2001
DOI: 10.1139/cjfr-31-1-88
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Short-term responses of soil decomposer communities to forest management: clear felling versus alternative forest harvesting methods

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

3
67
0

Year Published

2003
2003
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 48 publications
(70 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
3
67
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Organic-layer C fungal , C mic , and N mic were in the range reported by others (e.g., Pietikäinen and Fritze 1995;Ruzicka et al 2000;Siira-Pietikäinen et al 2001) (Table 1). Following harvesting, there was a reduction in C mic , which was probably dominated by reductions in C fungal (Table 1).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 76%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Organic-layer C fungal , C mic , and N mic were in the range reported by others (e.g., Pietikäinen and Fritze 1995;Ruzicka et al 2000;Siira-Pietikäinen et al 2001) (Table 1). Following harvesting, there was a reduction in C mic , which was probably dominated by reductions in C fungal (Table 1).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 76%
“…Harvesting has increased (Lundgren 1982;Londo et al 1999), decreased (Lundgren 1982;Siira-Pietikäinen et al 2001), and had no effect (Pennanen et al 1999;Toland and Zak 1994) on soil microbial biomass and respiration. Reductions have been attributed to reduced litter input following harvesting (Pietikäinen and Fritze 1995), whereas increases have been attributed to slash deposition (Lundgren 1982).…”
mentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Boyle et al [74] also found little evidence of thinning impacts on microorganisms in mineral soil from the same study site used by Kaye and colleagues [21]. Microbial response to thinning in other forest types has been shown to be quite variable, from reduced microbial biomass without altering the population structure [44], to structural differences without altering microbial biomass [75][76][77], to altered biomass and structure [78]. The microbial responses to thinning are in part quite variable due to differences in thinning intensities, harvest practices, post-treatment site preparations, and timing of thinning relative to soil measurements, making comparisons among studies problematic.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…For example, Barg and Edmonds (1999) did not find any differences in N mineralization in field incubations or soil microbial biomass between an uncut Douglas-fir forest in the Pacific Northwest and green tree retention and clearcut treatments. Similarly, Siira-Pietikäinen et al (2001) found that decomposer communities in a Picea abies forest floor in Finland were barely affected by any form of harvesting (clearcut, selection, retention, and gap felling), with only clearcutting sometimes causing differences in communities compared to the unharvested forest. At MASS, it is interesting to note that C utilization patterns (Biolog plates) were distinctly different in the three treatments studied but that shelterwood was not intermediate between the clearcut or old-growth treatments, unlike other microbial parameters where the shelterwood was usually much like the clearcut (Bradley et al 2001).…”
Section: Do Alternative Silvicultural Systems Mitigate the Effects Ofmentioning
confidence: 91%