforestation in Northern Europe: A meta-analysis.Global Change Biology, 20, 2393-2405.
5	Dixon RK, Solomon AM, Brown S, Houghton RA, Trexler MC, Wisniewski J (1994). Carbon pools and flux of global forest ecosystems.Science, 263, 185-190.
6	Eaton JM, Lawrence D (2009). Loss of carbon sequestration potential after several decades of shifting cultivation in the Southern Yucatán.Forest Ecology and Management, 258, 949-958.
7	Fang JY, Guo ZD, Piao SL, Chen AP (2007a). Terrestrial vegetation carbon sinks in China, 1981-2000.Science in China Series D: Earth Sciences, 50, 1341-1350.
8	Fang JY, Liu GH, Zhu B, Wang XK, Liu SH (2007b). Carbon budgets of three temperate forest ecosystems in Dongling Mt., Beijing, China.Science in China Series D: Earth Sciences, 50, 92-101.
9	Foote RL, Grogan P (2010). Soil carbon accumulation during temperate forest succession on abandoned low productivity agricultural lands.Ecosystems, 13, 795-812.
10	Huygens D, Boeckx P, van Cleemput O, Oyarzún C, Godoy R (2005). Aggregate and soil organic carbon dynamics in South Chilean Andisols.Biogeosciences, 2, 159-174.
11	Jackson RB, Mooney HA, Schulze ED (1997). A global budget for fine root biomass, surface area, and nutrient contents.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 94, 7362-7366.
12	Jobbagy EG, Jackson RB (2000). The vertical distribution of soil organic carbon and its relation to climate and vegetation.Ecological Applications, 10, 423-436.
13	Johnson SL, Jones JA (2000). Stream temperature responses to forest harvest and debris flows in western Cascades, Oregon.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 57, 30-39.
14	Lal R (2004). Carbon sequestration in dryland ecosystems.Environmental Management, 33, 528-544.
15	Lal R (2005). Forest soils and carbon sequestration.Forest Ecology and Management, 220, 242-258.
16	Li G (2006). Biomass, Net Primary Productivity, and Ecological Restoration of Sparse Forest Grassland Ecosystem of Hunshandake Sandy Land. PhD dissertation, Graduate School, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing. (in Chinese with English abstract)[李刚 (2006). 浑善达克沙地稀树疏林草地生态系统研究: 生物量、生产力与生态恢复途径. 博士学位论文, 中国科学院研究生院, 北京.]
17	Li GT, Wang YS, Yu XX, Li QX, Yue YJ (2011). Spatial patterns of elm density in Otingdag Sandy Land.Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 25(3), 141-145. (in Chinese with English abstract)[李钢铁, 王永胜, 余新晓, 李清雪, 岳永杰 (2011). 浑善达克沙地不同密度榆树种群空间格局. 干旱区资源与环境, 25(3), 141-145.]
18	Li YG, Jiang GM, Gao LM, Niu SL, Liu MZ, Yu SL, Peng Y (2003). Impacts of human disturbance on elms-motte-veldt in Hunshandak Sandland.Acta Phytoecologica Sinica, 27, 829-834. (in Chinese with English abstract)[李永庚, 蒋高明, 高雷明, 牛书丽, 刘美珍, 于顺利, 彭羽 (2003). 人为干扰对浑善达克沙地榆树疏林的影响. 植物生态学报, 27, 829-834.]
19	Liu MZ (2004). The Restoration of Degraded Ecosytem in Hunshandak Sandland Through Natural Process. PhD dissertation, Graduate School, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing. (in Chinese with English abstract)[刘美珍 (2004). 浑善达克退化生态系统恢复研究——自然力在沙地草地恢复中的应用. 博士学位论文, 中国科学院研究生院, 北京.]
20	Liu YC, Yu GY, Wang QF, Zhang YJ (2014). How temperature, precipitation and stand age control the biomass carbon density of global mature forests.Global Ecology and Biogeography, 23, 323-333.
21	Liu Z, Dong Z, Li HL, Li GT (2013). Spatial pattern of seedling regeneration of Ulmus pumila woodland in the Otindag Sandland.Acta Ecologica Sinica, 33, 294-301. (in Chinese with English abstract)[刘振, 董智, 李红丽, 李钢铁 (2013). 浑善达克沙地榆树疏林幼苗更新空间格局. 生态学报, 33, 294-301.]
22	Ma J, Tang HP (2011). Variations of soil respiration rate and its temperature sensitivity among different land use types in the agro-pastoral ecotone of Inner Mongolia.Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 35, 167-175. (in Chinese with English abstract)[马骏, 唐海萍 (2011). 内蒙古农牧交错区不同土地利用方式下土壤呼吸速率及其温度敏感性变化. 植物生态学报, 35, 167-175.]
23	Marín-Spiotta E, Sharma S, Ramankutty N (2013). Carbon storage in successional and plantation forest soils: A tropical analysis.Global Ecology and Biogeography, 22, 105-117.
24	Odum EP (1969). The strategy of ecosystem development.Science, 164, 262-270.
25	Pang LD, Liu GX (2010). Grassland landscape structure change and its driving factors during past twenty years in Xiwuzhumuqin, Inner Mongolia.Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 24(10), 155-160. (in Chinese with English abstract)[庞立东, 刘桂香 (2010). 近二十年内蒙古西乌珠穆沁草原景观结构变化及驱动力浅析. 干旱区资源与环境, 24(10), 155-160.]
26	Piao SL, Fang JY, Zhu B, Tan K (2005). Forest biomass carbon stocks in China over the past 2 decades: Estimation based on integrated inventory and satellite data.Journal of Geophysical Research-Biogeosciences, 110, G01006, doi: 10.1029/2005JG000014.
27	Pregitzer KS, Euskirchen ES (2004). Carbon cycling and storage in world forests: Biome patterns related to forest age.Global Change Biology, 10, 2052-2077.
28	Shi SW, Zhang W, Zhang P, Yu YQ, Ding F (2013). A synthesis of change in deep soil organic carbon stores with afforestation of agricultural soils.Forest Ecology and Management, 296, 53-63.
29	Su H, Li YG, Su BY, Sun JX (2012). Effects of groundwater decline on photosynthetic characteristics and stress tolerance of Ulmus pumila in Hunshandake Sandy Land, China.Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 36, 177-186. (in Chinese with English abstract)[苏华, 李永庚, 苏本营, 孙建新 (2012). 地下水位下降对浑善达克沙地榆树光合及抗逆性的影响. 植物生态学报, 36, 177-186.]
30	Wang SQ, Zhou L, Chen JM, Ju WM, Feng XF, Wu WX (2011). Relationships between net primary productivity and stand age for several forest types and their influence on China’s carbon balance.Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 1651-1662.
31	Xiao XW (2005). China Forest Resource Inventory. Chinese Forestry Press, Beijing. (in Chinese)[肖兴威 (2005). 中国森林资源清查. 中国林业出版社, 北京.]
32	Yang YH, Mohammat A, Feng JM, Zhou R, Fang JY (2007). Storage, patterns and environmental controls of soil organic carbon in China.Biogeochemistry, 84, 131-141.
33	Zha TG (2007). Carbon Balance of a Poplar Plantation Ecosystem in Daxing, Beijing. PhD dissertation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing. (in Chinese with English abstract)[查同刚 (2007). 北京大兴杨树人工林生态系统碳平衡的研究. 博士学位论文. 北京林业大学, 北京.]
34	Zhang QZ, Wang CK (2010). Carbon density and distribution of six Chinese temperate forests.Science China Life Sciences, 53, 831-840.
35	Zhou GY, Liu SG, Li Z, Zhang DQ, Tang XL, Zhou CY, Yan JH, Mo JM (2006). Old-growth forests can accumulate carbon in soils.Science, 314, 1417.
36	Zhou WB (2013). Review on the study of water resources utilization efficiency in irrigation district in arid and semiarid areas of China.Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 17(5), 91-96.(in Chinese with English abstract)[周维博 (2003). 干旱半干旱地域提高灌区水资源综合效益研究进展与思考. 干旱区资源与环境, 17(5), 91-96.]
37	Zhou YL, Lu HY, Zhang XY, Yi SW (2013). Changes of the border of Otindag Sand field (Northern China) during the Last Glacial Maximum and Holocene Optimum.Quaternary Sciences, 33, 228-242. (in Chinese with English abstract)[周亚利, 鹿化煜, 张小艳, 弋双文 (2013). 末次盛冰期和全新世大暖期浑善达克沙地边界的变化. 第四纪研究, 33, 228-242.]
38	Zhou YR, Yu ZL, Zhao SD (2000). Carbon storage and budget of major Chinese forest types.Acta Phytoecologica Sinica, 24, 518-522. (in Chinese with English abstract)[周玉荣, 于振良, 赵士洞 (2000). 我国主要森林生态系统碳贮量和碳平衡. 植物生态学报, 24, 518-522.]

[1]	WEI Hong, MAN Xiu-Ling. Carbon storage and its allocation in Betula platyphylla forests of different ages in cold temperate zone of China [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2019, 43(10): 843-852.
[2]	CHEN Ke-Yu, ZI Hong-Biao, ADE Luji, HU Lei, WANG Gen-Xu, WANG Chang-Ting. Current stocks and potential of carbon sequestration of the forest tree layer in Qinghai Province, China [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2018, 42(8): 831-840.
[3]	ZHOU Xu-Li, CAI Qiong, XIONG Xin-Yu, FANGWen-Jing, ZHU Jian-Xiao, ZHU Jiang-Ling, FANG Jing-Yun, JI Cheng-Jun. Ecosystem carbon stock and within-system distribution in successional Fagus lucida forests in Mt. Yueliang, Guizhou, China [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2018, 42(7): 703-712.
[4]	ZHANG Jing, LIU Yun-Hua, SHENG Jian-Dong, CHAI Qiang, LI Rui-Xia, ZHAO Dan. Carbon and nitrogen traits of typical shrubs in grassland of northern Xinjiang, China [J]. Chin J Plan Ecolo, 2018, 42(3): 307-316.
[5]	CEN Yu, WANG Cheng-Dong, ZHANG Zhen, REN Xia, LIU Mei-Zhen, YANG Fan. Spatial distributions of biomass and carbon density in natural grasslands of Hebei, China [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2018, 42(3): 265-276.
[6]	YANG Hao-Tian, WANG Zeng-Ru, JIA Rong-Liang. Distribution and storage of soil organic carbon across the desert grasslands in the southeastern fringe of the Tengger Desert, China [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2018, 42(3): 288-296.
[7]	YAN Bao-Long, WANG Zhong-Wu, QU Zhi-Qiang, WANG Jing, HAN Guo-Dong. Effects of enclosure on carbon density of plant-soil system in typical steppe and desert steppe in Nei Mongol, China [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2018, 42(3): 327-336.
[8]	CHEN Ri-Sheng, KANG Wen-Xing, ZHOU Yu-Quan, TIAN Da-Lun, XIANG Wen-Hua . Changes in nutrient cycling with age in a Cunninghamia lanceolata plantation forest [J]. Chin J Plan Ecolo, 2018, 42(2): 173-184.
[9]	Xi LI, Fang WANG, Yang CAO, Shou-Zhang PENG, Yun-Ming CHEN. Soil carbon storage and its determinants in the forests of Shaanxi Province, China [J]. Chin J Plan Ecolo, 2017, 41(9): 953-963.
[10]	Guang-Shuai CUI, Lin ZHANG, Wei SHEN, Xin-Sheng LIU, Yuan-Tao WANG. Biomass allocation and carbon density of Sophora moorcroftiana shrublands in the middle reaches of Yarlung Zangbo River, Xizang, China [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2017, 41(1): 53-61.
[11]	Lu-Cun YANG, Chang-Bin LI, Yi NING, Xiu-Qing NIE, Wen-Hua XU, Guo-Ying ZHOU. Carbon density and its spatial distribution in the Potentilla fruticosa dominated alpine shrub in Qinghai, China [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2017, 41(1): 62-70.
[12]	Qiang ZHANG, Jia-Xiang LI, Wen-Ting XU, Gao-Ming XIONG, Zong-Qiang XIE. Estimation of biomass allocation and carbon density of Rhododendron simsii shrubland in the subtropical mountainous areas of China [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2017, 41(1): 43-52.
[13]	Yu-He JI, Ke GUO, Jian NI, Xiao-Niu XU, Zhi-Gao WANG, Shu-Dong WANG. Current forest carbon stocks and carbon sequestration potential in Anhui Province, China [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2016, 40(4): 395-404.
[14]	Yin LI, Guo-Ke CHEN, Dun-Mei LIN, Bin CHEN, Lei-Ming GAO, Xing JIAN, Bo YANG, Wu-Bing XU, Hong-Xin SU, Jiang-Shan LAI, Xi-Hua WANG, Hai-Bo YANG, Ke-Ping MA. Carbon storage and its distribution of forest ecosystems in Zhejiang Province, China [J]. Chin J Plan Ecolo, 2016, 40(4): 354-363.
[15]	Wen-Qiang XU, Liao YANG, Xi CHEN, Ya-Qi GAO, Lei WANG. Carbon storage, spatial distribution and the influence factors in Tianshan forests [J]. Chin J Plan Ecolo, 2016, 40(4): 364-373.