4.7 Article

The nutrient status of Norway spruce in pure and in mixed-species stands

Journal

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
Volume 160, Issue 1-3, Pages 115-125

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00464-9

Keywords

deciduous; conifer; mixture; monoculture; foliage nutrition

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Atmospheric deposition of N and S appears to have caused nutrient imbalance in Norway spruce stands in southern Sweden. This calls for a change of forest management to procedures that promote nutrient balance. Studies have shown lower soil acidity in Norway spruce/deciduous mixed stands than in spruce monocultures, but the tree nutrient status in such mixtures has not been much investigated so far. The nutrient status of Norway spruce foliage and top mineral soil chemistry in monocultures and in stands mixed with beech, birch, or oak was investigated through paired comparisons on 30 sites in southern Sweden (27 sites) and eastern Denmark (three sites). In total, 45 mixed stands and 34 pure stands were included in the study. Spruce needles from mixed stands had higher concentrations and ratios to N of K, P, and Zn than needles from pure spruce stands. Among the mixed stands, the K status appeared to be positively correlated with the percentage of deciduous tree basal area. Soil samples from mixed stands had a higher Mg concentration, base saturation, and BC/Al ratio than soil samples from pure stands. The spruce needle nutrient status was comparable in pure stands on fertile sites and in mixed stands on poor sites. We did not detect any differences in spruce tree growth between pure and mixed stands. This paper discusses possible reasons for a positive effect on the tree nutrient status in mixed-species stands and the possibility of using mixed-species stands as a forest management procedure to avoid nutrient imbalance. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available