Evolution of Soil, Ecosystem, and Critical Zone Research at the USDA FS Calhoun Experimental Forest

  • Daniel deB. Richter
  • Allan R. Bacon
  • Sharon A. Billings
  • Dan Binkley
  • Marilyn Buford
  • Mac A. Callaham
  • Amy E. Curry
  • Ryan L. Fimmen
  • A. Stuart Grandy
  • Paul R. Heine
  • Michael Hofmockel
  • Jason A. Jackson
  • Elizabeth LeMaster
  • Jianwei Li
  • Daniel Markewitz
  • Megan L. Mobley
  • Mary W. Morrison
  • Michael S. Strickland
  • Thomas Waldrop
  • Carol G. Wells
Chapter

Abstract

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service Calhoun Experimental Forest was organized in 1947 on the southern Piedmont to engage in research that today is called restoration ecology, to improve soils, forests, and watersheds in a region that had been severely degraded by nearly 150 years farming. Today, this 2,050-ha research forest is managed by the Sumter National Forest and Southern Research Station. In the early 1960s, the Calhoun Experimental Forest was closed as a base of scientific operations making way for a new laboratory in Research Triangle Park, NC. Many papers were written during the Calhoun’s 15 years of existence, papers that document how land-use history creates a complex of environmental forcings that are hard to unwind. One Calhoun field experiment remains active, however, and over nearly six decades has become a model for the study of soil and ecosystem change on timescales of decades. The experiment contributes greatly to our understanding of the effects of acid atmospheric deposition on soils, forests, and waters and of decadel changes in carbon and nutrient cycling in soils and forests. Perhaps the long-term experiment’s major contribution is its clear demonstration that soils are highly dynamic systems on timescales of decades and that this dynamism involves both surface and deep subsoils. The on-going experiment’s success is attributed to relatively simple experimental design, ample plot replication, rigorous (but not too arduous) protocol for resampling and archiving, and to its ability to address changing scientific and management priorities that are important to society and the environment. In the last decade, the experiment has become a platform for research and education that explore basic and applied science. As this manuscript goes to press, the Calhoun Experimental Forest has been designated to become one of the National Science Foundation’s national Critical Zone (CZ) Observatories, a development that will allow researchers to, return to the questions that originated the Calhoun Experimental Forest in the first place: how and why severely disturbed landscapes evolve through time.

Keywords

Pedology Ecosystem ecology Forest soil Forest dynamics Long-term soil experiment Sample archive Nutrient cycling Soil change Acidification Nutrient depletion Nutrient resupply Carbon sequestration Carbon cycling Acid deposition Iron–Carbon redox cycling 10Be Earth’s critical zone Biogeochemistry Granite Mineral weathering 

References

  1. Amundson R, Richter DD, Humphreys GS, Jobbágy EG, Gaillardet J (2007) Coupling between biota and earth materials in the critical zone. Elements 3:327–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bacon AR (2014) Pedo-genesis and anthropedo-genesis on the Southern Piedmont. PhD dissertation, Duke University, Durham, NCGoogle Scholar
  3. Bacon AR, Richter DD, Bierman PR, Rood DH (2012) Coupling meteoric 10Be inventories with pedogenic losses of 9Be to improve estimates of soil residence time on an ancient North American interfluve. Geology 40:847–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balmer WE, Owens EG, Jorgensen JR (1975) Effects of spacing on loblolly pine growth 15 years after Planting. USDA Forest Servivce Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NC, Research Note SE-211Google Scholar
  5. Billings SA, Richter DD (2006) Changes in stable isotopic signatures of soil nitrogen and carbon during forty years of forest development. Oecologia 148:325–333. doi:10.1007/s00442-006-0366-7Google Scholar
  6. Billings SA, Buddemeier RW, Richter DD, Van Oost K, Bohling G (2010) A simple method for estimating the influence of eroding soil profiles on atmospheric CO2. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 24 GB2001. doi:10.1029/2009GB003560Google Scholar
  7. Binkley D, Driscoll CT, Schoeneberger P (1989a) Acid deposition and forest soils: context and case studies of the Southeastern United States. Ecosystem studies 72. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Binkley D, Valentine D, Wells C, Valentine U (1989b) An empirical analysis of the factors contributing to 20-yr decrease in soil pH in an old-field plantation of loblolly pine. Biogeochemistry 8:39–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brantley SL, White TS, White AF, Sparks D, Richter D, Pregitzer K, Derry L, Chorover J, April R, Anderson S, Amundson R (2006) Frontiers in exploration of the critical zone: report of a workshop sponsored by the National Science Foundation, p 30Google Scholar
  10. Buford MA (1983) Probability distributions as models for mortality in loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) plantations. Ph. D. dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NCGoogle Scholar
  11. Buford MA (1991) Performance of four yield models for predicting stand dynamics of a 30-year-old loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) spacing study. For Ecol Manag 46:23–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Callaham M, Richter DD Jr, Coleman DC, Hofmockel M (2006) Long term land-use effects on soil invertebrate communities in southern Appalachian Piedmont soils. Eur J Soil Biol 42:S150–S156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Campbell WA, Copeland OL (1954) Littleleaf disease of shortleaf and loblolly pines. Circular 940. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Coleman DC (2010) Big ecology. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  15. Copeland OL (1949a) Relationship of soils to littleleaf disease in pine. For Farmer 8:6Google Scholar
  16. Copeland OL (1949b) Some relations between soils to the littleleaf disease of pine. J For 47:566–568Google Scholar
  17. Copeland OL (1952) Root mortality of shortleaf and loblolly pine in relation to soils and littleleaf disease. J For 50:21–25Google Scholar
  18. Copeland OL (1954) Estimating the littleleaf hazard in South Carolina Piedmont shortleaf pine stands based on site index. USDA Forest Service Southeastern Forest Experiment Station Research Note 57, Asheville, NCGoogle Scholar
  19. Copeland OL (1955) The effects of an artificially induced drought on shortleaf pine. J For 53:262–264Google Scholar
  20. Copeland OL, McAlpine RG (1955) Interrelationships of littleleaf, site index, soil, and ground cover in Piedmont shortleaf pine stands. Ecology 36:635–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cowdrey AE (1996) This land, this South. University of Kentucky Press, LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  22. Curry AE (2010) Emancipation and erosion: tenant farming, share-cropping and soil erosion on the South Carolina Piedmont, 1860–1925. Thesis, Millersville University of PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  23. DeBell DS, Harms WR, Whitesell CG (1989) Stockability: a major factor in productivity differences between Pinus taeda plantations in Hawaii and the Southeastern United States. For Sci 35:708–719Google Scholar
  24. Douglass JE (1960) Soil moisture distribution between trees in a thinned loblolly pine plantation. J For 58:221–222Google Scholar
  25. Douglass JE (1966) Effects of species and arrangement of forests on evapotranspiration. In: International symposium on forest hydrology. Pergamon Press, New York, pp 451–461Google Scholar
  26. Douglass JE (1972) Annotated bibliography of publications on watershed management by the Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, 1928–1970. USDA Forest Service Research Paper SE-93, Asheville, NCGoogle Scholar
  27. Dunford EG (1947) Research in the central Piedmont. For Farmer 6(4):8Google Scholar
  28. Faulkner W (1951) Requiem for a nun. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Fimmen RL (2004) Organic geochemistry of the South Carolina Piedmont: decomposition, mineral associations, and ferrolysis. Ph. D. Dissertation, Duke University, Durham, NCGoogle Scholar
  30. Fimmen RL, Richter DD, Vasudevan D (2008a) Determination of DON speciation in soil solution: peptide hydrolysis and florescent amine analysis. J Environ Sci 20:1273–1280Google Scholar
  31. Fimmen RL, Richter DD, Vasudevan D, Williams MA, West LT (2008b) Rhizogenic Fe-C redox cycling: a hypothetical biogeochemical mechanism that drives crustal weathering in upland soils. Biogeochemistry 87:127–141. doi:10.1007/s10533-007-9172-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Galik CS, Mobley ML, Richter DD (2009) A virtual “field test” of forest management carbon offset protocols: the influence of accounting. Mitig Adapt Strateg Global Change 14:677–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gaudinski JB, Trumbore SE, Davidson EA, Cook AC, Markewitz D, Richter DD (2001) The age of fine-root carbon in three forests of the eastern United States measured by radiocarbon. Oecologia 129:420–429Google Scholar
  34. Giesen JC (2011) Boll weevil blues. University of Chicago Press, ILGoogle Scholar
  35. Gnau CB (1992) Modeling the hydrologic cycle during 25 years of forest development. Master’s project, Duke University, Durham, NCGoogle Scholar
  36. Grandy AS, Strickland MS, Lauber CL, Bradford MA, Fierer N (2009) The influence of microbial communities, management, and soil texture on soil organic matter chemistry. Geoderma 150:278–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gray LC (1933) History of agriculture in the Southern United States to 1860. The Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  38. Greene GE (1953) Soil temperatures in the South Carolina Piedmont. USDA Forest Service Southeastern Forest Experiment Station Research Paper 29, Asheville, NCGoogle Scholar
  39. Hafley WL, Buford MA (1985) A bivariate model for growth and yield prediction. For Sci 31:237–247Google Scholar
  40. Hafley WL, Smith WD, Buford MA (1982) A new yield prediction model for unthinned loblolly pine in plantations. South Forest Research Center Technical Report 1, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NCGoogle Scholar
  41. Haney GP (1955) Shortleaf pine bibliography. USDA Forest Service Southeastern Forest Experiment Station Research Paper 48, Asheville, NCGoogle Scholar
  42. Haney GP (1957) Seed production of shortleaf pine in the Piedmont. USDA Forest Service Southeastern Forest Experiment Station Research Note 113, Asheville, NCGoogle Scholar
  43. Harms WR, Lloyd FT (1981) Stand structure and yield relationships in a 20-year old loblolly pine spacing study. Southern J Appd For 5:162–166Google Scholar
  44. Harrison K, Post W, Richter DD (1995) Recovery of soil carbon by reforestation of old-field soils. Global Biogeochem Cycles 9:449–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hewlett JD, Metz LJ (1960) Watershed management research in the southeast. J For 58:269–271Google Scholar
  46. Hoover MD (1950) Hydrologic characteristics of South Carolina Piedmont forest soils. Soil Sci Soc Am Proc 14:353–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hoover MD (1952a) Influence of plant cover on soil moisture in the Piedmont. Southern agricultural workers proceedings 49:172Google Scholar
  48. Hoover MD (1952b) Water and timber management. J Soil Water Conser 7:75–78Google Scholar
  49. Hoover MD (1953) Interception of rainfall in a young loblolly pine plantation. USDA Forest Service Southeastern Forest Experiment Station Research Paper 21, Asheville, NCGoogle Scholar
  50. Hoover MD (1954) Soil sampling for pore space and percolation. USDA Forest Service Southeastern Forest Experiment Station Research Paper 42, Asheville, NCGoogle Scholar
  51. Hoover MD, Lunt HA (1952) A key for the classification of forest humus types. Soil Sci Soc Am Proc 16:368–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hoover MD, Olson DF, Greene GE (1953) Soil moisture under a young loblolly pine plantation. Soil Sci Soc Am Proc 17:147–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Irish MD (1952) Recent political thought in the South. Am Polit Sci Rev 46:121–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Jackson JA (2010) Fungal community change in response to land use: a molecular approach. PhD. Dissertation, Duke University, Durham, NCGoogle Scholar
  55. Jackson JA, Vilgalys R, Richter DD (2005) Using ITS clone libraries to assess soil fungal diversity in the South Carolina Piedmont. Soil Ecology Society, 10th biennial conference, Argonne, ILGoogle Scholar
  56. Johnson DW (2006) Progressive N limitation in forests: review and implications for long-term responses to elevated CO2. Ecology 87:64–75CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Johnson DW, Lindberg SE (1992) Atmospheric deposition and forest nutrient cycling: a synthesis of the integrated forest study. Springer-Verlag, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Johnson CS, Embree ER, Alexander WW (1935) The collapse of cotton tenancy. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel HillGoogle Scholar
  59. Kubiena WL (1970) Micromorphological features of soil geography. Rutgers University Press, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  60. Leopold A (1949) A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  61. Li JW (2009) Effects of land-use history on soil macro- and trace elements in the Southern Piedmont of North America. PhD Dissertation, Duke University, Durham, NCGoogle Scholar
  62. Li JW, Richter DD, Heine P (2008) Four-decade responses of soil trace elements to an aggrading old-field forest: B, Mn, Zn, Cu, and Fe. Ecology 89:2911–2923CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Li JW, Richter DD, Mendoza A, Heine P (2010) Effects of land-use history on soil spatial heterogeneity of macro- and trace elements in the Southern Piedmont USA. Geoderma 156:60–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Likens GE, Driscoll CT, Buso DC, Mitchell MJ, Lovett GM, Bailey SW, Siccama TG, Reiners WA, Alewell C (2002) The biogeochemistry of sulfur at Hubbard Brook. Biogeochemistry 60:235–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lin H (2010) Earth’s critical zone and hydropedology: concepts, characteristics, and advances. Earth Syst Sci 14:25–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Markewitz D (1995) Soil acidification, soil potassium availability, and biogeochemistry of aluminum and silicon in a 34-year-old Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda L.) ecosystem in the Calhoun Experimental Forest, South Carolina. Ph.D. Dissertation, Duke University, Durham, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
  67. Markewitz D, Richter DD (1998) The bio- in Al and Si geochemistry. Biogeochemistry 43:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Markewitz D, Richter DD (2000) Long-term soil potassium availability from a Kanhapludult to an aggrading loblolly pine ecosystem. For Ecol Manage 130:109–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Markewitz D, Richter DD, Allen HL, Urrego JB (1998) Three decades of observed soil acidification at the Calhoun Experimental Forest: has acid rain made a difference? Soil Sci Soc Am J 62:1428–1439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Metz LJ (1952a) Weight and nitrogen and calcium content of the annual litter fall of forests in the South Carolina Piedmont. Soil Sci Soc Am J Proc 16:38–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Metz LJ (1952b) Calcium content of hardwood litter four times that from pine: nitrogen double. USDA Southeastern Forest Experiment Station Research Notes 14, Asheville, NCGoogle Scholar
  72. Metz LJ (1954) Forest floor in the Piedmont region of South Carolina. Soil Sci Soc Am J Proc 18:335–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Metz LJ (1958a) The Calhoun Experimental Forest. USDA Forest Service Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NC, 24 pGoogle Scholar
  74. Metz LJ (1958b) Moisture held in pine litter. J For 56:36Google Scholar
  75. Metz LJ, Douglass JE (1959) Soil moisture depletion under several Piedmont cover types. USDA Forest Service Technical Bull. No. 1207Google Scholar
  76. Metz LJ, Wells CG (1965) Weight and nutrient content of the aboveground parts of some loblolly pines. USDA Southeastern Forest Experiment Station Research Paper SE-17, Asheville, NCGoogle Scholar
  77. Mistretta PA (1998) Littleleaf disease. Forest insect and disease leaflet 20. USDA Forest Service, Pineville, LAGoogle Scholar
  78. Mobley ML (2011) An ecosystem approach to dead plant carbon over 50 years of old-field forest. PhD dissertation, Duke University, Durham, NCGoogle Scholar
  79. Mobley ML, Richter DD (2010) Soil carbon change during fifty years of old-field forest development. Presented to American Geophysical Union, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  80. Mobley ML, Richter DD, Heine PR (2013) Accumulation and decay of coarse woody detritus in a humid subtropical secondary pine forest. Can J For Res 43:109–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. National Research Council (2001) Basic research opportunities in earth science. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  82. Oh NH, Richter DD (2005) Elemental translocation and loss from three highly weathered soil-bedrock profiles in the Southeastern United States. Geoderma 126:5–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Olson DF, Hoover MD (1957) Methods of soil moisture determination under field conditions. USDA Forest Service Southeastern Forest Experiment Station Paper 38, Asheville, NCGoogle Scholar
  84. Patric JH, Douglass JE, Hewlett JD (1965) Soil water absorption by mountain and Piedmont forests. Soil Sci Soc Am J Proc 29:303–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML (2002) The ecosystem as a multidimensional concept: meaning, model, and metaphor. Ecosystems 5:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Post WM, Kwon KC (2000) Soil carbon sequestration and land-use change: processes and potential. Glob Change Biol 6:317–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Rasmussen C, Brantley S, Richter DD, Blum A, Dixon J, White AF (2011) Strong climatic and tectonic control on plagioclase weathering in granitic terrain. Earth Planet Sci Lett 301:521–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Richter DD (1991) Effects of acidic deposition on soils. In: Irving PM (ed) Terrestrial, material, and visibility effects of acidic deposition, vol III, pp 16/73–78. State of Science and Technology, US National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  89. Richter DD (2007) Humanity’s transformation of earth’s soil: Pedology’s new frontier. Soil Sci 127:957–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Richter DD, Markewitz D (1995a) How deep is soil? BioScience 45:600–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Richter DD, Markewitz D (1995b) Atmospheric deposition and soil resources of the southern pine forest. In: Medlarz S, Mickler R (eds) Air pollutants and southern pine forests, ecological studies series. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 315–336Google Scholar
  92. Richter DD, Markewitz D (1996) Soil carbon dynamics during the growth of an old-field loblolly pine forest at the Calhoun Experimental Forest, USA. In: Powlson DS, Smith P, Smith JU (eds) NATO ASI Series 38. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 397–407Google Scholar
  93. Richter DD, Markewitz D (2001) Understanding soil change. Cambridge University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  94. Richter DD, Mobley M (2009) Monitoring the earth’s critical zone. Science 326:1067–1068CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. Richter DD, Yaalon D (2012) ‘The changing model of soil’ revisited. Soil Sci Soc Am J 76:766–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Richter DD, Markewitz D, Wells CG, Allen HL, April R, Heine P, Urrego B (1994) Soil chemical change during three decades in an old-field loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) ecosystem. Ecology 75:1463–1473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Richter DD, Markewitz D, Wells CG, Allen HL, Dunscombe JK, Harrison K, Heine PR, Stuanes A, Urrego B, Bonani G (1995) Carbon cycling in a loblolly pine forest: implications for the missing carbon sink and for the concept of soil. In: McFee WW, Kelly JM (eds) Carbon forms and functions in forest soils. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, pp 233–252Google Scholar
  98. Richter DD, Markewitz D, Trumbore SA, Wells CG (1999) Rapid accumulation and turnover of soil carbon in a re-establishing forest. Nature 400:56–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Richter DD, Markewitz D, Heine PR, Jin V, Raikes J, Tian K, Wells CG (2000) Legacies of agriculture and forest regrowth in the nitrogen of old-field soils. For Ecol Manage 138:233–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Richter DD, Li JW, Markewitz D, Raikes J, Allen HL (2006a) Bioavailability of slowly cycling soil phosphorus: major restructuring of soil-P fractions over four decades in an aggrading forest. Oecologia 150:259–271. doi:10.1007/s00442-006-0510-4Google Scholar
  101. Richter DD, Callaham MA, Markewitz D, Vilgalys R (2006b) Understanding ecosystem change at the Calhoun Experimental Forest’s long-term soil experiment. In: Irland LC, Camp AE, Brissette JC, Donohew ZR (eds) Long-term Silvicultural and Ecological Studies, pp 169–175. Global Institute of Sustainable Forestry Research Paper 5, Yale University, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  102. Richter DD, Hofmockel M, Callaham MA, Powlson DS, Smith P (2007a) Long-term soil experiments: keys to managing earth’s rapidly changing ecosystems. Soil Sci Soc Am J 71:266–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Richter DD, Oh NH, Fimmen R, Jackson JA (2007b) The rhizosphere and soil formation. In: Cardon Z (ed) The rhizosphere: an ecological perspective. Elsevier, New York, pp 179–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Richter DD, Bacon AR, Mobley ML, Richardson CJ, Andrews SS, West L, Wills S, Billings S, Cambardella CA, Cavallaro N, DeMeester JE, Franzluebbers AJ, Grandy AS, Grunwald S, Gruver J, Hartshorn AS, Janzen H, Kramer MG, Ladha JK, Lajtha K, Liles GC, Markewitz D, Megonigal PJ, Mermut AR, Rasmussen C, Robinson DA, Smith P, Stiles CA, Tate RL III, Thompson A, Tugel AJ, van Es H, Yaalon D, Zobeck TM (2011) Human-soil relations are changing rapidly: proposals from SSSA’s new cross-divisional working group on soil change. Soil Sci Soc Am J 75:2079–2084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Roland CP (1982) The ever-vanishing South. J South Hist 48:3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Rosengarten T (1974) All God’s dangers, the life of Nate Shaw. A. A. Knopf, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  107. Scott EJ (1919) Letters of Negro migrants of 1916–1918. J Negro Hist 4:290–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Simkins FB (1947) The everlasting South. J South Hist 13:307–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Smith P, Powlson DS, Smith JU, Elliott ET (1997) Evaluation and comparison of soil organic matter models using datasets from seven long-term experiments. Geoderma 81:1–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Staff (of the Calhoun Experimental Forest) (1951) Eroded Piedmont old fields are difficult sites. USDA Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Research News No. 13, Asheville, NCGoogle Scholar
  111. Stone EL (1979) Nutrient removals by intensive harvest—some research gaps and opportunities. In: Leaf A (ed) Impact of intensive harvesting on forest nutrient cycling. State University of New York at Syracuse, USA, pp 366–386Google Scholar
  112. Strickland MS (2009) Ecosystem carbon cycling: relationships to soil microbial community structure. PhD Dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USAGoogle Scholar
  113. Strickland MS, Osburn E, Lauber C, Fierer N, Bradford MA (2009) Litter quality is in the eye of the beholder: initial decomposition rates as a function of inoculum characteristics. Funct Ecol 23:627–636. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2435.2008.01515.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Strickland MS, Callaham MA, Davies CA, Lauber CL, Ramirez K, Richter DD, Fierer N, Bradford MA (2010) Rates of in situ carbon mineralization in relation to land-use, microbial community and edaphic characteristics. Soil Biol Biochem 42:260–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Targulian VO, Goryachkin SV (2004) Soil memory: types of record, carriers, hierarchy and diversity. Revista Mex de Cienc Geológicas 21:1–8Google Scholar
  116. Tindall GB (1964) The benighted South: origins of a modern image. Va Q Rev 40:281–294Google Scholar
  117. Trimble SW (2008) Man-induced soil erosion on the southern Piedmont—1700–1970. Soil and Water Conservation Society, AnkenyGoogle Scholar
  118. Van Oost K, Quine TA, Govers G, De Gryze S, Six J, Harden JW, Ritchie JC, McCarty GW, Heckrath G, Kosmas C, Giralde JV, Marques da Silva JR, Merckx R (2007) The impact of agricultural soil erosion on the global carbon cycle. Science 318:626–629CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. Wells CG (1965) Nutrient relationships between soils and needles of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Soil Sci Soc Am J 29:621–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Wells CG, Jorgensen JR (1975) Nutrient cycling in loblolly pine plantations. In: Bernier B, Winget CH (eds) Forest soils and forest land management, fourth North American forest soils conference. Laval University Press, Quebec, pp 137–158Google Scholar
  121. Wells CG, Jorgensen JR (1979) Effect of intensive harvesting on nutrient supply and sustained productivity. In Leaf A (ed) Impact of intensive harvesting on forest nutrient cycling. State University of New York, Syracuse, pp 212–230Google Scholar
  122. Wells CG, Metz LJ (1963) Variation in nutrient content of loblolly pine needles with season, age, soil, and position on the crown. Soil Sci Soc Am J 27:90–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Wessel T (1997) Reading the forested landscape. Countryman Press, WoodstockGoogle Scholar
  124. West TO, Post WM (2002) Soil organic carbon sequestration rates by tillage and crop rotation: a global data analysis. Soil Sci Soc Am J 66:1930–1946CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel deB. Richter
    • 1
  • Allan R. Bacon
    • 1
  • Sharon A. Billings
    • 2
  • Dan Binkley
    • 3
  • Marilyn Buford
    • 4
  • Mac A. Callaham
    • 5
  • Amy E. Curry
    • 6
  • Ryan L. Fimmen
    • 7
  • A. Stuart Grandy
    • 8
  • Paul R. Heine
    • 1
  • Michael Hofmockel
    • 12
    • 1
  • Jason A. Jackson
    • 14
  • Elizabeth LeMaster
    • 15
  • Jianwei Li
    • 2
  • Daniel Markewitz
    • 9
  • Megan L. Mobley
    • 13
    • 1
  • Mary W. Morrison
    • 10
  • Michael S. Strickland
    • 11
  • Thomas Waldrop
    • 16
  • Carol G. Wells
    • 17
  1. 1.Nicholas School of the EnvironmentDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  2. 2.University of KansasLawrenceUSA
  3. 3.Colorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  4. 4.USDA Forest Service National HeadquartersWashingtonUSA
  5. 5.Southern Research StationUSDA Forest ServiceAthensUSA
  6. 6.Millersville University of PennsylvaniaMillersvilleUSA
  7. 7.Geosyntec ConsultantsColumbusUSA
  8. 8.University of New HampshireDurhamUSA
  9. 9.University of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  10. 10.Francis Marion and Sumter National ForestsUSDA Forest ServiceColumbiaUSA
  11. 11.Virginia Polytechnic and State UniversityBlacksburgUSA
  12. 12.Iowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  13. 13.University of WyomingLaramieUSA
  14. 14.Southern Research StationUSDA Forest ServiceDurhamUSA
  15. 15.Francis Marion and Sumter National ForestsUSDA Forest ServiceWhitmireUSA
  16. 16.Southern Research StationUSDA Forest ServiceClemsonUSA
  17. 17.Southern Research StationUSDA Forest ServiceDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations