Advertisement

Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 70, Issue 2, pp 113–124 | Cite as

Effects of aspen canopy removal and root trenching on understory microenvironment and soil moisture

  • George W. Powell
  • Edward W. BorkEmail author
Orginial Paper

Abstract

Effects of three aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) canopy removal treatments and root trenching on understory microenvironment and moisture were tested at Parkland and Boreal sites in Alberta, Canada. Aspen canopies moderated air temperature by reducing maximums and increasing minimums, and increased the frost-free period in the understory by reducing radiative frosts. When daily differences were found among canopy treatments, maximum absolute humidity was greater with complete canopy removal. Maximum daily relative humidity was greater in openings at night than with either full or partial canopy cover. Predictably, increasing aspen cover reduced PAR reaching the understory. Soil moisture response was highly variable, changing with site, aspen density and precipitation patterns, but there were only marginal differences due to root trenching. In the Parkland site, soil moisture conservation from aspen canopy and leaf litter effects were masked by tree uptake in most periods, but a net increase in soil water (+5.2%) was observed during drought. Soil and microclimatic conditions in thinned aspen stands suggest potentially favourable production benefits from developing and adopting agroforestry systems in these northern ecosystems.

Keywords

Boreal Humidity Parkland PAR Root trenching Soil water 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Our gratitude is extended to James Cahill, Jane King, Vic Lieffers, John Hoddinott, Dale Bartos and 2 anonymous reviewers, for their feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript. Funding was provided by the Alberta Agriculture Research Institute, the Agriculture and Food Council of Alberta, the Alberta Crop Industry Development Fund, the Biodiversity Challenge Grants Program supported by the Alberta Conservation Association, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Killam Trusts. Thanks to Sarah Green for her technical assistance, as well as Dr. Barry Irving and staff at the University of Alberta Kinsella Research Station and the Lakeland Agricultural Research Association.

Reference

  1. Balatinecz JJ, Kretschmann DE, Leclercq A (2001) Achievements in the utilization of poplar wood––guideposts for the future. For Chron 77:217–392Google Scholar
  2. Brooker RW, Callaghan TV (1998) The balance between positive and negative plant interactions and its relationship to environmental gradients: a model. Oikos 81:196–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cannell MGR, Grace J (1993) Competition for light: detection, measurement and quantification. Can J For Res 23:1969–1979Google Scholar
  4. Carlson DW, Groot A (1997) Microclimate of a clear-cut, forest interior and small openings in trembling aspen forest. Agr Forest Meteorol 87:313–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dang Q-L., Margolis HA, Coyea MR, Sy M, Collatz GJ (1997) Regulation of branch level gas exchange of boreal trees: roles of shoot water potential and vapour pressure difference. Tree Physiol 17:521–535PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Grace J (1983) Plant-atmosphere relationships. Outline studies in ecology. Chapman and Hall, New York, p 72Google Scholar
  7. Groot A, Carlson DW (1996) Influence of shelter on night temperatures, frost damage, and bud break of white spruce seedlings. Can J For Res 26:1531–1538Google Scholar
  8. Hogg EH, Saugier B, Pontailler J-Y., Black TA, Chen W, Hurdle PA, Wu A (2000) Responses of trembling aspen and hazelnut to vapour pressure deficit in boreal deciduous forest. Tree Physiol 20:725–734PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Jose S, Gillespie AR, Seifort JR, Biehle DF (2000) Defining competition vectors in a temperate alley cropping system in the midwestern USA. Agroforest Syst 48:41–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Littell RC, Stroup WW, Freund RJ (2002) SAS® for linear models, 4th edn. SAS Institute Inc., Cary NC, 466 ppGoogle Scholar
  11. Man R, Lieffers VJ (1997) Seasonal photosynthetic responses to light and temperature in white spruce (Picea glauca) seedlings planted under an aspen (Populus tremuloides) canopy and in the open. Tree Physiol 17:437–444PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Marsden BJ, Lieffers VJ, Zwiazek JJ (1996) The effect of humidity on photosynthesis and water relations of white spruce seedlings during the early establishment phase. Can J For Res 26:1015–1021Google Scholar
  13. Powell GW (2003) Competition and facilitation in aspen agroforests. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton Alberta, 274 ppGoogle Scholar
  14. Ramankutty N, Foley JA (1999) Estimating historical changes in land cover: North American croplands 1850 to 1992. Global Ecol Biogeo 8:381–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Strong WL, La Roi GH (1983) Rooting depth and successional development of selected boreal forest communities. Can J For Res 13:577–588Google Scholar
  16. Strong WL, Leggat KR (1992) Ecoregions of Alberta. Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife, Edmonton AB, 59 ppGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural, Food, and Nutritional ScienceUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations