Biomass Deposition and Chemical Composition of Litterfall in Clonal Eucalyptus Plantations

Vargas, Giovanno Radel de; Marques, Renato; Bianchin, Jonas Eduardo; Teixeira, Wilson Wagner Ribeiro; Blum, Hilbert

doi:10.1590/2179-8087.045017

Sumário Anterior Atual Seguinte

Sumário

Original Article, Silviculture • Floresta Ambient. 26 (2) • 2019 • https://doi.org/10.1590/2179-8087.045017 linkcopy

Biomass Deposition and Chemical Composition of Litterfall in Clonal Eucalyptus Plantations

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Productivity in clonal eucalyptus plantations depends on the genetic material and on the demand and cycling of nutrients, making studies that evaluate these requirements necessary. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of management (with and without thinning) on the deposition, chemical composition and nutrient contribution in litter at different clonal or stallion eucalyptus plantations. The experiment was conducted under a subdivided plot design for comparison of “clone” and “thinning” treatments. Plots were composed of eight different clonal and eucalyptus seed plantations, with subplots being areas where thinning was performed and areas without thinning. Litter deposition pattern associated to seasons was observed, with higher values in the spring and summer. The leaf fraction was more representative in relation to nutrients. Deposition values were close in most plantations. Nutritional contents were higher in leaves of areas with thinning in relation to the other areas.

Keywords:
litter; clones; thinning

Planting	Thinning	Phytomass (kg ha^-1)
Planting	Thinning	Leaves	Reproductive Organs	Bark	Branches	Residues	Total
*E. grandis*	T	1809 A	409 B	116	216	262 B	2811
	WT	1566 B	661 A	104	204	536 A	3071
C-219	T	1939	465	108	233	155 B	2899
	WT	1800	541	123	218	525 A	3206
I-042	T	1664	625	85	236	369 B	2979
	WT	1809	658	91	254	521 A	3332
1277	T	1861	413 B	82	157 B	619 B	3132
	WT	1812	572 A	110	210 A	416 A	3119
H13	T	1714	463	86	189 B	672 A	3124
	WT	1804	581	93	295 A	427 B	3198
GG100	T	1937	498	96	194	626	3350
	WT	1705	531	111	261	688	3294
UROCAM	T	1678 B	457	116	220	182 B	2652
	WT	2064 A	533	110	215	348 A	3269
I144	T	1809 A	533	105	202	490 A	3139
	WT	1566 B	646	100	225	304 B	2840
I224	T	1939	674	101	246	584	3543A
	WT	1800	549	108	214	429	3099B

Clones	Phytomass (kg ha^-1)
Clones	Leaves	Reproductive Organs	Bark	Branches	Residues	Total
*E. grandis*	1688	535	110	210	399b	2941
C219	1870	503	115	225	340b	3053
I-042	1737	642	88	245	445b	3156
1277	1837	492	96	183	518a	3125
H13	1759	522	89	242	549a	3161
GG100	1821	514	103	227	657a	3322
UROCAM	1871	495	113	217	265c	2961
I144	1688	590	102	213	397b	2990
I224	1870	611	104	230	507b	3321

Fraction	*E. grandis*	C-219	I-042	1277	H13	GG100	UROCAM	I144	I224
N (g kg^-1)
DL	15.8	13.7	18.0	21.6	21.8	20.8	15.8	17.7	17.3
BN	14.2	16.8	13.4	12.2	14.3	12.3	16.6	10.9	19.6
BK	12.5	10.5	10.7	13.3	12.7	18.7	15.6	10.8	17.5
RO	10.8	13.5	11.5	14.8	12.3	16.3	12.7	10.3	13.2
RE	10.6	11.2	13.5	8.5	15.3	15.3	9.5	10.6	9.6
P (g kg^-1)
DL	1.0	0.9	0.9	0.7	0.9	1.1	1.1	0.9	0.8
BN	0.5	0.5	0.4	0.6	0.5	0.7	0.9	0.9	0.5
BK	0.7	0.5	0.9	0.6	0.7	0.7	0.8	0.5	0.4
RO	0.6	0.3	0.5	0.5	1.0	1.0	0.6	0.5	0.3
RE	0.6	0.3	0.6	0.6	0.7	0.7	0.7	0.4	0.4
K (g kg^-1)
DL	1.2	1.5	1.6	1.5	1.6	1.7	1.6	1.5	1.5
BN	1.0	0.9	1.3	1.3	1.4	1.4	1.8	1.4	1.3
BK	1.9	1.5	2.1	1.1	1.3	1.3	1.2	1.7	1.6
RO	1.3	1.1	1.2	1.1	1.3	1.3	1.2	1.2	1.3
RE	2.2	1.9	1.1	1.8	1.6	1.6	1.8	1.2	1.8
Ca (g kg^-1)
DL	8.9	7.6	7.7	7.4	9.1	8.5	10.9	8.5	9.9
BN	6.3	5.3	8.4	7.3	6.2	6.2	7.0	6.3	5.3
BK	10.5	11.3	9.8	10.7	9.2	9.2	9.4	10.5	8.4
RO	7.5	10.6	7.8	8.4	5.3	5.3	6.2	4.9	10.2
RE	5.3	3.2	10.6	10.3	5.1	5.1	9.4	7.2	7.6
Mg (g kg^-1)
DL	3.8	4.2	4.0	5.3	4.3	4.8	4.7	4.3	4.9
BN	1.9	3.2	4.2	3.7	3.5	2.5	2.5	3.5	2.2
BK	2.6	3.6	4.2	2.9	2.9	1.9	3.0	3.1	3.2
RO	2.9	2.0	4.1	3.6	2.6	2.6	3.4	3.1	3.3
RE	2.9	2.3	4.0	3.9	4.0	3.0	3.0	3.2	3.8

Planting	N		P		K		Ca		Mg
	-------------------------------------------------------------g kg^-1--------------------------------------------------
	T	WT	T	WT	T	WT	T	WT	T	WT
*E.grandis*	15.3	16.4	1.2	0.9	1.5	1.0	12.0 A	5.8 B	4.0	3.6
C-219	13.3	14.2	0.9	1.0	1.4	1.7	9.4	5.8	4.4	4.0
I-042	18.2	17.8	1.0	0.8	1.4	1.8	9.8	5.6	3.8	4.2
1277	20.0	23.2	0.6	0.9	1.6	1.4	8.6	6.2	5.4	5.3
H13	21.6	22.1	1.0	0.9	1.8	1.5	9.0	9.2	4.8	3.9
GG100	22.0	19.7	1.2	1.0	1.8	1.6	9.6	7.4	5.2	4.4
URCAM	16.3	15.4	1.0	1.2	1.7	1.6	11.0	10.8	5.2	4.3
I144	19.3	16.1	0.8	1.0	1.5	1.6	9.4	7.6	4.6	4.1
I224	17.7	16.9	0.8	0.9	1.4	1.6	9.8	10.0	4.7	5.1

Clone	N		P		K		Ca		Mg
	-------------------------------------------------------------kg ha^-1--------------------------------------------------
	T	WT	T	WT	T	WT	T	WT	T	WT
*E. grandis*	39.4b	45.6b	2.3	2.7	4.2a	3.5b	21.1b	24.6a	11.0b	13.0a
C-219	40.6b	41.5b	2.4	2.2	4.0a	4.9a	22.3b	25.7a	9.9b	13.2a
I-042	48.1b	60.7a	2.2	3.0	4.2a	5.2a	26.5a	26.3a	12.9a	17.1a
1277	54.8a	64.6a	2.3	2.5	4.1a	4.7a	27.9a	23.8b	11.8b	15.0a
H13	51.2a	70.8a	2.3	2.7	4.3a	5.1a	23.8b	29.1a	10.9b	14.3a
GG100	61.7a	62.4a	2.8	3.4	4.5a	5.4a	28.7a	26.9a	12.9a	14.1a
URCAM	52.7a	45.8b	2.5	3.0	4.7a	4.9a	22.7b	35.7a	10.9 b	15.8a
I144	46.6b	53.3a	2.3	3.0	4.3a	4.2a	23.6b	24.4a	13.8a	11.8b
I224	48.0b	54.6a	2.7	2.6	4.6a	4.5a	29.9a	33.1a	12.1a	14.4a

location_on

Floresta e Ambiente - Instituto de Florestas, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro. BR-465, Km 7, Instituto de Florestas, CEP 23.897-000, Telefone: +55 (21) 2681-4986 - Seropédica - RJ - Brazil
E-mail: floramjournal@gmail.com

rss_feed Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Capital letters mean statistical difference between areas with and without thinning according to the Tukey test at 5% probability (No letters mean that there were no differences between areas with and without thinning for each plantation).