Annals of Forest Science

, Volume 67, Issue 3, pp 311–311

Litterfall production in forests located at the Pre-delta area of the Paraná River (Argentina)

  • Pablo G. Aceñolaza
  • Lisandra P. Zamboni
  • Estela E. Rodriguez
  • Juan F. Gallardo
Original Article

Abstract

  • • The objectives of this study were to measure litterfall production of the four floodplain forest types and to analyze the relationship between litterfall (forest type, dominant species, and organic fractions) and flood pulses.

  • • Litterfall production was measured in two mono-specific stands of Salix humboldtiana or Tessaria integrifolia, respectively, and two mixed forests dominated by A. inundata or Nectandra angustifolia, during 1998 and the 2000–2002 periods.

  • • Mono-specific stands presented similar productivities (6.8 and 6.5 Mg dry matter ha−1 y−1, respectively), but differed significantly from the two other. The highest litterfall production was obtained during the large flood that occurred during 1998, decreasing later throughout the study period. Leaves were the dominant fraction of litterfall, followed by branches, flowers, and fruits.

  • • Only S. humboldtiana, T. integrifolia and A. inundata forests showed distinct patterns of litterfall production, depending on the flooding pulse. N. angustifolia did not show a distinctive litterfall pattern.

  • • The forests studied here presented patterns of litter production associated with the flood pulse according to its location along a topographic gradient, that controls the litter productivity of these forests.

Keywords

litterfall production forest litter floodplain flood pulse Paraná river 

Production de litières par des forêts situées dans le pré-delta du fleuve Paraná (Argentine)

Résumé

  • • Cette étude avait pour but de mesurer la production de litière dans quatre forêts alluviales et d’analyser les relations entre les litières (selon le type de forêt, l’espèce dominante, et des fractions organiques) et les crues du fleuve Paraná (Argentine).

  • • La production de litière a été mesurée dans deux forêts monospécifiques de Salix humboldtiana ou de Tessaria integrifolia, et dans deux forêts mixtes où l’espèce prédominante était soit Albizia inundata soit Nectandra angustifolia. Cette étude a été menée en 1998 puis de 2000 à 2002.

  • • Les forêts monospécifiques présentent des productions de litières similaires (6.8 et 6.5 Mg matière sèche ha−1 ans−1 respectivement) et étaient significativement différentes des deux forêts mixtes. La plus forte production de litière a été obtenue au cours de la grande crue de 1998, puis a diminué progressivement au cours du temps. Les feuilles représentaient la principale fraction des litières, tandis que les branches, les fleurs et les fruits constituent des fractions mineures.

  • • Les forêts dominées par S. humboldtiana, T. integrifolia et A. inundata ont vu leur production de litière évoluer en fonction des crues du fleuve Parana. Ce type de relation entre crue et production de litière n’a pas été détecté dans le cas des forêts de N. angustifolia.

  • • Il existe ainsi une relation entre la production de litière et la hauteur des crues, elle-même conditionnée par un gradient topographique, qui détermine donc la production de litière de ces forêts.

Mots-clés

production de litière forestière litières forestières plaine alluviale impulsions d’inondation rivière Paraná 

References

  1. Aceñolaza P., Sione W., Kalesnik F., and Serafíni M.C., 2005. Determinación de unidades homogéneas de vegetación en el Parque Nacional Pre-Delta (Argentina). Serie Misc. INSUGEO 14: 81–90.Google Scholar
  2. Aceñolaza P.G., Zamboni L.P., and Gallardo J.F., 2006. Ciclos biogeoquímicos de bosques de la llanura de inundación del río Paraná (Argentina): Aporte de hojarasca. In: Gallardo Lancho J.F. (Ed.), Medioambiente en Iberoamérica: Visión desde la física y la química en los albores del SXXI, Sociedad Iberoamericana de Física y Química Ambiental, Badajoz, España, vol. 2, pp. 529–536.Google Scholar
  3. Aceñolaza P., Zamboni L.P., Sione W., and Kalesnik F., 2008. Caracterización de la región superior del Complejo litoral del Río Paraná: Grandes Unidades de ambiente. Serie Misc. INSUGEO 17: 293–309.Google Scholar
  4. Bray J. and Gorham E., 1964. Litter production in forest of the world. Adv. Ecol. Res. 2: 101–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brinson M.M., 1990. Riverine forests. In: Lugo A.E., Brinson M.M., and Brown S. (Eds.), Forest wetlands, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 87–141.Google Scholar
  6. Brinson M.M., Bradshaw H.D., Holmes R.N., and Elkins J., 1980. Litterfall, stemflow and throughfall nutrient fluxes in an alluvial swamp forest. Ecology. 61: 827–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carnevale N. and Lewis, J.P., 2001. Litterfall and organic matter decomposition in a seasonal forest of the eastern Chaco (Argentina). Rev. Biol. Trop. 49: 203–212.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Casco S., Neiff M., and Neiff J.J., 2005. Biodiversidad en ríos del litoral fluvial. Utilidad del software PULSO. Serie Misc. INSUGEO 14: 105–119.Google Scholar
  9. Clarke P.J. and Allaway W.G., 1996. Litterfall in Casuarina glauca Coastal Wetland Forest. Aust. J. Bot. 44: 373–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eglin T., Walter C., Nys C., Follain S., Forgeard F., Legout A., and Squividant H., 2008. Influence of waterlogging on carbon stock variability at hillslope scale in a beech forest (Fougères forest, West France). Ann. For. Sci. 65: 202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gallardo J.F., Martín A., and Santa Regina I., 1998. Nutrient cycling in deciduous forest ecosystems of the “Sierra de Gata” mountains: Nutrient supplies to the soil through both litter and throughfall. Ann. For. Sci. 55: 771–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gallardo J.F., Santa Regina I., and San Miguel C., 1989. Ciclos biogeoquímicos en bosques de la Sierra de Béjar (Salamanca, España). 1. Producción de hojarasca. Rev. Ecol. Biol. Sol. 26: 35–46.Google Scholar
  13. Gauch H.G., 1982. Sampling methods. In: Multivariable analysis in community ecology, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, pp. 43–63.Google Scholar
  14. Godoy J.R., Petts G., and Salo J., 1999. Riparian flooded forest of the Orinoco and Amazon basins: a comparative review. Biodivers. Conserv. 8: 551–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grigg A.H. and Mulligan D.R., 1999. Short note: Litterfall from two eucalypt woodlands in central Queensland. Aust. J. Ecol. 24: 662–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haase R., 1999. Litterfall and nutrient return in seasonally flooded and non-flooded forest of the Pantanal, Mato Grosso, Brazil. For. Ecol. Manage. 117: 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. InfoStat., 2002. InfoStat versión 1.1. Grupo InfoStat, F.C.A., Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina.Google Scholar
  18. Jozami J.M. and Muñoz J.D.D., 1984. Árboles y arbustos indígenas de la provincia de Entre Ríos. I.P.N.A.P.S., CONICET-U.N.L., Santa Fé, Argentina, 85 p.Google Scholar
  19. Junk W., Bayley P., and Sparks R., 1989. The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 106: 110–127.Google Scholar
  20. Marchetti Z. and Aceñolaza P.G., 2005. Detección satelital y descripción de patrones de vegetación en islas del Paraná Medio. Serie Misc. INSUGEO 14: 191–197.Google Scholar
  21. Martín A., Santa Regina I., and Gallardo J.F., 1994. Ciclos biogeoquímicos en un bosque perenne de encina (Quercus rotundifolia) en las proximidades de Salamanca (España): Retorno potencial. In: Gallardo J.F. (Ed.), Biogeoquímica de ecosistemas, Junta de Castilla y León, Valladolid, España, pp. 151–160.Google Scholar
  22. Monedero C. and González V., 1995. Producción de hojarasca y descomposición en una selva nublada del ramal interior de la cordillera de la costa, Venezuela. Ecotrópicos. 8: 1–14.Google Scholar
  23. Neiff J.J. and Poi de Neiff A., 1990. Litterfall, leaf decomposition and litter colonization of T. integrifolia (Compositae) in the Paraná River floodplain. Hydrobiology. 203: 45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Proctor J., 1983. Tropical forest litterfall. I. Problems of data comparison. In: Sutton S.L., Whitmore T.C., and Chadwick A.C. (Eds.), Tropical rain forest: ecology and management, Blackwell Sci., Oxford, pp. 267–273.Google Scholar
  25. Proctor J., 1984. Tropical forest litterfall. II. The data set. In: Chadwick A.C. and Sutton S. (Eds.), Tropical Rain-Forest: The leeds symposium, Proc. Leeds Philosophical & Literary Soc., Leeds, Gran Bretaña. pp. 83–113.Google Scholar
  26. Raimundo F., Martins A., and Madeira M., 2008. Decomposition of chestnut litterfall and eight-year soil chemical changes under a notillage management system in Northern Portugal. Ann. For. Sci. 65: 408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rojas A.E. and Saluso J.H., 1987. Informe Climático de la Provincia de Entre Ríos. Publ. Técnica N° 14. E. E. A. Paraná, Entre Ríos, Argentina, 20 p.Google Scholar
  28. Santa Regina I., Gallardo J.F., Rico M., Martín A., Gallego H.A., Moreno G., and Cuadrado S., 1991. Datos preliminares sobre biomasa aérea, producción y características edafoclimáticas de ecosistemas forestales de Quercus pyrenaica (Sierra de Gata, Salamanca). Stud. Oecol. 8: 147–158.Google Scholar
  29. Williams-Linera G. and Tolomé J., 1996. Litterfall, temperate and tropical dominant trees, and climate in a Mexican lower-montane forest. Biotropica 28: 649–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zamboni P. and Aceñolaza P., 2004. Aporte al conocimiento de ciclos de materia orgánica en formaciones boscosas de la llanura de inundación del río Paraná. Serie Misc. INSUGEO 12: 5–12.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer S+B Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pablo G. Aceñolaza
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lisandra P. Zamboni
    • 2
  • Estela E. Rodriguez
    • 1
    • 2
  • Juan F. Gallardo
    • 3
  1. 1.CICyTTP-CONICET, Materi y España, DiamanteEntre RíosR. Argentina
  2. 2.CEREGeo-FCyT, Universidad Autónoma de Entre RíosOro VerdeR. Argentina
  3. 3.C.S.I.C., IRNASaSalamancaEspaña

Personalised recommendations