The role of tree uprooting in Cambisol development

Šamonil, Pavel; Tejnecký, Václav; Borůvka, Luboš; Šebková, Barbora; Janík, David; Šebek, Ondřej

doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2010.06.020

Cited by 39 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The reasons behind this are better microclimate conditions on mounds (they are warmer, drier and snow melts earlier), the availability of mineral soil suitable for rooting and reduced competition (Šamonil et al. , ,b). Windthrow mounds are disturbed significantly more often by the formation of new windthrows than other microsites, which, on a larger spatial scale, leads to the creation of sites with better regeneration conditions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatiotemporal differences in tree spatial patterns between alluvial hardwood and mountain fir–beech forests: do characteristic patterns exist?

Janík

Adam

Hort

et al. 2012

J Vegetation Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Questions What are the differences between the tree spatial patterns (TSP) of various recruit and mortality waves in alluvial hardwood forests and mountain fir–beech forests? Are there any statistically significant differences between the mean TSP of these forest types? Are these differences stable over time? Location Alluvial floodplain forests at the confluence of the Morava and Dyje rivers, and mountain fir–beech forests in the Outer Western Carpathians, Czech Republic. Methods In both forest types, seven 2‐ha rectangular plots were analysed. The pair correlation function g(r) was used to describe tree density variability of trees with DBH ≥ 10 cm. The analyses were carried out for data sets from the 1970s, 1990s and 2000s. A bootstrap method was used to test for significant differences between the mean values of g(r) from alluvial forests and from fir–beech forests. Results Recruits in mountain fir–beech forests revealed consistent clustering to at least 5 m. In alluvial hardwood forests, recruits also showed random distribution as well as occasional regular distribution at distances over 20 m. Bootstrap significance tests revealed significant differences between the mean values of g(r) for alluvial forests and fir–beech forests. Alluvial floodplain forests showed statistically significant stronger clustering up to a distance of 4 m in all study periods. At distances over 20 m, mountain fir–beech forests demonstrated stronger clustering. In the 1970s, this was statistically significant only at a distance of 32 m, but in the 2000s, it was at intervals of 22–30 and 34–38 m. Conclusions The methods of data analysis in this study enabled us to find significant features of TSP at finer resolution than the common resulting trichotomy of univariate analysis: clustering, randomness and regularity. We believe that, on the basis of detailed spatial analyses, it is possible to create a TSP model that reflects the typical features of particular forest types.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatiotemporal differences in tree spatial patterns between alluvial hardwood and mountain fir–beech forests: do characteristic patterns exist?

Janík

Adam

Hort

et al. 2012

J Vegetation Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Pit pit-mound microtopography (Samonil et al 2010b). However, this tendency was not observed in our study.…”

Section: Pit-mound Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Tree uprooting in mountain forest may provoke a severe and pervasive alteration of soil profile (Schaetzl et al 1989, Schaetzl 1990, Samonil et al 2010b) and habitat structure as well (Putz 1983, Grodzki & Starzyk 2004, Pawlik 2012. Uprooted trees reallocate soil, biomass, carbon and nutrients (Stephens 1956, Norman et al 1995, Clinton & Baker 2000, Ulanova 2000, Phillips et al 2008, Lenart et al 2010.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vertical pit-mounds distribution of uprooted Norway spruce (Picea abies L.): field evidence in the upper mountain belt

Zadrożny¹,

Halecki²,

Gąsiorek³

et al. 2017

iForest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(4)Tree uprooting causes significant changes in forest habitat functioning and soil formation. In this paper soil uplifted by tree throws was compared among 15 study plots from heterogeneous Norway spruce stands of the upper mountain belt in southern Poland. Pit-mound microtopography parameters such as length, width, depth of tree-throw pits, height of the root plate, and height of mineral and organic mounds, were measured at each uprooting site. Sites were grouped in 3 age groups based on the time elapsed since uprooting. Results showed significant differences between the studied parameters among age groups. Differences were most pronounced in mean pit depth (0.52, 0.65 and 0.95 m for 5-year, 3-year, and 1-year-old pits, respectively). No significant interaction between age group and root plate height was detected by ANOVA. Regression analysis showed that pit depth decreases as root plate height increases. Redundancy analysis using pit-mound parameters as dependent variables revealed that root plate height along with slope steepness are good predictors of the volume of dislocated soil at tree-throw sites. Overall, our results suggest that the erosion expected at uprooting sites in mountain Norway spruce stands could be conveniently estimated by measuring their root plates. This may help estimate the impact of windthrow on soil microtopography and quantify its effects on soil disturbance in Norway spruce stands of the upper mountain belt.

show abstract

“…Cremeans and Kalisz, 1988;Schaetzl and Follmer, 1990;Meyers and McSweeney, 1995;Phillips and Marion, 2004;Šamonil et al, 2010aPawlik, 2013;Pawlik et al, 2013;Valtera et al, 2013). However, the study area was subject to salvage logging (as were the 2006 blowdown sites).…”

Section: Energy and Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%