中文摘要：

以广州市为研究区,在遥感与GIS技术的支持下,基于广东省第2次土壤普查数据和2000年ETM＋遥感数据,提取广州市土壤数据和遥感影像数据,采用土壤类型法和植被指数法分别计算广州市的土壤与植被碳蓄积,并分析其空间格局及相关性.结果表明：1广州市土壤有机碳储量0～20 cm为2.16×107t,0～100 cm为6.40×107t;广州市土壤有机碳平均密度0～20 cm为32.06 t·hm-2,0～100 cm为94.91 t·hm-2.2广州市植被碳储量为5.75×107t,平均碳密度为160.92 t·hm-2;不同植被类型平均碳密度：针叶林（178.00 t·hm-2）〉阔叶林（164.68 t·hm-2）〉园地（106.23 t·hm-2）〉灌木（8.04 t·hm-2）〉草地（0.13 t·hm-2）.3广州市土壤有机碳密度南部高于中部和北部,土壤有机碳储量则呈现北高南低的分布特征;广州市植被碳密度较高的区域位于植被保护较好的风景区和郊区,中心城区土壤有机碳库和植被碳库都较低.4土壤有机碳储量与植被碳储量在空间上具有正相关关系,植被碳储量高的区域,其土壤有机碳储量也高.表层（0～20 cm）土壤有机碳储量与植被碳储量的相关性大于深层（0～100 cm）土壤.

英文摘要：

Taking Guangzhou as a case study , this study was based on the soil data and remote sensing image that were derived from the second national soil survey data from Guangdong Province and ETM ＋remote sensing data in 2000 .By using the methods of soil types and vegetation index , we calculated the carbon storage in soil and vegetation,then quantified their spatial patterns and correlation .The results showed that： （1） The SOC storage was 2.16 ＆#215;107 t（0~20 cm） and 6.40 ＆#215;107 t（0~100 cm） in Guangzhou, while the mean SOC density was 32.06 t＆#183; hm-2 （0 ~20 cm） and 94.91 t＆#183; hm-2 （0~100 cm）.（2） The vegetation carbon storage was 5.75 ＆#215;107 t, while its mean carbon density was 160.92 t/ha with difference among vegetation types：conifer for-est （178.00 t＆#183; hm -2 ）＆gt;broadleaf forest （164.68 t＆#183; hm -2 ） ＆gt;orchard （106.23 t＆#183; hm-2 ） ＆gt;shrub （8.04 t ＆#183; hm -2）＆gt;grassland （0.13 t＆#183; hm-2）.（3） From the view of spatial pattern, the SOC density in the southern part of Guangzhou was higher than that in the center and northern part , but the SOC storage was just the oppo-site case .The area with higher vegetation carbon density was located in scenic and suburban areas with better vegetation protection .Both the soil and vegetation carbon storage were rather low in the central urban area .（4） The soil and vegetation carbon storage was spatially correlated which indicated the higher vegetation carbon stor-age, the higher SOC storage , and the correlativity with the surface soil carbon storage was stronger than that with the soil depth of 0~100 cm.