Advertisement

Journal of Forestry Research

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 75–86 | Cite as

Temporal patterns of storage and flux of N and P in young Teak plantations of tropical moist deciduous forest, India

  • Kaushalendra Kumar JhaEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Teak (Tectona grandis Linn. f.) ranks among the top five tropical hardwood species and is being promoted for use in plantations in its non-native range due to its high economic value. However, there is a general lack of data on ecosystem functioning of teak plantations. We aimed at understanding storage and flux of nutrients related to young plantations of teak. Cycling of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) in a chronosequence of plantations (1, 5, 11, 18, 24 and 30 years) was studied in the Moist Deciduous Forest Region of North India with the objective of investigating the nutrient cycling pattern at younger age since the current trend of harvesting age of the species in several tropical countries is being drastically reduced for quick return from this high value crop. Standing state, nutrient uptake, nutrient return and nutrient retranslocation in these plantations were estimated by tree harvesting and chemical analysis methods. The range of total standing nutrient across all these plantations was 20.3 to 586.6 kg·ha−1 for N and 5.3 to 208.8 kg·ha−1 for P. Net uptake of N ranged from 19.4 to 88.9 kg·ha−1·a−1 and P from 3.8 to 18.1 kg·ha−1·a−1. Retranslocation of N and P among all the stands ranged from 8.7 to 48.0 kg·ha−1·a−1 and 0.01 to 3.5 kg·ha−1·a−1, respectively. Range of total nutrient return was 25.8 to 91.3 kg·ha−1·a−1 for N and 2.7 to 10.1 kg·ha−1·a−1 for P. N and P use efficiency was between 107.4 and 192.5 g dry organic matter (OM) g−1 N, and 551.9 and 841.1 g OM g−1 P, respectively. The turnover time ranged from 2.04–13.17 years for N and between 2.40–22.66 years for P. Quantity of N and P in the soil nutrient pool ranged from 2566.8 to 4426.8 kg·ha−1 and 372 to 520 kg·ha−1, respectively. Storage and flux of components in different plant parts of different aged plantations were assessed and depicted in compartment models. Percentage storage in soil, litter and vegetation ranged from 82% to 99%, 0.6% to 2.4% and 0.5% to 15% for N, respectively, and from 63% to 98%, 0.5% to 2% and 1% to 35% for P, respectively. This information could be useful in managing external nutrient manipulation to crops of different ages for optimum biomass production or carbon sequestration.

Keywords

nutrient uptake standing state return turnover time nutrient use efficiency compartment model harvest loss Tectona grandis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adu-Anning C, Blay DJ. 2001. Ensuring sustainable harvesting of wood: impact of biomass harvesting on the nutrient stores of teak woodlot stand in the Sudan savanna. Ghana Journal of Forestry, 10:17–24.Google Scholar
  2. Awotoye OO, Ogunkunle CO, Adeniyi SA. 2011. Assessment of soil quality under various land use practices in a humid agro-ecological zone of Nigeria. African Journal of Plant Science, 5(10): 565–569.Google Scholar
  3. Balooni K. 2000. Teak investment programmes: an Indian perspective. Unasylva, 51: 22–28.Google Scholar
  4. Bargali SS. 1990. Structure and functioning of Eucalyptus plantations in Tarai belt of Kumaun Himalaya. Ph. D. Thesis. Nainital, India: Kumaun University.Google Scholar
  5. Bargali SS, Singh RP, Singh SP. 1992. Structure and function of an age series Eucalypt plantations in Central Himalaya. II. Nutrient Dynamics. Annals of Botany, 69(5): 413–421.Google Scholar
  6. Boreman FH, Likens GE. 1979. Patterns and process in a forested ecosystem. New York: Springer, p. 272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Champion HG, Seth SK. 1968. A revised survey of the forest types of India. New Delhi: Manager of Publication, Government of India.Google Scholar
  8. Chapin FS, Kedrowski RA. 1983. Seasonal changes in nitrogen and phosphorus fractions and autumn retranslocation in evergreen and deciduous taiga trees. Ecology, 64(2): 376–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapin RS. 1980. The mineral nutrition of wild plants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematic, 11: 233–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Charley JR, Richards BN. 1983. Nutrient allocation in plant communities, mineral cycling in terrestrial ecosystems. In: Lang OL, Nobel PS, Osmund CB, Zeigler M (eds), Physiological Plant Ecology, IV. Berlin: Springer, pp. 5–45.Google Scholar
  11. Chaturvedi OP, Singh JS. 1987. The structure and function of pine forest in Central Himalaya. II. Nutrient dynamics. Annals of Botany, 60: 253–267.Google Scholar
  12. Chen H. 1998. Biomass and nutrient distribution in a Chinese fir plantation chronosequence in Southwest Hunan, China. Forest Ecology and Management, 105: 209–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Choompol N. 1973. The distribution and development of teak root in different age plantations. Forest Research Bulletin, 28: 63.Google Scholar
  14. Deans JD, Diagne O, Lindley DK, Dion M, Parkinson JA. 1999. Nutrient and organic matter accumulation in Acacia senegal fallows over 18 years. Forest Ecology and Management, 124: 153–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Faruqui O. 1972. Organic and mineral structure and productivity of plantation of Sal (Shorea robusta) and Teak (Tectona grandis). Ph. D. Thesis. Varanasi, India: Banaras Hindu University.Google Scholar
  16. Fife DN, Nambiar EKS. 1997. Changes in the canopy and growth of Pinus radiata in response to nitrogen supply. Forest Ecology and Management, 93: 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. George M, Verghese G. 1991. Nutrient cycling in Eucalyptus globulus plantation. III. Nutrient retained, returned, uptake and nutrient cycling. Indian Forester, 117: 110–116.Google Scholar
  18. George M, Verghese G. 1992. Nutrient cycling in Tectona grandis plantation. Journal of Tropical Forestry, 8: 127–133.Google Scholar
  19. Golley FB, Mc Ginnis JT, Clemants RG, Child GI, Duever MJ. 1975. Mineral cycling in a tropical moist forest ecosystem. Athens, USA: University of Georgia Press, p. 248.Google Scholar
  20. Harrison RB, Reis GG, Reis MDGF, Bernardo AL, Firme DJ. 2000. Effect of spacing and age on nitrogen and phosphorus distribution in biomass of Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Eucalyptus pellita and Eucalyptus urophylla plantations in southeastern Brazil. Forest Ecology and Management, 133: 167–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harper JL. 1977. The population biology of plants. London: Academic Press, p. 892.Google Scholar
  22. Hase H, Foelster H. 1983. Impact of plantation forestry with teak (Tectona grandis) on the nutrient status of young alluvial soils of West Venezuela. Forest Ecology and Management, 6: 33–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hiremath AJ, Ewel JJ, Cole TG. 2002. Nutrient use efficiency in three fast-growing tropical trees. Forest Science, 48: 662–672.Google Scholar
  24. Hirose T. 1975. Relations between turnover rate, resource utility, and structure of some plant populations: A study in the matter budgets. Journal of the Faculty of Science University of Tokyo, Section III: Botany, 11: 355–407.Google Scholar
  25. Hopman P, Stewart HTL, Finn DW. 1993. Imapcts of harvesting on nutrients in a eucalypt ecosystem in southeastern Australia. Forest Ecology and Management, 59: 29–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ingerslev M. 1999. Above ground biomass and nutrient distribution in a limed and fertilized norway spruce (Picea abies) plantation. Part I. Nutrient concentration. Forest Ecology and Management, 119: 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Iwatsubo G. 1976. Circulation of plant nutrients in forest ecosystems on the role of rain water in the circulation. In: Kato T, Nakao S, Umesao T (eds), Mountains, Forests and Ecology, Tokyo: Chuo — Koron — Sha, pp. 313–360.Google Scholar
  28. Jackson ML. 1958. Chemical Analysis. USA: Prentice Hall Inc, p. 930.Google Scholar
  29. Jha KK. 1995. Structure and functioning of an age series of teak (Tectona grandis Linn.) plantations of Kumaun Himalayan Tarai. Ph. D. Thesis. Nainital, India: Kuman University.Google Scholar
  30. Jha KK, Chhimwal CB. 1993. Performance of different provenances of Eucalyptus camaldulensis in Tarai and its effect on soil properties. Indian Journal of Forestry, 16: 97–102.Google Scholar
  31. Jha KK, Singh JS. 1999. Temporal patterns of bole volume and biomass of young teak plantations raised in moist deciduous forest region, India. International Journal of Ecology Environment and Science, 25: 177–184.Google Scholar
  32. Jordan CF, Caskey W, Ecalasite G, Herrara R, Montagini F, Todd R, Uhl C. 1982. The nitrogen cycling in a terrafirme rain forest on oxisol in the Amazon territory of Venezuela. Plant and Soil, 67: 325–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Karmacharya SB, Singh KP. 1992. Production and nutrient dynamics of reproductive components of teak trees in dry tropics. Tree Physiology, 11: 357–368.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kimmins JP. 1997. Forest Ecology: A foundation for sustainable management. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, p. 596.Google Scholar
  35. Krishnapillay B. 2000. Silviculture and management of teak plantations. Unasylva, 51: 14–21.Google Scholar
  36. Kumar BM, George SJ, Jamaludheen V, Suresh TK. 1998. Comparison of biomass production, tree allometry and nutrient use efficiency of multipurpose trees grown in woodlot and silvipastoral experiments in Kerala, India. Forest Ecology and Management, 112: 145–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kumar JIN, Kumar RN, Bhoi RK, Sajish PK. 2009. Quantification of nutrient content in the above ground biomass of teak plantation in tropical dry deciduous forests of Udaipur, India. Journal of Forest Science, 55: 251–256.Google Scholar
  38. Kumar S, Sharma AK. 1990. Numerical classification of some soils of Indian Tarai. Indian Society of Soil Science, 38: 265–271.Google Scholar
  39. Li X. 1996. Nutrient cycling in a Chinese fir (Cunnighamia lanceolata) stand on a poor site in Yishan, Guangji. Forest Ecology and Management, 89: 115–123. Lodhiyal LS. 1990. Structure and functioning of poplar plantation in tarai belt of Kumaun Himalaya. Ph. D. Thesis. Nainital, India: Kumaun University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lodhiyal L, Singh RP, Singh SP. 1995. Structure and function of an age series of poplar plantations in central Himalaya. II Nutrient dynamics. Annals of Botany, 76: 201–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lodhiyal N, Lodhiyal LS. 2003. Aspects of nutrient cycling and nutrient use pattern of Bhabar Shisham forests in central Himalaya, India. Forest Ecology and Management, 176: 237–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lodhiyal N, Lodhiyal LS, Pangtey YPS. 2002. Structure and function of Shisham forests in central Himalaya, India: Nutrient Dynamics. Annals of Botany, 89: 55–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Medina E. 1980. Ecology of tropical American Savannas: An ecophysiological approach. In: Morris DR (ed), Human ecology in savanna environment. London: Academic Press, pp. 297–319.Google Scholar
  44. Meentemyer V, Box EO, Thompson R. 1982. World pattern and amounts of terrestrial plant litter production. Bioscience, 32: 125–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mishra BP. 2011. Vegetation composition and nutrient status from polyculture to monoculture. African Journal of Environment Science and Technology, 5: 363–366.Google Scholar
  46. Mishra RK, Turnbul CRA, Cromer RN, Gibbons AK, Lasala AV, Ballard LM. 1998. Below and above ground growth of Eucalyptus nitens in a young plantation. II. Nitrogen and phosphorus. Forest Ecology and Management, 106: 295–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nandi AK, Basu PK, Banerjee SK. 1991. Modification of some soil properties by Eucalyptus species. Indian Forester, 117: 53–57.Google Scholar
  48. Negi MS, Tandon VN, Rawat HS. 1995. Biomass and nutrient distribution in young teak (Tectona grandis Linn. F.) plantations in Tarai region of Uttar Pradesh. Indian Forester, 121: 455–464.Google Scholar
  49. Ovington JD. 1959. Mineral contents of plantations of Pinus sylvestris L. Annals of Botany, 23: 73–88.Google Scholar
  50. Ovington JD. 1968. Some factors affecting nutrient distribution within ecosystems. In: Eckardt FE (ed), Functioning of terrestrial ecosystems of primary production level. Proceedings Copenhagen Symposium. Paris: UNESCO, pp. 95–105.Google Scholar
  51. Pandey D, Brown S. 2000. Teak: a global overview. Unasylva, 51: 1–14.Google Scholar
  52. Pandey ON. 1980. Cycling of nitrogen, phosphorus and pottasium in the soil vegetation systems of tropical dry deciduous forest of Chandraprabha region, Varanasi. Ph. D. Thesis, Varanasi, India: Banaras Hindu University.Google Scholar
  53. Peri PL, Gargalione V, Pastur GM. 2006. Dynamics of above and below ground biomass and nutrient accumulation in an age sequence of Nothophagus antarctica of southern Potagonia. Forest Ecology and Management, 233: 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ralhan PK, Singh JS. 1987. Dynamics of nutrients and leaf mass in central Himalayan forest trees and shrubs. Ecology, 68: 1974–1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ranger J, Colin-Benard M. 1996. Nutrient Dynamics of chestnut tree (Castenea sativa Mill.) coppice stands. Forest Ecology and Management, 86: 259–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rawat JK, Tandon VN. 1993. Biomass production and mineral cycling in young chir pine plantations in Himachal Pradesh. Indian Forester, 119: 977–985.Google Scholar
  57. Rawat YS, Singh JS. 1988. Structure and function of oak forests in central Himalaya. II. Nutrient Dynamics. Annals of Botany, 62: 397–411.Google Scholar
  58. Regina S. 2000. Biomass estimation and nutrient pools in four Quercus pyrenaica in Siera de Gata Mountains, Salamanca, Spain. Forest Ecology and Management, 132: 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rodin LE, Bazilevich NI. 1967. Production and mineral cycling in terrestrial vegetation. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, p. 288.Google Scholar
  60. Rouhi-Moghaddam E, Hosseini SM, Ebrahimi E, Tabari M, Rahmani A. 2008. Comparison of growth, nutrition and soil properties of pure stands of Quercus castaneifolia and mixed with Zelkova carpinifolia in the Hyrcanian forests of Iran. Forest Ecology and Management, 255: 1149–1160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rundel PW. 1982. Nitrogen utilization efficiencies in Mediterranean-climate shrubs of California and Chile. Oecologia, 55: 409–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schlesinger WH, Delucia EH, Billings WD. 1989. Nutrient-use efficiency of woody plants on contrasting soils in the western Great Basin, Nevada. Ecology, 70: 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sharma E. 1993. Nutrient dynamics in Himalyan alder plantations. Annals of Botany, 67: 329–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sharma G, Sharma R, Sharma E, Singh KK. 2002. Performance of an Age Series of Alnus-cardamom Plantations in the Sikkim Himalayas: Nutrient dynamics. Annals of Botany, 89: 273–282.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sharma SC, Pande PK. 1989. Patterns of litter nutrient concentration in some plantation ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management, 29: 151–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Singh JS, Rawat US, Chaturvedi OP. 1984. Replacement of oak forest with pine in the Himalaya affects the nitrogen cycle. Nature, 311: 54–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Singh JS, Singh KP, Yadava PS. 1979. Ecosystem Synthesis. In: Coupland RT (ed), Grassland ecosystems of the world: Analysis of grassland and their uses. London: Cambridge University Press, pp. 231–239Google Scholar
  68. Singh L, Singh JS. 1991. Storage and flux of nutrients in dry tropical forest in India. Annals of Botany, 68: 275–284.Google Scholar
  69. Singh O, Sharma DC, Rawat JK. 1993. Production and decomposition of leaf litter in Sal, Teak, Eucalyptus and Poplar forests in Uttar Pradesh. Indian Forester, 119: 112–121.Google Scholar
  70. Subramanian V, Rajagopal CBK, George M. 2009. Nutrient cycling in young teak plantation. II. Biomass production and nutrient cycling. Indian Forester, 135: 600–610.Google Scholar
  71. Switzer GL, Nelson LE. 1972. Nutrient accumulation and cycling in loblolly pine (Pinus. taeda Linn.) plantation ecosystem: The first twenty years. In: Proceedings of Soil Science Society of America, pp. 143–147.Google Scholar
  72. Tewari DN. 1992. Monograph on Teak (Tectona grandis Linn. f.). Dehradun, India: International Book Distributors.Google Scholar
  73. Thakur T, Swamy SL. 2010. Analysis of landuse, diversity, biomass, C and nutrient storage of a dry tropical forest ecosystem of India using satellite remote sensing and GIS technique. Proceedings of International Forestry and Environment Symposium, November 2010. Srilanka: University of Jayawardanepura, pp. 273–278.Google Scholar
  74. Turner J, Lambert MJ. 1983. Nutrient cycling within a 27 year old Eucalyptus grandis plantation in New South Wales. Forest Ecology and Management, 6: 155–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Vitousek PM. 1984. Nutrient cycling and limitation in tropical forests. Ecology, 65: 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vitousek PM, Sanford RL. 1986. Nutrient cycling in moist tropical forest. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematic, 17: 137–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vitousek PM. 1982. Nutrient cycling and nutrient use efficiency. American Naturalist, 119: 553–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wang D, Boremann HF, Lugo AE, Bowden RD. 1991. Comparison of nutrient use efficiency and biomass production in five tropical tree taxa. Forest Ecology and Management, 46: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wang JR, Zhong AL, Comeau P, Tsze M, Kimmins JP. 1995. Above ground biomass and nutrient accumulation in an age sequence of aspen (Populus tremuloides) stands in the Boreal White and Black Spruce Zone, British Columbia. Forest Ecology and Management, 78: 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wang JR, Zhong AL, Simard SW, Kimmins JP. 1996. Above ground biomass and nutrient accumulation in an age sequence of paper birch (Betula papyrifera) stands in the Interior Cedar Hemlock Zone, British Columbia. Forest Ecology and Management, 83: 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wang Q, Wang S, Huang Y. 2008. Comparisons of litter fall, litter decomposition and nutrient return in a monoculture Cunninghamia lanceolata and a mixed stand in southern China. Forest Ecology and Management, 255: 1210–1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Westmann EW. 1978. Inputs and cycling of mineral nutrients in a coastal Subtropical Eucalyptus forest. Journal of Ecology, 66: 513–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wu CC, Tsui CC, Hseih CF, Asio VB, Chen ZS. 2006. Mineral nutrient status of tree species in relation to environmental factors in the subtropical rain forest of Taiwan. Forest Ecology and Management, 239: 81–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Northeast Forestry University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technical ForestryIndian Institute of Forest ManagementNehru Nagar, BhopalIndia

Personalised recommendations