4.6 Article

Managing Carbon Sinks in Rubber (Hevea brasilensis) Plantation by Changing Rotation length in SW China

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115234

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41271056, U1202234, 31290221]
  2. Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDA05020303, XDA05050601, XDA05050206]
  3. CAS 135 program [XTBG-T03]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Extension of the rotation length in forest management has been highlighted in Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol to help the countries in their commitments for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. CO2FIX Model Ver.3.2 was used to examine the dynamics of carbon stocks (C stocks) in a rubber plantation in South Western China with the changing rotation lengths. To estimate the efficiency of increasing the rotation length as an Article 3.4 activity, study predicted that the rubber production and C stocks of the ecosystem increased with the increasing rotation (25, 30, 35, 40 and 45 years). While comparing the pace of growth both in economical (rubber production) and ecological (C stocks) terms in each rotation, 40 years rotation length showed maximum production and C stocks. After elongation of 40 year rotation to four consecutive cycles, it was concluded that the total C stocks of the ecosystem were 186.65 Mg ha(-1). The longer rotation lengths showed comparatively increased C stocks in below ground C stock after consecutive four rotations. The pace of C input (Mg C ha(-1)yr(-1)) and rubber production indicated that 40years rotation is best suited for rubber plantation. The study has developed carbon mitigation based on four rotation scenarios. The possible stimulated increase in C stocks of the entire ecosystem after consecutive long rotations indicated that the emphasis must be paid on deciding the rotation of rubber plantation in SW China for reporting under article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据