Annals of Forest Science

, 75:87 | Cite as

Similar carbon density of natural and planted forests in the Lüliang Mountains, China

  • Yan Wang
  • Qi-Xiang Wang
  • Meng-Ben Wang
Research Paper


Key message

The carbon density was not different between natural and planted forests, while the biomass carbon density was greater in natural forests than in planted forests. The difference is due primarily to the larger carbon density in the standing trees in natural forests compared to planted forests (at an average age of 50.6 and 15.7 years, respectively).


Afforestation and reforestation programs might have noticeable effect on carbon stock. An integrated assessment of the forest carbon density in mountain regions is vital to evaluate the contribution of planted forests to carbon sequestration.


We compared the carbon densities and carbon stocks between natural and planted forests in the Lüliang Mountains region where large-scale afforestation and reforestation programs have been implemented. The introduced peashrubs (Caragana spp.), poplars (Populus spp.), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), and native Chinese pine (Pinus tabulaeformis) were the four most common species in planted forests. In contrast, the deciduous oaks (Quercus spp.), Asia white birch (Betula platyphylla), wild poplar (Populus davidiana), and Chinese pine (Pinus tabulaeformis) dominated in natural forests.


Based on the forest inventory data of 3768 sample plots, we estimated the values of carbon densities and carbon stocks of natural and planted forests, and analyzed the spatial patterns of carbon densities and the effects of various factors on carbon densities using semivariogram analysis and nested analysis of variance (nested ANOVA), respectively.


The carbon density was 123.7 and 119.7 Mg ha−1 for natural and planted forests respectively. Natural and planted forests accounted for 54.8% and 45.2% of the total carbon stock over the whole region, respectively. The biomass carbon density (the above- and belowground biomass plus dead wood and litter biomass carbon density) was greater in natural forests than in planted forests (22.5 versus 13.2 Mg ha−1). The higher (lower) spatial carbon density variability of natural (planted) forests was featured with a much smaller (larger) range value of 32.7 km (102.0 km) within which a strong (moderate) spatial autocorrelation could be observed. Stand age, stand density, annual mean temperature, and annual precipitation had statistically significant effects on the carbon density of all forests in the region.


No significant difference was detected in the carbon densities between natural and planted forests, and planted forests have made a substantial contribution to the total carbon stock of the region due to the implementation of large-scale afforestation and reforestation programs. The spatial patterns of carbon densities were clearly different between natural and planted forests. Stand age, stand density, temperature, and precipitation were important factors influencing forest carbon density over the mountain region.


Forest Afforestation Spatial pattern Mountainous terrain National forest inventory 



We thank Dr. Roger Gifford (CSIRO) for the useful comments on the manuscript. We thank Dr. Minggang Zhang for the useful comments on the initial draft of the manuscript.


The work was supported by the Forest Carbon Storage and its Dynamic Research Project in Shanxi Province (No. 2014091003-0106).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Akers MK, Kane M, Zhao D, Teskey RO, Daniels RF (2013) Effects of planting density and cultural intensity on stand and crown attributes of mid-rotation loblolly pine plantations. For Ecol Manag 310:468–475. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bradford JB, Jensen NR, Domke GM, D’Amato AW (2013) Potential increases in natural disturbance rates could offset forest management impacts on ecosystem carbon stocks. For Ecol Manag 308:178–187. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cambardella CA, Moorman TB, Novak JM, Parkin TB, Karlen D, Turco RF, Konopka AE (1994) Field-scale variability of soil properties in Central Iowa soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 58:1501–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen LC, Liang MJ, Wang SL (2016) Carbon stock density in planted versus natural Pinus massoniana forests in sub-tropical China. Ann For Sci 73:461–472. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dai Z, Johnson KD, Birdsey RA, Hernandez-Stefanoni JL, Dupuy JM (2015) Assessing the effect of climate change on carbon sequestration in a Mexican dry forest in the Yucatan Peninsula. Ecol Complex 24:46–56. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dixon RK, Brown S, Houghton RA, Solomon AM, Trexler MC, Wisniewski J (1994) Carbon pools and flux of global forest ecosystem. Science 263:185–190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. FAO (2010) Global forest resources assessment 2010. Rome (available at
  8. FAO (2015) Global forest resources assessment 2015. Rome (available at
  9. Fitriani R, Sumarminingsih E (2014) The dynamic of spatial extent of land use in the fringe of Jakarta metropolitan: a semivariogram analysis. APCBEE Procedia 10:198–202. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gavrikov VL, Sharafutdinov RA, Knorre AA, Pakharkova NV, Shabalina OM, Bezkorovaynaya IN, Borisova IV, Erunova MG, Khlebopros RG (2015) How much carbon can the Siberian boreal taiga store: a case study of partitioning among the above-ground and soil pools. J For Res 27:907–912. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guan JH, Zhou HS, Deng L, Zhang JG, Du S (2015) Forest biomass carbon storage from multiple inventories over the past 30 years in Gansu Province, China: implications from the age structure of major forest types. J For Res 26:887–896. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guo Q, Ren H (2014) Productivity as related to diversity and age in planted versus natural forests. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 23:1461–1471. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Laganière J, Cavard X, Brassard BW, Paré D, Bergeron Y, Chen HYH (2015) The influence of boreal tree species mixtures on ecosystem carbon storage and fluxes. For Ecol Manag 354:119–129. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lamsal S, Cobb RC, Hall Cushman J, Meng Q, Rizzo DM, Meentemeyer RK (2011) Spatial estimation of the density and carbon content of host populations for phytophthora ramorum in California and Oregon. For Ecol Manag 262:989–998. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Li Q, Guo FZ (2010) Forestry ecological construction in Shanxi ecological fragile region. China Forestry Publishing House, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  16. Li HK, Lei YC (2010) Estimation and evaluation of forest biomass carbon storage in China. China Forestry Publishing House, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  17. Li TJ, Liu GB (2014) Age-related changes of carbon accumulation and allocation in plants and soil of black locust forest on Loess Plateau in Ansai County, Shaanxi Province of China. Chin Geogr Sci 24:414–422. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li J, You SC, Huang JF (2006) Spatial interpolation method and spatial distribution characteristics of monthly mean temperature in China during 1961-2000. Ecol Environ 15:109–114Google Scholar
  19. Liao CZ, Luo YQ, Fang CM, Li B (2010) Ecosystem carbon stock influenced by plantation practice: implications for planting forests as a measure of climate change mitigation. PLoS One 5:e10867. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Liu SR, Wang H, Luan JW (2011) A review of research progress and future prospective of forest soil carbon stock and soil carbon process in China. Acta Ecol Sin 31:5437–5448Google Scholar
  21. Pan YD, Birdsey RA, Fang JY, Houghton R, Kauppi PE, Kurz WA, Phillips OL, Shvidenko A, Lewis SL, Canadell JG, Ciais P, Jackson RB, Pacala SW, McGuire AD, Piao SL, Rautiainen A, Sitch S, Hayes D (2011) A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333:988–993. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Perez-Quezada JF, Delpiano CA, Snyder KA, Johnson DA, Franck N (2011) Carbon pools in an arid shrubland in Chile under natural and afforested conditions. J Arid Environ 75:29–37. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Piao SL, Fang JY, Ciais P, Peylin P, Huang Y, Sitch S, Wang T (2009) The carbon balance of terrestrial ecosystems in China. Nature 458:1009–1013. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Plouffe CCF, Robertson C, Chandrapala L (2015) Comparing interpolation techniques for monthly rainfall mapping using multiple evaluation criteria and auxiliary data sources: a case study of Sri Lanka. Environ Model Softw 67:57–71. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pregitzer KS, Euskirchen ES (2004) Carbon cycling and storage in world forests: biome patterns related to forest age. Glob Chang Biol 10:2052–2077. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ren GP, Young SS, Wang L, Wang W, Long YC, Wu RD, Li JS, Zhu J, Yu DW (2015) Effectiveness of China's national forest protection program and nature reserves. Conserv Biol 29:1368–1377. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Robertson GP (1987) Geostatistics in ecology: interpolating with known variance. Ecology 68:744–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rossi RE, Mulla DJ, Journel AG, Franz EH (1992) Geostatistical tools for modeling and interpreting ecological spatial dependence. Ecol Monogr 62:277–314. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Selim HM, Newman A, Zhang L, Arceneaux A, Tubaña B, Gaston LA (2016) Distributions of organic carbon and related parameters in a Louisiana sugarcane soil. Soil Tillage Res 155:401–411. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stegen JC, Swenson NG, Enquist BJ, White EP, Phillips OL, Jorgensen PM, Weiser MD, Mendoza AM, Vargas PN (2011) Variation in above-ground forest biomass across broad climatic gradients. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 20:744–754. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tian GQ (2010) Forest site classification and afforestation model in Shanxi. China Forestry Publishing House, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  32. Tomppo E, Gschwantner T, Lawrence M, McRoberts RE (2010) National forest inventory. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vieilledent G, Gardi O, Grinand C, Burren C, Andriamanjato M, Camara C, Gardner CJ, Glass L, Rasolohery A, Rakoto Ratsimba HR (2016) Bioclimatic envelope models predict a decrease in tropical forest carbon stocks with climate change in Madagascar. J Ecol 104:703–715. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wang ZQ (1999) Statistics and its application in ecology. Science and Technology Publishing House, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  35. Wang GX, Liu XQ, Qiao J (1984) Shanxi forest. China Forestry Publishing House, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  36. Wang SQ, Zhou CH, Li KR, Zhu SL, Huang FH (2001) Estimation of soil organic carbon reservoir in China. J Geogr Sci 11:3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang QX, Fan XH, Wang MB (2014) Recent warming amplification over high elevation regions across the globe. Clim Dyn 43:87–101. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang Y, Wang QX, and Wang MB (2018) Basic parameters for estimating the volume, biomass and carbon density of the main dominant tree species (species groups) in the Lüliang Mountains, China.
  39. Wani AA, Joshi PK, Singh O (2015) Estimating biomass and carbon mitigation of temperate coniferous forests using spectral modeling and field inventory data. Ecological Informatics 25:63–70. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wen D, He NP (2016) Forest carbon storage along the north-south transect of eastern China: spatial patterns, allocation, and influencing factors. Ecol Indic 61:960–967. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Winjum JK, Schroeder PE (1997) Forest plantations of the world: their extent, ecological attributes and carbon storage. Agric For Meteorol 84:153–167. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Xiao XW (2005) National forest inventory of China. China Forestry Publishing House, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  43. Xu GC, Lu KX, Li ZB, Li P, Wang T, Yang YY (2015) Impact of soil and water conservation on soil organic carbon content in a catchment of the middle Han River, China. Environ Earth Sci 74:6503–6510. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yu YX, Zhang JJ, Wang MB (2008) Study on changes in forest biomass carbon storage in Shanxi Province. Forest Resources Management (6):35–39 (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  45. Zald HSJ, Spies TA, Seidl R, Pabst RJ, Olsen KA, Steel EA (2016) Complex mountain terrain and disturbance history drive variation in forest aboveground live carbon density in the western Oregon Cascades, USA. For Ecol Manag 366:193–207. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhang XP, Wang MB, Liang XM (2008) Quantitative classification and carbon density of the forest vegetation in Lüliang Mountains of China. Plant Ecol 201:1–9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Loess PlateauShanxi UniversityTaiyuanChina
  2. 2.School of Environmental and Resource SciencesShanxi UniversityTaiyuanChina

Personalised recommendations