4.5 Article

Can topography affect the restoration of soil properties after deforestation in a semiarid ecosystem?

期刊

JOURNAL OF ARID ENVIRONMENTS
卷 162, 期 -, 页码 45-52

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2018.11.004

关键词

Sandy soil; Dryland; Caatinga biome; Dry forest; Land degradation

资金

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior - Brasil (CAPES) [001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of vegetation as a source of energy and its clearing for agricultural production has contributed to the degradation of the drylands in world. On soil, the effects of deforestation are still controversial and need to be better understood. In this study, the effect of deforestation and soil topography on soil morphological properties, nutrient availability, and carbon (C) contribution in a topossequence that was deforested 12 years before in the Brazilian semi-arid region was evaluated. For this purpose, two areas (preserved and deforested) were selected and separated into three positions along the slope: lower, middle, and upper third. For each position, the characterization of the soil fertility and the physical and morphological attributes of the selected profiles were carried out. In general, deforestation had no effect on the total organic carbon (TOC) of the soil, but, on the other hand, was responsible for increasing the structural fragility of the soil. The major effect of deforestation on soil fertility was reduced availability of cationic nutrients (Mg2+ and K+). We conclude that topography had no effect on the restoration of soil properties after deforestation in this semiarid ecosystem. For these conditions, similar management strategies (e.g. reforestation), can be adopted for the different topographical positions of the slope. Our results can be used in forest restoration projects of degraded ecosystems in drylands, to select the best practices of management, aiming at restoring the natural ecological processes of the ecosystem.

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