Carbon in heartwood, sapwood and bark along the stem profile in three Mediterranean Pinus species

Abstract

Context: Understanding biological processes in forests is necessary to orientate ecosystem management towards potential C sequestration. To achieve this, information is required about changes in forest biomass C pools, including the stem components (bark, sapwood and heartwood).Aims: This study aimed to determine whether there are differences in C concentration in axial and radial directions within stem biomass in Pinus nigra, Pinus pinaster and Pinus sylvestris.Methods: Wood samples from a permanent plantation in northern Spain were examined for C concentration and wood bulk density: Results:The results showed that C concentration was higher in heartwood than in sapwood in the three species. Pinus spp. sapwood C concentration increased along the stem, while the C concentration in heartwood tissue showed the opposite behavior. In bark, Pinus pinaster showed a decreasing trend, in contrast to Pinus nigra and Pinus sylvestris, where higher values were found at the base and top of the stem. Finally, wood bulk density decreased in heartwood, sapwood and bark areas when stem height increased. Estimating C content taking account different anatomical parts and heights is important in considering the specificy of the different parts because of their potential commercial or ecological use in the forest ecosystems.

Forest Carbon Sequestration: The Impact of Forest Management

“…Although the best solution for biomass estimation is difficult to establish, different alternatives should be explored that improve estimations (Weiskittel et al, 2015) and that incorporate: (1) consistency in biomass data gathering across large geographical scales, (2) generation of open datasets compiling volume, biomass, carbon and wood density data, (3) use of such open datasets to evaluate and compare biomass models, (4) testing of new model forms using data from technology such as airborne and terrestrial LiDAR and (5) the application of appropriate available mathematical and statistical methods. Another source of uncertainty stems from the use of general default values for forest species when specific differences in gravity and carbon contents are widely-known (Herrero et al, 2011, Castaño and Specific differences can even occur between tissues for each species, as Herrero et al (2011) determined for three Mediterranean pines (Pinus nigra Arn., Pinus pinaster Ait. and Pinus sylvestris L.) and Castaño and Bravo (2012) reported for two European oaks (Quercus petraea and Quercus pyrenaica Wild).…”

“…The three carbon storage compartments should be considered in all impact estimates. Carbon content in living biomass is easily estimated via species-specific equations or by applying factors to oven-dry biomass weights (e.g., Ibañez et al, 2002, Herrero et al, 2011, Castaño and Bravo, 2012. Litter carbon content has been analysed in many studies on primary forest productivity, though information regarding the influence of forest management on litter carbon content is less abundant (Blanco et al, 2006).…”

Shrub biomass accumulation and growth rate models to quantify carbon stocks and fluxes for the Mediterranean region

“…Subsequent studies have shown that the carbon content can vary between species and between different fractions of biomass within the same species (Gifford 2000;FigueroaNavarro 2001;Gayoso and Guerra 2005;Avendaño et al 2009;Thomas and Martin 2012). In the case of Spain, data are available with regard to the carbon content of some forest tree species (Ibáñez et al 2002;Herrero et al 2011), but little information exists in relation to carbon content in shrub formations. Hence the importance of undertaking studies aimed not only at developing the necessary tools for estimating the amount of carbon sequestered by these formations but also at identifying options for their future commercial exploitation within a sustainable management system.…”

Estimate of biomass and carbon pools in disturbed and undisturbed oak forests in Tunisia

“…Matthews 1993;Jina et al, 2008). Other authors believe that this value could introduce very large over-or under-estimates of carbon biomass into the calculation (Janssens et al, 1999;Herrero et al, 2011;Castaño & Bravo, 2012).…”