Effects of thinning on ecosystem carbon storage and tree-shrub-herb diversity of a low-quality secondary forest in NE China

Zhang, Baoshan; Xiao, Dong; Qu, Hangfeng; Gao, Ran; Mao, Liangliang

doi:10.1007/s11676-022-01531-z

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The goal of thinning is to reduce stand density and increase the amount and quality of light penetration, allowing for more rational nutrient buildup and utilization in the understory (Pukkala et al 2020;Pan et al 2022). Thinning alters the microclimate, vegetation conditions, and the physical and chemical qualities of the soil, which can lead to changes in soil microorganisms (Bai et al 2018;Zhang et al 2022). The effect of thinning on the relationship between litter input and the rate of decomposition determines the change in carbon density of the litter layer (Wu et al 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thinning intensity affects carbon sequestration and release in seasonal freeze–thaw areas

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To explore how to respond to seasonal freeze–thaw cycles on forest ecosystems in the context of climate change through thinning, we assessed the potential impact of thinning intensity on carbon cycle dynamics. By varying the number of temperature cycles, the effects of various thinning intensities in four seasons. The rate of mass, litter organic carbon, and soil organic carbon (SOC) loss in response to temperature variations was examined in two degrees of decomposition. The unfrozen season had the highest decomposition rate of litter, followed by the frozen season. Semi-decomposed litter had a higher decomposition rate than undecomposed litter. The decomposition rate of litter was the highest when the thinning intensity was 10%, while the litter and SOC were low. Forest litter had a good carbon sequestration impact in the unfrozen and freeze–thaw seasons, while the converse was confirmed in the frozen and thaw seasons. The best carbon sequestration impact was identified in litter, and soil layers under a 20–25% thinning intensity, and the influence of undecomposed litter on SOC was more noticeable than that of semi-decomposed litter. Both litter and soil can store carbon: however, carbon is transported from undecomposed litter to semi-decomposed litter and to the soil over time. In summary, the best thinning intensity being 20–25%.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thinning intensity affects carbon sequestration and release in seasonal freeze–thaw areas

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Comparing the carbon stocks 30 years after thinning with different intensities, no change in biomass has been observed and thus no difference in carbon stocks (Erkan et al, 2023). Thinning operations in secondary forests increased the tree diversity, which was positively correlated with carbon storage (Zhang et al, 2023a). These findings may bring good arguments for managing forest for an increased stability and biodiversity, making them more resilient and resistant to forest disturbances with no cost in the future biomass yields.…”

Section: Priorities For Climate Smart Forestrymentioning

confidence: 88%

Where to start with climate-smart forest management? Climatic risk for forest-based mitigation

Piazza,

Malanchini,

Nevola

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Natural disturbances like windthrows or forest fires alter the provision of forest ecosystem services like timber production, protection from natural hazards or carbon sequestration. After a disturbance, forests release large amounts of carbon and therefore change their status from carbon sinks to carbon source for some time. Climate-smart forest management may decrease forest vulnerability to disturbances and thus reduce carbon emissions as a consequence of future disturbances. But how to prioritize stands most in need of climate-smart management? In this study we adopted a risk mapping framework (hazard × vulnerability) to assess the risk to climate-related forest ecosystem services (carbon stock and sink) in forests prone to windthrow (in the Julian Alps, Italy) and forest fires (in the Apennines, Italy). We calculated hazard by using forest fire and windthrow simulation tools, and examined the most important drivers of the respective hazards. We then assessed vulnerability by calculating current carbon stocks and sinks in each forest stands. We used these values together with the calculated hazard to estimate “carbon risk”, and prioritized high-risk stands for climate-smart management. We show that combining disturbance simulation tools and forest carbon measurements may help in risk-related decision making in forests, and taking planning decisions for climate-smart forestry. This approach may be replicated in other mountain forests to help understanding their actual carbon vulnerability to forest disturbances.

show abstract

“…It could affect biodiversity in the forest ecosystem and increase soil C storage (Gong et al, 2021b). Previous studies suggested that understory herb diversities and biomass were decreased under thinning disturbance, emphasizing the significance of considering thinning intensities (Wang et al, 2021;Yu et al, 2022;Zhang, Dong, et al, 2023). As for the combination of thinning and fertilization, positive effects on tree growth were found under long-term treatment due to enhanced soil conditions and reduced competition (Danyagri et al, 2023).…”

Section: Factors Influencing the Effects Of Mixed Plantingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomass difference between mixed plantations and monocultures and its influencing factors: A meta‐analysis

Meng,

Huang,

Jiao

et al. 2024

Land Degrad Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Establishing mixed‐species plantations has become the most promising planting method to provide various goods and improve multiple environmental services. Although mixed planting has the potential to increase tree biomass, the divergent findings make it challenging to understand the mixing effects on whole forest (trees, shrubs, herbs, and litter) biomass. Therefore, we conducted a meta‐analysis compiling 156 studies published from 1982 to 2021 across 128 sites in China. We aimed to quantify the mixing effects on forest biomass between mixed plantations and monocultures and disentangle the driving factors. Our results showed that mixed planting significantly increased the total biomass, biomass of tree, and shrub layer by 14.07%, 22.49%, and 34.84%, respectively, when compared with monocultures. The effects of mixed planting on biomass were more pronounced in plantations with both nitrogen‐fixing trees and non‐nitrogen‐fixing trees, plantations with both coniferous and broad‐leaved trees, as well as uneven‐aged plantations containing young‐ and middle‐aged species. Furthermore, our results demonstrated the effects of mixed planting were predominantly governed by climatic conditions and woodland characteristics. The effect size of total biomass exhibited a significant positive correlation with mean annual temperature and precipitation, while the shrub and herb layers showed a significant negative relationship with these climatic variables. Our findings highlighted the importance of complementarity effects in mixed plantations, especially establishing uneven‐aged plantations with different leaf morphology types and N acquisition strategies. Overall, our meta‐analysis could provide strategies for future sustainable ecosystem management and improving the terrestrial carbon sink.

show abstract

Effects of thinning on ecosystem carbon storage and tree-shrub-herb diversity of a low-quality secondary forest in NE China

Cited by 10 publications

References 41 publications

Thinning intensity affects carbon sequestration and release in seasonal freeze–thaw areas

Thinning intensity affects carbon sequestration and release in seasonal freeze–thaw areas

Where to start with climate-smart forest management? Climatic risk for forest-based mitigation

Biomass difference between mixed plantations and monocultures and its influencing factors: A meta‐analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About