Does harvest residue management influence biomass and nutrient accumulation in understory vegetation of Eucalyptus globulus Labill. plantations in a Mediterranean environment?

The effect of harvest residue management options on biomass and nutrient accumulation in understory vegetation, as well as the contribution of understory to nutrient cycling, were assessed during the early rotation stage of a Eucalyptus globulus Labill. plantation in Central Portugal. The effects of...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Forest ecology and management 2009-01, Vol.257 (2), p.527-535
Hauptverfasser: Carneiro, M., Serrão, V., Fabião, A., Madeira, M., Balsemão, I., Hilário, L.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 535
container_issue 2
container_start_page 527
container_title Forest ecology and management
container_volume 257
creator Carneiro, M.
Serrão, V.
Fabião, A.
Madeira, M.
Balsemão, I.
Hilário, L.
description The effect of harvest residue management options on biomass and nutrient accumulation in understory vegetation, as well as the contribution of understory to nutrient cycling, were assessed during the early rotation stage of a Eucalyptus globulus Labill. plantation in Central Portugal. The effects of residue management options on early tree growth were also evaluated. Treatments established at the time of plantation and replicated four times in a simple completely randomised design included removal of harvest residues (R), incorporation of residues into the soil by harrowing (I) and maintenance of residues on the soil surface (S). Understory biomass was sampled in the spring between 2002 and 2006, and every 2 months between March 2006 and March 2007. The latter samples were stratified into biomass, standing dead mass and litter for net above ground primary production (NAPP) assessment. Samples were oven dried, weighed and analysed for nutrient contents. Results showed that understory standing biomass strongly increased from the first to the third year and that quantities of nutrients accumulated in ground vegetation followed similar patterns between the three treatments. Nutrient accumulation in ground vegetation was greater than in tree biomass until at least the second spring after plantation. Bimonthly sampling revealed treatment R to have the largest amounts of standing biomass, standing dead mass, litter and nutrient immobilisation, while treatment S exhibited the lowest values. NAPP (4th–5th year) was 639, 511 and 362 g m −2 year −1, respectively in R, I and S, corresponding the standing biomass increase to 277, 183 and 143 g m −2 year −1. These values are comparable to those observed for litter fall in similar stands (age and tree density) in the same area. The contribution of ground vegetation to nutrient accumulation in the system was unaffected by harvest residue management methods, but further research is necessary in order to establish whether slash management options influence long term tree growth and vegetation dynamics.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.foreco.2008.09.027
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_19750968</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0378112708007184</els_id><sourcerecordid>19750968</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c437t-5a65102fe24090872b038a428e06d48bc1e1db8b5fca865674854c1977498c183</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc2O1DAQhCMEEsPCGyDhC9wmtBMndi4gtCw_0iAOsGer43QGjxJ7sOOR5ql4RRxlxZGTLfXX5XJVUbzkUHLg7dtTOfpAxpcVgCqhK6GSj4odV7LaSxDV42IHtVR7ziv5tHgW4wkAmkaoXfHno6fIfmG4UFxYoGiHRGxGh0eayS3MunFK5Ayx3voZY2ToBubSEuw6RmPSnCZcrHeZZckNFOLiw5Vd6EjLNvAju0sGp-t5SZEdJ9-nKV8O2NtpKtl5QreRcdVA9o0Gu1AI6AgdI3exwbvVzvvnxZMRp0gvHs6b4v7T3c_bL_vD989fbz8c9kbUctk32DYcqpEqAR3kHHqoFYpKEbSDUL3hxIde9c1oULVNK4VqhOGdlKJThqv6pniz6Z6D_51yNnq20dCUnZJPUWe0ga5dQbGBJvgYA436HOyM4ao56LUdfdJbO3ptR0Onczt57fWDPsYczJi_amz8t1tBJ-qubTL3auNG9BqPITP3PyrgNfCmbZWETLzbCMpxXCwFHY1dCxtsfnXRg7f_t_IXQ8G1Yw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>19750968</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Does harvest residue management influence biomass and nutrient accumulation in understory vegetation of Eucalyptus globulus Labill. plantations in a Mediterranean environment?</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Carneiro, M. ; Serrão, V. ; Fabião, A. ; Madeira, M. ; Balsemão, I. ; Hilário, L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Carneiro, M. ; Serrão, V. ; Fabião, A. ; Madeira, M. ; Balsemão, I. ; Hilário, L.</creatorcontrib><description>The effect of harvest residue management options on biomass and nutrient accumulation in understory vegetation, as well as the contribution of understory to nutrient cycling, were assessed during the early rotation stage of a Eucalyptus globulus Labill. plantation in Central Portugal. The effects of residue management options on early tree growth were also evaluated. Treatments established at the time of plantation and replicated four times in a simple completely randomised design included removal of harvest residues (R), incorporation of residues into the soil by harrowing (I) and maintenance of residues on the soil surface (S). Understory biomass was sampled in the spring between 2002 and 2006, and every 2 months between March 2006 and March 2007. The latter samples were stratified into biomass, standing dead mass and litter for net above ground primary production (NAPP) assessment. Samples were oven dried, weighed and analysed for nutrient contents. Results showed that understory standing biomass strongly increased from the first to the third year and that quantities of nutrients accumulated in ground vegetation followed similar patterns between the three treatments. Nutrient accumulation in ground vegetation was greater than in tree biomass until at least the second spring after plantation. Bimonthly sampling revealed treatment R to have the largest amounts of standing biomass, standing dead mass, litter and nutrient immobilisation, while treatment S exhibited the lowest values. NAPP (4th–5th year) was 639, 511 and 362 g m −2 year −1, respectively in R, I and S, corresponding the standing biomass increase to 277, 183 and 143 g m −2 year −1. These values are comparable to those observed for litter fall in similar stands (age and tree density) in the same area. The contribution of ground vegetation to nutrient accumulation in the system was unaffected by harvest residue management methods, but further research is necessary in order to establish whether slash management options influence long term tree growth and vegetation dynamics.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0378-1127</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-7042</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2008.09.027</identifier><identifier>CODEN: FECMDW</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Kidlington: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Animal and plant ecology ; Animal, plant and microbial ecology ; Artificial regeneration. Forest nurseries. Planting ; biogeochemical cycles ; Biological and medical sciences ; dry matter accumulation ; early rotation ; Eucalyptus globulus ; Eucalyptus plantations ; forest plantations ; forest trees ; Forestry ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Ground vegetation ; NAPP ; Nutrients ; plant growth ; primary productivity ; Slash ; slash management ; soil nutrient dynamics ; Sowing and planting ; Synecology ; Terrestrial ecosystems ; tree growth ; understory</subject><ispartof>Forest ecology and management, 2009-01, Vol.257 (2), p.527-535</ispartof><rights>2008 Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>2009 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c437t-5a65102fe24090872b038a428e06d48bc1e1db8b5fca865674854c1977498c183</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c437t-5a65102fe24090872b038a428e06d48bc1e1db8b5fca865674854c1977498c183</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.09.027$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=20943965$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Carneiro, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Serrão, V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fabião, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Madeira, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Balsemão, I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hilário, L.</creatorcontrib><title>Does harvest residue management influence biomass and nutrient accumulation in understory vegetation of Eucalyptus globulus Labill. plantations in a Mediterranean environment?</title><title>Forest ecology and management</title><description>The effect of harvest residue management options on biomass and nutrient accumulation in understory vegetation, as well as the contribution of understory to nutrient cycling, were assessed during the early rotation stage of a Eucalyptus globulus Labill. plantation in Central Portugal. The effects of residue management options on early tree growth were also evaluated. Treatments established at the time of plantation and replicated four times in a simple completely randomised design included removal of harvest residues (R), incorporation of residues into the soil by harrowing (I) and maintenance of residues on the soil surface (S). Understory biomass was sampled in the spring between 2002 and 2006, and every 2 months between March 2006 and March 2007. The latter samples were stratified into biomass, standing dead mass and litter for net above ground primary production (NAPP) assessment. Samples were oven dried, weighed and analysed for nutrient contents. Results showed that understory standing biomass strongly increased from the first to the third year and that quantities of nutrients accumulated in ground vegetation followed similar patterns between the three treatments. Nutrient accumulation in ground vegetation was greater than in tree biomass until at least the second spring after plantation. Bimonthly sampling revealed treatment R to have the largest amounts of standing biomass, standing dead mass, litter and nutrient immobilisation, while treatment S exhibited the lowest values. NAPP (4th–5th year) was 639, 511 and 362 g m −2 year −1, respectively in R, I and S, corresponding the standing biomass increase to 277, 183 and 143 g m −2 year −1. These values are comparable to those observed for litter fall in similar stands (age and tree density) in the same area. The contribution of ground vegetation to nutrient accumulation in the system was unaffected by harvest residue management methods, but further research is necessary in order to establish whether slash management options influence long term tree growth and vegetation dynamics.</description><subject>Animal and plant ecology</subject><subject>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</subject><subject>Artificial regeneration. Forest nurseries. Planting</subject><subject>biogeochemical cycles</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>dry matter accumulation</subject><subject>early rotation</subject><subject>Eucalyptus globulus</subject><subject>Eucalyptus plantations</subject><subject>forest plantations</subject><subject>forest trees</subject><subject>Forestry</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Ground vegetation</subject><subject>NAPP</subject><subject>Nutrients</subject><subject>plant growth</subject><subject>primary productivity</subject><subject>Slash</subject><subject>slash management</subject><subject>soil nutrient dynamics</subject><subject>Sowing and planting</subject><subject>Synecology</subject><subject>Terrestrial ecosystems</subject><subject>tree growth</subject><subject>understory</subject><issn>0378-1127</issn><issn>1872-7042</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kc2O1DAQhCMEEsPCGyDhC9wmtBMndi4gtCw_0iAOsGer43QGjxJ7sOOR5ql4RRxlxZGTLfXX5XJVUbzkUHLg7dtTOfpAxpcVgCqhK6GSj4odV7LaSxDV42IHtVR7ziv5tHgW4wkAmkaoXfHno6fIfmG4UFxYoGiHRGxGh0eayS3MunFK5Ayx3voZY2ToBubSEuw6RmPSnCZcrHeZZckNFOLiw5Vd6EjLNvAju0sGp-t5SZEdJ9-nKV8O2NtpKtl5QreRcdVA9o0Gu1AI6AgdI3exwbvVzvvnxZMRp0gvHs6b4v7T3c_bL_vD989fbz8c9kbUctk32DYcqpEqAR3kHHqoFYpKEbSDUL3hxIde9c1oULVNK4VqhOGdlKJThqv6pniz6Z6D_51yNnq20dCUnZJPUWe0ga5dQbGBJvgYA436HOyM4ao56LUdfdJbO3ptR0Onczt57fWDPsYczJi_amz8t1tBJ-qubTL3auNG9BqPITP3PyrgNfCmbZWETLzbCMpxXCwFHY1dCxtsfnXRg7f_t_IXQ8G1Yw</recordid><startdate>20090131</startdate><enddate>20090131</enddate><creator>Carneiro, M.</creator><creator>Serrão, V.</creator><creator>Fabião, A.</creator><creator>Madeira, M.</creator><creator>Balsemão, I.</creator><creator>Hilário, L.</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>[Amsterdam]: Elsevier Science</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H99</scope><scope>L.F</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>P64</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20090131</creationdate><title>Does harvest residue management influence biomass and nutrient accumulation in understory vegetation of Eucalyptus globulus Labill. plantations in a Mediterranean environment?</title><author>Carneiro, M. ; Serrão, V. ; Fabião, A. ; Madeira, M. ; Balsemão, I. ; Hilário, L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c437t-5a65102fe24090872b038a428e06d48bc1e1db8b5fca865674854c1977498c183</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Animal and plant ecology</topic><topic>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</topic><topic>Artificial regeneration. Forest nurseries. Planting</topic><topic>biogeochemical cycles</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>dry matter accumulation</topic><topic>early rotation</topic><topic>Eucalyptus globulus</topic><topic>Eucalyptus plantations</topic><topic>forest plantations</topic><topic>forest trees</topic><topic>Forestry</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Ground vegetation</topic><topic>NAPP</topic><topic>Nutrients</topic><topic>plant growth</topic><topic>primary productivity</topic><topic>Slash</topic><topic>slash management</topic><topic>soil nutrient dynamics</topic><topic>Sowing and planting</topic><topic>Synecology</topic><topic>Terrestrial ecosystems</topic><topic>tree growth</topic><topic>understory</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Carneiro, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Serrão, V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fabião, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Madeira, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Balsemão, I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hilário, L.</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ASFA: Marine Biotechnology Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Marine Biotechnology Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Forest ecology and management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Carneiro, M.</au><au>Serrão, V.</au><au>Fabião, A.</au><au>Madeira, M.</au><au>Balsemão, I.</au><au>Hilário, L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Does harvest residue management influence biomass and nutrient accumulation in understory vegetation of Eucalyptus globulus Labill. plantations in a Mediterranean environment?</atitle><jtitle>Forest ecology and management</jtitle><date>2009-01-31</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>257</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>527</spage><epage>535</epage><pages>527-535</pages><issn>0378-1127</issn><eissn>1872-7042</eissn><coden>FECMDW</coden><abstract>The effect of harvest residue management options on biomass and nutrient accumulation in understory vegetation, as well as the contribution of understory to nutrient cycling, were assessed during the early rotation stage of a Eucalyptus globulus Labill. plantation in Central Portugal. The effects of residue management options on early tree growth were also evaluated. Treatments established at the time of plantation and replicated four times in a simple completely randomised design included removal of harvest residues (R), incorporation of residues into the soil by harrowing (I) and maintenance of residues on the soil surface (S). Understory biomass was sampled in the spring between 2002 and 2006, and every 2 months between March 2006 and March 2007. The latter samples were stratified into biomass, standing dead mass and litter for net above ground primary production (NAPP) assessment. Samples were oven dried, weighed and analysed for nutrient contents. Results showed that understory standing biomass strongly increased from the first to the third year and that quantities of nutrients accumulated in ground vegetation followed similar patterns between the three treatments. Nutrient accumulation in ground vegetation was greater than in tree biomass until at least the second spring after plantation. Bimonthly sampling revealed treatment R to have the largest amounts of standing biomass, standing dead mass, litter and nutrient immobilisation, while treatment S exhibited the lowest values. NAPP (4th–5th year) was 639, 511 and 362 g m −2 year −1, respectively in R, I and S, corresponding the standing biomass increase to 277, 183 and 143 g m −2 year −1. These values are comparable to those observed for litter fall in similar stands (age and tree density) in the same area. The contribution of ground vegetation to nutrient accumulation in the system was unaffected by harvest residue management methods, but further research is necessary in order to establish whether slash management options influence long term tree growth and vegetation dynamics.</abstract><cop>Kidlington</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/j.foreco.2008.09.027</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0378-1127
ispartof Forest ecology and management, 2009-01, Vol.257 (2), p.527-535
issn 0378-1127
1872-7042
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_19750968
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete
subjects Animal and plant ecology
Animal, plant and microbial ecology
Artificial regeneration. Forest nurseries. Planting
biogeochemical cycles
Biological and medical sciences
dry matter accumulation
early rotation
Eucalyptus globulus
Eucalyptus plantations
forest plantations
forest trees
Forestry
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Ground vegetation
NAPP
Nutrients
plant growth
primary productivity
Slash
slash management
soil nutrient dynamics
Sowing and planting
Synecology
Terrestrial ecosystems
tree growth
understory
title Does harvest residue management influence biomass and nutrient accumulation in understory vegetation of Eucalyptus globulus Labill. plantations in a Mediterranean environment?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T13%3A56%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Does%20harvest%20residue%20management%20influence%20biomass%20and%20nutrient%20accumulation%20in%20understory%20vegetation%20of%20Eucalyptus%20globulus%20Labill.%20plantations%20in%20a%20Mediterranean%20environment?&rft.jtitle=Forest%20ecology%20and%20management&rft.au=Carneiro,%20M.&rft.date=2009-01-31&rft.volume=257&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=527&rft.epage=535&rft.pages=527-535&rft.issn=0378-1127&rft.eissn=1872-7042&rft.coden=FECMDW&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.09.027&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E19750968%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=19750968&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0378112708007184&rfr_iscdi=true