Effects of forest fire disturbance on carbon density of eucalyptus forest ecosystem in Guangdong Province
Vol 5, Issue 1, 2022
VIEWS - 244 (Abstract) 162 (PDF)
Abstract
Forest fire, as a discontinuous ecological factor of forest, causes the changes of carbon storage and carbon distribution in forest ecosystem, and affects the process of forest succession and national carbon capacity. Taking the burned land with different forest fire interference intensity as the research object, using the comparison method of adjacent sample plots, and taking the combination of field investigation sampling and indoor test analysis as the main means, this paper studies the influence of different forest fire interference intensity on the carbon pool of forest ecosystem and the change and spatial distribution pattern of ecosystem carbon density, and discusses the influence mechanism of forest fire interference on ecosystem carbon density and distribution pattern. The results showed that forest fire disturbance reduced the carbon density of vegetation (P < 0.05). The carbon density of vegetation in the light, moderate and high forest fire disturbance sample plots were 67.88, 35.68 and 15.50 t∙hm-2, which decreased by 15.86%, 55.78% and 80.79% respectively compared with the control group. In the light, moderate and high forest fire disturbance sample plots, the carbon density of litter was 1.43, 0.94 and 0.81 t∙hm-2, which decreased by 28.14%, 52.76% and 59.30% respectively compared with the control group. The soil organic carbon density of the sample plots with different forest fire disturbance intensity is lower than that of the control group, and the reduction degree gradually decreases with the increase of soil profile depth. The soil organic carbon density of the sample plots with light, moderate and high forest fire disturbance is 103.30, 84.33 and 70.04 t∙hm-2 respectively, which is 11.670%, 27.899% and 40.11% lower than that of the control group respectively; the carbon density of forest ecosystem was 172.61, 120.95 and 86.35 t∙hm-2 after light, moderate and high forest fire disturbance, which decreased by 13.53%, 39.41% and 56.74% respectively compared with the control group; forest fire disturbance reduced the carbon density of eucalyptus forest, which showed a law of carbon density decreasing with the increase of forest fire disturbance intensity. Compared with the control group, the effect of light forest fire disturbance intensity on the carbon density of eucalyptus forest was not significant (P > 0.05), while the effect of moderate and high forest fire disturbance intensity on the carbon density of eucalyptus forest was significant (P < 0.05).
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
1. Lal R. Forest soils and carbon sequestration. Forest Ecology and Management 2005; 220(1–3): 242–258.
2. Raval A, Ramanathan V. Observational determination of the greenhouse effect. Nature 1989; 342: 758–761.
3. Alcaniz M, Outeiro L, Francos M, et al. Effects of prescribed fires on soil properties: A review. Science of the Total Environment 2018; 613–614: 944–957.
4. Li F, Bond-Lamberty B, Levis S. Quantifying the role of fire in the Earth system—Part 2: Impact on the net carbon balance of global terrestrial ecosystems for the 20th century. Biogeosciences 2014; 11: 1345–1360.
5. van der Werf GR, Morton DC, DeFries RS, et al. CO2 emissions from forest loss. Nature Geoscience 2009; 2: 737–738.
6. Marlier ME, DeFries RS, Voulgarakis A, et al. El Nino and health risks from landscape fire emissions in southeast Asia. Nature Climate Change 2013; 3: 131–136.
7. Giglio L, Randerson JT, van der Werf GR, et al. Assessing variability and long-term trends in burned area by merging multiple satellite fire products. Biogeoscience 2009; 7: 1171–1186.
8. Urbanski S. Wildland fire emissions, carbon, and climate: Emission factors. Forest Ecology and Managements 2014; 317: 51–60.
9. Andela N, Morton DC, Giglio L, et al. A human-driven decline in global burned area. Science 2017; 356: 1356.
10. Chen D, Pereira JMC, Masiero A, et al. Mapping fire regimes in China using MODIS active fire and burned area data. Applied Geography 2017; 85: 14–26.
11. Bowman DMJS. Balch JK, Artaxo P, et al. Fire in the earth system. Science 2009; 324: 481–484.
12. Pellegrini AF, Ahlstrom A, Hobbie SE, et al. Fire frequency drives decadal changes in soil carbon and nitrogen and ecosystem productivity. Nature 2018; 553: 194–198.
13. Canadell JG, Raupach MR. Managing forests for climate change mitigation. Science 2008; 320: 1456–1457.
14. Kashian DM, Romme WH, Tinker DB, et al. Carbon storage on landscapes with stand-replacing fires. Bioscience 2006; 56: 598–606.
15. Liu W, Wang X, Lu F, et al. Influence of afforestation, reforestation, forest logging climate change, CO2 concentration rise, fire, and insects on the carbon sequestration capacity of the forest ecosystem. Acta Ecologica Sinica 2016; 36(8): 2113–2122.
16. Hurteau MD, Westerling AL, Wiedinmyer C, et al. Projected effects of climate and development on California wildfire emissions through 2100. Environmental Science & Technology 2014; 48: 2298–2304.
17. Spracklen DV, Mickley LJ, Logan JA, et al. Impacts of climate change from 2000 to 2050 on wildfire activity and carbonaceous aerosol concentrations in the western United States. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 2009; 114: D20301.
18. Wotton BM, Nock CA, Flannigan MD. Forest fire occurrence and climate change in Canada. International Journal of Wildland Fire 2010; 19: 253–271.
19. Alexander ME. Calculating and interpreting forest fire intensities. Canadian Journal of Botany 1982; 60: 349–357.
20. Luo J. Information on the calculation of forest fire intensity. Forest Fire Prevention 1988; (4): 13–15.
21. Hu H. Linhuo shengtai yu guanli (Chinese) [Forest fire ecology and management]. Beijing: China Forestry Publishing House; 2005.
22. Hu H, Wei S, Sun L. Estimation of carbon emissions from forest fires in 2010 in Huzhong of Daxing’anling Mountain. Scientia Silvae Sinicae 2012; 48(10): 109–119.
23. Huxley JS. Problems of Relative Growth. New York: Dial Press; 1932.
24. Jolicoeur P. The multivariate generalization of the allometry equation. Biometrics 1963; 19: 497–501.
25. Blackstone NW. Allometry and relative growth: Pattern and process in evolutionary studies. Systematic Zoology 1987; 36: 76–78.
26. Williams CA, Gu H, MacLean R, et al. 2016. Disturbance and the carbon balance of US forests: A quantitative review of impacts from harvests, fires, insects, and droughts. Global and Planetary Change 2016; 143: 66–80.
27. Hicke JA, Asner GP, Kasischke ES, et al. Postfire response of North American boreal forest net primary productivity analyzed with satellite observations. Global Change Biology 2003; 9: 1145–1157.
28. Carter MC, Foster CD. Prescribed burning and productivity in southern pine forests: A review. Forest Ecology and Management 2004; 191: 93–109.
29. Hu H, Luo S, Luo B, et al. Effects of forest fire disturbance on soil organic carbon in forest ecosystems: A review. Acta Ecologica Sinica 2020; 40(6): 1–12.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24294/sf.v5i1.1616
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2022 Haiqing Hu, Sisheng Luo, Bizhen Luo, Shujing Wei, Zhenshi Wang
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
This site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.