HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (3) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kulmatiski, A. Articles by Larson, B. C. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Kulmatiski, A. Articles by Larson, B. C. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Kulmatiski, A. Articles by Larson, B. C. Related Collections Forest Soils Biogeochemical Processes Soil Organic Matter

Division S-7—Forest & Range Soils

Landscape Determinants of Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Storage in Southern New England

^a Dep. Biology and Ecology Center, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322
^b School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, 370 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511
^c USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Storrs, CT 06268, USA

^* Corresponding author (andrew{at}biology.usu.edu)

We present estimates of C and N storage from forest soils of northeastern Connecticut, USA. Fifty-six plots were sampled from the forest floor (FF) to 15 cm, and 21 of these plots were sampled to 60 cm. Carbon storage varied more in the FF (2.32 ± 1.06 kg C m^–2) than in the top 15 cm of mineral soil (3.43 ± 0.70 kg C m^–2). Nitrogen storage, however, varied less in the FF (0.086 ± 0.037 kg m^–2) than in the mineral soil (0.224 ± 0.068 kg m^–2). Carbon and N storage from the FF to 60 cm averaged 7.91 ± 1.74 and 0.56 ± 0.13 kg m^–2, respectively. Variations in nutrient storage were explained using one and two-way ANOVAs, three-way multivariate regression trees (MRTs) and three site factors: forest stand composition, soil series, and topography. Carbon and N storage in the FF were best explained by stand composition. Carbon storage in the mineral soil was best explained by topography and N storage in the mineral soil was best explained by both stand composition and soil series. In general, hemlock (Tsuga canadensis Carr) stands and hill bottoms were associated with the most C and the soil series in the poorest drainage class and hardwood stands were associated with the most N. When these results were compared with other estimates from the region we observed that nutrient storage varied widely in the FF at local scales (<10 km), but varied more widely in the mineral soil at regional scales (>100 km). These data suggest that soil series and stand composition will provide good local and regional estimates of N storage. Similarly, stand composition will provide good local estimates of C storage. However, variables that explain variation in the mineral soil, such as topography and management history, will be needed to provide regional estimates of C storage.

Abbreviations: FF, forest floor • GLM, general linear model • HH, hemlock/hardwood forest • Hm, hemlock forest • Hw, hardwood forest • MRT, multivariate regression tree • n, sample size • O, organic • PO, pine/other forest