2014
DOI: 10.4025/actasciagron.v36i2.17404
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: Rubber tree plantations may improve the soil's physical and chemical properties, and they may sequester atmospheric carbon in the biomass or the soil. However, the potential role of these plantations in sequestering carbon in the soil and plant biomass has not been fully evaluated. This study evaluated rubber tree plantations at Paranapoema, which is located in the northwestern region of the Paraná state of Brazil, to measure the biomass in plantations of different ages and to determine the organic carbon cont… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
21
2
4

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 43 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
5
21
2
4
Order By: Relevance
“…In contrast, the observed total C biomass was about 40, 17 and 18.6 % lower than the biomass values found by Cotta et al (2006), Fernandes et al (2007), and Maggiotto et al (2014), respectively. Though a lower total C biomass stock was found in our study compared to other studies, in general, the rubber tree plants in this study exhibited a C accumulation rate superior to that of other studies (Table 6).…”
Section: Aboveground Part Of the Rubber Tree As The Main C Pool Of Thcontrasting
confidence: 75%
“…In contrast, the observed total C biomass was about 40, 17 and 18.6 % lower than the biomass values found by Cotta et al (2006), Fernandes et al (2007), and Maggiotto et al (2014), respectively. Though a lower total C biomass stock was found in our study compared to other studies, in general, the rubber tree plants in this study exhibited a C accumulation rate superior to that of other studies (Table 6).…”
Section: Aboveground Part Of the Rubber Tree As The Main C Pool Of Thcontrasting
confidence: 75%
“…Similarly, de Blécourt et al [9] found that forest-to-rubber transition resulted in SOC stock loss of 120 cm (37.4 Mg ha −1 ) over a period of 46 years, which was equal to 19.3% of the initial SOC stock in the secondary forests. By contrast, Maggiotto et al [20] found a small, but significant, increase in SOC stock (12.4 Mg ha −1 ) over 11 years of rubber plantation. Over the long run, however, SOC stock trajectory with stand age will tend to be relatively stable and remains an essential part of the C budget of the overall plantation ecosystem.…”
Section: Soil C Stockmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…The highest C increment was 6.4 Mg ha −1 year −1 between the 13-19 years stands (Table 2), which is associated with the fast growth rates. Rubber plantations grown in potentially dissimilar conditions in Brazil [18,20] and Asia [17,19,23] have revealed comparable C increments, varying from 1.4 to 6.7 Mg ha −1 year −1 , with the highest value occurring between the 10-20 years stands. Moreover, the largest TBC in the 47-year-old stand was higher than the value of 110.9 Mg ha −1 measured for tropical forest in China [39].…”
Section: Biomass C Accumulationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, net long term CO2 storing dynamics of trees change with age, disease and death (Nowak et al, 2013). Over the past decade, numerous studies assessed the carbon sequestration capacity of various woody plants and quantified their contribution towards the global carbon cycle (Niu and Duiker, 2006;Juwarkar et al, 2011;Kumar and Nair, 2011;Biswas et al, 2014;Maggiotto et al, 2014). Afforestation and other forestry activities are now well recognized as a part of strategies to mitigate GHG (Mckenney et al, 2004;Bellassen and Luyssaert, 2014;Biswas et al, 2014;Maggiotto et al, 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Over the past decade, numerous studies assessed the carbon sequestration capacity of various woody plants and quantified their contribution towards the global carbon cycle (Niu and Duiker, 2006;Juwarkar et al, 2011;Kumar and Nair, 2011;Biswas et al, 2014;Maggiotto et al, 2014). Afforestation and other forestry activities are now well recognized as a part of strategies to mitigate GHG (Mckenney et al, 2004;Bellassen and Luyssaert, 2014;Biswas et al, 2014;Maggiotto et al, 2014). Afforestation of agricultural lands is a cost effective and environment friendly strategy for carbon sequestration (Mckenney et al, 2004;Richards and Stokes, 2004;Niu and Duiker, 2006) that has the great potential (Masera et al, 2003;Jindal et al, 2008;Juwarkar et al, 2011).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%