4.7 Article

Characterization of coarse woody debris across a 100 year chronosequence of upland oak-hickory forests

期刊

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
卷 149, 期 1-3, 页码 153-161

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00536-3

关键词

coarse woody debris; 100 year chronosequence; oak-hickory forests; C : N ratio

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In most forest ecosystems, the total amount of coarse woody debris and its distribution into decay classes change over time from harvest to old growth stages. The relationship of decomposition classes to substrate quality is important to determine the contribution of woody debris to ecosystem nutrient cycling and forest development. The two objectives of this study were: (1) to determine if down dead wood (DDW) nutrient content varied with decomposition class or forest stand age; (2) to determine if DDW decomposition classes were related to indicators of substrate quality. Volume, mass, and indicators of substrate quality, such as N content and lignin:N ratio, were determined for woody debris from several decomposition classes in upland hardwood forest stands of different ages in southern Indiana, USA. Results showed a large decrease in volume and mass of DDW from recently harvested to mature stands. The dominant decomposition class shifted from Class II to Classes m and IV with increasing stand age. No Class I woody debris was found within any of the study plots. Nutrient concentration (N, S, and P) and carbohydrate fractions (soluble, hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin) all varied significantly among certain decomposition classes, but N and P concentration and the C:N ratio were the best indicators of decomposition class. Patterns of P retention in decomposition classes suggested a strong potential for immobilization of this nutrient in woody debris. Based on substrate quality groupings, there were three distinguishable decomposition classes: Classes II and m, Class IV, and Class V. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. 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

4.7
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