06.04.2013 Views

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES in rocky mountain coniferous ...

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES in rocky mountain coniferous ...

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES in rocky mountain coniferous ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Weights of typical trees on these treatments are multiplied by the appropriate<br />

values <strong>in</strong> this tabluation to produce the biomass estimates per hectare shown <strong>in</strong><br />

table 1.<br />

Tab1 e 1 .--Biomass <strong>in</strong> 1977 of planted and seeded lodgepole p<strong>in</strong>e<br />

PI anted<br />

Above ground 48.3 61.2 26.9 11.2<br />

Roots 7.3 8.8 4.4 2.1<br />

Total 55.6 70.0 31.3 13.3<br />

Seeded<br />

Above ground 2.7 11.4 4.0 0.5<br />

Roots 0.7 2.0 0.6 0.1<br />

Total 3.1 13.4 4.6 0.6<br />

Nutrient and ash concentrations <strong>in</strong> the planted lodgepole p<strong>in</strong>e are shown <strong>in</strong><br />

table 2. Except for iron, the concentrations did not statistically differ with<br />

respect to treatment. Far less iron was found <strong>in</strong> the new needles from the chipped-<br />

removed and chipped-returned sites than from the broadcast burned and piled-burned<br />

treatment areas. A similar, but less marked, relationship held true for the iron<br />

contents of the other above-ground tree components. In contrast, the opposi te<br />

occurred <strong>in</strong> the roots; the iron content of roots on the near-complete (chipped)<br />

units was more than twice that found on the conventionally harvested units.<br />

Only four samples, of five trees each, make up each of the observations <strong>in</strong><br />

table 2. As a result, the slightest variation with<strong>in</strong> treatments masks any differ-<br />

ences among them. The data <strong>in</strong>dicate no marked nutrient deficiencies, support<strong>in</strong>g<br />

field observations of healthy stock on all but the chipped-returned treatment.<br />

Mu1 tiply<strong>in</strong>g nutrient concentrations by the weights of typical trees on these<br />

treatments produced results that show marked differences among treatments <strong>in</strong> the<br />

amount of some nutrients taken up by the develop<strong>in</strong>g tree biomass (table 3). But,<br />

this directly reflects the size and vigor of these trees, not their nutritional<br />

we1 1-be<strong>in</strong>g. Gram for gram they all may be equally well nourished.<br />

ORGANIC SURFACE<br />

Soils<br />

The nutrient content of the surface organic layer (Ao), <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g that of all<br />

chips and debris less than 3 cm <strong>in</strong> diameter, is shown <strong>in</strong> table 4. Over the 5-year<br />

post- treatment timespan, nitrogen and cal ci um contents generally <strong>in</strong>creased, and<br />

potassium and magnesium contents decreased. Even though chips had lower concentra-<br />

tions of most elements than the usual forest 1 i tter, the large volume of chips on<br />

the chipped-returned site, <strong>in</strong> addition to the residual 1 i t ter underneath, resulted<br />

<strong>in</strong> a larger quantity of every nutrient on this treatment than on any other. After 5<br />

years, total nitrogen was least under burned piles, largely because it was<br />

volatilized when the organic material on the soil surface was burned. Phosphorus<br />

content of the forest litter seems to have been unaffected by treatment. The

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!