scholarly journals Does Mixing Tree Species Affect Water Storage Capacity of the Forest Floor? Laboratory Test of Pine-Oak and Fir-Beech Litter Layers

Forests ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (12) ◽  
pp. 1674
Author(s):  
Anna Ilek ◽  
Małgorzata Szostek ◽  
Anna Mikołajczyk ◽  
Marta Rajtar
Keyword(s):  
Physical Properties ◽  
Bulk Density ◽  
Tree Species ◽  
Forest Floor ◽  
Storage Capacity ◽  
Water Storage ◽  
Pine Needles ◽  
Litter Layer ◽  
Water Storage Capacity ◽  
Organic Debris

During the last decade, tree species mixing has been widely supported as a silvicultural approach to reduce drought stress. However, little is known on the influence of tree species mixing on physical properties and the water storage capacity of forest soils (including the forest floor). Thus, the study aimed to analyze the effect of mixing pine needles and oak leaves and mixing fir needles and beech leaves on hydro-physical properties of the litter layer during laboratory tests. We used fir-beech and pine-oak litter containing various shares of conifer needles (i.e., 0, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 and 100%) to determine the influence of the needle admixture on bulk density, total porosity, macroporosity, water storage capacity, the amount of water stored in pores between organic debris and the degree of saturation of mixed litter compared to broadleaf litter (oak or beech). We found that the admixture of fir needles increased the bulk density of litter from 7.9% with a 5% share of needles to 55.5% with a 50% share (compared to pure beech litter), while the share of pine needles < 40% caused a decrease in bulk density by an average of 3.0–11.0% (compared to pure oak litter). Pine needles decreased the water storage capacity of litter by about 13–14% with the share of needles up to 10% and on average by 28% with the 40 and 50% shares of pine needles in the litter layer. Both conifer admixtures reduced the amount of water stored in the pores between organic debris (pine needles more than fir needles).

scholarly journals Hydrological properties of bark of selected forest tree species. Part 2: Interspecific variability of bark water storage capacity

2017 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
pp. 110-122
Author(s):  
Anna Ilek ◽  
Jarosław Kucza ◽  
Karolina Morkisz
Keyword(s):  
Pinus Sylvestris ◽  
Tree Species ◽  
Storage Capacity ◽  
Water Storage ◽  
Abies Alba ◽  
Forest Tree ◽  
Main Role ◽  
Water Storage Capacity ◽  
Forest Tree Species ◽  
Surface Development

AbstractThe subject of the present research is the water storage capacity of bark of seven forest tree species: Pinus sylvestris L., Larix decidua Mill., Abies alba Mill., Pinus sylvestris L., Quercus robur L., Betula pendula Ehrh. and Fagus sylvatica L. The aim of the research is to demonstrate differences in the formation of bark water storage capacity between species and to identify factors influencing the hydrological properties of bark. The maximum water storage capacity of bark was determined under laboratory conditions by performing a series of experiments simulating rainfall and by immersing bark samples in containers filled with water. After each single experiment, the bark samples were subjected to gravity filtration in a desiccator partially filled with water. The experiments lasted from 1084 to 1389 hours, depending on the bark sample. In all the studied species, bark sampled from the thinnest trees is characterized by the highest water storage capacity expressed in mm H2O · cm-3, while bark sampled from the thickest trees - by the lowest capacity. On the other hand, bark sampled from the thickest trees is characterized by the highest water storage capacity expressed in H2O · cm-2whereas bark from the thinnest trees - by the lowest capacity. In most species tested, as the tree thickness and thus the bark thickness and the coefficient of development of the interception surface of bark increase, the sorption properties of the bark decrease with bark depth, and the main role in water retention is played by the outer bark surface. The bark of European beech is an exception because of the smallest degree of surface development and because the dominant process is the absorption of water. When examining the hydrological properties of bark and calculating its parameters, one needs to take into account the actual surface of the bark of trees. Disregarding the actual bark surface may lead to significant errors in the interpretation of research results.

scholarly journals Hygroscopic contributions to bark water storage and controls exerted by internal bark structure over water vapor absorption

Trees ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Ilek ◽  
Courtney M. Siegert ◽  
Adam Wade
Keyword(s):  
Water Vapor ◽  
Bulk Density ◽  
Loblolly Pine ◽  
Tree Species ◽  
Water Storage ◽  
Total Porosity ◽  
Water Vapor Absorption ◽  
Outer Bark ◽  
Water Storage Capacity ◽  
Bark Structure

Abstract Key message Hygroscopicity is a crucial element of bark water storage and can reach >60% of water holding capacity of bark depending on tree species Abstract Bark forms the outer layer of woody plants, and it is directly exposed to wetting during rainfall and reacts to changes in relative humidity, i.e., it may exchange water with the atmosphere through absorption and desorption of water vapor. A current paradigm of bark hydrology suggests that the maximum water storage of bark empties between precipitation events and is principally controlled by bark thickness and roughness. We hypothesize that (1) the ability of bark to absorb water vapor during non-rainfall periods (i.e., hygroscopicity) leads to partial saturation of bark tissues during dry periods that may alter the rate of bark saturation during rainfall, and (2) the degree of bark saturation through hygroscopic water is a function of internal bark structure, including porosity and density, that varies among species. To address these questions, we conducted laboratory experiments to measure interspecific differences in bark physical structure as it relates to water storage mechanisms among common tree species (hickory (Carya spp.), oak (Quercus spp.), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)) in the southeastern United States. Furthermore, we considered how these properties changed across total bark, outer bark, and inner bark. We found a distinct difference between hickory and oak, whereby hickory had 5.6% lower specific density, 31.1% higher bulk density, and 22.4% lower total porosity of outer bark resulting in higher hygroscopicity compared to oaks. For all species, hygroscopicity increased linearly with bulk density (R2 = 0.65–0.81) and decreased linearly with total porosity (R2 = 0.64–0.88). Overall, bark hygroscopicity may constitute an average of 30% of total bark water storage capacity. Therefore, in humid climates like those of the southeastern USA, the proportion of bark that remains saturated during non-storm conditions should not be considered negligible.

Compaction of sandy soils in Radiata pine forests. I. A penetrometer study

Soil Research ◽  
1979 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 101 ◽  
Author(s):  
R Sands ◽  
EL Greacen ◽  
CJ Gerard
Keyword(s):  
Organic Matter ◽  
Bulk Density ◽  
Storage Capacity ◽  
Water Storage ◽  
Sandy Soils ◽  
Radiata Pine ◽  
Soil Strength ◽  
Pine Plantations ◽  
Overburden Pressure ◽  
Water Storage Capacity

The mechanical strength of sandy soils under radiata pine plantations was measured with a penetrometer. Resistance to penetration was largely independent of water content in the range sampled, and was directly related to the bulk density of the soil. Soil strength at constant bulk density increased with depth owing to increase in overburden pressure and to a decrease in soil organic matter. Soil under native scrub was consistently less compact than that from adjacent radiata pine plantations on the same soil type. Soil from pasture was usually more compact in the surface 20 cm of soil than that from pine plantations, but was less compact at depth. Soil from second rotation plantations was more compact than soil on some first rotation sites, but on other sites no differences could be established. Radiata pine roots preferentially penetrated areas of lower soil strength. Root penetration was severely restricted above a critical penetration resistance of about 3000 kPa. Saturated soils were highly compacted even by light loads in a laboratory consolidometer compared to unsaturated soil. In the unsaturated condition compaction was greatest under heavy loads on soils at about 1% organic matter. Causes of the observed compaction in the field are discussed and remedial measures are suggested. Soil compaction reduced porosity but had little effect on water storage capacity. Increased organic matter at constant bulk density also reduced porosity, but greatly increased water storage capacity and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity. The importance of organic matter in maintaining a favourable structure in sandy soils and its relation to maintenance of site productivity is discussed.

Water Storage in the Forest Floor of Subalpine Forests of Alberta

1972 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas L. Golding ◽  
Charles R Stanton
Keyword(s):  
Forest Floor ◽  
Storage Capacity ◽  
Lodgepole Pine ◽  
Water Storage ◽  
Dry Weight ◽  
Forest Types ◽  
Subalpine Forests ◽  
Water Storage Capacity ◽  
Unit Thickness ◽  
Significant Difference

Water storage by the forest floor and its relation to other characteristics of the forest floor were determined for three forest types (spruce-fir (Picea spp. - Abies spp.) partially, cut spruce-fir, and young lodgepole pine (Pinuscontorta Dougl.), and three predominant aspects (north, south, and east) on Marmot Creek experimental watershed in south western Alberta.There was no significant difference between uncut and partially-cut spruce-fir forest floor in water-storage capacity, depth of water held after draining, water held per unit thickness of forest floor, or dry weight, although forest-floor thickness was greater under uncut spruce-fir (11.36 cm) than partially cut (9.84 cm). The forest floor averaged for cut and uncut spruce-fir had greater water-storage capacity (1.93) than under young lodgepole pine(1.35), greater depth of water held (1.94 cm, 0.85 cm,) greater dry weight (89 506 kg/ha, 55 039 kg/ha), and greater thickness (10.60 cm, 4.59 cm). There was no difference in water held per unit thickness of forest floor (0.19 cm/cm under spruce-fir, 0.18 cm/cm under pine). The lower values for pine than for spruce-fir are attributed to an intense fire 30 years ago on the area presently supporting the young pine.Regressions are given of water held on forest-floor thickness, weight of water held on dry weight, and water-storage capacity on thickness.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document