4.5 Article

Facing north or south: Does slope aspect impact forest stand characteristics and soil properties in a semiarid trans-Himalayan valley?

期刊

JOURNAL OF ARID ENVIRONMENTS
卷 121, 期 -, 页码 112-123

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2015.06.004

关键词

Manang valley; Arid region; Carbon storage; Forest use; Land use change; Soil nutrients

资金

  1. Norad Program for Masters Studies (NOMA)
  2. HIMALINES project (Norwegian Research Council) [190153/V10]
  3. Grolle Olsens Legat

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An understanding of the differences in vegetation and soil characteristics between slope aspects in high altitude semiarid environments is fundamentally important for efficient management of these semi-natural systems; however, few studies have quantified these differences. Here, we analyzed forest stand characteristics, carbon stocks and soil properties of north- and south-facing slopes in a trans-Himalayan semiarid valley. Pinus wallichiana was the dominant and Juniperus indica the co-dominant species in both aspects, whereas Betula utilis and Abies spectabilis were only recorded in north-facing forests. Pinus regenerated in both aspects, whereas Juniperus did not. Carbon stocks did not differ between aspects; 33 t/ha in north-facing and 31 t/ha in south-facing forests. Similarly, soil properties did not vary between slope aspects, expect for potassium (highest in south-facing slopes). These results suggest that topographic factors affect mountain forests through their direct influence on radiation and moisture, but that human disturbance also plays a significant role affecting vegetation and soil characteristics in a semiarid environment. These natural and anthropogenic factors may play in harmony or in discord with each other. Here, the aridity of the region, parent material and land use history led to less pronounced differences between slope aspects, than commonly found in moister habitats. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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

4.5
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