4.4 Article

Can structural and functional characteristics be used to identify riparian zone width in southern Appalachian headwater catchments?

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH
卷 40, 期 2, 页码 235-253

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/X09-182

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [DEB 0218001, R551-209/6330957]
  2. USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station
  3. Region 8 of the USDA Forest Service
  4. Division Of Environmental Biology
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences [823293] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We characterized structural and functional attributes along hillslope gradients in headwater catchments We endeavored to identify parameters that described significant transitions along the hillslope On each of four catchments, we installed eight 50 m transects perpendicular to the stream. Structural attributes included woody and herbaceous vegetation: woody debris and forest floor mass. nitrogen (N) and carbon (C), total soil C and N. litterfall amount and quality by species: and microclimatic conditions Functional attributes included litter decomposition, soil microarthropods. soil CO2 evolution, soil solution chemistry, and soil extractable N Forest floor mass, N and C, and soil depth increased with distance from the stream and transitioned between 10 and 20 m In contrast, litterfall N rate (kilograms of nitrogen per hectare per day), downed woody debris, soil A-horizon C and N. and soil solution NO3 concentration all decreased with distance, and exhibited significant transitions. Certain overstory species were more abundant in the uplands than near the stream Herbaceous diversity and richness were similar across the hillslope, but species distributions varied in response to hillslope moisture content. Taken together, these results suggest that at 10-20 m from the stream, transitions occur that separate riparian from upland conditions and may provide valuable insight into riparian zone definition

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