Journal of Forest and Environmental Science

Institute of Forest Science, kangwon National University (강원대학교 산림과학연구소)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Relationship between Tree Species Diversity and Carbon Stock Density in Moist Deciduous Forest of Western Himalayas, India

  • Received : 2016.07.22
  • Accepted : 2016.10.03
  • Published : 2017.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

With the growing global concern about climate change, relationship between carbon stock density and tree species has become important for international climate change mitigation programmes. In this study, 150 Quadrats were laid down to assess the diversity, biomass and carbon stocks in each of the forest ranges (Barkot Range, Lachchiwala Range and Thano Range) of Dehra Dun Forest Division in Doon Valley, Western Himalaya, India. Community level carbon stock density was analyzed using Two Way Indicator Species Analysis. Species Richness and Shannon Weiner index was correlated with the carbon stocks of Doon Valley. Positive and weak relationship was found between the carbon stock density and Shannon Weiner Index, and between carbon stock density and Species Richness.

Keywords

References

  1. Agni T, Pandit A, Pant K, Tewari A. 2000. Analysis of tree vegetation in the Tarai-Bhabhar Tract of Kumaun Central Himalaya. Ind J For 23: 252-261.
  2. Bisht APS, Sharma SC. 1987. Disturbance regimes in Sal (Shorea robusta) forests of Dehra Dun Forest Division. Int J Ecol Environ Sci 13: 87-94.
  3. Carlson M, et al. 2010. Maintaining the role of Canada’s forests and peatlands in climate regulation. For Chro 86: 434-443. https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc86434-4
  4. Caspersen JP, Pacala SW. 2001. Successional diversity and forest ecosystem function. Ecol Res 16: 895-903. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1703.2001.00455.x
  5. Chauhan PS, Manhas RK, Negi JDS. 2001. Demographic and diversity analysis of tree species in Sal (Shorea robusta Gaertn.f.) Forests of Doon Valley. Ann For 9(2): 188-198.
  6. Curtis JT, McIntosh RP. 1951. An Upland Forest Continuum in the Prairie Forest Border Region of Wisconsin. Ecology 32: 476-496. https://doi.org/10.2307/1931725
  7. Edgar CB, Burk TE. 2001. Productivity of aspen forests in northeastern Minnesota, USA, as related to stand composition and canopy structure. Can J For Res 31: 1019-1029. https://doi.org/10.1139/x01-029
  8. Enquist BJ, Niklas KJ. 2001. Invariant scaling relations across tree dominated communities. Nature 410: 655-660. https://doi.org/10.1038/35070500
  9. FAO. 1989. Plant genetic resources: their conservation in situ for human use. Document prepared in collaboration with UNESCO, UNEP and IUCN. FAO, Rome.
  10. FAO. 2010. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAO Papers 163, Rome, Italy.
  11. Frivold LH, Frank J. 2002. Growth of Mixed Birch-Coniferous Stands in Relation to Pure Coniferous Stands at Similar Sites in South-eastern Norway. Scan J For Res 17: 139-149. https://doi.org/10.1080/028275802753626782
  12. FSI (Forest Survey of India). 1996. Volume Equations for Forests of India, Nepal and Bhutan. Forest survey of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Dehradun, India.
  13. Haripriya GS. 2000. Estimates of biomass in Indian forests. Bio Bio 19: 245-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(00)00040-4
  14. Hill MO, Bunce RGH, Shaw MW. 1975. Indicator Species Analysis, A Divisive Polythetic Method of Classification, and its Application to a Survey of Native Pinewoods in Scotland. J Ecol 63: 597-613. https://doi.org/10.2307/2258738
  15. Hill MO, Smilauer P. 2005. TWINSPAN for Windows version 2.3. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology & University of South Bohemia, Huntingdon & Ceske Budejovice.
  16. Hill MO. 1979b. TWINSPAN - a FORTRAN program for arranging multivariate data in an ordered two-way table by classification of the individuals and attributes. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
  17. IPCC. 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. In: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) (Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K, eds). Japan.
  18. IPCC. 2013a. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner GK, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM, eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
  19. Jonsson M, Wardle DA. 2009. Structural equation modelling reveals plant-community drivers of carbon storage in boreal forest ecosystems. Biol Lett 6: 116-119.
  20. Lei X, Wang W, Peng C. 2009. Relationships between stand growth and structural diversity in spruce-dominated forests in New Brunswick, Canada. Can J For Res 39: 1835-1847. https://doi.org/10.1139/X09-089
  21. Magurran AE. 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement. Springer, Netherlands.
  22. Mandal RA, Dutta IC, Jha PK, Karmacharya S. 2013. Relationship between Carbon Stock and Plant Biodiversity in Collaborative Forests in Terai, Nepal. International Scholarly Research Notices Botany 13: 1-7.
  23. McElhinny C, Gibbons P, Brack C, Bauhus J. 2005. Forest and woodland stand structural complexity: Its definition and measurement. For Ecol Manage 218: 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.08.034
  24. McKinley DC, et al. 2011. A synthesis of current knowledge on forests and carbon storage in the United States. Ecol Appl 21: 1902-1924. https://doi.org/10.1890/10-0697.1
  25. Messier CC, et al. 2013. Managing forests as complex adaptive systems: building resilience to the challenge of global change. Routledge, Oxon, UK.
  26. Midgley GF, Bond WJ, Kapos V, Ravilious C, Scharlemann JPW, Woodward FI. 2010. Terrestrial carbon stocks and biodiversity: key knowledge gaps and some policy implications. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2: 264-270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.06.001
  27. Misra R. 1968. Ecology Workbook. Oxford and IBH, Kolkata.
  28. Pande PK. 1999. Comparative vegetation analysis of Sal (Shorea robusta) regeneration in relation to their disturbance magnitude in some Sal forests. Trop Ecol 40: 51-61.
  29. Paquette A, Messier C. 2010. The role of plantations in managing the world’s forests in the Anthropocene. Fron in Ecol Envir 8: 27-34. https://doi.org/10.1890/080116
  30. Paquette A, Messier C. 2011. The effect of biodiversity on tree productivity: from temperate to boreal forests. Glob Ecol Biog 20: 170-180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00592.x
  31. Peet RK. 1974. The Measurement of Species Diversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 5: 285-307. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.05.110174.001441
  32. Rajput SS, Shukla NK, Gupta VK, Jain JD. 1996. Timber mechanics: strength, classification and grading of timber. Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education, Dehradun.
  33. Ramachandran A, Jayakumar S, Haroon RM, Bhaskaran A, Arockiasamy DI. 2007. Carbon sequestration: estimation of carbon stock in natural forests using geospatial technology in the Eastern Ghats of Tamil Nadu, India. Current Science 92: 323-331.
  34. Rawat GS, Bhainsora NS. 1999. Woody vegetation of Shivaliks and outer Himalayas in Northern-Western India. Trop Ecol 40: 119-128.
  35. Rhemtulla JM, Mladenoff DJ, Clayton MK. 2009. Historical forest baselines reveal potential for continued carbon sequestration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106: 6082-6087. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0810076106
  36. Scherer-Lorenzen M, et al. 2005. The design of experimental tree plantations for functional biodiversity research. In: Forest Diversity and Function: Temperate and Boreal Systems. (Schere-Lorenzen M, et al. eds). Vol 176. Ecological Studies. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.
  37. Shannon CE, Wiener W. 1963. The mathematical theory of communities. University of Illionis Press, Urbana.
  38. Sharma CM, Baduni NP, Gairola S, Ghilidiyal SK, Suyal S. 2010. Tree diversity and carbon stocks of some major forest types of Garhwal Himalaya, India. Forest Ecology and Management 260: 2170-2179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.09.014
  39. Staudhammer CL, Lemay VM. 2001. Introduction and evaluation of possible indices of stand structural diversity. Can J For Res 31: 1105-1115. https://doi.org/10.1139/x01-033
  40. Szwagrzyk J, Gazda A. 2007. Above-ground standing biomass and tree species diversity in natural stands of Central Europe. J Veg Sci 18: 555-562. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2007.tb02569.x
  41. Thompson ID, et al. 2012. Forest biodiversity, carbon and other ecosystem service: relationships and impacts of deforestation and forest degradation. In: Understanding Relationships Between Biodiversity, Carbon, Forests and People: The Key to Achieving REDD+ Objectives (Parrotta JA, Wildburger C, Mansourian S, eds). International Union of Forest Research Organizations World Series Volume 31. Vienna, Austria, pp 21-52.
  42. Timilsina N, Ross MS, Heinen JT. 2007. A community analysis of sal (Shorea robusta) forests in the western Terai of Nepal. For Ecol Manage 241: 223-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.01.012
  43. Whittaker RH. 1972. Evolution and Measurement of Species Diversity. Taxon 21: 213-251. https://doi.org/10.2307/1218190