The effects of diversity and trait dominance on Brazilian Cerrado aboveground carbon stocks vary with vegetation structure

Le résumé fourni par la source

ABSTRACT Carbon storage is a crucial ecosystem function supporting climate change mitigation, which varies across ecosystems and vegetation types. Despite recent studies showing that tree diversity can drive tree aboveground carbon stocks, we still have limited knowledge on the importance of different components of biodiversity for carbon storage in different vegetation types, especially within understudied ecosystems as the Brazilian Cerrado . In this study we aimed to understand (i) How does the relationship between taxonomic diversity and carbon storage differ among vegetation types in the Cerrado ? (ii) What is the most influential factor driving aboveground carbon across Cerrado vegetation types: taxonomic diversity, functional diversity, phylogenetic diversity, or functional dominance? Using surveys of woody species from 167 plots in the Brazilian Cerrado , we calculated taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic diversity, and functional dominance of tree species, and assessed the relationship between these diversity components and aboveground carbon stock. The results showed that aboveground carbon stock increased significantly along the vegetational structural gradient, being highest in Woodland Savanna (33.3 ± 16.9 Mg/ha) and lowest in Typical Savanna (6.96 ± 5.28 Mg/ha). Diversity - aboveground carbon stock relationships differed across vegetation types. In Typical savanna, functional richness was positively related to aboveground carbon. In Woodland savanna, carbon stocks were negatively driven by functional dominance, carbon decreased with higher CWM wood density. Therefore, carbon storage in the Cerrado increases from open to forest-like vegetation, but the drivers varied: in open areas, species complementarity boosts carbon stocks, while in denser formations, carbon is mainly determined by the dominance of species with particular functional traits.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.