4.7 Article

Response of soil respiration and ecosystem carbon budget to vegetation removal in Eucalyptus plantations with contrasting ages

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 4, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep06262

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation of China [31210103920, 31160153]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China [2011CB403204]
  3. Nanchang Institute of Technology
  4. Jiangxi Provincial Department of Education [KJLD12097, GJJ14744]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Reforested plantations have substantial effects on terrestrial carbon cycling due to their large coverage area. Although understory plants are important components of reforested plantations, their effects on ecosystem carbon dynamics remain unclear. This study was designed to investigate the effects of vegetation removal/understory removal and tree girdling on soil respiration and ecosystem carbon dynamics in Eucalyptus plantations of South China with contrasting ages (2 and 24 years old). We conducted a field manipulation experiment from 2008 to 2009. Understory removal reduced soil respiration in both plantations, whereas tree girdling decreased soil respiration only in the 2-year-old plantations. The net ecosystem production was approximately three times greater in the 2-year-old plantations (13.4 t C ha(-1) yr(-1)) than in the 24-year-old plantations (4.2 t C h(-1) yr(-1)). The biomass increase of understory plants was 12.6 t ha(-1) yr(-1) in the 2-year-old plantations and 2.9 t ha(-1) yr(-1) in the 24-year-old plantations, accounting for 33.9% and 14.1% of the net primary production, respectively. Our findings confirm the ecological importance of understory plants in subtropical plantations based on the 2 years of data. These results also indicate that Eucalyptus plantations in China may be an important carbon sink due to the large plantation area.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available