2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2006.02.031
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An approach for using general soil physical condition–root growth relationships to predict seedling growth response to site preparation tillage in loblolly pine plantations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
9
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
2
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…At our site, disk harrowing increased early tree growth by about 25% (total biomass). Similar increases in productivity after mechanical site preparation have often been reported (Fox, 2000;Morris et al, 2006;Jandl et al, 2007), and were explained by either improved soil physical conditions (porosity, lower soil penetration resistance allowing better root growth), lower competition (weed control), or improved nutrient and water availability (Collet et al, 1996;Morris et al, 2006;Lincoln et al, 2007). In our experiment, improved soil physical conditions were probably the main factor explaining the increase in tree growth, since competing vegetation was totally eliminated in both treatments (directed herbicide spraying throughout the year), and nutrient availability was probably not a limiting factor (trees were fertilised) nor a discriminative factor, since soil CO 2 efflux (and presumably nutrient release from residue and SOM decomposition) was not different between the two treatments ( Fig.…”
Section: Effects Of Disk Harrowing On Early Tree Growthsupporting
confidence: 79%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…At our site, disk harrowing increased early tree growth by about 25% (total biomass). Similar increases in productivity after mechanical site preparation have often been reported (Fox, 2000;Morris et al, 2006;Jandl et al, 2007), and were explained by either improved soil physical conditions (porosity, lower soil penetration resistance allowing better root growth), lower competition (weed control), or improved nutrient and water availability (Collet et al, 1996;Morris et al, 2006;Lincoln et al, 2007). In our experiment, improved soil physical conditions were probably the main factor explaining the increase in tree growth, since competing vegetation was totally eliminated in both treatments (directed herbicide spraying throughout the year), and nutrient availability was probably not a limiting factor (trees were fertilised) nor a discriminative factor, since soil CO 2 efflux (and presumably nutrient release from residue and SOM decomposition) was not different between the two treatments ( Fig.…”
Section: Effects Of Disk Harrowing On Early Tree Growthsupporting
confidence: 79%
“…We used agerelated equations that have been established for this Eucalyptus clone by Saint-André et al (2005). We assumed that site preparation had no significant effect on the allometric relationships between tree size and the biomass of the various tree compartments, which is a reasonable assumption following Morris et al (2006).…”
Section: Soil Co 2 Effluxmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The negative correlation between the CAG of pine and downy birch and soil scarification intensity found in our study may be caused by stress. Young seedlings may experience stress and limited growth of roots due to poor root connection with water [66]. This is similar to stress reported for newly planted seedlings [67], which is shown to limit early growth [68].…”
Section: Current Annual Growthsupporting
confidence: 63%
“…After the first growing season, pine seedlings varied in the total length of their root system, and in their root:shoot ratio. Tree seedling root growth is influenced by such physical factors of soil as: temperature, water, me-chanical resistance, and aeration (Sayer et al 2005;Morris et al 2006). The root growth is positively correlated with soil temperature (Lopushinsky and Max 1990) and negatively with water stress (Sayer et al 2005).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%