4.4 Article

Decomposition and nutrient release in leaves of Atlantic Rainforest tree species used in agroforestry systems

期刊

AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS
卷 87, 期 4, 页码 835-847

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10457-013-9600-6

关键词

Family agriculture; Nutrient cycling; Leaf decomposition; Native trees; Biological nitrogen fixation

资金

  1. FAPEMIG (Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais)
  2. CAPES (Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Ensino Superior)
  3. CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aiming to support the use of native species from the Atlantic Rainforest in local agroforestry systems, we analysed chemical and biochemical components related to leaf decomposition of Inga subnuda, Senna macranthera, Erythrina verna, Luehea grandiflora, Zeyheria tuberculosa, Aegiphila sellowiana, and Persea americana. These tree species are native (except for P. americana) and commonly used in agroforestry systems in the Atlantic Rainforest. For the three first species (Fabaceae), we also analysed the remaining dry matter and released nutrients from leaves, using litter bags, and biological nitrogen fixation, using Bidens pilosa and Brachiaria plantaginea as references of non-N-2-fixing plants. Leaves from I. subnuda, L. grandiflora, and P. americana had a lower decomposition rate than the other species, exhibiting negative correlations with lignin/N and (lignin+polyphenol)/N ratios. The percentages of remaining dry matter after 1 year were 69 % (I. subnuda), 26 % (S. macranthera) and 16 % (E. verna). Higher nutrient release was found in decreasing order from residues of E. verna, S. macranthera, and I. subnuda. The percentages of nitrogen fixation were 22.6 % (E. verna), 20.6 % (I. subnuda) and 16.6 % (S. macranthera). Diversification of tree species in agroforestry systems allows for input of diversified organic material and can contribute to maintaining and improving soil functions resulting in improvements of soil quality.

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

4.4
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