Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 153, Issue 3, pp 663–674 | Cite as

The effect of forest type on throughfall deposition and seepage flux: a review

  • An De Schrijver
  • Guy Geudens
  • Laurent Augusto
  • Jeroen Staelens
  • Jan Mertens
  • Karen Wuyts
  • Leen Gielis
  • Kris Verheyen
Ecosystem Ecology

Abstract

Converting deciduous forests to coniferous plantations and vice versa causes environmental changes, but till now insight into the overall effect is lacking. This review, based on 38 case studies, aims to find out how coniferous and deciduous forests differ in terms of throughfall (+stemflow) deposition and seepage flux to groundwater. From the comparison of coniferous and deciduous stands at comparable sites, it can be inferred that deciduous forests receive less N and S via throughfall (+stemflow) deposition on the forest floor. In regions with relatively low open field deposition of atmospheric N (<10 kg N ha−1 year−1), lower NH 4 + mean throughfall (+stemflow) deposition was, however, reported under conifers compared to deciduous forest, while in regions with high atmospheric N pollution (>10 kg N ha−1 year−1), the opposite could be concluded. The higher the open field deposition of NH 4 + , the bigger the difference between the coniferous and deciduous throughfall (+stemflow) deposition. Furthermore, it can be concluded that canopy exchange of K+, Ca2+ and Mg2+ is on average higher in deciduous stands. The significantly higher stand deposition flux of N and S in coniferous forests is reflected in a higher soil seepage flux of NO 3 , SO 4 2− , K+, Ca2+, Mg2+ and Al(III). Considering a subset of papers for which all necessary data were available, a close relationship between throughfall (+stemflow) deposition and seepage was found for N, irrespective of the forest type, while this was not the case for S. This review shows that the higher input flux of N and S in coniferous forests clearly involves a higher seepage of NO 3 and SO 4 2− and accompanying cations K+, Ca2+, Mg2+ and Al(III) into the groundwater, making this forest type more vulnerable to acidification and eutrophication compared to the deciduous forest type.

Keywords

Coniferous forest Deciduous forest Nitrogen Sulphur Base cations 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The fourth author was granted a postdoctoral fellowship of the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO). This paper is connected to the activities of the EFI Project Centre CONFOREST.

References

  1. Aber JD, Nadelhoffer KJ, Steudler P, Melillo JM (1989) Nitrogen saturation in Northern forest ecosystems. Bioscience 39:378–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ågren GI, Bosatta E (1988) Nitrogen saturation of the terrestrial ecosystem. Environ Pollut 54:185–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alcock MR, Morton J (1985) Nutrient content of throughfall and stemflow in woodland recently established on heathland. J Ecol 73:625–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Augusto L, Ranger J, Binkley D, Rothe A (2002) Impact of several tree species of European temperate forests on soil fertility. Ann For Sci 59:233–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergkvist B, Folkeson L (1995) The influence of tree species on acid deposition, proton budgets and element fluxes in south Swedish forest ecosystems. Ecol Bull 44:90–99Google Scholar
  6. Binkley D (1996) The influence of tree species on forest soils: processes and patterns. In: Mead DJ, Cornforth IS (eds) Proceedings of the trees and soil workshop, 1994. Agronomical Society of New Zealand, special publication no. 10. Lincoln University Press, Canterbury, pp 1–33Google Scholar
  7. Bleeker A, Draaijers G, van der Veen D, Erisman JW, Möls H, Fonteijn P, Geusebroek M (2003) Field intercomparison of throughfall measurements performed within the framework of the Pan European Intensive Monitoring Program of EU/ICP Forest. Environ Pollut 125:123–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borken W, Xu YJ, Beese F (2004) Ammonium, nitrate and dissolved organic nitrogen in seepage water as affected by compost amendment to European beech, Norway spruce and Scots pine forests. Plant Soil 258:121–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boumans LJM, Fraters D, Van Drecht G (2004) Nitrate leaching in agriculture to upper groundwater in the sandy regions of the Netherlands during the 1992–1995 period. Environ Monit Assess 102:225–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowden RD, Geballe GT, Bowden WB (1989) Foliar uptake of 15N from simulated cloud water by red spruce (Picea rubens) seedlings. Can J For Res 19:382–386Google Scholar
  11. Boyce RL, Friedland AJ, Chamberlain CP, Poulson SR (1996) Direct canopy nitrogen uptake from 15N-labeled wet deposition by mature red spruce. Can J For Res 26:1539–1547Google Scholar
  12. Bustamante RO, Simonetti JA (2005) Is Pinus radiata invading the native vegetation in central Chile? Demographic responses in a fragmented forest. Biol Invasions 7:243–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cairns MA, Lajtha K (2005) Effect of succession on nitrogen export in the West-Central Cascades, Oregon. Ecosystems 8:583–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cappellato R, Peters NE, Ragsdale HL (1993) Acidic atmospheric deposition and canopy interactions of adjacent deciduous and coniferous forests in the Georgia Piedmont. Can J For Res 23:1114–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cole DW, Rapp M (1981) Elemental cycling in forest ecosystems. In: Reichle DE (Ed) Dynamic properties of forest ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 341–410Google Scholar
  16. Dambrine E, Probst A, Viville D, Biron P, Paces T, Novak M, Buzek T, Cerny J, Groscheova H (2000) Spatial variability and long-term trends in mass balance of nitrogen and sulphur in central European forested catchments. In: Schulze ED (Eds) Carbon and nitrogen cycling in European forest ecosystems. Ecological studies 142. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 405–418Google Scholar
  17. De Schrijver A, Nachtergale L, Staelens J, Luyssaert S, De Keersmaeker L (2004) Comparison of throughfall and soil solution chemistry between a high-density Corsican pine stand and a naturally regenerated silver birch stand. Environ Pollut 131:93–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. de Vries W, Reinds GJ, Vel E (2003) Intensive monitoring of forest ecosystems in Europe 2: atmospheric deposition and its impact on soil solution chemistry. For Ecol Manage 174:97–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Draaijers GPJ (1993) The variability of atmospheric deposition to forests. PhD thesis. University of Utrecht, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  20. Draaijers GPJ, Erisman JW, Van Leeuwen NFM, Romer FG, te Winkel BH, Veltkamp AC, Vermeulen AT, Wyers GP (1997) The impact of canopy exchange on differences observed between atmospheric deposition and throughfall fluxes. Atmos Environ 31:387–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Durand P, Neal C, Lelong F, Didon-Lescot J-F (1992) Effects of land-use and atmospheric input on stream and soil chemistry: field results and long-term simulation at Mont-Lozere (Cevennes National Park, Southern France). Sci Total Environ 119:191–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Erisman JW, Draaijers G (2003) Deposition to forests in Europe: most important factors influencing dry deposition and models used for generalisation. Environ Pollut 124:379–388PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fichter J, Dambrine E, Turpault MP, Ranger J (1998) Base cation supply in spruce and beech ecosystems of the Strengbach catchment (Vosges Mountains, N-E France). Water Air Soil Pollut 104:125–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Garten CT, Hanson PJ (1990) Foliar retention of 15N-nitrate and 15N-ammonium by red maple (Acer rubrum) and white oak (Quercus alba) leaves from simulated rain. Environ Exp Bot 30:333–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gartner S, Reif A (2004) The impact of forest transformation on stand structure and ground vegetation in the southern Black Forest, Germany. Plant Soil 264:35–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gundersen P, Callesen I, de Vries W (1998) Nitrate leaching in forest ecosystems is related to forest floor C/N ratios. Environ Pollut 102:403–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gundersen P, Schmidt IK, Raulund-Rasmussen K (2006) Leaching of nitrate from temperate forests—effects of air pollution and forest management. Environ Rev 14:1–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gurevitch J, Curtis PS, Jones MH (2001) Meta-analysis in ecology. Adv Ecol Res 32:199–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harrison AF, Johnson DW (1992) Inorganic sulfate dynamics. In: Johnson DW, Lindberg SE (eds) Atmospheric deposition and forest nutrient cycling. A synthesis of the integrated forest study. Ecological studies 91. Springer, Berlin, pp 104–118Google Scholar
  30. Heinrichs H, Mayer R (1977) Distribution and cycling of major and trace elements in two Central European forest ecosystems. J Environ Qual 6:402–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hermann M., Pust J, Pott R (2006) The chemical composition of throughfall beneath oak, birch and pine canopies in Northwest Germany. Plant Ecol 154:273–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Houle D, Ouimet R, Paquin R, Laflamme JG (1999) Determination of sample size for estimating ion throughfall deposition under a mixed hardwood forest at the Lake Clair Watershed (Duchesnay, Quebec). Can J For Res 29:1935–1943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Howard PJA, Howard DM (1990) Titrable acids and bases in tree and shrub leaf litters. Forestry 63:178–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johansson MB (1995) The chemical composition of needle and leaf litter from Scots pine, Norway spruce and white birch in Scandinavian forests. Forestry 68:49–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson DW (1992) Base cation distribution and cycling. In: Johnson DW, Lindberg SE (eds) Atmospheric deposition and forest nutrient cycling. A synthesis of the Integrated Forest Study. Ecological studies 91. Springer, Berlin, pp 275–340Google Scholar
  36. Jussy JH, Colin-Belgrand M, Dambrine E, Ranger J, Zeller B, Bienaimé S (2004) N deposition, N transformation and N leaching in acid forest soils. Biogeochemistry 69:241–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Knoke T, Stimm B, Ammer C, Moog M (2005) Mixed forests reconsidered: A forest economics contribution on an ecological concept. For Ecol Manage 213:102–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kristensen HL, Gundersen P, Callesen I, Reinds GJ (2004) Throughfall nitrogen deposition has different impacts on soil solution nitrate concentration in European coniferous and deciduous forests. Ecosystems 7:180–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Künstle E, Mitscherlich G, Rönicke G (1981) Investigations in the concentration and quantity of sulfur, chloride, potassium and calcium as well as hydrogen-ion in the precipitation in the open and in the throughfall of deciduous and coniferous stands near Freiburg i. Br. Allg Forst Jagdzeit 152:147–165Google Scholar
  40. Lochman V, Sebkova V (1998) The development of air pollutant depositions and soil chemistry on the research plots in the eastern part of the Ore Mts. Lesnictvi For 44:549–560Google Scholar
  41. Lochman V, Mares V, Fadrhonsova V (2004) Development of air pollutant deposition, soil water chemistry and soil on Šerlich research plots, and water chemistry in a surface water source. J For Sci 50:263–283Google Scholar
  42. Lovett GM, Schaefer DA (1992) Canopy interactions of Ca2+, Mg2+, and K+. In: Johnson DW, Lindberg SE (eds) Atmospheric deposition and forest nutrient cycling. A synthesis of the integrated forest study. Ecological studies 91. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 253–275Google Scholar
  43. Lovett GM, Reiners WA, Olson RK (1989) Factors controlling throughfall chemistry in a balsam fir canopy—a modelling approach. Biogeochemistry 8:239–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Macdonald JA, Dise NB, Matzner NB, Armbruster M, Gundersen P, Forsius M (2002) Nitrogen input together with ecosystem nitrogen enrichment predict nitrate leaching from European forests. Glob Chang Biol 8:1028–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Martinson L, Lamersdorf N, Warfvinge P (2005) The Solling roof revisited—slow recovery from acidification observed and modeled despite a decade of “clean-rain” treatment. Environ Pollut 135:293–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Matson P, Lohse KA, Hall SJ (2002) The globalization of nitrogen deposition: consequences for terrestrial ecosystems. Ambio 31:113–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Matzner E, Meiwes KJ (1994) Long-term development of element fluxes with bulk precipitation and throughfall in two German forests. J Environ Qual 23:162–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McDowell WH, Magill AH, Aitkenhead-Peterson JA, Aber JD, Merriam JL, Kaushal SS (2004) Effects of chronic nitrogen amendment on dissolved organic matter and inorganic nitrogen in soil solution. For Ecol Manage 196:29–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Neary AJ, Gizyn WI (1994) Throughfall and stemflow chemistry under deciduous coniferous forest canopies in South-central Ontario. Can J For Res 24:1089–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nihlgard (1970) Precipitation, its chemical composition and effect on soil water in a beech and a spruce forest in south Sweden. Oikos 21:208–217Google Scholar
  51. Pucket (1990) Estimates of ion sources in deciduous and coniferous throughfall. Atmos Environ 24:545–555Google Scholar
  52. Ranger J, Nys C (1994) The effect of spruce (Picea abies Karst) on soil development: an analytical and experimental approach. Eur J Soil Sci 45:193–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Reich PB, Oleksyn J, Modrzynski J, Mrozinski P, Hobbie SE, Eissenstat DM, Chorover J, Chadwick OA, Hale CM, Tjoelker MG (2005) Linking litter calcium, earthworms and soil properties: a common garden test with 14 tree species. Ecol Lett 8:811–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rothe A, Huber C, Kreutzer K, Weis W (2002) Deposition and soil leaching in stands of Norway spruce and European Beech: results from the Höglwald research in comparison with other European case studies. Plant Soil 240:33–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Saetre P (1998) Decomposition, microbial community structure, and earthworm effects along a birch-spruce soil gradient. Ecology 79:834–846Google Scholar
  56. Schulze ED, Gebauer G (1989) Aufnahme, Abgabe und Umsatz von Stickoxiden, NH4+ und NO3 bei Waldbäumen, ins besondere der Fichte. In: Reuther M, Kirchner M (eds) Statusseminar der PBWU zum Forschungsschwerpunkt “Waldschäden”. GSF-Bericht 6/89. Forschungszentrum für Umwelt und Gesundheit,Neuherberg, pp 119–133Google Scholar
  57. Shibata H, Sakuma T (1996) Canopy modification of precipitation chemistry in deciduous and coniferous forests affected by acidic deposition. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 42:1–10Google Scholar
  58. Silva RG, Holub SM, Jorgensen EE, Ashanuzzaman ANM (2005) Indicators of nitrate leaching loss under different land use of clayey and sandy soils in southeastern Oklahoma. Agric Ecosyst Environ 109:346–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Singer A, Ganor E, Fried M, Shamay Y. (1996) Throughfall deposition of sulphur to a mixed oak and pine forest in Israël. Atmos Environ 30:3881–3889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Smith W (1981) Air pollution and forests: interactions between air contaminants and forest ecosystems. Springer, Heidelberg, p 397Google Scholar
  61. Spiecker H, Hansen J, Hasenauer H, Klimo E, Skovsgaard JP, Sterba H, von Teuffel K (eds) (2004) Norway spruce conversion—options and consequences. European Forest Institute research report 18. Koninklijke Brill, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  62. Stachurski A, Zimka JR (2000) Atmospheric input of elements to forest ecosystems: a method of estimation using artificial foliage placed above rain collectors. Environ Pollut 110:345–356PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ulrich B (1983) A concept of forest ecosystem stability and acid deposition as a driving force for destabilization. In: Ulrich B, Pankrath J (eds) Effects of accumulation of air pollutants in forest ecosystems. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 1–29Google Scholar
  64. Van Ek R, Draaijers GPJ (1994) Estimates of atmospheric deposition and canopy exchange for three common tree species in the Netherlands. Water Air Soil Pollut 73:61–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Von Lüpke B, Ammer C, Bruciamacchie M, Brunner A, Ceitel J, Collet C, Deuleuze C, Di Placido J, Huss J, Jankovic J, Kantor P, Larsen BJ, Lexer M, Löff M, Lonauer R, Madsen PK, Modrzynski J, Mosandl R, Pampe A, Pommerening A, Stefancik I, Tesar V, Thompson R, Zientarski J (2004) Silvicultural strategies for conversion. In: Spiecker H, Hansen J, Klimo E, Skofsgaard JP, Sterba H, Von Teuffel K (eds) Norway spruce conversion—options and consequences. European Forest Institute research report 18. Koninklijke Brill, Leiden, pp 121–164Google Scholar
  66. von Wilpert K, Zirlewagen D, Kohler M (2000) To what extent can silviculture enhance sustainability of forest sites under the immission regime in Central Europe? Water Air Soil Pollut 122:105–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Weathers KC, Cadenasso ML, Picket STA (2001) Forest edges as nutrient and pollutant concentrations: Potential synergisms between fragmentation, forest canopies and the atmosphere. Conserv Biol 15:1506–1514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wesselink LG, Meiwes KJ, Matzner E, Stein A (1995) Long-term changes in water and soil chemistry in spruce and beech forests, Solling, Germany. Environ Sci Technol 29:51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • An De Schrijver
    • 1
  • Guy Geudens
    • 1
  • Laurent Augusto
    • 2
  • Jeroen Staelens
    • 1
  • Jan Mertens
    • 1
  • Karen Wuyts
    • 1
  • Leen Gielis
    • 1
  • Kris Verheyen
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of ForestryGhent UniversityGontrode (Melle)Belgium
  2. 2.UMR–TCEMINRA–BordeauxVillenave d’Ornon CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations