Close Home
iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry
vol. 10, pp. 754-758
Copyright © 2017 by the Italian Society of Silviculture and Forest Ecology
doi: 10.3832/ifor2421-010

Research Articles

Tissue carbon concentration of 175 Mexican forest species

Marín Pompa-García (1), José Angel Sigala-Rodríguez (2), Enrique Jurado (3)Corresponding author, Joel Flores (4)

Introduction 

Estimates of carbon stocks of terrestrial ecosystems are complex ([27]), due to a large species and ecosystem diversity caused by the convergence of Nearctic and Tropical regions ([31]), climate heterogeneity ([32]), and complex geological and climatic history ([13]).

Knowledge on carbon (C) concentration of different plant species and plant tissues is essential to accurately estimate C stocks in forest ecosystems ([38]) and thus understanding of C dynamics. Studies in different parts of the world and in Mexico often use a constant value for C concentration (usually 50%) to model C stocks in different ecosystems and taxa ([28], [40], [30]). Other authors, however, argue that such generalization can under- or over-estimate real C stocks ([43], [19]), causing uncertainty in the potential of forests as C sinks ([22]).

Variations in C concentration between species is influenced by phylogeny and the environment (biotic and abiotic) in which plant species grow ([37]). Different plant species may have a specific chemical composition and carbon compounds due to their metabolism, as physiology and morphology are linked to an optimal functioning under the ecological conditions where they have evolved ([35]). Within a given individual, C concentration varies between tissues ([42]), depending to a larger extent on the chemistry of such tissues ([34]) than on plant age or size ([4]). This study presents C concentration values for 175 plant species in 18 families from temperate, tropical, subtropical, arid and semiarid zones in Mexico to establish whether and how biomass C concentration differed across environments, taxa and plant tissues. Such dataset will help determine if the use of the generalized assumption of 50% C content is applicable for Mexican forests and similar ecosystems and species in other parts of the world.

Material and methods 

Experimental design and C concentration determinations

A selective sampling of 175 representative forest species ([29]) was carried out across Mexican environments. Sites were selected trying to encompass the large environmental variation but restricted by logging and accessibility. Temperate, tropical/subtropical and arid/ semiarid ecosystems were targeted as per González-Medrano ([16]). In 68 localities in 17 states (Fig. S1 in Supplementary materials), at least three individuals from each of the 175 species, a sample of ca. 50 g (fresh mass) was taken from different plant parts following Henry et al. ([18]): leaves (L), buds (Bd), fruits (F), branches (B), bark from branches (Bb), twig (< 5 cm in diameter - T), bark from twig (Bt), stem (S), bark from stem (Bs), roots (R) and root cuticles (Rc). Only undamaged trees with no deformities were included in the study.

Samples were taken to the lab following the procedures described in Karlik & Chojnacky ([20]), and immediately (<24 hours) were placed and dried in the lab at room temperature to avoid loss of volatile substances ([2], [23]). Following the procedure by Lamlom & Savidge ([22]), we broke down the samples into small particles to better estimate C content using a pulverizing mill, (Fritsch Pulverisette 2®, Idar-Oberstein, Germany), which yields fractions smaller than 10 μg. Total carbon concentration (TCC) was obtained using a Solids TOC Analyzer (model 1020A®) with catalytic combustion method from O·l·Analytical (College Station, TX, USA) in the Soils and Fertility lab in Postgraduate College.

Statistical analyses

As classification resulted in different sample sizes, data were subjected to an unbalanced ANOVA, using the general linear model (GLM) procedure of SAS version 9.1 ([36]). Differences between taxa (division, family and genus) and ecosystems were tested by one-way unbalanced ANOVAs, in which only groups with at least three samples were considered. Differences in concentration of C between tree tissues were evaluated, analyzing separately the two divisions: Magnoliophyta and Pinophyta. In all analyses the carbon concentration values were transformed with the arcsine function to satisfy the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variances. A multiple comparison between means was carried out with the post-hoc Tukey’s test at P = 0.05 level.

Results 

The mean C concentration across species and plant parts was 44.7% (Tab. S1 in Supplementary material), varying from 44.1% to 45.8% for temperate zone species, 42.8% to 44.3% for species from tropics and sub-tropics and from 43.8% to 44.2% for species in arid and semiarid zones (Tab. 1). Tree species from different biomes significantly differed in C concentration (F = 9.07, p = 0.0002). Species from the temperate zone had the highest C concentration (45.8%) and those from tropical and subtropical zones the lowest (42.8%).

Tab. 1 - Carbon concentration for Mexican forest species studied by region and moisture regime. (n): number of species. Different letters indicate significantly different means (p<0.05) after Tukey’s test.

Different taxa also significantly differed in C concentration (F = 58.41, p < 0.0001). The highest C concentration was found for Pinophyta (47.5%), while Magnoliophyta had 3.3% less C concentration (44.2% - Fig. 1). Asparagaceae and Arecaceae had the lowest C concentration (43.1%).

Fig. 1 - Differences in Carbon concentration between Magnoliophyta and Pinophyta. A higher C concentration for species of Pinophyta was observed.

Carbon concentration varied between families (F = 6.72, p < 0.0001), from 42.8% for Asparagaceae to 48.3% for Pinaceae (Tab. 2). Within family variation in C concentration was relatively low with a mean standard deviation of 1.45%. Carbon concentration also differed between genera (F = 17.43, p < 0.0001). Two main groups could be identified (Tab. 3): the first included the genus Pinus, with the highest concentration (48.96%), while Acacia, Quercus, Bursera, Cordia, Pithecellobium and Ficus were in the second group.

Tab. 2 - Mean and standard error of carbon concentration for 18 families. Only families with enough replicates were used in this analysis. Different letters indicate different means (p<0.05) after Tukey’s test.
Tab. 3 - Mean and standard error of carbon concentration of some of the genera sampled. Different letters indicate different means (p<0.05). (*): Genera with at least tree sampled species were included to comply with assumptions of analysis of variance.

Carbon concentration between plant structure differed for Pinophyta (F = 2.36, p = 0.0128) and Magnoliophyta (F = 10.36, p < 0.0001). For conifers, fruits, buds and bark had carbon concentrations close to 50% (Fig. 2), which were significantly higher than those of dead tissue of roots and branches (44.8% to 45.3%). For broad-leaved species, C concentration was higher in stem and leaves (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2 - Carbon concentration for plant tissues grouped by taxonomic division. Different letters between bars of the same color indicate different means (p<0.05). Leaves (L), buds (Bd), fruits (F), branches (B), bark from branches (Bb), twig (<5 cm in diameter -T), bark from twig (Bt), stem (S), bark from stem (Bs), roots (R) and root cuticles (Rc).

Discussion 

The common C-concentration constant used for the aerial parts of the trees is 50%. This is still broadly used in large scale models of C fluxes and sinks ([3], [24], [25], [15]). In our study, all values for C concentration of 175 Mexican forest plants were below 50% with an average value of 44.7%. In agreement with other multi-species studies ([46], [23], [7]), we suggest to use specific estimations for different genera and ecosystems instead of the 50% assumption. We also recommend to test the overestimation stemming from the adoption of such assumption in other ecosystems and species.

C concentration was higher in temperate than in tropical tree species, which could be a result of C rich volatile substances ([37], [15]), and lignin ([22]) in species of temperate environments. In contrast, tropical trees might have less C due to differences in cellulose and lignin contents ([12], [23]).

C concentration was higher for Pinophyta than for Magnoliophyta, likely due to high contents of resins and other C rich organic compounds in the former ([33]). Variations in C concentration between biomes were small, suggesting that C concentration is relatively constant for species across environments, as already reported in other studies ([23], [41]). Moreover, a large within-family variations in C content was observed. This is in agreement with findings that C concentration is not a strongly phylogenetically-conserved trait ([23]). In our study the larger within-family variation was found in Pinaceae, coinciding with the findings of Yerena-Yamallel et al. ([44]). This is possibly due to differences in chemical composition of cellulose, lignin, hemicellulose, and starches ([24]). The high C content found in leaves compared with other tissues might be the result of higher rates of volatile compounds, as suggested by Yerena-Yamallel et al. ([45]). Other studies have also found variations of C concentration between plant tissues, with higher values in leaves ([46], [10], [11]). Because leaves differ in their longevity, their role as C stocks must vary between evergreens and deciduous species ([23], [24]). The high values of C (ca. 50%) found in bark and cones of Pinophyta in this study, could be the result of C-rich lignin and suberin in these structures ([14]).

Other studies have observed variations in C concentration in dead or decaying tissue. For instance Harmon et al. ([17]) found that uncertainties associated to forest C inventories may be reduced using specific detritus C coefficient for each taxon, instead of using the generalized 50% assumption. In dead conifer trees, as decomposition takes place, a slight increase in C concentration occurs ([8], [21]). Other authors argue about the relative importance of intra- vs. interspecific variation in wood C for forest C assessments. For instance, Martin et al. ([25]) suggest that variations in C concentration between tissues of the same species are less important than variations between species for modelling C dynamics in forest ecosystems. Improvement and validation of models for given ecosystems could be a viable solution, using wood density as an independent variable as suggested by some authors ([39], [9]).

Reliable C concentration estimations are crucial for determining the role of forests in the global C cycle ([5]). The results from this study contribute to more accurate estimations of carbon concentration of plant tissues across a large number of tree species in Mexico. Even though differences between the 50% common assumption and actual findings are small, these differences would mean gross C overestimations at the scale of stands, forests or biomes ([15]). These could lead to C content overestimations in studied Mexican forests in the order of 1.5 Mg ha-1 ([45]) or 3.9 Mg ha-1 ([1]). Taxa-specific results contribute to a more realistic assumptions of C sinks in different ecosystems ([6], [26]) with implications for other countries where the studied species occur and challenges the current assumption of a 50% C concentration of plant tissues across forests worldwide.

Conclusions 

The C concentration of plant tissues for Mexican tree species differed between environments, taxa and plant tissues. Our results show that the generalized assumption of 50% C content is consistently slightly above real values for the species studied. This overestimation, though small in some cases, could lead to errors of 3.9 Mg ha-1 in some Mexican forests. To improve estimations of C reserves, our values should be used for the studied genera. Given the large number of species studied, it would be important to test whether the generalized 50% assumption does apply in other environments. It is not practical to use C concentration for each plant tissue, therefore more research that models C concentration indices is still necessary, especially to distinguish dead or decaying tissues. Our study contributes to a better understanding of C concentration in forest ecosystems and provides a large dataset for Mexican species that can be contrasted across environments elsewhere.

Acknowledgments 

Funding was provided by CONACYT (Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología - grant CB-2013/222522). MPG, JASR carried out field and lab work; JASR, MPG, JF and EJ performed statistical analysis; MPG and EJ conceived the study and helped draft the first version manuscript. All authors wrote the manuscript. Many thanks to the landholders and foresters who allowed data collection. Direccion General de Vida Silvestre, SEMARNAT (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales), Mexico, gave technical permit. Adrian Herrera and his staff assisted with field work. We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their useful comments and suggestions.

References

(1)
Aguirre-Calderón OA, Jiménez-Pérez J (2011). Evaluación del contenido de carbono en bosques del sur de Nuevo León [Carbon content evaluation in southern forests of Nuevo León]. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Forestales 2: 73-84. [in Spanish]
::Google Scholar::
(2)
Avendaño D, Acosta M, Carrillo F, Etchevers J (2009). Estimación de biomasa y carbono en un bosque de Abies religiosa [Biomass and carbon estimation in an Abies religiosa woodland]. Revista Fitotecnia Mexicana 32: 233-238. [in Spanish]
::Google Scholar::
(3)
Becker GS, Braun D, Gliniars R, Dalitz H (2012). Relations between wood variables and how they relate to tree size variables of tropical African tree species. Trees 26: 1101-1112.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(4)
Bert D, Danjon F (2006). Carbon concentration variations in the roots, stem and crown of mature Pinus pinaster (Ait.). Forest Ecology and Management 222: 279-295.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(5)
Bombelli A, Avitabile V, Belelli Marchesini Balzter L, Bernoux M, Hall R, Henry M, Law BE, Manlay R, Marklund LG, Shimabukuro YE (2009). Biomass - Assessment of the status of the development of the standards for the terrestrial essential climate variables. Global Terrestrial Observation System, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy, pp. 18.
::Google Scholar::
(6)
Cartus O, Kellndorfer J, Walker W, Franco C, Bishop J, Santos L, Fuentes JMM (2014). A national, detailed map of forest aboveground carbon stocks in Mexico. Remote Sensing 6: 5559-5588.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(7)
Castaño-Santamaría J, Barrio-Anta M, Alvarez-Alvarez P (2013). Potential above ground biomass production and total tree carbon sequestration in the major forest species in NW Spain. International Forestry Review 15: 273-289.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(8)
Cousins SJM, Battles JJ, Sanders JE, York RA (2015). Decay patterns and carbon density of standing dead trees in California mixed conifer forests. Forest Ecology and Management 353: 136-147.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(9)
Chave J, Réjou-Méchain M, Búrquez A, Chidumayo E, Colgan M, Delitti W, Duque A, Eid T, Fearnsid P, Goodman R, Henry M, Martínez-Yrízar A, Mugasha W, Muller-Landau H, Mencuccini M, Nelson B, Ngomanda A, Nogueira E, Ortiz-Malavassi E, Pélissier R, Ploton P, Ryan C, Saldarriaga J, Vieilledent G (2014). Improved allometric models to estimate the aboveground biomass of tropical trees. Global Change Biology 20: 3177-3190.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(10)
Durkaya B, Durkaya A, Makineci E, Ulküdür M (2013). Estimation of above-ground biomass and sequestered carbon of Taurus Cedar (Cedrus libani L.) in Antalya, Turkey. iForest 6: 278-284.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(11)
Durkaya A, Durkaya B, Makineci E, Orhan I (2015). Aboveground biomass and carbon storage relationship of Turkish pines. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 24: 3573-3583.
::Online::Google Scholar::
(12)
Elias M, Potvin C (2003). Assessing inter- and intra-specific variation in trunk carbon concentration for 32 neotropical tree species. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 33: 1039-1045.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(13)
Espinosa-Organista D, Ocegueda-Cruz S, Aguilar-Zúñiga C, Flores-Villela O, Llorente-Bousquets J, Vázquez-Benítez B (2008). El conocimiento biogeográfico de las especies y su regionalización natural [The biogeographical knowledgment of the species and its natural regionalization]. In: “Capital Natural de México” (Sarukhán J ed). Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, DF, México, pp. 22-65. [in Spanish]
::Google Scholar::
(14)
Franceschi VR, Krokene P, Christiansen E, Krekling T (2005). Anatomical and chemical defenses of conifer bark against bark beetles and other pests. New Phytologist 167: 353-375.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(15)
Gao B, Taylor AR, Chen HY, Wang J (2016). Variation in total and volatile carbon concentration among the major tree species of the boreal forest. Forest Ecology and Management 375: 191-199.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(16)
González-Medrano F (2003). Las comunidades vegetales de México. Propuesta para la unificación de la clasificación y nomenclatura de la vegetación de México [The plant communities of Mexico. Proposal for the unification of the classification and nomenclature of the vegetation of Mexico]. Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, Instituto Nacional de Ecología, DF, México, pp. 81. [in Spanish]
::Google Scholar::
(17)
Harmon ME, Fasth B, Woodall CW, Sexton J (2013). Carbon concentration of standing and downed woody detritus: effects of tree taxa, decay class, position, and tissue type. Forest Ecology and Management 291: 259-267.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(18)
Henry M, Picard N, Manlay R, Valentini R, Bernoux M, Saint-André L (2011). Estimating tree biomass of sub-Saharan African forests: a review of available allometric equations. Silva Fennica 45: 477-569.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(19)
Jiménez-Pérez J, Treviño-Garza E, Yerena-Yamallel J (2013). Concentración de carbono en especies del bosque de Pino-Encino en la Sierra Madre Oriental [Carbon concentration in species of the Pine-Oak woodland]. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Forestales 4: 50-61. [in Spanish]
::Google Scholar::
(20)
Karlik JF, Chojnacky DC (2014). Biomass and carbon data from blue oaks in a California oak savanna. Biomass and Bioenergy 62: 228-232.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(21)
Köster K, Metslaid M, Engelhart J, Köster E (2015). Dead wood basic density, and the concentration of carbon and nitrogen for main tree species in managed hemiboreal forests. Forest Ecology and Management 354: 35-42.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(22)
Lamlom SH, Savidge RA (2003). A reassessment of carbon content in wood: variation within and between 41 North American species. Biomass and Bioenergy 25: 381-388.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(23)
Martin AR, Thomas SC (2011). A reassessment of carbon content in tropical trees. PLoS ONE 6 (8): e23533.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(24)
Martin AR, Thomas SC, Zhao Y (2013). Size-dependent changes in wood chemical traits: a comparison of neotropical saplings and large trees. AoB Plants 5: plt039.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(25)
Martin AR, Gezahegn S, Thomas SC (2015). Variation in carbon and nitrogen concentration among major woody tissue types in temperate trees. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 45: 744-757.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(26)
Matula R, Damborská L, Nečasová M, Geršl M, Srámek M (2015). Measuring biomass and carbon stock in resprouting woody plants. PLoS ONE 10 (2): e0118388.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(27)
Murray-Tortarolo G, Friedlingstein P, Sitch S, Jaramillo VJ, Murguía-Flores F, Anav A, Liu Y, Arneth A, Arvanitis A, Harper A, Jain A, Kato E, Koven C, Poulter B, Stocker BD, Wiltshire A, Zaehle S, Zeng N (2016). The carbon cycle in Mexico: past, present and future of C stocks and fluxes. Biogeosciences 13: 223-238.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(28)
Návar J (2009). Allometric equations for tree species and carbon stock for forest of northwestern Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 427-434.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(29)
Pompa-García M, Sigala-Rodríguez JA, Jurado E (2017). Some tree species of ecological importance in Mexico: a documentary review. Revista Chapingo Serie Ciencias Forestales y del Ambiente 23: 185-219.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(30)
Rojas-García F, De Jong BH, Martínez-Zurimendí P, Paz-Pellat F (2015). Database of 478 allometric equations to estimate biomass. Annals of Forest Science 72: 835-864.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(31)
Rzedowski J (1991). El endemismo en la flora fanerogámica mexicana: una apreciación analítica preliminar [The endemism in the Mexican phanerogamic flora: an analytical preliminar appreciation]. Acta Botanica Mexicana 15: 47-64. [in Spanish]
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(32)
Sarukhán J, Koleff P, Carabias J, Soberón J, Dirzo J, Llorente-Bousquets J, Halffter G, González R, March R, Mohar R, Anta S, De La Maza J (2009). Capital natural de México: conocimiento actual, evaluación y perspectivas de sustentabilidad [Natural capital of Mexico: actual knowledgment, evaluation and perspectives of sustentability]. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, DF, México, pp. 100. [in Spanish]
::Google Scholar::
(33)
Savidge RA (2000). Biochemistry of seasonal cambial growth and wood formation - an overview of the challenges. In: “Cell and Molecular Biology of Wood Formation. Experimental Biology Reviews” (Savidge RA, Barnett JR, Napier R eds). Bios Scientific Publishers Ltd, Oxford, UK, pp. 1-30.
::Google Scholar::
(34)
Savidge RA (2003). Tree growth and wood quality. In: “Wood Quality and its Biological Basis” (Barnett JR, Jeronimidis G eds). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp. 1-29.
::Online::Google Scholar::
(35)
Sardans J, Peñuelas J (2014). Climate and taxonomy underlie different elemental concentrations and stoichiometries of forest species: the optimum “biogeochemical niche”. Plant Ecology 215: 441-455.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(36)
SAS (2009). SAS user’s guide statistics. Release 9. 1. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA, pp. 5121.
::Google Scholar::
(37)
Thomas SC, Malczewski G (2007). Wood carbon content of tree species in Eastern China: Interspecific variability and the importance of the volatile fraction. Journal of Environmental Management 85: 659-662.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(38)
Thomas SC, Martin AR (2012). Carbon content of tree tissues: a synthesis. Forests 3: 332-352.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(39)
Urquiza-Haas T, Dolman PM, Peres CA (2007). Regional scale variation in forest structure and biomass in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico: effects of forest disturbance. Forest Ecology and Management 247: 80-90.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(40)
Vieilledent G, Vaudry R, Andriamanohisoa SFD, Rakotonarivo OS, Randrianasolo HZ, Razafindrabe HN, Rakotoarivony CB, Ebeling J, Rasamoelina M (2011). A universal appraoch to estimate biomass and carbon stock in tropical forests using generic allometric models. Ecological Applications 22: 572-583.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(41)
Watzlawick LF, Martins PJ, Rodrigues AL, Ebling A, Balbinot R, Lustosa SBC (2014). Carbon concentration in species of the araucaria forest and effect of the ecological group. Cerne 20: 613-620.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(42)
Yeboah D, Burton AJ, Storer AJ, Opuni-Frimpong E (2014). Variation in wood density and carbon content of tropical plantation tree species from Ghana. New Forests 45: 35-52.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(43)
Yerena-Yamallel J, Jiménez-Pérez J, Aguirre-Calderón O, Treviño-Garza E (2011). Concentración de carbono en la biomasa aérea del Matorral Espinoso Tamaulipeco [Carbon concentration in the aereal biomass of the Tamaulipan Scrub Shrubland]. Revista Chapingo Serie Ciencias Forestales y del Ambiente 17: 283-291. [in Spanish]
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(44)
Yerena-Yamallel J, Jiménez-Pérez J, Aguirre-Calderón O, Treviño-Garza E, Alanís-Rodríguez E (2012a). Concentración de carbono en el fuste de 21 especies de coníferas del noreste de México [Carbon concentration in the stem of 21 coniferous species from Northeast México]. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Forestales 3: 49-56. [in Spanish]
::Google Scholar::
(45)
Yerena-Yamallel JI, Jiménez J P, Aguirre Calderón O, Treviño Garza EJ (2012b). Contenido de carbono total en los componentes de especies arbóreas y arbustivas en áreas con diferente uso, en el matorral espinoso tamaulipeco, en México [Total carbon content in the components of three and shrubby species in areas differing in use, in the Tamaulipan Scrub Shrubland, in Mexico]. Bosque 33: 145-152. [in Spanish]
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(46)
Zhang Q, Wang C, Wang X, Quan X (2009). Carbon concentration variability of 10 Chinese temperate tree species. Forest Ecology and Management 258: 722-727.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::

Download

Paper Contents

Paper Sections

Paper Figures

Paper Tables

Supplementary Material

 
 
Close

 

Pompa-García M, Sigala-Rodríguez JA, Jurado E, Flores J (2017).
Tissue carbon concentration of 175 Mexican forest species
iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry 10: 754-758. - doi: 10.3832/ifor2421-010
Close
First Previous Next Last
 
Close
© iForest

Download Reference

Paper ID# ifor2421-010
Title Tissue carbon concentration of 175 Mexican forest species
Authors Pompa-García M, Sigala-Rodríguez JA, Jurado E, Flores J
Format
Close Download