4.7 Article

Relating the survival and growth of planted longleaf pine seedlings to microsite conditions altered by site preparation treatments

期刊

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
卷 255, 期 11, 页码 3768-3777

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2008.03.013

关键词

bedding; chopping; herbicide application; mounding; Pinus palustris P. Miller; root collar diameter; site preparation; stand establishment

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pine plantations in the southeastern United States are often created using site preparation treatments to alleviate site conditions that may limit survival or growth of planted seedlings. However, little is understood about how site preparations affect longleaf pine (Pinus palustris P. Miller) seedlings planted on wet sites. In a 2-year study (2004 and 2005) on poorly drained, sandy soils of Onslow County, North Carolina, we examined the effects of common site preparation treatments on microsite conditions and quantified relationships between microsite conditions and longleaf pine seedling survival and growth. Treatments used in the study included site preparations designed to control competing vegetation (chopping and herbicide) combined with those that alter soil conditions (mounding and bedding). During both years, mounding and bedding treatments reduced the amount of moisture within the top 6 cm of soil and increased soil temperatures when compared to flat planting (p < 0.001). Soil moisture was inversely related to seedling mortality in 2004 (r(2) = 0.405) and inversely related to root collar diameter in 2005 (r(2) = 0.334), while light was positively related to root collar diameter in 2005 (r(2) = 0.262). Light availability at the seedling level was highest on treatments that effectively reduced surrounding vegetation. Herbicides were more effective than chopping at controlling vegetation in 2004 (p < 0.001) and 2005 (p = 0.036). Controlling competing vegetation, especially shrubs, was critical for increasing early longleaf pine seedling growth. (C) 2008 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

4.7
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