4.6 Article

Can we predict carbon stocks in tropical ecosystems from tree diversity? Comparing species and functional diversity in a plantation and a natural forest

Journal

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
Volume 189, Issue 4, Pages 978-987

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03501.x

Keywords

dominance; functional trait diversity; functional traits; mixed-species plantations; Panama; species diversity; tree carbon storage; tropical forests

Categories

Funding

  1. Panamanian Government through the IFARHU-SENACYT
  2. Canadian Government
  3. FH Levinson Fund
  4. [NSERC]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Linking tree diversity to carbon storage can provide further motivation to conserve tropical forests and to design carbon-enriched plantations. Here, we examine the role of tree diversity and functional traits in determining carbon storage in a mixed-species plantation and in a natural tropical forest in Panama. We used species richness, functional trait diversity, species dominance and functional trait dominance to predict tree carbon storage across these two forests. Then we compared the species ranking based on wood density, maximum diameter, maximum height, and leaf mass per area (LMA) between sites to reveal how these values changed between different forests. Increased species richness, a higher proportion of nitrogen fixers and species with low LMA increased carbon storage in the mixed-species plantation, while a higher proportion of large trees and species with high LMA increased tree carbon storage in the natural forest. Furthermore, we found that tree species varied greatly in their absolute and relative values between study sites. Different results in different forests mean that we cannot easily predict carbon storage capacity in natural forests using data from experimental plantations. Managers should be cautious when applying functional traits measured in natural populations in the design of carbon-enriched plantations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available