Interacting effects of wildfire severity and liming on nutrient cycling in a southern Appalachian wilderness area
- 338 Downloads
Wilderness and other natural areas are threatened by large-scale disturbances (e.g., wildfire), air pollution, climate change, exotic diseases or pests, and a combination of these stress factors (i.e., stress complexes). Linville Gorge Wilderness (LGW) is one example of a high elevation wilderness in the southern Appalachian region that has been subject to stress complexes including chronic acidic deposition and several wildfires, varying in intensity and extent. Soils in LGW are inherently acidic with low base cation concentrations and decades of acidic deposition have contributed to low pH, based saturation, and Ca:Al ratio. We hypothesized that wildfires that occurred in LGW followed by liming burned areas would accelerate the restoration of acidic, nutrient depleted soils. Because soils at LGW had extremely low concentrations of exchangeable Ca2+ and Mg2+ dolomitic lime was applied to further boost these cations. We evaluated the effectiveness of dolomitic lime application in restoring exchangeable Ca2+ and Mg2+ and subsequently increasing pH and Ca:Al ratio of soils and making Ca and Mg available to recovering vegetation.
Five treatment areas were established: severely burned twice (2000 & 2007) with dolomitic lime application (2xSBL); moderately burned twice with lime application (2xMBL); severely burned twice, unlimed (2xSB); moderately burned once (2000), unlimed (1xMB); and a reference area (REF; unburned, unlimed). In 2008 and 2009, we measured overstory, understory, and ground-layer vegetation; forest floor mass and nutrients; and soil and soil solution chemistry within each treatment area.
All wildfire burned sites experienced substantial overstory mortality. However, understory biomass doubled between sample years on the most recently burned sites due to the rapid regrowth of ericaceous shrubs and prolific sprouting of deciduous trees. Burning followed by lime application (2xSBL and 2xMBL) significantly increased shallow soil solution NO3-N, but we found no soil solution NO3-N response to burning alone (2xSB and 1xMB). Surface soil base saturation and exchangeable Ca2+ were significantly affected by liming; Ca2+ concentrations were greater on 2xMBL and 2xSBL than 2xSB, 1xMB and REF. There was a smaller difference due to moderate burning along with greater soil Ca2+ on 1xMB compared to REF, but no difference between 2xSB and REF. Surface and subsurface soil exchangeable Al3+ were lower on 2xSBL than 2xSB, 2xMBL, 1xMB, and REF. Liming decreased soil acidity somewhat as surface soil pH was higher on the two burned sites with lime (pH = 3.8) compared to 2xSB without lime (pH = 3.6).
Liming resulted in decreased soil Al3+ on 2xSBL coupled with increased soil Ca2+ on both 2xSBL and 2xMBL, which improved soil Ca/Al ratios. However, the soil Ca/Al ratio response was transitory, as exchangeable Al3+ increased and Ca/Al ratio decreased over time. Higher lime application rates may be necessary to obtain a substantial and longer-term improvement of cation-depleted soils at LGW.
KeywordsDolomitic lime Exchangeable base cations Nitrogen Calcium Aluminum Fire severity Forest floor Soil solution nutrients Acidic soils
We thank the Grandfather Ranger District, Pisgah National Forest for their cooperation in establishing field sites. Special thanks to Patsy Clinton, Chris Sobek, Neal Muldoon, and Craig Stickney for assistance in field sampling and Cindi Brown and Carol Harper for chemical analyses of samples. Drs. Mary Beth Adams and Andrew Scott and two anonymous reviewers provided helpful comments on the manuscript. This research was supported by a Burned Area Emergency Response grant to William Jackson, Air Resource Specialist, Region 8, USDA Forest Service; Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory, USDA Forest Service; and the Coweeta LTER project funded by National Science Foundation grant DEB-0823293. The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not imply endorsement by the U.S Department of Agriculture of any product or service.
- Boring LR, Swank WT (1986) Hardwood biomass and net primary production following clearcutting in the Coweeta Basin. In: Brooks RT Jr (ed) Proceedings of the 1986 Southern Forest Biomass Workshop. Tennessee Valley Authority, Norris, pp 43–50Google Scholar
- Brown CL, Harper C, Muldoon N, Cladis S (2009) Procedures for chemical analysis at the Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory. Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory Archives, OttoGoogle Scholar
- Covert SA, Robichaud PR, Elliot WJ, Link TE (2005) Evaluation of runoff prediction from WEPP-based erosion models for harvested and burned forest watersheds. Trans ASAE 48:1091–1100Google Scholar
- DeBano LF, Neary DG, Ffolliott PF (1998) Fire’s effects on ecosystems. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Elliott KJ, Vose JM (2005) Initial effects of prescribed fire on quality of soil solution and streamwater in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. S J Appl For 29:5–15Google Scholar
- Fenn ME, Huntington TG, McLaughlin SB, Eagar C, Gomez A, Cook RB (2006) Status of soil acidification in North America. J For Sci 52:3–13Google Scholar
- SAS Institute Inc (2002–2003) SAS/STAT Guide for Personal Computers. Vers 9.1, Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
- Jenkins JC, Chojnacky DC, Heath LS, Birdsey RA (2003) National-scale biomass estimators for United States tree species. For Sci 49:12–35Google Scholar
- Knoepp JD, DeBano LF, Neary DG (2005) Chapter 3: soil chemistry: In: Neary DG, Ryan KC, DeBano LF (eds) Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on soil and water. USDA For Serv RMRS-GTR-42-Vol. 4, pp 53–71Google Scholar
- Lesure FG, Force ER, Windolph JF (1977) Mineral resources of the Joyce Kilmer/Slickrock Winderness, North Carolina-Tennessee. Geological Survey Bulletin 1416, Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
- Little RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD (1996) SAS system for mixed models. SAS Institute, Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
- Methods S (2000) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 20th edn. American Public Health Assoc./American Water Works Assoc./Water Environment Federation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Mitchell MJ, Lovett G, Bailey S, Beall F, Burns D, Buso D, Clair TA, Courchesne F, Duchesne L, Eimers C, Fernandez I, Houle D, Jeffries DS, Likens GE, Michael D, Moran MD, Rogers C, Schwede D, Shanley J, Weathers KC, Vet R (2011) Comparisons of watershed sulfur budgets in southeast Canada and northeast US: new approaches and implications. Biogeochemistry 103:181–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- NAPAP (National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program) (2005) National acid precipitation assessment program report to Congress: an integrated assessment. National Science and Technology Council, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
- Nelson DW, Sommers LE (1996) Total carbon, organic carbon and organic matter. In: Soil Science Society of America and America Society of Agronomy (eds) Methods of soils analysis, part 3, chemical methods. SSAA Books Series no 5, Madison, WI, pp. 961–1009Google Scholar
- Newell CL, Peet RK (1995) Vegetation of Linville Gorge Wilderness, North Carolina. Curriculum in Ecology & Department of Biology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NCGoogle Scholar
- NRCS Soil Survey Staff (2012) Soil series classification database. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available online at http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/scfile/index.html. Accessed [07/09/2012]
- Olsen SR, Sommers LE (1982) Phosphorus. In: Soil Science Society of America and American Society of Agronomy (eds) Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2, Chemical and Microbiological Properties. Madison, WI, pp 403–430Google Scholar
- Sharpe WE, Voorhees CR (2006) Effects of lime, fertilizer, and herbicide on herbaceous species diversity and abundance following red oak shelterwood harvest. USDA For Serv SRS-GTR-101, pp 702–708Google Scholar
- USEPA (1983a) Methods for chemical analysis of water and waste. Determination of nitrogen as ammonia. Method 350.1, Environmental Monitoring and Support Lab., Office of Research and Development, USEPA, Cincinnati, OHGoogle Scholar
- USEPA (1983b) Methods for chemical analysis of water and waste. Determination of nitrite/nitrate by automated cadmium reduction. Method 353.2, Environmental Monitoring and Support Lab, Office of Research and Development, USEPA, Cincinanati, OHGoogle Scholar