Liu F.-P.,Guangdong Forest Investigation and Planning Institute |
Zeng S.-C.,South China Agricultural University |
Mo L.-J.,Forest Research Institute of Dongguan |
Ding X.-T.,South China Agricultural University |
And 3 more authors.
Chinese Journal of Ecology | Year: 2013
Transformation of low-quality forest stand is an important measure to improve forest stand quality and its ecological functions. In this paper, two transformed stands and one control stand of Eucalyptus urophylla plantations in the Dongguan Forest Research Park, Guangdong Province of South China were taken as the objects to study the water-holding capacities of soil and litter. The two transformation modes were 1) evenly removing 70% of E. urophylla trees followed by planting native broadleaved trees in canopy gaps (Mode I) and 2) evenly removing 40% of E. urophylla trees followed by planting native broadleaved trees in the gaps (Mode II), and the un-treated E. urophylla plantation was served as the control (CK). After 3-year transformation, as compared with CK, the surface (0-20 cm) soil capillary porosity, natural water content, field water-holding capacity, and effective water retaining capacity in Mode I and Mode II had a significant increase, while the non-capillary porosity in 0-40 cm soil layer was in adverse. The water-absorption rate and the maximum water-holding rate of the litters under Modes I and II were significantly higher, but the litter biomass and its maximum water-holding capacity were significantly lower than those under CK. The water-absorption rate of the litters in the three plantations had a power function relationship with the litter's immersion time, while the water-holding rate and water-holding capacity of the litters were exponentially correlated with the immersion time. Overall, stand transformation increased the water-holding capacity of 0-60 cm soil layer significantly, and no significant difference was observed between Modes I and II. For all the plantations, the water-holding capacity of soil was far higher than that of litter, and the maximum water-holding capacity of litter was only 0. 59% -2. 06% of the effective water-holding capacity of surface soil layer. Source