SSSAJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Published online 29 September 2005
Published in Soil Sci Soc Am J 69:1833-1843 (2005)
DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2004.0334
© 2005 Soil Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Eisenbies, M. H.
Right arrow Articles by Patterson, S. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Eisenbies, M. H.
Right arrow Articles by Patterson, S. C.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Eisenbies, M. H.
Right arrow Articles by Patterson, S. C.
Related Collections
Right arrow Forest Soils

Soil Physical Disturbance and Logging Residue Effects on Changes in Soil Productivity in Five-Year-Old Pine Plantations

Mark H. Eisenbiesa,*, James A. Burgera, W. Michael Austa and Steve C. Pattersonb

a Dep. of Forestry, 228 Cheatham Hall, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24060
b MeadWestvaco Corp., P.O. Box 1950, Summerville, SC 29484



View larger version (37K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1. Diagram illustrating soil physical disturbance classes after harvesting a poorly drained soil on a wet pine flat.

 


View larger version (83K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2. Percentage of cover for each residue type was determined separately and combined to determine the harvesting residue disturbance category. This diagram illustrates how a 20 x 20 m subplot with litter (95%), light slash (50%), heavy slash (15%), and piles (5%) might be superimposed on bare ground and each other. This example would be defined as a Class II site using the decision factors described in the METHODS section.

 


View larger version (38K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3. Hypothetical response of productivity to levels of physical disturbance and amounts of harvesting residues for two levels of site preparation.

 


View larger version (25K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4. Relative change in soil-site productivity between rotations based on the change in rank based on site index. (a) Soil physical disturbance categories. (b) Harvesting residue disturbance categories. Different letters indicate Fisher's least significant differences at the {alpha} = 0.1 level using prior rank as a covariate.

 


View larger version (24K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5. Relative change in soil-site productivity between rotations based on the change in rank based on stand biomass. (a) Soil physical disturbance categories. (b) Harvesting residue disturbance categories. Different letters indicate Fisher's least significant differences at the {alpha} = 0.1 level using prior rank as a covariate.

 





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Crop Science
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education
Vadose Zone Journal
Journal of Plant Registrations Journal of
Environmental Quality
The Plant Genome
Copyright © 2005 by the Soil Science Society of America.