Download (1906Kb)

stressed, nutrients are ruuoved fim circulztion for many
years in the woody parts ot' tmes and this hobilization my
have a mjor effect on the nutrient stztus of the site,
Renniet~ (4956) datA for tote.1 uptake exclude nutrients in
foliage and roots of thinninp and in litter buk support; our
statements above.
Ef f emnce s bet wean nutrient cycling in coniferous and deciduous
f omst s include nutrient return in litter.
Litte~fall on a
dry weight bc:sis is -l5-16% gruater in coniferous forests than
isi deciduous forests and mineral oontent of conifer litter is
about 35-36% of that in deciduous litter excluding Fagaceae
ray & Gorh, 1364). ~utrients in conifir litterfall per
unit area, excluding N, are th~refore about 41% OF those for
deciduous $ree~. For sites grmhg cmkfsrs, the advantage
of' law nutrient demand is off set by p Mutt ion of large
quantities of nutrient-poor and slowly decomposing litter
which ~ay affect soil characteristics in undesirable way~(~.at
but which, navertheless, my help to retain nutrients on a site
(Thorns Grigal, 1976). The reverso is true
for many deciduous trees with otkur litters occupying an
internesate position.
Compariam of the effects of ~raeina animls and tmas an the scil
The main differences and similuxitius in tho ecological effects of
grazing and forestry fsll into two main classes, a) effects on the
soil and b) renova1 or loss of nutrients frm the systerrl in aniraals
or timber, in solutf on and as particulate material.
a) Effects on the soil
Soil coqaction an4ior disturbance by anids, &n and vehicles
.v- IOC;E- on path$ and r=ds tath bath EXL far+
*and
foxcstry but this does nat appozr to be a major proBlen