Using fig and eucalyptus for ecosystem restoration and management: good choices with carbon storage ability

Abstract

Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) and fig (Ficus carica) are considered as two of the most important forest species worldwide with nutritional values. This study was carried out in the Ahoochar region, during 2015–2017.This study was conducted to compare the ability of fig and eucalyptus in carbon sequestration as well as some of soil characteristics. This study was conducted as factorial experiment within a complete randomized design. According to the obtained results, fig trees have higher ability of carbon sequestration compared with eucalyptus. Soil of fig trees had a higher pH, bulk density, organic matter, organic carbon, and carbon sequestration compared with eucalyptus. However, the electrical conductivity (EC) of eucalyptus soil was significantly higher than fig. The amounts of organic carbon, organic matter, and carbon sequestration at the soil depth of 0–15 cm were significantly higher than the depth of 15–30. Shallower soils contained higher percentages of organic carbon in comparison with deeper soils, and there was a significant difference between the depths of 0–15 cm and 15–30 cm which contained 1.72% and 0.87% of organic carbon, respectively. The highest percentage of organic carbon was measured in the fig soil at a depth of 0–15 cm (2.33%), whereas the lowest percentage (0.58%) was measured in the control soil at 15–30 cm. In total, fig tree with a good ability in carbon sequestration can be a good candidate for the forest management and rehabilitation especially in dry and semi dryland.

Graphical abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ahmadi H, Heshmati G, Nasseri HR (2014) Potentials of carbon sequestration in soils of arid lands cultivated with haloxylon and Stipagrostis pennata (a case study of Aran and Bidgol). Desert Ecosys Manage 3:29–36

    Google Scholar 

  2. Amundson R (2001) The carbon budget in soils. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 29:535–562

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chowdhury N, Marschner P, Burns R (2011) Response of microbial activity and community structure to decreasing soil osmotic and matric potential. Plant Soil Ecol 344:54–241

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dinakaran J, Krishnayya N (2008) Variations in type of vegetal cover and heterogeneity of soil organic carbon in affecting sink capacity of tropical soils. Curr Sci 94:1144–1150

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dixon RK, Wisniewski J (1995) Global forest systems: an uncertain response to atmospheric pollutants and global climate change? Water Air Soil Pollut 85:101–110

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Farage P, Ardo J, Olsson L, Rienzi E, Ball A, Pretty J (2007) The potential for soil carbon sequestration in three tropical dryland farming systems of Africa and Latin America: a modelling approach. Soil Tillage Res 94:457–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Foroozeh M (2006) Soil and dominant plant carbon sequestration in flood spreading in Garbaygan Fasa. MS. c thesis. Agriculture Sciences and Natural Resources University of Gorgan

  8. Frank AB, Karn JF (2003) Vegetation indices, CO2 flux, and biomass for Northern Plains grasslands. Range Manage 56:382–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. IPCC (2001) Climate change 2007: the scientific basis. In: IPCC third assessment report, working group I, technical summary. Cambridge university press, Cambridge, 881 pp

    Google Scholar 

  10. IPCC. (2007). Climate change 2007: the scientific basis. IPCC fourth assessment. A report of Working group I of the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 18pp

  11. Iranmanesh M, Sadeghi H (2019) The effect of soil organic matter, electrical conductivity and acidity on the soil’s carbon sequestration ability via two species of tamarisk (Tamarix Spp.). Environ Prog Sustain Energy 38(2019):6. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.13230

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Jafari-Haghighi M (2003) Methods of soil analysis, sampling and important physical and chemical properties with an emphasis on theoretical and applied principles. Tehran University Press, Tehran

    Google Scholar 

  13. Johnston M, Homann P, Engstrom J, Grigal D (1996) Changes in ecosystem carbon storage over 40 years on an old-field/forest landscape in east-central Minnesota. For Ecol Manag 83:17–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kilbride CM, Byrne KA, Gardiner JJ (1999) Carbon Sequestration & Irish Forests. COFORD, National Council for Forests and Development

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lal R (2004) Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma 123:1–22

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mahdavi SK, Sandgol A, Azarnivand H, BabaieiKhafaki S, Jafari M, Mahdavi F (2009) Evaluating the distribution density of Atriplex lentiformis in natural habitats and their ability of carbon sequestration in comparison with the distribution density of Atriplex species cultivated in projects of rangeland restoration (a case study of Isfahan). Plant Ecosys 17:19–29

    Google Scholar 

  17. Nelson PN, Rahman BA, Oades JM (1997) Sodicity and clay type: influence on decomposition of added organic matter. Soil Soc America J 61:1052–1057

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Nosetto MD, Jobbagy EG, Paruelo JM (2006) Carbon sequestration in semi-arid rangelands: comparison of Pinus ponderosa plantations and grazing exclusion in NW Patagonia. J Arid Environ 67:142–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Parsamanesh S, Sadeghi H (2019) The phytoremediation effect of Medicago scutellata (L.) mill. On soils under cd-water stress: a good choice for contaminated drylands. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:29065–29073

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Paul KI, Polglase PJ, Nyakuengama JG, Khanna PK (2002) Change in soil carbon following afforestation. For Ecol Manag 168:241–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Petite JR, Jouzel J, Raynaud M, Barnola M, Chappelaz J, Davis M, Delayque M, Katlyakov M, Legrand M, Lipenkov V, Lorius C, Pepin L, Ritz C, Saltzman E, Stievenard M (1999) Climate and atmospheric history of past 420000 years from the Vostock ice core. Antarctica Nature 399:429–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rice, C W (2000) Soil organic C and N in rangeland soils under elevation CO2 and land management. Advances in Terrestrial Ecosystem Carbon Inventory, Measurements, and Monitoring Conference in Raleigh, North Carolina, October, 3–5

  23. Sadeghi H, Ghasemi Nejad Raeini M (2016) Estimation and comparison of carbon sequestration by: Zygophyllum atriplicoides and Gymnocarpus decander. Clean Soil, Air, Water 44:284–290. https://doi.org/10.1002/clen.20140063

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. SAS Institute Inc (2004) SAS/STAT 9.1 User’s guide. SAS Publishing, Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute Inc., pp 5136

  25. Schoeneberger MM (2009) Agroforestry: working trees for sequestering carbon on agricultural lands. Agrofor Syst 75:27–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Schuman GE, Janzen H, Herrick JE (2002) Soil carbon information and potential carbon sequestration by rangelands. Environ Pollut 116:391–396

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sedjo RA (1989) Forests to offset the greenhouse effect. Forestry. 87:12–15

    Google Scholar 

  28. Setia R, Gottschalk P, Smith P, Marschner P, Baldock J, Setia D, Smith J (2013) Soil salinity decreased global soil organic carbon stocks. Sci Total Environ 465:267–272

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Singh G, Singh NT (1993) Mesquite for revegetation of salt lands. Central Soil Salinity Research Institute Bulletin 18:20–26

  30. Singh G, Bala N, Chaudhuri KK, Meena RL (2003) Carbon sequestration potential of common access resources in arid and semi-arid regions of northwestern India. Indian Forester 129:859–864

    Google Scholar 

  31. Skyllberg U (1991) Seasonal variation of PHH2O and PHCaCl2 in centimeter-layers of mor humus in a Piceaabies (L.) karst. Stand. Scandinavian J Forest Res 6:3–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Su YZ (2007) Soil carbon and nitrogen sequestration following the conversion of cropland to alfalfa forage land in northwest China. Soil Tillage Res 92:181–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. UNDP (2000) Carbon sequestration in the desertified rangelands of Hossain-Abad through community based management program coordination. PP. 1–7

  34. Varamesh S, Hosseini SM, Abdi N, Akbariniya M (2009) The effects of forestry on increasing carbon sequestration and improving soil characteristics. Association of Forestry of Iran 2:25–35

  35. Varamesh S, Hosseini SM, Abdi N (2010) Urban forests and their capability in the sequestration of atmospheric carbon. Association of Forestry of Iran 2(1):25–35

  36. Vural A (2018) Relationship between the geological environment and element accumulation capacity of Helichrysum arenarium. Arab J Geosci 11:258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-018-3609-0

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Vural A (2015) Biogeochemical characteristics of Rosa canina grown in hydrothermally contaminated soils of the Gümüşhane Province, Northeast Turkey. Environ Monit Assess 187:486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-015-4708-y

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wan Y, Lin E, Xiong W, Li Y (2010) Modeling the impact of climate change on soil organic carbon stock in upland soils in the 21th century in Chaina. Agric Ecosyst Environ 141:23–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Woomer PL, Tourc A, Sall M (2004) Carbon stocks in Senegal’s Sahel transition zone. Arid Environ 59:499–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Yan H, Cao M, Liu J, Tao B (2007) Potential and sustainability for carbon sequestration with improved soil management in agricultural soils of China. Agric Ecosyst Environ 121:325–335

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Zhao HL, He YH, Zhou RL, Su YZ, Li YQ, Drake S (2009) Effects of desertification on soil organic C and N content in sandy farmland and grassland of Inner Mongolia. Catena. 77:187–191

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors received financial support from the Department of Natural Resources and Environment, College of Agriculture, Shiraz University, to conduct the present study.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hossein Sadeghi.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Highlights

Eucalyptus camaldulensis and Ficus carica are two of the most important species

• The management factors affect the carbon sequestration process

• The highest amount of stored carbon was found in stem tissues

• The highest carbon sequestration was obtained in soil at 0-–15-cm depth

Responsible editor: Philippe Garrigues

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pazhavand, Z., Sadeghi, H. Using fig and eucalyptus for ecosystem restoration and management: good choices with carbon storage ability. Environ Sci Pollut Res (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09169-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Carbon sequestration
  • Environmental management
  • Eucalyptus
  • Fig trees
  • Organic carbon