Assessment of Soil Carbon Stock and Soil Quality in Different Forest Stands and Management Regimes in Terai Region of Nepal.

IF 2.3 Q2 BIOLOGY
Scientifica Pub Date : 2024-11-15 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2024/1739115
Durga Kandel, Sachin Timilsina, Santosh Ayer, Saroj Kumar Chaudhary, Jeetendra Gautam, Rabindra Adhikari, Kishor Prasad Bhatta
{"title":"Assessment of Soil Carbon Stock and Soil Quality in Different Forest Stands and Management Regimes in Terai Region of Nepal.","authors":"Durga Kandel, Sachin Timilsina, Santosh Ayer, Saroj Kumar Chaudhary, Jeetendra Gautam, Rabindra Adhikari, Kishor Prasad Bhatta","doi":"10.1155/2024/1739115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Assessment of soil organic carbon (SOC) stock and soil quality for informed forest management is hindered by inadequate data across different forest stand types and management regimes. Therefore, this study was conducted to assess SOC stock and soil quality in two forest stand types, i.e., <i>Shorea robusta</i> (Sal) forest and Terai mixed hardwood (TMH) forest, and selected forest management regimes (leasehold forest, community forest, government-managed forest, and forest area under protected area) in Terai region of Nepal. Stratified random sampling method was adopted for soil sample collection across terai region following Forest Resource Assessment, Nepal. Altogether, 62 composite soil samples from 30 cm depth were taken from the entire Terai region which included these two forest stand types and four management regimes. Different physical (soil texture and bulk density) and chemical (pH, SOC (%), total nitrogen, available phosphorus, and available potassium) properties were analyzed to calculate SOC stock and soil quality. Our result found no significant differences in SOC stock among two forest stand types (<i>p</i> > 0.05). Unexpectedly, leasehold forest had significantly (<i>p</i> < 0.05) higher SOC stock than other forest management regimes. In terms of soil quality, among two forest stand types, Sal forest (0.50) was found to be superior compared with TMH forest (0.46). Similarly, community forest had superior soil quality (0.50) than government-managed forest (0.47), protected area (0.47), and leasehold forest (0.45). A longitudinal study approach is recommended to observe changes in soil properties over time due to climate change and human activities, offering valuable insights into their dynamics.</p>","PeriodicalId":21726,"journal":{"name":"Scientifica","volume":"2024 ","pages":"1739115"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11584259/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientifica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/1739115","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Assessment of soil organic carbon (SOC) stock and soil quality for informed forest management is hindered by inadequate data across different forest stand types and management regimes. Therefore, this study was conducted to assess SOC stock and soil quality in two forest stand types, i.e., Shorea robusta (Sal) forest and Terai mixed hardwood (TMH) forest, and selected forest management regimes (leasehold forest, community forest, government-managed forest, and forest area under protected area) in Terai region of Nepal. Stratified random sampling method was adopted for soil sample collection across terai region following Forest Resource Assessment, Nepal. Altogether, 62 composite soil samples from 30 cm depth were taken from the entire Terai region which included these two forest stand types and four management regimes. Different physical (soil texture and bulk density) and chemical (pH, SOC (%), total nitrogen, available phosphorus, and available potassium) properties were analyzed to calculate SOC stock and soil quality. Our result found no significant differences in SOC stock among two forest stand types (p > 0.05). Unexpectedly, leasehold forest had significantly (p < 0.05) higher SOC stock than other forest management regimes. In terms of soil quality, among two forest stand types, Sal forest (0.50) was found to be superior compared with TMH forest (0.46). Similarly, community forest had superior soil quality (0.50) than government-managed forest (0.47), protected area (0.47), and leasehold forest (0.45). A longitudinal study approach is recommended to observe changes in soil properties over time due to climate change and human activities, offering valuable insights into their dynamics.

评估尼泊尔特莱地区不同林分和管理制度下的土壤碳储量和土壤质量。
由于不同林分类型和管理制度的数据不足,评估土壤有机碳(SOC)储量和土壤质量以促进森林管理的工作受到阻碍。因此,本研究评估了尼泊尔特莱地区两种林分类型(娑罗双树(Sal)林和特莱混合硬木(TMH)林)和选定森林管理制度(租赁林、社区林、政府管理林和保护区林区)的土壤有机碳储量和土壤质量。根据尼泊尔森林资源评估结果,采用分层随机抽样法在整个特莱地区收集土壤样本。在整个特莱地区共采集了 62 个 30 厘米深的复合土壤样本,其中包括两种林分类型和四种管理制度。分析了不同的物理(土壤质地和容重)和化学(pH 值、SOC(%)、全氮、可利用磷和可利用钾)属性,以计算 SOC 储量和土壤质量。结果发现,两种林分类型的 SOC 储量没有明显差异(p > 0.05)。意外的是,租赁林的 SOC 储量明显高于其他森林管理制度(p < 0.05)。在土壤质量方面,在两种林分类型中,萨尔林(0.50)优于屯垦林(0.46)。同样,社区森林的土壤质量(0.50)也优于政府管理的森林(0.47)、保护区森林(0.47)和租赁森林(0.45)。建议采用纵向研究方法,观察气候变化和人类活动导致的土壤性质随时间的变化,为了解其动态变化提供有价值的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Scientifica
Scientifica BIOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
43
审稿时长
21 weeks
期刊介绍: Scientifica is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that publishes research articles, review articles, and clinical studies covering a wide range of subjects in the life sciences, environmental sciences, health sciences, and medicine. The journal is divided into the 65 subject areas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信