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

This Article Abstract 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 Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (11) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Johnson, D. W. Articles by Tolbert, V. R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Johnson, D. W. Articles by Tolbert, V. R. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Johnson, D. W. Articles by Tolbert, V. R. Related Collections Ecosystem Management Carbon Sequestration Forest Soils

Changes in Ecosystem Carbon and Nitrogen in a Loblolly Pine Plantation over the First 18 Years

^a Environmental and Resource Sciences, Fleischmann Agriculture Bldg/370, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557
^b Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Lab., P.O. Box 2008, Building 1059, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6422

View larger version (13K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Comparison of measured and predicted bole biomass using the equations of Van Lear et al. (1984), Ralston (1973), and Naidu et al. (1998) for both dominant (Naidue-D) and suppressed (Naidu-S) trees.

View larger version (25K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Comparison of original LECO-C and CHN-C (top) and comparison of original kjeldahl N and CHN-N (bottom) analyses on 1986 soils in the loblolly pine site, Oak Ridge National Environmental Research Park, Tennessee.

View larger version (50K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Tree biomass in (A) 1986 and (B) 2000 in the loblolly pine site. Error bars denote standard errors of total biomass and letters denote significant differences (p < 0.05) using Bonferonni post-hoc tests.

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Soil C analyses on 1982 soils by Walkley-Black in 1982 (1982 WBC), on 1986 soils by LECO in 1986 (1986 LECO-C), on 1986 soils by Perkin-Elmer CHN analyzer in 2000 (1986 CHN-C), and on 2000 soils by Perkin-Elmer CHN analyzer in 2000 (2000 CHN-C) in the loblolly pine site. Error bars denote standard errors and letters denote significant differences (p < 0.05) using Bonferonni post-hoc tests.

View larger version (21K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Soil N analyses on 1982 soils by Kjeldahl digestion in 1982 (1982 KJN), on 1986 soils by Kjeldahl digestion in 1986 (1986 KJN), on 1986 soils by Perkin-Elmer CHN analyzer in 2000 (1986 CHN-N), and on 2000 soils by Perkin-Elmer CHN analyzer in 2000 (2000 CHN-N) in the loblolly pine site. Error bars denote standard errors and letters denote significant differences (p < 0.05) using Bonferonni post-hoc tests.

View larger version (20K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Soil C/N ratio on 1982 soils by Walkley-Black and Kjeldahl digestion in 1982 (1982 WBC/KJN), on 1986 soils by LECO and Kjeldahl digestion in 1986, (1986 LECO/KJN), on 1986 soils by Perkin-Elmer CHN analyzer in 2000 (1986 CHN), and on 2000 soils by Perkin-Elmer CHN analyzer in 2000 (2000 CHN) in the loblolly pine site. Error bars denote standard errors and letters denote significant differences (p < 0.05) using Bonferonni post-hoc tests.

View larger version (25K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Carbon (A) and N (B) contents in the loblolly pine plots in 1982, 1986, and 2000. Error bars denote standard errors and letters denote significant differences (p < 0.05) using Bonferonni post-hoc tests.