| Literature DB >> 30712188 |
Abyot Dibaba1, Teshome Soromessa2, Bikila Workineh3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unlike in the developed countries, Ethiopia does not have carbon inventories and databank to monitor and enhance carbon sequestration potential of different forests. Only small efforts have been made so far to assess the biomass and soil carbon sequestration at micro-level. This study was carried out to obtain sufficient information about the carbon stock potential of Gerba-Dima forest in south-western Ethiopia. A total of 90 sample plots were laid by employing stratified random sampling. Nested plots were used to collect data of the four carbon pools. For trees with a diameter range of 5 cm < diameter < 20 cm, the carbon stock was assessed from a plot size of 49 m2 (7 m * 7 m). For trees with a diameter range of 20 cm < diameter < 50 cm, the carbon stock was assessed from a plot size of 625 m2 (25 m * 25 m). For trees > 50 cm diameter, an additional larger sample of 35 * 35 m2 was used. Litter, herb and soil data were collected from 1 m2 subplot established at the center of each nested plot. To compute the above ground biomass carbon stock of trees and shrubs with DBH > 5 cm, their DBH and height were measured. The biomass carbon assessment of woody species having DBH < 5 cm, litter and herb were conducted by measuring their fresh weight in the field and dry weight in the laboratory.Entities:
Keywords: Carbon; Ethiopia; Forest; Gerba-Dima
Year: 2019 PMID: 30712188 PMCID: PMC6446976 DOI: 10.1186/s13021-019-0116-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Carbon Balance Manag ISSN: 1750-0680
Fig. 1Map of the study area and sample sites
Fig. 2Climate diagram of Gore
Fig. 3Nested plot design for sampling carbon pools
Fig. 4Total carbon stock (TC) and CO2eq. of each plot
Pearson’s product moment correlations coefficient and P value between Carbon pools
| AGC ton/Ha | Carbon stock in litter ton/ha | Carbon stock in Herb ton/ha | Carbon stock in NTWS ton/ha | DWC ton/ha | SOC ton/ha | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AGC ton/ha | 1 | |||||
| 0.000 | ||||||
| Carbon stock in litter ton/ha | 0.032 | 1 | ||||
| 0.761 | ||||||
| Carbon stock in Herb ton/ha | 0.171 | 0.121 | 1 | |||
| 0.107 | 0.255 | |||||
| Carbon stock in NTWS ton/ha | 0.129 | 0.249* | 0.119 | 1 | ||
| 0.226 | 0.018 | 0.264 | ||||
| DWC ton/ha | − 0.121 | 0.036 | − 0.006 | − 0.016 | 1 | |
| 0.257 | 0.736 | 0.954 | 0.878 | |||
| SOC ton/ha | − 0.082 | 0.124 | 0.265* | 0.230* | − 0.017 | 1 |
| 0.440 | 0.242 | 0.011 | 0.029 | 0.871 |
Cell Contents: Pearson correlation (upper cell) and P Value (lower cell)
**P < 0.01, *P < 0.05
Pearson’s product moment correlations coefficient and P value between Carbon pools and environmental gradients
| Slope | Aspect | Disturbance | Altitude | SAND | CLAY | SILT | Diversity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AGC | 0.030 | − 0.055 | − 0.236* | 0.141 | − 0.097 | 0.093 | 0.011 | 0.207* |
| 0.782 | 0.607 | 0.025 | 0.184 | 0.362 | 0.384 | 0.917 | 0.050 | |
| 0.798 | 0.647 | 0.034 | 0.311 | 0.746 | 0.793 | 0.888 | 0.017 | |
| Carbon stock in litter | − 0.038 | − 0.162 | − 0.189 | 0.120 | − 0.295** | 0.224* | 0.160 | 0.002 |
| 0.722 | 0.128 | 0.074 | 0.259 | 0.005 | 0.034 | 0.133 | 0.983 | |
| Carbon stock in Herb ton/ha | 0.050 | − 0.001 | − 0.191 | 0.368** | − 0.160 | 0.105 | 0.121 | 0.131 |
| 0.642 | 0.989 | 0.071 | 0.000 | 0.133 | 0.323 | 0.255 | 0.218 | |
| Carbon stock in NTWV ton/ha | − 0.027 | 0.023 | − 0.239* | − 0.043 | − 0.076 | 0.035 | 0.089 | 0.046 |
| 0.797 | 0.827 | 0.023 | 0.690 | 0.479 | 0.742 | 0.404 | 0.665 | |
| DWC | − 0.065 | − 0.172 | − 0.018 | 0.290** | − 0.234* | 0.212* | 0.054 | 0.028 |
| 0.540 | 0.106 | 0.868 | 0.006 | 0.026 | 0.045 | 0.616 | 0.790 | |
| SOC | 0.111 | 0.188 | − 0.014 | 0.236* | 0.260* | − 0.220* | − 0.092 | 0.015 |
| 0.299 | 0.077 | 0.896 | 0.025 | 0.013 | 0.037 | 0.389 | 0.887 |
Cell Contents: Pearson correlation (upper cell) and P Value (lower cell)
**P < 0.01, * P < 0.05