4.4 Article

Fine root dynamics of shaded cacao plantations in Costa Rica

Journal

AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS
Volume 51, Issue 2, Pages 119-130

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1023/A:1010651203815

Keywords

Cordia alliodora; Erythrina poeppigiana; nutrient cycling; organic material; root productivity; Theobroma cacoa

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Root turnover may contribute a significant proportion of recycled nutrients in agroforestry systems and competition between trees and crops for nutrients and water may depend on temporal fine root regrowth patterns. Fine root biomass (less than or equal to 2 mm) and fine root productivity were measured during one year in plantations of cacao (Theobroma cacao) shaded by Erythrina poeppigiana or Cordia alliodora planted on a deep alluvial soil in Turrialba, Costa Rica. Fine root biomass of approximately 1.0 Mg ha(-1) varied little during the year with maximum values at the beginning of the rainy season of 1.85 Mg ha(-1) in the cacao-C. alliodora system compared to 1.20 Mg ha(-1) for cacao-E. poeppigiana. Fine root productivity of C. alliodora and E. poeppigiana (maximum of 205 and 120 kg ha(-1) 4 week(-1), respectively) was greatest at the end of the rainy season, while for cacao it was greatest at the beginning of the rainy season (34-68 kg ha(-1) 4 week(-1)), which suggests that if nutrient competition occurs between the shade trees and the cacao, it could be minimized by early fertilization during the beginning of the rains immediately after pruning the shade trees. Annual fine root turnover was close to 1.0 in both systems. Assuming that fine root biomass in these mature plantations was constant on an annual basis, nutrient inputs from fine root turnover were estimated as 23-24 (N), 2 (P), 14-16 (K), 7-11 (Ca) and 3-10 (Mg) kg ha(-1) year(-1), representing 6-13% and 3-6% of total nutrient input in organic matter in the C. alliodora and E. poeppigiana systems, respectively.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available