Carbon Flux and Storage in Mixed Oak Carbon Flux and Storage in Mixed Oak Forests of the OzarksForests of the Ozarks

MDC Project Leader: Randy Jensen

Principal Investigator: Jiquan Chen

Team Members: Qinglin Li, Rachel Henderson & Jianye Xu

Collaborators: John Kabrick (USDA Forest Service); Keith Goyne (University of Missouri); Tom Nichols & Carrie Steen (Missouri

Department of Conservation)

1) Slow down atmosphere CO2 increasing caused by fossil fuel combustion.

2) Estimate carbon credits of Ozark forests and enhance C-sequestration (i.e., C credit)

3) Increase carbon storage of the forests by:

• Increasing carbon gains (photosynthesis), and

• Decreasing carbon loss (respiration)

Carbon-Focused Study at MOFEPCarbon-Focused Study at MOFEP

Specific Research TasksSpecific Research Tasks

• C storage and the effects of treatmentsC storage and the effects of treatments• Photosynthesis (C gain) of Ozarks treesPhotosynthesis (C gain) of Ozarks trees• Ecosystem respiration (C-loss) & its componentEcosystem respiration (C-loss) & its component• Vertical C loss of MOFEP compartmentsVertical C loss of MOFEP compartments• Decomposition (C-loss) of Ozark treesDecomposition (C-loss) of Ozark trees• Regional estimate of C stock (RS)Regional estimate of C stock (RS)• Intra-annual variations of C lossIntra-annual variations of C loss• Biophysical regulations of C gain/lossBiophysical regulations of C gain/loss

Carbon Cycle in Terrestrial EcosystemsCarbon Cycle in Terrestrial Ecosystems

Chapin et al. 2002

GPP

Ra

NPP

Rh

NEP

≈≈ 50% of GPP50% of GPP ≈≈ 5% of GPP5% of GPP

≈ ≈ 50% soil 50% soil respirationrespiration

Major Carbon Fluxes In ForestsMajor Carbon Fluxes In Forests

Potential Carbon CreditPotential Carbon Credit

Path coefficient analysis for Ozarks. Indirect and direct effects of canopy and leaf Path coefficient analysis for Ozarks. Indirect and direct effects of canopy and leaf characteristics on Acharacteristics on Amaxmax (m mol m (m mol m-2 -2 s-s-11, relationships are similar for g, relationships are similar for gsmaxsmax).).

Shortleaf Pine Black Oak

Mature Mature Inter Young Mature Mature Inter Young Mature Inter

Direct effectsopenness* 0.68 0.14 -0.40 0.04 0.76

Indirect effectsopenness/ fPAR 0.016 0.330 N/A N/A -0.428 -0.079 N/A N/A -0.070 N/Aopenness/SLW 0.013 -0.022 N/A N/A 0.997 1.136 N/A N/A -0.105 N/Aopenness/SCL N/A -0.009 N/A N/A 0.088 -0.150 N/A N/A 0.039 N/A

Correlation Coeff. 0.71 0.44 N/A N/A 0.26 0.94 N/A N/A 0.62 N/ADirect effectsfPAR 0.09 1.10 0.20 -0.10 -0.91 -0.09 0.49 0.42 -0.14 -0.13

Indirect effectsfPAR/openness 0.122 0.042 N/A N/A -0.188 0.032 N/A N/A 0.380 N/AfPAR/SLW 0.005 -0.285 0.138 0.351 0.224 0.988 0.030 0.031 -0.099 -0.025fPAR/SCL N/A -0.035 -0.006 0.006 0.162 0.082 0.059 0.035 -0.022 -0.005

Correlation Coeff. 0.22 0.82 0.33 0.26 -0.71 1.01 0.58 0.49 0.12 -0.16Direct effectsSLW 0.02 0.47 0.42 0.54 1.12 2.47 0.06 0.48 -0.13 0.38

Indirect effectsSLW/openness 0.530 -0.007 N/A N/A -0.356 0.016 N/A N/A 0.616 N/ASLW/fPAR 0.029 -0.682 0.066 -0.065 -0.182 -0.034 0.255 0.027 -0.106 0.009SLW/SCL N/A 0.038 -0.096 -0.010 0.104 -1.549 0.075 0.062 0.052 0.003

Correlation Coeff. 0.58 -0.18 0.39 0.47 0.69 0.90 0.39 0.57 0.43 0.39Direct effectsSCL 0.06 0.37 0.07 0.45 -1.63 -0.13 0.22 0.13 -0.04

Indirect effectsSCL/openness N/A -0.022 N/A N/A -0.078 0.003 N/A N/A 0.228 N/ASCL/fPAR N/A -0.671 -0.003 -0.008 -0.328 0.004 -0.216 0.067 0.024 -0.016SCL/SLW N/A 0.304 -0.108 -0.076 0.258 2.371 -0.029 0.013 -0.052 -0.024

Correlation Coeff. N/A -0.33 0.26 -0.02 0.30 0.75 -0.37 0.30 0.33 -0.08

Residual 0.28 0.07 0.43 0.53 0.04 0.05 0.40 0.29 0.29 0.59

R2 0.52 0.87 0.33 0.22 0.93 0.91 0.36 0.51 0.50 0.17

White Oak HickoryScarlet OakShortleaf Pine Black Oak

Mature Mature Inter Young Mature Mature Inter Young Mature Inter

Direct effectsopenness* 0.68 0.14 -0.40 0.04 0.76

Indirect effectsopenness/ fPAR 0.016 0.330 N/A N/A -0.428 -0.079 N/A N/A -0.070 N/Aopenness/SLW 0.013 -0.022 N/A N/A 0.997 1.136 N/A N/A -0.105 N/Aopenness/SCL N/A -0.009 N/A N/A 0.088 -0.150 N/A N/A 0.039 N/A

Correlation Coeff. 0.71 0.44 N/A N/A 0.26 0.94 N/A N/A 0.62 N/ADirect effectsfPAR 0.09 1.10 0.20 -0.10 -0.91 -0.09 0.49 0.42 -0.14 -0.13

Indirect effectsfPAR/openness 0.122 0.042 N/A N/A -0.188 0.032 N/A N/A 0.380 N/AfPAR/SLW 0.005 -0.285 0.138 0.351 0.224 0.988 0.030 0.031 -0.099 -0.025fPAR/SCL N/A -0.035 -0.006 0.006 0.162 0.082 0.059 0.035 -0.022 -0.005

Correlation Coeff. 0.22 0.82 0.33 0.26 -0.71 1.01 0.58 0.49 0.12 -0.16Direct effectsSLW 0.02 0.47 0.42 0.54 1.12 2.47 0.06 0.48 -0.13 0.38

Indirect effectsSLW/openness 0.530 -0.007 N/A N/A -0.356 0.016 N/A N/A 0.616 N/ASLW/fPAR 0.029 -0.682 0.066 -0.065 -0.182 -0.034 0.255 0.027 -0.106 0.009SLW/SCL N/A 0.038 -0.096 -0.010 0.104 -1.549 0.075 0.062 0.052 0.003

Correlation Coeff. 0.58 -0.18 0.39 0.47 0.69 0.90 0.39 0.57 0.43 0.39Direct effectsSCL 0.06 0.37 0.07 0.45 -1.63 -0.13 0.22 0.13 -0.04

Indirect effectsSCL/openness N/A -0.022 N/A N/A -0.078 0.003 N/A N/A 0.228

Shortleaf Pine Black Oak

Mature Mature Inter Young Mature Mature Inter Young Mature Inter

Direct effectsopenness* 0.68 0.14 -0.40 0.04 0.76

Indirect effectsopenness/ fPAR 0.016 0.330 N/A N/A -0.428 -0.079 N/A N/A -0.070 N/Aopenness/SLW 0.013 -0.022 N/A N/A 0.997 1.136 N/A N/A -0.105 N/Aopenness/SCL N/A -0.009 N/A N/A 0.088 -0.150 N/A N/A 0.039 N/A

Correlation Coeff. 0.71 0.44 N/A N/A 0.26 0.94 N/A N/A 0.62 N/ADirect effectsfPAR 0.09 1.10 0.20 -0.10 -0.91 -0.09 0.49 0.42 -0.14 -0.13

Indirect effectsfPAR/openness 0.122 0.042 N/A N/A -0.188 0.032 N/A N/A 0.380 N/AfPAR/SLW 0.005 -0.285 0.138 0.351 0.224 0.988 0.030 0.031 -0.099 -0.025fPAR/SCL N/A -0.035 -0.006 0.006 0.162 0.082 0.059 0.035 -0.022 -0.005

Correlation Coeff. 0.22 0.82 0.33 0.26 -0.71 1.01 0.58 0.49 0.12 -0.16Direct effectsSLW 0.02 0.47 0.42 0.54 1.12 2.47 0.06 0.48 -0.13 0.38

Indirect effectsSLW/openness 0.530 -0.007 N/A N/A -0.356 0.016 N/A N/A 0.616 N/ASLW/fPAR 0.029 -0.682 0.066 -0.065 -0.182 -0.034 0.255 0.027 -0.106 0.009SLW/SCL N/A 0.038 -0.096 -0.010 0.104 -1.549 0.075 0.062 0.052 0.003

Correlation Coeff. 0.58 -0.18 0.39 0.47 0.69 0.90 0.39 0.57 0.43 0.39Direct effectsSCL 0.06 0.37 0.07 0.45 -1.63 -0.13 0.22 0.13 -0.04

Indirect effectsSCL/openness N/A -0.022 N/A N/A -0.078 0.003 N/A N/A 0.228 N/ASCL/fPAR N/A -0.671 -0.003 -0.008 -0.328 0.004 -0.216 0.067 0.024 -0.016SCL/SLW N/A 0.304 -0.108 -0.076 0.258 2.371 -0.029 0.013 -0.052 -0.024

Correlation Coeff. N/A -0.33 0.26 -0.02 0.30 0.75 -0.37 0.30 0.33 -0.08

Residual 0.28 0.07 0.43 0.53 0.04 0.05 0.40 0.29 0.29 0.59

R2 0.52 0.87 0.33 0.22 0.93 0.91 0.36 0.51 0.50 0.17

White Oak HickoryScarlet Oak

75.9

15.4

2.66.1

78.6

9.8

5.3

6.3

80.6

8.6

5.7

5.1

76.2

15.4

4.8

3.6

80.4

11.9

4.63.1

OaksHickoriesPinesOthers

62.7

7.315.4

14.6

NHM

1995

UAM

1995

EAM

1995

NHM

2003

UAM

2003

EAM

2003

Timber harvesting did not change species composition

Species Composition of MOFEP CompartmentsSpecies Composition of MOFEP Compartments

Li et al. (2007), CJFRLi et al. (2007), CJFR

NHM UAM EAM

Live trees Foliage 1.32 (0.06) 1.04 (0.10) 0.14 (0.02)

Branch 18.44 (1.14) 12.96 (0.95) 1.22 (0.26)

Stem 60.42 (3.15) 41.05 (3.74) 4.01 (1.17)

Roots Coarse 17.50 (7.50) 10.96 (5.94) 9.31 (2.31)

Fine 2.09 (0.28) 4.38 (0.38) 4.99 (1.50)

Coarse woody debris (CWD)

Snags 5.18 (1.01) 6.21 (1.78) 0.28 (0.19)

Down dead wood 17.70 (4.51) 26.54 (6.53) 48.92 (5.73)

Forest floor 5.91(0.36) 5.96 (0.63) 5.73 (0.49)

Soil Top 15cm 53.66(2.91) 60.91(3.43) 55.41 (2.80)

Sum 80.18 55.05 5.37

Sum 19.59 15.34 14.30

Sum 22.88 32.75 49.20

Ground total 182.22 170.01 130.01

Carbon Stock (Mg C.haCarbon Stock (Mg C.ha-1-1) at MOFEP Compartments) at MOFEP Compartments

The distribution of C pool in MOFEP is similar to that of PNW. Alternative treatments could be effective ways to enhance C storage.

PNW: Pacific Northwest; National: National average; NC: North central region average Ref: Smithwick et al. (2001); Turner et al. (1995)

63.4

15.9 3.2

17.5

33.010.0

7.0

50.054.8

12.6

3.229.4

Live treeCWDForest floor litterMineral soil

31.16.2

7.3

55.4

PNW National

MOFEP NC

Carbon PoolsCarbon Pools

Li et al. (2007), CJFRLi et al. (2007), CJFR

1411

844

2098

878

1699

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

N

22392391

2300

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

NHM UAM EAM

N

Number of measurements on soil respiration made Number of measurements on soil respiration made at MOFEP compartments between 2004 and 2008at MOFEP compartments between 2004 and 2008

Effects of Treatments on SRR, Temperature, Soil Effects of Treatments on SRR, Temperature, Soil Moisture, and Litter Depth at MOFEPMoisture, and Litter Depth at MOFEP

Vertical Change of Soil RespirationVertical Change of Soil Respiration

• We dug 9 soil pits and We dug 9 soil pits and collected data for collected data for 2005 and 20062005 and 2006– 60 cm wide and 60-120 60 cm wide and 60-120

cm deepcm deep• Coarse rootsCoarse roots• Fine rootsFine roots• Soil and root CHNSoil and root CHN• Stable isotopesStable isotopes

Harvest treatments had a significant effect, especially lower in the soil profile

Oak-hickory decayed significantly faster than that of oak Oak-hickory decayed significantly faster than that of oak or oak-pine litter after 32-months field incubation.or oak-pine litter after 32-months field incubation.

Forest Covers Aboveground Biomass

C Storage of MOFEP Landscape

Intra-annual variation of soil respiration (Intra-annual variation of soil respiration (redred) and ) and soil moisture (soil moisture (blueblue) at MOFEP compartments) at MOFEP compartments

NHMNHM UAMUAM EAMEAM

Future PlansFuture Plans

• Continue proposed measurements of various C fluxes;Continue proposed measurements of various C fluxes;• Carbon credits of MOFEP sites (1990 – 2010) in conjunction Carbon credits of MOFEP sites (1990 – 2010) in conjunction

with the overstory, CWD, and hard mast projects;with the overstory, CWD, and hard mast projects;• Biophysical regulations of C gain/loss (e.g., nutrient cycling, Biophysical regulations of C gain/loss (e.g., nutrient cycling,

species diversity);species diversity);• Predictions of C credits for Ozark forests (modeling) under Predictions of C credits for Ozark forests (modeling) under

different management scenarios;different management scenarios;• Linkage to biofuel energy (i.e., not just timber)Linkage to biofuel energy (i.e., not just timber);;• Synthesis by comparing with other ecosystem projects across Synthesis by comparing with other ecosystem projects across

the nation (WA, CA, VT, NC, MOFEP);the nation (WA, CA, VT, NC, MOFEP);• Re-submitting the proposal to NRI/NSF.Re-submitting the proposal to NRI/NSF.

The conceptual framework of resource use matrix for understanding and predicting The conceptual framework of resource use matrix for understanding and predicting ecosystem production (e.g., ANPP) at MOFEP forests. Within the matrix of the bio-physical ecosystem production (e.g., ANPP) at MOFEP forests. Within the matrix of the bio-physical environment (forest structure, microclimate, soil, and disturbance), the resource use matrix environment (forest structure, microclimate, soil, and disturbance), the resource use matrix of [e, RUE, Rof [e, RUE, Ravailavail] and their complex interactions will determine the magnitude of ANPP. For ] and their complex interactions will determine the magnitude of ANPP. For each type of resource, there exist complex interactions among [e, RUE, Reach type of resource, there exist complex interactions among [e, RUE, Ravailavail] at various ] at various temporal scales. Alteration of any element of a resource will trigger changes in other temporal scales. Alteration of any element of a resource will trigger changes in other elements and their roles in regulating ANPP. We will examine the feedbacks among the elements and their roles in regulating ANPP. We will examine the feedbacks among the elements, with a focus on water, light, and nitrogen.elements, with a focus on water, light, and nitrogen.

ANPP

w

WUE

Mswater

feed

b ac k

sfeedbacks

feed

bac k

s

Relevant publications from this projectRelevant publications from this projecthttp://research.eeescience.utoledo.edu/lees/pubs/

Li, Q., D. L .Moorhead, J. L. DeForest, and J. Chen, R. Henderson, R. Jenson. Mixed litter decomposition in a manage med Missouri Ozark forest ecosystem. Forest Ecology and Management (in press)

Li, L. J. Chen, J. L. DeForest, R. Jensen, D. L. Moorhead, and R. Henderson. 2007. Effects of timber harvest on carbon pools in Ozark forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 37: 2337-2348.

Concilio, A. S. Ma, Q. Li, J. LeMoine, J. Chen, M. North, D. Moorhead, and R. Jensen. 2005. Soil respiration response to experimental disturbance in mixed conifer and hardwood forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35: 1581-1591.

Ryu, S., J. Chen, T.R. Crow, and S.C. Saunders. 2004. Available fuel dynamics in nine contrasting forest ecosystems in north America. Environmental Management 34(3): S87-107.

Li, Q.. 2006. Carbon storage and fluxes in a managed oak forest landscape. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toledo.

Henderson, R. 2007. Soil Effluxes of vertical profiles at MOFEP Experiments. M.S. Thesis, University of Toledo.