, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 123–132 | Cite as

Soil Organic Carbon is Increased in Mixed-Species Plantations of Eucalyptus and Nitrogen-Fixing Acacia

  • D. I. ForresterEmail author
  • A. Pares
  • C. O’Hara
  • P. K. Khanna
  • J. Bauhus


Soil organic carbon (soil C) sequestration in forests is often higher under nitrogen (N2)-fixing than under non-N2-fixing tree species. Here, we examined whether soil C could be increased using mixed-species plantations compared to monocultures, which are less productive aboveground than mixtures. In addition, we compared soil C sequestration under N2-fixing trees with non-N2-fixing trees that received N fertilizer. Monocultures of Eucalyptus globulus (E) and the N2-fixing Acacia mearnsii (A) and mixtures of these species were planted in a replacement series: 100%E, 75%E + 25%A, 50%E + 50%A, 25%E + 75%A and 100%A. Soil samples were also collected from fertilized monoculture treatments (100%EFer) of E. globulus (250 kg N ha−1). Total organic C, N and phosphorus were determined at age 8 years at two soil depths (0–10 cm and 10–30 cm) and three density fractions of soil organic matter (SOM) were quantified for 0–5 cm depth. Soil C was highest in the 50%E + 50%A mixed stand and was highly correlated with aboveground biomass, not to the percentage of A. mearnsii in mixtures. This was largely due to soil C at 10–30 cm because there were no treatment effects on soil C at 0–10 cm. All density fractions of SOM at 0–5 cm increased with the percentage of A. mearnsii. In E. globulus monocultures, N fertilization did not increase soil C when compared with unfertilized stands. These results indicate that the inclusion of N2-fixing trees into eucalypt plantations may increase soil C stocks through increased productivity.


soil carbon sequestration organic matter fractionation decomposition nitrogen fixation 



The authors wish to thank John Smith and Vijay Koul for assistance in the field and with soil processing. The experiment was established by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Division of Forestry, with the Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria, providing the site and the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research providing some financial support. The authors also thank two anonymous reviewers who provided useful comments that improved the manuscript.


  1. Bauhus J, Khanna PK, Menden N. 2000. Aboveground and belowground interactions in mixed plantations of Eucalyptus globulus and Acacia mearnsii. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30:1886–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berg B. 2000. Litter decomposition and organic matter turnover in northern forest soils. Forest Ecology and Management 133:13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Binkley D. 2005. How nitrogen-fixing trees change soil carbon. In: Binkley D, Menyailo O, Eds. Tree species effects on soils: implications for global change. NATO science series. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. p 155–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Binkley D, Giardina C. 1998. Why trees affect soils in temperate and tropical forests: the warp and woof of tree/soil interactions. Biogeochemistry 42:89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Binkley D, Ryan MG. 1998. Net primary production and nutrient cycling in replicated stands of Eucalyptus saligna and Albizia facaltaria. Forest Ecology and Management 112:79–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Binkley D, Kaye J, Barry M, Ryan MG. 2004. First-rotation changes in soil carbon and nitrogen in a Eucalyptus plantation in Hawaii. Soil Science Society of America Journal 68:1713–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Canadell JG, Raupach MR. 2008. Managing forests for climate change mitigation. Science 320:1456–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Costermans LF. 1983. Native trees and shrubs of south-eastern Australia. Rigby: Adelaide. 422 pp.Google Scholar
  9. Dungait JAJ, Hopkins DW, Gregory AS, Whitmore AP. 2012. Soil organic matter turnover is governed by accessibility not recalcitrance. Global Change Biology 18:1781–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Forrester DI, Bauhus J, Khanna PK. 2004. Growth dynamics in a mixed-species plantation of Eucalyptus globulus and Acacia mearnsii. Forest Ecology and Management 193:81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Forrester DI, Bauhus J, Cowie AL. 2005. Nutrient cycling in a mixed-species plantation of Eucalyptus globulus and Acacia mearnsii. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35:2942–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Forrester DI, Bauhus J, Cowie AL. 2006a. Carbon allocation in a mixed-species plantation of Eucalyptus globulus and Acacia mearnsii. Forest Ecology and Management 233:275–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Forrester DI, Bauhus J, Cowie AL, Vanclay JK. 2006b. Mixed-species plantations of Eucalyptus with nitrogen fixing trees: a review. Forest Ecology and Management 233:211–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Forrester DI, Schortemeyer M, Stock WD, Bauhus J, Khanna PK, Cowie AL. 2007. Assessing nitrogen fixation in mixed- and single-species plantations of Eucalyptus globulus and Acacia mearnsii. Tree Physiology 27:1319–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Forrester DI, Theiveyanathan S, Collopy JJ, Marcar NE. 2010. Enhanced water use efficiency in a mixed Eucalyptus globulus and Acacia mearnsii plantation. Forest Ecology and Management 259:1761–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gregorich EG, Drury CF, Baldock JA. 2001. Changes in soil carbon under long-term maize in monoculture and legume-based rotation. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 81:21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heffernan B. 1985. A handbook of methods of inorganic chemical analysis for forest soils, foliage and water. Canberra: CSIRO Division of Forest Research. p 281.Google Scholar
  18. Isbell RF. 1998. The Australian soil classification. Collingwood: CSIRO Publishing. p 143.Google Scholar
  19. Jeddi K, Cortina J, Chaieb M. 2009. Acacia salicina, Pinus halepensis and Eucalyptus occidentalis improve soil surface conditions in arid southern Tunisia. Journal of Arid Environments 73:1005–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson DW, Curtis PS. 2001. Effects of forest management on soil C and N storage: meta analysis. Forest Ecology and Management 140:227–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kaye JP, Resh SC, Kaye MW, Chimmer RA. 2000. Nutrient and carbon dynamics in a replacement series of Eucalyptus and Albizia trees. Ecology 81:3267–73.Google Scholar
  22. Laclau J-P, Bouillet J-P, Gonçalves JLM, Silva EV, Jourdan C, Cunha MCS, Moreira MR, Saint-André L, Maquère V, Nouvellon Y, Ranger J. 2008. Mixed-species plantations of Acacia mangium and Eucalyptus grandis in Brazil 1. Growth dynamics and aboveground net primary production. Forest Ecology and Management 255:3905–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mao R, Zeng D-H, Ai G-Y, Yang D, Li L-J, Liu Y-X. 2010. Soil microbiological and chemical effects of a nitrogen-fixing shrub in poplar plantations in semi-arid region of Northeast China. European Journal of Soil Biology 46:325–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Neff JC, Townsend AR, Gleixner G, Lehmans SJ, Turnball J, Bowman WD. 2002. Variable effects of nitrogen additions on the stability and turnover of soil carbon. Nature 419:915–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Paul KI, Polglase PJ, Nyakuengama JG, Khanna PK. 2002. Change in soil carbon following afforestation. Forest Ecology and Management 168:241–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Post WM, Kwon KC. 2000. Soil carbon sequestration and land-use change: processes and potential. Global Change Biology 6:317–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Prescott CE. 2010. Litter decomposition: what controls it and how can we alter it to sequester more carbon in forest soils? Biogeochemistry 101:133–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Resh SC, Binkley D, Parrotta JA. 2002. Greater soil carbon sequestration under nitrogen-fixing trees compared with Eucalyptus species. Ecosystems 5:217–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Russell AE, Cambardella CA, Ewel JJ, Parkin TB. 2004. Species, rotation, and life-form diversity effects on soil carbon in experimental tropical ecosystems. Ecological Applications 14:47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schmidt MWI, Torn MS, Abiven S, Dittmar T, Guggenberger G, Janssens IA, Kleber M, Kögel-Knabner I, Lehmann J, Manning DAC, Nannipieri P, Rasse DP, Weiner S, Trumbore SE. 2011. Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property. Nature 478:49–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stace HCT, Hubble GD, Brewer R, Northcote KH, Sleeman JR, Mulcahy MJ, Hallsworth EG. 1968. A handbook of Australian soils. Glenside: Rellim. p 435.Google Scholar
  32. Taylor BR, Prescott CE, Parsons JF, Parkinson D. 1991. Substrate control of litter decomposition in four Rocky Mountain coniferous forests. Canadian Journal of Botany 69:2242–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Veiga PR. 2008. Allometric Biomass Equations for Plantations of Eucalyptus globulus and Eucalyptus nitens in Australia. Masters Thesis, Albert-Ludwigs University Freiburg, Faculty of Forest and Environmental Sciences. 74 pp.Google Scholar
  34. Vogel JG, Gower ST. 1998. Carbon and nitrogen dynamics of boreal jack pine stands with and without a green alder understorey. Ecosystems 1:386–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Voigtlaender M, Laclau J-P, Gonçalves JLdM, Piccolo MdC, Moreira MZ, Nouvellon Y, Ranger J, Bouillet J-P. 2011. Introducing Acacia mangium trees in Eucalyptus grandis plantations: consequences for soil organic matter stocks and nitrogen mineralization. Plant and Soil 352:99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wang Q, Wang S, Zhang J. 2009. Assessing the effects of vegetation types on carbon storage fifteen years after reforestation on a Chinese fir site. Forest Ecology and Management 258:1437–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang F, Li Z, Xia H, Zou B, Li N, Liu J, Zhu W. 2010. Effects of nitrogen-fixing and non-nitrogen-fixing tree species on soil properties and nitrogen transformations during forest restoration in southern China. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 56:297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. I. Forrester
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • A. Pares
    • 2
    • 5
  • C. O’Hara
    • 2
    • 4
  • P. K. Khanna
    • 1
  • J. Bauhus
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Silviculture, Freiburg UniversityFreiburgGermany
  2. 2.Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Forest and Ecosystem ScienceThe University of MelbourneRichmondAustralia
  4. 4.Ministry of DefenceRussellAustralia
  5. 5.National Parks and Wildlife Service of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations