尼泊尔中山不同农林业方式的物种组成和碳储量

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
D. Paudel, K. R. Tiwari, N. Raut, R. M. Bajracharya, Suman Bhattarai, B. H. Wagle, B. Sitaula, S. Thapa
{"title":"尼泊尔中山不同农林业方式的物种组成和碳储量","authors":"D. Paudel, K. R. Tiwari, N. Raut, R. M. Bajracharya, Suman Bhattarai, B. H. Wagle, B. Sitaula, S. Thapa","doi":"10.1080/10549811.2022.2123350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Farmers are adopting different agroforestry practices, but comparative studies between the practices based on ecosystem functions are often ignored. We assessed species composition and carbon stock in two different agroforestry practices (traditional and improved) adopted in the mid-hills of Nepal. We found higher species richness and dominancy of Citrus synenssis (fruit species) in the improved practice, whereas we found higher species evenness, diversity, and dominance of Ficus clavata (fodder species) in the traditional practice. 0.35 of the similarity index between the two practices indicated that there was 65% difference in species number between the two practices. The improved practice had larger trees with higher frequency compared to traditional practice. The carbon inventory reflected that the total carbon stock between the two practices was insignificant, whereas the total biomass carbon was significantly higher in the improved practice than in the traditional practice. Therefore, improvement in traditional practices has the potential to increase biomass and sequester more carbon within the same unit of land. However, maintaining species diversity is a concern in the improved practice. We suggest policymakers and concerned stakeholders for prioritizing improved agroforestry practice and maintain species diversity while designing strategies for agroforestry promotion and climate change mitigation.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Species Composition and Carbon Stock in Different Agroforestry Practices in the mid-hills of Nepal\",\"authors\":\"D. Paudel, K. R. Tiwari, N. Raut, R. M. Bajracharya, Suman Bhattarai, B. H. Wagle, B. Sitaula, S. Thapa\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10549811.2022.2123350\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Farmers are adopting different agroforestry practices, but comparative studies between the practices based on ecosystem functions are often ignored. We assessed species composition and carbon stock in two different agroforestry practices (traditional and improved) adopted in the mid-hills of Nepal. We found higher species richness and dominancy of Citrus synenssis (fruit species) in the improved practice, whereas we found higher species evenness, diversity, and dominance of Ficus clavata (fodder species) in the traditional practice. 0.35 of the similarity index between the two practices indicated that there was 65% difference in species number between the two practices. The improved practice had larger trees with higher frequency compared to traditional practice. The carbon inventory reflected that the total carbon stock between the two practices was insignificant, whereas the total biomass carbon was significantly higher in the improved practice than in the traditional practice. Therefore, improvement in traditional practices has the potential to increase biomass and sequester more carbon within the same unit of land. However, maintaining species diversity is a concern in the improved practice. We suggest policymakers and concerned stakeholders for prioritizing improved agroforestry practice and maintain species diversity while designing strategies for agroforestry promotion and climate change mitigation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2022.2123350\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2022.2123350","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

农民正在采用不同的农林业实践,但基于生态系统功能的实践之间的比较研究往往被忽视。我们评估了尼泊尔中部山区采用的两种不同农林业实践(传统和改进)的物种组成和碳储量。结果表明,改良栽培方式中柑橘属(Citrus synensis)的物种丰富度和优势度较高,而传统栽培方式中无花果属(Ficus clavata)的物种均匀度、多样性和优势度较高。相似指数为0.35,表明两种做法之间的物种数量差异为65%。与传统做法相比,改进的做法有更大的树木和更高的频率。碳储量反映了两种做法之间的总碳储量差异不显著,而改进做法的总生物量碳显著高于传统做法。因此,改进传统做法有可能增加生物量,并在同一单位土地内吸收更多的碳。然而,在改进的做法中,保持物种多样性是一个值得关注的问题。我们建议决策者和相关利益相关者在制定促进农林业和减缓气候变化战略的同时,优先考虑改进农林业实践并保持物种多样性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Species Composition and Carbon Stock in Different Agroforestry Practices in the mid-hills of Nepal
ABSTRACT Farmers are adopting different agroforestry practices, but comparative studies between the practices based on ecosystem functions are often ignored. We assessed species composition and carbon stock in two different agroforestry practices (traditional and improved) adopted in the mid-hills of Nepal. We found higher species richness and dominancy of Citrus synenssis (fruit species) in the improved practice, whereas we found higher species evenness, diversity, and dominance of Ficus clavata (fodder species) in the traditional practice. 0.35 of the similarity index between the two practices indicated that there was 65% difference in species number between the two practices. The improved practice had larger trees with higher frequency compared to traditional practice. The carbon inventory reflected that the total carbon stock between the two practices was insignificant, whereas the total biomass carbon was significantly higher in the improved practice than in the traditional practice. Therefore, improvement in traditional practices has the potential to increase biomass and sequester more carbon within the same unit of land. However, maintaining species diversity is a concern in the improved practice. We suggest policymakers and concerned stakeholders for prioritizing improved agroforestry practice and maintain species diversity while designing strategies for agroforestry promotion and climate change mitigation.
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
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
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