4.6 Article

Phenolic acids distribution in a peat of the relict community with Serbian spruce in the Tara Mt. forest reserve (Serbia)

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOIL BIOLOGY
卷 39, 期 2, 页码 97-103

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S1164-5563(03)00015-3

关键词

Picea omorika; tertiary endemorelict; relict community; restoration; peat bog; phenolic acids

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Restoration of tertiary endemorelict Serbian spruce (Picea omorika Pancic) in forest-peat in Tara Mt., the only such finding in the world is rather poor. This could be partially ascribed to the presence of phenolics in peat soil. Content of total phenols and phenolic acids was determined in peat samples taken from: (1) knolls of forest-peat bog with dominance of trees and between the knolls and (2) peat bog knolls with dominance of Agrostis alba and between the knolls where Sphagnum mosses prevailed. In knoll samples of forest-peat bog where there are conditions for growth and development of trees, the amount of free phenolics was up to three times higher compared to that in the peat-bog knoll samples with dominance of A. alba. Amount of bound phenolics between the knolls of forest-peat bog was significantly higher than that between the knolls of the peat bog. Content of bound phenolics. exceeded that of free ones 1.77-12 times. In the forest-peat bog soil, derivatives of benzoic acid mainly originating from woody plants were dominant, while in peat bog cinnamic acid derivatives, originating from A. alba and Sphagnum mosses prevailed. Our results demonstrate that aerobic conditions in knolls enable a more extensive accumulation of free phenolics, while anaerobic conditions between the knolls result in a higher accumulation of bound phenolics. Content and composition of phenolic compounds depend on dominant plants in phytocoenotic microcomplex, as well as characteristics of the microhabitat. (C) 2003 Editions scientifiques et medicales Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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