4.7 Article

Wood density of trees in open savannas of the Brazilian Amazon

期刊

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
卷 199, 期 1, 页码 115-123

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2004.05.035

关键词

Amazonia; cerrado; roraima; savanna; wood density

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies on basic density of woody species in Amazonian savannas are needed to convert data on woody volume to biomass. These ecosystems, which have large carbon stocks, emit greenhouse gases annually due to frequent burnings. Basic density (g cm(-3): oven-dry weight/wet volume), measured from complete sample disks (bark, sarwood and heartwood), was calculated for the most abundant woody species in three types of open savannas (Sg: grassy-woody savanna; Sp: savanna parkland; Tp: steppe-like parkland) in Roraima, a state in the northern part of Brazil's Amazon region. The species selected represent 90-95% of the woody biomass estimated in these ecosystem types. Seven additional species were lumped in an others group. In total, we sampled 107 trees: 40 in Sg, 37 in Sp and 30 in Tp. Bowdichia virgilioides (0.516 +/- 0.021 (S.E.) g cm(-3)) was the species with the highest basic density, followed by the others group (0.485 +/- 0.057 g cm(-3)), Curatella americana (0.413 +/- 0.028 g cm(-3)), Byrsonima crassifolia + B. coccolobifolia (0.394 +/- 0.019 g cm(-3)), Himatanthus articulatus (0.375 +/- 0.020 - cm(-3)) and B. verbascifolia (0.332 +/- 0.020(-3)). Basic density of the species with the greatest woody biomass in Roraima's open savannas (C americana and B. crassifolia + B. coccolobifolia) did not differ significantly at the 5% level (ANOVA) among the three ecosystem types studied. Wood basic density in these savannas (weighted mean = 0.404 +/- 0.025 cm(-3)) is lower than that in Amazonian forests (weighted mean = 0.680 g cm(-3)). These results reduce uncertainty in calculations of carbon stocks and of greenhouse gas emissions from clearing and burning tropical savanna. (C) 2004 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