Carbon Sequestration and its relation with some Physical and Chemical Characteristics in Soil of Natural Oak Forest and Afforestations in Ilam County

Subject Areas : natural resorces

Mona  Karami ¹ (Master of Silviculture and Forest Ecology, Department of Natural Resources, Ilam Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ilam, Iran)
Ali  Rostami ² (Assistant professor, Department of Natural Resources, Ilam Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ilam, Iran. (Corresponding author))
Mehdi  Heydari ³ (Assistant professor, Department of Forest Science, Ilam University, Ilam, Iran.)

Received: 2017-06-19 Accepted : 2017-12-05 Published : 2019-12-22

Keywords: Ilam County, Conifers species, Carbon sequestration, Chaghasabz forest park,

Abstract :

  The effects of forestry on carbon storage as a cost-effective way to reduce global warming have been proven. In our country, especially in the province of Ilam, for the increase of green space per capita of significant areas of susceptible land, different types of forestry have been affected, but the effects of these forests on soil carbon storage and sequestration have been less studied. In this study, the effects of Tehran pine forest (Pinus eldarica Medw.) And silver cedar (Cupressus arizonica Green.) Along with Iranian oak (Quercus brantii Lindl) Forests on soil carbon sequestration in Choghbaz forest park of Ilam city were investigated. Examine and compare. Also, the relationship between some physical and chemical properties of soil with carbon sequestration of different soils was investigated. Method: to achieve the above goals, 15 of Quercus brantii Lindl. 15 of planted conifer Pinus eldarica Medw and 15 of Cupressus arizonica Green, totally 45 trees were selectes based on random transects and soil samples under the crown of each tree at the same distance from stem (30-50 cm) at 0-30 depth were taken. After transferring the samples to laboratory and the relevant analysis, the amount of carbon sequestration was determined using appropriate formula by organic carbon in the soil samples. Results: The results indicated that soil carbon sequestration of Pinus eldarica Medw. (55.7 ton/ha) was significantly more than Cupressus arizonica Green (39.98 ton/ha) and Quercus brantii Lindl. (29.45 ton/ha). Their economic values for mentioned species were computed 140, 101 and 74 million rial’s respectively. The result of Correlation analysis showed that the percentages of organic matter, nitrogen, electrical conductivity and bulk density were respectively the most important factors for soil carbon sequestration. Conclusion and discussion: based on the obtained results of this study, carbon sequestration potential of different plants species is not the same. Therefore, by identifying the species which have higher capabilities for carbon sequestration and analyzing management factors affecting carbon sequestration, it is possible to advance the programs to revive the lands by carbon sequestration. 

References:

1. Batjes, N.H. 2005. Soil carbon stocks of Jordan and projected changes upon improved management of croplands, Geoderma 132: 361–371.


2. Thomas, R.J. 2008. Opportunities to reduce the vulnerability of dryland farmersin central and west Asia and north Africa to climate change. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 126 (2): 36–45.


3. Cannell, G.R. 2003. Carbon sequestration and biomass energy offset theoretical, potential and achievable capacities globally in Europe and the UK. Biomass and Bioenergy 24 (2) 97-116.


4. Lal, R. 2004. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma 123 (2): 1-22.


5. Noel, D. and Bloodworth, H. 2000. Global climate change and the effect of conservation practices in US agriculture. Global of Environmental Change10 (6): 197-209.


6. Post, W.M. and Kwon, K.C. 2000. Soil carbon sequestration and land-use change: processes and potential. Global Change Biology 6: 317-328.


7. Nobakht, A., Pourmajidian, M., Hojjati, S.M., Fallah, A., 2011. A comparison of soil carbon sequestration in hardwood and softwood monocultures (Case study: Dehmian forest management plan, Mazindaran). Iranian Journal of Forest, 3(1):13-23. (In Persian)


8. Li, X. and Liu, C. 2011. Carbon storage and sequestration by urban forests in Shenyang, China. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 11 (2): 121–128.


9. Andrew, Y. 2010. Carbon estimating of forest biomass for the Clatsop state forest, Resources Planning Program, Oregon Dept. of Forestry.


10. Loan, R. and Ramon, V. 1996. Nutritional Status and Deficiency Diagnosis of Pinus radiate Plantations in Spain. Society of American Foresters. Forest Science 42 (2): 192-197.


11. Narimani, H. 2013. An Investigation and comparison of  the carbon sequestration potential of indicator  species in the green space of Isfahan Steel Company, Master of Science in Forestry, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Yazd University.


12. Varamesh, S., Hosseini, S.M., Abdi, N., Akbarinia, M., 2010. Increment of soil carbon sequestration due to forestation and its relation with some physical and chemical factors of soil. Iranian Journal of Forest, 2(1):25-35. (In Persian)


13.   Piri, Abdo-Salam, 2011. Natural Resources landscape of Ilam Province, Natural Resources Department of Ilam Province, 55 pp.


14.  Peichl, M. and Arain, M. A. 2006. Above and belowground ecosystem biomass and carbon pools in an age-sequence of temperate pin plantation forest. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 140 (4): 51-63.


15. Allen SE, Grimshow HM, Parkinson JA and Quarmby C, 1974. Chemical Analysis of Ecological Materials Osney Mead. Blackwell Scientific Publications Oxford, London, UK.


16. Rhoades, J.D. 1982. Soluble salts, P 167-179. In: Page, A.L. (ed.), Method of soil analysis. part2. Chemical and microbiological Properties. Agronomy Monograph no. 9. 2nd ed. SSSA and ASA, Madison, WI.


17. Walkly, A. and Black, I.A. 1934. An examination of the degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science 37: 29-38.


18. Jafari Haghighi, M., 2003. Soil analysis, sampling and important physical and chemical analysis method with emphasis on theory and application basics. Nedaye zoha press, 240 p. (In Persian)


19. Li, Z. and Q.G. Zhao, 2001. Organic carbon content and distribution in soils under different land uses in tropical and subtropical China, Plant Soil, 11: 175–185.


20. Brown, S. 2002. Measuring carbon in forests: current status and future challenges. Environmental Pollution 116 (3): 363-372.


21. Derner, J.D. and Schuman, G.E. 2007. Carbon sequestration andrangelands: A syntheisis of land management and precipitation effects. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 62 (2): 77-85.


22. Richards, A.E. Dalal, R.C. and Schmidt, S. 2007. Soil carbon turnover in native subtropical tree plantations. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 39 (8): 2078-2090.


23. Borchers, J. G. and Perry, D.A. 1992. The influence of soil texture and aggregation on carbon and nitrogen dynamics in southwest Oregon forests and clear cuts. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 22: 298-305.


24. Azadi, A., Hojati, S.M., Jalilvand, H., Naghavi, H., 2014. Investigation on soil carbon sequestration and understory biodiversity of hard wood and soft wood plantations of Khoramabad city (Makhamalkoh site). Iranian Journal of Forest and Poplar Research, 21(4): 702-715. (InPersian)


25. Pussinen, A. Karjalainen, T. Mäkipää, R. Valsta, L. and Kellomäki, S. 2002. Forest carbon sequestration and harvest, in scots pine stand under different climate and nitrogen deposition scenarios. Forest Ecology and management 158 (3): 103-115.


26. Atkin, J. and Dayal, P. 1999. Carbon Sequestraton using sustainable forestry management in South America. In proceeding of the Electric utilities Environmental Conference. 10 pp.


27. Zahedi, Gh. 1998. Relation between vegetation and soil characteristics in a mixed hard wood stand. Academic press, Ghent University (Belgium). 319 p.