A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1057
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3175
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

[Effects of mixing proportions on carbon storage and allocation in mixed plantation of and ]. | LitMetric

[Effects of mixing proportions on carbon storage and allocation in mixed plantation of and ].

Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao

Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Sustainable Forest Ecosystem Management, School of Forestry, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin 150040, China.

Published: May 2022

In this study, four types of mixed and plantations were selected according to the rows-mixing proportions (type Ⅰ: 5:3, type Ⅱ: 6:4, type Ⅲ: 5:5, type Ⅳ: 1:1). The see-mingly unrelated biomass models of and were developed for obtaining biomass values, and the difference and composition of carbon storage in each forest layer and ecosystem were analyzed. The results showed that carbon storage of arbor layer in different stand types was 39.86-50.12 t·hm, the carbon storage of arbor layer inⅠ, Ⅱ and Ⅳ was significantly higher than that in type Ⅲ. The carbon storage of understory was 0.10-0.30 t·hm, with that in type Ⅱ being significantly higher than other types. Carbon storage of litter layer was 4.43-6.96 t·hm, with type Ⅱ and Ⅲ being significantly higher than those of the other types. In the soil layer, carbon storage was 34.97-54.66 t·hm. The carbon storage of soil layer in type Ⅱ was significantly greater than those in the other types. At the whole ecosystem level, carbon storage of type Ⅰ-Ⅳ was 90.43, 108.27, 85.83 and 89.92 t·hm, respectively. Type Ⅱ had significantly greater carbon storage than the other types. The arbor layer and soil layer were the major carbon pools in the ecosystem, which accounted for 43.3%-55.7% and 38.7%-50.5% of the total, respectively. Our results suggested that mixing by six rows of and four rows of was better for future planting.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.13287/j.1001-9332.202205.002DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

carbon storage
40
type Ⅱ
20
arbor layer
12
t·hm type
12
soil layer
12
carbon
11
storage
10
type
10
type Ⅲ
8
layer
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!