Intra- and inter-species variations in carbon content of 14 major tree species in Northeast China

Abstract

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is one of the major challenges in combating global warming. Carbon, including in the form of carbon dioxide (CO₂), is considered an essential greenhouse gas under human control to demonstrate success in emission reductions. However, many carbon stock quantifications in forest ecosystems still rely on the estimated 50% carbon content instead of more precise species-, tissue- and site-specific values. Thus, this study aimed to thoroughly measure and analyze the carbon content and variability using the 14 major tree species in Northeast China. Over 600 trees were destructively sampled from three different major mountainous regions (i.e., the Changbai, Daxing’an, and Xiaoxing’an mountains), and the carbon contents of each species were precisely measured to the sub-tissue level. Carbon contents varied significantly between species, with foliage carbon mostly found to be the highest, while root carbon contents were the lowest. Average carbon contents can be ranked as: Ulmus laciniata (43.4%) <  Phellodendron amurense (43.5%) <  Acer mono (43.8%) <  Tilia amurensis (44.2%) <  Populus davidiana (44.5%) <  Fraxinus mandshurica (44.7%) <  Juglans mandshurica (44.9%) <  Quercus mongolica (45.3%) <  Betulla davurica (45.8%) <  Betulla platyphylla (46.7%) <  Picea koreansis (46.9%) <  Larix gmelinii (47.4%) <  Pinus koreansis (48.3%) <  Abies nephrolepis (48.3%). Carbon contents were higher in conifers (47.7%) compared to broadleaf species (44.9%). In addition, both tree tissues and growing sites also had a significant effect on carbon content. At the sub-tissue level, only stem’s sub-tissues (i.e., bark, heartwood, and sapwood) carbon contents showed significant variations. The results suggest that bark should be separated from other stem sub-tissues and considered separately when determining carbon stocks. This research contributes to improving estimates of terrestrial carbon quantifications, and in particular, the values obtained can be used in China’s National Forest Inventory.

Keywords

Carbon concentration / Carbon sequestration / Hardwoods / Conifers / Temperate forest

References

[1] Azeem F, Ahmed B, Atif RM, Ali MA, Nadeem H, Hussain S, Rasul S, Manzoor H, Ahmad U, Afzal M. Drought affects aquaporins gene expression in important pulse legume chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Pak J Bot, 2019, 51(1): 81-88.

[2] Beck HE, Zimmermann NE, McVicar TR, Vergopolan N, Berg A, Wood EF. Present and future köppen-geiger climate classification maps at 1-km resolution. Sci Data, 2018, 5: 180214.

[3] Bert D, Danjon F. Carbon concentration variations in the roots, stem and crown of mature Pinus pinaster (Ait.). For Ecol Manag, 2006, 222: 279-295.

[4] Castaño-Santamaría J, Bravo F. Variation in carbon concentration and basic density along stems of sessile oak (Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.) and Pyrenean oak (Quercus pyrenaica Willd.) in the Cantabrian Range (NW Spain). Ann For Sci, 2012, 69(6): 663-672.

[5] Dietze MC, Sala A, Carbone MS, Czimczik CI, Mantooth JA, Richardson AD, Vargas R. Nonstructural carbon in woody plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol, 2014, 65(1): 667-687.

[6] Dixon RK, Brown S, Houghton RA, Solomon AM, Trexler MC, Wisniewski J. Carbon pools and flux of global forest ecosystems. Science, 1994, 263(5144): 185-190.

[7] Dong L, Zhang L, Li F. Allometry and partitioning of individual tree biomass and carbon of Abies nephrolepis Maxim in northeast China. Scand J For Res, 2016, 31(4): 399-411.

[8] Dong L, Widagdo FRA, Xie L, Li F. Biomass and volume modeling along with carbon concentration variations of short-rotation poplar plantations. Forests, 2020 11 7 780

[9] Ebeling J, Yasué M. Generating carbon finance through avoided deforestation and its potential to create climatic, conservation and human development benefits. Philos Trans R Soc B, 2008, 363(1498): 1917-1924.

[10] Elias M, Potvin C. Assessing inter- and intra-specific variation in trunk carbon concentration for 32 neotropical tree species. Can J For Res, 2003, 33(6): 1039-1045.

[11] FAO. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015: how are the world’s forests changing?, 2015, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations 44

[12] Franceschi VR, Krokene P, Christiansen E, Krekling T. Anatomical and chemical defenses of conifer bark against bark beetles and other pests. New Phytol, 2005, 167(2): 353-376.

[13] Gao B, Taylor AR, Chen HYH, Wang J. Variation in total and volatile carbon concentration among the major tree species of the boreal forest. For Ecol Manag, 2016, 375: 191-199.

[14] Gillerot L, Vlaminck E, De Ryck DJR, Mwasaru DM, Beeckman H, Koedam N. Inter- and intraspecific variation in mangrove carbon fraction and wood specific gravity in Gazi Bay, Kenya. Ecosphere, 2018 9 6 e02306 https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2306

[15] Gower ST, Krankina O, Olson RJ, Apps M, Linder S, Wang C. Net primary production and carbon allocation patterns of boreal forest ecosystems. Ecol Appl, 2001 11 5 1395

[16] Guerra-Santos JJ, Cerón-Bretón RM, Cerón-Bretón JG, Damián-Hernández DL, Sánchez-Junco RC, Carrió ECG. Estimation of the carbon pool in soil and above-ground biomass within mangrove forests in Southeast Mexico using allometric equations. J For Res, 2014, 25(1): 129-134.

[17] Hengst GE, Dawson JO. Bark properties and fire resistance of selected tree species from the central hardwood region of North America. Can J For Res, 1994, 24(4): 688-696.

[18] Hergert HL. Chemical composition of tannins and polyphenols from conifer wood and bark. For Prod J, 1960, 10(1): 610-617.

[19] Houghton JT, Jenkins GJ, Ephraums JJ. Climate change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment, 1990, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 365

[20] IPCC. Climate Change 2007—Mitigation of Climate Change: Working Group III contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, 2007, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 851

[21] IPCC. Climate Change 2014—Synthesis Report: Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014, Geneva: IPCC 151

[22] Jones DA, O’Hara KL. Carbon density in managed coast redwood stands: Implications for forest carbon estimation. Forestry, 2012, 85(1): 99-110.

[23] Keenan TF, Williams CA. The terrestrial carbon sink. Annu Rev Environ Resour, 2018, 43(1): 219-243.

[24] Kim C, Yoo BO, Jung SY, Lee KS. Allometric equations to assess biomass, carbon and nitrogen content of black pine and red pine trees in southern Korea. IForest, 2017, 10(2): 483-490.

[25] Kozlowski TT. Carbohydrate sources and sinks in woody plants. The Bot Rev, 1992, 58(2): 107-222.

[26] Labosky PJ. Chemical constituents of four Southern pine barks. Wood Sci, 1979, 12(2): 80-85.

[27] Lachenbruch B, Moore JR, Evans R Meinzer FC Radial variation in wood structure and function in woody plants, and hypotheses for its occurrence. Size- and age-related changes in tree structure and function, tree physiology, 2011 121 164

[28] Laiho R, Laine J. Tree stand biomass and carbon content in an age sequence of drained pine mires in southern Finland. For Ecol Manag, 1997, 93: 161-169.

[29] Lamlom SH, Savidge RA. A reassessment of carbon content in wood: variation within and between 41 North American species. Biomass Bioenergy, 2003, 25(4): 381-388.

[30] Lamlom SH, Savidge RA. Carbon content variation in boles of mature sugar maple and giant sequoia. Tree Physiol, 2006, 26(4): 459-468.

[31] Ma S, He F, Tian D, Zou D, Yan Z, Yang Y, Zhou T, Huang K, Shen H, Fang J. Variations and determinants of carbon content in plants: a global synthesis. Biogeosciences, 2018, 15(3): 693-702.

[32] Martin AR, Thomas SC. A reassessment of carbon content in tropical trees. PLoS One, 2011 6 8 e23533

[33] Martin AR, Gezahegn S, Thomas SC. Variation in carbon and nitrogen concentration among major woody tissue types in temperate trees. Can J For Res, 2015, 45(6): 744-757.

[34] Martínez-Vilalta J, Sala A, Asensio D, Galiano L, Hoch G, Palacio S, Piper FI, Lloret F. Dynamics of non-structural carbohydrates in terrestrial plants: a global synthesis. Ecol Monogr, 2016, 86(4): 495-516.

[35] Mukama K, Mustalahti I, Zahabu E. Participatory forest carbon assessment and REDD+: learning from Tanzania. Int J For Res, 2012, 2012: 1-14.

[36] Nemli G, Gezer ED, Yildiz S, Temiz A, Aydin A. Evaluation of the mechanical, physical properties and decay resistance of particleboard made from particles impregnated with Pinus brutia bark extractives. Bioresour Technol, 2006, 97(16): 2059-2064.

[37] Nizami SM. The inventory of the carbon stocks in sub tropical forests of Pakistan for reporting under Kyoto Protocol. J For Res, 2012, 23(3): 377-384.

[38] Ozdemir E, Makineci E, Yilmaz E, Kumbasli M, Caliskan S, Beskardes V, Keten A, Zengin H, Yilmaz H. Biomass estimation of individual trees for coppice-originated oak forests. Eur J For Res, 2019, 138(4): 623-637.

[39] Pettersen RC. Rowell R. The chemical composition of wood. The chemistry of solid wood, 1984, Seattle: ACS 57 126

[40] Pompa-García M, Sigala-Rodríguez JA, Jurado E, Flores J. Tissue carbon concentration of 175 Mexican forest species. IForest, 2017, 10(4): 754-758.

[41] Porter LJ. Extractives of Pinus radiata bark. 2. Procyanidin constitu ents. N Z J Sci, 1974, 17: 213-218.

[42] Reich Peter B, Walters Michael B, Ellsworth David S. From tropics to tundra: global convergence in plant functioning. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 1997, 94: 13730-13734.

[43] Rodríguez-Soalleiro R, Eimil-Fraga C, Gómez-García E, García-Villabrille JD, Rojo-Alboreca A, Muñoz F, Oliveira N, Sixto H, Pérez-Cruzado C. Exploring the factors affecting carbon and nutrient concentrations in tree biomass components in natural forests, forest plantations and short rotation forestry. For Ecosyst, 2018 5 1 35

[44] Savidge RA. Savidge RA, Barnett J, Napier R. Biochemistry of seasonal cambial growth and wood formation—an overview of the challenges. Cell & molecular biology of wood formation, 2000, Oxford: BIOS Scientific 1 30

[45] Srivastava LM. Anatomy, chemistry, and physiology of bark. International Review of Forestry Research, 1964, 1: 203-277.

[46] State Forestry and Grassland Administration. The Ninth Forest Resources Survey Report (2014–2018), 2019, Beijing: China Forestry Press 451

[47] Tang W, Zheng M, Zhao X, Shi J, Yang J, Trettin CC. Big geospatial data analytics for global mangrove biomass and carbon estimation. Sustain, 2018, 10(2): 1-17.

[48] Thomas SC, Malczewski G. Wood carbon content of tree species in Eastern China: interspecific variability and the importance of the volatile fraction. J Environ Manag, 2007, 85(3): 659-662.

[49] Thomas SC, Martin AR. Carbon content of tree tissues: a synthesis. Forests, 2012, 3(2): 332-352.

[50] Tsunoda T, van Dam NM. Root chemical traits and their roles in belowground biotic interactions. Pedobiologia (Jena), 2017, 65: 58-67.

[51] Vázquez G, Antorrena G, Parajó JC. Studies on the utilization of Pinus pinaster bark. Wood Sci Technol, 1987, 21(1): 65-74.

[52] Vidensek N, Lim P, Campbell A, Carlson C. Taxol content in bark, wood, root, leaf, twig, and seedling from several taxus species. J Nat Prod, 1990, 53(6): 1609-1610.

[53] Vieilledent G, Vaudry R, Andriamanohisoa SFD, Rakotonaviro OS, Randrianasolo HZ, Razafindrabe HN, Rakotoarivony CB, Ebeling J, Rasamoelina M. A universal approach to estimate biomass and carbon stock in tropical forests using generic allometric models. Ecol Appl, 2012, 22(2): 572-583.

[54] Wang C. Biomass allometric equations for 10 co-occurring tree species in Chinese temperate forests. For Ecol Manag, 2006, 222: 9-16.

[55] Wang XW, Weng YH, Liu GF, Krasowski MJ, Yang CP. Variations in carbon concentration , sequestration and partitioning among Betula platyphylla provenances. For Ecol Manag, 2015, 358: 344-352.

[56] Widagdo FRA, Li F, Zhang L, Dong L. Aggregated biomass model systems and carbon concentration variations for tree carbon quantification of natural mongolian oak in northeast China. Forests, 2020 11 4 397

[57] Widagdo FRA, Xie L, Dong L, Li F. Origin-based biomass allometric equations, biomass partitioning, and carbon concentration variations of planted and natural Larix gmelinii in northeast China. Glob Ecol Conserv, 2020, 23: e01111.

[58] Wright IJ, Reich PB, Westoby M, Ackerly DD, Baruch Z, Bongers F, Cavender-Bares J, Chapin T, Cornelissen JH, Diemer M. The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature, 2004 428 6985 821

[59] Ying J, Weng Y, Oswald BP, Zhang H. Variation in carbon concentrations and allocations among Larix olgensis populations growing in three field environments. Ann For Sci, 2019 76 4 99

[60] Yu D, Zhou L, Zhou W, Ding H, Wang Q, Wang Y, Wu X, Dai L. Forest management in Northeast China: history, problems, and challenges. Environ Manag, 2011, 48(6): 1122-1135.

[61] Zhang Q, Wang C, Wang X, Quan X. Carbon concentration variability of 10 Chinese temperate tree species. For Ecol Manag, 2009, 258: 722-727.

[62] Zhou L, Li S, Liu B, Wu P, Heal KV, Ma X. Tissue-specific carbon concentration, carbon stock, and distribution in Cunninghamia lanceolata (Lamb.) Hook plantations at various developmental stages in subtropical China. Ann For Sci, 2019 76 3 70

[63] Zhu HY, Weng YH, Zhang HG, Meng FR, Major JE. Comparing fast- and slow-growing provenances of Picea koraiensis in biomass, carbon parameters and their relationships with growth. For Ecol Manag, 2013, 307: 178-185.