Frontiers of Earth Science

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 662–668 | Cite as

Carbon concentrations of components of trees in 10-year-old Populus davidiana stands within the Desertification Combating Program of Northern China

  • Huitao Shen
  • Wanjun Zhang
  • Jiansheng CaoEmail author
  • Xiang Zhang
  • Quanhong Xu
  • Xue Yang
  • Dengpan Xiao
  • Yanxia Zhao
Research Article


Most studies do not consider the potential variation in carbon concentration among the different tree components of the same species in regional scale. This study examined the carbon concentrations of the components (i.e., foliage, branch, stem, and root) in a 10-year-old poplar species (Populus davidiana Dode) from the Desertification Combating Program of Northern China. The highest and lowest carbon concentrations were found in the stem and foliage, respectively. There was a significant difference in carbon concentrations among the different tree components. All of the observed carbon concentrations of tree components were lower than those predicted using the conversion factor of 0.5 applied to component biomass. Stem carbon made up 59.7% of the total tree biomass carbon. The power equation estimating proportion of tree biomass carbon against the independent variable of diameter at breast height explained more than 90% of the variability in allocation of carbon among tree components. Tree height, as a second independent variable is also discussed. Our results suggest that the difference in organic carbon concentration among tree components should be incorporated into accurately develop forest carbon budget. Moreover, further investigations on how the diameter at breast height equation developed in the present study performs across broader scales are required.


biomass carbon equation carbon content destructive sampling diameter at breast height poplar 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bert D, Danjon F (2006). Carbon concentration variations in the roots, stem and crown of mature Pinus pinaster (Ait.). For Ecol Manag, 222 (1-3): 279–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buras A, Thevs N, Zerbe S, Wilmking M (2013). Productivity and carbon sequestration of Populus euphratica at the Amu River, Turkmenistan. Forestry 86(4): 429–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cao J, Wang X, Tian Y, Wen Z, Zha T (2012). Pattern of carbon allocation across three different stages of stand development of a Chinese pine (Pinus tabulaeformis) forest. Ecol Res 27(5): 883–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen G Q, Han M Y (2015). Virtual land use change in China 2002–2010: internal transition and trade imbalance. Land Use Policy 47: 55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen G Q, Zhang B (2010). Greenhouse gas emissions in China 2007: inventory and input–output analysis. Energy Policy 38(10): 6180–6193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clifford D, Cressie N, England J R, Roxburgh S H, Paul K I (2013). Correction factors for unbiased, efficient estimation and prediction of biomass from log–log allometric models. For Ecol Manag 310: 375–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Aza C H, Turrión M B, Pando V, Bravo F (2011). Carbon in heartwood, sapwood and bark along the stem profile in three Mediterranean Pinus species. Ann Sci 68(6): 1067–1076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dorado F C, Diéguez-Aranda U, Barrio Anta M, Sánchez Rodríguez M, von Gadow K (2006). A generalized height–diameter model including random components for radiata pine plantations in northwestern Spain. For Ecol Manag, 229(1-3): 202–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fang S, Xue J, Tang L (2007). Biomass production and carbon sequestration potential in poplar plantations with different management patterns. J Environ Manage 85(3): 672–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fonseca W, Alice F E, Rey-Benayas J M (2012). Carbon accumulation in aboveground and belowground biomass and soil of different age native forest plantations in the humid tropical lowlands of Costa Rica. New For 43(2): 197–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gao S Y, Zhang C L, Zou X Y, Wu Y Q, Shi S, Li H D (2008). Benefits of Beijing-Tianjin Sand Source Control Engineering. Beijing: China Science PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Gong J, Ge Z, An R, Duan Q, You X, Huang Y (2012). Soil respiration in poplar plantations in northern China at different forest ages. Plant Soil, 360(1-2): 109–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gower S T, Krankina O, Olson R J, Apps M, Linder S, Wang C (2001). Net primary production and carbon allocation patterns of boreal forest ecosystems. Ecol Appl 11(5): 1395–1411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gower S T, Kucharik C J, Norman J M (1999). Direct and indirect estimation of leaf area index, fAPAR, and net primary production of terrestrial ecosystems. Remote Sens Environ 70(1): 29–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. He Y, Qin L, Li Z, Liang X, Shao M, Tan L (2013). Carbon storage capacity of monoculture and mixed-species plantations in subtropical China. For Ecol Manag 295: 193–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hu Y L, Zeng D H, Fan Z P, Chen G S, Zhao Q, Pepper D (2008). Changes in ecosystem carbon stocks following grassland afforestation of semiarid sandy soil in the southeastern Keerqin Sandy Lands, China. J Arid Environ 72(12): 2193–2200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lamlom S H, Savidge R A (2003). A reassessment of carbon content in wood: variation within and between 41 North American species. Biomass Bioenergy 25(4): 381–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li X, Yi M J, Son Y, Park P S, Lee K H, Son Y M, Kim R H, Jeong M J (2011). Biomass and carbon storage in an age-sequence of Korean pine (Pinus koraiensis) plantation forests in Central Korea. J Plant Biol 54(1): 33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liang W J, Hu H Q, Liu F J, Zhang D M (2006). Research advance of biomass and carbon storage of poplar in China. J For Res 17(1): 75–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liu C, Lu J, Yin R (2010). An estimation of the effects of China’s Priority Forestry Programs on farmers’ income. Environ Manage, 45(3): 526–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liu X P, Zhang W J, Cao J S, Shen H Y, Zeng X H, Yu Z Q, Zhao X (2013). Carbon storages in plantation ecosystems in sand source areas of North Beijing, China. PLoS ONE, 8(12): e82208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mao R, Zeng D H (2010). Changes in soil particulate organic matter, microbial biomass, and activity following afforestation of marginal agricultural lands in a semi-arid area of northeast China. Environ Manage 46(1): 110–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mao R, Zeng D H, Hu Y L, Li L J, Yang D (2010). Soil organic carbon and nitrogen stocks in an age-sequence of poplar stands planted on marginal agricultural land in Northeast China. Plant Soil, 332(1-2): 277–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mendoza-Ponce A, Galicia L (2010). Aboveground and belowground biomass and carbon pools in highland temperate forest landscape in Central Mexico. Forestry 83(5): 497–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Muukkonen P (2007). Generalized allometric volume and biomass equations for some tree species in Europe. Eur J For Res 126(2): 157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pasalodos-Tato M, Ruiz-Peinado R, del Río M, Montero G (2015). Shrub biomass accumulation and growth rate models to quantify carbon stocks and fluxes for the Mediterranean region. Eur J For Res 134(3): 537–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Petersson H, Melin Y (2010). Estimating the biomass and carbon pool of stump systems at a national scale. For Ecol Manage 260(4): 466–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pilli R, Anfodillo T, Carrer M (2006). Towards a functional and simplified allometry for estimating forest biomass. For Ecol Manag, 237(1-3): 583–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schlesinger W H, Lichter J (2001). Limited carbon storage in soil and litter of experimental forest plots under increased atmospheric CO2. Nature 411(6836): 466–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Singh P, Lodhiyal L S (2009). Biomass and carbon allocation in 8-yearold poplar (Populus deltoides Marsh) plantation in Tarai agroforestry systems of Central Himalaya, India. New York Sci J 2: 49–53Google Scholar
  31. Tolunay D (2009). Carbon concentrations of tree components, forest floor and understorey in young Pinus sylvestris stands in northwestern Turkey. Scand J For Res 24(5): 394–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Toromani E, Sanxhaku M, Sallaku M, Shaho E (2011). Biomass production and carbon storage of Populus × canadensis Guinier I-214 plantations grown at Pogradeci region in Albania. South For, 73(2): 91–99Google Scholar
  33. Wang C (2006). Biomass allometric equations for 10 co-occurring tree species in Chinese temperate forests. For Ecol Manag, 222(1-3): 9–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wang Q, Wang S, Zhang J (2009). Assessing the effects of vegetation types on carbon storage fifteen years after reforestation on a Chinese fir site. For Ecol Manag, 258(7):1437–1441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wilske B, Lu N, Wei L, Chen S, Zha T, Liu C, Xu W, Noormets A, Huang J, Wei Y, Chen J, Zhang Z, Ni J, Sun G, Guo K, McNulty S, John R, Han X, Lin G, Chen J (2009). Poplar plantation has the potential to alter the water balance in semiarid Inner Mongolia. J Environ Manage 90(8): 2762–2770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yan Y F, Yang L K (2010). China’s foreign trade and climate change: a case study of CO2 emissions. Energy Policy 38(1): 350–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhang Q, Wang C, Wang X, Quan X (2009). Carbon concentration variability of 10 Chinese temperate tree species. For Ecol Manag, 258 (5): 722–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zheng H, Ouyang Z, Xu W, Wang X, Miao H, Li X, Tian Y (2008). Variation of carbon storage by different reforestation types in the hilly red soil region of southern China. For Ecol Manag, 255 (3-4): 1113–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Huitao Shen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Wanjun Zhang
    • 2
  • Jiansheng Cao
    • 2
    Email author
  • Xiang Zhang
    • 3
  • Quanhong Xu
    • 1
  • Xue Yang
    • 4
  • Dengpan Xiao
    • 1
  • Yanxia Zhao
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Geographical SciencesHebei Academy of SciencesShijiazhuangChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory for Agricultural Water Resources, Hebei Key Laboratory for Agricultural Water-Saving, Center for Agricultural Resources Research, Institute of Genetics and Developmental BiologyChinese Academy of SciencesShijiazhuangChina
  3. 3.Institute of Agro-food Science and TechnologyShandong Academy of Agricultural SciencesJinanChina
  4. 4.College of AgricultureKunming UniversityKunmingChina

Personalised recommendations