4.0 Article

Soil carbon and nitrogen in pasture soil reforested with eucalyptus and guachapele

期刊

REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE CIENCIA DO SOLO
卷 32, 期 3, 页码 1253-1260

出版社

SOC BRASILEIRA DE CIENCIA DO SOLO
DOI: 10.1590/S0100-06832008000300033

关键词

mixed plantations; Pseudosamanea guachapele; Eucalyptus grandis; soil organic matter; C-13 natural abundance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In spite of the normally low content of organic matter found in sandy soils, it is responsible for almost the totality of cation exchange capacity (CEC), water storage and availability of plant nutrients. It is therefore important to evaluate the impact of alternative forest exploitation on the improvement of soil C and N accumulation on these soils. This study compared pure and mixed plantations of Eucalyptus grandis and Pseudosamanea guachapele, a N-2-fixing leguminous tree, in relation to their effects on soil C and N stocks. The studied Planosol area had formerly been covered by Panicum maximum pasture for at least ten years without any fertilizer addition. To estimate C and N contents, the soil was sampled (at depths of 0-2.5; 2.5-5.0; 5.0-7.5; 7.5-10.0; 10.0-20.0 and 20.0-40.0 cm), in pure and mixed five-year-old tree plantations, as well as on adjacent pasture. The natural abundance C-13 technique was used to estimate the contribution of the soil organic C originated from the trees in the 0-10 cm soil layer. Soil C and N stocks under mixed plantation were 23.83 and 1.74 Mg ha(-1), respectively. Under guachapele, eucalyptus and pasture areas C stocks were 14.20, 17.19 and 24.24 Mg ha(-1), respectively. For these same treatments, total N contents were 0.83; 0.99 and 1.71 Mg ha(-1), respectively. Up to 40 % of the soil organic C in the mixed plantation was estimated to be derived from trees, while in pure eucalyptus and guachapele plantations these same estimates were only 19 and 27 %, respectively. Our results revealed the benefits of intercropped leguminous trees in eucalyptus plantations on soil C and N stocks.

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

4.0
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