4.7 Article

Carbon and nitrogen storage in an age-sequence of Pinus densiflora stands in Korea

期刊

SCIENCE CHINA-LIFE SCIENCES
卷 53, 期 7, 页码 822-830

出版社

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1007/s11427-010-4018-0

关键词

age-sequence; allometric equation; biomass; carbon; nitrogen; Pinus densiflora; stand age

类别

资金

  1. Korea Forest Research Institute [S110708L0101111W]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [R01-2006-000-10863-0, A307-K001]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [R01-2006-000-10863-0] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) storage capabilities of Pinus densiflora in six different stand ages (10, 27, 30, 32, 44, and 71 years old) were investigated in Korea. Thirty sample trees were destructively harvested and 12 were excavated. Samples from the above and belowground tree components, coarse woody debris (CWD), forest floor, and mineral soil (0-30 cm) were collected. Tree biomass was highest in the 71-year-old stand (202.8 t ha(-1)) and lowest in the 10-year-old stand (18.4 t ha(-1)). C and N storage in the mineral soil was higher in the 71-year-old stand than in the other stands, mainly due to higher soil C and N concentrations. Consequently, the total ecosystem C and N storage (tree+forest floor+CWD+soil) was positively correlated with stand age: increasing from a minimum in the 10 year old stand (18.8 t C ha(-1) and 1.3 t N ha(-1)) to a maximum in the 71-year-old stand (201.4 t C ha(-1) and 8.5 t N ha(-1)). The total ecosystem C storage showed a similar sigmoidal pattern to that of tree C storage as a function of the age-sequence, while N storage in the CWD, forest floor and mineral soil showed no significant temporal trends. Our results provide important insights that will increase our understanding of C and N storage in P. densiflora stands and our ability to predict changes according to stand age in the region.

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

4.7
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