Carbon sequestration characteristics of two plantation forest ecosystems with different lithologies of karst

PLoS One. 2022 Dec 1;17(12):e0276537. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276537. eCollection 2022.

Abstract

In karst regions, the majority of studies have focused on ecosystem carbon sequestration in the same lithology, but no studies in different lithologies. In this study, actual measurements were used to reveal carbon sequestration characteristics of two plantation forest ecosystems (Bodinieri cinnamon and Cupressus funebris) with different lithologies of karst. The results showed that the tree layer showed the highest vegetation biomass, carbon content, carbon density, and ratio of aboveground biomass to belowground biomass. The carbon density of B. cinnamon plantation and C. funebris plantation was high in dolomite and in limestone respectively. The soil quality and carbon density of bare ground and plantation varied across different lithologies. The carbon density of various ecosystem components was in the order of vegetation>soil>litterfall. The carbon density and net carbon density of plantation varied across different lithologies. In B. cinnamon plantation, the carbon sequestration rate of vegetation and ecosystem was high in dolomite, moderate in limestone, and low in dolomitic sandstone. In Cupressus funebris plantation, the carbon sequestration rate was in the order of limestone>dolomite>dolomitic sandstone. These findings revealed that lithology is an important factor affecting ecosystem carbon pools, and plantation ecosystems have low biomass and low carbon density in karst areas.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Calcium Carbonate
  • Carbon
  • Carbon Sequestration*
  • Cinnamomum zeylanicum
  • Cupressaceae*
  • Ecosystem
  • Forests
  • Soil

Substances

  • calcium magnesium carbonate
  • Calcium Carbonate
  • Carbon
  • Soil

Grants and funding

This research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (51868008, 51978187, and 31560187).The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.