Disturbance and management effects on forest soil organic carbon stocks in the Pacific Northwest
Disturbance and management effects on forest soil organic carbon stocks in the Pacific Northwest
复制标题
太平洋西北地区森林土壤有机碳储量的干扰和管理影响
DOI：
10.1002/eap.2611
复制
发表时间：
2022
影响因子：
5
通讯作者：
Walters, Brian F.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Nave, Lucas E.;DeLyser, Kendall;Domke, Grant M.;Holub, Scott M.;Janowiak, Maria K.;Kittler, Brian;Ontl, Todd A.;Sprague, Eric;Sucre, Eric B.;Walters, Brian F.
碳（C）知情的森林管理需要了解干扰和管理如何影响土地所有者和森林政策和管理专业人员相关尺度的土壤有机碳（SOC）储量。数据集和出版物的持续增长，使强大的综合方法，以越来越精细的尺度适用于这些问题。在这里，我们报告了一项综合研究的结果，该研究使用了已发表研究的Meta分析和两个大型观测数据库来量化干扰和管理对SOC储量的影响。我们进行了一系列生态区域SOC评估中的第三次，太平洋西北部，其中包括约8%的土地面积，但约12%的美国森林部门C汇。在生态区域层面上，我们的分析表明，植被，气候和地形的基本格局是更重要的控制SOC股票比土地利用历史，干扰，或管理。然而，同样的模式表明，增加变暖，干燥，荒地火灾和森林再生失败构成重大风险SOC股票在整个地区。详细的Meta分析结果表明，野火减少了整个土壤剖面的SOC储量，而规定的火灾只影响表层有机物质，采伐对SOC没有显着的整体影响。独立的观测数据证实了Meta分析得出的火灾对SOC的负面影响，表明采伐影响可能随气候或植被的次区域变化而变化，并揭示了具有农业用途的森林（例如，放牧）或遗产（例如，种植）有较小的SOC库存。我们还量化了一系列常见的森林管理措施对SOC的影响，这些措施对SOC有积极影响（有机改良剂，固氮植被建立，无机氮肥）或没有总体影响（其他无机肥料，尿素施肥，通过除草剂抑制竞争）。为了最大限度地提高我们的研究结果的管理应用，我们根据不同方法的支持程度对其进行了置信度评级。最后，与其他生态区早期发表的评估类似，我们用文献综述补充了我们的定量综合结果，以得出一套简明的策略，使管理操作适应特定地点的标准。
Carbon (C)‐informed forest management requires understanding how disturbance and management influence soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks at scales relevant to landowners and forest policy and management professionals. The continued growth of data sets and publications allows powerful synthesis approaches to be applied to such questions at increasingly fine scales. Here, we report results from a synthesis that used meta‐analysis of published studies and two large observational databases to quantify disturbance and management impacts on SOC stocks. We conducted this, the third in a series of ecoregional SOC assessments, for the Pacific Northwest, which comprises ~8% of the land area but ~12% of the U.S. forest sector C sink. At the ecoregional level, our analysis indicated that fundamental patterns of vegetation, climate, and topography are far more important controls on SOC stocks than land use history, disturbance, or management. However, the same patterns suggested that increased warming, drying, wildland fire, and forest regeneration failure pose significant risks to SOC stocks across the region. Detailed meta‐analysis results indicated that wildfires diminished SOC stocks throughout the soil profile, while prescribed fire only influenced surface organic materials and harvesting had no significant overall impact on SOC. Independent observational data corroborated the negative influence of fire on SOC derived from meta‐analysis, suggested that harvest impacts may vary subregionally with climate or vegetation, and revealed that forests with agricultural uses (e.g., grazing) or legacies (e.g., cultivation) had smaller SOC stocks. We also quantified effects of a range of common forest management practices having either positive (organic amendments, nitrogen [N]‐fixing vegetation establishment, inorganic N fertilization) or no overall effects on SOC (other inorganic fertilizers, urea fertilization, competition suppression through herbicides). In order to maximize the management applications of our results, we qualified them with ratings of confidence based on degree of support across approaches. Last, similar to earlier published assessments from other ecoregions, we supplemented our quantitative synthesis results with a literature review to arrive at a concise set of tactics for adapting management operations to site‐specific criteria.