4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Fine root dynamics in Slovenian beech forests in relation to soil temperature and water availability

期刊

TREES-STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION
卷 30, 期 2, 页码 375-384

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00468-015-1218-z

关键词

Fine root ingrowth; Fine root mortality; Environmental factors; Forest floor precipitation; Evapotranspiration

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ingrowth and mortality of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) fine roots (diameters < 2 mm) were studied in relation to environmental variables describing temperature and water availability at four sites, covering a range in environmental conditions likely to be encountered in Slovenian beech forests. Minirhizotron images were used to determine fine root dynamics in a stand and gap in each of the sites for 12 periods during the 2007-2009 growing seasons. The environmental variables included air and soil temperatures, precipitation, forest floor precipitation, evapotranspiration and soil water contents. For data analysis, the daily mean values for each period for all variables were used. Fine root ingrowth and mortality were higher in the managed stand and gap compared to the old-growth stand and gap, but only significantly correlated with each other in the case of the managed stand. Forest floor precipitation and soil temperature were significant in explaining fine root ingrowth, whereas maximal evapotranspiration, soil temperature and soil water content were more important for fine root mortality. However, the correlations were weak and inconsistent among the four sites. By including site as predictor as well as environmental variables, R (2) values of 0.49 and 0.55 for ingrowth and mortality, respectively, were achieved. Despite this, the relationships between the fine root dynamics and selected environmental factors appeared relatively weak and complex, especially for fine root ingrowth and might be partially related also to differences in successional stages of the forests under study.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据