4.7 Article

Dynamics of coarse woody debris and decomposition rates in an old-growth forest in lower tropical China

Journal

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
Volume 259, Issue 8, Pages 1666-1672

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2010.01.046

Keywords

Coarse woody debris (CWD); Biomass; Dominant tree species; Decay rate constant; C content; Nutrient content; Southern China

Categories

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation of China [40730102, 30725006]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, China [8351065005000001]
  3. Scientific Research Foundation for the Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars, State Education, People's Republic of China

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The biomass and decomposition of coarse woody debris (CWD, >= 10 cm in diameter) were studied in a monsoon evergreen broad-leaved old-growth forest in Dinghushan Nature Reserve, Southern China. The study examined the biomass of CWD from 1992 to 2008 and decomposition of three dominant tree species CWD (Castanopsis chinensis, Cryptocarya concinna, Schima superba) from 1999 to 2008. Changes in the wood density of three tree species' CWD were used to estimate the decay rates with a single exponential model. The results showed that the biomass of CWD in the old-growth forest was increasing from 17.41 tonnes ha(-1) (t ha(-1)) in 1992 to 38.54 t ha(-1) in 2008, and a higher decay constant was observed for C. concinna (0.1570 - 19 years for 95% mass loss); the decay rates of S. superba and C. chinensis were 0.1486 (20 years for 95% mass loss) and 0.1095 (27 years for 95% mass loss), respectively. The difference in decay constant rates may be due to their substrate quality and decomposers. The content of carbon (C) in three species declined after 9 years of decay. Nitrogen (N) content increased in all species with decay. The C/N ratio in the three species declined during the decay process. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. 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