Advertisement

Annals of Forest Science

, 76:70 | Cite as

Tissue-specific carbon concentration, carbon stock, and distribution in Cunninghamia lanceolata (Lamb.) Hook plantations at various developmental stages in subtropical China

  • Lili Zhou
  • Shubin Li
  • Bo Liu
  • Pengfei Wu
  • Kate V. Heal
  • Xiangqing MaEmail author
Research Paper

Abstract

Key message

Carbon (C) concentrations in Cunninghamia lanceolata (Lamb.) Hook plantations differed significantly among tissue types and were greater for aboveground than belowground tissues. Plantation C stock increased with a developmental stage from young to mature to overmature, but at all stages, the majority occurred as soil organic carbon (SOC) and was more influenced by belowground fine roots than by aboveground litterfall.

Context

Failing to account for tissue-specific variation in the C concentration can result in inaccurate forest C stock estimates.

Aims

We aimed to quantify the relative magnitudes of C stock for Chinese fir plantations at different developmental stages. Specifically, we focused on assessing tissue-specific C concentrations and C dynamics return of above- and belowground litterfall.

Methods

Carbon traits (C concentration, C flux, C stock, and distribution at tree and ecosystem scales) were quantified in a chronosequence of Chinese fir (Cunninghamia lanceolata (Lamb.) Hook) monoculture plantation stands at young (10), mature (22), and overmature (34 years old) developmental stages.

Results

Carbon concentrations differed significantly among tissue types, with mean values of 48.5 ± 0.1% and 42.5 ± 0.2% for above- and belowground biomass, respectively. The aboveground tissue C concentration, tree- and plantation-scale C stock, and SOC stock depended on developmental stage. Carbon return in litterfall, tree C stock, and SOC increased from the young to the overmature stage. SOC stock accounted for the majority of plantation C stock at all developmental stages (78.3, 59.6, and 55.7% in the young, mature, and overmature stages, respectively) and was more highly influenced by belowground fine roots than aboveground litterfall. Carbon stocks in Chinese fir plantations were 86, 129, and 153 t ha−2 at the young, mature, and overmature stages.

Conclusion

Prolonging Chinese fir rotation increases C sequestration potential and should be the focus of forest management strategies. The tissue-specific C concentrations provide detailed information for more accurate biomass C stock estimates for Chinese fir plantations and other subtropical coniferous forests. They indicate that current guidelines result in an overestimation of belowground biomass C stocks. Using the standard 0.47 biomass to C conversion factor, the belowground C stock would have been overestimated by 7.6–13.0% for the Chinese fir developmental stages investigated, while tree C stock would be underestimated by 0.08–3.24%. Therefore, developing species- and tissue-specific conversion factors are required for supporting C plantation and forest C accounting strategies.

Keywords

Aboveground and belowground carbon Chinese fir Conversion factor Litterfall Monoculture plantation Soil organic carbon 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Xinkou Experimental Forest Farm, Sanming, China, for the field assistance. We also thank Xinding Liu, Fengze Han, and Yayun Jia for the laboratory assistance and Sipan Wu and Baoying Chen for the data analysis. We appreciate Editage (http://online.editage.cn/) for the English language editing.

Funding

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 31800532), the National Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province (No. 2018J05059), the National key research and development plan (No. 2016YFD0600301), Forestry Science and Technology Project of Fujian Province (No. 16, 2019) and the Open project of Fujian Provincial Colleges and University Engineering Research Center of Plantation Sustainable Management (No. PSM-2017002).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Asaye Z, Zewdie S (2013) Fine root dynamics and soil carbon accretion under thinned and un-thinned Cupressus lusitanica stands in Southern Ethiopia. Plant Soil 366:261–271Google Scholar
  2. Bert D, Danjon F (2006) Carbon concentration variations in the roots, stem and crown of mature Pinus pinaster (Ait.). For Ecol Manag 222(1):79–295Google Scholar
  3. Castaño-Santamaría J, Bravo F (2012) Variation in carbon concentration and basic density along stems of sessile oak (Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.) and Pyrenean oak (Quercus pyrenaica Willd.) in the Cantabrian Range (NW Spain). Ann For Sci 69(6):663–672Google Scholar
  4. Chen GS, Yang ZJ, Gao R, X JS GJF, Huang ZQ, YS Y (2013) Carbon storage in a chronosequence of Chinese fir plantations in southern China. For Ecol Manag 300:68–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.07.046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dang XH, Liu GB, Zhao L, Zhao GC (2017) The response of carbon storage to the age of three forest plantations in the Loess Hilly Regions of China. Catena 59:106–114Google Scholar
  6. Department of Climate Change (2015) Enhanced actions on climate change: China’s intended nationally determined contribution. National development and Reform Commission, Beijing https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/China/1/China’s%20INDC%20-%20on%2030%20June%202015.pdf. Accessed 25 June 2019
  7. Elias M, Potvin C (2003) Assessing inter- and intra-specific variation in trunk carbon concentration for 32 neotropical tree species. Can J For Res 33:1039–1045Google Scholar
  8. Fang J, Gao Z, Hu H, Kato T, Muraoka H, Son Y (2014) Forest biomass carbon sinks in East Asia, with special reference to the relative contributions of forest expansion and forest growth. Glob Chang Biol 20:2019–2030.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12512 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hu YL, Zeng DH, Ma XQ, Chang SX (2016) Root rather than leaf litter input drives soil carbon sequestration after afforestation on a marginal cropland. For Ecol Manag 362:38–45Google Scholar
  10. IPCC (2003) IPCC Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry. In: Penman J, Gytarsky M, Hiraishi T, Krug T, Kruger D, Pipatti R, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K, Wagner F (eds) Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. IGES, Japan https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gpglulucf/gpglulucf.html. Accessed 25 June 2019
  11. IPCC (2006) IPCC Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. In: Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K (eds) Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. IGES, Japan https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_04_Ch4_Forest_Land.pdf. Accessed 25 June 2019
  12. IPCC (2013) Fifth assessment report. Climate change: the physical science basis. http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/. Accessed 25 June 2019
  13. Jiang P, Chen Y, Cao Y (2017) C:N:P Stoichiometry and carbon storage in a naturally-regenerated secondary Quercus variabilis forest age sequence in the Qinling Mountains, China. Forests 8:281.  https://doi.org/10.3390/f8080281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Joslin JD, Wolfe MH, Hanson PJ (2001) Factors controlling the timing of root elongation intensity in a mature upland oak stand. Plant Soil 228:201–212Google Scholar
  15. Kallenbach CM, Frey SD, Grandy AS (2016) Direct evidence for microbial-derived soil organic matter formation and its ecophysiological controls. Nat Commun 7:13630.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13630 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Kraenzel M, Castillo A, Moore T, Potvin C (2003) Carbon storage of harvest-age teak (Tectona grandis) plantations, Panama. For Ecol Manag 173:213–225Google Scholar
  17. Krull ES, Baldock JA, Skjemstad JO (2003) Importance of mechanisms and processes of the stabilisation of soil organic matter for modelling carbon turnover. Funct Plant Biol 30(2):207–222Google Scholar
  18. Lan SA, Du H, Zeng FP, Song TQ, Peng WX, Han C, Chen L, Su L (2016) Carbon storage and allocation in Cunninghamia lanceolata plantations with different stand age. Chin J Appl Ecol 27(4):1125–1134 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  19. Law BE, Harmon ME (2011) Forest sector carbon management, measurement and verification, and discussion of policy related to climate change. Carbon Manag 2(1):73–84Google Scholar
  20. Leff JW, Wieder WR, Taylor PG, Townsend AR, Nemergut DR, Grandy AS, Cleveland CC (2012) Experimental litterfall manipulation drives large and rapid changes in soil carbon cycling in a wet tropical forest. Glob Chang Biol 18:2969–2979.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02749.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Li H, Li J, Li S, Liang Z, Peng C, Polle A, Luo Z-B (2013) Changes in carbon, nutrients and stoichiometric relations under different soil depths, plant tissues and ages in black locust plantations. Acta Physiol Plant 35:2965–2964.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11738-013-1326-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lin W, Li JY, Zhou P, Wei L (2014) Spatial distribution of carbon storage of tree forests ecosystem in Guangzhou, China. For Environ Sci 30(2):1–7 in ChineseGoogle Scholar
  23. Liu C, Xiang W, Lei P, Deng X, Tian D, Fang X, Peng C (2014) Standing fine root mass and production in four Chinese subtropical forests along a succession and species diversity gradient. Plant Soil 376(1-2):445–459.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-013-1998-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lorenz K, Lal R (2014) Soil organic carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems. Agron Sustain Dev 34:443–454Google Scholar
  25. Lu F, Hu HF, Sun WJ, Zhu JJ, Liu GB, Zhou WM, Zhang Q, Shi P, Liu X, Wu X, Zhang L, Wei X, Dai L, Zhang K, Sun Y, Xue S, Zhang W, Xiong D, Deng L, Liu B, Zhou L, Zhang C, Zheng X, Cao J, Huang Y, He N, Zhou G, Bai Y, Xie Z, Tang Z, Wu B, Fang J, Liu G, Yu G (2018) Effects of national ecological restoration projects on carbon sequestration in China from 2001 to 2010. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 115(16):4039–4044PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Luyssaert S, Schulze ED, Börner A, Knohl A, Hessenmöller D, Law BE, Ciais P, Grace J (2008) Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature 455(7210):213–215PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Ma XQ, Heal KV, Liu AQ, Jarvis PG (2007) Nutrient cycling and distribution in different-aged plantations of Chinese fir in southern China. For Ecol Manag 243(1):61–74Google Scholar
  28. Ma W, Liu YH, Sun YJ, Grabosky J (2014) Carbon stock in Korean larch plantations along a chronosequence in the Lesser Khingan Mountains, China. J For Res 25(4):749–760Google Scholar
  29. Ma Z, Yang W, Wu F, Tan B (2017) Effects of light intensity on litter decomposition in a subtropical region. Ecosphere 8(4):e01770.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1770 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Malik AA, Puissant J, Buckeridge KM, Goodall T, Jehmlich N, Chowdhury S, Gweon HS, Peyton JM, Mason KE, van Agtmaal M, Blaud A, Clark IM, Whitaker J, Pywell RF, Ostle N, Gleixner G, Griffiths RI (2018) Land use driven change in soil pH affects microbial carbon cycling processes. Nat Commun 9:3591.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05980-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Martin AR, Thomas SC (2011) A reassessment of carbon content in tropical trees. PLoS ONE 6(8):e23533.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023533 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Martin AR, Gezahegn S, Thomas SC (2015) Variation in carbon and nitrogen concentration among major woody tissue types in temperate trees. Can J For Res 45:744–757Google Scholar
  33. Nath AJ, Brahma B, Sileshi GW, Das AK (2018) Impact of land use changes on the storage of soil organic carbon in active and recalcitrant pools in a humid tropical region of India. Sci Total Environ 624:908–917PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Onigkeit J, Sonntag M, Alcamo J (2000) Carbon plantations in the IMAGE model - model description and scenarios. WZ III Report No. P0003. Center for Environmental Systems Research, University of Kassel, Germany http://www-iam.nies.go.jp/aim/publications/book/reference/foreign/netherlands/cool/carbon_plantations.pdf. Accessed 9 Nov 2018Google Scholar
  35. Pan Y, Birdesy RA, Fang J, Houghton R, Kauppi PE, Kurz WA, Phillips OL, Shvidenko A, Lewis SL, Canadell JG, Ciais P, Jackson RB, Pacala SW, McGuire AD, Piao S, Rautiainen A, Sitch S, Hayes D (2011) A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333:988–993.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201609 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Pang XY, Huang JS, Zhao QX, Feng DF, Bao WK, Tian GL (2017) Ecosystem carbon stock across a chronosequence of spruce plantations established on cutovers of a high-elevation region. J Soils Sediments 17(9):2239–2249Google Scholar
  37. Pathak K, Nath AJ, Sileshi GW, Lal R, Das AK (2017) Annual burning enhances biomass production and nutrient cycling in degraded Imperata grasslands. Land Degrad Dev 28(5):1763–1771Google Scholar
  38. Paul KI, Polglase PJ, Nyakuengama JG, Khanna PK (2002) Change in soil carbon following afforestation. For Ecol Manag 168:241–257Google Scholar
  39. Pisani O, Lin LH, Lun OOY, Lajtha K, Nadelhoffer KJ, Simpson AJ, Simpson MJ (2016) Long-term doubling of litter inputs accelerates soil organic matter degradation and reduces soil carbon stocks. Biogeochemistry 127:1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-015-0171-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rasse DP, Rumpel C, Dignac MF (2005) Is soil carbon mostly root carbon? Mechanisms for a specific stabilization. Plant Soil 269:341–356Google Scholar
  41. Robertson WK, Pope PE, Tomlinson RT (1974) Sampling tool for taking undisturbed soil cores. Soil Sci Soc Am Proc 38:855–857Google Scholar
  42. Rodrigues DP, Hamacher C, Estrada GCD, Soares MLG (2015) Variability of carbon content in mangrove species: effect of species, compartments and tidal frequency. Aquat Bot 120:346–351Google Scholar
  43. Sayer EJ, Heard MS, Grant HK, Marthews TR, Tanner EVJ (2011) Soil carbon release enhanced by increased tropical forest litterfall. Nat Clim Chang 1:304–307Google Scholar
  44. Schlesinger WH (1997) Biogeochemistry: an analysis of global change, 2nd. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Spohn M, Klaus K, Wanek W, Richter A (2016) Microbial carbon use efficiency and biomass turnover times depending on soil depth-implications for carbon cycling. Soil Biol Biochem 96:74–81Google Scholar
  46. State Forestry Administration (SFA) of the People’s Republic of China Forest resources in China (2014) The 8th National Forest Inventory. http://211.167.243.162:8085/8/book/jiankuang/index.html. Accessed 25 June 2019
  47. Steele SJ, Gower ST, Vogel JG, Norman JM (1997) Root mass, net primary production and turnover in aspen, jack pine and black spruce forests in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, Canada. Tree Physiol 17:577–587PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Steffens C, Helfrich M, Joergensen RG, Eissfeller V, Flessa H (2015) Translocation of 13C-labeled leaf or root litter carbon of beech (Fraxinus excelsior L.) and ash (Fagus sylvatica L.) during decomposition - a laboratory incubation experiment. Soil Biol Biochem 83:125–137.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.01.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thomas SC, Malczewski G (2007) Wood carbon content of tree species in Eastern China: interspecific variability and the importance of the volatile fraction. For Ecol Manag 85:659–662Google Scholar
  50. Thomas SC, Martin AR (2012) Carbon content of tree tissues: a synthesis. Forests 3:332–352Google Scholar
  51. Wang QK, Wang SL, Zhong MC (2013) Ecosystem carbon storage and soil organic carbon stability in pure and mixed stands of Cunninghamia lanceolata and Michelia macclurei. Plant Soil 370:295–304Google Scholar
  52. Wang XW, Weng YH, Liu GF, Krasowski MJ, Yang CP (2015) Variations in carbon concentration, sequestration and partitioning among Betula platyphylla, provenances. For Ecol Manag 358:344–352Google Scholar
  53. Weber JC, Sotelo Montes C, Abasse T, Sanquetta CR, Silva DA, Mayer S, Muñiz GIB, Garcia RA (2018) Variation in growth, wood density and carbon concentration in five tree and shrub species in Niger. New For 49:35–51.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-017-9603-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wu Y (2011) Research on fine root characteristics in Alnus formosana forest under cultivated forage grass. Sichuan Agriculture University D: 25–26 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  55. Wu J, Zhang D, Chen Q, Feng J, Li Q, Yang F, Zhang Q, Cheng X (2018) Shifts in soil organic carbon dynamics under detritus input manipulations in a coniferous forest ecosystem in subtropical China. Soil Biol Biochem 126:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.08.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yang YS, Xie JS, Wang YQ, Liu YL, Yue YJ, Yu ZY (2003) Carbon stock and carbon sequestration in mixed forest of Cunninghamia lanceolata and Tsoongiodendron odorum. J Beijing For Univ 25(5):10–14 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  57. Yang YS, Chen GS, Lin P, Xie JS, Guo JF (2004) Fine root distribution, seasonal pattern and production in four plantations compared with a natural forest in subtropical China. Ann For Sci 61(7):617–627Google Scholar
  58. Yang YS, Guo JF, Chen GS, Xie JS, Gao R, Li Z, Jin Z (2005) Carbon and nitrogen pools in Chinese fir and evergreen broadleaved forests and changes associated with felling and burning in mid-subtropical China. For Ecol Manag 216(1–3):216–226Google Scholar
  59. Yang YS, Cheng GS, Wang YX et al (2006) Carbon storage and allocation in Castanopsis kaunkamii and Cunninghamia lanceolata plantations in subtropical China. Sci Silvae Sin 42(10):43–47 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  60. Yu XT (1997) Silviculture of Chinese fir. Fujian Science & Technology Press, Fuzhou, pp 1–7 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  61. Yu S, Wang D, Dai W, Li P (2014) Soil carbon budget in different-aged Chinese fir plantations in south China. J For Res 25(3):621–626Google Scholar
  62. Zhang XQ, Kirschbaum MUF, Hou ZH, Guo ZH (2004) Carbon stock changes in successive rotations of Chinese fir (Cunninghamia lanceolata (lamb) hook) plantations. For Ecol Manag 202(1):131–147Google Scholar
  63. Zhang Q, Wang C, Wang X, Quan X (2009) Carbon concentration variability of 10 Chinese temperate tree species. For Ecol Manag 258(5):722–727Google Scholar
  64. Zhang Y, Wei ZC, Li HT, Guo FT, Wu PF, Zhou LL, Ma XQ (2017) Biochemical quality and accumulation of soil organic matter in an age sequence of Cunninghamia lanceolata plantations in southern China. J Soils Sediments 17(9):2218–2229Google Scholar
  65. Zheng H, Ouyang ZY, Xu WH, Wang XK, Miao H, Li XQ, Tian YX (2008) Variation of carbon storage by different reforestation types in the hilly red soil region of southern China. For Ecol Manag 255:1113–1121Google Scholar
  66. Zhong XF, Yang YS, Gao R, Xie JS, Yang ZJ, Liu LZ (2008) Carbon storage and allocation in old-growth Cunninghamia lanceolata plantation in subtropical China. J Subtrop Resour Environ 3:11–18Google Scholar
  67. Zhou YR, Yu ZL, Zhao SD (2000) Carbon storage and budget of major Chinese forest types. Acta Phytoecol Sin 24:518–522 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  68. Zhou LL, Shalom ADD, Wu PF, Li SB, Jia YY, Ma XQ (2015) Litterfall production and nutrient return in different-aged Chinese fir (Cunninghamia lanceolata) plantations in South China. J For Res 26(1):79–89Google Scholar
  69. Zhou LL, Shalom ADD, Wu PF, He ZM, Liu CH, Ma XQ (2016a) Biomass production, nutrient cycling and distribution in age-sequence Chinese fir (Cunninghamia lanceolate) plantations in subtropical China. J For Res 27(2):357–368Google Scholar
  70. Zhou LL, Cai LP, He ZM, Wang RW, Wu PF, Ma XQ (2016b) Thinning increases understory diversity and biomass, and improves soil properties without decreasing growth of Chinese fir in southern China. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 23(23):24135–24150PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Zhou L, Li S, Liu B, Wu P, Heal KV, Ma X (2019) Data from: Tissue-specific carbon concentration, carbon stock, and distribution in Cunninghamia lanceolata (Lamb.) Hookplantations at various developmental stages in subtropical China. Version 07 May 2019. Dryad Digital Repository. [Dataset].  https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.61pm78v

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lili Zhou
    • 1
    • 2
  • Shubin Li
    • 3
    • 4
  • Bo Liu
    • 3
    • 4
  • Pengfei Wu
    • 3
    • 4
  • Kate V. Heal
    • 5
  • Xiangqing Ma
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Institute of OceanographyMinjiang UniversityFuzhouChina
  2. 2.Fujian Provincial Colleges and University Engineering Research Center of Sustainable Plantation ManagementFujian Agriculture and Forestry UniversityFuzhouChina
  3. 3.Forestry CollegeFujian Agriculture and Forestry UniversityFuzhouChina
  4. 4.Chinese Fir Engineering Technology Research Center of the State Forestry and Grassland AdministrationFuzhouChina
  5. 5.School of GeoSciencesUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations