J. For. Sci., 2013, 59(6):230-237 | DOI: 10.17221/3/2012-JFS

The impact of juvenile tree species canopy on properties of new forest floorOriginal Paper

D. Kacálek1, D. Dušek1, J. Novák1, J. Bartoš1,2
1 Forestry and Game Management Research Institute, Jíloviště-Strnady (Prague), Opočno Research Station, Opočno, Czech Republic
2 Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

To keep forest soils fertile, forest practitioners plant mixed stands that are composed of both economically efficient trees such as conifers and soil-improving broadleaves. This is a mandated practice in the Czech Republic. As the new forest grows, it creates a dense canopy. The canopy is a principal source of organic matter to the forest soil. The formation of new forest humus is particularly important in first-generation forests on the former agricultural soil. Former meadow is a suitable site for forest floor and soil investigation since forest-floor humus covering the surface of the soil is a completely new layer. Both pure evergreen conifer and mixed treatments were planted in 2001. The experimental plot was established in order to investigate performance of tree species and restoration of forest-site conditions. We sampled dead-plant material and 0-10 cm topsoil to investigate their properties under the 10-year-old stands. We compared the treatments by descriptive statistics using both univariate and multivariate techniques. Dry mass (medians of weight) varied among the treatments from 11 to 19 Mg.ha-1. The forest floor nutrient concentrations appeared to be dependent on the presence of admixed deciduous tree species (sycamore maple, small-leaved linden and European larch) as these forest floors (EL1, EL2, NS3, SM) were higher in base cations and phosphorus compared to pure spruce (NS1, NS2) and pure Douglas fir (DF) treatments. The first axis of PCA ordination plot revealed 45% of total variability and showed a clear distinction between evergreen coniferous and mixed species treatments. Young plantations produced forest floors of different quality; however it was not reflected in the topsoil properties.

Keywords: afforestation; agricultural land; forest floor; topsoil; nutrients

Published: June 30, 2013  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Kacálek D, Dušek D, Novák J, Bartoš J. The impact of juvenile tree species canopy on properties of new forest floor. J. For. Sci. 2013;59(6):230-237. doi: 10.17221/3/2012-JFS.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Albers D., Migge S., Schaefer M., Scheu S. (2004): Decomposition of beech leaves (Fagus sylvatica) and spruce needles (Picea abies) in pure and mixed stands of beech and spruce. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 36: 155-164. Go to original source...
    2. Augusto L., Ranger J., Binkley D., Rothe A. (2002): Impact of several common tree species of European temperate forests on soil fertility. Annales of Forest Science, 59: 233-253. Go to original source...
    3. Binkley D. (1986): Forest Nutrition Management. New York, John Wiley & Sons: 290.
    4. Binkley D. (1995): The Influence of Tree Species on Forest Soils: Processes and Patterns. In: Mead D.J., Cornforth I.S. (eds): Proceedings of the Trees and Soil Workshop. 28. February-2. March 1994. Canterbury, Lincoln University Press: 1-33.
    5. Binkley D., Valentine D. (1991): Fifty-year biogeochemical effects of green ash, white pine, and Norway spruce in a replicated experiment. Forest Ecology and Management, 40: 13-25. Go to original source...
    6. Binkley D., Giardina Ch. (1998): Why do trees affect soils? The warp and woof of tree-soil interactions. Biogeochemistry, 42: 89-106. Go to original source...
    7. Borken W., Beese F. (2005): Soil respiration in pure and mixed stands of European beech and Norway spruce following removal of organic horizons. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 35: 2756-2764. Go to original source...
    8. Briggs R.D. (2004): The Forest Floor. In: Burley J., Evans J., Youngquist J.A. (eds): Encyclopedia of Forest Sciences. Oxford, Elsevier: 1223-1227. Go to original source...
    9. Finzi A.C., Canham Ch.D., van Breemen N. (1998): Canopy tree-soil interactions within temperate forests: species effects on pH and cations. Ecological Applications, 8: 447-454. Go to original source...
    10. Hagen-Thorn A., Callesen I., Armolaitis K., Nihlgård B. (2004): The impact of six European tree species on the chemistry of mineral topsoil in forest plantations on former agricultural land. Forest Ecology and Management, 195: 373-384. Go to original source...
    11. Holzwarth F. M., Daenner M., Flessa H. (2011): Effects of beech and ash on small-scale variation of soil acidity and nutrient stocks in a mixed deciduous forest. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 174: 799-808. Go to original source...
    12. Laganière J., Paré D., Bradley R.L. (2009): Linking the abundance of aspen with soil faunal communities and rates of belowground processes within single stands of mixed aspen-black spruce. Applied Soil Ecology, 41: 19-28. Go to original source...
    13. Laganière J., Paré D., Bradley R.L. (2010): How does a tree species influence litter decomposition? Separating the relative contribution of litter quality, litter mixing, and forest floor conditions. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 40: 465-475. Go to original source...
    14. Mareschal L., Bonnaud P., Turpault M.P., Ranger J. (2010): Impact of common European tree species on the physicochemical properties of fine earth: an unusual pattern. European Journal of Soil Science, 61: 14-23. Go to original source...
    15. Mehlich A. (1984): Mehlich 3 soil test extractant: a modification of Mehlich 2 extractant. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 15: 1409-1416. Go to original source...
    16. Oheimb G. von, Härdtle W., Naumann P., Westphal Ch., Assmann T., Meyer H. (2008): Long-term effects of historical heathland farming on soil properties of forest ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management, 255: 1984-1993. Go to original source...
    17. Opletal M., Domečka K. (1983): Synoptic Geological Map of the Orlické hory Mts. Praha, Ústřednî ústav geologický, Geological Survey & Geodetic and Cartographic Enterprise.
    18. Pernar N., Matić S., Bakšić D., Klimo E. (2008): The accumulation and properties of surface humus layer in mixed earthworms and soil properties: a common garden test with 14 tree species. Ecology Letters, 8: 811-818. Go to original source...
    19. Ritter E., Vesterdal L., Gundersen P. (2003): Changes in soil properties after afforestation of former intensively managed soils with oak and Norway spruce. Plant and selection forests of fir on different substrates. Ekologia (Brati- Soil, 249: 319-330. slava), 27: 41-53. Go to original source...
    20. Podrázský V., Remeš J. (2008): Půdotvorná role významných introdukovaných jehličnanů - douglasky tisolisté, jedle obrovské a borovice vejmutovky. [Soil-forming role of important introduced conifers - Douglas fir, Grand fir and Eastern white pine.] Zprávy lesnického výzkumu, 53: 29-36.
    21. Podrázský V., Remeš J., Hart V., Moser W.K. (2009): Production and humus form development in forest stands established on agricultural lands - Kostelec nad Černými lesy region. Journal of Forest Science, 55: 299-305. Go to original source...
    22. Prescott C.E., Zabek L.M., Staley C.L., Kabzems R. (2000): Decomposition of broadleaf and needle litter in forests of British Columbia: influences of litter type, forest type, and litter mixtures. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 30: 1742-1750. Go to original source...
    23. Prescott C.E. (2002): The influence of the forest canopy on nutrient cycling. Tree Physiology, 22: 1193-1200. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    24. Raulund-Rasmussen K., Vejre H. (1995): Effect of tree species and soil properties on nutrient immobilization in the forest floor. Plant and Soil, 168-169: 345-352. Go to original source...
    25. Reich P.B., Oleksyn J., Modrzynski J., Mrozinski P., Hobbie S.E., Eissenstat D.M., Chorover J., Chadwick O.A., Hale C.M., Tjoelker M.G. (2005): Linking litter calcium, Singer J.S., Munns D.N. (1996): Soils. An Introduction. New Jersey, Prentice Hall: 480
    26. Vesterdal L., Raulund-Rasmussen K. (1998): Forest floor chemistry under seven tree species along a soil fertility gradient. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 28: 1636-1647. Go to original source...
    27. Wall A., Hytönen J. (2005): Soil fertility of afforested arable land compared to continuously forested sites. Plant and Soil, 275: 247-260. Go to original source...
    28. Wall A., Westman C.J. (2006): Site classification of afforested arable land based on soil properties for forest production. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 36: 1451-1460. Go to original source...
    29. Wang Q., Wang S., Fan B., Yu X. (2007): Litter production, leaf litter decomposition and nutrient return in Cunninghamia lanceolata plantations in south China: effect of planting conifers with broadleaved species. Plant and Soil, 297: 201-211. Go to original source...
    30. Zbíral J. (1995): Analýza půd I. [Soil Analysis I.] Brno, Státní kontrolní a zkušební ústav zemědělský: 177.
    31. Zhiyanski M., Kolev K., Sokolovska M. (2008): Tree species effect on soils in Central Stara Planina Mountains. Nauka za Gorata - Forest Science, 4: 65-82.

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content