4.5 Article

Early effects of slash-and-burn cultivation on soil physicochemical properties of small-scale farms in the Tapajos region, Brazilian Amazon

期刊

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE
卷 153, 期 2, 页码 205-221

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0021859613000968

关键词

-

资金

  1. Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA)
  2. Canadian International Development Research Centre (IDRC)
  3. UQAM Institute of Environmental Sciences
  4. Montreal Biodome
  5. GEOTOP-UQAM

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increasing human occupation of the Brazilian Amazon has led to the intensification of deforestation over the last 50 years. The present study is aimed at analysing the impacts of the first year of slash-and-burn cultivation on soil physicochemical properties. Sampling was done in 26 small-scale farms of the Tapajos River basin. In August 2004, soil samples were collected from primary forest plots planned for slash-and-burn cultivation. In September 2005, 1 year after the initial burning and the beginning of cultivation, the same sites were re-sampled. The results indicated that soil fertility after burning was relatively moderate, as the increase of base cations was not particularly marked. Moreover, although an increase of some nutrients (such as exchangeable phosphorus) was observed at soil surface, total carbon and nitrogen (N) pools did not change significantly. Nutrient leaching was also detected through the accumulation of both forms of available nitrogen (NO3 and NH4) as well as potassium in subsoil horizons. In addition, signs of erosion were seen, as a significant increase surface density occurred, coupled with up to 25% fine particle loss at the surface. The present study draws attention to the early impacts of slash-and-burn agriculture on soil properties within a year of cultivation. Furthermore, its regional dimension highlights undisturbed soils natural variability as well as differentiated responses to deforestation according to soil texture.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据