2019
DOI: 10.1139/cjfr-2018-0185
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Characterization and decomposition of Nothofagus pumilio fine woody material

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Branches in DC2 have been on the forest oor for many years, as opposed to branches in DC1 which belonged to recently fallen trees; hence, the slightly lower density of branches in DC2 in MF forest could be related to factors that accelerated decomposition or produced faster degradation of some component in the rst years after intervention but are no longer operating. The reason why mass loss of twigs in DC2 did not differ between treatments could be that, because of their very small diameter, the twigs reaching the forest oor at the same time as branches in DC2 should have been almost totally decomposed by the beginning of the study (Gallo et al 2019); thus, the twigs in DC2 used in the experiment must have reached the forest oor later than the branches in DC2.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Branches in DC2 have been on the forest oor for many years, as opposed to branches in DC1 which belonged to recently fallen trees; hence, the slightly lower density of branches in DC2 in MF forest could be related to factors that accelerated decomposition or produced faster degradation of some component in the rst years after intervention but are no longer operating. The reason why mass loss of twigs in DC2 did not differ between treatments could be that, because of their very small diameter, the twigs reaching the forest oor at the same time as branches in DC2 should have been almost totally decomposed by the beginning of the study (Gallo et al 2019); thus, the twigs in DC2 used in the experiment must have reached the forest oor later than the branches in DC2.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous studies in shelterwood systems in these forests have reported lower humidity and greater radiation and wind speed in managed forests than in unmanaged ones (Caldentey et al 1999;Promis et al 2010). Although litter and wood decomposition in these forests has been documented in several studies (Frangi et al 1997;Decker and Boerner 2006;Ibarra et al 2011;Mansilla 2012;Moretto and Martínez Pastur 2014;Gallo 2017;Gallo et al 2019) and wood-inhabiting fungi diversity has also been reported (Horak 1979;Greslebin 2002;Greslebin and Rajchenberg 2003;Rajchenberg 2006), no studies have assessed wood decomposition in relation to fungal diversity and forest management.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 93%