| Literature DB >> 26951761 |
Sharif A Mukul1,2, John Herbohn1,2, Jennifer Firn3.
Abstract
In the tropics, shifting cultivation has long been attributed to large scale forest degradation, and remains a major source of uncertainty in forest carbon accounting. In the Philippines, shifting cultivation, locally known as kaingin, is a major land-use in upland areas. We measured the distribution and recovery of aboveground biomass carbon along a fallow gradient in post-kaingin secondary forests in an upland area in the Philippines. We found significantly higher carbon in the aboveground total biomass and living woody biomass in old-growth forest, while coarse dead wood biomass carbon was higher in the new fallow sites. For young through to the oldest fallow secondary forests, there was a progressive recovery of biomass carbon evident. Multivariate analysis indicates patch size as an influential factor in explaining the variation in biomass carbon recovery in secondary forests after shifting cultivation. Our study indicates secondary forests after shifting cultivation are substantial carbon sinks and that this capacity to store carbon increases with abandonment age. Large trees contribute most to aboveground biomass. A better understanding of the relative contribution of different biomass sources in aboveground total forest biomass, however, is necessary to fully capture the value of such landscapes from forest management, restoration and conservation perspectives.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26951761 PMCID: PMC4782068 DOI: 10.1038/srep22483
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Summary (mean ± SE) of aboveground biomass carbon (Mg C ha−1) distribution in our study sites on Leyte Island, the Philippines.
| Parameter | Fallow category | Old-growth forest | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ≤5 year | 6–10 year | 11–20 year | 21–30 year | ||
| 33.42 (±55.25) | 74.18 (±54.15) | 111.81 (±74.65) | 120.02 (±52.05) | 316.96 (±130.63) | |
| Pioneer | 4.09 (±5.31) | 37.30 (±43.85) | 29.32 (±20.78) | 24.57 (±6.54) | 87.58 (±45.63) |
| Secondary | 6.75 (±7.97) | 20.13 (±6.28) | 33.65 (±22.4) | 45.03 (±18.78) | 74.31 (±36.66) |
| Climax | 22.57 (±49.0) | 16.75 (±12.27) | 48.85 (±55.56) | 50.42 (±35.68) | 155.07 (±84.03) |
| Native | 17.63 (±23.35) | 60.32 (±42.23) | 78.17 (±52.47) | 75.79 (±33.68) | 256.14 (±108.27) |
| Endemic | 15.43 (±32.71) | 14.50 (±12.03) | 33.24 (±28.13) | 41.66 (±30.67) | 60.83 (±31.7) |
| Exotic | 0.35 (±0.79) | 0 | 0.4 (±0.61) | 2.57 (±5.14) | 0 |
| 0.09 (±0.17) | 1.45 (±1.34) | 0.40 (±0.27) | 0.34 (±0.37) | 0.21 (±0.30) | |
| Tree fern | 0.08 (±0.17) | 1.41 (±1.33) | 0.32 (±0.31) | 0.23 (±0.25) | 0.21 (±0.30) |
| Abaca | 0.01 (±0.02) | 0.04 (±0.05) | 0.08 (±0.06) | 0.11 (±0.14) | 0 |
| 126.65 (±22.58) | 25.26 (±25.0) | 9.95 (±4.97) | 11.87 (±12.57) | 3.91 (±1.17) | |
| Standing | 108.28 (±19.46) | 18.21 (±24.74) | 2.53 (±1.07) | 4.47 (±5.74) | 0.31 (±0.25) |
| Downed | 18.37 (±11.70) | 7.05 (±5.68) | 7.42 (±5.49) | 7.40 (±7.33) | 3.60 (±1.07) |
| Freshly cut | 115.29 (±22.2) | 2.06 (±2.77) | 0.27 (±0.28) | 1.13 (±1.85) | 0 |
| Moderately degraded | 7.85 (±7.69) | 17.20 (±25.39) | 4.69 (±3.68) | 6.72 (±8.45) | 0.3 (±0.21) |
| Highly degraded | 3.04 (±3.56) | 5.93 (±4.47) | 4.97 (±3.76) | 4.0 (±4.5) | 3.57 (±1.23) |
| Burnt | 0.47 (±1.01) | 0.08 (±0.13) | 0.02 (±0.05) | 0.01 (±0.02) | 0.04 (±0.09) |
| 0.08 (±0.06) | 0.10 (±0.03) | 0.12 (±0.04) | 0.15 (±0.08) | 0.11 (±0.04) | |
| 0.07 (±0.04) | 0.09 (±0.03) | 0.13 (±0.09) | 0.17 (±0.10) | 0.10 (±0.02) | |
Where, LWBC = living woody biomass carbon, OLBC = other living biomass carbon, CDWBC = coarse dead wood biomass carbon, UBC = undergrowth biomass carbon, LBC = litter biomass carbon, AGTBC = aboveground total biomass carbon. *Values are significantly different at p < 0.01 level.
Figure 1Distribution of aboveground biomass carbon (Mg C ha−1) in our study sites on Leyte Island, the Philippines.
Each bar indicates upper, lower and median values of biomass carbon allocation, and standard deviation of C allocation under corresponding site category. Note the differences in the Y axis.
Figure 2Relative contribution of different source to the total aboveground biomass carbon stock in our sites on Leyte Island, the Philippines.
Figure 3Relative importance of different successional species groups in living woody biomass carbon (LWBC) (left); and species of different origin in LWBC.
Values in the bars indicate absolute contribution (Mg C ha−1) to LWBC of individual category.
Figure 4Relative importance of coarse dead wood of different stand form in coarse dead wood biomass carbon (CDWBC) (left); and dead woods of different degradation status in CDWBC (right).
Values in the bars indicate absolute contribution (Mg C ha−1) to CDWBC of individual category.
Figure 5Distribution of aboveground biomass carbon in fallow secondary forest sites in relation to the old-growth forest on Leyte Island, the Philippines.
Each bar indicates upper, lower and median values of biomass carbon recovery, and standard deviation of C recovery under corresponding site category. Note the differences in the Y axis.
Summary of LMEM between site biomass recovery with environmental attributes obtained using the package MuMin25.
| Parameter | Explanatory variable | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X | X | 6 | − | |||||||
| X | 5 | −71.81 | 158.62 | 1.12 | 0.18 | |||||
| X | X | 6 | −69.88 | 159.40 | 1.90 | 0.12 | ||||
| X | X | X | 7 | −67.14 | 159.48 | 1.98 | 0.11 | |||
| X | X | X | 7 | −67.50 | 160.20 | 2.70 | 0.08 | |||
| X | X | X | 7 | −67.52 | 160.25 | 2.74 | 0.08 | |||
| X | X | 6 | −70.34 | 160.31 | 2.81 | 0.08 | ||||
| X | 5 | −73.04 | 161.07 | 3.57 | 0.05 | |||||
| X | X | X | X | 8 | − | |||||
| X | X | X | 7 | −124.55 | 272.44 | 1.16 | 0.27 | |||
| X | X | X | 7 | −124.90 | 273.12 | 1.85 | 0.19 | |||
| X | X | 6 | −128.31 | 275.08 | 3.80 | 0.07 | ||||
| X | X | X | X | 8 | − | |||||
| X | X | X | 7 | −131.62 | 286.57 | 2.26 | 0.24 | |||
| X | X | X | 7 | − | ||||||
| X | X | 6 | −95.83 | 210.13 | 2.51 | 0.16 | ||||
| X | X | X | X | 8 | −90.61 | 210.32 | 2.70 | 0.14 | ||
| X | X | X | 7 | −94.08 | 211.50 | 3.89 | 0.08 | |||
| X | X | 6 | −96.57 | 211.60 | 3.98 | 0.07 | ||||
Where, LWBC = living woody biomass carbon, OLBC = other living biomass carbon, CDWBC = coarse dead wood biomass carbon, ULBC = undergrowth and litter biomass carbon, FA = fallow age, DIS = distance (from the nearest control forest site), SL = slope, PS = patch size, SOC = soil organic carbon.
*DF— Degree of Freedom, LL— Log Likelihood, AIC—Akaike Information Criterion corrected for small sample size. **Values in the bold indicate the most influential model describing the variation in biomass carbon recovery.
The relative importance of site environmental attributes in the final LMEM.
| Parameter | Explanatory variable | Number ofmodels | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.27 (3) | — | 0.28 (3) | 0.95 (7) | 0.55 (4) | 8 | |
| 0.74 (2) | — | 0.66 (2) | 1.0 (4) | 1.0 (4) | 4 | |
| 1.0 (2) | — | 0.76 (1) | 1.0 (2) | 1.0 (2) | 2 | |
| 0.77 (3) | — | 0.22 (2) | 1.0 (5) | 0.93 (4) | 5 | |
Where, LWBC = living woody biomass carbon, OLBC = other living biomass carbon, CDWBC = coarse dead wood biomass carbon, ULBC = undergrowth and litter biomass carbon, FA = fallow age, DIS = distance (from the nearest control forest site), SL = slope, PS = patch size, SOC = soil organic carbon.
*Values in the parenthesis indicate the number of models containing respective explanatory variable.
Figure 6Map of the Philippines (a), with location map of Barangay Gaas on Leyte Island (b) and our study sites in Gaas (c).
Spatial position of the site locations were plotted in global geo-political boundary available from Esri (http://www.arcgis.com/) using ArcMap (version 10.3) software.