4.7 Article

Forest type affects the capacity of Amazonian tree species to store carbon as woody biomass

期刊

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
卷 473, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118297

关键词

Biomass; Wood specific gravity; Floodplain forest; Wood density; Terra firme forest; Amazon; Phytomass

类别

资金

  1. Norwegian University of Life Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For tropical tree species, wood density can vary greatly both within and between species depending on environmental conditions. In Amazonian seasonally flooded forests, yearly flood pulses influence tree growth and floodplain trees have developed specialised strategies to cope with prolonged submersion during flooding. We therefore hypothesised that seasonal floods significantly affect the capacity of trees to store carbon as woody biomass per unit volume and that forest hydrology would be an important factor in determining above-ground woody biomass and carbon stocks across the Amazon Basin. To test these hypotheses, we collected and analysed wood cores from 44 species occurring in both seasonally flooded (varzea) forests and adjacent unflooded (terra firme) forests along the Jurua River, western Brazilian Amazon. We used wood specific gravity (WSG) as a proxy of woody biomass and carbon. We compared WSG values within species, genera and families and found higher WSG in unflooded forest trees compared to their conspecifics in seasonally flooded varzea. Moreover, the effect of forest type on WSG was strongest at the family level and weakest at the species level. We further assessed the implications of WSG accuracy on above-ground woody tree biomass and found significant differences in AGWB as a function of WSG. Again, the differences became greater with lower taxonomic specificity, but also increased with lower site-specificity and greater tree dimensions. In conclusion, habitat specific WSG is important to quantify and map the spatial distribution of above-ground woody biomass and carbon in Amazonian forests.

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