4.7 Article

Carbon sequestration in willow (Salix spp.) plantations on former arable land estimated by repeated field sampling and C budget calculation

期刊

BIOMASS & BIOENERGY
卷 83, 期 -, 页码 483-492

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.10.009

关键词

Afforestation; Carbon sequestration; Litter decomposition; Land use change; Soil organic carbon; Weeds

资金

  1. Swedish Energy Agency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Short rotation coppice (SRC) plantations are of interest as producers of biomass for fuel, but also as carbon (C) sinks to mitigate CO2 emissions. Carbon sequestration in biomass and soil was estimated in 5-year-old replicated SRC plantations with willows (Salix spp.) on former arable land at five sites in Sweden. Total standing C stocks, i.e. C stored in woody biomass above- and belowground, fine root standing crop, litter, and soil organic carbon (SOC) were estimated by repeated field sampling and C budget calculation. Overall, the SRC willow plantations represented a C sink after five years. Estimated increase of total standing C stock was 15% on average compared to pre-planting conditions. There was no change in SOC when including all sites. Analyses within sites revealed a decrease in SOC at one site, although the decrease was compensated for by C stored in willow biomass. After removal of stem biomass, C in other plant pools was sufficient to compensate for the SOC decrease. Remaining C in stumps, stool, and coarse roots was estimated at ca 20% of stem C. There was a discrepancy between SOC sequestration rates from soil sampling and C budget calculation, -2.1-1.0 and 0.15-0.45 Mg ha(-1) y(-1), respectively. Mineralization of old organic material from previous land-use and input to SOC from understory vegetation were not included in the calculations, which may explain part of the differences. The importance of understory litter in C budgets for young plantations was apparent, as it comprised 24-80% of aboveground litter C. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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