Comparative analysis of Pinus koraiensis S. ex Z. and Quercus mongolica F. ex L. stand biomass on Primorye in the context of biodiversity

The relationship between biodiversity and the productivity of plant communities is one of the main directions in environmental research. There are numerous confirmations of a positive relationship between productivity and biodiversity, especially evident in the interaction of two complementary species in local conditions, when their mixing causes productivity greater in relation to the productivity of pure stands in the same habitats. When the relationship between productivity and biodiversity is investigated at the regional and global levels with the interaction of tens and hundreds of species, this positive relationship becomes apparent only on huge empirical material. Since it is known that coniferous and deciduous species are adapted to specific forest growing conditions and can occupy different ecological niches, our study attempts to compare the biomass of Pinus koraiensis S. ex Z. and Quercus mongolica F. ex L. natural forests of Primorye in the context of biodiversity. The forests of Primorye are characterized by a complex species composition, when only in the main canopy there can be up to 15 or more species, which complicates the determination of their biological productivity. The object of the study was Pinus koraiensis and Quercus mongolica natural stands, growing respectively on 12 and 14 sample plots in the age range from 35 to 200 years. It is concluded that there is no significant contribution of the share of the main species to explain the variability of the biomass of the assimilation apparatus of these species, as well as the absence of the influence of the species abundance (the number of species in the canopy composition) on the ratio of aboveground biomass of two species, which can be explained by insufficient volume of empirical material. A comparison of the biomass of two species in age dynamics showed that in Quercus mongolica forests, in relation to Pinus koraiensis forests, the biomass of stems is by 17, of branches is by 53, aboveground is by 20% more, and the mass of the assimilation apparatus, on the contrary, is by 33% less. Thus, Quercus mongolica stands with a smaller mass of assimilating organs have a larger mass of stems and branches. Apparently, this is due to the higher efficiency of the assimilation apparatus of Quercus mongolica. The results obtained can be useful in assessing the carbon-depositing capacity of coniferous-deciduous forests of Primorye.

1. Draper N., Smith G. Applied regression analysis. M. : Statistika”, 1973. 392 p.

2. Ivanov A.V., Varentsov V.E., Prikhodko O.Yu., Posokhova L.A. Representatives of the genus Carabus as indicators of biological diversity of coniferous-deciduous forests // Bulletin of the IrGSHA. 2015. No. 69. P. 58-65.

3. Ivanov A.V., Kasatkin A.S., Mudrak V.P., Zamolodchikov D.G. Aboveground phytomass of coniferous stands-broad-leaved forests of Southern Primorye // Lesovedenie (Forest Science). 2018. No. 6. P. 454–463.

4. Kasatkin A.S., Zhanabayeva A.S., Akimov R.Yu. et al. Aboveground phytomass and qualimetry of some tree species of southern Sikhote-Alin // Eco-potential. 2015a. No. 1 (9). P. 41–50. (https://elar.usfeu.ru/bitstream/123456789/4052/1/Kasatkin.pdf ).

5. Kasatkin A.S., Zhanabaeva A.S., Paukov D.V. et al. Aboveground phytomass of trees in the forests of Southern Sikhote-Alin. Message 2 // Eco-potential. 2015b. No. 4 (12). P. 28–31. (https://elar.usfeu.ru/bitstream/123456789/5226/1/Kasatkin.pdf ).

6. Kasatkin A.S., Zhanabaeva A.S., Ivanov A.V. et al. Aboveground phytomass of trees in the forests of Southern Sikhote-Alin. Message 3 // Eco-potential. 2016. No. 1 (13). P. 32–36. (https://elar.usfeu.ru/bitstream/123456789/5516/1/Kasatkin.pdf ).

7. Rakhteenko I.N., Martinovich B.S., Krot L.A., Kalashnikova G.I. Relationships of tree species in pure and mixed stands // Ecological and physiological bases of plant interaction in phytocenoses / Ed. N.D. Nesterovich. Minsk : Science and Technology, 1976. P. 23–94.

8. Usoltsev V.A. Biodiversity in ecosystems: a brief overview of the problem // Eco-potential. 2019a. No. 1 (25). P. 9–47 (http://elar.usfeu.ru/bitstream/123456789/8123/1/eko-19-01.pdf).

9. Usoltsev V.A. Biodiversity and forest bioproductivity in the context of climatogenic biogeography // Eco-potential. 2019b. No. 1 (25). P. 48–115 (http://elar.usfeu.ru/bitstream/123456789/8124/1/eko-19-02.pdf).

10. Chetyrkin E.M. Statistical methods of forecasting. M.: Statistics, 1977. 200 p.

11. Baskerville G.L. Use of logarithmic regression in the estimation of plant biomass // Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 1972. Vol. 2. P. 49-53.

12. Caspersen J.P., Pacala S.W. Successional diversity and forest ecosystem function // Ecological Research. 2001. Vol. 16. Iss. 5. P. 895–903.

13. Forrester D.I., Pretzsch H. Tamm Review: On the strength of evidence when comparing ecosystem functions of mixtures with monocultures // Forest Ecology and Management. 2015. Vol. 356. P. 41–53.

14. Fürst C., Makeschin F., Eisenhauer D.-R. Sustainable methods and ecological processes of a conversion of pure Norway and Scots pine stands into ecologically adapted mixed stands // Contributions to Forest Sciences. 2004. Vol. 20. P. 1–35.

15. Givnish T.J. Adaptive significance of evergreen vs. deciduous leaves: solving the triple paradox // Silva Fennica. 2002. Vol. 36. P. 703–743.

16. Hooper D., Vitousek P. The effects of plant composition and diversity on nutrient cycling // Ecological Monographs. 1997. Vol. 68. P. 121–149.

17. Kinzig A.P., Pacala S.W., Tilman D. The functional consequences of biodiversity. Empirical progress and theoretical extensions (MPB-33). Princeton University Press, 2002. 392 p.

18. Liang J., Zhou M., Tobin P.C. et al. Biodiversity influences plant productivity through niche efficiency // Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2015. Vol. 112. P. 5738–5743.

19. Liang J., Crowther T.W., Picard N. et al. Positive biodiversity-productivity relationship predominant in global forests // Science. 2016. Vol. 354. Article 6309.

20. Nunes L., Lopes D., Rego F., Gower S. Aboveground biomass and net primary production of pine, oak and mixed pine-oak forests on the Vila Real district, Portugal // Forest Ecology and Management. 2013. Vol. 305. P. 38–47.

21. Paquette A., Messier C. The effect of biodiversity on tree productivity: From temperate to boreal forests // Global Ecology and Biogeography. 2011. Vol. 20. P. 170–180.

22. Scherer-Lorenzen M. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: basic principles // Biodi-versity: structure and function. Encyclopedia of life support systems. Vol. 1. W. Barthlott, K.E. Linsenmair, S. Porembski (eds.). Oxford, UK, EOLSS, 2005. P. 68-88.

23. Schulze D. Plant life forms and their carbon, water and nutrient relations // Physiological Plant Ecology II. O.L. Lange, P.S. Nobel, C.B. Osmond, H. Ziegler (eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1982. Р. 615–676.

24. Statgraphics-19. Statgraphics Technologies, Inc. The Plains, Virginia, 2022. http://www.statgraphics.com/.

25. Usoltsev V.A. Single-tree biomass data for remote sensing and ground measuring of Eurasian forests: digital version. The second edition, enlarged. Yekaterinburg: Ural State Forest Engineering University; Botanical Garden of Ural Branch of RAS, 2020. (https://elar.usfeu.ru/handle/123456789/9647).