杉木和挪威云杉在林木和林分水平上的生物量分配和碳储量

IF 1.4 Q2 FORESTRY
T. Čihák, M. Vejpustková
{"title":"杉木和挪威云杉在林木和林分水平上的生物量分配和碳储量","authors":"T. Čihák, M. Vejpustková","doi":"10.2478/forj-2022-0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The effect of changing tree species composition in favor of a greater representation of Douglas fir at the expense of Norway spruce on the carbon pool of Central European forests has not yet been investigated. Here, we compare the allocation of aboveground biomass and carbon stock in Douglas fir and spruce at the tree and stand level. At the tree level, Douglas fir accumulated, on average, 16.9% more aboveground biomass than Norway spruce. A greater amount of biomass was allocated mainly in the wood and bark of Douglas fir stem. For these biomass compartments, the difference between Douglas fir and Norway spruce was 21.1% and 60.3%, respectively. Spruce allocated more biomass in the crown, where the difference was 25.6% compared to Douglas fir. In needle biomass, Norway spruce exceeded Douglas fir by 84%. At the stand level, the analysis of model stands revealed that pure Norway spruce stands accumulated more carbon in the high and medium quality sites. As the site quality decreased, so did the differences in the amount of stored carbon. The higher carbon sink in Norway spruce stands was also confirmed in the analysis of real Norway spruce and Douglas fir stands. The difference in the carbon stock of young, medium-aged, and mature stands was 11.5%, 14.8%, and 1%, respectively. The positive balance in favor of spruce is mainly due to significantly higher numbers of trees per ha in Norway spruce stands. A positive effect of a greater representation of Douglas fir on the carbon budget of forest stands was not confirmed.","PeriodicalId":45042,"journal":{"name":"Central European Forestry Journal","volume":"68 1","pages":"163 - 173"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Biomass allocation and carbon stock in Douglas fir and Norway spruce at the tree and stand level\",\"authors\":\"T. Čihák, M. Vejpustková\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/forj-2022-0005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The effect of changing tree species composition in favor of a greater representation of Douglas fir at the expense of Norway spruce on the carbon pool of Central European forests has not yet been investigated. Here, we compare the allocation of aboveground biomass and carbon stock in Douglas fir and spruce at the tree and stand level. At the tree level, Douglas fir accumulated, on average, 16.9% more aboveground biomass than Norway spruce. A greater amount of biomass was allocated mainly in the wood and bark of Douglas fir stem. For these biomass compartments, the difference between Douglas fir and Norway spruce was 21.1% and 60.3%, respectively. Spruce allocated more biomass in the crown, where the difference was 25.6% compared to Douglas fir. In needle biomass, Norway spruce exceeded Douglas fir by 84%. At the stand level, the analysis of model stands revealed that pure Norway spruce stands accumulated more carbon in the high and medium quality sites. As the site quality decreased, so did the differences in the amount of stored carbon. The higher carbon sink in Norway spruce stands was also confirmed in the analysis of real Norway spruce and Douglas fir stands. The difference in the carbon stock of young, medium-aged, and mature stands was 11.5%, 14.8%, and 1%, respectively. The positive balance in favor of spruce is mainly due to significantly higher numbers of trees per ha in Norway spruce stands. A positive effect of a greater representation of Douglas fir on the carbon budget of forest stands was not confirmed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45042,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Central European Forestry Journal\",\"volume\":\"68 1\",\"pages\":\"163 - 173\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Central European Forestry Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/forj-2022-0005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"FORESTRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European Forestry Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/forj-2022-0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"FORESTRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要以牺牲挪威云杉为代价,改变树种组成以增加花旗松的代表性对中欧森林碳库的影响尚未得到研究。在这里,我们比较了花旗松和云杉在树木和林分水平上的地上生物量和碳储量的分配。在树木水平上,花旗松的地上生物量平均比挪威云杉多16.9%。大量的生物量主要分配在花旗松树干的木材和树皮中。对于这些生物量区室,花旗松和挪威云杉之间的差异分别为21.1%和60.3%。云杉在树冠中分配了更多的生物量,与花旗松相比,差异为25.6%。在针叶生物量方面,挪威云杉超过花旗松84%。在林分层面,对模型林分的分析表明,纯挪威云杉林分在高质量和中等质量的林分中积累了更多的碳。随着场地质量的降低,储存碳量的差异也随之减少。对真实的挪威云杉和花旗松林分的分析也证实了挪威云杉林分的碳汇较高。幼龄、中龄和成熟林分的碳储量差异分别为11.5%、14.8%和1%。有利于云杉的正平衡主要是由于挪威云杉林每公顷的树木数量显著增加。花旗松的更多代表性对林分碳预算的积极影响尚未得到证实。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Biomass allocation and carbon stock in Douglas fir and Norway spruce at the tree and stand level
Abstract The effect of changing tree species composition in favor of a greater representation of Douglas fir at the expense of Norway spruce on the carbon pool of Central European forests has not yet been investigated. Here, we compare the allocation of aboveground biomass and carbon stock in Douglas fir and spruce at the tree and stand level. At the tree level, Douglas fir accumulated, on average, 16.9% more aboveground biomass than Norway spruce. A greater amount of biomass was allocated mainly in the wood and bark of Douglas fir stem. For these biomass compartments, the difference between Douglas fir and Norway spruce was 21.1% and 60.3%, respectively. Spruce allocated more biomass in the crown, where the difference was 25.6% compared to Douglas fir. In needle biomass, Norway spruce exceeded Douglas fir by 84%. At the stand level, the analysis of model stands revealed that pure Norway spruce stands accumulated more carbon in the high and medium quality sites. As the site quality decreased, so did the differences in the amount of stored carbon. The higher carbon sink in Norway spruce stands was also confirmed in the analysis of real Norway spruce and Douglas fir stands. The difference in the carbon stock of young, medium-aged, and mature stands was 11.5%, 14.8%, and 1%, respectively. The positive balance in favor of spruce is mainly due to significantly higher numbers of trees per ha in Norway spruce stands. A positive effect of a greater representation of Douglas fir on the carbon budget of forest stands was not confirmed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
23
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍: Central European Forestry Journal (published as Lesnícky Èasopis - Forestry Journal until 2016) publishes novel science originating from research in forestry and related braches. Central European Forestry Journal is a professional peer-reviewed scientific journal published 4-time a year. The journal contains original papers and review papers of basic and applied research from all fields of forestry and related disciplines. The editorial office accepts the manuscripts within the focus of the journal exclusively in English language. The journal does not have article processing charges (APCs) nor article submission charges. Central European Forestry Journal, abbreviation: Cent. Eur. For. J., publishes original papers and review papers of basic and applied research from all fields of forestry and related scientific areas. The journal focuses on forestry issues relevant for Europe, primarily Central European regions. Original works and review papers can be submitted only in English language.
×
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