Application of Mineral Fertilizers in Forests with Respect to Forest Carbon Budget
-
Published:2023-09-01
Issue:9
Volume:
Page:81-96
-
ISSN:0002-1881
-
Container-title:Агрохимия
-
language:
-
Short-container-title:Agrohimiâ
Author:
Mukhortova L. V.1, Martynenko O. V.2, Korotkov V. N.3, Karminov V. N.4, Schepaschenko D. G.56
Affiliation:
1. Institute of Forest, Siberian Branch RAS 2. All-Russian Institute of Continuous Education in Forestry 3. Yu. A. Izrael Institute of Global Climate and Ecology 4. Mytischi Branch of , Bauman Moscow State Technical University 5. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis 6. Center for Forest Ecology and Productivity of the RAS
Abstract
Carbon sequestration and conservation is one of the important ecosystem functions of the forest. The task of modern science is to explore the possibilities of enhancing this function in order to counter the increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Sustainable and climate smart forestry, in particular the use of mineral fertilizers, are an effective way to increase the productivity of forests and enhance their carbon-sequestration capacity. This review aims to summarize the experience of using mineral fertilizers in boreal and temperate forests. It is concluded that fertilization should be selective, and it is most effective in combination with other forest management operations. A significant effect is observed on sites with medium-productivity conditions on sites with with sufficient, but not excessive moisture, at the age of the maximum current increment of biomass or commercial wood (40–70 years for coniferous species). The most common (inexpensive, but effective) are N-fertilizers, but it is necessary to control the content of other nutrients, in particular P, K and B. We have collected and published a database of long-term experiments on the application of mineral fertilizers. Experiments have shown that the absorption of 1 t of CO2-eq. requires from 5.6 to 10.3 kg (on average 7.2) of nitrogen. The results of a fertilizer application project should be compared against the baseline (without fertilizer application), and the difference can be counted in emission reduction units.
Publisher
The Russian Academy of Sciences
Reference137 articles.
1. Pörtner H.-O., Roberts D.C., Tignor M.M.B., Poloczanska E.S., Mintenbeck K., Alegría A., Craig M., Langsdorf S., Löschke S., Möller V., Okem A., Rama B. Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Climate Change, 2022. 2. Global forest resources assessment 2020. Rome: FAO, 2020. 3. Lesiv M., Schepaschenko D., Moltchanova E., Bun R., Dürauer M., Prishchepov A.V., Schierhorn F., Estel S., Kuemmerle T., Alcántara C., Kussul N., Shchepashchenko M., Kutovaya O., Martynenko O., Karminov V., Shvidenko A., Havlik P., Kraxner F., See L., Fritz S. Spatial distribution of arable and abandoned land across former Soviet Union countries // Sci. Data. 2018. V. 5. 180056. 4. Dolman A.J., Shvidenko A., Schepaschenko D., Ciais P., Tchebakova N., Chen T., Van Der Molen M.K., Belelli Marchesini L., Maximov T.C., Maksyutov S., Schulze E.-D. An estimate of the terrestrial carbon budget of Russia using inventory-based, eddy covariance and inversion methods // Biogeosciences. 2012. V. 9. № 12. P. 5323–5340. 5. Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories / Eds. Calvo Buendia E., Tanabe K., Kranjc A., Baasansuren J., Fukuda M., Ngarize S., Osako A., Pyrozhenko Y., Shermanau P., Federici S. Switzerland: IPCC, 2019.
|
|