Forest edge effect on biomass carbon along altitudinal gradients in Chinese Fir (Cunninghamia lanceolata): A study from Southeastern China

Figures & data

Figure 1. The location and image of the study site.

Table 2. Biomass (Mg·ha⁻¹) and its allocation in different elevation classes at forest edges and forest interior.

Forest exterior (biomass Mg·ha^−1)
Classes	AGB	BGB	TTB	DTB	SHB	HB	TB
1	114.96 ± 35.76^f	24.59 ± 5.18^e	139.54 ± 40.93^f	6.06 ± 0.45^h	7.29 ± 0.35^ab	5.34 ± 0.35^a	158.23 ± 40.76^e
2	228.62 ± 63.71^de	42.43 ± 8.22^d	271.04 ± 71.91^de	7.98 ± 0.30^f	6.81 ± 0.30^b	4.66 ± 0.32^b	290.50 ± 71.66^d
3	388.36 ± 76.26^c	63.76 ± 8.64^b	452.13 ± 84.90^c	9.72 ± 0.34^d	5.71 ± 0.37^c	3.76 ± 0.47^c	471.32 ± 84.41^c
4	605.06 ± 31.26^a	88.40 ± 1.71^a	693.46 ± 32.43^a	11.58 ± 0.21^b	4.71 ± 0.35^d	3.04 ± 0.50^d	712.79 ± 31.91^a
Mean	334.25 ± 196.37^b	54.80 ± 25.32^b	389.05 ± 221.60^b	8.83 ± 2.14^b	6.13 ± 1.08^b	4.20 ± 0.97^b	408 ± 221.69^b
Forest interior (biomass Mg·ha^−1)
1	187.50 ± 60.03^ef	34.82 ± 7.83^d	222.32 ± 67.86^ef	7.18 ± 0.32^g	7.69 ± 0.33^a	5.68 ± 0.25^a	242.88 ± 67.54^de
2	315.13 ± 53.96^cd	53.37 ± 6.57^c	368.50 ± 60.52^cd	8.94 ± 0.23^e	7.27 ± 0.23^ab	5.35 ± 0.28^a	390.06 ± 60.26^c
3	497.26 ± 94.88^b	73.47 ± 10.04^b	570.72 ± 104.87^b	10.85 ± 0.33^c	6.15 ± 0.33^c	4.44 ± 0.53^b	592.17 ± 104.39^b
4	679.22 ± 43.65^a	91.52 ± 1.90^a	770.80 ± 45.36^a	12.37 ± 0.35^a	4.90 ± 0.39^d	3.67 ± 0.55^c	791.74 ± 44.79^a
Mean	419.78 ± 200.85^a	63.31 ± 22.92^a	483.09 ± 223.65a	9.84 ± 2.04^a	6.50 ± 1.16^a	4.78 ± 0.90^a	504 ± 223.64^b

Different superscript letters in each column represent significant difference (n = 8, p ≤ 0.0001, Alpha =0.05; LSD, significance test). AGB = aboveground biomass; BGB = belowground biomass; TTB = total tree biomass; DTB = detritus biomass; SHB = shrub biomass; HB = herb biomass; TB = total biomass.

Figure 2. Regression relationship of basal area (BA) with total tree biomass (TTB) and total tree carbon (TTC) at forest edge (a) and forest interior (b). Regression model (a) R² = 0.09980 with standard error of estimate 9.3966 and regression model (b) R² = 0.9985 with standard error of estimate 8.7943.

Table 3. Carbon density (Mg·ha⁻¹) and its allocations in different elevation classes at forest edges and forest interior.

Forest exterior (carbon density Mg·ha^−1)
Classes	AGC	BGC	TTC	SOC	DTC	SHC	HC	TC
1	57.48 ± 17.88^f	12.29 ± 2.59^e	69.77 ± 20.47^f	46.48 ± 0.36^g	3.03 ± 0.22^h	3.64 ± 0.17^ab	2.67 ± 0.18^a	125.60 ± 20.67^e
2	114.30 ± 31.85d^e	21.21 ± 4.11^d	135.52 ± 35.95^de	52.97 ± 2.21^ef	3.99 ± 0.15^f	3.41 ± 0.15^b	2.33 ± 0.12^b	198.22 ± 37.89^d
3	194.18 ± 38.13^c	31.88 ± 4.32^b	226.06 ± 42.45^c	60.74 ± 3.87^d	4.86 ± 0.17^d	2.86 ± 0.19^c	1.88 ± 0.24^c	296.40 ± 46.00^c
4	302.53 ± 44.61^a	44.40 ± 0.85^a	346.73 ± 16.22^a	83.12 ± 5.13^b	5.79 ± 0.10^b	2.35 ± 0.18^d	1.52 ± 0.25^d	439.52 ± 20.74^a
Mean	167.12 ± 98.19^b	27.40 ± 12.66^b	194.52 ± 110.80^b	60.83 ± 14.60^b	4.42 ± 1.07^b	3.06 ± 0.54^b	2.10 ± 0.49^b	265 ± 125.05^b
Forest interior (carbon density Mg·ha^−1)
1	93.75 ± 42.18^ef	17.41 ± 3.92^d	111.16 ± 33.93^ef	50.18 ± 1.85^fg	3.59 ± 0.16^g	3.85 ± 0.17^a	2.84 ± 0.16^a	171.61 ± 35.48d^e
2	157.57 ± 26.98^cd	26.68 ± 3.28^c	184.25 ± 30.36^cd	57.89 ± 2.32^de	4.47 ± 0.11^e	3.64 ± 0.11^ab	2.68 ± 0.14^a	252.52 ± 32.13^c
3	248.63 ± 58.33^b	36.73 ± 5.02^b	285.36 ± 52.44^b	74.03 ± 7.03^c	5.43 ± 0.16^c	3.07 ± 0.17^c	2.22 ± 0.26^b	370.12 ± 58.70^b
4	339.61 ± 78.01^a	45.79 ± 0.95^a	385.40 ± 22.68^a	90.68 ± 1.15^a	6.19 ± 0.17^a	2.45 ± 020^d	1.83 ± 0.27^c	486.55 ± 23.37^a
Mean	209.89 ± 100.43^a	31.65 ± 11.46^a	241.54 ± 111.83^a	68.20 ± 16.46^a	4.92 ± 1.02^a	3.25 ± 0.58^a	2.39 ± 0.45^a	320 ± 128.04^a

Different superscript letters in each column represent significant difference (n = 8, p ≤ 0.0001, Alpha =0.05; LSD, significance test). AGC = aboveground carbon; BGC = belowground carbon; TTC = total tree carbon; SOC = soil organic carbon; DTC = detritus carbon; SHC = shrub carbon; HC = herb carbon; TC = total carbon.

Figure 3. (a) Carbon density (Mg·ha⁻¹) in different elevation classes (different letters on the bars indicate significant differences in carbon density among the elevation classes); (b) percentage contribution of carbon pools in different components at forest edges and forest interior. AGC, aboveground carbon; BGC, belowground carbon; SH, shrub; HER, herb; DW, detritus; SOC, soil organic carbon

Figure 4. (a) Soil carbon concentration (Mg·ha⁻¹) of different depths at forest edge and forest interior among different elevation classes; (b) soil carbon concentration (Mg·ha⁻¹) at different depths among different elevation classes.

Table 1. Characteristics of the Cunninghamia lanceolata at Forest exterior (EX) and Forest interior (IN) in Jiangle County, Fujian Province.

Classes	Diameter range (cm)		Stem density (Mg·ha^−^1)		Basal area (m^2·ha^−^1)
EX/IN	EX	IN	EX	IN	EX	IN
1	4–34	4–44	1812.50 ± 199.25^a	1554.17 ± 247.72^abc	33.19 ± 6.90^e	47.00 ± 10.79^de
2	8–36	4–38	1775.00 ± 291.39^a	1658.33 ± 180.79^ab	57.15 ± 11.21^d	72.51 ± 9.26^c
3	6–40	6–42	1625.00 ± 180.79^ab	1270.83 ± 133.59^cd	86.81 ± 12.53^c	102.35 ± 15.33^b
4	8–44	8–50	1458.33 ± 227.91^bc	1120.83 ± 191.67^d	123.60 ± 3.14^a	131.79 ± 5.05^a
Mean	24	28	1667.71 ± 250.37^a	1401.04 ± 281.23^b	75.19 ± 35.86^b	88.41 ± 43.22^a