Journal of Ecology and Environment

The Ecological Society of Korea (한국생태학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Organic Carbon Distribution of the Pinus densiflora Forest on Songgye Valley at Mt. Worak National Park

  • Published : 2007.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The organic carbon (OC) distribution of Pinus densiflora forest in Songgye valley at Mt. Worak National Park were studied as a part of the National Long-Term Ecological Research in Korea. In order to investigate the OC distribution, OC in plant biomass, litterfall, litter layer on forest floor, and soil were estimated. The density of P. densiflora forest was 1,300 trees/ha, average DBH was $15.2{\pm}6.17\;cm$ and average tree height was $10.7{\pm}2.56\;m$. The shrub layer was dominated by shrubby Quercus variabilis, Fraxinus sieboldiana and lndigofera kirilowii with low frequency, and herb layer was dominated by Pteridium aquilinum and Miscanthus sinensis. Total amount of OC stored in this pine forest was 142.78 ton C/ha. Organic carbon stored in soil and plant biomass accounted for 59.2% and 37.8%, respectively. Amount of OC distributed in trees, shrubs, herbs and litter layer in this pine forest was 51.79, 2.03, 0.12 and 4.29 ton C/ha, respectively. Amount of OC returned to forest floor via litterfall was $1.50\;ton\;C\;ha^{-1}\;yr^{-1}$. Soil organic carbon (SOC) decreased along the soil depth. Total amount of SOC within 50cm soil depth was $84.55\;ton\;C\;ha^{-1}\;50\;cm-depth^{-1}$.

Keywords

References

  1. Batjes NH. 1999. Management options for reducing $CO_{2}$ concentrations in the atmosphere by increasing carbon sequestration in the soil. Report 410-200-031. Dutch Natiomal Research Programe on Global Air Pollution and Climate Change. Technical Paper 30. the Netherlands
  2. Black CA. 1965. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2. American Society of Agronomy, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin
  3. Choi H-J, Jeon I-Y, Shin C-H, Kim H-S, Kim S-W, Kim G-H, Mun H-T. 2006a. Organic carbon distribution in Quercus variabilis forest at Mt. Worak National Park. Integrative Bioscience 10 (Suppl.) p 193
  4. Choi H-J, Jeon I-Y, Shin C-H, Mun H-T. 2006b. Soil properties of Quercus variabilis forest on Youngha valley in Mt. Worak National Park. J Ecol Field Biol 29: 439-443 https://doi.org/10.5141/JEFB.2006.29.5.439
  5. Dixon RK, Brown S, Houghton RA, Solomon AM, Trexler MC, Wisniewski J. 1994. Carbon pools and flux of global forest ecosystems. Science 263: 185-190 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.263.5144.185
  6. Eswaran H, Van Den Berg E, Reich P. 1993. Organic carbon in soils of the world. Soil Sci Soc Am J 57: 192-194 https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1993.03615995005700010034x
  7. Heath LS, Smith JE, Birdsey RA. 2003. Carbon trends in U.S. forestlands: A context for the role of soils in forest carbon sequestration. In: Kimble JM, Heath LS, Birdsey RA, Lai R (eds). The Potential of U.S. Forest Soils to Sequester Carbon and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect. CRC Press, New York. pp 35-45
  8. Houghton RA, Hobbie JE, Melillo JM, Moore B, Peterson BJ. Shaver GR, Woodwell GM. 1983. Changes in the carbon content of terrestrial biota and soils between 1860 and 1980: a net release of $CO_{2}$ to the atmosphere. Ecol Monogr 53: 235-262 https://doi.org/10.2307/1942531
  9. Hwang J. 2004. Belowground carbon dynamics after thinning, liming and litterlayer treatments in Pinus rigida and Larix leptolepis Plantations (PhD thesis). Korea University, Seoul
  10. Jeong J-H, Kim C, Lee W-K. 1998. Soil organic carbon content in forest soils of Korea. J For Sci 57: 178-183
  11. Johnson FL, Risser PG. 1974. Biomass, annual net primary production and dynamics of six mineral elements in a post oak-blackhack oak forest. Ecology 55: 1246-1258 https://doi.org/10.2307/1935453
  12. Kern JS. 1994. Spatial patterns of soil organic carbon in the contiguous United States. Soil Sci Soc Am J 58: 439-455 https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1994.03615995005800020029x
  13. Kim C and Cho H-S. 2004. Quantitative comparisons of soil carbon and nutrient storage in Larix leptolepis, Pinus densiflora and Pinus rigitaeda plantations. Korean J Ecol 27: 67-71 https://doi.org/10.5141/JEFB.2004.27.2.067
  14. Kim C. 2006. Soil carbon cycling and soil $CO_{2}$ efflux in a red pine (Pinus densiflora) stand. J Ecol Field Biol 29: 23-27 https://doi.org/10.5141/JEFB.2006.29.1.023
  15. Kim J-H, Yoon S-M. 1972. Studies on the productivity and the productive structure of the forests II. Comparison between the productivity of Pinus densiflora and Quercus mongolica stand located near Choon-Chun city. Korean J Bot 15: 71-78
  16. Kimble JM, Heath LS, Birdsey RA, Lal R. 2003a. The potential of U.S. forest soils to sequester carbon and mitigate the greenhouse effect. CRC Press, New York. 429 p
  17. Kimble JM, Birdsey RA, Lal R, Heath LS. 2003b. Introduction and general description of U.S. forests. In: Kimble JM, Heath LS, Birdsey RA, Lai R. (eds). The potential of U.S. forest soils to sequester carbon and mitigate the greenhouse effect. CRC Press, New York. pp 3-14
  18. Lee K-J, Mun H-T. 2005. Organic carbon distribution in an oak forest. Korean J Ecol 28: 265-270 https://doi.org/10.5141/JEFB.2005.28.5.265
  19. Lee K-J. 2004. A study on the organic carbon distribution in forest ecosystems. (MS thesis). Kongju National University, Kongju
  20. Morris SJ, Paul EA. 2003. Forest soil ecology and organic carbon. In: Kimble JM, Heath LS, Birdsey RA, Lai R. (eds). The potential of U.S. forest soils to sequester carbon and mitigate the greenhouse effect. CRC Press, New York. pp. 109-125
  21. Nadelhoffer KJ, Raich JW. 1992. Fine root production estimates and belowground carbon allocation in forest ecosystems. Ecology 73: 1139-1147 https://doi.org/10.2307/1940664
  22. Park B-K, Lee I-S. 1981. A model for litter decomposition of the forest ecosystem in South Korea. Korean J Ecol 4: 38-51
  23. Roxburgh SH, Wood SW, Mackey BG, Woldendorp G, Gibbons P. 2006. Assessing the carbon sequestration potential of managed forests: a case study from temperate Australia. J Appl Ecol 43: 1149-1159 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01221.x
  24. Schimel DS. 1995. Terrestrial ecosystems and the carbon cycle. Global Change Biol. 1: 77-91 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.1995.tb00008.x
  25. Schlesinger WH. 1997. Biogeochemistry: An analysis of global change. Academic Press, San Diego, California
  26. Shin C-H, Jeon H-J, Choi M-H, Han A-R, Kim S-J, Mun H-T. 2006. Litter production and nutrients concentration in Quercus mongolica, Q. variabilis and Pinus densiflora forests. Integrative Bioscience 10 (Suppl) p 200
  27. Skog KE, Nicholson GA. 1998. Carbon cycling through wood products: the role of wood and paper products in carbon sequestration. For Prod J 48: 75-83
  28. Tans PP, Fung IY, Takahashi T. 1990. Observational constraints on the global atmospheric $CO_{2}$ budget. Science 247: 1431-1438 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.247.4949.1431
  29. Vitousek PM. 1991. Can planted forests counteract increasing atmospheric carbon dixide? J Environ Qual 20: 348-354 https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1991.202348x
  30. Vogt K. 1991. Carbon budgets of temperate forest ecosystems. Tree Physiol 9: 69-86 https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/9.1-2.69
  31. Zak DR, Pregitzer KS. 1998. Integration of ecophysiological and biogeochemical approaches to ecosystem dynamics, In: Pace ML, Groffman PM. (eds). Success, limitations and frontiers in ecosystem science. Springer, New York. pp 372-403

Cited by

  1. Carbon and nitrogen dynamics in a Pinus densiflora forest with low and high stand densities vol.6, pp.5, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1093/jpe/rtt007