Biomass and carbon stocks in three types of Persian oak (Quercus brantii var. persica) of Zagros forests in a semi-arid area, Iran

Abstract

Persian oak (Quercus brantii var. persica) is a dominant tree species of Zagros forests in a semi-arid area, western Iran. However, the capacity of biomass and carbon stocks of these forests is not well studied. We selected three types of oak, i.e., seed-originated oak, coppice oak and mixed (seed-originated and coppice) oak of Zagros forests in Dalab valley, Ilam Province, Iran to survey the capacity of biomass and carbon stocks in 2018. Thirty plots with an area of 1000 m2 were systematically and randomly assigned to each type of oak. Quantitative characteristics of trees, such as diameter at breast height (DBH), height, crown diameter and the number of sprouts in each plot were measured. Then, aboveground biomass (AGB), belowground biomass (BGB), aboveground carbon stock (AGCS) and belowground carbon stock (BGCS) of each tree in plots were calculated using allometric equations. The litterfall biomass (LFB) and litterfall carbon stock (LFCS) were measured in a quadrat with 1 m×1 m in each plot. One-way analysis of variance and Duncan’s test were performed to detect the differences in biomass and carbon stocks among three types of oak. Results showed that AGB, BGB and BGCS were significantly different among three types of oak. The highest values of AGB, AGCS, BGB and BGCS in seed-originated oak were 76,043.25, 14,725.55, 36,737.79 and 7362.77 kg/hm2, respectively. Also, the highest values of LFB and LFCS in seed-originated oak were 3298.33 and 1520.48 kg/hm2, respectively, which were significantly higher than those of the other two types of oak. The results imply the significant role of seed-originated oak for the regeneration of Zagros forests. Further conservation strategy of seed-originated oak is an important step in the sustainable management of Zagros forests in Iran.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Ali A, Yan E R, Chen H Y H, et al. 2016. Stand structural diversity rather than species diversity enhances aboveground carbon storage in secondary subtropical forests in eastern China. Biogeosciences, 13: 4627–4635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alinejadi S, Basiri R, Tahmasebi K P, et al. 2016. Estimation of biomass and carbon sequestration in various forms of Quercus brantii Lindl. stands in Balout Boland, Dehdez. Iranian Journal of Forest, 8(2): 129–139. (in Persian)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Allen M R, Gillett N P, Kettleborough J A, et al. 2006. Quantifying anthropogenic influence on recent near-surface temperature change. Surveys in Geophysics, 27: 491–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Allen S E, Grimshaw H M, Rowland A P. 1986. Chemical analysis. In: {ieMoore P D, Chapman S B}. Methods in Plant Ecology London: Blackwell Scientific Publication, 285–344.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Askari Y, Soltani A, Akhavan R, et al. 2017. Assessment of root-shoot ratio biomass and carbon storage of Quercus brantii Lindl. in the central Zagros forests of Iran. Journal of Forest Science, 63(6): 282–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Becknell J M, Powers J S. 2014. Stand age and soils as drivers of plant functional traits and aboveground biomass in secondary tropical dry forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 44(6): 604–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brown S. 1996. Tropical forests and the global carbon cycle: estimating state and change in biomass density. In: {ieApps M J, Price D T}. Forest Ecosystems, Forest Management and the Global Carbon Cycle. Heidelberg: Springer, 40.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Brown S. 2002. Measuring carbon in forests: Current status and future challenges. Environmental Pollution, 116(3): 363–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chave J, Andalo C, Brown S, et al. 2005. Tree allometry and improved estimation of carbon stocks and balance in tropical forests. Oecologia, 145: 87–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chen H Y H, Yong L. 2015. Net aboveground biomass declines of four major forest types with forest ageing and climate change in western Canada’s boreal forests. Global Change Biology, 21: 3675–3684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hernandez R, Koohafkan P, Antoine J. 2004. Assessing Carbon Stocks and Modeling Win-win Scenarios of Carbon Sequestration through Land-use Changes. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 18–24.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Iranmanesh Y. 2013. Assessment on biomass estimation methods and carbon sequestration of Quercus brantii Lindl. in Chaharmahal & Bakhtiari forests. PhD Dissertation. Tehran: Tarbiat Modares University, 107. (in Persian)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Iranmanesh Y, Sagheb-Talebi K, Sohrabi H, et al. 2014. Biomass and carbon stocks of Brant’s oak (Quercus brantii Lindl.) in two vegetation forms in Lordegan, Chaharmahal & Bakhtiari forests. Iranian Journal of Forest and Poplar Research, 22(4): 749–762. (in Persian)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Jepsen M R. 2006. Above-ground carbon stocks in tropical fallows, Sarawak, Malaysia. Forest Ecology and Management, 225(1–3): 287–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Karjalainen T. 1996. Dynamics and potentials of carbon sequestration in managed stands and wood products in Finland under changing climatic conditions. Forest Ecology and Management, 80(1–3): 113–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lexerød N L, Eid T. 2006 An evaluation of different diameter diversity indices based on criteria related to forest management planning. Forest Ecology and Management, 222(1–3): 17–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lorenz K, Lal R. 2010. Carbon Sequestration in Forest Ecosystems. New York: Springer, 277.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. MacDicken K G. 1997. A Guide to Monitoring Carbon Storage in Forestry and Agroforestry Projects. Arlington: Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development, 84–87.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mensah S, Veldtman R, Du T B, et al. 2016. Aboveground biomass and carbon in a South African Mistbelt forest and the relationships with tree species diversity and forest structures. Forests, 7(79): 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Nunes L, Lopes D, Rego F C, et al. 2013. Aboveground biomass and net primary production of pine, oak and mixed pine-oak forests on the Vila Real District, Portugal. Forest Ecology and Management, 305: 38–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Pearson T R H, Brown S L, Birdsey R A. 2007. Measurement guidelines for the sequestration of forest carbon. In: General Technical Report NRS18. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. Tennessee, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Peichl M, Arain M A. 2007. Allometry and partitioning of above and belowground tree biomass in an age-sequence of white pine forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 253(1–3): 68–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sagheb Talebi K, Sajedi T, Pourhashemi M. 2014. Forest of Iran, a Treasure from the Past, a Hope for the Future. New York: Springer, 157.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sanquetta A P, Silva F S. 2011–Biomass expansion factor and root-to-shoot ratio for Pinus in Brazil. Carbon Balance and Management, 6(6): 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sohrabi H, Bakhtiarvand-Bakhtiari S, Ahmadi K. 2016. Above and belowground biomass and carbon stocks of different tree plantations in central Iran. Journal of Arid Land, 8(1): 138–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Soltani A, Angelsen A, Eid T. 2014. Poverty, forest dependence and forest degradation links: evidence from Zagros, Iran. Environment and Development Economics, 19(5): 607–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tran D B, Dargusch P, Herbohn J, et al. 2013. Interventions to better manage the carbon stocks in Australian Melaleuca forests. Land Use Policy, 35: 417–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Wang K B, Deng L, Ren Z P, et al. 2016. Dynamics of ecosystem carbon stocks during vegetation restoration on the Loess Plateau of China. Journal of Arid Land, 8(2): 207–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Wang W, Lei X, Ma Z, et al. 2011. Positive relationship between aboveground carbon stocks and structural diversity in spruce dominated forest stands in New Brunswick, Canada. Forest Science, 57: 506–515.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Wang Y, Amundson R, Trumbore S. 1999. The impact of land use change on C turnover in soils. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 13(1): 47–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Zhang Y, Chen H Y H. 2015. Individual size inequality links forest diversity and aboveground biomass. Journal of Ecology, 103: 1245–1252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Zianis D, Muukkonen P, Mäkipää R, et al. 2005. Biomass and stem volume equations for tree species in Europe. Silva Fennica. Monographs 4: 63.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ali Mahdavi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mahdavi, A., Saidi, S., Iranmanesh, Y. et al. Biomass and carbon stocks in three types of Persian oak (Quercus brantii var. persica) of Zagros forests in a semi-arid area, Iran. J. Arid Land 12, 766–774 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40333-020-0027-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • biomass
  • carbon stock
  • seed-originated forest
  • coppice forest
  • Zagros forest