4.7 Article

An old-growth subtropical Asian evergreen forest as a large carbon sink

Journal

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
Volume 45, Issue 8, Pages 1548-1554

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.12.041

Keywords

Eddy covariance; Biometric method; Old-growth; Management

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation of China [40571163, 41071071, 41001063]
  2. Chinese Academy of Sciences [KZCX2-YW-Q1-05-04]
  3. Development Program in Basic Science of China [2010CB833501]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Old-growth forests are primarily found in mountain ranges that are less favorable or accessible for land use. Consequently, there are fewer scientific studies on old-growth forests. The eddy covariance method has been widely used as an alternative approach to studying an ecosystem's carbon balance, but only a few eddy flux sites are located in old-growth forest This fact will hinder our ability to test hypotheses such as whether or not old-growth forests are carbon neutral. The eddy covariance approach was used to examine the carbon balance of a 300-year-old subtropical evergreen broadleaved forest that is located in the center of the largest subtropical land area in the world. The post-QA/QC (quality assurance and control) eddy covariance based NEP was similar to 9 tC ha(-1) yr(-1), which suggested that this forest acts as a large carbon sink. The inventory data within the footprint of the eddy flux show that similar to 6 tC ha(-1) yr(-1) was contributed by biomass and necromass. The large-and-old trees sequestered carbon. Approximately 60% of the biomass increment is contributed by the growth of large trees (DBH > 60 cm). The high-altitude-induced low temperature and the high diffusion-irradiation ratio caused by cloudiness were suggested as two reasons for the large carbon sink in the forest we studied. To analyze the complex structure and terrain of this old-growth forest, this study suggested that biometric measurements carried out simultaneously with eddy flux measurements were necessary. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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