Mull and Mor Formation in Relation to Forest Soils

Handley, W. R. C.

doi:10.1097/00010694-195504000-00018

Cited by 65 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Various factors such as geology, topography, climate, soil microflora and fauna, vegetation and leaf properties (pH, buffering capacity, mineral composition, tanning substances, N content or C/N) have been thought to control the formation of mull and mor. These factors have been reviewed and evaluated by Handley 5 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Breakdown of forest litter in relation to environmental factors

1961

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Breakdown of forest litter in relation to environmental factors

1961

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Soil animals are known to be crucial for humus profile build-up, feeding either on litter and excreting hemiorganic fecal pellets (epigeic fauna) or feeding on soil and excreting mineral fecal pellets (endogeic fauna) (Zachariae 1965;Bernier and Ponge 1994). Vegetation also controls the humus form and the soil fauna via litter deposition and root absorption and exudation (Handley 1954;Northup et al 1995;Hobbie 2000). Moreover, plants produce secondary metabolites (Robbins et al 1987;Appel 1993) or shorten their biological cycle (Grime et al 1997) to face interspecific competition or herbivory.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural relationships among vegetation, soil fauna and humus form in a subalpine forest ecosystem: a Hierarchical Multiple Factor Analysis (HMFA)

Bernier¹,

Gillet²

2012

Pedobiologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tAboveground vegetation, four belowground fauna groups and humus composition have been analyzed in order to investigate the links between autotrophic and heterotrophic communities in a Norwayspruce mountain forest in Tours-en-Savoie (France). The aboveground plant community was recorded in small patches corresponding to contrasting microhabitats. Animal communities and humus layers were sampled within the same patches. The relationships between humus profile, faunistic and floristic compositional gradients were investigated by Multiple Factor Analysis (MFA) and, for the first time in ecology, a Hierarchical Multiple Factor Analysis (HMFA) was used to interpret differences among humus layers. The analysis revealed a pattern with three main groups of microhabitats. The thorough study of separate humus layers could explain this result. The interplay of plant-animal-soil interactions is likely to drive the ecosystem toward three alternative states supporting humus traditional classification between mull-mor-moder. HMFA revealed the importance of depth to explain this contrast among humus forms, using humus layers as diagnostic tools in both inert and living components. HMFA also showed contrast between unexploited and exploited parts of the forest, but the study of soil and vegetation indicate that this contrast does not only hold in forest management but also in geomorphology. RV-coefficients among the six groups of variables showed significant fauna-fauna relationships in almost all humus layers except Actinedida. Plant-soil interactions are not as strong as expected and are even weaker when the soil in question is deep. In addition, HMFA failed to show direct interactions between plant and soil fauna but, paradoxically, HMFA does suggest that indirect plant-fauna interactions are at the focus of the ecosystem strategy that leads to the differentiation of ecological niches within the forest mosaic.

show abstract

“…It is generally known that the development of mycorrhizal associations is infiuenced to a great degree by available soil nutrients, physical soil conditions, water content in soil, quantity and quality of humus (Melin, 1927;Bjorkman, 1942;Hatch, 1937;Handley, 1954;Semachanova, 1962). All localities investigated here were situated in areas of native beech stands, in various forest types, on various subsoils and at various altitudes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Ecological Distribution of Mycorrhiza of Beech

Mejstrik¹,

Dominik²

1969

New Phytologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYThe following conclusions may be drawn from the determination of mycorrhizal spectra on beech at eight localities in Czechoslovakia. Altogether thirty-three sub-subtypes of ectotrophic mycorrhiza on beech were described in Czechoslovakia, of which seven are entirely new, namely: De, Df, Ed, Ee, Ek, Ihand Ik (see Dominik, 1959). Maximum frequencies of ectotrophic mycorrhizas were found down to a depth of 15-30 cm. With increasing depth the number of short roots and mycorrhizas decreased and the mycorrhizal spectrum narrowed. The quantities and types of humus were a decisive factor influencing mycorrhiza formation. Subtype E was the most frequent (20.26%) of all mycorrhizas. The richest mycorrhiza spectrum of four comparable localities was at Albrechtice in the Ore Mountains where fourteen sub-subtypes of ectotrophic mycorrhiza were found despite a heavy deposition of industrial ash from power plants and a high concentration of SOj in the atmosphere. No differences were found in the mycorrhiza variety between beech saplings (5-10 years) and older trees (over 100 years), nor was the occurrence of individual mycorrhiza strains characteristic of beech trees of different age.

show abstract

Mull and Mor Formation in Relation to Forest Soils

Cited by 65 publications

References 0 publications

Breakdown of forest litter in relation to environmental factors

Breakdown of forest litter in relation to environmental factors

Structural relationships among vegetation, soil fauna and humus form in a subalpine forest ecosystem: a Hierarchical Multiple Factor Analysis (HMFA)

The Ecological Distribution of Mycorrhiza of Beech

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About