4.7 Article

The Effect of Harvest on Forest Soil Carbon: A Meta-Analysis

期刊

FORESTS
卷 7, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/f7120308

关键词

forest management; harvest; soil carbon; soil order; deep soil; meta-analysis

类别

资金

  1. University of Washington Stand Management Cooperative
  2. US Department of Agriculture McIntire-Stennis Grant
  3. Div Of Industrial Innovation & Partnersh
  4. Directorate For Engineering [1439653] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Forest soils represent a substantial portion of the terrestrial carbon (C) pool, and changes to soil C cycling are globally significant not only for C sequestration but also for sustaining forest productivity and ecosystem services. To quantify the effect of harvesting on soil C, we used meta-analysis to examine a database of 945 responses to harvesting collected from 112 publications from around the world. Harvesting reduced soil C, on average, by 11.2% with 95% CI [14.1%, 8.5%]. There was substantial variation between responses in different soil depths, with greatest losses occurring in the O horizon (30.2%). Much smaller but still significant losses (3.3%) occurred in top soil C pools (0-15 cm depth). In very deep soil (60-100+ cm), a significant loss of 17.7% of soil C in was observed after harvest. However, only 21 of the 945 total responses examined this depth, indicating a substantial need for more research in this area. The response of soil C to harvesting varies substantially between soil orders, with greater losses in Spodosol and Ultisol orders and less substantial losses in Alfisols and Andisols. Soil C takes several decades to recover following harvest, with Spodosol and Ultisol C recovering only after at least 75 years. The publications in this analysis were highly skewed toward surface sampling, with a maximum sampling depth of 36 cm, on average. Sampling deep soil represents one of the best opportunities to reduce uncertainty in the understanding of the response of soil C to forest harvest.

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