4.6 Article

Trace metal loss following whole-tree harvest of a northeastern deciduous forest, USA

Journal

BIOGEOCHEMISTRY
Volume 54, Issue 2, Pages 197-217

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1023/A:1010624315658

Keywords

biogeochemistry; clearcutting; trace metals; stream chemistry; budgets; Hubbard Brook

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We examined changes in the biogeochemistry of trace metals following a commercial whole-tree harvest (WTH) at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest in New Hampshire. Within 6 months after completion of the WTH, maximum streamwater concentrations of Ni, Cd, Ba, Sr, Mn, Zn and Fe increased two- to nine-fold. Streamwater concentration of Cu remained unchanged after harvest. Streamwater pH decreased from 5.2 to 4.5 after the harvest, and correlated strongly with trace metal concentrations except for Fe. The decrease in pH apparently resulted from increased nitrogen mineralization and nitrification following harvest. All streamwater metal concentrations (except Mn and Fe) in the disturbed watershed increased prior to the decrease in streamwater pH, suggesting that the loss of readily exchangeable metals, not increased mineral dissolution, was responsible for the initial increase in streamwater trace metal concentrations. In contrast, streamwater Mn concentrations did not increase until streamwater pH dropped to 4.5, due in part to increased mineral dissolution. Although pH related strongly to trace metal concentrations in the harvested watershed, it did not account for much of the variation in metal concentrations in the reference (W6) watershed. Annual flux of trace metals increased two- to eight-fold following WTH. Annual losses of Mn and Sr were 14% and 12% respectively of the forest floor pool for each element, and less than 10% of forest floor pools for all other elements. Except for Cd and Cu, annual trace metal losses in streamwater exceeded annual inputs in bulk precipitation.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available