한국산림과학회지 (Journal of Korean Society of Forest Science)

  • 제107권4호
  • /
  • Pages.351-360
  • /
  • 2018
  • /
  • 2586-6613(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2586-6621(eISSN)
한국산림과학회 (Korean Society of Forest Science)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

토양 내 인위적인 이산화탄소 누출에 따른 소나무와 굴참나무 묘목의 엽록소 함량과 생장 반응

Effects of Artificial CO2 Release in Soil on Chlorophyll Content and Growth of Pinus densiflora and Quercus variabilis Seedlings

  • 김현준 (고려대학교 BK21 Plus 에코리더양성사업단) ;
  • 한승현 (고려대학교 환경생태공학과) ;
  • 김성준 (고려대학교 환경생태공학과) ;
  • 장한나 (고려대학교 환경생태공학과) ;
  • 손요환 (고려대학교 환경생태공학과)
  • Kim, Hyun-Jun (BK21 Plus Eco-Leader Education Center, Korea University) ;
  • Han, Seung Hyun (Department of Environmental Science and Ecological Engineering, Korea University) ;
  • Kim, Seongjun (Department of Environmental Science and Ecological Engineering, Korea University) ;
  • Chang, Hanna (Department of Environmental Science and Ecological Engineering, Korea University) ;
  • Son, Yowhan (Department of Environmental Science and Ecological Engineering, Korea University)
  • 투고 : 2018.08.18
  • 심사 : 2018.10.25
  • 발행 : 2018.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 이산화탄소를 인위적으로 주입하여 주입구로부터의 거리와 이산화탄소 플럭스에 따른 소나무와 굴참나무 묘목의 엽록소 함량과 생장반응을 살펴보고자 실행하였다. 이를 위하여 음성 EIT 시험지에서 2년생 소나무와 1년생 굴참나무 묘목을 2015년 5월에 식재하였으며, 2016년 6월 1일부터 30일까지 $6L\;min^{-1}$의 속도로 2.5 m 깊이의 토양에 이산화탄소를 주입하였다. 2016년 7월 중순 경에 엽록소 함량을 분석하였고, 2016년 5월과 11월에 근원경, 수고, 생물량을 측정하였다. 소나무 묘목의 엽록소 함량은 이산화탄소 플럭스와 유의한 관계를 보이지 않은 반면에 굴참나무 묘목의 엽록소 함량은 이산화탄소 플럭스의 증가에 따라 유의한 음의 상관관계(P<0.05)를 보였다. 또한, 근원경과 수고 생장률은 두 수종 모두 이산화탄소 인위누출 처리구의 이산화탄소 누출구로부터 5 m 이내에서 유의한 차이를 보였다. 특히, 두 수종의 근원경 및 소나무 묘목의 수고 생장률은 누출구에 가까워질수록 유의하게 증가하였지만, 굴참나무 묘목의 수고 생장률은 유의하게 감소하는 것으로 나타났다. ${\Delta}R/S$율은 지중 이산화탄소 농도가 증가할수록 두 수종 모두 증가하는 것으로 나타나 상대적으로 지하부로의 탄소 분배량이 촉진되는 것으로 사료된다. 본 연구결과는 향후 지중 저장된 이산화탄소의 누출에 따른 수종별 생리 생장 반응과 이를 이용한 누출감지 모니터링에 필요한 자료로 활용될 수 있을 것이다.

This study was conducted to analyze the responses of chlorophyll contents and growth of Pinus densiflora and Quercus variabilis seedlings on distance from the well and $CO_2$ flux after the artificial $CO_2$ release. From June 1 to 30, 2016, $CO_2$ gas was injected at the rate of $6L\;min^{-1}$ at the study site in Eumseong. Chlorophyll content was analyzed in the middle of July, 2016, and root collar diameter (RCD), height (H), and biomass were measured in May and December, 2016 after planting 2-year-old P. densiflora and 1-year-old Q. variabilis seedlings in May, 2015. The chlorophyll content of P. densiflora seedlings did not show a significant correlation with $CO_2$ flux, whereas the chlorophyll content of Q. variabilis seedlings showed a significant negative correlation with increasing $CO_2$ flux (P<0.05). The RCD and H growth rates of both species showed the significant difference in the distance from the well of the $CO_2$ anthropogenic release treatment. In particular, the RCD and H growth rate of P. densiflora seedlings and the RCD growth rate of Q. variabilis seedlings increased significantly as the seedlings were closer to the well, but the H growth rate of Q. variabilis seedlings decreased significantly. In addition, as the $CO_2$ concentration in the ground increases, ${\Delta}R/S$ ratio increases in both species, suggesting that the high $CO_2$ concentration in the soil promotes carbon distribution relative to the root part. The results of this study can be used as data necessary to monitor the $CO_2$ leakage and physiological and growth responses of both species to leakage of stored $CO_2$ in the future.

키워드

HOMHBJ_2018_v107n4_351_f0001.png 이미지

Figure 1. Location (a) and composition (b) of Environmental Impact Evaluation Test Facility on Seepage of Geologically Stored CO2 (EIT) site.

HOMHBJ_2018_v107n4_351_f0002.png 이미지

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of experiment site (a) showing locations of CO2 flux measurements on grid at 0 m, 2.5 m, 5.0 m, 7.5 m, and 10.0 m from the well (circles) and surface trace of the 2.5 m-depth CO2 injection well (horizontal line), and site renovation (b) drawing of Zone 1 showing locations of plots for Pinus densiflora and Quercus variabilis seedlings (Kim et al., 2018).

HOMHBJ_2018_v107n4_351_f0003.png 이미지

Figure 3. Mean CO2 fluxes at 0 m, 2.5 m, 5.0 m, 7.5 m, and 10.0 m from the well during the CO2 release period. The –x and +x directions on the x-axis correspond to the south and north directions, respectively. Means with the same letter are not significantly different at the level of P<0.001.

HOMHBJ_2018_v107n4_351_f0004.png 이미지

Figure 4. Relationships between CO2 flux and total chlorophyll for the Pinus densiflora and Quercus variabilis seedlings at the treatment plot.

HOMHBJ_2018_v107n4_351_f0005.png 이미지

Figure 5. Root collar diameter (RCD; a, c) and height (H; b, d) growth rates of Pinus densiflora and Quercus variabilis seedlings from May to November in 2017. The asterisk (*) indicates the significant difference between control and CO2-elevated plots. Means with the same letter are not significantly different at the level of P < 0.0001 among distances (Duncan’s post hoc comparisons). Error bars denote standard errors of the means.

HOMHBJ_2018_v107n4_351_f0006.png 이미지

Figure 6. Relationships between CO2 flux and growth rates of root collar diameter (RCD; a) and height (H; b) for Pinus densiflora and Quercus variabilis seedlings at the treatment plot.

HOMHBJ_2018_v107n4_351_f0007.png 이미지

Figure 7. Correlation between mean CO2 flux and ΔR/S ratio for the Pinus densiflora and Quercus variabilis seedlings (a) and relationship between CO2 and O2 concentrations (b).

Table 1. Chlorophyll contents (a, b, and total) of Pinus densiflora and Quercus variabilis seedlings at the level of α = 0.05 (μg mg-1; mean±SE).

HOMHBJ_2018_v107n4_351_t0001.png 이미지

참고문헌

  1. Agastian, P., Kingsley, S.J. and Vivekanandan, M. 2000. Effect of salinity on photosynthesis and biochemical characteristics in mulberry genotypes. Photosynthetica 38: 287-290. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007266932623
  2. Austin, M.P., Groves, R.H., Fresco, L.M.F. and Laye, P.E. 1986. Relative growth of six thistle species along a nutrient gradient with multispecies competition. Journal of Ecology 73: 667-684.
  3. Bachu, S. 2000. Sequestration of $CO_2$ in geologic media: criteria and approaches for site selection in response to climate change. Energy Conversion and Management 41: 953-970. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(99)00149-1
  4. Barnes, J.D., Balaguer, L., Manrique, E., Elvira, S. and Davison, A.W. 1992. A reappraisal of the use of DMSO for the extraction and determination of chlorophylls a and b in lichens and higher plants. Environmental and Experimental Botany 32: 85-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/0098-8472(92)90034-Y
  5. Bellante, G.J., Powell, S.L., Lawrence, R.L., Repasky, K.S. and Dougher, T. 2014. Hyperspectral detection of a subsurface $CO_2$ leak in the presence of water stressed vegetation. PLoS ONE 9(10): e108299. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108299
  6. Benson, S.M., Gasperikova, E. and Hoversten, G.M. 2005. Monitoring protocols and life-cycle costs for geologic storage of carbon dioxide. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-7): 1259-1266.
  7. Brooks, T.J., Wall, G.W., Pinter Jr, P.J., Kimball, B.A., LaMorte, R.L., Leavitt, S.W., Mattias, A.D., Adamsen, F.J., Hunsaker, D.J. and Webber, A.N. 2000. Acclimation response of spring wheat in a free-air $CO_2$ enrichment (FACE) atmosphere with variable soil nitrogen regimes. 3. Canopy architecture and gas exchange. Photosynthesis Research 66(1-2): 97-108. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010634521467
  8. Byun, J., Lee, W., Nor, D., Kim, S., Choi, J. and Lee, Y. 2010. The relationship between tree radial growth and topographic and climate factors in red pine and oak in central regions of Korea. Journal of Korean Forest Society 99(6): 908-913. (in Korean)
  9. Daie, J. 1985. Carbohydrate partitioning and metabolism in crops. Hort. Rev. 7: 69-108.
  10. Ewert, F. 2004. Modelling plant responses to elevated $CO_2$: How important is leaf area index? Annals of Botany 93: 619-627. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mch101
  11. Farrar, J.F. and Gunn, S. 1996. Effects of temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide on source-sink relations in the context of climate change. In: Photoassimilate Distribution in Plants and Crops: Source-Sink Relationships. Eds. E. Zamski and A.A. Schaffer. pp. 389-406. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY, USA.
  12. Feitz, A., Jenkins, C., Schacht, U., McGrath, A., Berko, H., Schroder, I., Noble, R., Kuske, T., George, S., Heath, C., Zegelin, S., Curnow, S., Zhang, H., Sirault, X., Jimenez-Berni, J. and Hortle, A. 2014. An assessment of near surface $CO_2$ leakage detection techniques under Australian conditions. Energy Procedia 63: 3891-3906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.419
  13. Gadallah, M.A.A. 1999. Effects of proline and glycinebetaine on Vicia jaba response to slat stress. Biologia Plantarum 42: 249-257. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1002164719609
  14. Hansen, J. 2004. Defusing the global warming time bomb. Scientific American 290(3): 68. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0304-68
  15. He, W., Moonis, M., Chng, H. and Yoo, G. 2016. Effects of high soil $CO_2$ concentrations on seed germination and soil microbial activities. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 53: 117-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.07.023
  16. Hepple, R.P. 2002. Implications of surface seepage on the effectiveness of geologic storage of carbon dioxide as a climate change mitigation strategy. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Paper LBNL-51267.
  17. Hernandez, J.A., Olmos, E., Corpas, F.J., Sevilla, F. and Rio, L.A. 1995. Salt-induced oxidative stress in chloroplasts of pea plants. Plant Science 105: 151-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-9452(94)04047-8
  18. Hiscox, J.D. and Israelstam, G.F. 1979. A method for the extraction of chlorophyll from leaf tissue without maceration. Canadian Journal of Botany 57: 1332-1334. https://doi.org/10.1139/b79-163
  19. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2005. IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. Cambridge University Press, New York.
  20. Jones, D.G., Barkwith, A.K.A.P., Hannis, S., Lister, T.R., Gal, F., Graziani, S., Beaubien, S.E. and Widory, D. 2014. Monitoring of near surface gas seepage from a shallow injection experiment at the $CO_2$ Field Lab, Norway. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 28: 300-317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.06.021
  21. Jung, N.H., Han, W.S., Watson, Z.T., Graham, J.P. and Kim, K.Y. 2014. Fault-controlled $CO_2$ leakage from natural reservoirs in the Colorado Plateau, East-Central Utah. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 403: 358-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2014.07.012
  22. Kim, H.J., Han, S.H., Kim, S., Yun, H.M., Jun, S.C. and Son, Y. 2017a. Spatio-temporal monitoring of soil $CO_2$ fluxes and concentrations after artificial $CO_2$ release. Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment 26(2): 93-104. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.14249/eia.2017.26.2.93
  23. Kim, H.J., Han, S.H., Kim, S., Yun, S.T., Jun, S.C., Oh, Y.Y. and Son, Y. 2018. Characterizing the spatial distribution of $CO_2$ leakage from the shallow $CO_2$ release experiment in South Korea. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 72: 152-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2018.03.015
  24. Kim, Y.J., Chen, X., He, W. and Yoo, G. 2017b. Corn Growth and development influenced by potential $CO_2$ leakage from carbon capture and storage (CCS) site. Journal of Climate Change Research 8(3): 257-264. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.15531/ksccr.2017.8.3.257
  25. Kim, Y.J., He, W., Ko, D., Chung, H. and Yoo, G. 2017c. Increased $N_2O$ emission by inhibited plant growth in the $CO_2$ leaked soil environment: simulation of $CO_2$ leakage from carbon capture and storage (CCS) site. Science of the Total Environment 607-608: 1278-1285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.030
  26. Klepper, B. 1991. Root-shoot relationships. In: Plant Roots: The Hidden Half. Eds. Y. Waisel, A. Eshel, and U. Kafkafi. pp. 265-286. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, NY, USA.
  27. KFS (Korea Forest Service). 2017. The Statistical Yearbook of Forestry 2017. Daejeon. pp 441.
  28. Lichtenthaler, H.K. 1996. Vegetation stress: An introduction to the stress concept in plants. Journal of Plant Physiology 148: 4-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0176-1617(96)80287-2
  29. Noomen, M.F. and Skidmore, A.K. 2009. The effects of high soil $CO_2$ concentrations on leaf reflectance of maize plants. International Journal of Remote Sensing 30: 481-497. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160802339431
  30. Norby, R.J. and Luo, Y. 2006. Evaluating ecosystem responses to rising atmospheric $CO_2$ and global warming in a multi-factor world. New Phytologist 162(2): 281-293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01047.x
  31. Patil, R.H. 2012. Impacts of carbon dioxide gas leaks from geological storage sites on soil ecology and above-ground vegetation. Diversity of Ecosystems :27-50.
  32. Pfanz, H., Vodnik, D., Whittman, C., Aschan, g., Batic, F., Turk, B. and Macek, I. 2007. Photosynthetic performance ($CO_2$ compensation point, carboxylation efficiency, and net photosynthesis) of timothy grass (Phleum pratense L.) is affected by elevated carbon dioxide in post-volcanic mofette areas. Environmental and Experimental Botanic 61: 41-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2007.02.008
  33. Pierce, S. and Sjogersten, S. 2009. Effects of below ground $CO_2$ emissions on plant and microbial communities. Plant and Soil 325: 197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-009-9969-1
  34. Poorter, H. 1993. Interspecific vatiation in the growth response of plants to an elevated ambient $CO_2$ concentration. $CO_2$ and Biosphere 104: 77-97.
  35. Price, P.N., McKone, T.E. and Sohn, M.D. 2007. Carbon Sequestration Risks and Risk Management. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California.
  36. Rodriguez, D., Ewert, F., Goudriaan, J., Manderscheid, R., Burkart, S. and Weigel, H.J. 2001. Modelling the response of wheat canopy assimilation to atmospheric $CO_2$ concentrations. New Phytologist 150: 337-346. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2001.00106.x
  37. Rogers, H.H., Prior, S.A., Runion, G.B. and Mitchell, R.J. 1996. Root to shoot ratio of crops as influenced by $CO_2$. Plant and Soil 187: 229-248.
  38. Schulze, E.D. 1983. Root-shoot interactions and plant life forms. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 4: 291-303.
  39. Stalker, L., Noble, R., Pejcic, B., Leybourne, M., Hortle, A. and Michael, K. 2011. Feasibility monitoring techniques substances mobilised $CO_2$ storage geological gormations. Energy Procedia, Cheltenham, UK.
  40. Vodnik, D., Kastelec, D., Pfanz, H., Mack, I. and Turk, B. 2006. Small-scale spatial variation in soil $CO_2$ concentration in a natural carbon dioxide spring and some related plant responses. Geoderma 133(3-4): 309-319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2005.07.016
  41. Wilson, E.J., Johnson, T.L. and Keith, D.W. 2003. Regulating the ultimate sink: managing the risks of geologic $CO_2$ storage. Earth Science Technology 37(16): 3476-3483.
  42. Wu, Y., Ma, X., Li, Y.E. and Wan, Y.F. 2014. The impacts of introduced $CO_2$ flux on maize/alfalfa and soil. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 23: 86-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.02.009
  43. Yasuda, T., Yonemura, S. and Tani, A. 2012. Comparison of the characteristics of small commercial NDIR $CO_2$ sensor models and development of a portable $CO_2$ measurement device. Sensors 12: 3641-3655. https://doi.org/10.3390/s120303641