, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 634–646 | Cite as

Tree Harvest in an Experimental Sand Ecosystem: Plant Effects on Nutrient Dynamics and Solute Generation

  • C. K. Keller
  • R. O’Brien
  • J. R. Havig
  • J. L. Smith
  • B. T. Bormann
  • D. Wang


The hydrochemical signatures of forested ecosystems are known to be determined by a time-variant combination of physical-hydrologic, geochemical, and biologic processes. We studied subsurface potassium (K), calcium (Ca), and nitrate (NO3) in an experimental red -pine mesocosm to determine how trees affect the behavior of these nutrients in soil water, both during growth and after a harvest disturbance. Solution chemistry was monitored for 2 years at the end of a 15-year period of tree growth, and then for 3 more years after harvest and removal of aboveground biomass. Concentrations were characterized by three distinct temporal patterns that we ascribe to changes in solute generation mechanisms. Prior to harvest, K soil-water concentrations were relatively uniform with depth, whereas Ca soil-water concentrations doubled with depth. Nitrate concentrations were below detection in soil water and discharge (drainage) water. Plant uptake and water/nutrient cycling exerted strong control during this interval. During the 1st year after harvest, K concentrations tripled in shallow soil water, relative to preharvest levels, and showed a strong seasonal peak in discharge that mimicked soil temperature. Summer soil temperatures and annual water flux also increased. Decomposition of labile litter, with complete nitrogen (N) immobilization, characterized this interval. In the third interval (years 2 and 3 after harvest), decomposition shifted from N to carbon (C) limitation, and Ca and NO3 concentrations in discharge spiked to nearly 200 and 400 μM, respectively. Relatively stable ionic strength and carbonate chemistry in discharge, throughout the study period, indicate that carbonic-acid weathering was sustained by belowground decomposition long after the harvest. This stable chemical weathering regime, along with the persistence of N limitation for a long period after disturbance, may be characteristic of early-phase primary-successional systems.


biocycling nutrient cycling ecosystem disturbance ecosystem regulation mesocosm calcium potassium 



This work was supported by National Science Foundation grants EAR-96-28296 and EAR-03-12011 to C. K. Keller. We also acknowledge financial and logistical support by the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest and the Pacific Northwest Research Station of the USDA Forest Service, the Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources at the University of Vermont, and the departments of Geology and Crop and Soil Sciences at Washington State University. G. Hawley and F. H. Bormann provided encouragement, help with data collection, and constructive comment. T. Coe provided invaluable analytical and data management assistance. We thank G. Likens and R. Berner for sharing data, and T. White, V. Levasseur, B. Dresser, J. Tabolt, K. Reinhardt, and C. Johnson for field assistance. This is a contribution of the Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study and the program of the Institute of Ecosystem Studies.


  1. April R, Keller D. 1990. Mineralogy of the rhizosphere in forest soils of the eastern United States. Biogeochemistry 9:1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey SW, Buso DC, Likens GE. 2004. Implications of sodium mass balance for interpreting the calcium cycle of a northern hardwood ecosystem. Ecology 84(2):471–84Google Scholar
  3. Balogh ZS, Keller CK, Dickinson JT, Wang D, Hawley G, Coe T. 2004. Plant effect on chemical weathering and denudation processes: experimental ecosystem studies. In: Wanty RB, Seal RR II, Eds. Water and rock interaction 2:1251–54Google Scholar
  4. Berner RA, Rao J-L. 1997. Alkalinity buildup during silicate weathering under a snow cover. Aquat Geochem 2(4):301–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berner RA, Rao J, Chang S, O’Brien R, Keller CK. 1998. Seasonal variability of adsorption and exchange equilibria in soil waters. Aquat Geochem 4:273–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blum JD, Klaue A, Nezat CA, Driscoll CT, Johnson CE, Siccama TG, Eagar C, et al. 2002. Mycorrhizal weathering of apatite as an important calcium source in base-poor forest ecosystems. Nature 417: 729–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bormann FH, Likens GE. 1967. Nutrient cycling. Science 155:424–9Google Scholar
  8. Bormann FH, Likens GE. 1979. Pattern and process in a forested ecosystem. Berlin Heidenberg New York: Springer. 253 ppGoogle Scholar
  9. Bormann FH, Likens GE, Siccama TG, Pierce RS, Eaton JS. 1974. The export of nutrients and recovery of stable conditions following deforestation at Hubbard Brook. Ecol Monogr 44:255–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bormann FH, Bowden WB, Pierce RS, Hamburg SP, Wang D, Snyder MC, Li CY .et al 1987. The Hubbard Brook sandbox experiment. In: Jordan WR, Gilpin ME, Aber JD, Eds. Restoration ecology: a synthetic approach to ecological research. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press, England. p 251–6; 342 pGoogle Scholar
  11. Bormann BT, Bormann FH, Bowden WB, Pierce RS, Hamburg SP, Wang D, Snyder MC, et al. 1993. Rapid N2 fixation in pines, alder, and locust: evidence from the sandbox experiment ecosystem study. Ecology 74(2):583–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bormann BT, Wang D, Bormann FH, Benoit G, April R, Snyder MC. 1998. Rapid, plant-induced weathering in an aggrading experimental ecosystem. Biogeochemistry 43:129–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bormann BT, Keller CK, Wang D, Bormann FH. 2002. Lessons from the sandbox: Is unexplained nitrogen real? Ecosystems 5:727–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chapin FS III. 1980. The mineral nutrition of wild plants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11:233–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chapin FS III, Matson PA, Mooney HA. 2002. Principles of Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology. Berlin Heidelberg New York: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  16. Dahlgren RA, Driscoll CT. 1994. The effects of whole-tree clear-cutting on soil processes at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire, USA. Plant Soil 158:239–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Drever JI. 1997. The geochemistry of natural waters. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall. 436 pGoogle Scholar
  18. Engstrom DR, Fritz SC, Almendinger JE, Juggins S. 2000. Chemical and biological trends during lake evolution in recently deglaciated terrain. Nature 408:161–166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Federer CA. 1973. Annual cycles of soil and water temperatures at Hubbard Brook. USDA. Forest Research Note NE167. Upper Darby (PA): US Department of Agriculture. 7 pGoogle Scholar
  20. Gorham E, Vitousek PM, Reiners WA. 1979. The regulation of chemical budgets over the course of terrestrial ecosystem succession. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 10:53–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Havig, JR, 2002. Effects of perturbation on nutrient pools and loss from an experimental forest mesocosm [thesis]. Pullman (WA): Washington State University. 142 pGoogle Scholar
  22. Hornbeck JW, Martin CW, Pierce RS, Bormann FH, Likens GE, Eaton JS. 1986. Clearcutting northern hardwoods: effects on hydrologic and nutrient ion budgets. For Sci 32:667–86Google Scholar
  23. Ingersoll RC, Bormann FH, Bowden WB, Hamburg SP, Bowden RD. 1987. The sandbox experiment notebook. Burlington (VT): Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of VermontGoogle Scholar
  24. Jenny H. 1980. The soil resource. Belin Heidelberg New York: Springer. 377 pGoogle Scholar
  25. Jewett K, Daugharty D, Krause HH, Arp PA. 1995. Watershed responses to clear-cutting: effects on soil solutions and stream water discharge in central New Brunswick. Can J Soil Sci 75:475–90Google Scholar
  26. Jobbagy EG, Jackson RB. 2001. The distribution of soil nutrients with depth: global patterns and the imprint of plants. Biogeochemistry 53:51–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kauffman SJ, Royer DL, Chang S, Berner RA. 2003. Export of chloride after clear-cutting in the Hubbard Brook sandbox experiment. Biogeochemistry 63:22–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Keller CK, White TM, O’Brien R, Smith JL. in press. Soil CO2 dynamics and fluxes as affected by tree harvest in an experimental sand ecosystem. Jour Geophys Res BiogeosciencesGoogle Scholar
  29. Likens GE, Bormann FH, 1995. Biogeochemistry of a forested ecosystem. 2nd Ed. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer. 159 pGoogle Scholar
  30. Likens GE, Bormann FH, Johnson NM, Fisher DW, Pierce RS. 1970. Effects of forest cutting and herbicide treatment on nutrient budgets in the Hubbard Brook watershed-ecosystem. Ecol Monogr 40:23–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Brien R. 2000. Unsaturated flow and hydrogeochemistry beneath different plant covers: field observations from the Hubbard Brook sandbox experiment. [dissertation]. Pullman (WA): Washington State University. 152 pGoogle Scholar
  32. O’Brien R, Keller CK, Strobridge DM. 2004. Plant-cover effects on hydrology and pedogenesis in a sandy vadose zone. Geoderma 118:63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Perry DA. 1994. Forest ecosystems. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. 649 pGoogle Scholar
  34. Schlesinger WH. 1997. Biogeochemistry: an analysis of global change. New York: Academic. 588 pGoogle Scholar
  35. Selker JS, Keller CK, McCord JT. 1999. Vadose zone processes. Boca Raton (FL): Lewis Press. 339 pGoogle Scholar
  36. Vitousek PM, Reiners WA. 1975. Ecosystem succession and nutrient retention: a hypothesis. BioScience 25(6):376–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vitousek PM, Gosz JR, Grier CC, Melillo JM, Reiners WA. 1982. A comparative analysis of potential nitrification and nitrate mobility in forest ecosystems. Ecol Monogr 52(2):157–177Google Scholar
  38. Wallander H. 2000. Use of strontium isotopes and foliar K content to estimate weathering of biotite induced by pine seedlings colonized by ectomycorrhizal fungi from two different soils. Plant Soil 222:215–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. K. Keller
    • 1
  • R. O’Brien
    • 2
  • J. R. Havig
    • 1
    • 6
  • J. L. Smith
    • 3
  • B. T. Bormann
    • 4
  • D. Wang
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of GeologyWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA
  2. 2.Department of GeologyAllegheny CollegeMeadvilleUSA
  3. 3.Department of Crop and Soil Sciences/US Department of AgricultureWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA
  4. 4.USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research StationCorvallisUSA
  5. 5.Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural ResourcesUniversity of VermontBurlingtonUSA
  6. 6.Department of Geological Sciences Arizona State University TempeUSA

Personalised recommendations