4.7 Article

Litter dynamics and fine root production in Schizolobium parahyba var. amazonicum plantations and regrowth forest in Eastern Amazon

期刊

PLANT AND SOIL
卷 347, 期 1-2, 页码 377-386

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11104-011-0857-0

关键词

Amazon; Decomposition; Litter; Fine root; Regrowth forest

资金

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)
  2. Project Carboagro

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Forest plantations and agroforestry systems with Schizolobium parahyba var. amazonicum have greatly expanded in the Brazilian Amazon, generally as an alternative for reforesting degraded areas. To our knowledge there are no reports of above-and below-ground production in these forest systems. We quantified litter and fine root production in 6-yr old Schizolobium-based plantation forests (monospecific: MON, mixture: MIX, and agroforestry system: AFS) and in similar to 25-yr old regrowth forest (REG) over 812 months. We used litter traps and ingrowth cores to quantify litter and fine root production, respectively. Annual litter production was significantly lower in Schizolobium-based plantations (mean +/- standard error, MON = 5.92 +/- 0.15, MIX = 6.08 +/- 0.13, AFS = 6.63 +/- 0.13 Mg ha(-1) year(-1)) than in regrowth forest (8.64 +/- 0.08 Mg ha(-1) year(-1)). Schizolobium-based plantations showed significantly higher litter stock (MON = 7.7 +/- 1.0, MIX = 7.4 +/- 0.1 Mg ha(-1)) than REG (5.9 +/- 1.3 Mg ha(-1)). Total fine root production over an 8-month period was significantly higher in Schizolobium-based plantations (MON = 3.8 +/- 0.2, MIX = 3.4 +/- 0.2, AFS = 2.7 +/- 0.1 Mg ha(-1)) than in REG (1.1 +/- 0.03 Mg ha(-1)). Six-yr old Schizolobium-based plantations and similar to 25-yr old regrowth forests showed comparable rates of litter + fine root production, suggesting that young forest plantations may be an interesting alternative to restore degraded areas due to early reestablishment of organic matter cycling under the studied conditions.

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

4.7
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