4.2 Article

Changes in DOC and DON fluxes in response to harvest intensity of black-spruce-dominated forest ecosystems in northwestern Ontario

Journal

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE
Volume 89, Issue 1, Pages 67-79

Publisher

AGRICULTURAL INST CANADA
DOI: 10.4141/CJSS07027

Keywords

DOC; DON; forest floor leachate; black spruce; harvesting response

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Morris, D. M. 2009. Changes in DOC and DON fluxes in response to harvest intensity of black-spruce-dominated forest ecosystems in northwestern Ontario, Can. J. Soil Sci. 89: 67-79. The current study was conducted to quantify and compare dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) fluxes through black-spruce-dorninated forests, to compare the source/sink characteristics of sphagnum- versus feathermoss-dominated forest floors, and to identify changes in DOC and DON flow patterns occurring as a result of clearcut harvesting. After 2 yr of pre-harvest monitoring, replicated, experimental harvests of varying intensities of biomass removals were conducted followed by 4 yr of post-harvest sampling. Prior to harvest, the upland site type, dominated by feathermoss, was a significant source of DOC and DON, whereas, the wet-sphagnum-dominated sites exported minor amounts of these solutes. After harvest, DOC and DON fluxes peaked in the second year, but then dropped off significantly to at or below pre-harvest levels. On the upland site type, chipper debris appeared to be a major source of DOC and DON generating fluxes well above the pre-harvest levels. On the wetter site types, it appeared that microclimate differences between harvest treatments had a stronger influence on DOC and DON production than did the amount or type of harvest residue. Full-tree harvesting did not significantly alter the production of DOC and DON when compared with stem-only harvesting on the sites included in this study.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available