4.4 Article

Variability of moisture in coarse woody debris from several ecologically important tree species of the Temperate Zone of Europe

期刊

ECOHYDROLOGY
卷 5, 期 4, 页码 424-434

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/eco.235

关键词

coarse woody debris; decay class; wood type; moisture variability; natural forests; time domain reflectometry

资金

  1. Research & Development Operational Programme [ITMS: 26220120006]
  2. ERDF

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Deadwood moisture affects multiple functions of downed logs in forest ecosystems. They include provision of habitats for xylobionts, additional water stores and organic carbon stocks. In contrast to Northern American forests, little is known about moisture variability in downed logs of important tree species within the Temperate Zone of Europe. Therefore, our study aimed at elucidating this variability according to species, site and decay class (DC). Measurements were taken by TDR during two vegetation periods in eight Carpathian natural forests representing distinct site conditions, ranging from xerothermophilous to subalpine. Downed logs of Quercus spp., Abies alba Mill., Fagus sylvatica L., and Picea abies L., belonging to various DCs, were selected and instrumented with TDR probes. Species and DC-specific TDR calibration showed the importance of intrinsic wood porosity. The course of deadwood moisture consisted of drying during the early decay stage, except for A. alba and F. sylvatica, and an intense water reabsorption at later decay stages. Average moisture for all species and sites displayed seasonal trends, reflecting the occurrence of precipitation clusters and dry periods, as well as short-term fluctuations. Cross-spectral analysis revealed that both sapwood and heartwood participated in wetting and drying processes, but only after reaching an advanced stage of decay. New findings can be applied in interpreting, modelling and predicting deadwood water stores, habitat properties and respiration. Copyright (c) 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

4.4
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