4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Forest soils and carbon sequestration

期刊

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
卷 220, 期 1-3, 页码 242-258

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2005.08.015

关键词

soil organic carbon; sequestration; carbon cycle; climate change; forest ecosystems

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Soils in equilibrium with a natural forest ecosystem have high carbon (C) density. The ratio of soil:vegetation C density increases with latitude. Land use change, particularly conversion to agricultural ecosystems, depletes the soil C stock. Thus, degraded agricultural soils have lower soil organic carbon (SOC) stock than their potential capacity. Consequently, afforestation of agricultural soils and management of forest plantations can enhance SOC stock through C sequestration. The rate of SOC sequestration, and the magnitude and quality of soil C stock depend on the complex interaction between climate, soils, tree species and management, and chemical composition of the litter as determined by the dominant tree species. Increasing production of forest biomass per se may not necessarily increase the SOC stocks. Fire, natural or managed, is an important perturbation that can affect soil C stock for a long period after the event. The soil C stock can be greatly enhanced by a careful site preparation, adequate soil drainage, growing species with a high NPP, applying N and micronutrients (Fe) as fertilizers or biosolids, and conserving soil and water resources. Climate change may also stimulate forest growth by enhancing availability of mineral N and through the CO2 fertilization effect, which may partly compensate release of soil C in response to warming. There are significant advances in measurement of soil C stock and fluxes, and scaling of C stock from pedon/plot scale to regional and national scales. Soil C sequestration in boreal and temperate forests may be an important strategy to ameliorate changes in atmospheric chemistry. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. 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