Basic HTML Version
Genomics and Applied Biology, 2010, Vol.1, No.1
http://gab.sophiapublisher.com
- 9 -
representing the three density classes and the range of
species present were collected in the field and brought
back to the lab for density (dry weight per green
volume) determination.
3.2 Laboratory Methods
Grab samples were taken of all woody, herbaceous,
and forest litter samples for the purpose of
determining moisture content. These grab samples
were oven-dried at 60
℃
for 72 hours or until constant
weight was ach-ieved, so that the oven-dry weight of
woody, herbaceous, and forest litter material could be
determined.
Coarse woody debris samples were likewise dried in
ovens at 60
℃
for 72 hours, or until constant weight
was achieved. For each density class of deadwood, the
volume was calculated separately as follows: Volume
(m3/ha)=
π
2
×
[(d12+d22
…
dn2)/8L], where d1, d2,
etc=diameters of intersecting pieces of dead wood and
L=length of the line (Brown et al., 2004). Density was
calculated with the formula: Density=mass (g)/volume
(cm3); where: mass=the mass of the oven-dried
sample; volume=π×(average diameter/2)2×average
length of the sample. In cases where it was difficult to
determine dimensions due to state of decay, the water
displacement method was used to determine volume.
At least 0.04 g of sample and usually more was
collected from representative samples of woody,
herbaceous, and forest litter material the purpose of
determining carbon content. These carbon samples
were ground in a Wiley mill to pass a 2 mm sieve, and
carbon analysis was run on an Elementar Americas,
Inc., Vario Max Carbon Nitrogen Combustion
Analyzer, with a procedure described in the
international standard publication ISO10694:1995 (E).
The amount of carbon measured in the samples by this
method was expressed in units of percent carbon by
dry weight.
3.3 Statistical Methods
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed on the
data to determine differences among the treatments
and the control. Duncan's multiple range test about the
means was used to determine significant differences
(p=0.05) of fuel loading and carbon between
treatments and the control.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the Ohio Depar- tment of
Natural Resources, Division of Forestry for their cooperation
and assistance with this study.
References
Abraham S., 2004, The bush administration's approach to climate change,
Science, 305(5684): 616-617 doi:10.1126/science.1098630 PMid:
15286350
Abrams M.D., 1992, Fire and the development of oak forests, Bioscience,
42: 346-353 doi:10.2307/1311781
Anderson H.E., and Brown J.K., 1987, Fuel characteristics and fire behavior
considerations in the wildlands, In: Symposium and workshop on
protecting people and homes from wildfire in the interior west,
Missoula, MT, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station,
pp.124-130
Barton D.C., Vose J.M., and Swank W.T., 1996, Shifts in aboveground and
forest floor carbon and nitrogen pools after felling and burning in the
southern Appalachians, Forest Science, 42: 431-441
Birdsey R.A., 2006, Carbon accounting rules and guidelines for the United
States Forest Sector, J. Environ. Qual., 35: 1518-1524 doi:10.2134/jeq
2005.0193 PMid:16825472
Brack C., 2002, Pollution mitigation and carbon sequestration by an urban
forest, Environmental Pollution, 116(Sup1): S195-S200
Brose P.H., van Lear D.H., and Cooper R.D., 1999, Using shelterwood
harvests and prescribed fire to regenerate oak stands on productive
upland sites, Forest Ecology and Management, 113: 125-141 doi:
10.2134/jeq2005.0193 PMid:16825472
Brown S., Shoch D., Pearson T., and Delaney M., 2004, Methods for
measuring and monitoring forestry carbon projects in California,
Research report prepared by Winrock International for the California
Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research Program,
Research, Report No. 500-04-072F, pp.40
Brown A.A., and Davis K.P., 1973, Forest fire control and use, 2nd edition,
McGraw-Hill Publishers, pp.686
Brown J.K., 1970, Ratios of surface area to volume for common fine fuels,
Forest Science, 16(1): 101-105
Caldeira K., Morgan M.G., Baldocchi D., Brewer P.G., Chaen C.T.A.,
Nabuurs G.J., Nakicenovic N., and Robertson G.P., 2004, A portfolio of
carbon management options, In: Field C.B., and Raupach M.R. (eds.),
The global carbon cycle, Island Press, Washington D.C., pp.103-129
Canary J., Harrison R., Compton J., and Chappell H., 2000, Additional
carbon sequestration following repeated urea fertilization of
second-growth Douglas fir stands in western Washington, Forest
Ecology and Management, 138(1-3): 225-232 doi:10.1016/S0378-
1127(00)00398-4
Davis K.P., 1959, Forest fire control and use, 1st edition, McGraw-Hill
publishers, USA, pp.584
Dieter M., and Elsasser P., 2002, Carbon stocks and carbon stock changes in
the tree biomass of Germany's forests, Forstwis- senschaftliches
Centralblatt, 121(4): 195-210 doi:10.1046/j.1439-0337.2002.02030.x
French N.H.F., Goovaerts P., and Kasischke E.S., 2004, Uncertainty in
estimating carbon emissions from boreal forest fires, Journal of
Geophysical Research, 109(D14S08): 12
Gingrich S.P., 1967, Measuring and evaluating stocking and stand density in
upland hardwood forests in the Central States, Forest Science, 13(1):
38-53
Hughes R.F., Kauffman J.B., and Jaramillo V.J., 1999, Biomass, carbon,
and nutrient dynamics of secondary forests in a humid tropical region
of Mexico, Ecology, 80: 1892-1907 doi:10.2307/176667