December, 2011
Journal of Resources and Ecology
J. Resour. Ecol. 2011 2(4) 307-314
Vol.2 No.4
Article
DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1674-764x.2011.04.003
www.jorae.cn
The Flow Processes of Carbon Fixation Value of
Typical Ecosystems
PEI Sha1,2, XIE Gaodi1* and CHEN Long1,2
1 Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS, Beijing 100101, China;
2 Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
Abstract: Based on data from ChinaFLUX this study analyzed the daily value flow processes of carbon
fixation, monthly value distribution, and daily accumulative processes in a year of two kinds of typical
forest, two kinds of grasses and a farmland. The results showed that the annual value of carbon fixation of
these ecosystems was different, and flow processes and cumulative processes followed different trends
over a year. The sequence of the five kinds of ecosystems based on the annual value of carbon fixation
from largest to smallest was Yucheng warm temperate agriculture ecosystem (Yucheng), Qianyanzhou
subtropical artificial coniferous forest ecosystem (Qianyanzhou), Changbai Mountain temperate mixed
coniferous broad-leaved forest ecosystem (Changbaishan), Haibei alpine meadow ecosystem (Haibei)and
Dangxiong alpine meadow ecosystem (Dangxiong). Variability in the daily and monthly carbon fixation at
Qianyanzhou was the smallest, followed by Changbaishan, Yucheng, Dangxiong and Haibei. The cumulative
processes of daily carbon fixation for the five kinds of ecosystems were well fitted to cubic curves.
Key words: value of carbon fixation; flow process; accumulative process; typical ecosystems
1 Introduction
Carbon fixation is an important ecosystem service.
Costanza et al. maintain that ecosystems can adjust
the chemical constituents of the atmosphere, which
consequently brings benefits to humans. Carbon fixation
sustains the balance of CO2 and O2 in the atmosphere and
simultaneously lessens global warming pressures (Costanza
et al. 1997) because carbon fixation is the basis of carbon
sequestration and the formation of the carbon sinks. The
carbon fixation service of ecosystems is formed during
CO2 absorption by ecosystems and is determined by both
photosynthesis and respiration of ecosystems (Xie et al.
2011).
Research into ecosystem services and their valuation
has become a hot topic in ecology, and relative
achievements in this area have mushroomed (de Groot et
al. 2002; Fisher et al. 2009; Yang et al. 2007). The study
of the values of carbon fixation has involved research into
forests, grasslands, wetlands and the farmlands (Costanza
et al. 1997; Nelson et al. 2009; Xie et al. 2003; Zhao et
Received: 2011-06-21 Accepted: 2011-11-14
Foundation: National Natural Science Foundation of China (31070384).
* Corresponding author: XIE Gaodi. Email: [email protected].
al. 2004; Yu et al. 2005; Wang et al. 2007; Li et al. 2007;
Zhao et al. 2010; Zheng et al. 2009; Yu et al. 2007; Min et
al. 2004a, 2004b; Jiang et al. 2007; Liu and Gao 2008; Xie
et al. 2005; Zhang 2004). Attention has been especially
given to forest ecosystem service valuation and carbon
fixation (Barford et al. 2001; Dixon et al. 1994; Piao et al.
2009; Zhang et al. 2006). Zhao et al. (2004) and Yu et al.
(2005) both estimated the annual value of carbon fixation
by the forests of China; however, results differed due to
differences in data resources and assessment methods.
Wang et al. (2007) assessed the annual value of carbon
fixation of forest in Tibet. Zhang et al. (2006) studied the
characteristics of carbon absorption and release of four
kinds of typical ecosystems in northeast China using an
eddy covariance method.
Research into ecosystem services is usually based on
a static status, large region and annual scale, and this has
caused a lack of theoretical foundation for assessment. The
immediate or transient efficiency of the valuation results
also means the function of ecosystem service assessments
has been unable to guide regional environmental
308
Journal of Resources and Ecology Vol.2 No.4, 2011
management (Zhang et al. 2001; Zhao and Yang 2007).
It is essential to research the formation mechanisms
and dynamic processes around ecosystem services on a
minor scale, thereby benefiting the understanding of the
relationships among ecosystem structure, function and
service. Li Shimei et al. studied the flow processes of
typical forest ecosystems in China (Li et al. 2010a–d), but
did not research variation in service flow processes among
different ecosystems. This knowledge would be helpful to
the comprehensive acknowledgment of ecosystem services
and requires attention.
We studied daily value flow processes and value
accumulation processes of carbon fixation across typical
forests, grasslands and a farmland in one year. We aimed to
(i) reveal the formation mechanism and dynamic processes
of carbon fixation at the ecosystem level and (ii) compare
and analyze variation in the value of carbon fixation
among different ecosystems.
2 Data resources and research methods
2.1 Theoretical model
The carbon fixation process of ecosystems is formed
during the growth processes of plants and microbes which
is a successive and accumulative process. It is supposed
that st is the carbon fixation flow supplied by a kind of
ecosystem at time t, thus the ecosystem service flow
function with time is as follows:
(1)
st = q(t)
Then, the total carbon fixed by the specific ecosystem
during the specific period time T is the integral of the
function above: where C is the matter quantity of the
specific ecosystem.
ST = C
∫
T
t =0
q (t ) dt
(2)
2.2 Methods
At present, there are three methods to calculate the
physical quantity of carbon fixed by ecosystems: the
method based on the biomass or the productivity, the
experiment method, and the mathematical method. Most
domestic achievements are based on the first method and
using forests or grasslands survey data, ecosystem stations
monitoring data, experiment data or remote sensing data.
Here, we applied the net ecosystem exchange of carbon
(NEE) monitored by ChinaFLUX stations to calculate
the CO2 fixed by ecosystems to depict the value flow and
accumulative processes of carbon fixation. The results
of the method we used are closer to the real state of the
ecosystem due to the consideration of carbon absorption
by plants and the aspiration of soil creatures. The formula
is as followed:
NCO2 = –NEE · 3.67 · 10
(3)
where N CO 2 is the physical flow of carbon fixed by
ecosystems (kg ha-1 d-1), 3.67 is the conversion factor of C
to CO2, and 10 is the conversion factor of units.
There are many valuation methods of carbon,
mainly being carbon taxation, changed carbon taxation,
afforestation cost, global warming loss, market price
allowed by discharge permission, industrial solid carbon
cost, and the damage avoidance cost. Tol (2005) collected
103 carbon prices, used these to construct a “probability
density function” and found that the mode of carbon price
is 2 USD t-1 C, the median is 14 USD t-1 C, the average
is 93 USD t-1 C, and the 95% percentile is 350 USD t-1 C
(Tol 2005). Xie et al. (2011) deduced that carbon capture
and sequestration (CCS) can accurately reveal the value
of carbon fixation and sequestration in terms of cost, and
this can be considered a suitable method to evaluate the
carbon value fixed or sequestrated by ecosystems. From
the perspective of CCS, the value of carbon fixation is
5–115 USD t-1 CO2, carbon sequestration is 0.6–30 USD t-1
CO2, and by adding both, the carbon sink value is 5.6–145
USD t -1 CO 2 (Xie et al. 2011). We applied the lowest
capture cost of CO2 from coal-fired power plants or gasfired power plants which is 15 USD t-1 CO2 as the carbon
price in this paper. The carbon fixation value formula is as
follows:
VCO2= 15 · NCO2 · 1000
(4)
where VCO2 is the value of carbon fixed by ecosystems (USD
ha-1 d-1), NCO2 is the physical quantity of carbon fixed by
ecosystems (kg ha-1 d-1) and 1000 is the conversion factor
of units.
2.3 Date sources
The initial data used is net ecosystem carbon exchange
(NEE) for the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 from
ChinaFLUX and the data time scale is day. In the
calculation we used the average over the three years. The
software to analyze the initial data was Origin Pro 8.5
(OriginLab., Northampton, USA )and SPSSv14.0 (SPSS
Inc., Chicago, USA).
3 Study areas
The carbon flux stations of ChinaFLUX used here are
Changbai Mountain Forest Ecosystem Research Station,
Qianyanzhou Agriculture Experimental Station of Red
Soil and Hilly Land, Haibei Research Station of Alpine
Meadow Ecosystem, Dangxiong Alpine Meadow Carbon
Flux Research Station, and Yucheng Integrated Agriculture
Experimental Station. The vegetation and soil information
of every station is showed in Table 1.
4 Value flow processes
4.1 Daily value flow processes
The daily value flow processes for carbon fixation in
forests, grassland and farmland were researched and
309
PEI Sha, et al.: The Flow Processes of Carbon Fixation Value of Typical Ecosystems
Table 1 Vegetation and soil types of the ChinaFLUX stations researched in this paper.
Station location Vegetation type
Soil type
Changbaishan
Mixed coniferous broad-leaved forest
mainly with Korean Pine
Mountain dark brown forest soil
Qianyanzhou
Artificial coniferous forests planted
mainly around 1985
Red soil
Haibei
Perennial herb community and alpine
meadow
There is Mat-Cryic Cambisols soil in the flat area or on the sunny slope, and
Mol-Cryic Cambisols soil on the shady slope, and Organic Cryic Gleysols soil
in the wetland
Mainly with Grassland Kobresia meadow Meadow soil
Mainly with winter wheat and summer
The parent material is Yellow River formation in former, mainly with alluvial
maize
soil and salinity alluvial soil, and the surface is mild- moderate loam soil
Dangxiong
Yucheng
Carbon fixation value (USD ha-1 d-1)
4
Changbaishan
3
2
1
0
0
50
100
150
300
350
Dangxiong
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
50
100
150
Carbon fixation value (USD ha-1 d-1)
250
300
350
day
-0.5
7
200
3
Qianyanzhou
2
1
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
day
-1
Carbon fixation value (USD ha-1 d-1)
Carbon fixation value (USD ha-1 d-1)
250
day
-1
1.5
200
peak of the curve is not obvious (Fig. 1). The ranges
of the daily carbon fixation value of Changbaishan and
Qianyanzhou were –0.83 to 3.07and –0.63 to 2.13 USD
ha-1 d-1 respectively, with Changbaishan swinging more
than Qianyanzhou. The average in a year was 0.44 and 0.73
Carbon fixation value (USD ha-1 d-1)
curves are showed in Fig.1.
In the two forests the value flow curve of daily
carbon fixation in a year at Changbaishan followed an
inverse-U shape; whereas, the daily carbon fixation
value of Qianyanzhou changed little in a year, thus the
3.0
Haibei
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
day
Yucheng
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
0
50
100
150
day
200
250
300
350
Fig. 1 Daily flow processes of carbon
fixation value in forests (Changbaishan
and Qianyanzhou), grasslands (Dangxiong
and Haibei), and farmland (Yucheng).
310
Journal of Resources and Ecology Vol.2 No.4, 2011
USD ha-1 d-1, respectively with the value for Qianyanzhou
being bigger than Changbaishan. We conclude that the flux
process of daily carbon fixation value of mixed coniferous
broad -leaved forest in temperate zone showed obvious
seasonal variation, and that of artificial coniferous forest in
a subtropical zone showed little seasonal characteristic.
The value flow curves of daily carbon fixation of the
two alpine meadow ecosystems presented obvious peaks
(Fig. 1). The range of daily carbon fixation value in a
year at Dangxiong was smaller, from –0.40 to 0.62 USD
ha-1 d-1. Comparatively, that of Haibei was bigger, from
–0.62 to 1.89 USD ha-1 d-1, the range being 2.5 times as
much as Dangxiong. The average daily carbon fixation at
Dangxiong and Haibei was –0.06 and 0.10 USD ha-1 d-1,
respectively.
The value flow curve of daily carbon fixation of
Yucheng presented obvious double peaks (Fig. 1). Because
the crop rotation in Yucheng was winter wheat and summer
maize, with two yields in a year, the daily carbon fixation
value in each the grow period of winter wheat and summer
maize had a peak. The range of daily carbon fixation value
of Yucheng was large, from –2.70 to 6.97 USD ha-1 d-1
(average: 0.80 USD ha-1 d-1).
Overall we found that the variability of daily carbon
fixation in a year of Qianyanzhou subtropical artificial
coniferous forests was the smallest, followed by
Changbaishan temperate mixed coniferous broad-leaved
forests, Yucheng agriculture ecosystem, Dangxiong alpine
meadow and the Haibei alpine meadow. It was obvious
that in the non-agriculture ecosystems, the variability of
daily carbon fixation value of subtropical ecosystem was
the smallest, followed by temperate ecosystem; that of
alpine meadow was the biggest.
The sequence of ecosystems according to the range
of daily carbon fixation value of the five ecosystems
from largest to smallest was: Yucheng, Changbaishan,
Qianyanzhou, Haibei and Dangxiong. Amongst the five
kinds of ecosystems the smallest daily carbon fixation
value was in the agriculture ecosystem (–2.70 USD ha-1
d-1). The largest daily carbon fixation value was also in
the agricultural system (6.97 USD ha-1 d-1). The sequence
according to the average daily carbon fixation value across
the five ecosystems from largest to smallest was: Yucheng,
Qianyanzhou, Changbaishan, Haibei and Dangxiong.
The average daily carbon fixation value of Dangxiong
was negative, meaning it is a source of carbon to the
atmosphere. The number of days with positive carbon
fixation values were 280 days in Qianyanzhou, 220 days
in Changbaishan, 196 days in Yucheng, 103 days in
Dangxiong and 101 days in Haibei. There were more days
with positive daily carbon fixation values in the forests
than in the alpine meadow grasslands. The statistical
details regarding daily carbon fixation of different
ecosystems can be seen in Table 2.
Table 2 Statistical details of the daily value of ecosystems’
carbon fixation.
Table 3 Statistical details of the monthly value of ecosystems’
carbon fixation.
Changbaishan
Qianyanzhou
Haibei
Dangxiong
Yucheng
Min
–0.83
–0.63
–0.62
–0.4
–2.7
Max
3.07
2.13
1.89
0.62
6.97
Mean
0.437
0.726
0.097
–0.063
0.804
SD
–0.83
–0.63
–0.62
–0.4
–2.7
C.V (%)
189.91
73.98
358.71
637.15
245.45
4.2 Monthly value characteristics
According to the range of monthly carbon fixation values,
the sequence from largest to smalles was: Yucheng,
Changbaishan, Haibei, Qianyanzhou and Dangxiong.
In the forest ecosystems, there were 12 months of
positive carbon fixation value in Qianyanzhou, and five
months in Changbaishan. In the grass ecosystems there
were four months of positive carbon fixation value in
Haibei, and three months in Dangxiong. Six months for
the Yucheng agricultural ecosystem had positive carbon
fixation values (Fig. 2). The carbon fixation time of forests
was generally longer than for grasslands.
Variability in the monthly carbon fixation value of
the Haibei alpine meadow ecosystem was the largest,
followed by Dangxiong alpine meadow ecosystem,
Yucheng agricultural ecosystem, Changbaishan temperate
mixed coniferous broad-leaved forest, Qianyanzhou
subtropical artificial coniferous was the smallest. The
coefficient of variation for the monthly carbon fixation
was as high as 216.45% (Table 3). Among the four kinds
of non-agriculture ecosystems, variability in the monthly
carbon fixation value in the subtropical ecosystem was
the smallest, followed by the temperate ecosystem, and
the alpine ecosystem was the biggest. This was the same
variability trend as for daily carbon fixation values.
Seasonal variation in the carbon fixation value of the
subtropical forest was not apparent. The carbon fixation
value of the Qianyanzhou subtropical artificial coniferous
forest was distributed rather uniformly across the four
seasons and all the values were positive. Seasonal variation
in the carbon fixation value of the temperate forest, alpine
meadow and agriculture was obvious in a year. The
carbon fixation value of Changbaishan temperate mixed
coniferous broad-leaved forest was mainly formed in the
spring, accounting for 93.61% of the total yearly value.
Changbaishan
Qianyanzhou
Haibei
Dangxiong
Yucheng
Min
–11.4
7.67
–13.45
–7.11
–39.13
Max
63.46
36.78
39.57
11.2
129.43
Mean
13.28
22.09
2.96
–1.93
24.45
SD
23.83
9.04
18.07
6.7
52.92
C.V (%)
179.45
40.92
609.84
347.79
216.45
311
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
1
2
3
4
5
Carbon fixation value (USD ha-1 month-1)
140
7
8
9
10
11
12
month
-20
12
6
Dangxiong
10
8
6
4
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
6
-2
7
8
11
12
9
-4
-6
month
-8
Carbon fixation value (USD ha-1 month-1)
Changbaishan
70
Carbon fixation value (USD ha-1 month-1)
80
Carbon fixation value (USD ha-1 month-1)
Carbon fixation value (USD ha-1 month-1)
PEI Sha, et al.: The Flow Processes of Carbon Fixation Value of Typical Ecosystems
40
Qianyanzhou
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
10
11
12
month
-10
40
Haibei
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-10
-20
month
Yucheng
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
-20
1
2
3
4
5
-40
6
7
8
9
10
11 12
Fig. 2 Monthly value of carbon fixation of
forests (Changbaishan and Qianyanzhou),
grasslands (Dangxiong and Haibei), and
farmland (Yucheng).
month
The carbon fixation value of the Haibei and Dangxiong
alpine meadows was positive only in the summer, whereas
it was negative in other seasons. The carbon fixation value
of Yucheng mainly concentrated in the spring and summer,
the value in the spring being the most, and the value in the
autumn and winter was minus (Table 4).
4.3 Value cumulative processes
The carbon fixation or release of ecosystems is a
continuous physiological process, therefore, the carbon
fixation service supplied by ecosystems is a flow process
and the value of carbon fixation is a cumulative process.
In the five ecosystems studied the annual carbon
fixation value of Yucheng was the highest, at 293 USD
ha -1 y -1, followed by Qianyanzhou (265 USD ha -1 y -1),
Changbaishan (159 USD ha-1 y-1), Haibei (36 USD ha-1
y-1) and Dangxiong (–23 USD ha-1 y-1) (Fig. 3). Among
the natural ecosystems, the annual carbon fixation value
of the subtropical forest was the highest, followed by
Table 4 Proportions of the seasonal value of ecosystems’
carbon fixation (%).
Changbaishan Qianyanzhou Haibei Dangxiong Yucheng
Spring
4.53
24.41
–86.44 –82.61
67.95
Summer
93.61
37.15
259.83
63.38
39.9
Autumn
–0.56
24.7
–39.55
–3.34
–6.19
Winter
2.42
13.73
–33.84 –77.43
–1.67
Note: the seasons were divided by the meteorological method: March to May
is spring, June to August is summer, September to November is autumn,
and December to February is winter.
the temperate forest ecosystem; the value for the alpine
meadow ecosystem was the least. The annual carbon
fixation value of the agricultural ecosystem was ranked
first due to human management measures. However,
because of the harvest of wheat in June and maize in
October, the carbon fixed by the plants was not totally
sequestrated in the farmland. The annual carbon fixation
value of Dangxiong was negative, showing that the
Dangxiong alpine meadow was a carbon source.
312
Journal of Resources and Ecology Vol.2 No.4, 2011
Table 5 Functions of cubic curves of ecosystem cumulative
carbon fixing processes.
250
Regression equations
200
Changbaishan
Qianyanzhou
Haibei
Dangxiong
Yucheng
150
100
50
0
1
-10
2
3
4
Fig. 3 The annual value of carbon fixation for all focal
ecosystems.
The daily accumulative value curves of the five kinds
of ecosystems were fitted to the cubic curves (Fig. 4). The
regression equations are shown in Table 5. Except for
Dangxiong and Haibei, the R2 of the other three regression
equations was above 0.9.
According to the shape of the fit to the cubic curves, the
daily accumulative value processes of the five ecosystems
was classified into three types: (i) the curve was on
the rise from beginning to the end (e.g. Qianyanzhou
subtropical artificial coniferous forest). (ii) The curve was
on the decline at the beginning, on the rise in the long
Observed
Cubic
Cangbaishan
150.00
y = 32.638–1.589x+0.015x –2.7×10 x
y = 4.678–0.111x+0.006x2–9.6×10-6x3
y = 30.517–1.480x+0.010x2–1.7×10-5x3
y = 10.626–0.635x+0.003x2–5.1×10-6x3
y = –5.927–0.510x+0.014x2–2.90×10-5x3
Observed
Cubic
300.00
250.00
100 150 200 250 300 350
Observed
Cubic
0.00
–5.00
Dangxiong
–10.00
25.00
value
0.00
–50.00
0
50
100 150 200 250 300 350
0
50
100 150 200 250 300 350
Observed
Cubic
400.00
300.00
Yucheng
value
value
100.00
0.00
–25.00
-100.00
–30.00
–35.00
–25.00
200.00
–15.00
–20.00
Haibei
50.00
50.00
50
Observed
Cubic
75.00
Qianyanzhou
100.00
value
0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Ecosystems that function as carbon sinks involve two
simultaneous processes: carbon fixation and carbon
sequestration. Carbon fixation is the premise of carbon
sequestration, which can be seen as a production process;
carbon sequestration can be seen as a stock process. There
can be no carbon sequestration or carbon sink without
carbon fixation, therefore, carbon fixation is of important
value. According to the physiological properties of the
flora and fauna in the ecosystem, the process of carbon
0.00
0.00
0.959
0.997
0.672
0.822
0.937
5 Conclusions
150.00
50.00
p
middle stage, and at the end declined (e.g. Changbaishan
temperate mixed coniferous broad-leaved forest and
Yucheng agricultural ecosystem). And (iii) the initial
decline stage, the middle rise stage, and the last another
decline stage were nearly the same lengths (e.g. Haibei and
Dangxiong alpine meadows).
200.00
100.00
-5 3
Note: y was the accumulative value of carbon fixation of ecosystems, the unit
was USD; x was the day series.
5
1-Changbaishan temperate mixed coniferous broad-leaved forest;
2-Qianyanzhou subtropical coniferous forest;
3-Dangxiong alpine meadow;
4-Haibei alpine meadow;
5-Yucheng warm temperate farmland
200.00
2
R2
value
Carbon fixation value (USD ha-1 y-1)
300
0
50
100 150 200 250 300 350
-200.00
Fig. 4 Cubic fit of ecosystem
cumulative carbon fixing processes.
0
50
100 150 200 250 300 350
313
PEI Sha, et al.: The Flow Processes of Carbon Fixation Value of Typical Ecosystems
fixation or release is continuous. Consequently, the carbon
fixation service supplied by the ecosystem is a continuous
process, and the realization of the carbon fixation value is
a cumulative process.
The capacity and process of carbon fixation of different
ecosystems are unlike, thus, the total value and the value
accumulative process are not the same. In the natural
ecosystems studied, the annual carbon fixation value
of the subtropical forest was the highest, followed by
the temperate forest; the alpine meadow was the least.
Variation in the daily or monthly carbon fixation value
of the subtropical forest was the smallest, followed by
the temperate forest; that of the alpine meadow was the
largest. The cubic fitting curves of the daily accumulative
carbon fixation value of the five ecosystems took different
shapes: the curve of Qianyanzhou was on the rise from
the beginning to the end, and the curves of Changbaishan,
Haibei and Dangxiong were all divided into three
stages (decline, rise and another decline). Most of the
Changbaishan curve was in the middle rise stage, while the
three stages of the Haibei and Dangxiong were the same
length.
Due to artificial planting and management, the
annual carbon fixation value of the Yucheng agricultural
ecosystem was the greatest amongst the five ecosystems
studied. However, not all the carbon fixed by the
ecosystem was sequestrated in the ecosystem because of
the harvest. The nature of this ecosystem also meant that
variation in the daily and monthly carbon fixation value
was rather large, after the alpine meadow. The cubic fitting
curve of daily carbon fixation value was categorized as of
the Changbaishan kind.
6 Discussion
This study applied the carbon capture cost in CCS as a
shadow price to evaluate the carbon fixation value of
focal ecosystems based on the results of Xie et al. (2011),
advancing carbon valuation methodology. Our research
into carbon fixation value flow and accumulative processes
at the day and month scales has revealed the relationship
between the process and service of ecosystems and is
helpful in understanding the rule of ecosystem service.
However, the time scale of the ecosystem service research
can be the day, month, year, the growth cycle of plants,
and the succession cycle of the community or ecosystem.
Research into dynamic processes behind ecosystem
services based on annual scales will benefit natural
resource accounting, national economic accounting,
ecological consciousness of humans, and is a practical
guide to the establishment of ecological conservation
measures. In addition, the ecosystem has its own properties
at a large time scale, thus it is better to understand how the
ecosystem service and its value change when the structure
and function of the ecosystem changes at the scale of plant
growth cycles or ecosystem succession cycles.
This study researched flow processes of carbon fixation
values of typical forests, grasslands and farmland at a
daily scale. We also included the grass growth cycle
and the winter wheat and summer maize growth cycle.
Research into the dynamic characteristics and mechanism
of annual ecosystem services will be our next key research
area. Following that we will focus on ecosystem service
characteristics at different stages of ecosystem evolution,
work that will guide ecosystem recovery and management.
References:
Barford C C, S C Wofsy, M L Goulden, et al. 2001. Factors controlling longand short-term sequestration of atmospheric CO2. Science, 294:1688–1691.
Costanza R, R d’Arge, R de Groot, et al. 1997. The value of the world’s
ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387: 253–260.
de Groot R S, M A Wilson, R M J Boumans. 2002. A typology for the
classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and
services. Ecological Economics, 41, 393–408.
Dixon R K, S Brown, R A Houghton, et al. 1994. Carbon pools and flux of
global forest ecosystems. Science, 263:185–190.
Fisher B, R K Turner, P Morling. 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem
services for decision making. Ecological Economics, 68(3):643–653.
Jiang L P, Tan Z H, Xie W, et al. 2007. Estimation of grassland ecosystem
services value of China using remote sensing data. Journal of Natural
Resources, 22(2):161–170. (in Chinese)
Li S M, Xie G D, Yu G R, et al. 2010a. Seasonal dynamics of gas regulation
service in forest ecosystem. Journal of Forestry Research, 21(1):99–103.
Li S M, Xie G D, Zhang C X, et al. 2010b. Flow processes of forest ecosystem
services: a case study on Qianyanzhou Plantation, Jiangxi Province.
Resources Science, 32(5):831–837. (in Chinese)
Li S M, Xie G D, Zhang C X, et al. 2010c. Flow process of water conservation
service of forest ecosystem. Journal of Natural Resources, 25(4):585–593.
(in Chinese)
Li S M, Xie G D, Zhang C X, et al. 2010d. Intra-annual dynamics of soil
conservation value in forest ecosystem. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 30(12):1–9.
(in Chinese)
Li S N, Wang B, Guo H, et al. 2007. Assessment of forest ecosystem services
value in Dagangshan. Science of Soil and Water Conversation, 5(6):58–64.
(in Chinese)
Liu J H, Gao J X. 2008. Measurement and dynamic change of ecosystem
services value in the farming-pastoral ecoton of northern China. Journal of
Mountain Science, 26(2):145–153.
Min Q W, Liu S D, Yang X. 2004a. Evaluation of the ecosystem services of
the Inner Mongolia Steppe. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 12(3):165–169,175. (in
Chinese)
Min Q W, Xie G D, Hu D. 2004b. Service valuation of grassland ecosystem in
Qinghai Province. Resources Science, 26(3):56–60. (in Chinese)
Nelson E, G Mendoza, J Regetz, et al. 2009. Modeling multiple ecosystem
services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at
landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(1):4–11.
Piao S, Fang J, Ciais P, et al. 2009. The carbon balance of terrestrial
ecosystems in China. Nature, 458(7241):1009–1013.
Tol R S J. 2005. The marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions: an
assessment of the uncertainties. Energy Policy, 33 (16), 2064–2074.
Wang J S, Li W H, Ren Q S, et al. 2007. The value of Tibet’s forest ecosystem
services. Journal of Natural Resources, 22(5):831–841. (in Chinese)
Xie G D, Li S M, Xiao Y, et al. 2011. Value of carbon sink: concept and
evaluation. Journal of Natural Resources, 26(1):1–10. (in Chinese)
Xie G D, Lu C X, Leng Y F, et al. 2003. Ecological assets valuation of the
Tibet Plateau. Journal of Natural Resources, 18(2):189–196. (in Chinese)
Xie G D, Xiao Y, Zhen L, et al. 2005. Study on ecosystem services value of
food production in China. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 13(3):10–
13. (in Chinese)
Yang G M, Li W H, Min Q W, et al. 2007. Reflection on the limitation of
ecological services studies in China and suggestion for future research.
China Population, Resources and Environment, 17(1):85–91. (in Chinese)
314
Journal of Resources and Ecology Vol.2 No.4, 2011
Yu Ge, Lu C X, Xie G D. 2007. Seasonal dynamics of ecosystem services of
grassland in Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology,
18(1):47–51. (in Chinese)
Yu X X, Lu S W, Jin F, et al. 2005. The assessment of the forest ecosystem
services evaluation in China. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 25(8):2096–2102. (in
Chinese)
Zhang D C. 2004. The evaluation of the ecosystem services value in Dongting
lake wetland. Economic Geography, 24(3):391–394,432. (in Chinese)
Zhang L M, Yu G R, Sun X M, et al. 2006. Seasonal variation of carbon
exchange of typical ecosystems along the eastern forest transect in China.
Science in China (Ser. D), 49 (Supp. II): 47–62.
Zhang Z Q, Xu Z M, Cheng G D. 2001. Valuation of ecosystem services and
natural capital. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 21(11):1918–1926. (in Chinese)
Zhao G F, Wen Q Z, Ai J L. 2010. Ecosystem service value of forest in Yunnan
Province. Forest Research, 23(2):184–190. (in Chinese)
Zhao J, Yang K. 2007. Valuation of ecosystem services: characteristics, issues
and prospects. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 27(1):346–356. (in Chinese)
Zhao T Q, Ouyang Z Y, Zheng H, et al. 2004. Forest ecosystem services and
their valuation in China. Journal of Natural Resources, 19(4):480–491. (in
Chinese)
Zheng S H, Wang K, Zhao M L, et al. 2009. Primary evaluation of the indirect
value on rangeland ecosystem services in Northern agro-pastoral ecotone —
a case study in Taipusi Banner and Guyuan League. Pratacultural Science,
26(9):18–23. (in Chinese)
典型生态系统碳固定价值流量过程研究
裴 厦1,2，谢高地1，陈 龙1,2
1 中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所，北京 100101；
2 中国科学院研究生院，北京 100049
摘要：本文基于ChinaFLUX的定位观测数据，研究了二种典型森林生态系统、二种典型草地生态系统和一种典型农田生态系
统碳固定价值年内流量和累积过程。研究结果揭示了不同类型生态系统碳固定价值总量的差异，以及价值流量过程和累积曲线的
不同变化趋势。５种生态系统按碳固定年价值由大到小的排序为：禹城＞千烟洲＞长白山＞海北＞当雄。千烟洲碳固定日价值和
月价值年内变异最小，其次为长白山，禹城再次之，年内变异最大的为当雄和海北。５种生态系统碳固定日价值的累积过程都能
很好地拟合为三次方曲线。
关键词：碳固定价值；流量过程；累积过程；典型生态系统