Input to Soil, Especially the Influence of Vegetation in Intercepting and Modifying Inputs — A Review
Chapter
Abstract
Input to soil covered by vegetation would not require special attention if it would simply be the sum of atmospheric inputs, i.e. the sum of wet and dry deposition. But in contrary to this, atmospheric sources may contribute to soil input as well as vegetation itself. This may best be explained with the help of a schematic representation (Figure 1) which was essentially taken from Slinn.1 The model applies only to terrestrial ecosystems. The designations for different inputs and fluxes shown in the figure are very much reflecting the methods used to measure them. Therefore discussion of the topic must include the discussion of methods.
Keywords
River Runoff Canopy Layer Filter Efficiency Vegetation Canopy Atmospheric Input
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.W.G.N. Slinn. USDA Forest Service Gen. Techn. Rep. NE-23, p. 857, (1976).Google Scholar
- 2.E. Eriksson, Tellus 7: 243, (1955).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 3.E. Eriksson, Tellus 11: 375, (1959).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 4.E. Eriksson, Tellus 12: 63, (1959).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 5.H.A.I. Madgwick and J.D. Ovington, Forestry 32: 1, (1959).Google Scholar
- 6.A.C. Chamberlain, Proc. Roy. Soc. Ser. A. 290: 236, (1966).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 7.A.C. Chamberlain in:“Vegetation and the Atmosphere,” vol. 1, J.L. Monteith, ed., Academic Press, New York and London. (1975).Google Scholar
- 8.K. Arens, Jb. wiss. Bot. 80: 248, (1934).Google Scholar
- 9.C.O. Tamm. Physiologia Plantarum 4: 184, (1951).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.G. Stenlid, in: “Hand. Pflanzenphysiologie,” Bd. IV, p. 615, 1958Google Scholar
- 11.H.B. Tukey and J.V. Morgan. Proc. 16th Int. Hortic. Congr. (Brussels) 4: 153, (1962).Google Scholar
- 12.S. Denaeyer-de Smet. Bull. Soc. Roy. Bot. (Belgique) 94: 285 (1962).Google Scholar
- 13.R.B. Miller. New Zealand J. Soil Sci. 6: 388, (1963).Google Scholar
- 14.F. Grunert. Albrecht-Thaer-Archiv 8: 435, (1964).Google Scholar
- 15.A. Carlisle., A.H.F. Brown and E.J. White. J. Ecol. 54: 87, (1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.P.M. Attiwill. Plant and Soil 24: 390, (1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.B. Ulrich., U. Steinhard and A. Müller-Suur. Gött. Bodenkundl. Ber. 29: 133, (1973).Google Scholar
- 18.Ch.E. Junge. “Air Chemistry and Radioactivity”, Academic Press, New York and London, (1963).Google Scholar
- 19.O. Johansson. Ann. Roy. Agr. Coll. (Sweden) 25: 57, (1959).Google Scholar
- 20.Ph.L. Johnson and W.T. Swant. Ecology 54: 70, (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.G.E. Likens and F.H. Bormann. Ecol. Studies 10: 7, (1975).Google Scholar
- 22.J.W. Elwood and G.S. Henderson. Ecol. Studies 10: 30, (1975)Google Scholar
- 23.G.E. Likens., F.H. Bormann., R.S. Pierce., J.S. Eaton and N.M. Johnson, in: “Biogeochemistry of a Forested Ecosystem,” Springer Verlag, New York, 146 p. (1977).Google Scholar
- 24.E.J. White and F. Turner. J. Appl. Ecol. 7: 441, (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.B. Nihlgard. Oikos 21: 208, (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.B. Wiman and B. Nihlgard., Swedish Conif. For. Proj. Int. Rep. 49, (1977).Google Scholar
- 27.M. Nyborg and J. Creplin. USDA Forest Service Gen. Techn. Rep. NE-23, p. 767, (1976).Google Scholar
- 28.H. Kühn and H. Weller. Z. Pflanzenernährg. Bodenkd. 140: 431 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.H.W. Fassbender. Oecol. Plant. 12(3):263, (1977).Google Scholar
Copyright information
© Plenum Press, New York 1980