effects of forest management on carbon flux and storage jiquan chen, randy jensen, qinglin li,...
TRANSCRIPT
Effects of Forest Management on Carbon Effects of Forest Management on Carbon Flux and StorageFlux and Storage
Jiquan Chen, Jiquan Chen, Randy Jensen, Qinglin Li, Rachel Randy Jensen, Qinglin Li, Rachel Henderson & Jianye XuHenderson & Jianye Xu
University of Toledo &University of Toledo &Missouri Department of ConservationMissouri Department of Conservation
A Few Relevant Advancements in Carbon StudyA Few Relevant Advancements in Carbon Study
• Global warming associated with human activities is Global warming associated with human activities is much greater than the portion associated with much greater than the portion associated with greenhouse gases (GHG);greenhouse gases (GHG);
• Carbon sequestration strength varies with Carbon sequestration strength varies with management (e.g., harvesting, fertilization), climate management (e.g., harvesting, fertilization), climate and natural disturbances, but no widely accepted and natural disturbances, but no widely accepted models for managers;models for managers;
• Respiratory carbon loss dominates over the carbon Respiratory carbon loss dominates over the carbon gain through photosynthesis;gain through photosynthesis;
• Retention of green trees during harvests might Retention of green trees during harvests might prevent a stand from being a carbon source.prevent a stand from being a carbon source.
CWD
Atmosphere
Soil
Roots
Non-photo-tissue
Photo-tissue
Autotrophic respiration
Leaf respiration
Stem respiration
Soil surface CO2 efflux
Leaf litter
Root & mycorrhizal respiration
Heterotrophic soil respiration
Leaf litter respiration
Photorespiration
CWD respiration
Leaf net photosynthesis
Gross primary productionNet primary production
Modified from Gifford (2003) by Li & Chen
Heterotrophic respiration
Leaf gross photosynthesis Net ecosystem exchange
Ecosystem Carbon FluxesEcosystem Carbon Fluxes Qs?
Annual Carbon Storage in N. Hemisphere ForestsAnnual Carbon Storage in N. Hemisphere Forests
Gough et al. (2008), BioscienceGough et al. (2008), Bioscience
Growing season NEP for comparable pine ecosystems of various Growing season NEP for comparable pine ecosystems of various age classes – results of a meta-analysisage classes – results of a meta-analysis
Euskirchen, Pregitzer & Chen (2006), JGREuskirchen, Pregitzer & Chen (2006), JGR
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
(5-6) (12-14) (30-32) (65-71)
Age of Ecosystem (years)
Regenerating clearcut
Recent clearcut
Mature forest
Old forest
Gro
win
g S
ea
son
NE
P (
g C
m-2
)
Gough et al. (2008), BioscienceGough et al. (2008), Bioscience
Effects of clearcut and fire on annual carbon storage by Effects of clearcut and fire on annual carbon storage by site index at UMBSsite index at UMBS
Gough et al. (2008), BioscienceGough et al. (2008), Bioscience
0
Climate-dominantResistant to disturbance
Climate-controlSusceptible to disturbance
Chronological Age
NEP
Legacy effect
Disturbance-dominantSusceptible to climate
High
Low
Dis
turb
ance
Int
ensi
ty
Low
High
Clim
ate
Str
e ss
Climate effect Climate+Disturbance effect
Odum's prediction
v4
v1
v2
v3
young old
Created by J. Chen (2004)Created by J. Chen (2004)
Hypothesized change in annual carbon storage of Hypothesized change in annual carbon storage of disturbed forestsdisturbed forests
TEF MOFEP0
1
2
3
4
5
6
SR
R (
µm
ol m
-2 s-1
)Undisturbed Disturbed
Management disturbances will increase the amount of Management disturbances will increase the amount of carbon loss through respiration.carbon loss through respiration.
-15-10-505
101520
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Changes in elevated respiration rate (%) at MOFEP Changes in elevated respiration rate (%) at MOFEP compartment, showing rapid diminish trends.compartment, showing rapid diminish trends.
-15-10
-505
101520
Year
Diff
eren
ce fr
om th
e R
efs
(%)
EAM
UAM
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1 61 121 181 241 301 361 55 115 175 235 295 355 48 108 168 228 288 348Day of year (2003-2005)
Eco
syst
em a
nd s
oil r
espi
ratio
n .
(g C
O 2
m-2
hr-1
) .
0
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.12
DD
W, s
nag,
sap
woo
d, a
nd le
af r
espi
ratio
n
(g C
O 2
m-2
hr-1
)
Ecosystem SoilDDW SnagSapwood Leaf
NHM
Daily mean ecosystem component respiration in Daily mean ecosystem component respiration in the the NHMNHM stands stands
Daily mean ecosystem component respiration in the Daily mean ecosystem component respiration in the UAMUAM stands stands
Daily mean ecosystem component respiration in the Daily mean ecosystem component respiration in the EAMEAM stands stands
NHM UAM EAM
Soil 1193.8 (73%) 1309.5 (77%) 1097.5 (85%)
Down dead wood 39.7 (2%) 39.5 (2%) 156.3 (12%)
Snag 87.5 (5%) 105.4 (6%) 0 (0%)
Sapwood 158.6 (10%) 114.2 (7%) 23.3 (2%)
Leaf 162.2 (10%) 122.3 (7%) 8.4 (1%)
Ecosystem 1641.7 (100%) 1690.9 (100%) 1285.6 (100%)
Mean respiration (percentage) of different Mean respiration (percentage) of different components at the three treatments components at the three treatments
unit: Kg CO2.ha-2.yr-1
Soil respiration not an exponential function of soil Soil respiration not an exponential function of soil temperature – complex regulations!temperature – complex regulations!
Reduction in photosynthesis (C-gain) at higher VPD (Temperature) will also reduce respiratory C loss!
0
5
10
15
20
25
302 0 0 42 0 0 5
0 1 2
VPD (k Pa)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30ge (
mm
s-1)
0 1 2 3
(a) Jun
(c) Aug (d) Sep
(b) Jul
Change in Change in NEENEE in comparison to low- in comparison to low-VPDVPD conditions as a conditions as a function of function of VPDVPD at midday. at midday.
Noormets et al. (2008), New PhytologistsNoormets et al. (2008), New Phytologists
75 80 85 90 95 100
PPTw (cm)
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Rs
(g C
O2
m-2
hr-1
)
2 6 10 14
PPTs (cm)
a bR2
CECO= 0.95
R2CC
= 0.77
R2OC
= 0.96
R2CECO= 0.40
R2CC = 0.22
R2OC = 0.11
75 80 85 90 95 100
PPTw (cm)
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Rs
(g C
O2
m-2
hr-1
)
75 80 85 90 95 100
PPTw (cm)
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Rs
(g C
O2
m-2
hr-1
)
2 6 10 14
PPTs (cm)
2 6 10 14
PPTs (cm)
a bR2
CECO= 0.95
R2CC
= 0.77
R2OC
= 0.96
R2CECO= 0.40
R2CC = 0.22
R2OC = 0.11
Summer respiration (C loss) is linearly related to Summer respiration (C loss) is linearly related to annual/winter precipitation in California’s Serra Nevada.annual/winter precipitation in California’s Serra Nevada.
Concilio et al. (2008), Clim. Change.Concilio et al. (2008), Clim. Change.
Relationship between soil respiration & temperature• SRR was positively related to TSRR was positively related to Ts5s5 when M when Mss >15%. >15%.• The positive relationship changed to the negative when MThe positive relationship changed to the negative when Mss <5%. <5%.
Ms > 15%. 5 ~ 15%. < 5%.
Ma et al. (2004), For. Sci.Ma et al. (2004), For. Sci.
Clearly, water and other resource use and biophyscial environmental variable can alter the conventional Q10 predictions.
Challenges For Managing Ozark ForestsChallenges For Managing Ozark Forests
1.1. Understand the long-term dynamics of carbon fluxes Understand the long-term dynamics of carbon fluxes and regulative mechanisms as climate, species and regulative mechanisms as climate, species composition, and management practices will be agile;composition, and management practices will be agile;
2.2. Link management options directly to carbon storage Link management options directly to carbon storage and fluxes (i.e., credit) in adaptation plans (e.g., and fluxes (i.e., credit) in adaptation plans (e.g., climate change and societal needs);climate change and societal needs);
3.3. Examine the C credits and sequestration of Ozark Examine the C credits and sequestration of Ozark forests in context of overall ecosystem functions and forests in context of overall ecosystem functions and services.services.