Welcome to International Network for Natural Sciences | INNSpub

Above ground biomass and litter productivity in relation with carbon and nitrogen content in various landuse small watershed, Lower Northern Thailand

Research Paper | August 1, 2013

| Download 8

Chattanong Podong, Roongreang Poolsiri

Key Words:

J. Bio. Env. Sci.3( 8), 121-132, August 2013


JBES 2013 [Generate Certificate]


There have been few studies quantifying litterfall and litter decomposition in relation to carbon and nitrogen return to the soil in upland areas following forest conversion to agriculture such as with the establishment of Para rubber tree plantations. Mean annual litterfall production, litter decomposition rates and carbon and nitrogen returns in a secondary mixed deciduous forest were significantly higher than in a Para rubber tree plantation. The aboveground biomass carbon of the tree such as stems, branches and leaves have been collected and dried at laboratory, and the dry biomass of different sections of the tree are presented in Table 5. The result of carbon analysis through CHN Analyzer is presented in Table 6. It is observed with mixed deciduous forest for Haldina cordifolia that average leaf, stem and branch contained 43.32, 47.49, and 46.01% carbon, respectively. For Albizia odoratissima, average leaf, stem and branch contained 46.34, 45.98 and 46.61 % carbon, respectively. For Lagerstroemia duperreana, average leaf, stem and branch contained 47.61, 47.96 and 46.88 %. For Croton roxburghii, average leaf, stem and branch contained 45.29, 47.53 and 45.68 %. It is observed in para rubber plantation for Hevea brasilliensis that average leaf, stem and branch contained 51.20, 50.66, 49.83 %.


Copyright © 2013
By Authors and International Network for
Natural Sciences (INNSPUB)
This article is published under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution Liscense 4.0

Above ground biomass and litter productivity in relation with carbon and nitrogen content in various landuse small watershed, Lower Northern Thailand

Baes C.F, Goeller H.E, Olson J.S, RottyR.M.1977.  Carbon  dioxide  and  climate:  The uncontrolled experiment. Americal Journal of Science. 65,310-320 pp.

Berg B. 2000. Litter decomposition and organic matter turnover in northern forest soils. Forest Ecology and Management. 133,13-22 pp.

IPCC.2001. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. The press syndicate of the University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Ranger J, Gérard F, Lindemann M, Gelhaye D, Gelhaye L. 2003. Dynamics of litterfall in a chronosequence of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) stands in the Beaujolais mounts (France). Annual Forest Science.60, 475-488 pp.

Olson J.S. 1988. Energy storage and the balance of producers and decomposers in ecological systems. Ecology.44, 322-331pp.

Satiago L.S, Mulkey S.S. 2005. Leaf productivity along a precipitation gradient in lowland Panama: patterns from leaf to ecosystem. Structure Function. 3, 349-356 pp.

Yang L, Pan J. 2003. Dynamics models of soil organic carbon. Journal of Forest Research. 14 (1), 323-330 pp.

Matthews E, Payne R, Rohweder M ,Murray, S . 2000. Forest ecosystem: Carbon storage equestration. Carbon Sequestration in Soil, Global Climate Change Digest. 12 (2), 157-180 pp.

Issac M.E, Gordon A.M, Thevathasan N, Oppong S.K, Quashie-Sam S.J. 2005. Temporal changes in soil carbon and nitrogen in West African multi-strata agroforestry systems:a chronosequence of pools and fluxes. Agroforest. System. 65, 23–31pp.

Starr M, Saarsalmi A, Hokkanen T, Merila P, Helmisaari H.S. 2005. Models of litterfall production for Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) in Finland using stand and climate factors. Forest Ecology and Management. 205, 215-225 pp.

Nowak D.J, Crane D.E. 2002. Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the United States. Environmental Pollution. 116(3), 381-389 pp.

Ogawa H, Yoda K, Ogino K, Kira T. 1965.Comparative ecological studies on three main types of forest vegetation in Thailand II. Plant Biomass. Nature and Life in Southeast Asia. 4, 49-80 pp.

Vitousek P.M.1984. Litterfall, Nutrient Cycling, and Nutrient Limitation in Tropical Forest. Ecology. 65,285-298 pp.

Royal Forest Department.1999. Type of forest of Thailand. Ministry of Agriculture. Bangkok. Thailand

Wieder R.K, Wright S.J. 1995. Tropical forest litter dynamics and dry season irrigation on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Ecology. 76 (6), 1971-1979 pp.

Ostertag R, Marı´n-Spiotta E, Silver L.S, Schulten.J. 2008. Litterfall and Decomposition in Relation to soil Carbon Pools Along a Secondary Forest Chronosequence in Puerto Rico. Ecosystem. 11, 701-714 pp.

Chazdon R.L. 2003. Tropical forest recovery: legacies of human impact and natural disturbances. Plant Ecology evolution systematic. 6, 51-71pp.

Brown S, Lugo A.E. 1990. Tropical secondary forests. Journal Tropical Ecology . 6,1-32 pp.

Brown S, Lugo A.E. 1982. The Storage and Production of Organic Matter in Tropical Forests and Their Role in the Global Carbon Cycle. Biotropica. 14 ,161-187 pp.

Sundarapandian S.M, Swamy. P.S. 1999. Litter production and leaf-litter decomposition of select tree species in tropical forest at Kodayar in the Western Ghats. India. Forest Ecology and Management. 123, 231-244 pp.

Moore T.R, Trofymow J.A, Prescott C.E, Fyles J,Titus B.D. 2006. Patterns of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus dynamics in decomposing foliar litter in Canadian forests. Ecosystem. 9, 46-62

Kavvadias V.A, Alifragis D, Tsiontsis A, Brofas G, Stamatelos G. 2001. Litterfall, Litter accumulation and litter decomposition rates in four forest ecosystems in Northern Greece. Forest Ecology and Management.144, 113-127pp.

Li Y, Xu M, Zou X, Shi P, Zhang Y. 2005. Comparing soil organic carbon dynamics in plantation and secondary forest in wet tropics in Puerto Rico. Global Change Biology. 11, 239–48 pp.

Yoosuk S. 2005. Carbon Sink in Rubber Plantation of Klaeng District, Rayong province. M.S. Thesis. Mahidol University, Thailand.