This article was downloaded by: [Temple University Libraries]On: 23 November 2014, At: 03:01Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Land Use SciencePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tlus20

The effects of land-use and land-coverchanges on carbon storage in foresttimber biomass: a case study in Torul,TurkeySedat Keles a , Ali İhsan Kadioğullari b & Emin Zeki Başkent b

a Department of Forest Engineering , Çankiri KaratekinUniversity , Çankiri , Turkeyb Faculty of Forestry, Karadeniz Technical University , Trabzon ,TurkeyPublished online: 16 Feb 2011.

To cite this article: Sedat Keles , Ali İhsan Kadioğullari & Emin Zeki Başkent (2012) The effects ofland-use and land-cover changes on carbon storage in forest timber biomass: a case study in Torul,Turkey, Journal of Land Use Science, 7:2, 125-133, DOI: 10.1080/1747423X.2010.537789

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2010.537789

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

03:

01 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Journal of Land Use ScienceVol. 7, No. 2, June 2012, 125–133

The effects of land-use and land-cover changes on carbon storagein forest timber biomass: a case study in Torul, Turkey

Sedat Kelesa,*, Ali Ihsan Kadiogullarib, and Emin Zeki Baskentb

aDepartment of Forest Engineering, Çankiri Karatekin University, Çankiri, Turkey; bFaculty ofForestry, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey

(Received 25 May 2010; final version received 28 October 2010)

This study presents spatial and temporal changes of carbon storages of forest tim-ber biomass in a typical forest management unit of the northeastern part of Turkey.The effects of land-use and land-cover changes on the amount of carbon storage areanalyzed. Temporal changes of carbon storage of the area were estimated using for-est inventory data. The spatial distribution of carbon densities was mapped usingGeographic Information Systems (GISs). As an overall change between 1984 and 2005,there was a net increase of 12,379 ha in forested areas. The results indicated thatthe total amount of carbon stored in the above- and belowground forest ecosystemsincreased nearly by 47% from one period to the next mainly due to increase of forestarea and the quality of forest ecosystem structure.

Keywords: carbon storage; forest ecosystem; GIS; land-use and land-cover change

1. Introduction

Recently, the role of forest ecosystems in climate change has created great interest inforestry research and development. Various research results have shown that atmosphericcarbon dioxide increases as a result of a number of factors such as fossil fuel combustion,forest degradation, and destruction (Prasad, Kant, and Badarinath 2002; Backeus et al.2005). In this context, preservation of biodiversity and maintenance of other ecosystemvalues in forest ecosystems would help to minimize the atmospheric concentration of car-bon dioxide (Huston and Marland 2003). Carbon sequestration is one of the most importantforest ecosystem values as forests and forest soils have large capacities to store carbon ascompared with others (Cannell, Dewar, and Thornley 1992; Dixon et al. 1994).

Land-use and land-cover changes are generally considered to be a major driving forcefor three characteristics of a forest ecosystem: structure, function, and dynamics (Formanand Godron 1986; Turner 1989; Turner and Gardner 1991; Naveh and Lieberman 1994;Forman 1995; Olsen, Dale, and Foster 2007). Land-use and land-cover changes are affectedby human-induced activities and population growth, socioeconomic factors, expansion offorests, urbanization, natural factors such as insects, and agricultural activities (Çakır et al.2008). Conversely, the main causes of deforestation, forest loss, and fragmentation arehuman activities such as population pressure, high population density, and increasingdemand of land for agriculture, residences, and wood production from forests (Kennedy

*Corresponding author. Email: skeles79@gmail.com

ISSN 1747-423X print/ISSN 1747-4248 online© 2012 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2010.537789http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

03:

01 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

126 S. Keles et al.

and Spies 2004; Wakeel, Rao, Maikhuri, and Saxena 2005; Cayuela, Rey Benayas, andEcheverria 2006; Çakır et al. 2008). In this sense, the increase of atmospheric greenhousegases and the potential consequences of future climate change have generated great inter-est in understanding and quantifying the role of forest ecosystems in the carbon cycle.Therefore, the rate of land-use and land-cover changes affecting the amounts of carbonsequestrations in the atmosphere has become an important indicator of human disturbance(Kennedy and Spies 2004; Wakeel et al. 2005; Cayuela et al. 2006).

The main objective of this paper is to generate spatially explicit estimates of the car-bon storage capacities of a forest ecosystem in Turkey between 1984 and 2005 using aGeographic Information System (GIS). Forest inventory data and some biomass conver-sion factors for various forest species were used to estimate the amount of carbon storages.The spatial distribution of carbon densities was mapped with the GIS. Total above- andbelowground carbon densities of the forest ecosystem in various periods were evaluatedin the context of land-use and forest cover type changes, as well as growing stocks forhardwood and softwood species in the case study area.

2. Material and methods

2.1. The case study area

The Torul State Forest is located in a typical mountain watershed covering an area of150,155 ha along the Northeastern part of Turkey (Figure 1). The altitude varies between500 and 3200 m above sea level, with an average slope of approximately 24%. Thevegetation is composed of tree species, Pinus silvestris, Abies nordmandiana, Quercus,Juniperus, and an orchard species of Apple. The Torul State Forest Enterprise situated inTorul is responsible for managing the forest ecosystems in the case study area. The demo-graphic dynamics of Torul are mostly dominated by migration of the rural population tourban centers both within and outside the district between 1980 and 2000. For example,the rural population of the Torul State Forest Enterprise area reduced to half whereas theurban population tripled during the study period.

2.2. Method

Forest biomass is the basic variable in estimating the amounts of carbon stored by for-est ecosystems (Brown, Sathaye, Cannell, and Kauppi 1996; Brown, Schroeder, and Kern1999; Backéus, Wikström, and Lämås 2005; Keles and Baskent 2007; Sivrikaya, Keles,and Çakır 2007; Keles, Yolasıgmaz, and Baskent 2007). In this paper, carbon storagesof hardwood and softwood species were estimated separately. The net carbon storagein the forest is considered and estimated as a periodical difference between the carboncaptured by the biomass. Biomass for each forest types was calculated using biomassconversion factors developed and suggested by various researchers (Asan, Destan, andÖzkan 2002; Yolasıgmaz 2004; Keles and Baskent 2007; Keles et al. 2007; Baskent,Keles, and Yolasıgmaz 2008). To predict aboveground biomass, the timber volume ofsoftwoods and hardwoods were multiplied by species-specific conversion factors. Theseconversion factors are 1.25 for hardwoods and 1.2 for softwoods. Equations that com-pute fresh-weight biomass were multiplied by species-specific conversion factors to yielddry-weight biomass. The conversion factors are 0.64 for hardwoods and 0.473 for soft-woods (Asan et al. 2002; Yolasıgmaz 2004; Keles and Baskent 2007; Keles et al.2007; Baskent et al. 2008). The root biomass was predicted according to the aboveground

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

03:

01 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Journal of Land Use Science 127

4540

000

4520

000

4500

000

4480

000

4460

000

4540

000

4520

000

4500

000

4480

000

4460

000

500000 520000 540000

2500–3200

Elevation

2000–2500

1500–2000

1000–1500

500–1000

0–500

500000 520000 540000

Figure 1. The geographic location of the study area surrounded by solid blue lines.

biomass. For this reason, the aboveground biomass was multiplied by predetermined root-to-shoot ratios. These ratios are 0.15 for hardwoods and 0.20 for softwoods (Asan et al.2002; Yolasıgmaz 2004; Keles and Baskent 2007; Keles et al. 2007; Baskent et al. 2008).The total dry-weight biomass of a tree was converted to total stored carbon by multiplyingby 0.5. All conversion factors used in this study are also coefficients proposed for Turkeyby the Near East Region Convention application guidelines. This study is limited to above-and belowground carbon storage in forest timber biomass. The biomass estimated includes

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

03:

01 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

128 S. Keles et al.

only the biomass of trees with diameter at breast height >8 cm. Because of the uncertaintyas well as inaccurate information, carbon storage in the litter, soil, and the understorey wasnot included in the model.

The geographic distribution of the above- and belowground carbon storage in Torulforest was determined using the forest cover type maps in 1972 and 2005. The forest covertypes were derived by interpreting aerial photographs in accordance with high-resolutionsatellite images that are rectified with field survey data. In this work, the forest cover typemaps of the case study area were digitized and processed using the Arc/Info 8.3 GIS witha maximum root mean square error under 10 m and a spatial database was established. Thedatabase consists of stand types, crown closures, and forest development stages in additionto locational information such as area and perimeter. Later, the per hectare values suchas volume of each stand was added to the database. The above- and belowground carbonstorages were estimated using some GIS functions and above- and belowground carbonstorage maps (m3/ha) were produced in 1984 and 2005 for Torul forest by reclassifyingthe forest cover type maps.

3. Results

According to the digitized stand type maps from the forest management plans between1984 and 2005, there was a net increase of 12,379 ha in forest area. The productive for-est area increased by 3161 ha and degraded forest area increased by 9216 ha altogethercausing the bare land (treeless area) to decrease by 12,379 ha (Figure 2). Cumulative forestimprovement accounted for 8.24% of the whole of the Torul State Forest Enterprise area(12,379 ha).

The transition among the major forest cover types between 1984 and 2005 was deter-mined based on forest management plans. A broad level analysis showed that about 6134 haof forest areas changed into non-forest areas, whereas 18,512 ha of non-forest areaschanged into forest areas, with a net increase in forest area of 12,379 ha. The fir areas

500000

4520

000

4500

000

4480

000

4460

000

4520

000N

Land cover type (Stand Map 1984)

0 5 10 20km

4500

000

4480

000

520000 540000 560000

500000 520000 540000 560000

500000

4520

000

4500

000

4480

000

4520

000N

Land cover type (Stand Map 2005)

0 5 10 20km

4500

000

4480

000

4460

000

520000 540000 560000

500000 520000 540000 560000

Degraded hardwood

Degraded softwoodDegraded hard–softwood

Degraded hard–softwood

Hard–softwood

Agriculture setlement Hardwood

Open areas

Setlement

Soft–hardwood

Softwood

Water Degraded hardwood

Degraded softwoodDegraded hard–softwood

Degraded hard–softwood

Hard–softwood

Agriculture setlement Hardwood

Open areas

Setlement

Soft–hardwood

Softwood

Water

Figure 2. The spatial distribution of the cover types of the Torul State Forest Industry between 1984and 2005.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

03:

01 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Journal of Land Use Science 129

changed into fir–pine mix areas by about 1885 ha, whereas the pine forest area changedinto fir–pine areas by about 1 402 ha. The change of treeless areas into settlement wasabout 2671 ha, whereas change of settlement areas into open areas was about 926 ha. Theunchanged areas between 1984 and 2005 are as follows: 60,569 ha open areas, 2919 hadegraded softwood, 19,538 ha softwood, and 6084 ha degraded hardwood.

As of 1984, it was estimated that the forest ecosystems in Torul forest had 1,970,835tons of carbon above- and belowground. Although 1,659,620 tons of whole carbon stor-ages in the forest ecosystem are aboveground, the rest (311,215 tons) are belowground.However, it was estimated that the forest ecosystems contained 2,912,341 tons of carbon,with 2,453,244 tons aboveground and 459,097 tons of carbon belowground in the year of2005. The spatial distribution of the carbon densities of Torul forest in 1984 and 2005 areshown in Figure 3. As a result, carbon storages increased by about 47% (from 1,970,835tons in 1984 to 2,912,341 tons in 2005) over 21 years.

4. Discussion and conclusion

This study analyzed the spatial and temporal changes of carbon storage in a forest man-agement area covering the Torul towns in northeastern Turkey. The quantitative evidenceof land-use/land-cover dynamics presented here showed that there were drastic changesin the temporal and spatial patterns of land-use/land-cover classes, especially in the forestresources in Torul.

The results showed that the amount of carbon storage of Torul forest from 1984 to2005 increased mainly due to increasing forest and productive forest areas, as well as thequality of forest ecosystems. The percentage of forest cover in the Torul forest increasedfrom 42.95% in 1984 to 51.20% in 2005, based on stand type map. Cumulative forestimprovement accounted for 8.24% of the whole of the Torul State Forest Enterprise area(12,379 ha) and 19.9% of the forested area of Torul between 1984 and 2005. This translatesto an annual forest improvement rate of 0.92%.

Conversely, the quality of forest ecosystem structure increased according to a numberof parameters. In this context, the forest cover type maps were further analyzed to observeany changes in the forest structure. In terms of crown closure (% coverage) change between1984 and 2005, stands with fully covered area whose crown closure is greater than 70%increased by about 8.29% (Figure 4). However, stands with medium covered area (crownclosure between 41% and 70%) decreased by about 2.14%, and those with low coveredarea (crown closure between 11% and 40%) decreased by about 2.34%. These changesin crown closures of the forest ecosystem showed that the quality of the forest structureincreased between 1984 and 2005.

Another parameter used to note the changes in the quality of the forest structure isthe development stages of the forest ecosystem. According to stand type maps, the forestsin 1984 were mostly clumped into young, mature, and overmature development stages. In2005, however, the forest is generally concentrated into mature development stages (Figure5). These changes would indicate that there are now adequate areas for regeneration forsustainable forestry. The rest of the area was left to advance to older development stages.The overall implication is that the forest is developing toward older stages. These resultscall upon immediate attention through forest management planning actions for sustainableuse of the forest’s resources.

Furthermore, the total growing stock of the forest affecting the amount of carbon stor-age increased by 47% (from 1,970,834 m3 in 1984 to 2,912,341 m3 in 2005) as shownin Figure 6. All the changes in the forest structure indicate that the quality of the for-est ecosystem structure during a 21-year period has increased, positively affecting the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

03:

01 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

130 S. Keles et al.

4520

000 500000

(a)

520000 540000 560000

500000 520000 540000 560000

4500

000

4480

000

4520

000

4500

000

4480

000

Carbon storage (ton/ha)

Open areas

0.1–25

50.1–75

75.1–100

100.1–125

125.1–150

N

25.1–50

4520

000 500000 520000 540000 560000

500000 520000 540000 560000

4500

000

4480

000

4520

000

4500

000

4480

000

Carbon storage (ton/ha)

Open areas

0.1–25

50.1–75

75.1–100

100.1–125

125.1–150

150.1–175

175.1–20025.1–50

(b)

Figure 3. Maps of carbon storage (above plus belowground) of Torul forest in the years (a) 1984and (b) 2005.

amount of carbon storage in Torul forest. A number of factors could account for the drasticchanges of the forest land-base in favor of forest management. First, almost half of therural population in 1984 have left for the urban areas to seek higher education or good

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

03:

01 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Journal of Land Use Science 131

20000

16000

12000

8000

4000

0Regenerated

areasLow coverage Medium

coverageFull coverage

Crown closures of forest

Are

a (h

a)

1984 2005

Figure 4. The change in crown closure according to stand type maps between 1984 and 2005.

20000

16000

12000

8000

4000

0Regenerated Young Mature Mature and

overmatureOvermature

Development stages of forest

Are

a (h

a)

1984 2005

Figure 5. Change in development stages of the Torul forests.

45,000

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5000

0–50

50–1

00

100–

150

150–

200

200–

250

250–

300

300–

350

350–

400

400–

450

450–

500

500–

568

Volume per hectare

Are

a (h

a)

1984 2005

Figure 6. Distribution of areas by volume per hectare of Torul forest in the years 1984 and 2005.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

03:

01 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

132 S. Keles et al.

jobs as the rural areas are not productive enough for the next generation to maintain theirlivelihoods. There were no real attractions for the youth to remain in the areas in whichthey were born. Thus, most of the open lands near, inside, or beside the forest ecosystemswere abandoned and have become forest over the years. Second, the state forest industryhas made a great effort to protect the current forest and plant openings over the last fewdecades. Third, there has been a great improvement in public awareness in protecting for-est resources toward sustainable use. Lastly, an increase in welfare conditions of the localpeople has a great effect on the improvement of the forest areas in the case study area.

In conclusion, as a major indicator of human disturbances, land-use and land-coverchanges need to be incorporated into carbon budget calculations. The changes in land-useand land-cover should be analyzed carefully to see both spatial and temporal dynamicsover a significant amount of time and relatively larger areas. The changes may cause modi-fication of forest management plans as well as forest policies across the country; they maytrigger significant impacts not only on forest management activities but also on environ-mental concerns like carbon balance, water production, and erosion control aspects fromsocio-cultural implications. Identifying and analyzing land-use and land-cover changes tohelp generate management implications are profound in developing multiple-use forestplans.

ReferencesAsan, Ü., Destan, S., and Özkan, U.Y. (2002), “Istanbul korularının karbon depolama, oksijen üre-

timi ve toz tutma kapasitesinin kestirilmesi” [in Turkish], Orman Amenajamanýnda KavramsalAçılımlar ve Yeni Hedefler Sempozyumu, Istanbul, Turkey: Bildiriler Kitabı, pp. 194–202.

Backéus, S., Wikström, P., and Lämås, T. (2005), “A Model for Regional Analysis of CarbonSequestration and Timber Production,” Forest Ecology and Management, 216, 28–40.

Baskent, E.Z., Keles, S., and Yolasıgmaz, H.A. (2008), “Comparing Multi-Purpose ForestManagement with Timber Management in Incorporating Timber, Carbon and Oxygen Values:A Case Study,” Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 23(2), 105–120.

Brown, S., Sathaye, J., Cannell, M., and Kauppi, P.E. (1996), “Management of Forests for Mitigationof Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” in Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation ofClimate Change: Scientific Analyses. Contribution of Working Group II to the Second AssessmentReport of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. R.T. Watson, M.C. Zinyowera,and R.H. Moss, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 773–798.

Brown, S., Schroeder, P., and Kern, J. (1999), “Spatial Distribution of Biomass in Forests of theEastern USA,” Forest Ecology and Management, 123, 81–90.

Çakır, G., Ün, C., Baskent, E.Z., Köse, S., Sivrikaya, F., and Keles, S. (2008), “EvaluatingUrbanization, Fragmentation, and Land Use/Land Cover Change Pattern in Istanbul City, Turkeyfrom 1971 to 2002,” Land Degradation and Development, 19, 663–675.

Cannell, M., Dewar, R.C., and Thornley, J.H.M. (1992), “Carbon Flux and Storage in EuropeanForests,” in Responses of Forest Ecosystems to Environmental Changes, eds. A. Teller, P. Mathy,and J.N.R. Jeffers, New York: Elsevier, pp. 256–271.

Cayuela, L., Rey Benayas, J.M., and Echeverria, C. (2006), “Clearance and Fragmentation ofTropical Montane Forests in the Highlands of Chiapas, Mexico (1975–2000),” Forest Ecologyand Management, pp. 226, 208–218.

Dixon, R.K., Brown, S., Houghton, R.A., Solomon, A.M., Trexler, M.C., and Wisniewski, J. (1994),“Carbon pool and flux of global forest ecosystems,” Science, 263, 185–190.

Forman, R.T.T. (1995), “Some General Principles of Landscape and Regional Ecology,” LandscapeEcology, 10, 133–142.

Forman, R.T.T., and Godron, M. (1986), Landscape Ecology, New York, NY: John Wiley.Huston, M., and Marland, G. (2003), “Carbon Management and Biodiversity,” Journal of

Environmental Management, 67, 77–86.Keles, S., and Baskent, E.Z. (2007), “Modeling and Analyzing Timber Production and Carbon

Sequestration Values of Forest Ecosystems: A Case Study,” Polish Journal of EnvironmentalStudies, 16(3), 473–479.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

03:

01 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Journal of Land Use Science 133

Keles, S., Yolasıgmaz, H.A., and Baskent, E.Z. (2007), “Long Term Modeling and Analyzing ofSome Important Forest Ecosystem Values with Linear Programming,” Fresenius EnvironmentalBulletin, 16(8), 963–972.

Kennedy, R.S.H., and Spies, T.A. (2004), “Dynamics of Hardwood Patches in a Conifer Matrix: 54Years of Change in a Forested Landscape in Coastal Oregon, USA,” Biological Conservation,122, 363–374.

Naveh, Z., and Lieberman, A.S. (1994), Landscape Ecology: Theory and Application, New York,NY: Springer Verlag.

Olsen, L.M., Dale, V.H., and Foster, T. (2007), “Landscape Patterns as Indicators of EcologicalChange at Fort Benning, GA,” Landscape and Urban Planning, 79, 137–149.

Prasad, V.K., Kant, Y., and Badarinath, K.V.S. (2002), “Land Use Changes and Modeling CarbonFluxes from Satellite Data,” Advances in Space Research, 30(11), 2511–2516.

Sivrikaya, F., Keles, S., and Çakır, G. (2007), “Spatial Distribution and Temporal Change ofCarbon Storage in Timber Biomass of Two Different Forest Management Units,” EnvironmentalMonitoring and Assessment, 132, 429–438.

Turner, M.G. (1989), “Landscape Ecology: The Effect of Pattern on Process,” Annual Review ofEcology Evolution and Systematics, 20, 171–197.

Turner, M.G., and Gardner, R.H. (1991), Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology, New York,NY: Springer Verlag.

Wakeel, A., Rao, K.S., Maikhuri, R.K., and Saxena, K.G. (2005), “Forest Management and LandUse/Cover Changes in a Typical Micro Watershed in the Mid-Elevation Zone of CentralHimalaya, India,” Forest Ecology and Management, 213, 229–242.

Yolasıgmaz, H.A. (2004), “The Concept and the Implementation of Forest Ecosystem Management(A Case Study of Artvin Planning Unit),” Ph.D. thesis, Karadeniz Technical University, Facultyof Forestry, Trabzon, p. 185.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

03:

01 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014