Carbon Flux and Storage in Mixed Oak Forests 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 CO 2 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 MOFEP

Specific 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 Ecosystems Chapin et al. 2002

GPP RaRa NPP RhRh NEP ≈50% of GPP ≈ 50% of GPP ≈5% of GPP ≈ 5% of GPP ≈ 50% soil respiration Major Carbon Fluxes In Forests Potential Carbon Credit

Path coefficient analysis for Ozarks. Indirect and direct effects of canopy and leaf characteristics on A max (m mol m -2 s- 1, relationships are similar for g smax ).

Timber harvesting did not change species composition Species Composition of MOFEP Compartments Li et al. (2007), CJFR

NHMUAMEAM Live treesFoliage 1.32 (0.06) 1.04 (0.10) 0.14 (0.02) Branch (1.14) (0.95) 1.22 (0.26) Stem (3.15) (3.74) 4.01 (1.17) RootsCoarse (7.50) (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 (4.51) (6.53)48.92 (5.73) Forest floor 5.91(0.36) 5.96 (0.63) 5.73 (0.49) SoilTop 15cm 53.66(2.91) 60.91(3.43)55.41 (2.80) Sum Sum Sum Ground total Carbon Stock (Mg C.ha -1 ) 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) Carbon Pools Li et al. (2007), CJFR

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

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

Vertical Change of Soil Respiration We dug 9 soil pits and collected data for 2005 and 2006We dug 9 soil pits and collected data for 2005 and 2006 –60 cm wide and cm 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 or oak-pine litter after 32-months field incubation.

Forest CoversAboveground Biomass C Storage of MOFEP Landscape

Intra-annual variation of soil respiration (red) and soil moisture (blue) at MOFEP compartments NHMUAMEAM

Future Plans Continue proposed measurements of various C fluxes;Continue proposed measurements of various C fluxes; Carbon credits of MOFEP sites (1990 – 2010) in conjunction with the overstory, CWD, and hard mast projects;Carbon credits of MOFEP sites (1990 – 2010) in conjunction with the overstory, CWD, and hard mast projects; Biophysical regulations of C gain/loss (e.g., nutrient cycling, species diversity);Biophysical regulations of C gain/loss (e.g., nutrient cycling, species diversity); Predictions of C credits for Ozark forests (modeling) under different management scenarios;Predictions of C credits for Ozark forests (modeling) under 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 the nation (WA, CA, VT, NC, MOFEP);Synthesis by comparing with other ecosystem projects across 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 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 of [e, RUE, R avail ] and their complex interactions will determine the magnitude of ANPP. For each type of resource, there exist complex interactions among [e, RUE, R avail ] at various 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, with a focus on water, light, and nitrogen.

Relevant publications from this project 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 Effects of timber harvest on carbon pools in Ozark forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 37: Concilio, A. S. Ma, Q. Li, J. LeMoine, J. Chen, M. North, D. Moorhead, and R. Jensen Soil respiration response to experimental disturbance in mixed conifer and hardwood forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35: Ryu, S., J. Chen, T.R. Crow, and S.C. Saunders Available fuel dynamics in nine contrasting forest ecosystems in north America. Environmental Management 34(3): S Li, Q Carbon storage and fluxes in a managed oak forest landscape. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toledo. Henderson, R Soil Effluxes of vertical profiles at MOFEP Experiments. M.S. Thesis, University of Toledo.