作者：
Lei XiangDong;Peng ChangHui;Tian DaLun;Sun JianFeng
期刊：
科学通报(英文版),2007年52(3):289-302 ISSN：2095-9273
通讯作者：
Peng, CH
作者机构：
[Peng ChangHui] ECO-MCS Lab., Institute of Environment Sciences, University of Quebec at Montreal (UQAM), Montreal, Que. H3C 3P8, Canada, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China;[Tian DaLun] College of Life Science and Technology, Central-South University of Forestry and Technology, Changsha 410004, China;[Lei XiangDong] Institute of Forest Resource Information Techniques, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing 100091, China, ECO-MCS Lab., Institute of Environment Sciences, University of Quebec at Montreal (UQAM), Montreal, Que. H3C 3P8, Canada;[Sun JianFeng] ECO-MCS Lab., Institute of Environment Sciences, University of Quebec at Montreal (UQAM), Montreal, Que. H3C 3P8, Canada
摘要：
Meta-analysis is a quantitative synthetic research method that statistically integrates results from individual studies to find common trends and differences. With increasing concern over global change, meta-analysis has been rapidly adopted in global change research. Here, we introduce the methodologies, advantages and disadvantages of meta-analysis, and review its application in global climate change research, including the responses of ecosystems to global warming and rising CO2 and O3 concentrations, the effects of land use and management on climate change and the effects of disturbances on biogeochemistry cycles of ecosystem. Despite limitation and potential misapplication, meta-analysis has been demonstrated to be a much better tool than traditional narrative review in synthesizing results from multiple studies. Several methodological developments for research synthesis have not yet been widely used in global climate change researches such as cumulative meta-analysis and sensitivity analysis. It is necessary to update the results of meta-analysis on a given topic at regular intervals by including newly published studies. Emphasis should be put on multi-factor interaction and long-term experiments. There is great potential to apply meta-analysis to global climate change research in China because research and observation networks have been established (e.g. ChinaFlux and CERN), which create the need for combining these data and results to provide support for governments’ decision making on climate change. It is expected that meta-analysis will be widely adopted in future climate change research.
作者机构：
College of Forestry, Northwest Sci-Tech University of Agriculture and Forestry, Yangling 712100, China;[田大伦; 闫文德; 项文化] Research Section of Ecology, Central South University of Forestry and Technology, Hangsha 410004, China;[陈书军] College of Forestry, Northwest Sci-Tech University of Agriculture and Forestry, Yangling 712100, China, Research Section of Ecology, Central South University of Forestry and Technology, Hangsha 410004, China
通讯机构：
[Chen, S.] C;College of Forestry, Northwest Sci-Tech University of Agriculture and Forestry, China
期刊：
Frontiers of Forestry in China,2006年1(1):38-42 ISSN：1673-3517
通讯作者：
Xi Fang
作者机构：
[Tian D.; Fang X.; Xiang W.] Research Section of Ecology, Central South Forestry University, Changsha 410004, China
通讯机构：
[Xi Fang] R;Research Section of Ecology, Central South Forestry University, Changsha, PRC
关键词：
Chinese fir plantation;Cutover areas;Management regimes;Soil carbon storage
摘要：
Based on data collected (through local observations) for several consecutive years, comparative analyses of Chinese fir plantations in Huitong, Hunan, were made. Results show that, before harvesting, carbon storage in forest soils in these 22-year-old plantations (0–60 cm) amounted to 160.38 t/hm2; 1 year after a 100% clear-cutting, loss of carbon storage in the soil (0–60 cm) of cutover areas was 35.00%; 2 years later, the rate was 44.65%; and, after 3 years, the rate was 43.93% compared with a control area of a standing forest. Three years after 50% thinning and 100% clear-cutting, the loss of carbon storage in the soil (0–60 cm) of cutover areas was 16.14 and 45.15%, respectively. There existed an evident difference in carbon storage in the soil (0–60 cm) of cutover areas in four kinds of management regimes, which followed the order: closed Chinese fir forests (108.20 t/hm2) > fallow lands after farming (92.68 t/hm2) > commercial forests (85.80 t/hm2) > naturally regenerated forestlands after harvesting. Carbon storage in unburnt soil (0–45 cm) reached 73.36 t/hm2, which was 15.20 t/hm2 higher than that in the soil of burnt areas. A total of 20.7% of carbon storage in the soil (0–45 cm) of burnt areas was lost 40 days after burning. Carbon storage in surface soil (0–15 cm) was higher than in the lower soil layer, which amounted to 30.04% (0–60 cm) and 53.52% (0–30 cm) of total carbon storage in the soil.
