Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Biomass, nutrient distribution and litterfall in Populus, Pinus and Picea stands on two different soils in Minnesota

  • 194 Accesses

  • 91 Citations

Summary

Pole sized stands ofPopulus tremuloides Michx.,Picea glauca (Moench.) Voss,Pinus resinosa Ait., andPinus banksiana Lamb., were sampled on both a very fine sandy loam and a loamy sand. Relative species ranking in above-ground tree biomass (Pinus resinosa>Populus>Picea>Pinus banksiana) and above-ground tree nutrient (N, P, K, Ca, Mg) weights (Populus>Picea>Pinus resinosa>Pinus banksiana) were similar on both soils. Particularly large proportions of biomass and nutrients were found in aspen bark and spruce foliage and branches on both soils. Harvesting entire above-ground trees would remove up to three times more nutrients than would harvesting only the bole.

Herbs and shrubs had less than 3% of the total vegetation organic matter but contributed as much as one-half of the total annual litterfall nutrients. Litterfall weights and nutrient concentrations, and especially forest floor nutrients, were all less on the loamy sand. Nutrients in the rooting zone of the loamy sand were 12 to 29% less than in the very fine sandy loam except for P which averaged 24% higher. On both soils, exchangeable Ca in the surface soil was much lower under Populus and Picea than under the pines, owing to species differences in uptake and apparently slow release of Ca by weathering.

Ca in the above-ground Populus amounted to 18% (very fine sandy loam) to 25% (loamy sand) of the exchangeable Ca in the total complex. Intensive utilization of this species in particular could stress the Ca economy of these sites.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Literature cited

  1. 1

    Alban D H 1979 Species influence on nutrients in vegetation and soils. pp 152–171.In Proceedings, impact of intensive harvesting on forest nutrient cycling, SUNY, College of Environ. Sci. and Forestry, Syracuse, N.Y. 421 p.

  2. 2

    Alban D H, Perala D A and Schlaegel B E 1978 Biomass and nutrient distribution in aspen, pine, and spruce stands on the same soil type in Minnesota. Can. J. For. Res. 8, 290–299.

  3. 3

    Benzie J W 1977 Manager's handbook for red pine in the North Central States. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-33, 22 p. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv., North Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, MN.

  4. 4

    Benzie J W 1977 Manager's handbook for jack pine in the North Central States. U.S. Dep. Agric. For Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-32, 18 p. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv., North Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, MN.

  5. 5

    Black C A 1968 Soil-plant relationships. 2nd Edition. Wiley Inc. N.Y. 792 p.

  6. 6

    Ellenberg H (Ed.) 1971 Integrated Experimental Ecology-Methods and results of ecosystem research in the German Solling project. Ecol. Studies No. 2. Springer-Verlag, NY. 214 p.

  7. 7

    Hansen H L and Kurmis V 1972 Natural succession in north-central Minnesota.In Aspen Symposium Proceedings, pp 59–66. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-1, 154 p. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv., North Cent. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, MN.

  8. 8

    Krause H H, Weetman G G and Arp P A 1978 Nutrient cycling in boreal forest ecosystems of North America. pp 287–319.In Forest Soils and Land Use. Ed. C T Youngberg Dep. For. and Wood Sci. Colorado State Univ., Ft. Collins. 623 p.

  9. 9

    Ovington J D 1962 Quantitative ecology of the woodland ecosystem concept.In advances in ecological Res. Vol. 1 Ed. J B Cragg. pp 103–195.

  10. 10

    Ovington J D 1965 Woodlands. English Universities Press Ltd., London, 154 p.

  11. 11

    Pritchett W L 1979 Properties and management of forest soils. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 500 p.

  12. 12

    Schlaegel B E 1971 Growth and yield of quaking aspen in north-central Minnesota. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv., Res. Pap. NC-58, 11 p. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv., North Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, MN.

  13. 13

    Stiell W M 1976 White spruce: artificial regeneration in Canada. Can. For. Serv., Dep. Environ. Inf. Rep. FMR-X-85, 275 p.

  14. 14

    Stone E L 1975 Effects of species on nutrient cycles and soil changes. Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. position and season. Can. J. For. Res. 6, 436–440.

  15. 15

    Verry E S and Timmons D R 1976 Elements in leaves of a trembling aspen clone by crown position and season. Can. J. For. Res. 6, 439–440.

  16. 16

    Yount J D 1975 Forest floor nutrient dynamics in southern Appalachian hardwood and white pine plantations ecosystems. pp 598–608.In Mineral Cycling in southeastern Ecosystems. Eds. F G Howell, J G Gentry and M H Smith U.S. Energy Research and Development Admin. 898 p.

Download references

Author information

Additional information

This article was written and prepared by U.S. Government employees on official time; it is therefore in the public domain.

Principal Silviculturist and Research Soil Scientist, resp.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Perala, D.A., Alban, D.H. Biomass, nutrient distribution and litterfall in Populus, Pinus and Picea stands on two different soils in Minnesota. Plant Soil 64, 177–192 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02184249

Download citation

Key words

  • Ca K
  • Litterfall Mg
  • Mineral cycling
  • N P Picea
  • Pinus
  • Populus
  • Tree biomass
  • Uptake