Literature DB >> 20437955

Carbon and water fluxes from ponderosa pine forests disturbed by wildfire and thinning.

S Dore1, T E Kolb, M Montes-Helu, S E Eckert, B W Sullivan, B A Hungate, J P Kaye, S C Hart, G W Koch, A Finkral.   

Abstract

Disturbances alter ecosystem carbon dynamics, often by reducing carbon uptake and stocks. We compared the impact of two types of disturbances that represent the most likely future conditions of currently dense ponderosa pine forests of the southwestern United States: (1) high-intensity fire and (2) thinning, designed to reduce fire intensity. High-severity fire had a larger impact on ecosystem carbon uptake and storage than thinning. Total ecosystem carbon was 42% lower at the intensely burned site, 10 years after burning, than at the undisturbed site. Eddy covariance measurements over two years showed that the burned site was a net annual source of carbon to the atmosphere whereas the undisturbed site was a sink. Net primary production (NPP), evapotranspiration (ET), and water use efficiency were lower at the burned site than at the undisturbed site. In contrast, thinning decreased total ecosystem carbon by 18%, and changed the site from a carbon sink to a source in the first posttreatment year. Thinning also decreased ET, reduced the limitation of drought on carbon uptake during summer, and did not change water use efficiency. Both disturbances reduced ecosystem carbon uptake by decreasing gross primary production (55% by burning, 30% by thinning) more than total ecosystem respiration (TER; 33-47% by burning, 18% by thinning), and increased the contribution of soil carbon dioxide efflux to TER. The relationship between TER and temperature was not affected by either disturbance. Efforts to accurately estimate regional carbon budgets should consider impacts on carbon dynamics of both large disturbances, such as high-intensity fire, and the partial disturbance of thinning that is often used to prevent intense burning. Our results show that thinned forests of ponderosa pine in the southwestern United States are a desirable alternative to intensively burned forests to maintain carbon stocks and primary production.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20437955     DOI: 10.1890/09-0934.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ecol Appl        ISSN: 1051-0761            Impact factor:   4.657


  14 in total

1.  The potential role for management of U.S. public lands in greenhouse gas mitigation and climate policy.

Authors:  Lydia P Olander; David M Cooley; Christopher S Galik
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 3.266

2.  Managing United States public lands in response to climate change: a view from the ground up.

Authors:  Mikaela S Ellenwood; Lisa Dilling; Jana B Milford
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2012-03-22       Impact factor: 3.266

3.  Post-wildfire effects on carbon and water vapour dynamics in a Spanish black pine forest.

Authors:  T Dadi; E Rubio; E Martínez-García; F R López-Serrano; M Andrés-Abellán; F A García-Morote; J De las Heras
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2014-11-30       Impact factor: 4.223

4.  High carbon dioxide uptake by subtropical forest ecosystems in the East Asian monsoon region.

Authors:  Guirui Yu; Zhi Chen; Shilong Piao; Changhui Peng; Philippe Ciais; Qiufeng Wang; Xuanran Li; Xianjin Zhu
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-03-17       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Variation in tree mortality and regeneration affect forest carbon recovery following fuel treatments and wildfire in the Lake Tahoe Basin, California, USA.

Authors:  Chris H Carlson; Solomon Z Dobrowski; Hugh D Safford
Journal:  Carbon Balance Manag       Date:  2012-06-28

6.  The impact of forest thinning on the reliability of water supply in central Arizona.

Authors:  Silvio Simonit; John P Connors; James Yoo; Ann Kinzig; Charles Perrings
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-04-02       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Short and long-term carbon balance of bioenergy electricity production fueled by forest treatments.

Authors:  Katharine C Kelsey; Kallie L Barnes; Michael G Ryan; Jason C Neff
Journal:  Carbon Balance Manag       Date:  2014-09-03

Review 8.  Natural disturbance impacts on ecosystem services and biodiversity in temperate and boreal forests.

Authors:  Dominik Thom; Rupert Seidl
Journal:  Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc       Date:  2015-05-22

9.  Management Impacts on Carbon Dynamics in a Sierra Nevada Mixed Conifer Forest.

Authors:  Sabina Dore; Danny L Fry; Brandon M Collins; Rodrigo Vargas; Robert A York; Scott L Stephens
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-02-26       Impact factor: 3.752

10.  Evaluating revised biomass equations: are some forest types more equivalent than others?

Authors:  Coeli M Hoover; James E Smith
Journal:  Carbon Balance Manag       Date:  2016-01-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.