Dynamics of stand biomass and volume of the tree layer in forests with different restoration approaches based on tree-ring analysis

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1258.2012.00117

Abstract

Abstract:

Aims Our objectives were to (a) explore potential applications of tree-ring analysis for evaluating biomass dynamics of different forest restoration approaches in Western Sichuan, (b) compare aboveground biomass and stem volume with differently restored forests, and (c) identify the appropriate management approaches for different management aims.
Methods We intensively surveyed three replicated plots for each restoration approach and cored and measured all living trees with diameter at breast height (DBH) ≥ 5 cm using dendroecological methods. Dynamics of aboveground biomass and stem volume were calculated by means of allometric relationships and one-way tree volume models based on continuous variation of DBH.
Important findings Forests in all three restoration approaches entered into an accelerated growth phase after 20 years, when significant differences in average DBH were observed among different forest types. Planted spruce (Picea asperata) forest (PSF) showed faster growth in mean DBH than secondary birch (Betula spp.) forest (SBF) and secondary coniferous and broad-leaved mixed forest (SMF). In the process of recovery, SMF had the highest aboveground biomass and stand volume; its biomass was significant higher than that of PSF (p < 0.05) throughout and higher than SBF after 20 years. SBF had a higher aboveground biomass compared with that for PSF during 1-25 years and a lower value after 25 years. Before 20 years, the stand volume of SBF was higher than that of PSF, but PSF had higher volume after 20 years. Before 30 years, the aboveground net primary productivity for three forest types ranked SMF>SBF>PSF. After 30 years, the order changed to SMF>PSF>SBF. Results indicated that SMF had an advantage in both biomass and stand volume accumulation among the three restoration approaches.

Key words: biomass, forest restoration, net primary productivity (NPP), stand volume, tree ring

ZHANG Yuan-Dong, LIU Yan-Chun, LIU Shi-Rong, ZHANG Xiao-He. Dynamics of stand biomass and volume of the tree layer in forests with different restoration approaches based on tree-ring analysis[J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2012, 36(2): 117-125.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1258.2012.00117

https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/Y2012/V36/I2/117

Figures/Tables 8

References 24

[1]	Achard F, Eva HD, Stibig HJ, Mayaux P, Gallego J, Richards T, Malingreau JP (2002). Determination of deforestation rates of the world’s humid tropical forests. Science, 297, 999-1002. DOI URL PMID
[2]	Barr AG, Black TA, Hogg EH, Griffis TJ, Morgenstern K, Kljun N, Theede A, Nesic Z (2007). Climatic controls on the carbon and water balances of a boreal aspen forest, 1994-2003. Global Change Biology, 13, 561-576.
[3]	Biondi F (1999). Comparing tree-ring chronologies and repeated timber inventories as forest monitoring tools. Ecological Applications, 9, 216-227.
[4]	Brienen RJW, Zuidema PA (2006). The use of tree rings in tropical forest management: projecting timber yields of four Bolivian tree species. Forest Ecology and Management, 226, 256-267.
[5]	Dixon RK, Solomon AM, Brown S, Houghton RA, Trexier MC, Wisniewski J (1994). Carbon pools and flux of global forest ecosystems. Science, 263, 185-190. DOI URL PMID
[6]	Fang JY (方精云) (2000). Forest biomass carbon pool of middle and high latitudes in the north hemisphere is probably much smaller than present estimates. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica (植物生态学报), 24, 635-638. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[7]	Grissino-Mayer HD (2003). A manual and tutorial for the proper use of an increment borer. Tree-Ring Research, 59, 63-79.
[8]	Kljun N, Black TA, Griffis TJ, Barr AG, Gaumont-Guay D, Morgenstern K, McCaughey JH, Nesic Z (2006). Response of net ecosystem productivity of three boreal forest stands to drought. Ecosystems, 9, 1128-1144.
[9]	Lin B (林波), Liu Q (刘庆), Wu Y (吴彦), Pang XY (庞学勇), He H (何海) (2003). Effect of forest litters on soil physical and chemical properties in subalpine coniferous forests of western Sichuan. China Journal of Applied & Environ- mental Biology (应用与环境生物学报), 9, 346-351. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[10]	Liu YC (刘彦春), Zhang YD (张远东), Liu SR (刘世荣) (2010a). Aboveground biomass, ANPP and stem volume of birch stands in natural restoration process of subalpine secondary forest in western Sichuan. Acta Ecologica Sinica (生态学报), 30, 594-601. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[11]	Liu YC (刘彦春), Zhang YD (张远东), Liu SR (刘世荣), Zhang XH (张笑鹤) (2010b). Changes of tree layer aboveground biomass, ANPP to altitudinal gradient in the subalpine secondary mixed forest of western Sichuan, China. Acta Ecologica Sinica (生态学报), 30, 5810-5820. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[12]	Metsaranta JM, Lieffers VJ (2009). Using dendrochronology to obtain annual data for modelling stand development: a supplement to permanent sample plots. Forestry, 82, 163-173.
[13]	Myneni RB, Keeling CD, Tucker CJ, Asrar G, Nemani RR (1997). Increased plant growth in the northern high latitudes from 1981 to 1991. Nature, 386, 698-702.
[14]	Picket STA (1989). Space for time substitution as an alternative to long-term studies. In: Likens GE ed. Long-Term Studies in Ecology: Approaches and Alternatives. Springer, New York, 110-135.
[15]	Rozas V (2004). A dendroecological reconstruction of age structure and past management in an old-growth pollarded parkland in northern Spain. Forest Ecology and Management, 195, 205-219.
[16]	Shi LX (史立新), Wang JX (王金锡), Su YM (宿以明), Hou GW (侯广维) (1988). The early succession process of vegetation at cut-over area of dark coniferous forest in Miyaluo, West Sichuan. Acta Phytoecologica et Geobotanica Sinica (植物生态学与地植物学学报), 12, 306-313. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[17]	van Gemerden BS, Olff H, Parren MPE, Bongers F (2003). The pristine rain forest? Remnants of historical human impacts on current tree species composition and diversity. Journal of Biogeography, 30, 1381-1390.
[18]	Woodwell GM, Whittaker RH, Reiners WA, Likens GE, Delwiche CC, Botkin DB (1978). The biota and the world carbon budget. Science, 199, 141-146. DOI URL PMID
[19]	Worbes M, Klinge H, Revilla JD, Martius C (1992). On the dynamics, floristic subdivision and geographical distribution of várzea forests in Central Amazonia. Journal of Vegetation Science, 3, 553-564.
[20]	Xian JR (鲜骏仁), Zhang YB (张远彬), Wang KY (王开运), Hu TX (胡庭兴), Yang H (杨华) (2009). Carbon stock and its allocation in five forest ecosystems in the subalpine coniferous forest zone of western Sichuan Province, Southwest China. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology (植物生态学报), 33, 283-290. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[21]	Zhang J, Ge Y, Chang J, Jiang B, Jiang H, Peng CH, Zhu JR, Yuan WG, Qi LZ, Yu SQ (2007). Carbon storage by ecolo- gical service forests in Zhejiang Province, subtropical China. Forest Ecology and Management, 245, 64-75.
[22]	Zhang YD (张远东), Liu SR (刘世荣), Zhao CM (赵常明) (2005a). Spatial pattern of subalpine forest restoration in West Sichuan. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 16, 1706-1710. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[23]	Zhang YD (张远东), Zhao CM (赵常明), Liu SR (刘世荣) (2005b). The influence factors of sub-alpine forest restoration in Miyaluo, West Sichuan. Scientia Silvae Sinicae (林业科学), 41, 189-193. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[24]	Zhao CM (赵常明), Chen QH (陈庆恒), Qiao YK (乔永康), Pan KW (潘开文) (2002). Dynamics of species diversity in the restoration process of artificial spruce conifer forest in the eastern edge of Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica (植物生态学报), 26, 20-29. (in Chinese with English abstract)

森林类型 Forest type	海拔 Elevation (m)	坡向 Slope aspect (°)	坡度 Slope gradient (°)	林分密度 Stand density (tree · hm^-2)	平均胸径 Mean DBH (cm)	林龄 Stand age (a)	样芯数 No. of cores
PSFI	3 212	NE 40	10	829.3	21.4 ± 6.2	43	47
PSFII	3 261	NE 45	15	914.5	20.1 ± 5.7	44	49
PSFIII	3 252	SE 70	10	964.7	19.7 ± 5.6	39	53
SBFI	3 214	NW 40	26	3 021.5	9.3 ± 3.4	49	104
SBFII	3 238	NW 25	20	3 086.1	11.2 ± 3.3	45	77
SBFIII	3 326	NE 20	18	2 788.1	10.1 ± 4.5	50	94
SMFI	3 020	NE 40	30	3 262.0	11.1 ± 3.4	36	93
SMFII	2 990	NE 20	20	3 188.1	9.5 ± 3.4	35	124
SMFIII	3 345	NE 15	20	3 032.7	11.7 ± 4.6	38	101

森林类型 Forest type	海拔 Elevation (m)	坡向 Slope aspect (°)	坡度 Slope gradient (°)	林分密度 Stand density (tree · hm^-2)	平均胸径 Mean DBH (cm)	林龄 Stand age (a)	样芯数 No. of cores
PSFI	3 212	NE 40	10	829.3	21.4 ± 6.2	43	47
PSFII	3 261	NE 45	15	914.5	20.1 ± 5.7	44	49
PSFIII	3 252	SE 70	10	964.7	19.7 ± 5.6	39	53
SBFI	3 214	NW 40	26	3 021.5	9.3 ± 3.4	49	104
SBFII	3 238	NW 25	20	3 086.1	11.2 ± 3.3	45	77
SBFIII	3 326	NE 20	18	2 788.1	10.1 ± 4.5	50	94
SMFI	3 020	NE 40	30	3 262.0	11.1 ± 3.4	36	93
SMFII	2 990	NE 20	20	3 188.1	9.5 ± 3.4	35	124
SMFIII	3 345	NE 15	20	3 032.7	11.7 ± 4.6	38	101

树种 Tree species	地上部分器官 Aboveground organ		异速生长模型 Allometric model	决定系数 Determination coefficient	文献来源 Origin of references
冷杉 Abies spp.	干 Stem		W = 0.0139(D²H)^1.0075	R² = 0.998 6	Luo et al., 2002
	枝 Branch		W = 0.0014(D²H)^1.0503	R² = 0.911 8
	叶 Leaf	胸径 DBH < 40 cm时,	W = 0.0003(D²H)^1.2032	R² = 0.934 1
	叶 Leaf	胸径 DBH > 40 cm时,	W = 11.5060ln(D²H) - 74.7330	R² = 0.753 9
云杉 Picea spp.	干 Stem		W = 0.0405D^2.5680	R² = 0.989 0	Luo et al., 2002
	枝 Branch		W = 0.0037D^2.7386	R² = 0.945 0
	叶 Leaf	胸径 DBH < 40 cm时,	W = 0.0014D^2.9302	R² = 0.941 9
	叶 Leaf	胸径 DBH > 40 cm时,	W = 29.5410lnD - 63.1500	R² = 0.757 4
桦木 Betula spp.	干 Stem		W = 0.1411(D²H)^0.7234	R² = 0.980 1	Feng et al., 1999
	枝 Branch		W = 0.0072(D²H)^1.0225	R² = 0.774 4
	叶 Leaf		W = 0.0151(D²H)^0.8085	R² = 0.828 1
树种 Tree species	地上部分器官 Aboveground organ		异速生长模型 Allometric model	决定系数 Determination coefficient	文献来源 Origin of references
槭树 Acer spp.	干 Stem		W = 0.3274(D²H)^0.7218	R² = 0.932 5	Chen, 1983
	枝 Branch		W = 0.0135(D²H)^0.7198	R² = 0.911 4
	叶 Leaf		W = 0.0235(D²H)^0.6929	R² = 0.891 7
杨木 Poplar spp.	干 Stem		W = 0.0537(D²H)^0.9270	R² = 0.987 0	Zhu et al., 1988
	枝 Branch		W = 0.0125(D²H)^0.9504	R² = 0.863 0
	叶 Leaf		W = 0.0221(D²H)^0.7583	R² = 0.786 0
其他阔叶树 Other broadleaf species	干 Stem		W = 0.0097(D²H) + 5.8252	R² = 0.991 4	Luo et al., 2002
	枝 Branch		W = 0.0510(D²H) + 3.5080	R² = 0.982 5
	叶 Leaf		W = 0.0004(D²H) + 0.7563	R² = 0.933 3

树种 Tree species	地上部分器官 Aboveground organ		异速生长模型 Allometric model	决定系数 Determination coefficient	文献来源 Origin of references
冷杉 Abies spp.	干 Stem		W = 0.0139(D²H)^1.0075	R² = 0.998 6	Luo et al., 2002
	枝 Branch		W = 0.0014(D²H)^1.0503	R² = 0.911 8
	叶 Leaf	胸径 DBH < 40 cm时,	W = 0.0003(D²H)^1.2032	R² = 0.934 1
	叶 Leaf	胸径 DBH > 40 cm时,	W = 11.5060ln(D²H) - 74.7330	R² = 0.753 9
云杉 Picea spp.	干 Stem		W = 0.0405D^2.5680	R² = 0.989 0	Luo et al., 2002
	枝 Branch		W = 0.0037D^2.7386	R² = 0.945 0
	叶 Leaf	胸径 DBH < 40 cm时,	W = 0.0014D^2.9302	R² = 0.941 9
	叶 Leaf	胸径 DBH > 40 cm时,	W = 29.5410lnD - 63.1500	R² = 0.757 4
桦木 Betula spp.	干 Stem		W = 0.1411(D²H)^0.7234	R² = 0.980 1	Feng et al., 1999
	枝 Branch		W = 0.0072(D²H)^1.0225	R² = 0.774 4
	叶 Leaf		W = 0.0151(D²H)^0.8085	R² = 0.828 1
树种 Tree species	地上部分器官 Aboveground organ		异速生长模型 Allometric model	决定系数 Determination coefficient	文献来源 Origin of references
槭树 Acer spp.	干 Stem		W = 0.3274(D²H)^0.7218	R² = 0.932 5	Chen, 1983
	枝 Branch		W = 0.0135(D²H)^0.7198	R² = 0.911 4
	叶 Leaf		W = 0.0235(D²H)^0.6929	R² = 0.891 7
杨木 Poplar spp.	干 Stem		W = 0.0537(D²H)^0.9270	R² = 0.987 0	Zhu et al., 1988
	枝 Branch		W = 0.0125(D²H)^0.9504	R² = 0.863 0
	叶 Leaf		W = 0.0221(D²H)^0.7583	R² = 0.786 0
其他阔叶树 Other broadleaf species	干 Stem		W = 0.0097(D²H) + 5.8252	R² = 0.991 4	Luo et al., 2002
	枝 Branch		W = 0.0510(D²H) + 3.5080	R² = 0.982 5
	叶 Leaf		W = 0.0004(D²H) + 0.7563	R² = 0.933 3

树种 Tree species	材积公式 Volume equation (m³)
桦木 Betula spp.	$V = 0.00004894 \times {\left( {0.9839 \times D - 0.3303} \right)^{2.0173}} \times {\left( {\frac{{33.2727 - 1031.4484}}{{31.549 + D}}} \right)^{0.9388}}$
冷杉 Abies spp.	$V = 0.00006322 \times {\left( { - 0.1027 + 0.99576 \times D} \right)^{1.901}} \times {\left( {\frac{{45.79737 - 1837.226}}{{D + 38.40604}}} \right)^{0.963}}$
云杉 Picea spp.	$V = 0.00005679 \times {\left( {0.37388 + 0.9721 \times D} \right)^{1.852}} \times {\left( {\frac{D}{{1.129 + 0.0161 \times D}}} \right)^{1.0335}}$
杨树 Poplar spp.	$V = 0.00005275 \times {\left( { - 0.5162 + 1.0942 \times D} \right)^{1.94526}} \times {\left( {\frac{D}{{0.74623 + 0.0421 \times D}}} \right)^{0.93885}}$
槭树 Acer spp.	$V = 0.00005275 \times {\left( {0.49896 + 0.9661 \times D} \right)^{1.945}} \times {\left( {\frac{D}{{0.84118 + 0.0381}}} \right)^{0.93885}}$