4.6 Article

Effects of soil type, rainfall, straw mulch, and fertilizer on semi-arid vegetation establishment, growth and diversity

期刊

ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
卷 44, 期 -, 页码 70-77

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.04.014

关键词

Biomass; Reclamation; Revegetation; Semi-arid grasslands; Soil texture; Species richness

资金

  1. Rosemont Copper Company

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Revegetation in arid and semi-arid environments often involves strategies to augment soil properties to promote plant establishment and growth while ameliorating the effects of variable rainfall. A southern Arizona USA greenhouse experiment evaluated the impact of rainfall, common amendments, and three soil types on grassland revegetation. Based on rainfall data from a nearby semi-arid site, three irrigation levels were used to simulate the rainfall of a dry (275 mm), average (320 mm), and wet (555 mm) year. The three amendments were bare soil, straw (4.5 Mg/ha with a tackifier), and straw plus slow-release fertilizer (7-2-3 NPK, 3.4 Mg/ha). Three field-collected soil types were used: a very gravely sand, a very gravelly loamy sand, and a gravelly sandy loam. Four seed mixes were used as a blocking factor. There was a significant interaction between amendment and soil type, soil type and rainfall scenario, as well as amendment and rainfall scenario. Straw alone or with fertilizer increased aboveground biomass (72-177% increase) on the gravelly sandy loam, and very gravelly loamy sand soils but decreased biomass on the very gravely sand (13% and 54%). Straw with fertilizer did not change species richness and diversity significantly, but it resulted in a greater than 50% decline in establishment for all soil types. Straw alone significantly increased the aboveground biomass only in low (205%) and average rainfall scenarios (40%), but not when rainfall was high (11%). The specific site conditions ultimately determine which practices will result in successful revegetation. (C) 2012 Elsevier 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

4.6
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