[Carbon Storage of Forest Vegetation and Allocation for Main Forest Types in the East of Da-xing'an Mountains Based on Additive Biomass Model].

Wei Peng,Li Hu Dong,Feng Ri Li
DOI: https://doi.org/10.13287/j.1001-9332.201612.012
2016-01-01
Abstract:Based on the biomass investigation data of main forest types in the east of Daxing'an Mountains, the additive biomass models of 3 main tree species were developed and the changes of carbon storage and allocation of forest community of tree layer, shrub layer, herb layer and litter layer from different forest types were discussed. The results showed that the carbon storage of tree layer, shrub layer, herb layer and litter layer for Rhododendron dauricum-Larix gmelinii forest was 71.00, 0.34, 0.05 and 11.97 t·hm-2, respectively. Similarly, the carbon storage of the four layers of Ledum palustre-L. gmelinii forest was 47.82, 0.88, 0, 5.04 t·hm-2, 56.56, 0.44, 0.04, 8.72 t·hm-2 for R. dauricum-mixed forest of L. gmelinii-Betula platyphylla, 46.21, 0.66, 0.07, 6.16 t·hm-2 for L. palustre-mixed forest of L. gmelinii-B. platyphylla, 40.90, 1.37, 0.04, 3.67 t·hm-2 for R. dauricum-B. platyphylla forest, 36.28, 1.12, 0.18, 4.35 t·hm-2 for L. palustre-B. platyphylla forest. The carbon storage of forest community for the understory vegetation of R. dauricum was higher than that of the forest with L. palustre. In the condition of similar circumstances for the understory, the order of carbon storage for forest community was L. gmelinii forest > the mixed forest of L. gmelinii-B. platyphylla > B. platyphylla forest. The carbon storage of different forest types was different with the order of R. dauricum-L. gmelinii forest (83.36 t·hm-2)> R. dauricum-mixed forest of L. gmelinii-B. platyphylla (65.76 t·hm-2) > L. palustre-L. gmelinii forest (53.74 t·hm-2)> L. palustre-mixed forest of L. gmelinii-B. platyphylla (53.10 t·hm-2)> R. dauricum-B. platyphylla forest (45.98 t·hm-2) > L. palustre-B. platyphylla forest (41.93 t·hm-2). The order of carbon storage for the vertical distribution in forest communities with diffe-rent forest types was the tree layer (85.2%-89.0%) > litter layer (8.0%-14.4%) > shrub layer (0.4%-2.7%) > herb layer (0-0.4%).
What problem does this paper attempt to address?