Next Article in Journal
Short-Term Effects of Low Intensity Thinning on the Fine Root Dynamics of Pinus massoniana Plantations in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area, China
Next Article in Special Issue
Effects of Nitrogen Deposition on Soil Dissolved Organic Carbon and Nitrogen in Moso Bamboo Plantations Strongly Depend on Management Practices
Previous Article in Journal
Lab and Field Warming Similarly Advance Germination Date and Limit Germination Rate for High and Low Elevation Provenances of Two Widespread Subalpine Conifers
Previous Article in Special Issue
Nonlinear Variations of Net Primary Productivity and Its Relationship with Climate and Vegetation Phenology, China
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Carbon Sequestration in Protected Areas: A Case Study of an Abies religiosa (H.B.K.) Schlecht. et Cham Forest

by
Pablo I. Fragoso-López
1,
Rodrigo Rodríguez-Laguna
2,
Elena M. Otazo-Sánchez
1,
César A. González-Ramírez
1,
José René Valdéz-Lazalde
3,
Hermann J. Cortés-Blobaum
1 and
Ramón Razo-Zárate
2,*
1
Área Académica de Química, Instituto de Ciencias Básicas e Ingeniería, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo, Kilómetro 4.5 carretera Pachuca—Tulancingo, Mineral de la Reforma, Hidalgo 42090, Mexico
2
Área Académica de Ciencias Agrícolas y Forestales, Instituto de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo, Av. Universidad km. 1, Ex. Hda de Aquetzalapa, Tulancingo, Hidalgo 43600, Mexico
3
Colegio de Postgraduados, Km 36.5 Carr. México-Texcoco, Montecillo, Texcoco 56230, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2017, 8(11), 429; https://doi.org/10.3390/f8110429
Submission received: 23 August 2017 / Revised: 17 October 2017 / Accepted: 28 October 2017 / Published: 12 November 2017
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Carbon and Nitrogen in Forest Ecosystems—Series I)

Abstract

:
The effects of global climate change have highlighted forest ecosystems as a key element in reducing the amount of atmospheric carbon through photosynthesis. The objective of this study was to estimate the amount of carbon content and its percentage capture in a protected Abies religiosa forest in which the study area was zoned with satellite image analysis. Dendrometric and epidometric variables were used to determine the volume and increase of aerial biomass, and stored carbon and its capture rate using equations. The results indicate that this forest contains an average of 105.72 MgC ha−1, with an estimated sequestration rate of 1.03 MgC ha−1 yr−1. The results show that carbon capture increasing depends on the increase in volume. Therefore, in order to achieve the maximum yield in a forest, it is necessary to implement sustainable forest management that favors the sustained use of soil productivity.

1. Introduction

The negative impacts of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases such as irreversible damage to ecosystems, increased pressure on water resources, alterations in food production, and damage to human health, among others, have been reported in different studies [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]. The need to stabilize the carbon content of the atmosphere has been manifested in a series of international and local agreements and policies, such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Treaty of Paris. The purpose of these agreements and policies is to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), with mechanisms to optimize carbon sinks.
Currently, forests store about 800 gigatons of carbon (GtC) [11] and it is estimated that by 2050 they could sequester up to an additional 87 GtC [12,13]. It was estimated that in the period between 2000 and 2007, the carbon sequestration rate of the world’s forests averaged 4.1 GtCyr−1 [14], corresponding to approximately 30% of fossil fuel emissions in 2010 [15].
Globally, protected forests have been proposed as a potentially cost-effective strategy to counter deforestation and degradation [16,17,18], favoring carbon permanence in the forest. Countries with the greatest threats from their forests due to degradation and devastation have increased their percentage of protected areas (Figure 1) in an attempt to conserve the environmental services of their forests [19,20]. Out of 3984 million hectares of forests in the world, 13.25% have a protected area status [21], and this percentage is mainly because of many of these protected sites partially fulfilling their conservation objectives [22], primarily derived from the budgetary constraints in which most of these areas operate. Financial resources managers for protected areas are increasingly emphasizing cost-effective aspects such as ecosystem services, including carbon sequestration [23].
Currently, decision-makers can use a large number of methods to assess protected area management and prioritize investments, and there are over 70 methods that have been developed to provide standards for obtaining indicators, analyses, and interpretations [25,26]; however, none of these provide an estimation of carbon sequestration rates.
The present study aimed to estimate the carbon content in the above-ground biomass (baseline) of a forest of Abies religiosa (H.B.K.) Schlecht. et Cham., which is part of El Chico National Park, Hidalgo, Mexico. In addition, it attempted to ascertain the carbon capture rate from the annual volumetric increase of the species in the area. This information is necessary for designing the strategies that allow the environmental objectives that contribute to the reduction of the negative effects in climate change to be fulfilled.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The study was carried out in the federal zone of the protected natural area called “El Chico National Park” located in the western area of the mountain range of Pachuca, in the state of Hidalgo, Mexico. Geographically, it is located between the extreme coordinates 20°11′57″ and 20°12′02″ north latitude and 98°43′08″and 98°43′06″ west longitude.
The area is owned by the Mexican nation and comprises 1,833,000 hectares [27]. The climate is C (m) (w) b (i′) gw, which is described as: a temperate-sub-humid climate with a fresh and long summer; the average annual temperature varies between 12 and 18 °C. The rainfall regime is in summer, and the percentage of winter rain in relation to the annual total is less than 5% [28].
The soil type is constituted by associations that group the following soil units: Humic cambisol-Androsol ocrico-Litosol, which has a volcanic origin association typical of mountainous zones, and humic Andosol-Humic cambisol, corresponding to forest soils associated with Abies and Quercus forests [29].
The predominant type of vegetation is Abies religiosa forest, which covers 67% of the park surface. The shrub stratum is dominated by the species Archibaccharis hieracioides Blake, Baccharis conferta H.B.K., Eupatorium hidalgense Rob., Fuchsia thymifolia H.B.K., Ribes affine H.B.K., Salvia elegans Vahl., Senecio angulifolius D.C., and Stevia monardifolia H.B.K. [30].

2.2. Description of the Species

The Abies forest is considered a component of the Leopold boreal forest [31] because of its similarity in terms flora, fauna, physiognomy, and ecological conditions to large forest masses covering northern parts of North America and Eurasia, and is also known as Taiga. This type of forest usually develops in an interval of altitude between 2400 and 3600 m, and its humidity requirement is high, registering precipitations superior to 1000 mm annually. They are dense forests, of heights that can reach up to 50 m, with canopies of a triangular contour; the high density conditions reduce the amount of light reaching the interior, which limits the development of shrubs and herbaceous species [32].

2.3. Forest Zoning

This process was performed to identify the areas where the species of interest is dominant. The stands were also identified where the species is mixed with other genera; however, these were excluded from the study. This concept is also known as stratification and consists of the division of the forest area into portions or spatial units called stands, with sections that possess similar physical and biological characteristics [33,34].
The identification of the stands was made through a RapidEye-4 satellite (provided by the Space Agency of the Mexican Government) image analysis dated 25 February 2015, with a spatial resolution of 5 m [35]. Initially, the image was corrected atmospherically and radiometrically [36]. Subsequently, it was estimated at the pixel level “Red Edge Normalized Difference Vegetation Index” (RedEdgeNDVI) [37,38,39,40,41].
R e d E d g e   N D V I = R 710 R 705 R 710 + R 705
where R710 is the band 4 RedEdge or near red and R705 corresponds to the band 3 RedEdge. The NDVI has been used in the elaboration of the process of forest logging, and it is mentioned that it has shown acceptable results in the identification of vegetal associations.
The RedEdge NDVI results were analyzed along with altitude, latitude, and exposure values to determine the final logging through an overlay positioning process.
The obtained image analysis was validated with the records obtained through field trips. The existing vegetation types and the boundaries between them were determined by georeferenced points.

2.4. Field Information

Sampling Design and Characteristics of Sites

A random sampling design was used to define the location of 33 circular sampling sites of 1000 m2, in which a total of 682 trees were measured. The shape and size of the sites were suitable for the purpose pursued since they have shown good results for the calculation of volumetric stocks or biomass content [42,43].
At each sampling site, the diameter information at the breast height (dap) of all trees with a diameter equal to or greater than 7.5 cm and the total height of each tree [44] was recorded. For the determination of the number of annual growth rings in 2.5 cm, known as passage time, an average tree per diameter category was selected at each sampling site by means of a 250-mm Haglöf® Presser (Haglöf, Langsele, Sweden) drill and the results were calculated as the annual volumetric increase per hectare [45], which was subsequently used for estimating carbon sequestration.

2.5. Information Processing

2.5.1. Calculation of Volumetric Stocks

With the records of each stand, we proceeded to estimate the value of the variables basal area and timber volume [36,46]. The basal area for each tree was obtained by the following equation:
B A = π 4 D b h 2
where BA is the basal area (m2) and Dbh corresponds to the diameter at breast height (m), which were grouped in diametric categories of 5 cm.
The volume per hectare per stand was determined through a procedure known in the forest as the average hectare [47] by employing the following equation:
V ¯ s = i = 1 D C   ( B A i H ¯ M C i E F i N T i )
where V ¯ s corresponds to the total volume (trunk + branches + leaves + roots) of the woodland per hectare (m3); DC is the number of diametric categories in the stand; i is the diameter category; BA is the basal area of the average tree by diameter category (m2); H ¯ corresponds to the average height of the trees in the stands for each diameter category (meters); MC is the morphic coefficient for gender Abies; EF is the expansion factor of stem to total volume (branches, leaves, and roots) [48]; and NTi is the number of trees per hectare per diameter category.

2.5.2. Volumetric Increment

The calculation of the increment of the forest mass for each of the stands was obtained by means of the “Klepac Fast” method, which relates the number of trees per diameter category per hectare, the volume of the tree type for each diameter category, and the step time for each case [45,49]. This method considers a series of calculations between these three variables to obtain the percentage of the increase by the following equation:
P = 1000 D b h 1 T
where P corresponds to the percentage of increase, Dbh is the diameter at breast height, and T is the step time. It is worth mentioning that this parameter was used to obtain the carbon sequestration rate.

2.5.3. Aerial Biomass Content

This information was obtained by the equation developed by Avendaño et al. [50], for the calculation of biomass for Abies religiosa based on the diameter at breast height.
B =   0.0713   D b h 2.5104
where B is the total biomass of the tree (Mg) and Dbh is the diameter at breast height (m).

2.5.4. Carbon Content

The estimated carbon content for each tree was calculated using the equation developed for this species, which is based on the diameter at breast height [50].
A C C =   0.0332   D b h 2.5104
where ACC is the carbon content for Abies religiosa (Mg) and Dbh is the diameter at breast height (m).
The carbon content for each diameter category was obtained by the following equation:
D c c c = A c c   N T
where D c c c is the carbon content by diameter category (Mg), A c c is the carbon content per tree (Mg), and N T is the number of trees of the corresponding diametric category.
The carbon content per hectare was obtained by adding the carbon content from all the diametric categories.

2.5.5. Carbon Sequestration Rate

After calculating the carbon content per hectare and after having determined the volumetric increments, the carbon capture rate for each stand was determined, considering that the increment parameter refers to the volume increase per unit time. Once the amount of biomass that this forest can generate in a certain time period was obtained, the carbon stored was calculated using the following equation:
C ¯ S R = ( C ¯ C   / V ¯ s   ) C A I
where C ¯ SR is the rate of carbon sequestration per hectare per year (Mg), C ¯ C is the carbon content (MgC ha−1), V ¯ s corresponds to the volumetric stocks (m3 ha−1), and CAI is the current annual increase (m3).

3. Results

3.1. Forest Zoning and Field Information

Of the total area studied, eight stands were identified, with Abies religiosa covering an area of 1229.65 hectares. The rest of the area (603.35 hectares) corresponds to rock formations and other types of vegetation such as Quercus, Juniperus, and grassland. The study was addressed to Abies religiosa since it is the conservation species of interest in this protected area (Figure 2).
The Table 1 show the values of the NDVI together with the land orientation, as well as the slope range that exists in each one of the stands, for which the criteria for the realization of the forest zoning were the values of NDVI, orientation, and species composition.

3.2. Volumetric Stocks

The total volume is 757,681.69 m3, and the average volumetric stock per hectare is 616.18 m3. Table 2 details the Abies religiosa volumes for each stand.

3.3. Volumetric Increment

Table 3 presents the results of the calculation of volumetric increase, for which we considered the records of 165 trees. It can be observed that stands 4, 5, and 6 present smaller times of passage in relation to the rest of the stands, probably due to the age and density of the forest mass. The highest productivity is found in stands 1, 4, and 5, where the area of these stands also influences the result.

3.4. Carbon Content

The estimate of the total carbon content is 130,004.02 Mg, with an average per hectare of 105.72 MgC. The results for each stand are shown in Table 4.

3.5. Carbon Sequestration

The result for the carbon capture rate in the Abies religiosa aerial biomass is 1267.66 MgC yr−1, considering the studied area, with an average of 1.03 MgC yr−1 per hectare.
Stands 1 and 4 have higher volumetric increments. Consequently, the sequestered carbon is higher in relation to the rest of the stands (Figure 3), and this can be attributed to the north orientation of the surface where the insolation is less and more moisture is available. Stand 6 is located in a transition zone with the presence of other tree genres that were not counted but that compete with the Abies, decreasing its density, due to the fact that the volume and increase of biomass is reduced. Stand 8 presents a situation similar to the previous stand, only in this case the mixture of genera is due to anthropic activities (reforestation).
Carbon sequestration in stand 1 is the one with the highest catch mainly due to the surface area and annual increment, followed by stand 4. The strata with the least carbon sequestration are the ones with the lowest surface area and the lowest density of trees (Figure 4).

4. Discussion

4.1. Carbon Content

The area of study corresponds to a protected area decreed in 1898, in which the conservation policies that prevent the modification of the forest structure have caused the longevity of this mass, placing it in the last stage of development (old fustal), and this is derived from the age and diameters present. Diameters greater than 1.10 m were recorded, while the smallest diameter registered was 7.5 cm. On average, the number of trees per hectare is 193, with a volume of 616.18 m3. Table 5 presents comparative information of estimated carbon in protected areas with the presence of Abies religiosa.
There are several hypotheses about the carbon content in forest ecosystems. This storage is dependent on the amount of existing biomass, which depends on the age, diameter, and height of the trees. When woodland density is affected or altered for some cause such as: pests, diseases, forest fires, clandestination, or harvesting, the carbon content per unit area is also altered [56]. The silviculously managed forests have young stands as a result of the application of silvicultural treatments [57], where the stands with a higher density and basal area are those containing more volume of above-ground biomass, and consequently, more carbon content.
The records consulted about carbon contents in protected temperate forest are ≥115 MgC ha−1 [51,52,53,54,55], whereas this study estimated more than 105.72 MgC ha−1. These differences can be attributed to several factors such as the quality of the site studied, and the density and age of the trees, among others. Unlike the preserved forests, disturbed forests contain less carbon, due to the affected forest mass. Aguirre et al. [57] mentions that for a managed forest of Pinus patula with an orientation that is contemporary, the content is 63.98 MgC ha−1.
In the case of protected forests or silvically managed forests, the ecosystem service of carbon storage is fulfilled, whereas in the case of harvested forests, the carbon content is lower and mainly depends on applied silvicultural treatments. For the production of coetaneous masses, the content is variable and dependent on the age, diameter, height, and density of the trees in a given stand. The present study considers there to be 48% more carbon content in El Chico than the data provided by Aguirre et al. [57]. Masera et al. [58] mentions that managed forests with a temperate climate contain 118 MgC ha−1 or 10% more than the estimated data in this study. The differences between Aguirre and Masera information can be mainly attributed to the applied silvicultural system (intensive or conservative).

4.2. Carbon Sequestration

Forest ecosystems sequester carbon and are considered as an option for the mitigation of the effects of an increasing atmospheric CO2 load [59,60,61,62]. The potential for carbon of any forest species depends on the maximum amount of biomass it can produce per unit of time. In species of accelerated growth, this parameter is relatively fast reached, whereas in species with a slow growth, the period of time required to reach the maximum biomass content is longer, and consequently, carbon sequestration is higher [63].
The volumetric increases represent the parameter which is able to determine the rate of carbon sequestration, and for the case presented in this study, the Abies religiosa forest captures 1.03 MgC ha−1 yr−1, which is equivalent to 3.78 MgCO2 ha−1 [64], with an annual average increase of 2.92%. Because it is located within a protected area, the forest mass has not been altered, which has caused the increment curve to decline. As the age of the mass increases, the increments decrease [45], and as a consequence, the potential for carbon capture is also affected.
Compared with protected forests, sustainably harvested forest areas capture more carbon [65], which is mainly due to the management of the age factor within the masses. Similarly, the use of harvested biomass for the production of long-lasting products retains carbon for long periods of time [66,67]. There are records of carbon capture in managed forests that exceed the results obtained in this study. Liu et al. [68] estimated net biomass productivity for forests in the Appalachian region where the forest harvest exists, and reported data ranging from 1.8 to 6.2 MgC ha−1. Zhang et al. [69] estimated a value of 2.4 MgC ha−1 captured for a Massonian Pinus forest in China. For the specific case of Abies religiosa with the information of Manzanilla et al. [70], we can estimate 3.1 MgC ha−1. The differences between these investigations and the estimated rate in this study can be attributed to factors such as: forest management, location of the studied area, and species, among others. Navarro et al. [65] mentioned that these results cannot be cofrontable since they correspond to different ecosystems, each with their own particularities.
Unlike carbon content, the rate of sequestration is influenced by forest management techniques; in protected forests, the amount of stored carbon is higher, but the catch rate is reduced. With sustainable forest management practices, this difference can be balanced.
Forest management should be included in protected forests, and it is desirable to consider aspects that relate the conservation of species and their habitats with the carbon storage outside forest areas. The extraction of biomass for the elaboration of long-lasting products such as furniture or infrastructure is a way to reduce the risk of leakage within this type of ecosystem, reducing the carbon content inside a warehouse, so that emissions risks are reduced and capture is encouraged by stimulating increases in forest mass in order reach the maximum biomass production potential.

5. Conclusions

The methodology used for the evaluation of a protected forest of Abies religiosa as aerial carbon storage and its capture capacity is adequate and reproducible in areas with similar conditions where it is not possible to use destructive methods. The use of high resolution satellite images combined with the analysis of physical aspects of the terrain allowed for detailed zoning directly related to the density of the forest mass, and its amount of biomass and carbon.
The results presented denote that the amount of carbon stored above-ground is directly related to the density and degree of disturbance. In this case, because it is a protected forest where the silvicultural activities are restricted, the productivity of the mass is lower, and consequently, the rate of carbon sequestration decreases.
The quantified carbon additionality is a parameter that depends on several factors, for which the age of the forest mass is considered one of the most important, and in the young and vigorous forests, the rate of sequestration is higher than in forests of advanced stages of development. In this study, Abies religiosa caught 1.03 MgC ha−1 yr−1, with an annual average increase of 2.92%.
The implementation of silvicultural techniques governed by forest management with correct principles, foundations, and objectives greatly contributes to the reduction of atmospheric carbon. Within protected forests, the application of forest management techniques makes it possible to obtain sustainable forests and maximize the potential of forest soils to increase this important ecosystem service.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Mexican Government for providing the RapidEye satellite image used for stratification, as well as for the personnel who manage the El Chico National Park for the facilities granted to carry out this study.

Author Contributions

P.I.F.-L. and H.J.C.-B. drafted the document and elaborated, and designed the experiment; C.A.G.-R. contributed to the experimental design planning, data analysis, revision, and translation of the manuscript. E.M.O.-S. contributed to the revision of the document, and support and advice in the development of research. J.R.V.-L., R.R.-L., and R.R.-Z. were involved in document revision, data analysis, field phase support, and cartographic phase review.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bassi, A.M.; Yudken, J.S.; Ruth, M. Climate policy impacts on the competitiveness of energy-intensive manufacturing sectors. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 3052–3060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. De Vries, M.; de Boer, I. Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: A review of life cycle assessments. Livest. Sci. 2010, 128, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Garnett, T. Livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions: Impacts and options for policy makers. Environ. Sci. Policy 2009, 12, 491–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Getzner, M. The quantitative and qualitative impacts of clean technologies on employment. J. Clean. Prod. 2002, 10, 305–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gossling, S. Carbon Management in Tourism: Mitigating the Impacts on Climate Change; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  6. Norgate, T.; Haque, N. Energy and greenhouse gas impacts of mining and mineral processing operations. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 266–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rivers, N. Impacts of climate policy on the competitiveness of Canadian industry: How big and how to mitigate? Energy Econ. 2010, 32, 1092–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sano, F.; Akimoto, K.; Wada, K. Impacts of different diffusion scenarios for mitigation technology options and of model representations regarding renewables intermittency on evaluations of CO2 emissions reductions. Clim. Chang. 2014, 123, 665–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Valerio, F. Environmental impacts of post-consumer material managements: Recycling, biological treatments, incineration. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 2354–2361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Bank, W. Towards Sustainable Mineral-Intensive Growth in Orissa: Managing Environmental and Social Impacts; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2007; p. 78. [Google Scholar]
  11. Brown, S. Present and Future Role of Forests in Global Climate Change. In Ecology Today: An Anthology of Contemporary Ecological Research; Goapl, B., Pathak, P.S., Saxena, K.G., Eds.; International Scientific Publications: New Delhi, India, 1998; pp. 59–74. [Google Scholar]
  12. Metz, B.; Davidson, O.; Swart, R.; Pan, J. Climate Change 2001: Mitigation; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  13. Watson, R.T.; Zinyowera, M.C.; Moss, R.H. Climate Change 1995 Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analysis; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  14. Pan, Y.; Birdsey, R.A.; Fang, J.; Houghton, R.; Kauppi, P.E.; Kurz, W.A.; Phillips, O.L.; Shvidenko, A.; Lewis, S.L.; Canadell, J.G.; et al. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 2011, 333, 988–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Change, I.P.O.C. Climate Change 2014–Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Regional Aspects; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  16. Nauclér, T.; Enkvist, P.-A. Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy: Version 2 of the Global Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve; McKinsey & Company: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  17. Soares-Filho, B.; Moutinho, P.; Nepstad, D.; Anderson, A.; Rodrigues, H.; Garcia, R.; Dietasch, L.; Merry, F.; Bowman, M.; Hissa, L.; et al. Role of Brazilian Amazon protected areas in climate change mitigation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 10821–10826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Venter, O.; Laurance, W.F.; Iwamura, T.; Wilson, K.A.; Fuller, R.A.; Possingham, H.P. Harnessing carbon payments to protect biodiversity. Science 2009, 326, 1368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Jackson, R.B.; Baker, J.S. Opportunities and constraints for forest climate mitigation. BioScience 2010, 60, 698–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lippke, B.; Perez-Garcia, J.; Manriquez, C. Executive Summary: The Impact of Forests and Forest Management on Carbon Storage, Rural Technological Initiative, College of Forest Resources; Box: Redwood City, CA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  21. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015; Organización de las Naciones Unidas Para la Alimentación y la Agricultura: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  22. Oates, J.F. Myth and Reality in the Rain Forest: How Conservation Strategies Are Failing in West Africa; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  23. Ferraro, P.J.; Pattanayak, S.K. Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biol. 2006, 4, e105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015; How Are the World’s Forests Changing? Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  25. Leverington, F.; Hockings, M.; Costa, K.L. Management Effectiveness Evaluation in Protected Areas—A Global Study; Supplementary Report No. 1. Overview of Approaches and Methodologies; World Commission on Protected Areas: Brisbane, Australia, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  26. Nolte, C.; Leverington, F.; Kettner, A.; Marr, M.; Nielsen, G.; Bomhard, B.; Stolton, S.; Stoll-Kleemann, S.; Hockings, M.; World Conservation Union (IUCN)-World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA). Protected Area Management Effectiveness Assessments in Europe; A Review of Application, Methods and Results; BfN-Skripten: Bonn, Germany, 2010; p. 69. [Google Scholar]
  27. Zabala, F. Análisis demográfico preliminar de Taxus globosa Schlecht en el Parque Nacional El Chico, Hidalgo, Mexico. I: Población de adultos y algunas características del hábitat. CIENCIA Ergo-Sum 2001, 8, 169–174. [Google Scholar]
  28. Razo Zárate, R.; Martínez, A.J.G.; Laguna, R.R.; Maycotte Morales, C.C.; Acevedo Sandoval, O.A. Coeficientes de carbono para arbustos y herbáceas del bosque de oyamel del Parque Nacional El Chico. Rev. Mex. Cienc. For. 2016, 6, 10. [Google Scholar]
  29. Melo Gallegos, C.; López García, J. Parque Nacional El Chico, marco geográfico-natural y propuesta de zonificación para su manejo operativo. Investig. Geogr. 1994, 28, 65–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cervantes, Á.; Reyes, E. Efectos Ecológicos de los Incendios Forestales Sobre el Bosque de Oyamel. Ph.D. Thesis, Colegio de Postgraduados Campus Montecillo, Texcoco, Mexico, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  31. Leopold, A.S. Vegetation zones of Mexico. Ecology 1950, 31, 507–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Rzedowski, J. Vegetación de Mexico. 1ra; Edición Digital; Comisión Nacional Para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad: Mexico City, Mexico, 2006; p. 504. [Google Scholar]
  33. Castellanos Bolaños, J.F.; Gómez Cárdenas, M.; Contreras Hinojosa, J.R.; González Cubas, R. Metodologías Para Cuantificar Biomasa y Carbono en Bosques; Centro de Investigación Regional del Pacífico Sur: Oaxaca, Mexico, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  34. Návar-Cháidez, J.D.J.; Domínguez-Calleros, P.A. Modelo de incremento y rendimietno: Ejemplos y aplicaciones para bosques templados mexicanos. Rev. Mex. Cienc. For. 2013, 4, 8–27. [Google Scholar]
  35. Rafael Domingo, C.M. Monitoreo de bosques utilizando ndvi rededge de rapideye. Instr. Gener. Para Autores 2013, 10, 58–71. [Google Scholar]
  36. Aguilar Arias, H.; Zamora, R.M.; Bolaños, C.V. MetodologÍa Para La Corrección Atmosférica De Imágenes Aster, Rapideye, Spot 2 Y Landsat 8 Con El MÓdulo Flaash Del Software Envi. Atmospheric Correction Methodology for Aster, Rapideye, Spot 2 and Landsat 8 Images with Envi Flaash Module Software. Rev. Geogr. Am. Cent. 2015, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gitelson, A.; Merzlyak, M.N. Spectral Reflectance Changes Associated with Autumn Senescence of Aesculus hippocastanum L. and Acer platanoides L. Leaves. Spectral Features and Relation to Chlorophyll Estimation. J. Plant Physiol. 1994, 143, 286–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sims, D.A.; Gamon, J.A. Relationships between leaf pigment content and spectral reflectance across a wide range of species, leaf structures and developmental stages. Remote Sens. Environ. 2002, 81, 337–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tapsall, B.; Milenov, P.; Tasdemir, K. Analysis of RapidEye Imagery for Annual landcover Mapping As an Aid to European Union (EU) Common Agricultural Policy. In Proceedings of the International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Vienna, Austria, 5–7 July 2010; pp. 568–573. [Google Scholar]
  40. Wu, C.; Niu, Z.; Tang, Q.; Huang, W.; Rivaed, B.; Feng, J. Remote estimation of gross primary production in wheat using chlorophyll-related vegetation indices. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2009, 149, 1015–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Roslani, M.A.; Mustapha, M.A.; Lihan, T.; Wan Juliana, W.A. Applicability of Rapideye Satellite Imagery in Mapping Mangrove Vegetation Species at Matang Mangrove Forest Reserve, Perak, Malaysia. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 7, 123. [Google Scholar]
  42. Aguirre, O.; Jiménez, J.; Treviño, E.; Meraz, B. Evaluación de diversos tamaños de sitio de muestreo en inventarios forestales. Madera Bosques 1997, 3, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Juárez Castillo, S. Trial to Determine Comparative Efficiency of Sampling Sites in Temperate-and Cold-Climate Forests; Centro Interamericano de Fotointerpretación: Bogotá, Colombia, 1974. [Google Scholar]
  44. Fedrigo, M.; Kasel, S.; Bennett, L.T.; Roxburgh, S.H.; Nitschke, C.R. Carbon stocks in temperate forests of south-eastern Australia reflect large tree distribution and edaphic conditions. For. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 334, 129–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Klepac, D. Crecimiento e Incremento de Árboles y Masas Forestales; Universidad Autónoma Chapingo: Texcoco, Mexico, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  46. Muñoz-Ruiz, M.Á.; Valdez-Lazalde, J.R.; de los Santos-Posadas, H.M.; Ángeles-Pérez, G.; Monterroso-Rivas, A.I. Inventario y mapeo del bosque templado de Hidalgo, Mexico mediante datos del satélite SPOT y de campo. Agrociencia 2014, 48, 847–862. [Google Scholar]
  47. Hernández-Díaz, J.C.; Corral-Rivas, J.J.; Quiñones-Chávez, A.; Bacon-Sobbe, J.R.; Vargas-Larreta, B. Evaluación del manejo forestal regular e irregular en bosques de la Sierra Madre Occidental. Madera Bosques 2008, 14, 25–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Razo-Zárate, R.; Gordillo-Martínez, A.J.; Rodríguez-Laguna, R.; Maycotte-Morales, C.C.; Acevedo-Sandoval, O.A. Estimación de biomasa y carbono almacenado en árboles de oyamel afectados por el fuego en el Parque nacional “El Chico”, Hidalgo, Mexico. Madera Bosques 2013, 19, 73–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Villa Salas, A.B.; Aguilar Ramírez, M. Rutinas de cálculo de once métodos para determinar el incremento en volumen de conífertas. Rev. Mex. Cienc. For. 2012, 20, 77. [Google Scholar]
  50. Avendaño Hernandez, D.M.; Mireles, M.A.; Anzures, F.C.; Etchevers Barra, J.D. Estimación de Biomasa y Carbono en un Bosque de Abies Religiosa. Rev. Fitotec. Mex. 2009, 32, 233–238. [Google Scholar]
  51. Leñero, L.A.; Nava, M.; Ramos, A.; Espinosa, M.; De Jesus Ordonez, M.; Jujnovsky, J. Servicios ecosistémicos en la cuenca del río Magdalena, Distrito Federal, Mexico. Gaceta Ecol. 2007, 84–85, 53–64. [Google Scholar]
  52. Ávila-Akerberg, V. Forest Quality in the Southwest of Mexico City: Assessment towards Ecological Restoration of Ecosystem Services; Institut für Landespflege: Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  53. Razo-Zárate, R.; Gordillo-Martínez, A.; Rodríguez-Laguna, R.; Maycotte-Morales, C.; Acevedo-Sandoval, O. Escenarios de carbono para el bosque de oyamel del Parque Nacional El Chico, Hidalgo, Mexico. Rev. Latinoam. Rec. Nat. 2013, 9, 17–21. [Google Scholar]
  54. Mendoza-Ponce, A.; Galicia, L. Aboveground and belowground biomass and carbon pools in highland temperate forest landscape in Central Mexico. Forestry 2010, 83, 497–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Maass, S.F. Estimación de la Captura de Carbono en Zonas Forestales: El Caso del Parque Nacional Nevado de Toluca; Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Mexico: Toluca, Mexico, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  56. Pregitzer, K.S.; Euskirchen, E.S. Carbon cycling and storage in world forests: Biome patterns related to forest age. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2004, 10, 2052–2077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Aguirre-Salado, C.A.; Valdez-Lazalde, J.R.; Ángeles-Pérez, G.; de los Santos-Posadas, H.M.; Haapanen, R.; Aguirre-Salado, A.I. Mapeo de carbono arbóreo aéreo en bosques manejados de pino Patula en Hidalgo, Mexico. Agrociencia 2009, 43, 209–220. [Google Scholar]
  58. Masera, O.R.; Cerón, A.D.; Ordóñez, A. Forestry mitigation options for Mexico: Finding synergies between national sustainable development priorities and global concerns. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2001, 6, 291–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Huntington, T.G. Carbon Sequestration in an Aggrading Forest Ecosystem in the Southeastern USA. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1995, 59, 1459–1467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Rojo, J.M.T.; Sanginés, A.G. El potencial de Mexico para la producción de servicios ambientales: Captura de carbono y desempeño hidráulico. Gac. Ecol. 2002, 63, 40–59. [Google Scholar]
  61. Bonan, G.B. Forests and Climate Change: Forcings, Feedbacks, and the Climate Benefits of Forests. Science 2008, 320, 1444–1449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Canadell, J.G.; Raupach, M.R. Managing Forests for Climate Change Mitigation. Science 2008, 320, 1456–1457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Seely, B.; Welham, C.; Kimmins, H. Carbon sequestration in a boreal forest ecosystem: Results from the ecosystem simulation model, FORECAST. For. Ecol. Manag. 2002, 169, 123–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Chacón, P.; Leblanc, H.; Russo, R. Fijación de carbono en un bosque secundario de la región tropical húmeda de Costa Rica. Tierra Trop. 2007, 3, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  65. Figueroa-Navarro, C.M.; Ángeles-Pérez, G.; Velázquez-Martínez, A.; de los Santos-Posadas, H.M. Estimación de la biomasa en un bosque bajo manejo de Pinus patula Schltdl. et Cham. en Zacualtipán, Hidalgo. Rev. Mex. Cienc. For. 2010, 1, 105–112. [Google Scholar]
  66. Harmon, M.E.; Harmon, J.M.; Ferrell, W.K.; Brooks, D. Modeling carbon stores in Oregon and Washington forest products: 1900–1992. Clim. Chang. 1996, 33, 521–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. CCMSS. El Manejo Sostenible de los Bosques Como Estrategia de Combate al Cambio Climático en México; Punto Verde Consultores, S.C.: Monterrey, Mexico, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  68. Liu, J.; Liu, S.; Loveland, T.R. Temporal evolution of carbon budgets of the Appalachian forests in the US from 1972 to 2000. For. Ecol. Manag. 2006, 222, 191–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Zhang, J.; Ge, Y.; Chang, J.; Jiang, B.; Jiang, H.; Peng, C.; Zhu, J.; Yuan, W.; Qi, L.; Yu, S. Carbon storage by ecological service forests in Zhejiang Province, subtropical China. For. Ecol. Manag. 2007, 245, 64–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Manzanilla, H. Investigaciones Epidométricas y Silvícolas en Bosques Mexicanos de Abies Religiosa; Secretaría de Agricultura y Ganadería, Dirección General de Información y Relaciones Públicas: Mexico City, Mexico, 1974. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Percentage of protected area per country in 2015 in relation to its total forest area. Own elaboration with information of [24].
Figure 1. Percentage of protected area per country in 2015 in relation to its total forest area. Own elaboration with information of [24].
Forests 08 00429 g001
Figure 2. Forest zoning obtained through the analysis of satellite images in combination with altitude information, orientation, and slope.
Figure 2. Forest zoning obtained through the analysis of satellite images in combination with altitude information, orientation, and slope.
Forests 08 00429 g002
Figure 3. Annual carbon sequestration per hectare in megagrams.
Figure 3. Annual carbon sequestration per hectare in megagrams.
Forests 08 00429 g003
Figure 4. Annual carbon capture above-ground per stand.
Figure 4. Annual carbon capture above-ground per stand.
Forests 08 00429 g004
Table 1. Criteria and values used for forest zoning.
Table 1. Criteria and values used for forest zoning.
StandNDVIOrientation Slope Species Composition
MeanMinMax
10.34950.17640.4350North10–25° Abies
20.37090.20430.4681North10–25°Abies
30.36780.30160.4806Southeast10–25°Abies
40.39000.20040.4613Northwest10–25°Abies
50.38490.27730.4510Northwest10–25°Abies-Quercus
60.36030.27510.4360North10–25°Abies-Quercus
70.38490.32280.4228East10–25°Abies-Quercus
80.34410.28410.4064Northwest4–9°Abies-Pinus-Quercus
Other *0.27530.02280.3990---
* Refers to other uses or plant formations, “-“ refers to not obtained.
Table 2. Volume in m3 per stand.
Table 2. Volume in m3 per stand.
StandSurface (Hectares)Number of Trees ha−1Basal Area m2 ha−1Volumetric Stocks m3 ha−1Volumetric Stocks m3 Stndl−1
1263.4322047.37771.57203,252.50
2194.2021035.18716.46139,139.25
3153.6321032.63672.41103,299.63
4223.2728240.44789.37176,238.35
5178.2614022.02462.2282,392.82
6203.927011.86239.3348,805.67
73.2927036.84727.162524.82
89.6614012.37223.861770.21
Stands 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 have a density of more than 200 trees per hectare, a basal area greater than 30 m2, and a volume that exceeds 670 m3 ha−1. Stands 5, 6, and 8 have densities of less than 150 trees per hectare and volumes below 470 m3 ha−1, which is due to the presence of disturbances such as forest fires and pests that have affected the density per unit area.
Table 3. Result of calculating volumetric increments.
Table 3. Result of calculating volumetric increments.
StandSampling PlotStep Time AverageDrilled TreesCurrent Annual Increase
m3%
1419206.6163.007
2322154.4402.114
3424204.8702.319
4917457.0772.508
5516255.2613.758
6415202.6053.722
7223104.6621.554
8226101.1640.831
Table 4. Carbon content per hectare and per stand in megagrams.
Table 4. Carbon content per hectare and per stand in megagrams.
StandSurface ha−1Content of C ha−1 (MgC)Content of C Stand−1 (MgC)
1263.43164.2543,268.71
2194.20110.9221,540.97
3153.63100.4415,430.38
4223.27129.5528,925.22
5178.2670.9512,646.44
6203.9236.257392.48
73.29120.68396.63
89.6641.72403.18
Table 5. Comparison of studies in protected forests where they have calculated the carbon content in aerial biomass in Abies religiosa.
Table 5. Comparison of studies in protected forests where they have calculated the carbon content in aerial biomass in Abies religiosa.
AuthorPlace of StudyStatus of the AreaSpeciesCarbonor Estimated Mg ha−1Observations
Present studyHidalgo, MexicoProtectedAbies religiosa105.72Long-lived forest mass and scarce natural regeneration.
[51]Mexico City, MexicoProtectedAbies religiosa117.00The author makes reference to 3 associations Abies religiosa with shrub and/or herbaceous species. It is not mentioned the method to determine the carbon content.
[52]Mexico City, MexicoProtectedAbies religiosa136.41A conserved forest was studied.
[53]Hidalgo, MexicoProtectedAbies religiosa138.62The author details 3 carbon scenarios for this type of forest, in which include disturbed areas, the area studied was 212.95 hectares.
[54]Veracruz, MexicoProtectedVarious conifers146.30It is a protected forest, the authors detail scenarios where the species of Abies religiosa is combined with other conifers.
[55]Mexico State, MexicoProtectedAbies religiosa163.62A similar methodology was used to calculate the carbon content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fragoso-López, P.I.; Rodríguez-Laguna, R.; Otazo-Sánchez, E.M.; González-Ramírez, C.A.; Valdéz-Lazalde, J.R.; Cortés-Blobaum, H.J.; Razo-Zárate, R. Carbon Sequestration in Protected Areas: A Case Study of an Abies religiosa (H.B.K.) Schlecht. et Cham Forest. Forests 2017, 8, 429. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8110429

AMA Style

Fragoso-López PI, Rodríguez-Laguna R, Otazo-Sánchez EM, González-Ramírez CA, Valdéz-Lazalde JR, Cortés-Blobaum HJ, Razo-Zárate R. Carbon Sequestration in Protected Areas: A Case Study of an Abies religiosa (H.B.K.) Schlecht. et Cham Forest. Forests. 2017; 8(11):429. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8110429

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fragoso-López, Pablo I., Rodrigo Rodríguez-Laguna, Elena M. Otazo-Sánchez, César A. González-Ramírez, José René Valdéz-Lazalde, Hermann J. Cortés-Blobaum, and Ramón Razo-Zárate. 2017. "Carbon Sequestration in Protected Areas: A Case Study of an Abies religiosa (H.B.K.) Schlecht. et Cham Forest" Forests 8, no. 11: 429. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8110429

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop