4.7 Article

Residue management effects on soil carbon and nutrient contents and growth of second rotation eucalypts

期刊

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
卷 181, 期 3, 页码 357-372

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0378-1127(03)00007-0

关键词

harvesting residues; soil nutrients; eucalyptus globulus; sustainability; carbon sequestration

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examined tree growth and dynamics of organic matter and soil nutrient pools annually for 7 years under contrasting harvest residue management treatments in south-western Australia. Two second rotation Eucalyptus globulus sites were established on soils of contrasting fertility and productivity. Harvest residues were either (i) burnt, (ii) removed, (iii) retained, or (iv) retained at double the normal quantity. More than 31 and 51 Mg ha(-1) of harvest residues resulted from harvesting of 8-year-old first rotation stands at a low fertility Grey Sand site, and a higher fertility Red Earth site, respectively. Harvest residue retention increased tree growth at the lower fertility Grey Sand site, but had no effect on plantation productivity at the Red Earth site up to 7 years. Burning resulted in a direct loss of most of the organic material, and up to 200, and 350 kg ha(-1) of N at the Grey Sand and Red Earth sites, respectively. Significant quantities of organic material in harvest residues (>50 Mg ha(-1) C in the double residues treatment at the Red Earth site) had a limited effect on soil C pools during the 7 years of this study. Retention of residues limited immediate losses of nutrients, and resulted in higher quantities of soil exchangeable K, Ca and Mg during the 7 years after establishment. However, the content of soil exchangeable cations, especially K, decreased during the first 4 years of establishment in all treatments, including those where residues were retained. After 4 years, cation quantities in soil started to increase again, probably due to the decomposition of leaves and twigs from litterfall. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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