Next Article in Journal
Dynamics and Structural Changes in the Janj Mixed Old-Growth Mountain Forest: Continuing Decline of Conifers
Previous Article in Journal
Seasonal Driving Mechanisms and Spatial Patterns of Danger of Forest Wildfires in the Dongjiang Basin, Southern China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of Stand Structure on Aboveground Biomass in Mixed Moso Bamboo Forests in Tianbaoyan National Nature Reserve, Fujian, China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 16
Issue 6
10.3390/f16060987
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Ecosystem Carbon Storage Distribution Among Different Coniferous and Broadleaved Plantations in North China

by
Huitao Shen
,
Yanjie Qin
,
Aibin Wu
,
Yanxia Zhao
,
Tao Zhang
,
Xin Liu
,
Zhenhua Zheng
and
Leigang Sun
*
Hebei Engineering Research Center for Geographic Information Application, Institute of Geographical Sciences, Hebei Academy of Sciences, Shijiazhuang 050021, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2025, 16(6), 987; https://doi.org/10.3390/f16060987
Submission received: 28 March 2025 / Revised: 30 May 2025 / Accepted: 10 June 2025 / Published: 11 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biomass Estimation and Carbon Stocks in Forest Ecosystems: 3rd Edition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Little information is available about the ecosystem carbon (C) storage among coniferous and broadleaved plantations with similar stand ages in North China. The aim of the present research was to estimate the C storages of the components of plants, litter, and soil in two coniferous plantations (Pinus tabulaeformis and Larix principis-rupprechtii) and two broadleaved plantations (Betula platyphylla and Populus davidiana) on Yanshan Mountain, North China. Allometric equations of diameter at breast height (DBH) and height (H) were used to quantify the biomass of the tree organs. The C storage of trees, herbs, litter, and soil were estimated based on the measured C contents. The C storage varied from 24.0 to 51.9 Mg ha−1, 0.3 to 0.7 Mg ha−1, and 1.9 to 4.0 Mg ha−1 in the tree, herbs, and litter layers, respectively. The ecosystem C storages were as follows: B. platyphylla (164.1 Mg ha−1) > P. davidiana (150.4 Mg ha−1) > L. principis-rupprechtii (122.3 Mg ha−1) > P. tabulaeformis (106.7 Mg ha−1), 65.7%–75.6% of which was stored in the soil layer. Broadleaf plantations stored higher C than coniferous plantations in this study. These results indicate that ecosystem C storage varied among various plantation types, and broadleaf plantations had considerable ecosystem C sequestration potential with even-aged plantation stands.

1. Introduction

The dramatic increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere and climate change are currently some of the most serious environmental problems faced by humans [1,2]. There is an urgent need to enhance the carbon (C) storage capacity of terrestrial ecosystems to alleviate the increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere [3,4]. Afforestation is regarded as an effective action to mitigate global climate change by sequestrating C both in living biomass and soil [5,6]. Consequently, monitoring and verification of the C storage of different plantation ecosystems is essential for understanding the C cycle [7,8].
Many recent studies have suggested that species composition has a great impact on the C storage and C sequestration in different plantations [8,9,10]. For instance, He et al. [11] reported that the ecosystem C storage of the mixed Castanopsis hystrix and Pinus massoniana plantation was 327.03 Mg ha−1, which was higher than the monospecific of C. hystrix (314.59 Mg ha−1) and P. massoniana (293.60 Mg ha−1) plantations in subtropical China, which mainly accumulated in the soil layer. Gao et al. [12] demonstrated that C storage and distribution varied among various plantation types in northwest China, and broadleaved species had a higher ecosystem C storage than coniferous species. Chen et al. [13] observed that plant biomass was higher in plantations with fast-growing species than with slow-growing species. Traditionally, broadleaved species typically exhibit greater organic matter deposition into soil, whereas coniferous species demonstrate slower rates of litter decomposition [8,14,15,16]. Ecosystem C storage exhibits substantial variations across different plantations, primarily driven by interspecific differences in C sequestration capacity mediated by species-specific functional traits and biogeochemical feedback [17,18,19]. The aforementioned works illustrate significant variations and considerable uncertainty in the C storage among plantation species.
China maintains the world’s largest plantation area, comprising over 25% of global planted forests [7]. These predominantly young stands demonstrate significant C sequestration potential [20,21,22]. Clarifying the various roles of plantations as C reservoirs is crucial for refining predictions of land-use impacts on regional C cycles [23,24,25]. Recently, many Chinese researchers have explored ecosystem C storage and dynamics across a chronosequence of different plantation types [26,27,28,29,30]. However, studies of ecosystem C storage of different plantation types with similar stand ages are scarce, especially in North China. Therefore, we selected Pinus tabulaeformis (PT, hereafter), Larix principis-rupprechtii (LP, hereafter), Betula platyphylla (BP, hereafter), and Populus davidiana (PD, hereafter) stands with similar stand ages in North China and obtained field measurements of these four plantations to reveal the distribution of and changes in C storage of tree, herbs, litter, and soil layers. We tried to answer the following two questions: (1) Which plantation type had the highest C storage? (2) How did the distribution of ecosystem C storage vary with plantation types? This study provides information useful for identifying suitable species with large biomass productivity and C storage at the ecosystem level at the regional scale of North China.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Sites

The study sites were located in the Weichang Manchu and Mongol Autonomous County of Chengde City, Hebei Province of North China (41°35′–42°40′ N, 116°32′-118°14′ E). The region experiences a continental monsoon climate by a mean annual temperature of 3.3 °C. The amount of annual precipitation ranges from 380 to 560 mm, mainly falling from June to August. The soil is listed as Cinnamon soil (Chinese classification), which is equivalent to Ustalf in USDA soil classification [31]. During the last century, the Chinese government initiated a Three-North Shelter Forest Program, which is designed to mitigate soil erosion, combat desertification, and improve C sequestration [32,33]. According to the local forestry department, all of the study sites were grasslands with similar soil organic C contents (unpublished data from local forestry department) historically, and then different monospecific plantations were established in the 1990s.

2.2. Experimental Design, Sample Collection and Analysis

The age of the four plantations was obtained through consultations with the local forestry department and residents. In 2022, three independent replicate 20 × 20 m plots (at least 150 m away from each other) were selected for inventory in each plantation site. For all trees in each plot, we recorded the diameter at breast height (DBH, cm), tree height (H, m), which was measured as the stem diameter at 1.3 m ground level, and the height of the lowest live branch of a tree [34]. For each plot, descriptive details of the studied plantation plots are given in Table 1. In this study, the biomass of different tree organs (leaves, branches, stems, and roots) was separately calculated using allometric equations of DBH and H published by Fang et al. [35] and Huang et al. [36] (Table 2). The allometric equation of DBH and H has long been used to estimate the biomass of different tree species [8,27,37].
Five individual trees closest to the mean value of DBH and H were chosen for sampling in the present study. For each sample tree, mature living branches with leaves from mid-canopy and two diagonal directions were collected and separated into leaves and branches samples [38]. Four core samples of the five sampled trees were collected by tree-ring cores in each plot. Roots were sampled from five selected soil profiles of 0–60 cm for each plot [39]. Finally, stems, branches, leaves, and roots were mixed at each plot, respectively. The above- and underground of the herbs were also destructively harvested from three 1 m × 1 m subplots at each plot. Litter biomass was also collected from each herb subplot [8,40].
In each plot, three 100 cm depth soil cores were collected using a 5 cm diameter soil auger. After removing herb biomass and litter, soil samples were collected at depth intervals of 0–20 cm, 20–40 cm, 40–60 cm, and 60–100 cm. The same-depth samples were combined to form one composite sample per plot [28]. Simultaneously, undisturbed 100 cm3 volumetric rings were extracted for bulk density determination [12].
All plant samples (tree organs, herbs, and litter) were dried at 65 °C until mass stabilization for determination of biomass and C contents [8]. The dried plants and soil samples were then mechanically grounded and passed through a 0.25 mm sieve for C analysis via the dichromate oxidation method [12,41].

2.3. Data Analysis

Total ecosystem C storage was quantified by integrating the four compartments of tree, herb, litter, and soil layers. The C storage of the different components is estimated as follows [26]:
Biomass C (Mg ha−1) = ∑ [C content (Mg Mg−1) × compartment biomass (Mg ha−1)]
Soil C (Mg ha−1) = ∑ [organic C content (kg Mg−1) × bulk density (Mg m−3) × layer thickness (m) × 10,000 (m2 ha−1)/1000]
The differences in C content and C storage among various plantation types were assessed via a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Duncan’s post hoc tests (p < 0.05) [12]. All statistical analyses were analyzed with SPSS 20.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Figures were prepared using Microsoft Excel 2019 software (Microsoft Inc., Redmond, WA, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Carbon Contents in Plant and Soil Layers

The differences in C contents of each organ were significant among different tree species (p < 0.05). The stem of PT had the maximum C content, with a mean value of 478.5 g kg−1 among the four tree species. Meanwhile, the leaf of PD had the minimum C content, with a mean value of 407.4 g kg−1. The C content of different tree organs decreased sequentially with stem > leaf > root > branch (Figure 1).
In Figure 2, the average C content of the herbs in the PD plantation (345.8 g kg−1) was significantly higher compared to the other plantations (315.2–326.1 g kg−1) (p < 0.05). Across all plantations, the aboveground components of herbs showed higher C contents than the belowground components. The C content of litter was the highest (399.1 g kg−1) in the PT plantation stand and was significantly higher than those of broadleaved plantation stands (p < 0.05).
The C contents decreased with increasing soil depth in the four plantation stands. This pattern was particularly obvious in the BP plantation stand, as C content decreased by 77.4% from 0–20 cm to 60–100 cm (Table 3). The mean C contents varied among the plantations and decreased in the order of BP > PD > LP > PT (Table 3).

3.2. Carbon Storage and Distribution

BP and PD plantations had significantly higher tree layer C storage than those of the other two coniferous plantation types (p < 0.05). The tree layer C storage was 24.0 Mg ha−1 in the PT plantation, 25.5 Mg ha−1 in the LP plantation, 51.9 Mg ha−1 in the BP plantation, and 49.0 Mg ha−1 in the PD plantation, respectively (Figure 3a). All plantations showed a common tendency where stems accounted for a large distribution (51.7%–76.3%) of biomass C storage. The C storage of leaves among the four plantation types was comparatively small, ranging from 2.1% to 9.4% of the whole biomass C storage. Roots stored about 15.6%, 20.6%, 15.1%, and 20.0% of the whole biomass C storage in the four plantations (Figure 3b).
The C storage of the herbs ranged between 0.3 Mg ha−1 and 0.7 Mg ha−1 in the four plantation stands. Among the herbaceous layers, the aboveground stored more C storage in the coniferous plantation stands, while the belowground had a higher C storage in the broadleaved plantation stands (Figure 4a). The litter C storage was significantly greater in the LP (4.0 Mg ha−1) and PT stands (3.2 Mg ha−1) than those of the broadleaved plantation stands (Figure 4b).
The BP plantation stand had the highest soil C storage (109.4 Mg ha−1), followed by PD (98.8 Mg ha−1) and LP (92.4 Mg ha−1) plantation stands (Figure 5a). The PT plantation stand had much lower soil C storage than other plantation stands (p < 0.05). In the four plantation stands, the topsoil (0–20 cm) layer stored the most carbon, ranging from 42.4% to 45.9% of the total soil C storage (Figure 5b).
Total ecosystem C storage was 106.7, 122.3, 164.1, and 150.4 Mg ha−1 for the PT, LP, BP, and PD plantation stands, respectively (Figure 6a). The ecosystem C storage of the broadleaved plantation stands (BP and PD) were significantly higher than those of the coniferous plantation stands (PT and LP). The soil layer dominated carbon partitioning (65.7%–75.6% of total ecosystem C storage), followed by tree biomass C storage (20.9%–32.6%), while the litter (1.2%–3.3%) and herbs (0.3%–0.5%) layers contributed minimally (Figure 6b).

4. Discussion

4.1. Carbon Content of Ecosystem Components

Tree organ C contents exhibited interspecific variability (range of 407.6 and 478.1 g kg−1) (Figure 1), aligning with other plantation reports (367.0–543.2 g kg−1) [11,12,41]. This variability correlated positively with ecosystem C storage, driven by methodological, compositional, and edaphic factors [9,42,43]. Stem tissues consistently displayed higher C contents than other organs across tree species in this research (Figure 1), mechanistically explained by higher lignin gradients in stems [41,42,44].
Herbaceous C contents spanned 315.2 to 345.8 g kg−1 (Figure 2), with documented ranges of previous values [12,45]. The C contents of litter were governed by multiple drives, such as substrate quality, decomposition kinetics, microhabitat controls, and litter quality [46,47,48,49,50]. In this study, the C contents of litter in the broadleaved plantation stands was significantly lower than in the coniferous plantation stands, due to a considerably faster decomposition rate in broadleaved species [46,47].
The C contents across all plantations exhibited a declining trend with increasing soil depth (Table 3), driven by the surface accumulation of organic C generated from litter and rhizodeposition inputs [51,52,53]. Broadleaved plantations demonstrated higher mean C contents than coniferous plantations in this study (p < 0.05), corroborating meta-analytic evidence of a superior stable increase in soil C content in broadleaved plantations [16]. This divergence might be attributed to the faster decomposition of litter C into the soil of broadleaved plantation stands [46,47,48]. Moreover, soil C contents also depended on litter mineralization [54] and C sources from root architecture and exudates [55,56], which differed between coniferous and broadleaved plantations [57].

4.2. Ecosystem Carbon Storage

The tree C storages of the four plantations in this study ranged from 24.0 to 51.9 Mg ha−1 (Figure 3), less than the biomass C storage of P. tabuliformis (106 Mg ha−1) achievable in Northwest China [12]. This might be attributed to the lower planting densities (1083–1291 trees ha−1) of plantation stands in this region. In addition, tree species strongly affect the C storage of live tree biomass because of the growth rate in this study. The slow-growing species (PT and LP with lower height around 30-years-old) (Table 1) often contained higher C contents (Figure 1) as a defensive investment (e.g., lignin, polyphenolic compounds), whereas fast-growing plantations brought lower C contents but effective defensive compounds (e.g., alkaloids, phenolic glycosides, cyanogenic glycosides) [58] (Zhang et al., 2009). However, fast-growing plantations (broadleaved species) accumulated more C storage of live trees than those of slow-growing plantations (coniferous species) (Figure 3). This result suggests that broadleaved species may be more suitable for tree biomass C sequestration in this region.
In this study, the C storage in herbs accounted for approximately 0.3% to 0.5% of the total ecosystem C storage, which is consistent with findings from previous research [11,12,42]. The relatively small proportion in the herbs layer of the total ecosystem C storage in our study may be explained by a greater canopy cover associated with different plantation stands. The litter of broadleaved trees contained less carbon than those from coniferous trees on similar soil (p < 0.05) (Figure 4b), with one possible explanation being the higher decomposition rate of broadleaved litter compared with coniferous litter [48,57], which had been observed in subtropical forests (Erythrophleum fordii vs. Pinus massoniana) [59] and in European temperate forests (European oak vs. Douglas-fir and Norway spruce) [60].
The soil C storage was 1.21-fold higher in the broadleaved plantations compared to coniferous plantations, on average (Figure 5). Differences in soil C storage among tree species may be attributed to the various C inputs or microbial activities. First, coniferous species had a lower litter decomposition rate than broadleaved species, slowing down the C input from litterfall to the soil [15,17]. Second, broadleaved plantations had a greater ability to accumulate soil organic C than coniferous plantations, probably because of the higher root biomass and specific root length of broadleaved trees compared with coniferous trees [61,62]. Third, there was higher microbial and enzymatic activities for C sequestration metabolism in broadleaved plantations, probably indicating a faster turnover of soil organic matter compared with coniferous plantations [63,64].
In addition, soil C storages across the four plantation stands varied from 79.0 to 109.4 Mg ha−1 (Figure 5a), which were lower than the soil C storage in other Chinese plantations [11,43,45]. These discrepancies result from multiple factors, including climate conditions, edaphic properties, species composition, forest management practices, and previous land-use [65,66,67]. Moreover, soil C storage was the highest at the 0–20 cm horizons (ranged from 42.4% to 45.9%) and decreased with increasing soil depth at 0–60 cm. Similar patterns of soil C storage distribution were also documented by other researchers [42,68], indicating the presence of organic matter in the surface soil layer and the subsequent occurrence of biological processes [43].
Total ecosystem C storage of the four plantation stands in the present study ranged from 106.7 to 150.4 Mg ha−1, which was lower than the values recorded in other Chinese plantations (Table 4). Understanding the C storages in different plantations would provide more precise assessments of the C storage and plantation management [21,69,70]. Furthermore, the soil layers represent the primary contributor to total ecosystem C storage, accounting for 65.7%–75.6% across the four plantation stands (Figure 6a). The results were similar to reports of plantations in northeastern and northwestern China [8,12] regarding the soil pool forming the major part of ecosystem C storage. In the present study, the broadleaved plantation stands had significantly higher C storages than those in coniferous plantation stands (p < 0.05), because the live tree biomass, litterfall input, and microbial activity were greater in broadleaved species than in coniferous species [8,13,15,16]. Moreover, only four tree species plantations were compared in the present study; therefore, we suggested that more tree species should be investigated to enhance the understanding of plantation types on ecosystem C accumulation. As a limitation of this research, we could not quantify the possible effects of tree species on the C sequestration rates.

4.3. Implications for C Sequestration in North China

For afforestation, fast growing and short rotation species have direct influences on regional C sequestration rates and have great potential to offset CO2 emission [27,41,74]. In the current research, the tree C storage in broadleaved plantation stands (BP and PD) was significantly higher than the value of coniferous plantation stands (PT and LP). This might be caused by tree characteristics, such as the higher maximum net photosynthetic rate in broad-leaved species [60,75]. Uri et al. [42] and Oliveira et al. [76] also reported that broadleaved forests had the traits of high biomass C accumulation and storage capacity. Fast-growing tree species, such as BP and PD, are prioritized to achieve greater C sequestration in this region. It is necessary to better understand the relationship between plantation type and tree C storage [77]. Consequently, this can serve as an appropriate decision support tool for plantation management, potentially generating the optimal benefits from the plantation species selections [78,79].

4.4. Uncertainties in Estimation of Carbon Storage

Several uncertainties remain in plantation biomass C storage estimates. First, the reasons for these uncertainties are the use of different methods for estimating biomass C storage [80]. For instance, carbon storage can be estimated using forest growth models, tree measurements together with allometric equations, or data analysis of national forest inventories [81,82,83]. Second, a C content coefficient of 50% is usually used to calculate forest C storage [84]. In this study, the mean C contents of different tree species ranged from 43.1% to 46.0%. Consequently, the common application of 50% to all organs would lead to an overestimation of 1.9–6.7 Mg ha−1 in this study. The deficiencies increase the uncertainties in the estimation of plantation C storage and ultimately lead to inaccurate and incomplete estimations of C storage on a small scale [85]. Future research should improve C estimations and reduce uncertainties associated with plantation ecosystems.

5. Conclusions

In this study, the C contents for various components were markedly different in the four plantations, but were generally lower than the values obtained using the standard coefficient (50%). This result showed the importance of measuring different C contents for each component, and that due care should be exercised when using a constant conversion factor to convert biomass to C storage. The ecosystem C storages of broadleaved plantation stands were significantly higher than those of coniferous plantation stands. The soil C storage was the largest C pool, accounting for 74.0%, 75.6%, 66.7%, and 65.7% in PT, LP, BP, and PD stands, respectively. The C storages were distributed in the following order: soil layer > tree layer > litter layer > herbs layer. Almost one half of the soil C at a depth of 0–100 cm was stored in the upper 0–20 cm. The present study suggested that broadleaved species might be more suitable for tree biomass C sequestration in this region. Nevertheless, long-term monitoring and further research are needed to assess the effects of different plantations on ecosystem C sequestration rates and potential in this region.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.S.; methodology, H.S.; software, H.S.; data curation, H.S., Y.Q. and T.Z.; formal analysis, H.S., A.W., Y.Z., and X.L.; investigation, H.S., Y.Q., and T.Z.; resources, H.S. and L.S.; supervision, Z.Z. and L.S.; visualization, H.S.; writing—original draft, H.S.; writing—review and editing, H.S., Z.Z., and L.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Key Research and Development Project of Hebei Academy of Sciences (25107), and the Youth Talent Project of Hebei Province (2020G16).

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Bai, Y.; Ding, G. Estimation of changes in carbon sequestration and its economic value with various stand density and rotation age of Pinus massoniana plantations in China. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 16852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Stenzel, F.; Greve, P.; Lucht, W.; Tramberend, S.; Wada, Y.; Gerten, D. Irrigation of biomass plantations may globally increase water stress more than climate change. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 1512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Chen, X.L.; Reich, P.B.; Taylor, A.R.; An, Z.F.; Chang, S.X. Resource availability enhances positive tree functional diversity effects on carbon and nitrogen accrual in natural forests. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 8615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Norby, R.J.; Loader, N.J.; Mayoral, C.; Ullah, S.; Curioni, G.; Smith, A.R.; Reay, M.K.; van Wijngaarden, K.; Amjad, M.S.; Brettle, D.; et al. Enhanced woody biomass production in a mature temperate forest under elevated CO2. Nat. Clim. Change 2024, 14, 983–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bukoski, J.J.; Cook-Patton, S.C.; Melikov, C.; Ban, H.Y.; Chen, J.; Goldman, E.D.; Harris, N.L.; Potts, M.D. Rates and drivers of aboveground carbon accumulation in global monoculture plantation forests. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 4206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mayer, M.; Prescott, C.E.; Abaker, W.E.; Augusto, L.; Cécillon, L.; Ferreira, G.W.D.; James, J.; Jandl, R.; Katzensteiner, K.; Laclau, J.; et al. Tamm Review: Influence of forest management activities on soil organic carbon stocks: A knowledge synthesis. For. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 466, 118127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cheng, K.; Yang, H.; Tao, S.L.; Su, Y.J.; Guan, H.C.; Ren, Y.; Hu, T.Y.; Li, W.K.; Xu, G.C.; Chen, M.X.; et al. Carbon storage through China’s planted forest expansion. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 4106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ma, J.; Bu, R.C.; Liu, M.; Chang, Y.; Qin, Q.; Hu, Y.M. Ecosystem carbon storage distribution between plant and soil in different forest types in Northeastern China. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 81, 353–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jagodziński, A.M.; Dyderski, M.K.; Horodecki, P. Differences in biomass production and carbon sequestration between highland and lowland stands of Picea abies (L.) H. Karst. and Fagus sylvatica L. For. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 474, 118329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mäkipää, R.; Abramoff, R.; Adamczyk, B.; Baldy, V.; Biryol, C.; Bosela, M.; Casals, P.; Yuste, J.C.; Dondini, M.; Filipek, S.; et al. How does management affect soil C sequestration and greenhouse gas fluxes in boreal and temperate forests?—A review. For. Ecol. Manag. 2023, 529, 120637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. He, Y.J.; Qin, L.; Li, Z.Y.; Liang, X.Y.; Shao, M.X.; Tan, L. Carbon storage capacity of monoculture and mixed-species plantations in subtropical China. For. Ecol. Manag. 2013, 295, 193–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gao, Y.; Cheng, J.M.; Ma, Z.R.; Zhao, Y.; Su, J.S. Carbon storage in biomass, litter, and soil of different plantations in a semiarid temperate region of northwest China. Ann. For. Sci. 2014, 71, 427–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chen, Y.Q.; Yu, S.Q.; Liu, S.P.; Wang, X.L.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, T.; Zhou, L.X.; Zhang, W.X.; Fu, S.L. Reforestation makes a minor contribution to soil carbon accumulation in the short term: Evidence from four subtropical plantations. For. Ecol. Manag. 2017, 384, 400–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chiti, T.; Díaz-Pinés, E.; Rubio, A. Soil organic carbon stocks of conifers, broadleaf and evergreen broadleaf forests of Spain. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2012, 48, 817–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Peng, Y.; Schmidt, I.K.; Zheng, H.F.; Petr Heděnec, P.; Bachega, L.R.; Yue, K.; Wu, F.Z.; Vesterdal, L. Tree species effects on topsoil carbon stock and concentration are mediated by tree species type, mycorrhizal association, and N-fixing ability at the global scale. For. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 478, 118510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hou, G.L.; Delang, C.O.; Lu, X.X.; Gao, L. A meta-analysis of changes in soil organic carbon stocks after afforestation with deciduous broadleaved, sempervirent broadleaved, and conifer tree species. Ann. For. Sci. 2020, 77, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hüblová, L.; Frouz, J. Contrasting effect of coniferous and broadleaf trees on soil carbon storage during reforestation of forest soils and afforestation of agricultural and post-mining soils. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 290, 112567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Springer, K.; Manning, P.; Boesing, A.L.; Ammer, C.; Fiore-Donno, A.M.; Fischer, M.; Goldmann, K.; Le Provost, G.; Overmann, J.; Ruess, L.; et al. Identifying the stand properties that support both high biodiversity and carbon storage in German forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2024, 572, 122328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhao, Y.; Zhao, H.X.; Kang, L.; Li, M.; Zhang, G.Q.; Cao, Y. Beyond monocultures: Optimizing soil carbon sequestration with diverse planting strategies on the Loess Plateau. Catena 2024, 246, 108447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pan, Y.D.; Birdsey, R.A.; Phillips, O.L.; Houghton, R.A.; Fang, J.Y.; Kauppi, P.E.; Keith, H.; Kurz, W.A.; Ito, A.; Lewis, S.L.; et al. The enduring world forest carbon sink. Nature 2024, 631, 563–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Yao, L.; Liu, T.; Qin, J.; Jiang, H.; Yang, L.; Smith, P.; Chen, X.; Zhou, C.H.; Piao, S.L. Carbon sequestration potential of tree planting in China. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 8398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Diao, J.J.; Liu, J.X.; Zhu, Z.L.; Wei, X.Y.; Li, M.S. Active forest management accelerates carbon storage in plantation forests in Lishui, southern China. For. Ecosyst. 2022, 9, 100004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Cao, Y.; Chen, Y.M. Ecosystem C:N:P stoichiometry and carbon storage in plantations and a secondary forest on the Loess Plateau, China. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 105, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Dang, X.H.; Liu, G.B.; Zhao, L.; Zhao, G.C. The response of carbon storage to the age of three forest plantations in the Loess Hilly Regions of China. Catena 2017, 159, 106–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wang, X.W.; Weng, Y.H.; Liu, G.F.; Krasowski, M.J.; Yang, C.P. Variations in carbon concentration, sequestration and partitioning among Betula platyphylla provenances. For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 358, 344–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cheng, J.Z.; Lee, X.Q.; Theng, B.K.G.; Zhang, L.K.; Fang, B.; Li, F.S. Biomass accumulation and carbon sequestration in an age-sequence of Zanthoxylum bungeanum plantations under the Grain for Green Program in karst regions, Guizhou Province. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2015, 203, 88–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wang, G.; Yu, C.X.; Singh, M.; Guang, D.S.; Xiong, Y.M.; Zheng, R.B.; Xiao, R.B. Community structure and ecosystem carbon stock dynamics along a chronosequence of mangrove plantations in China. Plant Soil 2021, 464, 605–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wu, H.L.; Xiang, W.H.; Ouyang, S.; Xiao, W.F.; Li, S.G.; Chen, L.; Lei, P.F.; Deng, X.W.; Zeng, Y.L.; Zeng, L.X.; et al. Tree growth rate and soil nutrient status determine the shift in nutrient-use strategy of Chinese fir plantations along a chronosequence. For. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 460, 117896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Xiang, W.H.; Li, L.H.; Ouyang, S.; Xiao, W.F.; Zeng, L.X.; Chen, L.; Lei, P.F.; Deng, X.W.; Zeng, Y.L.; Fang, J.P.; et al. Effects of stand age on tree biomass partitioning and allometric equations in Chinese fir (Cunninghamia lanceolata) plantations. Eur. J. For. Res. 2020, 140, 317–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Yu, Z.J.; Wang, K.B.; Li, J.W.; Shangguan, Z.P.; Deng, L. Mixed plantations have more soil carbon sequestration benefits than pure plantations in China. For. Ecol. Manag. 2023, 529, 120654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jia, Y.L.; Xu, Z.Q.; Ji, X.L.; Xu, X.H.; Huang, X.R. Biological carbon storage of plantation and natural secondary forest in North region of Yanshan Mountain. J. Nat. Resour. 2012, 7, 1241–1251. [Google Scholar]
  32. Xu, Y.T.; Zhou, G.S.; Zhou, L.; He, X.H.; Tian, Z.H. How does the Three-North Shelterbelt Engineering of China improve its habitat quality? A study of 40 years of change tracking and driving factors. Land Degrad. Dev. 2025, 36, 408–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chu, X.; Zhan, J.; Li, Z.; Zhang, F.; Qi, W. Assessment on forest carbon sequestration in the Three-North Shelterbelt Program region, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 215, 382–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sumida, A.; Miyaura, T.; Torii, H. Relationships of tree height and diameter at breast height revisited: Analyses of stem growth using 20-year data of an even-aged Chamaecyparis obtusa stand. Tree Physiol. 2013, 33, 106–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Fang, J.Y.; Liu, G.H.; Zhu, B.; Wang, X.K.; Liu, S.H. Carbon budgets of three temperate forest ecosystems in Dongling Mt., Beijing, China. Sci. China Ser. D 2007, 50, 92–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Huang, X.Q.; Xin, C.L.; Hu, Z.M.; Li, G.T.; Zhang, T.H.; Zhao, W.; Yang, J.; Zhang, L.P.; Guo, Q.; Yue, Y.J.; et al. Carbon storage of the forests and its spatial pattern in Nei Mongol, China. J. Plant Ecol. 2016, 40, 327–340, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  37. Muukkonen, P. Generalized allometric volume and biomass equations for some tree species in Europe. Eur. J. For. Res. 2007, 126, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Luo, X.Z.; Hou, E.Q.; Chen, J.Q.; Li, J.; Zhang, L.L.; Zang, X.W.; Wen, D.Z. Dynamics of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus stocks and stoichiometry resulting from conversion of primary broadleaf forest to plantation and secondary forest in subtropical China. Catena 2020, 193, 104606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tang, X.L.; Zhao, X.; Bai, Y.F.; Tang, Z.Y.; Wang, W.T.; Zhao, Y.C.; Wan, H.W.; Xie, Z.Q.; Shi, X.Z.; Wu, B.F.; et al. Carbon pools in China’s terrestrial ecosystems: New estimates based on an intensive field survey. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 4021–4026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cao, Y.; Chen, Y.M. Biomass, carbon and nutrient storage in a 30-year-old Chinese Cork Oak (Quercus Variabilis) forest on the south slope of the Qinling Mountains, China. Forests 2015, 6, 1239–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ren, H.; Chen, H.; Li, Z.A.; Han, W.D. Biomass accumulation and carbon storage of four different aged Sonneratia apetala plantations in Southern China. Plant Soil 2010, 327, 279–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Uri, V.; Varik, M.; Aosaar, J.; Kanal, A.; Kukumägi, M.; Lõhmus, K. Biomass production and carbon sequestration in a fertile silver birch (Betula pendula Roth) forest chronosequence. For. Ecol. Manag. 2012, 267, 117–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Justine, M.F.; Wang, W.Q.; Wu, F.Z.; Khan, M.N. Dynamics of biomass and carbon sequestration across a chronosequence of masson pine plantations. J. Geophys. Res. 2017, 122, 578–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ma, S.H.; He, F.; Tian, D.; Zou, D.T.; Yan, Z.B.; Yang, Y.L.; Zhou, T.C.; Huang, K.Y.; Shen, H.H.; Fang, J.Y. Variations and determinants of carbon content in plants: A global synthesis. Biogeosciences 2018, 15, 693–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zhang, H.; Song, T.Q.; Wang, K.L.; Du, H.; Yue, Y.M.; Wang, G.X.; Zeng, F.P. Biomass and carbon storage in an age-sequence of Cyclobalanopsis glauca plantations in southwest China. Ecol. Eng. 2014, 73, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wang, H.; Liu, S.R.; Wang, J.X.; Shi, Z.M.; Xu, J.; Hong, P.Z.; Ming, A.G.; Yu, H.L.; Chen, L.; Lu, L.H.; et al. Differential effects of conifer and broadleaf litter inputs on soil organic carbon chemical composition through altered soil microbial community composition. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 27097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kooch, Y.; Samadzadeh, B.; Hosseini, S.M. The effects of broad-leaved tree species on litter quality and soil properties in a plain forest stand. Catena 2017, 150, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Yang, K.; Zhu, J.J.; Zhang, W.W.; Zhang, Q.; Lu, D.L.; Zhang, Y.K.; Zheng, X.; Xu, S.; Wang, G.G. Litter decomposition and nutrient release from monospecific and mixed litters: Comparisons of litter quality, fauna and decomposition site effects. J. Ecol. 2022, 110, 1673–1686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Joly, F.X.; Scherer-Lorenzen, M.; Hättenschwiler, S. Resolving the intricate role of climate in litter decomposition. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2023, 7, 214–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hoeber, S.; Fransson, P.; Weih, M.; Manzoni, S. Leaf litter quality coupled to Salix variety drives litter decomposition more than stand diversity or climate. Plant Soil 2020, 453, 313–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Prescott, C.E.; Vesterdal, L. Decomposition and transformations along the continuum from litter to soil organic matter in forest soils. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 498, 119522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lyu, M.; Homyak, P.M.; Xie, J.S.; Peñuelas, J.; Ryan, M.G.; Xiong, X.L.; Sardans, J.; Lin, W.S.; Wang, M.H.; Chen, G.S.; et al. Litter quality controls tradeoffs in soil carbon decomposition and replenishment in a subtropical forest. J. Ecol. 2023, 111, 2181–2193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zhang, Y.X.; Tang, Z.X.; You, Y.M.; Guo, X.W.; Wu, C.J.; Liu, S.R.; Sun, J.X. Differential effects of forest-floor litter and roots on soil organic carbon formation in a temperate oak forest. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2023, 180, 109017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ramesh, T.; Manjaiah, K.M.; Mohopatra, K.P.; Rajasekar, K.; Ngachan, S.V. Assessment of soil organic carbon stocks and fractions under different agroforestry systems in subtropical hill agroecosystems of north-east India. Agrofor. Syst. 2015, 89, 677–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Liu, C.; Xiang, W.H.; Lei, P.F.; Deng, X.W.; Tian, D.L.; Fang, X.; Peng, C.H. Standing fine root mass and production in four Chinese subtropical forests along a succession and species diversity gradient. Plant Soil 2014, 376, 445–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zhu, Z.K.; Zeng, G.J.; Ge, T.D.; Hu, Y.J.; Tong, C.L.; Shibistova, O.; He, X.H.; Wang, J.; Guggenberger, G.; Wu, J.S. Fate of rice shoot and root residues, rhizodeposits, and microbe-assimilated carbon in paddy soil—Part 1: Decomposition and priming effect. Biogeosciences 2016, 13, 4481–4489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Yu, W.J.; Deng, Q.H.; Kang, H.Z. Long-term continuity of mixed-species broadleaves could reach a synergy between timber production and soil carbon sequestration in subtropical China. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 440, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zhang, Q.Z.; Wang, C.K.; Wang, X.C.; Quan, X.K. Carbon concentration variability of 10 Chinese temperate tree species. For. Ecol. Manag. 2009, 258, 722–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Luo, D.; Cheng, R.M.; Shi, Z.M.; Wang, W.X. Decomposition of leaves and fine roots in three subtropical plantations in China affected by litter substrate quality and soil microbial community. Forests 2017, 8, 412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Trum, F.; Titeux, H.; Ranger, J.; Delvaux, B. Influence of tree species on carbon and nitrogen transformation patterns in forest floor profiles. Ann. For. Sci. 2011, 68, 837–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Laganière, J.; Angers, D.A.; Paré, D. Carbon accumulation in agricultural soils after afforestation: A meta-analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2010, 16, 439–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Comas, L.H.; Eissenstat, D.M. Linking fine root traits to maximum potential growth rate among 11 mature temperate tree species. Funct. Ecol. 2004, 18, 388–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Wang, W.J.; Zhou, W.; Wang, H.M.; Ji, C.P.; Han, S.J. Organic carbon and nitrogen dynamics in different soil fractions between broad-leaved Korean pine forests and aspen–birch forests in northeastern China. J. Soils Sediment. 2017, 17, 2257–2273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Wang, Q.K.; Xiao, F.M.; He, T.X.; Wang, S.L. Responses of labile soil organic carbon and enzyme activity in mineral soils to forest conversion in the subtropics. Ann. For. Sci. 2013, 70, 579–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Conti, G.; Díaz, S. Plant functional diversity and carbon storage—An empirical test in semi-arid forest ecosystems. J. Ecol. 2013, 101, 18–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Feng, J.G.; He, K.Y.; Zhang, Q.F.; Han, M.G.; Zhu, B. Changes in plant inputs alter soil carbon and microbial communities in forest ecosystems. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2022, 28, 3426–3440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Wang, Y.; Zhang, C.; Zhang, G.N.; Wang, L.Z.; Gao, Y.; Wang, X.L.; Liu, B.; Zhao, X.Y.; Mei, H.P. Carbon input manipulations affecting microbial carbon metabolism in temperate forest soils—A comparative study between broadleaf and coniferous plantations. Geoderma 2019, 355, 113914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Deng, L.; Han, Q.S.; Zhang, C.; Tang, Z.S.; Shangguan, Z.P. Above-ground and below-round ecosystem biomass accumulation and carbon sequestration with Caragana korshinskii Kom Plantation development. Land Degrad. Dev. 2017, 28, 906–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Carpentier, S.; Filotas, E.; Handa, T.; Messier, C. Trade-offs between timber production, carbon stocking and habitat quality when managing woodlots for multiple ecosystem services. Environ. Conserv. 2017, 44, 14–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Keenan, R.J. Climate change impacts and adaptation in forest management: A review. Ann. For. Sci. 2015, 72, 145–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ming, A.G.; Jia, H.Y.; Zhao, J.L.; Tao, Y.; Li, Y.F. Above- and Below-Ground Carbon Stocks in an Indigenous Tree (Mytilaria laosensis) Plantation Chronosequence in Subtropical China. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e109730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Zhang, Y.D.; Gu, F.X.; Liu, S.R.; Liu, Y.C.; Li, C. Variations of carbon stock with forest types in subalpine region of southwestern China. For. Ecol. Mange. 2013, 300, 88–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Zhao, J.L.; Kang, F.F.; Wang, L.X.; Yu, X.W.; Zhao, W.H.; Song, X.S.; Zhang, Y.L.; Chen, F.; Sun, Y.; He, T.F.; et al. Patterns of biomass and carbon distribution across a chronosequence of Chinese Pine (Pinus tabulaeformis) forests. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e94966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Jha, K.K. Biomass production and carbon balance in two hybrid poplar (Populus euramericana) plantations raised with and without agriculture in southern France. J. For. Res. 2018, 29, 1689–1701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Qin, J.; Shangguan, Z.P. Effects of forest types on leaf functional traits and their interrelationships of Pinus massoniana coniferous and broad-leaved mixed forests in the subtropical mountain, Southeastern China. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 9, 6922–6932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Oliveira, N.; Rodríguez-Soalleiro, R.; Pérez-Cruzadob, C.; Cañellasa, I.; Sixtoa, H.; Ceulemans, R. Above- and below-ground carbon accumulation and biomass allocation in poplar short rotation plantations under Mediterranean conditions. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 428, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Cao, J.J.; Zhang, X.F.; Deo, R.; Gong, Y.F.; Feng, Q. Influence of stand type and stand age on soil carbon storage in China’s arid and semi-arid regions. Land Use Pol. 2018, 78, 258–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Meena, A.; Bidalia, A.; Hanief, M.; Dinakaran, J.; Rao, K.S. Assessment of above- and belowground carbon pools in a semi-arid forest ecosystem of Delhi, India. Ecol. Process. 2019, 8, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Tesfaye, M.A.; Gardi, O.; Anbessa, T.B.; Blaser, J. Aboveground biomass, growth and yield for some selected introduced tree species, namely Cupressus lusitanica, Eucalyptus saligna, and Pinus patula in Central Highlands of Ethiopia. J. Ecol. Environ. 2020, 44, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kotowska, M.M.; Leuschner, C.; Triadiati, T.; Meriem, S.; Hertel, D. Quantifying above- and belowground biomass carbon loss with forest conversion in tropical lowlands of Sumatra (Indonesia). Glob. Chang. Biol. 2015, 21, 3620–3634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Bartholomée, O.; Grigulis, K.; Colace, M.; Arnoldi, C.; Lavorel, S. Methodological uncertainties in estimating carbon storage in temperate forests and grasslands. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 98, 331–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Conti, G.; Kowaljow, E.; Baptist, F.; Rumpel, C.; Cuchietti, A.; Harguindeguy, N.P.; Díaz, S. Altered soil carbon dynamics under different land-use regimes in subtropical seasonally-dry forests of central Argentina. Plant Soil 2016, 403, 375–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Dymond, J.R.; Ausseil, A.G.E.; Ekanayake, J.C.; Kirschbaum, M.U.F. Tradeoffs between soil, water, and carbon—A national scale analysis from New Zealand. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 95, 124–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Viera, M.; Rodríguez-Soalleiro, R. A complete assessment of carbon stocks in above and belowground biomass components of a Hybrid Eucalyptus plantation in Southern Brazil. Forests 2019, 10, 536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Chen, L.C.; Guan, X.; Li, H.M.; Wang, Q.K.; Zhang, W.D.; Yang, Q.P.; Wang, S.L. Spatiotemporal patterns of carbon storage in forest ecosystems in Hunan Province, China. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 432, 656–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Forests 16 00987 g001
Figure 1. Carbon content (g kg−1) of different tree organs among different plantation types in North China. PT, LP, BP, and PD are Pinus tabulaeformis, Larix principis-rupprechtii, Betula platyphylla, and Populus davidiana, respectively. Different lowercase letters mean different levels of significance (p < 0.05). The errors bars represent standard deviations (n = 3).
Figure 1. Carbon content (g kg−1) of different tree organs among different plantation types in North China. PT, LP, BP, and PD are Pinus tabulaeformis, Larix principis-rupprechtii, Betula platyphylla, and Populus davidiana, respectively. Different lowercase letters mean different levels of significance (p < 0.05). The errors bars represent standard deviations (n = 3).
Forests 16 00987 g001
Forests 16 00987 g002
Figure 2. Carbon content (g kg−1) of herbs and litter layers among different plantation types in North China. Different lowercase letters mean different levels of significance (p < 0.05). The errors bars represent standard deviations (n = 3).
Figure 2. Carbon content (g kg−1) of herbs and litter layers among different plantation types in North China. Different lowercase letters mean different levels of significance (p < 0.05). The errors bars represent standard deviations (n = 3).
Forests 16 00987 g002
Forests 16 00987 g003
Figure 3. Organ C storages (Mg ha−1) (a) and relative distribution (%) (b) in tree layers among different plantation types in North China. Different lowercase letters mean different levels of significance (p < 0.05). The error bars represent standard deviations (n = 3).
Figure 3. Organ C storages (Mg ha−1) (a) and relative distribution (%) (b) in tree layers among different plantation types in North China. Different lowercase letters mean different levels of significance (p < 0.05). The error bars represent standard deviations (n = 3).
Forests 16 00987 g003
Forests 16 00987 g004
Figure 4. Understory C storage (Mg ha−1) of herbs (a) and litter (b) layers among different plantation types in North China. Different lowercase letters mean different levels of significance (p < 0.05). The errors bars represent standard deviations (n = 3).
Figure 4. Understory C storage (Mg ha−1) of herbs (a) and litter (b) layers among different plantation types in North China. Different lowercase letters mean different levels of significance (p < 0.05). The errors bars represent standard deviations (n = 3).
Forests 16 00987 g004
Forests 16 00987 g005
Figure 5. Soil C storage (Mg ha−1) (a) and relative distribution (%) of each soil layer (b) among different plantation types in North China. Different lowercase letters mean different levels of significance (p < 0.05). The errors bars represent standard deviations (n = 3).
Figure 5. Soil C storage (Mg ha−1) (a) and relative distribution (%) of each soil layer (b) among different plantation types in North China. Different lowercase letters mean different levels of significance (p < 0.05). The errors bars represent standard deviations (n = 3).
Forests 16 00987 g005
Forests 16 00987 g006
Figure 6. Ecosystem C storage (Mg ha−1) (a) and C allocation to ecosystem component (%) (b) of different plantation types in North China. Different lowercase letters mean different levels of significance (p < 0.05). The errors bars represent standard deviations (n = 3).
Figure 6. Ecosystem C storage (Mg ha−1) (a) and C allocation to ecosystem component (%) (b) of different plantation types in North China. Different lowercase letters mean different levels of significance (p < 0.05). The errors bars represent standard deviations (n = 3).
Forests 16 00987 g006
Table 1. Site characteristics of different plantation types in North China.
Table 1. Site characteristics of different plantation types in North China.
Plantation SpeciesPTLPBPPD
TypeConiferConiferBroadleafBroadleaf
Latitude (N)41°42′22″42°8′45″41°37′54″42°6′50″
Longitude (E)117°10′8″117°24′49″117°2′56″116°57′42″
Altitude (m)970–11731121–13421118–12261025–1244
OrientationSouthSouthSouthSouth
Slope gradient (°)18231925
Stand age (a)31293130
DBH (cm)12.3 ± 0.611.1 ± 0.313.2 ± 0.715.9 ± 0.6
H (m)10.1 ± 0.812.4 ± 1.017.7 ± 1.316.6 ± 1.1
MH (m)10.3 ± 0.912.8 ± 1.318.2 ± 1.717.2 ± 1.6
Stem density (trees ha−1)1108 ± 631233 ± 881283 ± 1011075 ± 100
Note: PT, LP, BP, and PD are Pinus tabulaeformis, Larix principis-rupprechtii, Betula platyphylla, and Populus davidiana, respectively. Data of DBH, H, and stem density represent the mean ± standard deviations. DBH (cm) is diameter at breast height, H (m) is the height of the lowest live branch of a tree, and MH (m) is the maximum height of a tree.
Table 2. Allometric biomass equations of different organs among four tree species in the study region of North China.
Table 2. Allometric biomass equations of different organs among four tree species in the study region of North China.
PlantationOrganBiomass EquationR2References
PTStemWS = 0.0475 (D2H)0.8540.98[35]
BranchWB = 0.0017 (D2H)1.1510.94
LeafWL = 0.0134 (D2H)0.8850.92
RootWR = 0.0027 (D2H)1.0910.95
LPStemWS = 0.0462 (D2H)0.8650.98[36]
BranchWB = 0.0386 (D2H)0.7490.91
LeafWL = 0.0441 (D2H)0.5840.86
RootWR = 0.0142 (D2H)0.8990.98
BPStemWS = 0.0415 (D2H)0.9230.99[36]
BranchWB = 0.0293 (D2H)0.6630.94
LeafWL = 0.0117 (D2H)0.6360.96
RootWR = 0.0299 (D2H)0.7670.95
PDStemWS = 0.0417 (D2H)0.8660.99[36]
BranchWB = 0.0095 (D2H)0.8950.98
LeafWL = 0.0035 (D2H)0.8770.99
RootWR = 0.0289 (D2H)0.7860.89
Note: D2H is squared DBH (D, (cm)) multiplied by tree height (H, (m)), W is the biomass of different tree organs (kg tree−1).
Table 3. C content (g kg−1) in different soil layers of different plantation types in North China.
Table 3. C content (g kg−1) in different soil layers of different plantation types in North China.
Soil LayerPTLPBPPD
0–20 cm13.44 ± 1.71 b14.79 ± 1.10 b19.59 ± 1.62 a17.92 ± 1.18 a
20–40 cm5.77 ± 0.93 b6.87 ± 0.59 b9.28 ± 1.06 a7.58 ± 1.05 ab
40–60 cm4.84 ± 0.72 b5.04 ± 0.53 ab6.22 ± 0.62 a5.69 ± 0.58 ab
60–100 cm3.82 ± 0.25 a4.05 ± 0.44 a4.43 ± 0.46 a4.16 ± 0.49 a
Mean6.97 ± 0.90 c7.69 ± 0.67 c9.88 ± 0.94 a8.84 ± 0.83 b
Note: Different letters in the same row mean different levels of significance (p < 0.05).
Table 4. Total ecosystem C storage (Mg ha−1) of plantations in China.
Table 4. Total ecosystem C storage (Mg ha−1) of plantations in China.
LocationPlantation TypeAge (years)Ecosystem C StorageReference
GuangxiCastanopsis hystrix27314.6[11]
GuangxiPinus massoniana27293.6[11]
GuangxiMytilaria laosensis23357.0[71]
SichuanP. massoniana27397.2[43]
SichuanPicea asperata25239.4[72]
NingxiaP. tabuliformis32281.0[12]
HebeiP. tabulaeformis31–50236.3[73]
HeilongjiangBetula dahurica60238.27[8]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Shen, H.; Qin, Y.; Wu, A.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, T.; Liu, X.; Zheng, Z.; Sun, L. Ecosystem Carbon Storage Distribution Among Different Coniferous and Broadleaved Plantations in North China. Forests 2025, 16, 987. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16060987

AMA Style

Shen H, Qin Y, Wu A, Zhao Y, Zhang T, Liu X, Zheng Z, Sun L. Ecosystem Carbon Storage Distribution Among Different Coniferous and Broadleaved Plantations in North China. Forests. 2025; 16(6):987. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16060987

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shen, Huitao, Yanjie Qin, Aibin Wu, Yanxia Zhao, Tao Zhang, Xin Liu, Zhenhua Zheng, and Leigang Sun. 2025. "Ecosystem Carbon Storage Distribution Among Different Coniferous and Broadleaved Plantations in North China" Forests 16, no. 6: 987. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16060987

APA Style

Shen, H., Qin, Y., Wu, A., Zhao, Y., Zhang, T., Liu, X., Zheng, Z., & Sun, L. (2025). Ecosystem Carbon Storage Distribution Among Different Coniferous and Broadleaved Plantations in North China. Forests, 16(6), 987. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16060987

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop