- Email: [email protected]
Spatial distribution and variability of carbon storage in different sympodial bamboo species in China
Journal of Environmental Management 168 (2016) 46e52
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Environmental Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman
Research article
Spatial distribution and variability of carbon storage in different sympodial bamboo species in China Jiangnan Teng a, b, 1, Tingting Xiang a, b, Zhangting Huang a, b, Jiasen Wu a, b, Peikun Jiang a, b, *, 2, Cifu Meng a, b, **, Yongfu Li a, b, Jeffry J. Fuhrmann c a b c
Zhejiang Provincial Key Laboratory of Carbon Cycling in Forest Ecosystems and Carbon Sequestration, Zhejiang A & F University, Lin'an, 311300, China School of Environmental and Resource Sciences, Zhejiang A & F University, Lin'an, 311300, China Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Delaware, Delaware, 19716, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 26 June 2015 Received in revised form 29 September 2015 Accepted 16 November 2015 Available online 13 December 2015
Selection of tree species is potentially an important management decision for increasing carbon storage in forest ecosystems. This study investigated and compared spatial distribution and variability of carbon storage in 8 sympodial bamboo species in China. The results of this study showed that average carbon densities (CDs) in the different organs decreased in the order: culms (0.4754 g g1) > below-ground (0.4701 g g1) > branches (0.4662 g g1) > leaves (0.4420 g g1). Spatial distribution of carbon storage (CS) on an area basis in the biomass of 8 sympodial bamboo species was in the order: culms (17.4 e77.1%) > below-ground (10.6e71.7%) > branches (3.8e11.6%) > leaves (0.9e5.1%). Total CSs in the sympodial bamboo ecosystems ranged from 103.6 Mg C ha1 in Bambusa textilis McClure stand to 194.2 Mg C ha1 in Dendrocalamus giganteus Munro stand. Spatial distribution of CSs in 8 sympodial bamboo ecosystems decreased in the order: soil (68.0e83.5%) > vegetation (16.8e31.1%) > litter (0.3 e1.7%). Total current CS and biomass carbon sequestration rate in the sympodial bamboo stands studied in China is 93.184 106 Mg C ha1 and 8.573 106 Mg C yr1, respectively. The sympodial bamboos had a greater CSs and higher carbon sequestration rates relative to other bamboo species. Sympodial bamboos can play an important role in improving climate and economy in the widely cultivated areas of the world. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Sympodial bamboo Carbon density (CD) Carbon storage (CS) Spatial distribution Carbon sequestration rate
1. Introduction The global dioxide (CO2) emission rate reached 3.11 1011 Mg yr1 in 2010 (DOE, 2008), and such a high rate of CO2 emission is having a marked influence on the global climate. Forests are known to store large quantities of carbon, which have the potential to modify climate change through their influence on the global carbon cycle. Forests store 86% and 73% of the global carbon
* Corresponding author. Zhejiang Provincial Key Laboratory of Carbon Cycling in Forest Ecosystems and Carbon Sequestration, Zhejiang A & F University, Lin'an, 311300, China. ** Corresponding author. Zhejiang Provincial Key Laboratory of Carbon Cycling in Forest Ecosystems and Carbon Sequestration, Zhejiang A & F University, Lin'an, 311300, China. E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Jiang). 1 Jiangnan Teng (1991e), master degree candidate, mainly engaged in research of the carbon storage and calorific value of sympodial bamboo. 2 Peikun Jiang (1963e), professor, engaged in the study of soil and the environment. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.11.034 0301-4797/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
pool in vegetation and soils (Brown et al., 1993), respectively. Thus carbon sequestration by growing forests with higher carbon sequestration rates is a cost-effective option for mitigation of CO2 emissions caused by human activities (Jiang et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2013). China has 500 bamboo species belonging to 48 genera, compared with 1500 species and 87 genera worldwide (Chen et al., 2009). The total area of bamboo forests in China is 4.2 106 ha, representing 19.1% of world's total area (22 106 ha) and 3.3% of China's total forest area (129.2 106 ha). Sympodial bamboo is also an important component of bamboo resources and accounts for more than 70% of the total number of bamboo species in the world, which is widely distributed in east South Asia, South Asia, Latin America, central and southern Africa and Pacific island countries (Chen et al., 2007). Carbon dioxide fixation of Sympodial bamboo helps to improve the local climate, and the bamboo products can improve the local economic. China has 16 genera and about 160 species covering more than 80 104 ha and producing 500 104 t in annual bamboo timber (Ma, 2004).
J. Teng et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 168 (2016) 46e52
At present, carbon storage (CS), area basis in bamboo stands accounts for more than 11% of the total carbon storage in all the forests of China. Since the early 21st century, the studies on CS in bamboo stands have focused mainly on cluster bamboo stands (Du et al., 2010; Ji et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2009a, 2013; Xiao et al., 2010; Yen and Lee, 2011; Zhou and Jiang, 2004; Zhou et al., 2009), but limited studies (Wang et al., 2009b) were conducted to examine CSs in sympodial bamboo stands. The objective of this experiment were to (1) quantify CS and its spatial distribution in 8 sympodial bamboo ecosystems in China, (2) compare the variability of CS among sympodial bamboo species, and (3) estimate total CSs and biomass carbon sequestration rates of 8 sympodial bamboo species in China.
47
About 100 g of plant or litter samples were washed for 1 min in deionized water, dried at 105 C for 20 min and then at 70 C for 48 h in a forced-air oven. Dry weights of every sample were measured and then ground to pass through a 30-mesh screen for chemical analysis. Composite soil samples (2.0 kg) for determining organic C, bulk density, and other soil variables were taken at 0 to 10, 10 to 30, and 30e60 cm depth in February, 2013 from seven randomly-selected sample points per plot. Soils were air-dried and ground to pass through a 0.5 mm screen prior to analysis. The basic physical and chemical properties of the soils collected from the 32 plots representing the 8 sympodial bamboo species are given in Table 3. 2.3. Plant and soil analysis
2. Materials and methods 2.1. Description of zones studied This study examined variability of aboveground carbon storage in 8 sympodial bamboo species (Table 1): Dendrocalamus latiflorus Munro (DLM), Dendrocalamus membranaceus Munro (DMM), Bambusa textilis McClure (BTM), Dendrocalamopsis oldhami (Munro) Keng f. (DOK), Bambusa burmanica McClure (BBM) Bambusa chungii McClure (BCM), Neosinocalamus affinis (Rendle) Keng f. (NAK), and Dendrocalamus giganteus Munro (DGM). They were mainly distributed in Fujian, Zhejiang, Yunnan, Guangdong, Guangxi, Sichuan, Taiwan, Hainan, Hunan, and other provinces. Hectarage of the 8 sympodial bamboo species accounted for 80% of total area of sympodial bamboo stands examined. The sample areas in this study were all in natural areas, which minimized the effects of human activities. Distribution and growth characteristics of the 8 sympodial bamboo species studied are given in Table 1. 2.2. Plant and soil sampling Characteristics of the sampling sites are showed in Table 2. Four representative sampling plots (20 m 20 m) with different habitat conditions (plain, mountainous region, along river) were established for each bamboo species in February, 2013, and average height and diameter of every plant in the sampling plots was measured. Four plants with differing ages were harvested from each sampling plot, and the contribution of each organ of the above- and below-ground biomass was determined. Each group of four plants was divided into leaves, branches, culms, roots, stumps, and rhizomes. The samples of branches and culms consisted of upper, middle, and lower leaves. Fresh weights were recorded and 500e1000 g of fresh samples was taken for each organ per plant. Five subplots (2 m 2 m) were established on the four corners and center of every sampling plot, and associated litter was collected and weighed.
Soil pH was determined by the electrode method at a 1:5 soil to water ratio. Available N, P, and K were determined by the diffusion absorption method, Bray-1 method, and the NH4OAc extract-flame photometric method, respectively. Bulk densities of the soil were determined by the bulk density ring method. Organic C in soil samples was determined by the K2Cr2O7 þ H2SO4 digestion method. Organic C in plant samples was determined by elemental analyzer. All the above-mentioned methods are presented in a Soil Science Society China monograph (2000). 2.4. Calculation of carbon storage Total biomass in above-ground organs (Mg ha1) ¼ single plant weight (kg plant1) standing density (plant ha1)/1000. Total biomass in below-ground organs (Mg ha1) ¼ biomass in above-ground organs in this study (Mg ha1) the ratios of belowground biomass/above-ground biomass from the other researchers (Chen et al., 2002; Qiou et al., 2004; Yang et al., 2008; An et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2009). Carbon storage (CS) in different organs (Mg ha1) ¼ carbon density (Mg Mg1) biomass in different organs of different sympodial bamboo species (Mg ha1). 2.5. Statistical analyses One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the least significant difference (LSD) test were used to determine the significant differences among different tissues and species. 3. Results 3.1. Carbon densities (CDs) in the different plant organs Average carbon densities in different organs of 8 sympodial bamboo species are shown in Fig. 1. Average CDs in the different
Table 1 Distribution and growth characteristics of 8 sympodial bamboo species studied in China. Bamboo speciesa
Area ( 104 ha)
Distribution (province)
Height (m)
DBHb (cm)
DLM DMM BTM DOK BBM BCM NAK DGM
10.9 7.0 6.6 1.5 1.0 8.0 21.0 8.0
Fujian, Yunnan, Guizhou, Guangdong, Taiwan Yunnan, Sichuan, Fujian Guangdong, Guangxi, Fujian, Yunnan. Zhejiang, Fujian, Taiwan, Guangdong, Guangxi, Hainan Yunnan, Fujian, Taiwan. Guangdong, Guangxi, Hainan, Fujian, South Huna. Yunnan, Sichuan. Yunnan.
20e25 8e15 8e10 6e12 20e25 5e18 5e10 20e30
15e30 7e10 3e5 3e9 15e30 3e7 3e6 20e30
a DLM ¼ Dendrocalamus latiflorus Munro, DMM ¼ Dendrocalamus membranaceus Munro, BTM ¼ Bambusa textilis McClure, DOK ¼ Dendrocalamopsis oldhami (Munro) Keng f., BBM ¼ B. burmanica McClure, BCM ¼ B. chungii McClure, NAK ¼ Neosinocalamus affinis (Rendle) Keng f., DGM ¼ Dendrocalamus giganteus Munro The same is below. b DBH ¼ Diameter at breast height.
48
J. Teng et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 168 (2016) 46e52
Table 2 Locations and stand characteristics of sampling plots of 8 sympodial bamboo species studied. Bamboo species Longitude and latitude DLM DMM BTM DOK BBM BCM NAK DGM
E117 230 5700 N24 320 3100 E97 320 1600 N24 260 4400 E 112 230 4700 N23 460 5800 E120 180 3900 N27 290 2900 E97 320 3400 N24 250 3900 E113 590 4700 N23 280 4000 E104 410 0500 N27 550 2400 E98 200 2700 N24 510 600
Altitude (m) Slope Aspect 50 534 96 45 545 63 605 534
18 30 30 2 30 35 30 25
South-east East South-west South South-west South West South-east
Density (plant ha1) Above ground weight (kg$plant1) Height (m) 2080 4581 17,088 13,029 3000 12,689 35,000 3350
2.01e6.78 3.12e17.41 1.02e2.71 0.97e4.17 6.79e3.61 1.54e7.20 0.96e2.40 14.91e40.04
Diameter (cm)
10.70e11.78 6.23e6.33 12.96e14.98 4.64e6.97 10.10e11.50 3.58e4.14 6.65e9.35 4.07e5.25 14.81e17.12 5.75e6.02 7.80e13.00 4.43e7.57 10.39e11.03 4.53e5.05 17.79e22.87 10.35e11.44
Table 3 Basic physical and chemical properties of the soils collected from 8 sympodial bamboo sampling plots. Bamboo species Soil depth (cm) Soil bulk density (g cm3) pH (H2O) Organic matter (g kg1) Hydroly-zable N (mg kg1) Available P (mg kg1) Available K (mg kg1) DLM
DMM
BTM
DOK
BBM
BCM
NAK
DGM
0e10 10e30 30e60 0e10 10e30 30e60 0e10 10e30 30e60 0e10 10e30 30e60 0e10 10e30 30e60 0e10 10e30 30e60 0e10 10e30 30e60 0e10 10e30 30e60
1.08 1.18 1.28 0.90 0.98 1.10 1.29 1.35 1.35 1.23 1.27 1.27 0.99 1.10 1.13 1.29 1.35 1.35 1.26 1.34 1.48 1.11 1.18 1.32
4.36 4.60 4.69 6.06 6.12 6.19 4.90 4.88 5.00 5.14 5.32 5.50 6.03 6.28 6.35 4.68 4.78 4.91 6.57 6.82 6.71 5.83 5.95 5.96
35.5 23.37 10.30 48.13 34.68 26.95 28.82 14.02 13.87 53.31 30.73 19.84 47.58 33.50 22.87 35.32 19.64 10.75 34.10 28.08 23.33 57.70 38.10 26.25
228.3 122.7 107.5 156.2 112.3 78.4 159.2 73.4 59.9 266.5 128.9 87.8 171.1 112.6 76.0 184.0 103.8 59.5 144.2 135.9 112.5 143.9 117.4 91.6
1.37 0.13 0.05 5.61 4.51 9.87 3.10 1.19 2.37 16.2 2.3 0.15 2.02 1.50 1.19 3.3 5.41 6.54 4.67 9.52 12.5 5.13 16.76 13.23
48.7 25.2 22.6 152.0 124.0 136.5 61.7 43.3 28.5 40.1 26.0 20.38 197.6 136.4 121.7 36.3 25.0 18.9 103.3 82.8 74.8 148.6 130.6 117.3
than that in the other species. CD below-ground for NAK was much lower (P < 0.05) than that in the remaining species. 3.2. Distribution of carbon storage (CS) among tissues and species
Fig. 1. CDs in different organs of 2 year old plants among 8 sympodial bamboo species.
organs decreased in the order: culms (0.4754 g g1) > belowground organs (0.4701 g g1) > branches (0.4662 g g1) > leaves (0.4420 g g1). Significant differences were found for CDs in all the organs of the 8 species. CDs in the leaves of DOK and DGM were much lower (P < 0.05) than that in the other 6 species; CDs in the branches of DLM and DGM were much lower (P < 0.05) than that in DMM and BCM; CD in the culms of DGM was much lower (P < 0.05)
Spatial distribution of CS in the biomass of the 8 species were in the order: culms (17.4e77.1%) > below-ground (10.6e71.7%) > branches (3.8e11.6%) > leaves (0.9e5.1%). There were significant variations in CSs in different organs of the 8 species. CSs in the culms ranged from 4.814 Mg C ha1 in DLM stand to 33.166 Mg C ha1 in DGM stand; CSs in the below-ground ranged from 2.516 Mg C ha1 in DMM stand to 19.778 Mg C ha1 in DLM stand; CSs in the branches ranged from 1.836 Mg C ha1 in DGM stand to 4.508 Mg C ha1 in DOK stand; CSs in the culms ranged from 0.276 Mg C ha1 in BBM stand to 1.981 Mg C ha1 in DOK stand (Table 4). Total CSs in the vegetation layers of different bamboo species decreased in order: DGM stand (47.823 Mg C ha1) > DOK stand (38.929 Mg C ha1) > BCM stand (37.683 Mg C ha1) > NAK stand (34.880 Mg C ha1) > BBM (30.823 Mg C ha1) > DLM stand (27.605 Mg C ha1) > BTM stand (26.202 Mg C ha1) > DMM stand (23.808 Mg C ha1) (Table 4). 3.3. Carbon densities and carbon storage (CS) in the soil under 8 sympodial bamboo stands Carbon densities and CSs in the soil under the 8 bamboo species
J. Teng et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 168 (2016) 46e52
49
Table 4 Comparison of biomass and carbon storage (CS) in aboveground parts of 8 sympodial bamboo species. Bamboo species
Organ
Biomass (Mg ha1)
Carbon storage (Mg C ha1)
Dendrocalamus latiflorus Munro
Leaf Branch Culms Below-ground Total Leaf Branch Culms Below-ground Total Leaf Branch Culms Below-ground Total Leaf Branch Culms Below-ground Total Leaf Branch Culms Below-ground Total Leaf Branch Culms Below-ground Total Leaf Branch Culms Below-ground Total Leaf Branch Culms Below-ground Total
1.664 ± 1.061a(2.9)b 4.978 ± 1.996 (8.5) 10.041 ± 3.345 (17.1) 41.876 ± 9.542 (71.5) 58.559 (100) 1.228 ± 0.404 (2.5) 5.096 ± 1.625 (10.2) 38.306 ± 10.575 (76.7) 5.276 ± 1.746 (10.6) 49.906 (100) 2.516 ± 0.540 (4.4) 4.816 ± 2.101 (8.5) 40.310 ± 9.313 (70.2) 9.538 ± 3.985 (16.9) 57.180 (100) 4.643 ± 1.623 (5.6) 9.716 ± 3.194 (11.8) 32.943 ± 8.598 (39.9) 35.365 ± 9.764 (42.7) 82.667 (100) 0.617 ± 0.517 (0.9) 4.584 ± 2.935 (7.0) 44.514 ± 27.854 (67.9) 15.876 ± 6.236 (24.2) 65.591 (100) 2.110 ± 0.318 (2.7) 5.118 ± 0.836 (6.5) 54.179 ± 9.019 (68.8) 17.346 ± 3.738 (22.0) 78.753 (100) 2.494 ± 1.481 (3.4) 6.376 ± 3.781 (8.6) 54.893 ± 14.714 (74.1) 10.263 ± 3.769 (13.9) 74.026 (100) 1.001 ± 0.643 (1.0) 4.082 ± 0.808 (3.9) 72.637 ± 19.395 (70.0) 25.876 ± 7.638 (25.1) 103.596 (100)
± 0.474 ± 0.910 ± 1.604 ± 4.813 27.605 0.555 ± 0.183 2.389 ± 0.762 18.348 ± 5.065 2.516 ± 0.826 23.808 1.107 ± 0.238 2.166 ± 0.945 18.406 ± 4.252 4.523 ± 2.103 26.202 1.981 ± 0.692 4.508 ± 1.482 15.776 ± 5.495 16.664 ± 5.521 38.929 0.276 ± 0.231 2.114 ± 1.353 21.009 ± 13.146 7.424 ± 3.214 30.823 0.960 ± 0.145 2.430 ± 0.397 26.100 ± 4.345 8.193 ± 1.973 37.683 1.105 ± 0.656 2.979 ± 1.767 26.170 ± 7.015 4.626 ± 1.863 34.880 0.429 ± 0.275 1.836 ± 0.363 33.166 ± 8.856 12.392 ± 2.859 47.823
Dendrocalamus membranaceus Munro
Bambusa textilis McClure
Dendrocalamopsis oldhami (Munro) Keng f.
B. burmanica McClure
B. chungii McClure
Neosinocalamus affinis (Rendle) Keng f.
Dendrocalamus giganteus Munro
a b
0.744 2.269 4.814 19.778
(2.7) (8.2) (17.4) (71.7) (100) (2.3) (10.0) (77.1) (10.6) (100) (4.2) (8.3) (70.2) (17.3) (100) (5.1) (11.6) (40.5) (42.8) (100) (0.9) (6.9) (68.1) (24.1) (100) (2.5) (6.5) (69.3) (21.7) (100) (3.2) (8.5) (75.0) (13.3) (100) (0.9) (3.8) (69.3) (25.9) (100)
Mean values ± standard error. The same is below. Values in parentheses are the percentages of biomass or CS in different organs accounting for total biomass or CS. The same is below.
decreased with soil depth. Carbon densities in the 0e10 cm soil depth ranged from 16.716 g kg1 to 33.471 g kg1. The largest CS in the 0e60 cm soil depth was found in the DGM stand (144.339 Mg C ha1), whereas the lowest CS in the 0e60 cm soil depth was observed in the BTM stand (76.087 Mg C ha1) (Table 5). 3.4. Carbon storage (CS) and their spatial distribution in 8 sympodial bamboo ecosystems Spatial distribution of carbon storage (CS) in the bamboo ecosystems is given in Table 6. Total CSs in the sympodial bamboo ecosystems ranged significantly from 103.611 Mg C ha1 in the BTM stand to 194.203 Mg C ha1 in the DGM stand. Spatial distribution of CSs among the ecosystems decreased in the order: soil > vegetation > litter. On average, CSs in soil, vegetation, and litter accounted for 75.7, 23.3, and 1.0% of total CS in sympodial bamboo ecosystems, respectively. CSs in the 0e60 cm soil depth were the main carbon pool of the 8 sympodial bamboo ecosystems. CSs in soil, vegetation, and litter accounted for 68.0 to 83.5, 16.8 to 31.1, and 0.3e1.7% of total CS, respectively (Table 6). 3.5. Estimation of total CS and biomass carbon sequestration rates Estimation of the quantities of total C stored and the biomass
carbon sequestration rates by the 8 species is given in Table 7. The quantity of CSs and biomass carbon sequestration rates varies greatly with sympodial bamboo species. CSs in the bamboo stands ranged from 103.611 to 194.203 Mg C ha1. The quantity of CS in NAK stands was about 14 times greater in BBM and DOK stands. Annual biomass carbon sequestration rate by sympodial bamboo stands ranged from 9.52 to 19.12 Mg C ha1 yr1. The greatest and lowest means were obtained for DGM and DMM stands. Total CS in the bamboo stands was estimated to be 93.184 106 Mg C ha1, in which CS in NAK stand accounted for 38.3% of all species studied. Annual biomass carbon sequestration rate was 8.573 106 Mg C yr1, in which CS in NAK stands accounting for 34.1% of overall biomass sequestration rate.
4. Discussion 4.1. Carbon density (CD) CD in the plants of different forests is an important parameter for estimating biomass CS of the vegetation. Generally, estimation of biomass CS from the biomass makes use of conversion coefficients ranging from 0.45 to 0.50 (Jiang et al., 2009). In this study, CDs ranged from 0.4286 to 0.4817 g g1 with an average CD of 0.4514 g g1, which is much lower than that (0.5037 g g1) of Moso
50
J. Teng et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 168 (2016) 46e52
Table 5 Comparison of carbon densities and carbon storage (CS) in the soils under 8 sympodial bamboo stands. Bamboo species
Soil depth (cm)
Carbon density (g kg1)
Carbon storage (Mg C ha1)
Dendrocalamus latiflorus Munro
0e10 10e30 30e60 Total 0e10 10e30 30e60 Total 0e10 10e30 30e60 Total 0e10 10e30 30e60 Total 0e10 10e30 30e60 Total 0e10 10e30 30e60 Total 0e10 10e30 30e60 Total 0e10 10e30 30e60 Total
20.598 ± 10.920a 13.557 ± 8.963 5.976 ± 3.883 e 27.915 ± 4.490 20.109 ± 4.591 15.638 ± 5.487 e 16.716 ± 4.486 8.132 ± 4.301 8.041 ± 3.061 e 30.910 ± 11.798 17.821 ± 8.350 11.510 ± 7.142 e 27.585 ± 13.130 19.423 ± 8.729 13.263 ± 6.008 e 20.491 ± 7.126 11.396 ± 4.270 6.234 ± 1.864 e 19.774 ± 10.359 16.285 ± 9.273 13.534 ± 6.969 e 33.471 ± 5.235 22.103 ± 10.046 15.222 ± 8.963 e
22.246 ± 31.995 ± 22.947 ± 77.188 25.182 ± 39.596 ± 50.924 ± 115.701 21.563 ± 21.957 ± 32.567 ± 76.087 38.019 ± 45.265 ± 43.855 ± 127.139 24.954 ± 43.124 ± 45.497 ± 113.575 26.433 ± 30.770 ± 25.246 ± 82.449 50.381 ± 43.172 ± 40.101 ± 133.654 36.789 ± 50.190 ± 57.360 ± 144.339
Dendrocalamus membranaceus Munro
Bambusa textilis McClure
Dendrocalamopsis oldhami (Munro) Keng f.
B. burmanica McClure
B. chungii McClure
Neosinocalamus affinis (Rendle) Keng f.
Dendrocalamus giganteus Munro
a
11.794 21.152 14.912 4.852 9.301 16.543 5.786 11.613 12.395 14.512 21.208 27.210 8.111 20.534 22.730 9.192 11.528 7.548 28.025 23.724 20.585 4.496 18.604 27.186
Mean values ± standard error.
Table 6 Spatial distribution of carbon storage (CS) in 8 sympodial bamboo ecosystems. Bamboo species
CS in living biomass (Mg C ha1)
CS in litter (Mg C ha1)
DLM DMM BTM DOK BBM BCM NAK DGM Mean
27.605 ± 8.654$(26.0) 23.80 ± 7.265 (16.8) 26.202 ± 8.347 (25.3) 38.929 ± 10.678 (23.4) 30.823 ± 10.396 (21.0) 37.683 ± 11.317 (31.1) 34.880 ± 11.836 (22.3) 47.823 ± 13.347 (24.6) 33.468 (23.3)
1.279 2.153 1.322 0.520 2.284 1.145 1.163 2.041
± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±
0.323 0.648 0.382 0.163 0.338 0.239 0.398 0.329 1.488
(1.2) (1.7) (1.3) (0.3) (1.6) (0.9) (0.7) (1.1) (1.0)
CS in soil layer (Mg C ha1) 77.188 115.70 76.087 127.139 113.575 82.449 133.654 144.339
± 21.736 ± 25.397 ± 23.487 ± 28.517 ± 25.264 ± 19.476 ± 29.581 ± 30.783 108.767
(72.8) (83.5) (74.4) (76.3) (77.4) (68.0) (78.7) (74.3) (75.7)
Total CS (Mg C ha1) 106.073 141.662 103.611 166.588 146.682 121.277 169.697 194.203
± 37.764 ± 39.537 ± 32.448 ± 42.648 ± 39.847 ± 36.957 ± 32.374 ± 47.351 143.724
(100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100)
Table 7 Estimation of quantity of total C stored and biomass carbon sequestration rate in 8 sympodial bamboo stands in China. Bamboo species
DLM DMM BTM DOK BBM BCM NAK DGM Total a b c
Area ( 104 ha)
10.9 7.0 6.6 1.5 1.0 8.0 21.0 8.0 64.0
Current CS
Biomass carbon sequestration rate
(Mg C ha1)
( 106 Mg C)a
(Mg C ha1 yr1)b
( 106 Mg C)c
106.073 141.662 103.611 166.588 146.682 121.277 169.697 194.203 e
11.562 9.916 6.838 2.499 1.467 9.702 35.664 15.536 93.184
11.04 9.52 10.48 15.57 12.33 15.07 13.93 19.12 e
1.203 0.667 0.692 0.234 0.123 1.206 2.925 1.523 8.573
Quantity of total C stored is obtained by multiplying area ( 104 ha) and current CS (Mg C ha1). Biomass carbon sequestration rate is calculated using 40% of total biomass C (Wang et al., 2009b). Quantity of biomass carbon sequestration rate is obtained from area ( 104 ha) Current CS (Mg C ha1 yr1).
bamboo stands (Zhou and Jiang, 2004; Jiang et al., 2011), but was close to that (0.4508 g g1) of Pleioblastus amarus stands (Shen et al., 2013).
CDs in forest biomass vary with species, organs, ages, and management (Zhou and Jiang, 2004; Jiang et al., 2009; Zhou et al., 2006, 2009, 2011). In the subtropic region of China, average CDs in 3
J. Teng et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 168 (2016) 46e52
forest stands decreased in the order: Moso bamboo stand (0.504 g g1) > Chinese fir (Cunninghamia lanceolata) (0.478 g g1) > Masson pine (Pinus Massoniana Lamb.) (0.464 g g1) (Jiang et al., 2011). The current study found significant differences in CDs among bamboo species and organs. CD in the branches of BCM was much greater (P < 0.05) than that for DLM and DGM, while CDs in the culms those species besides BCM were much greater (P < 0.05) than that for DGM (Fig. 1). CDs in different organs decreased in the order: culms (0.4754 g g1) > below-ground (0.4701 g g1) > branches (0.4662 g g1) > leaves (0.4420 g g1), which was similar to earlier findings for Moso bamboo stands (Zhou and Jiang, 2004; Jiang et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2010). 4.2. Characteristics of carbon stock and sequestration Total CS in bamboo stand ecosystems depends on bamboo species, cultivation age, mulching, fertilization, soil fertilities, and other factors (Zhou and Jiang, 2004; Jiang et al., 2009; Zhou et al., 2006, 2009, 2011). There was a significant variation in total CSs in the ecosystem of the 8 sympodial bamboo species studied and ranged from 103.6 to 194.2 Mg C ha1 with an average CS of 143.7 Mg C ha1 (Table 6). The proportion of soil carbon to total CS in sympodial bamboo ecosystems was similar to that of other bamboo species (Zhou and Jiang, 2004; Li et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2010; Jiang et al., 2011). CS of different forest stands is in direct proportion to their biomass (Jiang et al., 2011), while biomass (Mg ha1) of vegetation of bamboo stands depends on the growth characteristics (plant height and diameter) (Yen et al., 2010) and standing densities (Zhou et al., 2009). In this study, the highest biomass was obtained from DGM stand (Table 4) due to the greater single plant weight and higher standing densities (Table 2). For sympodial bamboo stands, average ratio of below-ground biomass to total biomass was 28.5% (Table 4) However, ratios of below-ground biomass to total biomass in DOK and DLM stands equaled as much as 42.7 and 71.5%, respectively (Table 4) which is much greater than that Moso bamboo (33%) (Wang et al., 2013). Therefore, a much higher proportion of biomass carbon is stored in the soils of DOK and DLM stands, with their roots remaining alive for vegetative reproduction after harvesting. 4.3. Evaluation of carbon sequestration potential in sympodial bamboo ecosystems Carbon sequestration potential of the bamboo stand ecosystems can be evaluated using CS and carbon sequestration rates in the bamboo stand ecosystems. Sympodial bamboos have the characteristics of faster growth, higher yield, well developed roots and rhizomes as comparison with other types of bamboo (Zhang et al., 2007; Liu et al., 2011), and have greater CSs and higher carbon sequestration rates. Comparison of CSs in different bamboo stand ecosystems in this and previous studies showed that bamboo stands decrease in the order: sympodial bamboos (143.724 Mg C ha1 for an average of 8 species) (this study) > Pleioblastus amarus (135.81 Mg ha1) > Moso bamboo (113.3 Mg C ha1 for an average of 5 experiments) (Zhou and Jiang, 2004; Li et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2010; Jiang et al., 2011) > Phyllostachys praecox (84.5 Mg C ha1) (Li et al., 2010). The annual carbon sequestration rates (9.52e19.12 Mg C ha1 yr1) in our study is close to that in Moso bamboo stands (9.9e15.3 Mg C ha1 yr1) (Zhou and Jiang, 2004; Zhou et al., 2006, 2009; Wang et al., 2009a; Yen and Lee, 2011), but much greater than that in Pleioblastus amarus stand (8.14 Mg C ha1) (Li et al., 2006). The substitution of sympodial bamboo species (DMM) with the lowest CS by one with the highest
51
(DGM) CS would lead to an additional biomass carbon sequestration rate of 9.6 Mg C ha1. 5. Conclusions Sympodial bamboo is an important economic bamboo species covering more than 80 104 ha in China. Sympodial bamboos have the growth characteristics of faster growth, higher yield, and strong development of roots and rhizomes. Thus it has greater CSs and carbon sequestration rates relative to other bamboo species. Total CS and biomass carbon sequestration rate in our 8 sympodial bamboo stands occupying 64.0 104 ha in China is 93.184 106 Mg C ha1 and 8.573 106 Mg C yr1, respectively. There were significant variations in CSs and biomass carbon sequestration rates among the eight species studied. Thus substitution of sympodial bamboo species with the lowest CS by one with the highest CS would have the greatest potential for increasing C sequestration. In order to increase the amount of carbon accumulated in the bamboo stands, the plantation area of sympodial bamboo stands with high biomass carbon sequestration rate, such as NAK and DGM stands need to be expanded. Acknowledgments The authors wish to acknowledge the funding support from the Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41471197), the key Fund of Science and Technology of Zhejiang Province (No: LZ12C16003), the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province (No: LY13C160010). References An, Y.F., Zhou, B.F., Wen, C.H., Wang, G., 2009. Effects of different management patterns on root system structure and biomass of Bambusa oldhami. For. Res. 22 (1), 1e6 (in Chinese with English summary). Brown, S., Hall, C.A.S., Knabe, W., Raich, J., Trexler, M.C., Woomer, P., 1993. Tropical forests: their past, present, and potential role in the terrestrial C budget. Water Air Soil Pollut. 70, 71e94. Chen, L.G., Zheng, Y.S., Yao, G.D., Zheng, R.M., Gao, P.J., 2002. Study on the biomass structure of new stands of dendrocalamus oldhami along seashore Dene. J. Fujian Coll. For. 22 (3), 249e252 (in Chinese with English summary). Chen, B.K., Yang, Y.M., Zhang, G.X., Sun, M.S., Shi, M., 2007. A study on cultivation and integrated utilization of large-size cluster bamboo. J. West China For. Sci. 2, 1e9 (in Chinese with English summary). Chen, X.G., Zhang, X.Q., Zhang, Y.P., Booth, T., He, X.H., 2009. Changes of carbon stocks in bamboo stands in China during 100 years. For. Ecol. Manag. 258, 1489e1496. DOE., 2008. International Energy Outlook, 2008. Energy Information Administration Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. Du, H.Q., Zhou, G.M., Fan, W.Y., Ge, H.L., Xu, X.J., Shi, Y.J., Fan, W.L., 2010. Spatial heterogeneity and carbon contribution of aboveground biomass of moso bamboo by using geostatistical theory. Plant Ecol. 207 (1), 131e139. Ji, H.H., Zhuang, S.Y., Zhang, H.X., Sun, B., Gui, R.Y., 2013. Zonality variation of carbon storage in Phyllostachy edulis plantation ecosystems in China. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 22 (1), 1e5 (in Chinese with English summary). Jiang, P.K., Xu, Q.F., Zhou, G.M., Meng, C.F., 2009. Soil Quality under Phyllostachys Praecox Stands and its Evolution Trend. Agric Press, Beijing (in Chinese with English summary). Jiang, P.K., Meng, C.F., Zhou, G.M., Xu, Q.F., 2011. Comparative study of carbon storage in different forest stands in Subtropical China. Bot. Rev. 77 (3), 242e251. Li, J., Huang, C.D., Zhang, G.Q., 2006. Density, storage and spatial distribution of carbon in Pleioblastus amarus forest returned from farmland. J. Zhejiang For. Sci. Technol. 26 (4), 104e109 (in Chinese with English summary). Li, Z.C., Yang, X.S., Cai, X.J., Sun, J.J., Geri, T.T., Sun, X.Z., Fu, M.Y., 2010. Effects of bamboo cultivation on the carbon storage. J. Nanjing For. Univ. Nat. Sci. Ed. 34 (1), 25e28 (in Chinese with English summary). Liu, Y.F., Huang, C.D., Chen, Q.B., 2010. Carbon storage and allocation of Phyllostachys pubescens ecosystem in scenic spot within the southern Sichuan Bamboo sea. J. Sichuan Agric. Univ. 28 (2), 136e140 (in Chinese with English summary). Liu, G.L., Fan, S.H., Su, S.H., 2011. Research advances in the growth characteristics and management technology of sympodial bamboo forests. J. Bamboo Res. 30 (3), 43e48 (in Chinese with English summary). Ma, N.X., 2004. Resources of sympodial bamboos in China and their utilization. J. Bamboo Res. 01, 1e5 (in Chinese with English summary).
52
J. Teng et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 168 (2016) 46e52
Qiou, R.F., Chen, Z.M., Zheng, Y.S., Huang, B.L., Yang, Z.Q., 2004. Study on the biomass, productivity and energy structure of Dendrocalamus latiflorus plantations planted on mountainous areas. For. Res. 17 (6), 726e730 (in Chinese with English summary). Shen, G.C., Zhang, X.D., Zhang, L., Gao, S.H., Zhang, R., Zhu, W.S., Tang, S.Q., 2013. Estimating the carbon stock and carbon sequestration of the Pleioblastus amarus forest ecosystem in southern of Sichuan. Sci. Silvae Sin. 49 (03), 78e84 (in Chinese with English summary). Soil Science Society of China, 2000. Analytical Method of Soils and Agricultural Chemistry. China Agric Sci and Tech Press, Beijing (in Chinese with English summary). Wang, B., Wang, Y., Guo, H., Zhao, G.D., Bai, X.L., 2009a. Carbon storage and spatial distribution in Phyllostachys pubescens forest in Dagangshan mountain of Jiangxi Province. J. Beijing For. Univ. 31 (6), 39e42 (in Chinese with English summary). Wang, Y.J., Huang, C.D., Wang, X.S., Hu, T., Zhang, G.Q., 2009b. Stock and spatial distribution characteristics of Neosinocalamus affinis forest ecosystem. J. Fujian For. Sci. Technol. 36 (2), 6e9 (in Chinese with English summary). Wang, B., Wei, W.J., Liu, C.J., You, W.Z., Niu, X., Man, R.Z., 2013. Biomass and carbon stock in moso bamboo forests in subtropical China: characteristics and implications. J Trop. For. Sci. 25 (1), 137e148. Xiao, F.M., Fan, S.H., Wang, S.L., Guan, F.Y., Yu, X.J., Shen, Z.Q., 2010. Estimation of the carbon balance in moso bamboo and Chinese fir plantation ecosystem. Sci. Silvae Sin. 46, 59e65 (in Chinese with English summary). Yang, Q., Su, G.R., Duan, Z.B., He, K.J., Wang, Z.L., Sun, Q.X., Peng, Z.H., 2008. Biomass
structure and its regression models of Dendrocalamus hamiltonii Nees et Arn. ex Munro population. J. Northwest Agric.For. Univ. Nat. Sci. Ed. 36 (7), 127e134 (in Chinese with English summary). Yen, T.M., Ji, Y.J., Lee, J.S., 2010. Estimating biomass production and carbon storage for a fast-growing makino bamboo (Phyllostachys makinoi) plant based on the diameter distribution model. For. Ecol. Manag. 260, 339e344. Yen, T.M., Lee, J.S., 2011. Comparing aboveground carbon sequestration between moso bamboo (Phyllostachys heterocycla) and China fir (Cunninghamia lanceolata) forests based on the allometric model. For. Ecol. Manag. 261, 995e1002. Zhang, Z.B., Zhou, G.Y., Li, Q.Z., 2007. Research progress and some problems on cluster bamboo in China. Trop. For. 35 (2), 12e14. Zhang, P., Huang, L.L., Zhang, X.D., Tang, S.Q., Yu, Y., 2009. Studies on biomass structure and its regression models of Bambusa rigida Keng. J. Bamboo Res. 28 (3), 25e28 (in Chinese with English summary). Zhou, G.M., Jiang, P.K., 2004. Density, storage and spatial distribution of carbon in Phyllostachy pubescens. For. Sci. 40 (6), 20e24 (in Chinese with English summary). Zhou, G.M., Wu, J.S., Jiang, P.K., 2006. Effects of different management models on carbon storage in Phyllostachy pubescens forests. J. Beijing For. Univ. 28 (6), 51e55 (in Chinese with English summary). Zhou, G.M., Jiang, P.K., Xu, Q.F., 2009. Fixation and Translation of Carbon in Bamboo Forest Ecosystem. Sci Press, Beijing, pp. 176e186 (in Chinese with English summary). Zhou, G.M., Meng, C.F., Jiang, P.K., Xu, Q.F., 2011. Review of carbon fixation in Bamboo forests in China. Bot. Rev. 77 (3), 262e270.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Environmental Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman
Research article
Spatial distribution and variability of carbon storage in different sympodial bamboo species in China Jiangnan Teng a, b, 1, Tingting Xiang a, b, Zhangting Huang a, b, Jiasen Wu a, b, Peikun Jiang a, b, *, 2, Cifu Meng a, b, **, Yongfu Li a, b, Jeffry J. Fuhrmann c a b c
Zhejiang Provincial Key Laboratory of Carbon Cycling in Forest Ecosystems and Carbon Sequestration, Zhejiang A & F University, Lin'an, 311300, China School of Environmental and Resource Sciences, Zhejiang A & F University, Lin'an, 311300, China Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Delaware, Delaware, 19716, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 26 June 2015 Received in revised form 29 September 2015 Accepted 16 November 2015 Available online 13 December 2015
Selection of tree species is potentially an important management decision for increasing carbon storage in forest ecosystems. This study investigated and compared spatial distribution and variability of carbon storage in 8 sympodial bamboo species in China. The results of this study showed that average carbon densities (CDs) in the different organs decreased in the order: culms (0.4754 g g1) > below-ground (0.4701 g g1) > branches (0.4662 g g1) > leaves (0.4420 g g1). Spatial distribution of carbon storage (CS) on an area basis in the biomass of 8 sympodial bamboo species was in the order: culms (17.4 e77.1%) > below-ground (10.6e71.7%) > branches (3.8e11.6%) > leaves (0.9e5.1%). Total CSs in the sympodial bamboo ecosystems ranged from 103.6 Mg C ha1 in Bambusa textilis McClure stand to 194.2 Mg C ha1 in Dendrocalamus giganteus Munro stand. Spatial distribution of CSs in 8 sympodial bamboo ecosystems decreased in the order: soil (68.0e83.5%) > vegetation (16.8e31.1%) > litter (0.3 e1.7%). Total current CS and biomass carbon sequestration rate in the sympodial bamboo stands studied in China is 93.184 106 Mg C ha1 and 8.573 106 Mg C yr1, respectively. The sympodial bamboos had a greater CSs and higher carbon sequestration rates relative to other bamboo species. Sympodial bamboos can play an important role in improving climate and economy in the widely cultivated areas of the world. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Sympodial bamboo Carbon density (CD) Carbon storage (CS) Spatial distribution Carbon sequestration rate
1. Introduction The global dioxide (CO2) emission rate reached 3.11 1011 Mg yr1 in 2010 (DOE, 2008), and such a high rate of CO2 emission is having a marked influence on the global climate. Forests are known to store large quantities of carbon, which have the potential to modify climate change through their influence on the global carbon cycle. Forests store 86% and 73% of the global carbon
* Corresponding author. Zhejiang Provincial Key Laboratory of Carbon Cycling in Forest Ecosystems and Carbon Sequestration, Zhejiang A & F University, Lin'an, 311300, China. ** Corresponding author. Zhejiang Provincial Key Laboratory of Carbon Cycling in Forest Ecosystems and Carbon Sequestration, Zhejiang A & F University, Lin'an, 311300, China. E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Jiang). 1 Jiangnan Teng (1991e), master degree candidate, mainly engaged in research of the carbon storage and calorific value of sympodial bamboo. 2 Peikun Jiang (1963e), professor, engaged in the study of soil and the environment. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.11.034 0301-4797/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
pool in vegetation and soils (Brown et al., 1993), respectively. Thus carbon sequestration by growing forests with higher carbon sequestration rates is a cost-effective option for mitigation of CO2 emissions caused by human activities (Jiang et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2013). China has 500 bamboo species belonging to 48 genera, compared with 1500 species and 87 genera worldwide (Chen et al., 2009). The total area of bamboo forests in China is 4.2 106 ha, representing 19.1% of world's total area (22 106 ha) and 3.3% of China's total forest area (129.2 106 ha). Sympodial bamboo is also an important component of bamboo resources and accounts for more than 70% of the total number of bamboo species in the world, which is widely distributed in east South Asia, South Asia, Latin America, central and southern Africa and Pacific island countries (Chen et al., 2007). Carbon dioxide fixation of Sympodial bamboo helps to improve the local climate, and the bamboo products can improve the local economic. China has 16 genera and about 160 species covering more than 80 104 ha and producing 500 104 t in annual bamboo timber (Ma, 2004).
J. Teng et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 168 (2016) 46e52
At present, carbon storage (CS), area basis in bamboo stands accounts for more than 11% of the total carbon storage in all the forests of China. Since the early 21st century, the studies on CS in bamboo stands have focused mainly on cluster bamboo stands (Du et al., 2010; Ji et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2009a, 2013; Xiao et al., 2010; Yen and Lee, 2011; Zhou and Jiang, 2004; Zhou et al., 2009), but limited studies (Wang et al., 2009b) were conducted to examine CSs in sympodial bamboo stands. The objective of this experiment were to (1) quantify CS and its spatial distribution in 8 sympodial bamboo ecosystems in China, (2) compare the variability of CS among sympodial bamboo species, and (3) estimate total CSs and biomass carbon sequestration rates of 8 sympodial bamboo species in China.
47
About 100 g of plant or litter samples were washed for 1 min in deionized water, dried at 105 C for 20 min and then at 70 C for 48 h in a forced-air oven. Dry weights of every sample were measured and then ground to pass through a 30-mesh screen for chemical analysis. Composite soil samples (2.0 kg) for determining organic C, bulk density, and other soil variables were taken at 0 to 10, 10 to 30, and 30e60 cm depth in February, 2013 from seven randomly-selected sample points per plot. Soils were air-dried and ground to pass through a 0.5 mm screen prior to analysis. The basic physical and chemical properties of the soils collected from the 32 plots representing the 8 sympodial bamboo species are given in Table 3. 2.3. Plant and soil analysis
2. Materials and methods 2.1. Description of zones studied This study examined variability of aboveground carbon storage in 8 sympodial bamboo species (Table 1): Dendrocalamus latiflorus Munro (DLM), Dendrocalamus membranaceus Munro (DMM), Bambusa textilis McClure (BTM), Dendrocalamopsis oldhami (Munro) Keng f. (DOK), Bambusa burmanica McClure (BBM) Bambusa chungii McClure (BCM), Neosinocalamus affinis (Rendle) Keng f. (NAK), and Dendrocalamus giganteus Munro (DGM). They were mainly distributed in Fujian, Zhejiang, Yunnan, Guangdong, Guangxi, Sichuan, Taiwan, Hainan, Hunan, and other provinces. Hectarage of the 8 sympodial bamboo species accounted for 80% of total area of sympodial bamboo stands examined. The sample areas in this study were all in natural areas, which minimized the effects of human activities. Distribution and growth characteristics of the 8 sympodial bamboo species studied are given in Table 1. 2.2. Plant and soil sampling Characteristics of the sampling sites are showed in Table 2. Four representative sampling plots (20 m 20 m) with different habitat conditions (plain, mountainous region, along river) were established for each bamboo species in February, 2013, and average height and diameter of every plant in the sampling plots was measured. Four plants with differing ages were harvested from each sampling plot, and the contribution of each organ of the above- and below-ground biomass was determined. Each group of four plants was divided into leaves, branches, culms, roots, stumps, and rhizomes. The samples of branches and culms consisted of upper, middle, and lower leaves. Fresh weights were recorded and 500e1000 g of fresh samples was taken for each organ per plant. Five subplots (2 m 2 m) were established on the four corners and center of every sampling plot, and associated litter was collected and weighed.
Soil pH was determined by the electrode method at a 1:5 soil to water ratio. Available N, P, and K were determined by the diffusion absorption method, Bray-1 method, and the NH4OAc extract-flame photometric method, respectively. Bulk densities of the soil were determined by the bulk density ring method. Organic C in soil samples was determined by the K2Cr2O7 þ H2SO4 digestion method. Organic C in plant samples was determined by elemental analyzer. All the above-mentioned methods are presented in a Soil Science Society China monograph (2000). 2.4. Calculation of carbon storage Total biomass in above-ground organs (Mg ha1) ¼ single plant weight (kg plant1) standing density (plant ha1)/1000. Total biomass in below-ground organs (Mg ha1) ¼ biomass in above-ground organs in this study (Mg ha1) the ratios of belowground biomass/above-ground biomass from the other researchers (Chen et al., 2002; Qiou et al., 2004; Yang et al., 2008; An et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2009). Carbon storage (CS) in different organs (Mg ha1) ¼ carbon density (Mg Mg1) biomass in different organs of different sympodial bamboo species (Mg ha1). 2.5. Statistical analyses One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the least significant difference (LSD) test were used to determine the significant differences among different tissues and species. 3. Results 3.1. Carbon densities (CDs) in the different plant organs Average carbon densities in different organs of 8 sympodial bamboo species are shown in Fig. 1. Average CDs in the different
Table 1 Distribution and growth characteristics of 8 sympodial bamboo species studied in China. Bamboo speciesa
Area ( 104 ha)
Distribution (province)
Height (m)
DBHb (cm)
DLM DMM BTM DOK BBM BCM NAK DGM
10.9 7.0 6.6 1.5 1.0 8.0 21.0 8.0
Fujian, Yunnan, Guizhou, Guangdong, Taiwan Yunnan, Sichuan, Fujian Guangdong, Guangxi, Fujian, Yunnan. Zhejiang, Fujian, Taiwan, Guangdong, Guangxi, Hainan Yunnan, Fujian, Taiwan. Guangdong, Guangxi, Hainan, Fujian, South Huna. Yunnan, Sichuan. Yunnan.
20e25 8e15 8e10 6e12 20e25 5e18 5e10 20e30
15e30 7e10 3e5 3e9 15e30 3e7 3e6 20e30
a DLM ¼ Dendrocalamus latiflorus Munro, DMM ¼ Dendrocalamus membranaceus Munro, BTM ¼ Bambusa textilis McClure, DOK ¼ Dendrocalamopsis oldhami (Munro) Keng f., BBM ¼ B. burmanica McClure, BCM ¼ B. chungii McClure, NAK ¼ Neosinocalamus affinis (Rendle) Keng f., DGM ¼ Dendrocalamus giganteus Munro The same is below. b DBH ¼ Diameter at breast height.
48
J. Teng et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 168 (2016) 46e52
Table 2 Locations and stand characteristics of sampling plots of 8 sympodial bamboo species studied. Bamboo species Longitude and latitude DLM DMM BTM DOK BBM BCM NAK DGM
E117 230 5700 N24 320 3100 E97 320 1600 N24 260 4400 E 112 230 4700 N23 460 5800 E120 180 3900 N27 290 2900 E97 320 3400 N24 250 3900 E113 590 4700 N23 280 4000 E104 410 0500 N27 550 2400 E98 200 2700 N24 510 600
Altitude (m) Slope Aspect 50 534 96 45 545 63 605 534
18 30 30 2 30 35 30 25
South-east East South-west South South-west South West South-east
Density (plant ha1) Above ground weight (kg$plant1) Height (m) 2080 4581 17,088 13,029 3000 12,689 35,000 3350
2.01e6.78 3.12e17.41 1.02e2.71 0.97e4.17 6.79e3.61 1.54e7.20 0.96e2.40 14.91e40.04
Diameter (cm)
10.70e11.78 6.23e6.33 12.96e14.98 4.64e6.97 10.10e11.50 3.58e4.14 6.65e9.35 4.07e5.25 14.81e17.12 5.75e6.02 7.80e13.00 4.43e7.57 10.39e11.03 4.53e5.05 17.79e22.87 10.35e11.44
Table 3 Basic physical and chemical properties of the soils collected from 8 sympodial bamboo sampling plots. Bamboo species Soil depth (cm) Soil bulk density (g cm3) pH (H2O) Organic matter (g kg1) Hydroly-zable N (mg kg1) Available P (mg kg1) Available K (mg kg1) DLM
DMM
BTM
DOK
BBM
BCM
NAK
DGM
0e10 10e30 30e60 0e10 10e30 30e60 0e10 10e30 30e60 0e10 10e30 30e60 0e10 10e30 30e60 0e10 10e30 30e60 0e10 10e30 30e60 0e10 10e30 30e60
1.08 1.18 1.28 0.90 0.98 1.10 1.29 1.35 1.35 1.23 1.27 1.27 0.99 1.10 1.13 1.29 1.35 1.35 1.26 1.34 1.48 1.11 1.18 1.32
4.36 4.60 4.69 6.06 6.12 6.19 4.90 4.88 5.00 5.14 5.32 5.50 6.03 6.28 6.35 4.68 4.78 4.91 6.57 6.82 6.71 5.83 5.95 5.96
35.5 23.37 10.30 48.13 34.68 26.95 28.82 14.02 13.87 53.31 30.73 19.84 47.58 33.50 22.87 35.32 19.64 10.75 34.10 28.08 23.33 57.70 38.10 26.25
228.3 122.7 107.5 156.2 112.3 78.4 159.2 73.4 59.9 266.5 128.9 87.8 171.1 112.6 76.0 184.0 103.8 59.5 144.2 135.9 112.5 143.9 117.4 91.6
1.37 0.13 0.05 5.61 4.51 9.87 3.10 1.19 2.37 16.2 2.3 0.15 2.02 1.50 1.19 3.3 5.41 6.54 4.67 9.52 12.5 5.13 16.76 13.23
48.7 25.2 22.6 152.0 124.0 136.5 61.7 43.3 28.5 40.1 26.0 20.38 197.6 136.4 121.7 36.3 25.0 18.9 103.3 82.8 74.8 148.6 130.6 117.3
than that in the other species. CD below-ground for NAK was much lower (P < 0.05) than that in the remaining species. 3.2. Distribution of carbon storage (CS) among tissues and species
Fig. 1. CDs in different organs of 2 year old plants among 8 sympodial bamboo species.
organs decreased in the order: culms (0.4754 g g1) > belowground organs (0.4701 g g1) > branches (0.4662 g g1) > leaves (0.4420 g g1). Significant differences were found for CDs in all the organs of the 8 species. CDs in the leaves of DOK and DGM were much lower (P < 0.05) than that in the other 6 species; CDs in the branches of DLM and DGM were much lower (P < 0.05) than that in DMM and BCM; CD in the culms of DGM was much lower (P < 0.05)
Spatial distribution of CS in the biomass of the 8 species were in the order: culms (17.4e77.1%) > below-ground (10.6e71.7%) > branches (3.8e11.6%) > leaves (0.9e5.1%). There were significant variations in CSs in different organs of the 8 species. CSs in the culms ranged from 4.814 Mg C ha1 in DLM stand to 33.166 Mg C ha1 in DGM stand; CSs in the below-ground ranged from 2.516 Mg C ha1 in DMM stand to 19.778 Mg C ha1 in DLM stand; CSs in the branches ranged from 1.836 Mg C ha1 in DGM stand to 4.508 Mg C ha1 in DOK stand; CSs in the culms ranged from 0.276 Mg C ha1 in BBM stand to 1.981 Mg C ha1 in DOK stand (Table 4). Total CSs in the vegetation layers of different bamboo species decreased in order: DGM stand (47.823 Mg C ha1) > DOK stand (38.929 Mg C ha1) > BCM stand (37.683 Mg C ha1) > NAK stand (34.880 Mg C ha1) > BBM (30.823 Mg C ha1) > DLM stand (27.605 Mg C ha1) > BTM stand (26.202 Mg C ha1) > DMM stand (23.808 Mg C ha1) (Table 4). 3.3. Carbon densities and carbon storage (CS) in the soil under 8 sympodial bamboo stands Carbon densities and CSs in the soil under the 8 bamboo species
J. Teng et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 168 (2016) 46e52
49
Table 4 Comparison of biomass and carbon storage (CS) in aboveground parts of 8 sympodial bamboo species. Bamboo species
Organ
Biomass (Mg ha1)
Carbon storage (Mg C ha1)
Dendrocalamus latiflorus Munro
Leaf Branch Culms Below-ground Total Leaf Branch Culms Below-ground Total Leaf Branch Culms Below-ground Total Leaf Branch Culms Below-ground Total Leaf Branch Culms Below-ground Total Leaf Branch Culms Below-ground Total Leaf Branch Culms Below-ground Total Leaf Branch Culms Below-ground Total
1.664 ± 1.061a(2.9)b 4.978 ± 1.996 (8.5) 10.041 ± 3.345 (17.1) 41.876 ± 9.542 (71.5) 58.559 (100) 1.228 ± 0.404 (2.5) 5.096 ± 1.625 (10.2) 38.306 ± 10.575 (76.7) 5.276 ± 1.746 (10.6) 49.906 (100) 2.516 ± 0.540 (4.4) 4.816 ± 2.101 (8.5) 40.310 ± 9.313 (70.2) 9.538 ± 3.985 (16.9) 57.180 (100) 4.643 ± 1.623 (5.6) 9.716 ± 3.194 (11.8) 32.943 ± 8.598 (39.9) 35.365 ± 9.764 (42.7) 82.667 (100) 0.617 ± 0.517 (0.9) 4.584 ± 2.935 (7.0) 44.514 ± 27.854 (67.9) 15.876 ± 6.236 (24.2) 65.591 (100) 2.110 ± 0.318 (2.7) 5.118 ± 0.836 (6.5) 54.179 ± 9.019 (68.8) 17.346 ± 3.738 (22.0) 78.753 (100) 2.494 ± 1.481 (3.4) 6.376 ± 3.781 (8.6) 54.893 ± 14.714 (74.1) 10.263 ± 3.769 (13.9) 74.026 (100) 1.001 ± 0.643 (1.0) 4.082 ± 0.808 (3.9) 72.637 ± 19.395 (70.0) 25.876 ± 7.638 (25.1) 103.596 (100)
± 0.474 ± 0.910 ± 1.604 ± 4.813 27.605 0.555 ± 0.183 2.389 ± 0.762 18.348 ± 5.065 2.516 ± 0.826 23.808 1.107 ± 0.238 2.166 ± 0.945 18.406 ± 4.252 4.523 ± 2.103 26.202 1.981 ± 0.692 4.508 ± 1.482 15.776 ± 5.495 16.664 ± 5.521 38.929 0.276 ± 0.231 2.114 ± 1.353 21.009 ± 13.146 7.424 ± 3.214 30.823 0.960 ± 0.145 2.430 ± 0.397 26.100 ± 4.345 8.193 ± 1.973 37.683 1.105 ± 0.656 2.979 ± 1.767 26.170 ± 7.015 4.626 ± 1.863 34.880 0.429 ± 0.275 1.836 ± 0.363 33.166 ± 8.856 12.392 ± 2.859 47.823
Dendrocalamus membranaceus Munro
Bambusa textilis McClure
Dendrocalamopsis oldhami (Munro) Keng f.
B. burmanica McClure
B. chungii McClure
Neosinocalamus affinis (Rendle) Keng f.
Dendrocalamus giganteus Munro
a b
0.744 2.269 4.814 19.778
(2.7) (8.2) (17.4) (71.7) (100) (2.3) (10.0) (77.1) (10.6) (100) (4.2) (8.3) (70.2) (17.3) (100) (5.1) (11.6) (40.5) (42.8) (100) (0.9) (6.9) (68.1) (24.1) (100) (2.5) (6.5) (69.3) (21.7) (100) (3.2) (8.5) (75.0) (13.3) (100) (0.9) (3.8) (69.3) (25.9) (100)
Mean values ± standard error. The same is below. Values in parentheses are the percentages of biomass or CS in different organs accounting for total biomass or CS. The same is below.
decreased with soil depth. Carbon densities in the 0e10 cm soil depth ranged from 16.716 g kg1 to 33.471 g kg1. The largest CS in the 0e60 cm soil depth was found in the DGM stand (144.339 Mg C ha1), whereas the lowest CS in the 0e60 cm soil depth was observed in the BTM stand (76.087 Mg C ha1) (Table 5). 3.4. Carbon storage (CS) and their spatial distribution in 8 sympodial bamboo ecosystems Spatial distribution of carbon storage (CS) in the bamboo ecosystems is given in Table 6. Total CSs in the sympodial bamboo ecosystems ranged significantly from 103.611 Mg C ha1 in the BTM stand to 194.203 Mg C ha1 in the DGM stand. Spatial distribution of CSs among the ecosystems decreased in the order: soil > vegetation > litter. On average, CSs in soil, vegetation, and litter accounted for 75.7, 23.3, and 1.0% of total CS in sympodial bamboo ecosystems, respectively. CSs in the 0e60 cm soil depth were the main carbon pool of the 8 sympodial bamboo ecosystems. CSs in soil, vegetation, and litter accounted for 68.0 to 83.5, 16.8 to 31.1, and 0.3e1.7% of total CS, respectively (Table 6). 3.5. Estimation of total CS and biomass carbon sequestration rates Estimation of the quantities of total C stored and the biomass
carbon sequestration rates by the 8 species is given in Table 7. The quantity of CSs and biomass carbon sequestration rates varies greatly with sympodial bamboo species. CSs in the bamboo stands ranged from 103.611 to 194.203 Mg C ha1. The quantity of CS in NAK stands was about 14 times greater in BBM and DOK stands. Annual biomass carbon sequestration rate by sympodial bamboo stands ranged from 9.52 to 19.12 Mg C ha1 yr1. The greatest and lowest means were obtained for DGM and DMM stands. Total CS in the bamboo stands was estimated to be 93.184 106 Mg C ha1, in which CS in NAK stand accounted for 38.3% of all species studied. Annual biomass carbon sequestration rate was 8.573 106 Mg C yr1, in which CS in NAK stands accounting for 34.1% of overall biomass sequestration rate.
4. Discussion 4.1. Carbon density (CD) CD in the plants of different forests is an important parameter for estimating biomass CS of the vegetation. Generally, estimation of biomass CS from the biomass makes use of conversion coefficients ranging from 0.45 to 0.50 (Jiang et al., 2009). In this study, CDs ranged from 0.4286 to 0.4817 g g1 with an average CD of 0.4514 g g1, which is much lower than that (0.5037 g g1) of Moso
50
J. Teng et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 168 (2016) 46e52
Table 5 Comparison of carbon densities and carbon storage (CS) in the soils under 8 sympodial bamboo stands. Bamboo species
Soil depth (cm)
Carbon density (g kg1)
Carbon storage (Mg C ha1)
Dendrocalamus latiflorus Munro
0e10 10e30 30e60 Total 0e10 10e30 30e60 Total 0e10 10e30 30e60 Total 0e10 10e30 30e60 Total 0e10 10e30 30e60 Total 0e10 10e30 30e60 Total 0e10 10e30 30e60 Total 0e10 10e30 30e60 Total
20.598 ± 10.920a 13.557 ± 8.963 5.976 ± 3.883 e 27.915 ± 4.490 20.109 ± 4.591 15.638 ± 5.487 e 16.716 ± 4.486 8.132 ± 4.301 8.041 ± 3.061 e 30.910 ± 11.798 17.821 ± 8.350 11.510 ± 7.142 e 27.585 ± 13.130 19.423 ± 8.729 13.263 ± 6.008 e 20.491 ± 7.126 11.396 ± 4.270 6.234 ± 1.864 e 19.774 ± 10.359 16.285 ± 9.273 13.534 ± 6.969 e 33.471 ± 5.235 22.103 ± 10.046 15.222 ± 8.963 e
22.246 ± 31.995 ± 22.947 ± 77.188 25.182 ± 39.596 ± 50.924 ± 115.701 21.563 ± 21.957 ± 32.567 ± 76.087 38.019 ± 45.265 ± 43.855 ± 127.139 24.954 ± 43.124 ± 45.497 ± 113.575 26.433 ± 30.770 ± 25.246 ± 82.449 50.381 ± 43.172 ± 40.101 ± 133.654 36.789 ± 50.190 ± 57.360 ± 144.339
Dendrocalamus membranaceus Munro
Bambusa textilis McClure
Dendrocalamopsis oldhami (Munro) Keng f.
B. burmanica McClure
B. chungii McClure
Neosinocalamus affinis (Rendle) Keng f.
Dendrocalamus giganteus Munro
a
11.794 21.152 14.912 4.852 9.301 16.543 5.786 11.613 12.395 14.512 21.208 27.210 8.111 20.534 22.730 9.192 11.528 7.548 28.025 23.724 20.585 4.496 18.604 27.186
Mean values ± standard error.
Table 6 Spatial distribution of carbon storage (CS) in 8 sympodial bamboo ecosystems. Bamboo species
CS in living biomass (Mg C ha1)
CS in litter (Mg C ha1)
DLM DMM BTM DOK BBM BCM NAK DGM Mean
27.605 ± 8.654$(26.0) 23.80 ± 7.265 (16.8) 26.202 ± 8.347 (25.3) 38.929 ± 10.678 (23.4) 30.823 ± 10.396 (21.0) 37.683 ± 11.317 (31.1) 34.880 ± 11.836 (22.3) 47.823 ± 13.347 (24.6) 33.468 (23.3)
1.279 2.153 1.322 0.520 2.284 1.145 1.163 2.041
± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±
0.323 0.648 0.382 0.163 0.338 0.239 0.398 0.329 1.488
(1.2) (1.7) (1.3) (0.3) (1.6) (0.9) (0.7) (1.1) (1.0)
CS in soil layer (Mg C ha1) 77.188 115.70 76.087 127.139 113.575 82.449 133.654 144.339
± 21.736 ± 25.397 ± 23.487 ± 28.517 ± 25.264 ± 19.476 ± 29.581 ± 30.783 108.767
(72.8) (83.5) (74.4) (76.3) (77.4) (68.0) (78.7) (74.3) (75.7)
Total CS (Mg C ha1) 106.073 141.662 103.611 166.588 146.682 121.277 169.697 194.203
± 37.764 ± 39.537 ± 32.448 ± 42.648 ± 39.847 ± 36.957 ± 32.374 ± 47.351 143.724
(100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100)
Table 7 Estimation of quantity of total C stored and biomass carbon sequestration rate in 8 sympodial bamboo stands in China. Bamboo species
DLM DMM BTM DOK BBM BCM NAK DGM Total a b c
Area ( 104 ha)
10.9 7.0 6.6 1.5 1.0 8.0 21.0 8.0 64.0
Current CS
Biomass carbon sequestration rate
(Mg C ha1)
( 106 Mg C)a
(Mg C ha1 yr1)b
( 106 Mg C)c
106.073 141.662 103.611 166.588 146.682 121.277 169.697 194.203 e
11.562 9.916 6.838 2.499 1.467 9.702 35.664 15.536 93.184
11.04 9.52 10.48 15.57 12.33 15.07 13.93 19.12 e
1.203 0.667 0.692 0.234 0.123 1.206 2.925 1.523 8.573
Quantity of total C stored is obtained by multiplying area ( 104 ha) and current CS (Mg C ha1). Biomass carbon sequestration rate is calculated using 40% of total biomass C (Wang et al., 2009b). Quantity of biomass carbon sequestration rate is obtained from area ( 104 ha) Current CS (Mg C ha1 yr1).
bamboo stands (Zhou and Jiang, 2004; Jiang et al., 2011), but was close to that (0.4508 g g1) of Pleioblastus amarus stands (Shen et al., 2013).
CDs in forest biomass vary with species, organs, ages, and management (Zhou and Jiang, 2004; Jiang et al., 2009; Zhou et al., 2006, 2009, 2011). In the subtropic region of China, average CDs in 3
J. Teng et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 168 (2016) 46e52
forest stands decreased in the order: Moso bamboo stand (0.504 g g1) > Chinese fir (Cunninghamia lanceolata) (0.478 g g1) > Masson pine (Pinus Massoniana Lamb.) (0.464 g g1) (Jiang et al., 2011). The current study found significant differences in CDs among bamboo species and organs. CD in the branches of BCM was much greater (P < 0.05) than that for DLM and DGM, while CDs in the culms those species besides BCM were much greater (P < 0.05) than that for DGM (Fig. 1). CDs in different organs decreased in the order: culms (0.4754 g g1) > below-ground (0.4701 g g1) > branches (0.4662 g g1) > leaves (0.4420 g g1), which was similar to earlier findings for Moso bamboo stands (Zhou and Jiang, 2004; Jiang et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2010). 4.2. Characteristics of carbon stock and sequestration Total CS in bamboo stand ecosystems depends on bamboo species, cultivation age, mulching, fertilization, soil fertilities, and other factors (Zhou and Jiang, 2004; Jiang et al., 2009; Zhou et al., 2006, 2009, 2011). There was a significant variation in total CSs in the ecosystem of the 8 sympodial bamboo species studied and ranged from 103.6 to 194.2 Mg C ha1 with an average CS of 143.7 Mg C ha1 (Table 6). The proportion of soil carbon to total CS in sympodial bamboo ecosystems was similar to that of other bamboo species (Zhou and Jiang, 2004; Li et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2010; Jiang et al., 2011). CS of different forest stands is in direct proportion to their biomass (Jiang et al., 2011), while biomass (Mg ha1) of vegetation of bamboo stands depends on the growth characteristics (plant height and diameter) (Yen et al., 2010) and standing densities (Zhou et al., 2009). In this study, the highest biomass was obtained from DGM stand (Table 4) due to the greater single plant weight and higher standing densities (Table 2). For sympodial bamboo stands, average ratio of below-ground biomass to total biomass was 28.5% (Table 4) However, ratios of below-ground biomass to total biomass in DOK and DLM stands equaled as much as 42.7 and 71.5%, respectively (Table 4) which is much greater than that Moso bamboo (33%) (Wang et al., 2013). Therefore, a much higher proportion of biomass carbon is stored in the soils of DOK and DLM stands, with their roots remaining alive for vegetative reproduction after harvesting. 4.3. Evaluation of carbon sequestration potential in sympodial bamboo ecosystems Carbon sequestration potential of the bamboo stand ecosystems can be evaluated using CS and carbon sequestration rates in the bamboo stand ecosystems. Sympodial bamboos have the characteristics of faster growth, higher yield, well developed roots and rhizomes as comparison with other types of bamboo (Zhang et al., 2007; Liu et al., 2011), and have greater CSs and higher carbon sequestration rates. Comparison of CSs in different bamboo stand ecosystems in this and previous studies showed that bamboo stands decrease in the order: sympodial bamboos (143.724 Mg C ha1 for an average of 8 species) (this study) > Pleioblastus amarus (135.81 Mg ha1) > Moso bamboo (113.3 Mg C ha1 for an average of 5 experiments) (Zhou and Jiang, 2004; Li et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2010; Jiang et al., 2011) > Phyllostachys praecox (84.5 Mg C ha1) (Li et al., 2010). The annual carbon sequestration rates (9.52e19.12 Mg C ha1 yr1) in our study is close to that in Moso bamboo stands (9.9e15.3 Mg C ha1 yr1) (Zhou and Jiang, 2004; Zhou et al., 2006, 2009; Wang et al., 2009a; Yen and Lee, 2011), but much greater than that in Pleioblastus amarus stand (8.14 Mg C ha1) (Li et al., 2006). The substitution of sympodial bamboo species (DMM) with the lowest CS by one with the highest
51
(DGM) CS would lead to an additional biomass carbon sequestration rate of 9.6 Mg C ha1. 5. Conclusions Sympodial bamboo is an important economic bamboo species covering more than 80 104 ha in China. Sympodial bamboos have the growth characteristics of faster growth, higher yield, and strong development of roots and rhizomes. Thus it has greater CSs and carbon sequestration rates relative to other bamboo species. Total CS and biomass carbon sequestration rate in our 8 sympodial bamboo stands occupying 64.0 104 ha in China is 93.184 106 Mg C ha1 and 8.573 106 Mg C yr1, respectively. There were significant variations in CSs and biomass carbon sequestration rates among the eight species studied. Thus substitution of sympodial bamboo species with the lowest CS by one with the highest CS would have the greatest potential for increasing C sequestration. In order to increase the amount of carbon accumulated in the bamboo stands, the plantation area of sympodial bamboo stands with high biomass carbon sequestration rate, such as NAK and DGM stands need to be expanded. Acknowledgments The authors wish to acknowledge the funding support from the Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41471197), the key Fund of Science and Technology of Zhejiang Province (No: LZ12C16003), the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province (No: LY13C160010). References An, Y.F., Zhou, B.F., Wen, C.H., Wang, G., 2009. Effects of different management patterns on root system structure and biomass of Bambusa oldhami. For. Res. 22 (1), 1e6 (in Chinese with English summary). Brown, S., Hall, C.A.S., Knabe, W., Raich, J., Trexler, M.C., Woomer, P., 1993. Tropical forests: their past, present, and potential role in the terrestrial C budget. Water Air Soil Pollut. 70, 71e94. Chen, L.G., Zheng, Y.S., Yao, G.D., Zheng, R.M., Gao, P.J., 2002. Study on the biomass structure of new stands of dendrocalamus oldhami along seashore Dene. J. Fujian Coll. For. 22 (3), 249e252 (in Chinese with English summary). Chen, B.K., Yang, Y.M., Zhang, G.X., Sun, M.S., Shi, M., 2007. A study on cultivation and integrated utilization of large-size cluster bamboo. J. West China For. Sci. 2, 1e9 (in Chinese with English summary). Chen, X.G., Zhang, X.Q., Zhang, Y.P., Booth, T., He, X.H., 2009. Changes of carbon stocks in bamboo stands in China during 100 years. For. Ecol. Manag. 258, 1489e1496. DOE., 2008. International Energy Outlook, 2008. Energy Information Administration Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. Du, H.Q., Zhou, G.M., Fan, W.Y., Ge, H.L., Xu, X.J., Shi, Y.J., Fan, W.L., 2010. Spatial heterogeneity and carbon contribution of aboveground biomass of moso bamboo by using geostatistical theory. Plant Ecol. 207 (1), 131e139. Ji, H.H., Zhuang, S.Y., Zhang, H.X., Sun, B., Gui, R.Y., 2013. Zonality variation of carbon storage in Phyllostachy edulis plantation ecosystems in China. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 22 (1), 1e5 (in Chinese with English summary). Jiang, P.K., Xu, Q.F., Zhou, G.M., Meng, C.F., 2009. Soil Quality under Phyllostachys Praecox Stands and its Evolution Trend. Agric Press, Beijing (in Chinese with English summary). Jiang, P.K., Meng, C.F., Zhou, G.M., Xu, Q.F., 2011. Comparative study of carbon storage in different forest stands in Subtropical China. Bot. Rev. 77 (3), 242e251. Li, J., Huang, C.D., Zhang, G.Q., 2006. Density, storage and spatial distribution of carbon in Pleioblastus amarus forest returned from farmland. J. Zhejiang For. Sci. Technol. 26 (4), 104e109 (in Chinese with English summary). Li, Z.C., Yang, X.S., Cai, X.J., Sun, J.J., Geri, T.T., Sun, X.Z., Fu, M.Y., 2010. Effects of bamboo cultivation on the carbon storage. J. Nanjing For. Univ. Nat. Sci. Ed. 34 (1), 25e28 (in Chinese with English summary). Liu, Y.F., Huang, C.D., Chen, Q.B., 2010. Carbon storage and allocation of Phyllostachys pubescens ecosystem in scenic spot within the southern Sichuan Bamboo sea. J. Sichuan Agric. Univ. 28 (2), 136e140 (in Chinese with English summary). Liu, G.L., Fan, S.H., Su, S.H., 2011. Research advances in the growth characteristics and management technology of sympodial bamboo forests. J. Bamboo Res. 30 (3), 43e48 (in Chinese with English summary). Ma, N.X., 2004. Resources of sympodial bamboos in China and their utilization. J. Bamboo Res. 01, 1e5 (in Chinese with English summary).
52
J. Teng et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 168 (2016) 46e52
Qiou, R.F., Chen, Z.M., Zheng, Y.S., Huang, B.L., Yang, Z.Q., 2004. Study on the biomass, productivity and energy structure of Dendrocalamus latiflorus plantations planted on mountainous areas. For. Res. 17 (6), 726e730 (in Chinese with English summary). Shen, G.C., Zhang, X.D., Zhang, L., Gao, S.H., Zhang, R., Zhu, W.S., Tang, S.Q., 2013. Estimating the carbon stock and carbon sequestration of the Pleioblastus amarus forest ecosystem in southern of Sichuan. Sci. Silvae Sin. 49 (03), 78e84 (in Chinese with English summary). Soil Science Society of China, 2000. Analytical Method of Soils and Agricultural Chemistry. China Agric Sci and Tech Press, Beijing (in Chinese with English summary). Wang, B., Wang, Y., Guo, H., Zhao, G.D., Bai, X.L., 2009a. Carbon storage and spatial distribution in Phyllostachys pubescens forest in Dagangshan mountain of Jiangxi Province. J. Beijing For. Univ. 31 (6), 39e42 (in Chinese with English summary). Wang, Y.J., Huang, C.D., Wang, X.S., Hu, T., Zhang, G.Q., 2009b. Stock and spatial distribution characteristics of Neosinocalamus affinis forest ecosystem. J. Fujian For. Sci. Technol. 36 (2), 6e9 (in Chinese with English summary). Wang, B., Wei, W.J., Liu, C.J., You, W.Z., Niu, X., Man, R.Z., 2013. Biomass and carbon stock in moso bamboo forests in subtropical China: characteristics and implications. J Trop. For. Sci. 25 (1), 137e148. Xiao, F.M., Fan, S.H., Wang, S.L., Guan, F.Y., Yu, X.J., Shen, Z.Q., 2010. Estimation of the carbon balance in moso bamboo and Chinese fir plantation ecosystem. Sci. Silvae Sin. 46, 59e65 (in Chinese with English summary). Yang, Q., Su, G.R., Duan, Z.B., He, K.J., Wang, Z.L., Sun, Q.X., Peng, Z.H., 2008. Biomass
structure and its regression models of Dendrocalamus hamiltonii Nees et Arn. ex Munro population. J. Northwest Agric.For. Univ. Nat. Sci. Ed. 36 (7), 127e134 (in Chinese with English summary). Yen, T.M., Ji, Y.J., Lee, J.S., 2010. Estimating biomass production and carbon storage for a fast-growing makino bamboo (Phyllostachys makinoi) plant based on the diameter distribution model. For. Ecol. Manag. 260, 339e344. Yen, T.M., Lee, J.S., 2011. Comparing aboveground carbon sequestration between moso bamboo (Phyllostachys heterocycla) and China fir (Cunninghamia lanceolata) forests based on the allometric model. For. Ecol. Manag. 261, 995e1002. Zhang, Z.B., Zhou, G.Y., Li, Q.Z., 2007. Research progress and some problems on cluster bamboo in China. Trop. For. 35 (2), 12e14. Zhang, P., Huang, L.L., Zhang, X.D., Tang, S.Q., Yu, Y., 2009. Studies on biomass structure and its regression models of Bambusa rigida Keng. J. Bamboo Res. 28 (3), 25e28 (in Chinese with English summary). Zhou, G.M., Jiang, P.K., 2004. Density, storage and spatial distribution of carbon in Phyllostachy pubescens. For. Sci. 40 (6), 20e24 (in Chinese with English summary). Zhou, G.M., Wu, J.S., Jiang, P.K., 2006. Effects of different management models on carbon storage in Phyllostachy pubescens forests. J. Beijing For. Univ. 28 (6), 51e55 (in Chinese with English summary). Zhou, G.M., Jiang, P.K., Xu, Q.F., 2009. Fixation and Translation of Carbon in Bamboo Forest Ecosystem. Sci Press, Beijing, pp. 176e186 (in Chinese with English summary). Zhou, G.M., Meng, C.F., Jiang, P.K., Xu, Q.F., 2011. Review of carbon fixation in Bamboo forests in China. Bot. Rev. 77 (3), 262e270.