The content of carbon in the biomass varies from 35% - 65% in one literature, in the another, it's 45-50%, though 50% is often taken as default value, and all they are surprisingly constant irrespective of tissue types and species, but if the content of carbon in the biomass is almost constant in almost all types of floral community, then why the mass is different for the different plant species for a particular volume, for an example, 1 cft volume of Neem (Azadirachta indica) and Jalpai (Alaerocarpus serratus) is 16.61 kg and 18.38 kg respectively, multiplying 0.5 with these two values, it gives the default value of carbon, but the tissue types and compactness are simply different from one another, still they contain 50% of carbon in biomass?
Hello,
I would think you are mixing up two different metrics i.e., the stoechiometry of carbon in organic materials and the density of organic materials. The stoechiometry of carbon depends on the chemical composition of the materials (e.g. proportion of lignin vs. cellulose). The density (i.e. mass/volume) is not directly related to chemical composition, but rather to the physical properties of the materials (porosity, etc.).
Then organic carbon is not a physico- chemical parameter but a chemical properties, and default value of carbon content is half of the biomass to all types of forest vegetation like tropical, temperate or conifers irrespective of tissue and fibres, is this a correct way for expressing the content of carbon in the biomass found in the study?
Gautam Kumar Das is correct. Each plant species has its specific wood density value which we researchers often multiply by .50 to get the C content for each stem. I would not recommend the using of volume because you need to have the specific form shape of the stem at both ends to get an accurate estimate of biomass. I recommend to use DBH instead of volume. I also recommend the using of Chave's pantropical equations to estimate AGB of trees if you have not developed the allometric equation for the particular species you want to work on.
Diego Ismael Rodriguez Hernandez - Only stem of a tree species is taken into account for estimation of biomass or its branches, leaves, and root systems is incorporated including the stem, DBH of the stem is considered by Jenkins et al for the biomass estimations for the all kinds of forests as a whole with different equations, but when I consider the determination of biomass of a particular tree, then what can I do and how I get the biomass, perhaps volume is rather helpful for a dead tree if it is available in the forest floors, contrastingly, DBH is helpful to estimate the biomass of the entire forest without destruction of a tree, then several equations are to be applied for biomass estimations with the DBH measurements of the trees from the selected quadrats using those equations propounded by the researshers available in the literature.
Yes, you are right. I think Chave's equations are better (higher sample size and more accurate estimates) than those of Jenkins, I remember Jenkins are mostly for the USA.
Yes, you are right, Jenkins et al prepared a draft (where the equations are incorporated) for the estimation of biomass to be useful for the foresters of the American Forests, and it is restricted for the American Forests types only.
We ()human) have about 18-19% Carbon, Trees have 50-55% C and generally biomass may have 40-55% C.
- Badges
- Science topic