Biomass and carbon sequestration of ponderosa pine plantations and native cypress forests in northwest Patagonia

Fast growth tree plantations and secondary forests are considered highly efficient carbon sinks. In northwest Patagonia, more than 2 million ha of rangelands are suitable for forestry, and tree plantation or native forest restoration could largely contribute to climate change mitigation. The commonest baseline is the heavily grazed gramineous steppe of Festuca pallescens (St. Yves) Parodi. To assess the carbon sequestration potential of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa (Dougl.) Laws) plantations and native cypress (Austrocedrus chilensis (Don) Flor. et Boutl.), individual above and below ground biomass models were developed, and scaled to stand level in forests between 600 and 1500 annual rainfall. To calculate the carbon sequestration baseline, the pasture biomass was simulated. Also, soil carbon at two depths was assessed in paired pine-cypress-pasture sample plots, the same as the litter carbon content of both forest types. Individual stem, foliage, branch and root log linear equations adjusted for pine and cypress trees presented similar slopes (P>0.05), although some differed in the elevations. Biomass carbon was 52.3 Mg ha⁻¹ (S.D.=30.6) for pine stands and 73.2 Mg ha⁻¹ (S.D.=95.4) for cypress forests, given stand volumes of 148.1 and 168.4 m³ ha⁻¹, respectively. Soil carbon (litter included) was 86.3 Mg ha⁻¹ (S.D.=46.5) for pine stands and 116.5 Mg ha⁻¹ (S.D.=38.5) for cypress. Root/shoot ratio was 19.5 and 11.4%, respectively. The low r/s value for cypress may account for differences in nutrient cycling and water uptake potential. At stand level, differences in foliage, taproot and soil carbon compartments were highly significative (P<0.01) between both forest types. In pine stands, both biomass and soil carbon were highly explained by the rainfall gradient (r²=0.94). Nevertheless, such a relationship was not found for cypress, possibly due to stand and soil disturbances in sample plots. The carbon baseline estimated in pasture biomass, including litter, was 2.6 Mg ha⁻¹ (S.D.=0.8). Since no differences in soil carbon were found between pasture and both forest types, additionality should be accounted only by biomass. However, the replacement of pasture by pine plantations may decrease the soil carbon storage, at least during the first years. On the other hand, the soil may be a more relevant compartment of sequestered carbon in cypress forests, and if pine plantation replaces cypress forests, soil carbon losses could cause a negative balance.