2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2008.05.026
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Nitrogen fertiliser effects on litter fall, FH layer and mineral soil characteristics in New Zealand Pinus radiata plantations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

4
15
0
3

Year Published

2009
2009
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
(44 reference statements)
4
15
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, Homann et al (2001) assessed paired unfertilized and urea fertilized (>89 gN m −2 ) plots in 13-s growth Douglas-fir stands distributed throughout western Washington and Oregon and found no change in C concentrations in the light fraction soil organic matter. The lack of response of C concentrations in the mineral soils to N fertilization is not unexpected because N additions are often reported to increase the decomposition of soil organic matter, but this loss of soil C can be offset by increased organic matter inputs from litter due to N-caused increase in growth (Huang et al 2011a;Neff et al 2002;Smaill et al 2008). In this trial, N fertilization did not significantly increase forest productivity.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 55%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…For example, Homann et al (2001) assessed paired unfertilized and urea fertilized (>89 gN m −2 ) plots in 13-s growth Douglas-fir stands distributed throughout western Washington and Oregon and found no change in C concentrations in the light fraction soil organic matter. The lack of response of C concentrations in the mineral soils to N fertilization is not unexpected because N additions are often reported to increase the decomposition of soil organic matter, but this loss of soil C can be offset by increased organic matter inputs from litter due to N-caused increase in growth (Huang et al 2011a;Neff et al 2002;Smaill et al 2008). In this trial, N fertilization did not significantly increase forest productivity.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 55%
“…Carlyle (1993) stated that whole-tree harvesting tended to decrease the size of the labile soil C pool and that, because this loss can be offset by resumed litter inputs, the effect is probably temporary and only reduction in the stable pool is likely to persist in the long term. The forest productivity and litter biomass measurements made for this trial by Smaill (2006) in 2003 suggested that neither the 300 Index nor the litterfall biomass was significantly affected by forest harvesting (P=0.21 and 0.11, respectively). The 300 Index were 28.5 and 28.4 m 3 /ha/year in whole-tree harvesting and stem-only harvesting plots, respectively, and the litterfall input was 0.93 and 1.18 g/m 2 per day in whole-tree harvesting and stem-only harvesting plots, respectively.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 68%
See 3 more Smart Citations