You're using an outdated browser. Please upgrade to a modern browser for the best experience.
Ecosystem Carbon Density Changes to Topographical Factors: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Vivi Li and Version 1 by Prashant Sharma.

The total ecosystem carbon density (ECD) is referred to as the sum of all carbon pools, including the soil carbon density or stocks.

  • tree parameters
  • biomass density
  • altitude
  • ecosystem
  • vegetation community

1. Introduction

In recent decades, Himalayan forest has been threatened by rapid anthropogenic activities, resulting in the loss of forest diversity and climate change. Mountain forests cover about 23% of the total forest land area [1] and host ~12% of the human population worldwide [2]. Compared to other mountain ecosystems, the Indian Himalayan region is dynamically young [3] and harbors a wide variety of biodiversity apart from sustaining life for a significant part of the Indian subcontinent population. Vegetation cover plays a crucial role in local, regional and global climate apart from decreasing erosion in mountain areas [4]. By adopting sustainable environmental management practices, the protection of mountainous habitats (particularly, biological diversity) will help in safeguarding livelihoods and further improvement of local communities. They also shield individuals effectively from natural calamities, e.g., debris flows, floods and landslides [5]. In forest conservation and management, tree diversity plays an important role because it provides resources and shelter to forest species [6]. Besides its effect on species diversity and ecosystem functioning, it also affects tolerance and resistance to climate changes in the future [7][8]. Several edaphic factors and topographical factors (e.g., altitude, aspect and slope) control vegetation growth [9][10] and play a vital role in plant species distribution [7][11]. Altitude plays a key role in deciding the temperature system and diversification of forest species [12][13]. Moreover, co-factors such as soil type and slope propensity help in guiding forest composition at one altitude [14][15]. The determinants of species richness are altitude, physiography, productivity [16] and biotic variables. A comprehension of stand characteristics and forest structure is a prerequisite for identifying different ecological processes and modeling the functioning and dynamics of forests [17]. Several biotic (e.g., intensity of photosynthesis, leaf area index, forest types and plant architecture) and abiotic characteristics (e.g., solar radiation, temperature, soil moisture and length of growing season) affect carbon cycling and further affect the regional and/or global carbon budget [18][19][20][21]. In addition to being a crucial natural constraint to climate change, forest habitats occupy approximately 30% of land areas and play a dominant role in the exchange of carbon dioxide (CO2) between the atmosphere and biosphere [22][23]. Major shares (81%) of the terrestrial carbon (C) biomass are found in forest ecosystem [24], where 2/3 of the C is fixed annually in terrestrial ecosystems [25]. Vegetation biomass is a central ecological element to understand the climate system’s evolution and possible future changes. Therefore, biomass acts as an important indicator of climate change prediction models, and further helps to make mitigation and adaptation strategies [26]. Forests, particularly primary ones, are actively engaged in the cycling of carbon (i.e., C stock in vegetation and its underlain soil through the process of photosynthesis and respiration) [27], and the extent depends on age, tree species, location of forests and management practices [28]. Due to land-use change and tropical deforestation, nearly 1.7 billion tons of carbon is emitted annually, which impacts climate badly [29][30]. The tree biomass pool is a vital origin of uncertainty in C balance in tropical regions [31] and plays a crucial role in the global C cycle. The management of forests for maintaining or enhancing carbon stocks is receiving increasing interest from forest land owners and land management agencies [32][33] due to the impacts from a change in climate intensity [34].
The S-facing slopes are drier than other slopes as they are exposed to sun rays during the day time and directly intercept the moisture-laden southwest monsoon, leading to excessive soil erosion on these slopes. In turn, the N-facing slopes support the moisture-loving tree species as they hold more water because of indirect exposure to the sun and low-intensity north–east rains during the winter season. The species richness of both trees as well as shrubs is found to be maximum on the S-facing slopes followed by N-facing. The higher species richness of the S-facing slopes may be mainly due to the dryness of the site on which no particular species have a competitive advantage over others. Anthropogenic activity, primarily at lower altitudes (altitude < 1000 m a.s.l.), also plays a crucial role in decreased species diversity [35][36]. According to Sang [37], water supply can be important at lower altitudes in a continental climate, but a lower temperature is relevant at higher altitudes. In general, environmental parameters [38][39] and management practices [40] are closely associated with the diversity of forest species.

2. Conclusion

topographic factors, mainly the aspect of the slope and altitude, play a substantial role in vegetation composition and stand characteristics, carbon density and nutrient status of the soil. There is marked variation in the vegetation composition, tree characteristics, carbon density and soil physicochemical characteristics among the four aspects and altitudinal gradients. Therefore, they should be given due importance for the efficient management of these forest ecosystems from a biodiversity conservation and carbon mitigation point of view. Biodiversity of the tree and shrub species, particularly light-demanding xerophytic species, such as A. catechu and E. indica, are prevalent on the S-facing slope, which are otherwise very poor on account of the C sequestration potential due to less accumulation of stem biomass and growth rate. Aspect and slope can be the basis for fixing the boundary of the compartment/sub-compartment (the fundamental unit of forest management) and their allotment under a particular working circle/silvicultural system. S-and W-facing slopes are very poor on account of their carbon density; therefore, they should be the focus of the attention of plantation programs, such as joint forest management and REDD (reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries)/REDD+ (reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries). In turn, E-facing slopes are extensively occupied by P. roxburghii communities, which should be managed intensively for the production of timber and resin, etc. N-facing slopes harbor mesophyllic tree communities, such as Q. leucotrichophora–P. roxburghii, and are a store house of diversity, carbon and nutrients, and therefore should be conserved and enriched with valuable tree species such as C deodara. The present study provides sufficient information related to the distribution pattern and density of different species at different aspects and altitudinal ranges of mid-Himalayan forest ecosystems. Based on the species distribution and density, we can go for enrichment of these sites through various interventions, which will be quite useful in biodiversity conservation and mitigating climate change.
This entry is adapted from 10.3390/land10111109

References

  1. Price, M.F.; Georg, G.; Lalsa, A.D.; Thomas, K.; Daniel, M.; Rosalaura, R. Mountain Forests in a Changing World: Realizing Values, Addressing Challenges; Food and Agriculture Organisations of the United Nations (FAO) with the Support of the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC): Rome, Italy, 2011.
  2. FAO. The state of Food Insecurity in the World; Food and agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2002.
  3. Singh, J.S. Sustainable development of the Indian Himalayan region: Linking ecological and economic concern. Curr. Sci. 2006, 90, 784–788.
  4. Kumar, A.; Sharma, M.P.; Taxak, A.K. Effect of vegetation communities and altitudes on the soil organic carbon stock in Kotli Bhel-1A Catchment, India. CLEAN—Soil Air Water 2017, 45, 1600650.
  5. Brang, P.; Schönenberger, W.; Ott, E.; Gardner, B. Forests as protection from natural hazards. In The Forests Handbook; Evans, J., Ed.; Blackwell Science: Oxford, UK, 2001; Volume 2, pp. 53–81.
  6. Huang, W.; Pohjonen, V.; Johansson, S.; Nashanda, M.; Katigula, M.; Luukkanen, O. Species diversity, forest structure and species composition in Tanzanian tropical forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2003, 173, 11–24.
  7. Bhat, J.A.; Kumar, M.; Negi, A.; Todaria, N.; Malik, Z.A.; Pala, N.A.; Kumar, A.; Shukla, G. Altitudinal gradient of Species diversity and community of woody vegetation along altitudinal gradient of the Western Himalayas. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 24, e01302.
  8. Chapin, F.S., III; Zavaleta, E.S.; Eviner, V.; Naylor, R.L.; Vitousek, P.M.; Reynolds, H.L.; Hooper, D.U.; Lavorel, S.; Sala, O.E.; Hobbie, S.; et al. Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 2000, 405, 234–242.
  9. Wood, E.; Sivapalan, M.; Beven, K.; Band, L. Effects of spatial variability and scale with implications to hydrologic modeling. J. Hydrol. 1988, 102, 29–47.
  10. Dawes, W.R.; Short, D. The significance of topology for modeling the surface hydrology of fluvial landscapes. Water Resour. Res. 1994, 30, 1045–1055.
  11. O’Loughlin, E. Saturation regions in catchments and their relations to soil and topographic properties. J. Hydrol. 1981, 53, 229–246.
  12. Enright, N.; Miller, B.; Akhter, R. Desert vegetation and vegetation-environment relationships in Kirthar National Park, Sindh, Pakistan. J. Arid. Environ. 2005, 61, 397–418.
  13. Brown, J.H. Mammals on mountainsides: Elevational patterns of diversity. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2001, 10, 101–109.
  14. Kumar, A.; Pinto, M.C.; Candeias, C.; Dinis, P.A. Baseline maps of potentially toxic elements in the soils of Garhwal Himalayas, India: Assessment of their eco-environmental and human health risks. Land Degrad. Dev. 2021, 32, 3856–3869.
  15. Holland, P.G.; Steyn, D.G. Vegetational Responses to Latitudinal Variations in Slope Angle and Aspect. J. Biogeogr. 1975, 2, 179–183.
  16. Sharma, C.M.; Suyal, S.; Gairola, S.; Ghildiyal, S.K. Species richness and diversity along an altitudinal gradient in moist temperate forest of Garhwal Himalaya. J. Am. Sci. 2009, 5, 119–128.
  17. Singh, S.; Malik, Z.A.; Sharma, C.M. Tree species richness, diversity, and regeneration status in different oak (Quercus spp.) dominated forests of Garhwal Himalaya, India. J. Asia-Pac. Biodivers. 2016, 9, 293–300.
  18. Chen, W.J.; Black, T.A.; Yang, P.C.; Barr, A.; Neumann, H.H.; Nesic, Z.; Blanken, P.D.; Novak, M.D.; Eley, J.; Ketler, R.J.; et al. Effects of climatic variability on the annual carbon sequestration by a boreal aspen forest. Glob. Chang. Biol. 1999, 5, 41–53.
  19. Wang, H.; Saigusa, N.; Yamamoto, S.; Kondo, H.; Hirano, T.; Toriyama, A.; Fujinuma, Y. Net ecosystem CO2 exchange over a larch forest in Hokkaido, Japan. Atmos. Environ. 2004, 38, 7021–7032.
  20. Li, S.G.; Asanuma, J.; Kotani, A.; Eugster, W.; Davaa, G.; Oyunbaatar, D.; Sugita, M. Year-round measurements of net eco-system CO2 flux over a montane larch forest in Mongolia. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2005, 110.
  21. Kumar, A.; Sharma, M.P.; Yang, T. Estimation of carbon stock for greenhouse gas emissions from hydropower reservoirs. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2018, 32, 3183–3193.
  22. Brown, J.H.; Stevens, G.C.; Kaufman, D.M. the geographic range: Size, shape, boundaries, and internal structure. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1996, 27, 597–623.
  23. Kumar, A.; Kumar, M. Estimation of Biomass and Soil Carbon Stock in the Hydroelectric Catchment of India and its Implementation to Climate Change. J. Sustain. For. 2020, 36, 1–16.
  24. Sandrine, L.; Claude, N.Y.S.; Christian, W.; Françoise, F.; Sandrine, H.; Paula, R.; Stéphane, F. Estimation of carbon stocks in a beech forest (Fougères Forest—W. France): Extrapolation from the plots to the whole forest. Ann. For. Sci. 2006, 63, 139–148.
  25. Zhang, N.; Yu, Z.; Yu, G.; Wu, J. Scaling up ecosystem productivity from patch to landscape: A case study of Changbai Mountain Nature Reserve, China. Landsc. Ecol. 2007, 22, 303–315.
  26. FAO. Climate-Smart Agriculture: Policies, Practices and Financing for Food Security, Adaptation and Mitigation; Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2010.
  27. McMahon, S.M.; Parker, G.; Miller, D.R. Evidence for a recent increase in forest growth. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 3611–3615.
  28. Mwakisunga, B.; Majule, A.E. The influence of altitude and management on carbon stock quantities in rung we forest, southern highland of Tanzania. Open J. Ecol. 2012, 02, 214–221.
  29. MacDicken, K.G. A Guide to Monitoring Carbon Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation in Developing Countries: An Examination of Issues Facing the Incorporation of REDD into Market-Based Climate Policies; Resource for Future: Washington, DC, USA, 1997.
  30. IPCC. Climate Change: A Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Geneva, Switzerland, 1995.
  31. Chauhan, M.; Kumar, M.; Kumar, A. Impact of carbon stocks of Anogeissus latifolia on climate change and socio-economic development: A case study of Garhwal Himalaya, India. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2020, 231, 436.
  32. McNulty, S.; Treasure, E.; Jennings, L.; Meriwether, D.; Harris, D.; Arndt, P. Translating national level forest service goals to local level land management: Carbon sequestration. Clim. Chang. 2018, 146, 133–144.
  33. St-Laurent, G.P.; Hagerman, S.; Kozak, R.; Hoberg, G. Public perceptions about climate change mitigation in British Columbia’s forest sector. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0195999.
  34. A Ontl, T.; Janowiak, M.K.; Swanston, C.W.; Daley, J.; Handler, S.; Cornett, M.; Hagenbuch, S.; Handrick, C.; McCarthy, L.; Patch, N. Forest Management for Carbon Sequestration and Climate Adaptation. J. For. 2020, 118, 86–101.
  35. Chawla, A.; Rajkumar, S.; Singh, K.N.; Lal, B.; Singh, R.D.; Thukral, A.K. Plant species diversity along an altitudinal gradient of Bhabha Valley in western Himalaya. J. Mt. Sci. 2008, 5, 157–177.
  36. Noguesbravo, D.; Araújo, M.B.; Romdal, T.S.; Rahbek, C. Scale effects and human impact on the elevational species richness gradients. Nature 2008, 453, 216–219.
  37. Sang, W. Plant diversity patterns and their relationships with soil and climatic factors along an altitudinal gradient in the middle Tianshan Mountain area, Xinjiang, China. Ecol. Res. 2009, 24, 303–314.
  38. McCain, C.M. Elevational gradients in diversity of small mammals. Ecology 2005, 86, 366–372.
  39. Bässler, C.; Müller, J.; Hothorn, T.; Kneib, T.; Badeck, F.-W.; Dziock, F. Estimation of the extinction risk for high-montane species as a consequence of global warming and assessment of their suitability as cross-taxon indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2010, 10, 341–352.
  40. Monarrez-Gonzalez, J.C.; Gonzalez-Elizondo, M.S.; Marquez-Linares, M.A.; Gutierrez-Yurrita, P.J.; Perez-Verdin, G. Effect of forest management on tree diversity in temperate ecosystem forests in northern Mexico. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0233292.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Academic Video Service
Feedback