ارزیابی کارکرد زیست‌محیطی پخش‌سیلاب از نظر ترسیب کربن در خاک و گیاه

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• محمدجواد روستا ¹
• کوکب عنایتی ²
• سید مسعود سلیمان پور ²
• کورش کمالی ³

¹ مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی فارس

² بخش تحقیقات حفاظت خاک و آبخیزداری، مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان فارس

³ بخش تحقیقات حفاظت خاک و آبخیزداری، مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان گیلان، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج

https://doi.org/10.22067/jsw.2020.15049.0

چکیده

ارزیابی نقش آبخوان­داری در ترسیب دی­اکسید­کربن موجود در هوا به شکل کربن آلی، هدف این پژوهش بود. با نمونه­برداری از خاک و گیاهان در کاربری­های جنگل دست کاشت اوکالیپتوس با و بدون پخش­سیلاب و جنگل دست کاشت آکاسیا همراه با پخش­سیلاب، مرتع بدون پخش­سیلاب و مرتع با پخش­سیلاب، مقدار کربن آلی اندازه­گیری گردید و در نهایت کل ترسیب کربن محاسبه شد. داده­ها، در قالب طرح بلوک­های کامل تصادفی با استفاده از نرم­افزار SAS تجزیه و تحلیل آماری شد و میانگین­ها با آزمون دانکن در سطح 5 درصد مقایسه شدند. نتایج نشان داد که تأثیر کاربری­های مختلف بر مقدار کربن آلی و ترسیب کربن در خاک و گیاه در سطح یک درصد معنی­دار شد. جنگل­کاری با اوکالیپتوس کامالدولنسیس همراه با پخش سیلاب، میزان کربن­آلی خاک را از 51/0 درصد در شاهد (اوکالیپتوس بدون پخش­سیلاب) به 68/1 درصد در نوار اول جنگل اوکالیپتوس افزایش داد (29/3 برابر). با محاسبه­ی میانگین عرصه­هایی که در آن­ها اوکالیپتوس کاشته شده بود، مشخص شد بیشترین کربن به­میزان 84/121 تن در هکتار در این کاربری در درختان، لاشبرگ و در خاک (تا عمق 30 سانتی­متر) زیر پوشش آن­ها ذخیره شده است. با توجه به این که هر تن کربن، معادل 67/3 تن دی­اکسید­کربن است، می­توان نتیجه گرفت که هر هکتار از جنگل اوکالیپتوس 15/447 تن دی­اکسید­کربن هوا را به­صورت ماده­ی آلی ذخیره کرده است. ارزش اقتصادی مقدار کربن ذخیره شده معادل 76/3 میلیارد ­ریال در هکتار محاسبه گردید.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• آکاسیا
• اوکالیپتوس
• پخش‌سیلاب
• ذخیره‌ی کربن
• فارس

20.1001.1.20084757.1399.34.6.10.8

عنوان مقاله [English]

Assessment of Environmental Performance of Flood Spreading with Respect to Carbon Sequestration in Soil and Plant

نویسندگان [English]

• M.J. Roosta ¹
• K. Enayati ²
• S.M. Soleimanpour ²
• K. Kamali ³

¹ Fars

² Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Research Department, Fars Agricultural and Natural

³ Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Research Department, Gilan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Rasht, Iran

چکیده [English]

Introduction: Carbon sequestration (CS) by forests, pastures, afforested stands and soils is the most appropriate way to reduce atmospheric carbon. A combination of all these activities can help balance the global warming process by reducing the concentration of atmospheric CO₂. The amount of CS and quality of carbon storage in the soil depends on the interaction between climate, soil, tree species, litter chemical composition and their management. The results of Dinakaran and Krishnayya (2008) research showed that the type of vegetation cover has a significant effect on soil carbon storage. So that the amount of carbon storage in the soil depends on the amount of carbon entering the soil through plant debris and carbon loss through decomposition. To increase carbon in the soil, management activities such as increasing the amount of carbon entering the soil by adding litter and crop residues as well as reducing the rate of decomposition of soil organic matter should be done. Decomposition rate of soil organic matter is affected by soil condition (humidity, temperature and access to oxygen), sequestration of organic matter, placement of organic matter in the soil profile and the degree of physical protection by aggregates.
Evaluating the role of aquifer management in reducing via storing the atmospheric CO₂, to organic carbon (O.C) is the aim of this study.
Materials and Methods: The studied land uses were as follows: 1-Rangeland-without flood spreading-with grazing (control), 2- Range without grazing-without flood spreading, 3- Six rangelands stripes-with grazing-with flood spreading, 4- Rangeland-Atriplex plantation-with spreading of flood, 5- Eucalyptus control forest-without flood spreading, 6- Eucalyptus forest-first strip-with flood spreading-BisheZard 4 (BZ4), 7- Eucalyptus forest-second strip-with flood spreading-(BZ4), 8- Eucalyptus forest-third strip-with flood spreading-(BZ4), 9- Acacia forest-with flood spreading-(BZ4). Soil and plant were sampled from each land use type. Then, the amount of O.C was measured in the laboratory and CS was calculated. The economic-environmental value of carbon stored in the soil is based on Rivers' proposal, which declares a carbon tax rate of $200 per tonne of CO₂. The dollar is equal to 42,000 Iranian rials. Data were analyzed using randomized complete block design and Duncan test (at p < 0.05 ) was used to compare mean values using the SAS software.
Results and Discussion: The analysis of variance showed that the effect of different land uses on the bulk density (BD), %O.C and the CS in the soil was significant at the level of 1%. Comparison of the mean of BD in various land uses showed that the eucalyptus forest (third strip) had the lowest BD compared to others, and the difference between this land use and other land uses was statistically significant. The first strip of Eucalyptus forest had the highest %O.C and the highest amount of CS in the soil, and the statistical difference between these two indices in this land use with other land uses was significant. Among the studied land uses, the lowest amounts of CS were related to the control range and range without grazing-without flood spreading. The interaction of plant to plant species on plant dry weight and plant carbon storage showed that the rangeland species of Heliantemum lippii and Dendrostellera lessertii in the range with flood spreading have the highest dry-weight and the species of Helianthomus has the highest amount of carbon storage. This indicates that the impacts of flood spreading on plant biomass production and carbon storage have been greater than the impact of no grazing on these indicators. In all uses, Artemisia sieberi showed the lowest dry weight and carbon storage. Planting of Eucalyptus camaldulensis irrigated with flood water spreading increased the soil O.C from 0.51% in the control to 1.68% in the first strip of eucalyptus forest (3.29 times). By calculating the mean of the three strips in which the eucalyptus was planted, it was found that the highest carbon content of 121.84 ton/ha was stored in the plant, litter and soil of this land use. Given that, each tonne of carbon is equivalent to 3.67 tons of CO₂ gas, it can be concluded that 447.15 tonnes of CO₂ gas from the air is stored as organic matter. The economic-environmental value of this CS is 3.76 billion rials ($89523.81) per hectare.
Conclusion: The studied land that was irrigated with flood spreading, especially the eucalyptus forested area at Kowsar station, captured significant amounts of CO₂ from the air and stored it as organic matter in the root and shoot of plants and in the soil. Also, this may lead to the release of a large amount of oxygen gas to the environment which play an important role in reducing air pollution. Considering the economic-environmental value of the carbon stored in the eucalyptus plantation forest areas, the development of this method in flood prone areas is quite economically justifiable. Due to the high potential of tree species in improving soil carbon storage, it seems that increasing the percentage of woody species and their physiological diversity have increased the carbon storage capacity of these species. Therefore, in order to improve the carbon storage capacity of flood distribution systems, it is suggested that the planting of native and perennial compatible species in these systems should be considered.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Acacia
• Carbon stock
• Eucalyptus
• Fars
• Flood spreading

مراجع

 

1. Badeian Z. 2006. Relation between carbon stock and pH in the organic and mineral soil layers of a mixed forest of beech. A master thesis in faculty of natural forest, Tehran University, 69 p. (In Persian with English abstract)

2. Badeban Z., Mashayekhi Z., Zebardast L., and Mobrghee N. 2014. Economic Valuation of Carbon Sequestration Function in the Mixed and Pure Beech Stands (Case study: Kheyrud Forests). Environmental Researches 15(9):147-156. (In Persian with English abstract)

3. Batjes N.H. 2019. Technologically achievable soil organic carbon sequestration in world croplands and grasslands. Land Degradation & Development 30(1):25-32.

3. Bordbar S.K. 2005. Study of carbon storage potential in eucalyptus and acacia forests in western regions of Fars province, Ph.D. thesis, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, 153 p. (In Persian with English abstract)

5. Bruce J.P., Frome M., Haites E., Joanne H., Lal R., and Faustion K. 1999. Carbon sequestration in soils. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 1:124-139.

6. Dinakaran J., and Krishnayya N.S.R. 2008. Variations in type of vegetal cover and heterogeneity of soil organic carbon in affecting sink capacity of tropical soils. Current Science 94(9):1144-1150.

7. Fakhri F., Jafari M., Mahdian M.H., and Azarnivand H. 2005. The effect of water spreading on soil physicochemical charactheristics at Tangestan Research Station, Boushehr Province. Iranian Journal of Range and Desert Research 12(3): 233-248. (In Persian with English abstract)

8. Forouzeh M.R. 2006. Investigation of carbon sequestration of soil and mass outpatient species of dominant plants in the distribution area of Sarbaygan Gorgan, Fasa, Master's Thesis in Agricultural Sciences, University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, 75 p. (In Persian with English abstract)

9. Ghahari G.R. 2019. Vegetation monitoring of Kowsar research aquifer management station, Annual report of research project, Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Research Institute, 55 p. (In Persian with English abstract)

10. Hosseini S., Amirnejad H., and Oladi J. 2017. The valuation of functions and services of forest ecosystem of Kiasar National Park. Agricultural Economic 11(1): 211-239. (In Persian with English abstract)

11. Köchy M., Hiederer R., and Freibauer A. 2015. Global distribution of soil organic carbon – Part 1: Masses and frequency distributions of SOC stocks for the tropics, permafrost regions, wetlands, and the world. SOIL, 1:351-365.

12. Kowsar S.A. 1992. Desertification control through floodwater spreading in Iran. Unasylva 168(43): 27-30.

13. Kowsar S.A. 1997. Aquifer management: A key to food security in the deserts of Iran. Proceeding of 8^th International. Conference on Rainwater Catchment Systems, Vol. 2, Tehran, Iran, pp. 990-996. (In Persian with English abstract)

14. Lal R. 2005. Soil carbon sequestration in natural and managed tropical forest ecosystems. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 21:1-30.

15. Lal R., Smith P., Jungkunst H.F., Mitsch W.J., Lehmann J., Nair P.R., and Skorupa A.L. 2018. The carbon sequestration potential of terrestrial ecosystems. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 73(6): 145A-152A.

16. Madeira M.V., Fabiao A., Pereira J.S., Araajo M.C., and Ribeiro C. 2002. Changes in carbon stocks in Eucalyptus globules Labill. Plantations induced by different water and nutrient availability. Forest Ecology and Management 171: 75-85.

17. Mahdavi K.H., Sanadgol A., Azarnivand H., Babai Kafaki S., Jafari M., and Mahdavi F. 2009. The investigation of the effect of row spacing Atriplex lentiformis on carbon sequestration and comparsion of row spacing Atriplex lentiformis in planting project in rangelands (Case study: Esfahan Province). Plant and Ecosystem 5(17): 19-29. (In Persian with English abstract)

18. Mahmoudi Taleghani E., Zahedi Amiri Gh., Adeli E., and Sagheb-Talebi Kh. 2007. Assessment of carbon sequestration in soil layers of managed forest. Iranian Journal of Forest and Poplar 15(3): 241-252. (In Persian with English abstract)

19. Najmoddini N. 2013. Effects of mechanical structural operations to improve watershed management in carbon sequestration for climate change mitigation (Case Study: Watershed Gavdareh in Kurdistan province). The 2^nd National Conference on Climate Change and Agriculture, 23 August 2013, Urmia, Iran. (In Persian with English abstract)

20. Nelson D.W., and Sommers L.P. 1986. Total carbon, organic carbon and organic matter, pp. 539–579. In: Page, A.L. (ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 2, Agronomy Handbook No 9, American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI.

21. Nobakht A.A., Pourmajidian M.R., Hojjati S.M., and Fallah A. 2011. A comparison of soil carbon sequestration in hardwood and softwood monocultures (Case study: Dehmian forest management plan, Mazindaran). Iranian Journal of Forest 3(1): 13-23. (In Persian with English abstract)

22. Nosrati K., Mohammadi Z., and Nazari Samani A.A. 2014. The effect of Zahab plain floodwater spreading on soil organic carbon. Stock Quarterly Journal of Environmental Erosion Research 4(2):12-22. (In Persian with English abstract)

23. Rice C.W. 2000. Soil organic C and N in rangeland soils under elevation CO₂ and land management. Proceedings of the Advances in Terrestrial Ecosystem Carbon Inventory, Measurements and Monitoring Conference, October 3-5, 2000, Raleigh, North Carolina, pp: 15-24.

24. Rivers N. 2014. The Case for a carbon tax in Canada 2020. Article available athttp://canada2020.ca/canada-carbon-tax/.

25. Rousta M.J. 2007.  The study of bacterial community in different land use and flood spreading. Iranian Journal of Soil and Waters Sciences 21(1): 121-128. (In Persian with English abstract)

26. Rousta M.J., Soleimanpour S.M., Enayati K., Mesbah S.H., Keshavarzi H., Kamali K., Jowkar L., Kowsar S.A., Nekoeiyan G.A., and Feridonian A.N. 2018. The effect of thirty years of flood spreading on some physical properties of the soil in different uses in Kowsar station. 13^th National Conference on Watershed Management Sciences and Engineering of Iran 3rd National Conference on Conservation of Natural Resources and Environment. 10 and 11 October 2018, Mohaghegh Ardabili University, Ardabil. (In Persian with English abstract)

27. Sarreshtehdari A. 2004. Impact assessment of flood spreading project on infiltation rate and soil fertility. Pajouhesh & Sazandegi 17(62): 83-92. (In Persian with English abstract)

28. Scharlemann J.P.W., Tanner E., Hiederer R., and Kapos V. 2014. Global soil carbon: understanding and managing the largest terrestrial carbon pool. Carbon Management 5(1):81-91.

29. Schlup C.J.E., Naburus G.J., Verburg P.H., and Waal R.W. 2008. Effect of tree species on carbon stock in forest floor and mineral soil and implication for soil carbon inventories. Forest Ecology Management 256: 482-490.

30. Shabanian N., Heydari M., and Zeinivandzadeh M. 2010. Effect of afforestation with broad leaved and conifer species on herbaceous diversity and some physico-chemical properties of soil (Case study: Dushan Afforestation-Sanandaj). Iranian Journal of Forest and Poplar Research 18(3): 437-446. (In Persian with English abstract)

31. Smith P., Soussana J.F., Angers D., Schipper L., Chenu C., Rasse D.P., and Arias-Navarro C. 2020. How to measure, report and verify soil carbon change to realize the potential of soil carbon sequestration for atmospheric greenhouse gas removal. Global Change Biology 26(1): 219-241.

32. Tamartash R., Tatian M.R., and Yousefian M. 2012. Influence of different species on the carcinogenicity of the plant in the range of Imangaleh. Ecology 38(62): 45-54. (In Persian with English abstract)

33. Tifafi M., Guenet B., and Hatté C. 2018. Large differences in global and regional total soil carbon stock estimates based on SoilGrids, HWSD, and NCSCD: Intercomparison and evaluation based on field data from USA, England, Wales, and France. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 32(1): 42-56.

34. Varamesh S., Hosseini S.M., Abdi N., and Akbarinia M. 2010. Increment of soil carbon sequestration due to forestation and its relation with some physical and chemical factors of soil. Iranian Journal of Forest 2(1): 25-35. (In Persian with English abstract)

35. Yazdian A.R., and Kowsar S.A. 2003. The Agha Jari Formation: A potential source of ammonium and nitrate nitrogen fertilizers. Journal of Agricultural Sciences and Technology 5: 153-163.

36. Zarafshar M., Bazot S. Matinizadeh M., Bordbar S.K., Rousta M.J., Kooch Y., Enayati K., Abbasi A., and Negahdarsaber M. 2020. Do tree plantations or cultivated fields have the same ability to maintain soil quality as natural forests?. Applied Soil Ecology 151: 1-10.