Estimates of above and belowground biomass across a gradient of anthropogenic disturbance in a Páramo of Northern Ecuador


Abstract

Páramos are highly biodiverse ecosystems in the northern Andes, providing essential services such as water provision and carbon sequestration. However, increasing anthropogenic pressures are altering their ecological functions, particularly their carbon storage capacity. Soil organic carbon stocks are relatively well understood in páramo systems, however, the above and below ground plant biomass stocks have been less studied, especially under varying levels of disturbance. This study quantifies biomass stocks and concentrations in the Ponce-Paluguillo Water Protection Area (APHP) in northern Ecuador, across a gradient of anthropogenic disturbance. Vegetation plots were categorized into four disturbance classes: Overgrazed Páramo, Recovering Areas, Páramo Grassland, and Shrubby Páramo Grassland. Species biomass concentrations were estimated using allometric models developed from representative species via destructive sampling, then generalized to similar species. Biomass stocks were calculated by multiplying species-specific biomass concentrations by their coverage areas, aggregated by quadrant. Our results showed that tussock grasses and sclerophyllous shrubs had the highest biomass concentrations, with the Andean fescue, Festuca andicola, surpassing all other species. Recovering Areas exhibited the highest total and aboveground biomass stocks (61.41 ± 24.48 Mg/ha and 43.93 ± 4.28 Mg/ha), followed by Shrubby Páramo Grasslands (30.30 ± 0.26 Mg/ha and 27.78 ± 0.02 Mg/ha). We also found that Overgrazed Páramo had the lowest values (22.10 ± 2.42 Mg/ha and 14.01 ± 2.15 Mg/ha). Species diversity followed a similar pattern, with disturbed sites showing higher diversity than undisturbed sites. This suggests that pasture fallowing in páramo grasslands follows a successional pattern consistent with the mass ratio hypothesis (MRH). The biomass estimates we report are similar to several other paramo plant biomass studies, suggesting that the methodology we employed is accurate and can be used to estimate and monitor aboveground and total plant biomass in páramo ecosystems under different land use types. Our results indicate that in this páramo system, the highest biomass gains occur early in succession under relatively high disturbance levels, suggesting that natural recovery alone may not maximize long-term carbon sequestration. Therefore, active management strategies might be more appropriate, such as controlled pasture fallowing, could be employed to maintain intermediate disturbance levels, thereby promoting both biodiversity and biomass accumulation.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].