Effects of Forest Management on Carbon Effects of Forest Management on Carbon Flux and StorageFlux and Storage

Jiquan Chen, Jiquan Chen, Randy Jensen, Qinglin Li, Rachel Randy Jensen, Qinglin Li, Rachel Henderson & Jianye XuHenderson & Jianye Xu

University of Toledo &University of Toledo &Missouri Department of ConservationMissouri Department of Conservation

A Few Relevant Advancements in Carbon StudyA Few Relevant Advancements in Carbon Study

• Global warming associated with human activities is Global warming associated with human activities is much greater than the portion associated with much greater than the portion associated with greenhouse gases (GHG);greenhouse gases (GHG);

• Carbon sequestration strength varies with Carbon sequestration strength varies with management (e.g., harvesting, fertilization), climate management (e.g., harvesting, fertilization), climate and natural disturbances, but no widely accepted and natural disturbances, but no widely accepted models for managers;models for managers;

• Respiratory carbon loss dominates over the carbon Respiratory carbon loss dominates over the carbon gain through photosynthesis;gain through photosynthesis;

• Retention of green trees during harvests might Retention of green trees during harvests might prevent a stand from being a carbon source.prevent a stand from being a carbon source.

CWD

Atmosphere

Soil

Roots

Non-photo-tissue

Photo-tissue

Autotrophic respiration

Leaf respiration

Stem respiration

Soil surface CO2 efflux

Leaf litter

Root & mycorrhizal respiration

Heterotrophic soil respiration

Leaf litter respiration

Photorespiration

CWD respiration

Leaf net photosynthesis

Gross primary productionNet primary production

Modified from Gifford (2003) by Li & Chen

Heterotrophic respiration

Leaf gross photosynthesis Net ecosystem exchange

Ecosystem Carbon FluxesEcosystem Carbon Fluxes Qs?

Annual Carbon Storage in N. Hemisphere ForestsAnnual Carbon Storage in N. Hemisphere Forests

Gough et al. (2008), BioscienceGough et al. (2008), Bioscience

Growing season NEP for comparable pine ecosystems of various Growing season NEP for comparable pine ecosystems of various age classes – results of a meta-analysisage classes – results of a meta-analysis

Euskirchen, Pregitzer & Chen (2006), JGREuskirchen, Pregitzer & Chen (2006), JGR

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

(5-6) (12-14) (30-32) (65-71)

Age of Ecosystem (years)

Regenerating clearcut

Recent clearcut

Mature forest

Old forest

Gro

win

g S

ea

son

NE

P (

g C

m-2

)

Gough et al. (2008), BioscienceGough et al. (2008), Bioscience

Effects of clearcut and fire on annual carbon storage by Effects of clearcut and fire on annual carbon storage by site index at UMBSsite index at UMBS

Gough et al. (2008), BioscienceGough et al. (2008), Bioscience

0

Climate-dominantResistant to disturbance

Climate-controlSusceptible to disturbance

Chronological Age

NEP

Legacy effect

Disturbance-dominantSusceptible to climate

High

Low

Dis

turb

ance

Int

ensi

ty

Low

High

Clim

ate

Str

e ss

Climate effect Climate+Disturbance effect

Odum's prediction

v4

v1

v2

v3

young old

Created by J. Chen (2004)Created by J. Chen (2004)

Hypothesized change in annual carbon storage of Hypothesized change in annual carbon storage of disturbed forestsdisturbed forests

TEF MOFEP0

1

2

3

4

5

6

SR

R (

µm

ol m

-2 s-1

)Undisturbed Disturbed

Management disturbances will increase the amount of Management disturbances will increase the amount of carbon loss through respiration.carbon loss through respiration.

-15-10-505

101520

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Changes in elevated respiration rate (%) at MOFEP Changes in elevated respiration rate (%) at MOFEP compartment, showing rapid diminish trends.compartment, showing rapid diminish trends.

-15-10

-505

101520

Year

Diff

eren

ce fr

om th

e R

efs

(%)

EAM

UAM

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1 61 121 181 241 301 361 55 115 175 235 295 355 48 108 168 228 288 348Day of year (2003-2005)

Eco

syst

em a

nd s

oil r

espi

ratio

n .

(g C

O 2

m-2

hr-1

) .

0

0.03

0.06

0.09

0.12

DD

W, s

nag,

sap

woo

d, a

nd le

af r

espi

ratio

n

(g C

O 2

m-2

hr-1

)

Ecosystem SoilDDW SnagSapwood Leaf

NHM

Daily mean ecosystem component respiration in Daily mean ecosystem component respiration in the the NHMNHM stands stands

Daily mean ecosystem component respiration in the Daily mean ecosystem component respiration in the UAMUAM stands stands

Daily mean ecosystem component respiration in the Daily mean ecosystem component respiration in the EAMEAM stands stands

NHM UAM EAM

Soil 1193.8 (73%) 1309.5 (77%) 1097.5 (85%)

Down dead wood 39.7 (2%) 39.5 (2%) 156.3 (12%)

Snag 87.5 (5%) 105.4 (6%) 0 (0%)

Sapwood 158.6 (10%) 114.2 (7%) 23.3 (2%)

Leaf 162.2 (10%) 122.3 (7%) 8.4 (1%)

Ecosystem 1641.7 (100%) 1690.9 (100%) 1285.6 (100%)

Mean respiration (percentage) of different Mean respiration (percentage) of different components at the three treatments components at the three treatments

unit: Kg CO2.ha-2.yr-1

Soil respiration not an exponential function of soil Soil respiration not an exponential function of soil temperature – complex regulations!temperature – complex regulations!

Reduction in photosynthesis (C-gain) at higher VPD (Temperature) will also reduce respiratory C loss!

0

5

10

15

20

25

302 0 0 42 0 0 5

0 1 2

VPD (k Pa)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30ge (

mm

s-1)

0 1 2 3

(a) Jun

(c) Aug (d) Sep

(b) Jul

Change in Change in NEENEE in comparison to low- in comparison to low-VPDVPD conditions as a conditions as a function of function of VPDVPD at midday. at midday.

Noormets et al. (2008), New PhytologistsNoormets et al. (2008), New Phytologists

75 80 85 90 95 100

PPTw (cm)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Rs

(g C

O2

m-2

hr-1

)

2 6 10 14

PPTs (cm)

a bR2

CECO= 0.95

R2CC

= 0.77

R2OC

= 0.96

R2CECO= 0.40

R2CC = 0.22

R2OC = 0.11

75 80 85 90 95 100

PPTw (cm)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Rs

(g C

O2

m-2

hr-1

)

75 80 85 90 95 100

PPTw (cm)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Rs

(g C

O2

m-2

hr-1

)

2 6 10 14

PPTs (cm)

2 6 10 14

PPTs (cm)

a bR2

CECO= 0.95

R2CC

= 0.77

R2OC

= 0.96

R2CECO= 0.40

R2CC = 0.22

R2OC = 0.11

Summer respiration (C loss) is linearly related to Summer respiration (C loss) is linearly related to annual/winter precipitation in California’s Serra Nevada.annual/winter precipitation in California’s Serra Nevada.

Concilio et al. (2008), Clim. Change.Concilio et al. (2008), Clim. Change.

Relationship between soil respiration & temperature• SRR was positively related to TSRR was positively related to Ts5s5 when M when Mss >15%. >15%.• The positive relationship changed to the negative when MThe positive relationship changed to the negative when Mss <5%. <5%.

Ms > 15%. 5 ~ 15%. < 5%.

Ma et al. (2004), For. Sci.Ma et al. (2004), For. Sci.

Clearly, water and other resource use and biophyscial environmental variable can alter the conventional Q10 predictions.

Challenges For Managing Ozark ForestsChallenges For Managing Ozark Forests

1.1. Understand the long-term dynamics of carbon fluxes Understand the long-term dynamics of carbon fluxes and regulative mechanisms as climate, species and regulative mechanisms as climate, species composition, and management practices will be agile;composition, and management practices will be agile;

2.2. Link management options directly to carbon storage Link management options directly to carbon storage and fluxes (i.e., credit) in adaptation plans (e.g., and fluxes (i.e., credit) in adaptation plans (e.g., climate change and societal needs);climate change and societal needs);

3.3. Examine the C credits and sequestration of Ozark Examine the C credits and sequestration of Ozark forests in context of overall ecosystem functions and forests in context of overall ecosystem functions and services.services.

Thank You!Thank You!