Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Soil carbon and tree litter dynamics in a red cedar–scotch pine shelterbelt

  • Published:
Agroforestry Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Carbon sequestration in the woody biomass of shelterbelts has been investigated but there have been no measurements of the C stocks in soil and tree litter under this agroforestry practice. The objective of this study was to quantify C stored in surface soil layers and tree litter within and adjacent to a 35-year-old shelterbelt in eastern Nebraska, USA. The 2-row shelterbelt was composed of eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) and scotch pine (Pinus sylvestris). A sampling grid was established across a section of the shelterbelt on Tomek silt loam (fine, smectitic, mesic Pachic Argiudolls). Four soil cores were collected at each grid point, divided into 0–7.5 and 7.5–15 cm depth increments, and composited by depth. Soil samples were analyzed for total, organic, and inorganic C, total N, texture, pH, and nutrient content. Under the shelterbelt, all surface litter in a 0.5 × 0.5 m2 area at each grid point was collected prior to soil sampling, dried, weighed, sorted, and analyzed for total C and N. Average soil organic carbon (SOC) in the 0–15 cm layer within the shelterbelt (3,994 g m−2) was significantly greater than in the cultivated fields (3,623 g m−2). The tree litter contained an additional ∼1,300 g C m−2. Patterns of litter mass and soil pH and texture suggested increased organic inputs by tree litter and deposition of wind-blown sediment may be responsible for greater SOC beneath the shelterbelt. Further research is needed to identify the mechanism(s) responsible for the observed patterns of SOC within and adjacent to the shelterbelt and to quantify the C in biomass and deeper soil layers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this article is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

References

  • Anderson DW (1987) Pedogenesis in the grassland and adjacent forests of the Great Plains. In: Stewart BA (ed) Advances in soil science, vol 7. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 53–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg B (1986) Nutrient release from litter and humus in coniferous forest soils—a mini review. Scand J For Res 1:359–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg B, Hannus K, Popoff T, Theander O (1982) Changes in organic chemical components of needle litter during decomposition. Long-term decomposition in a Scots pine forest. I. Can J Bot 60:1310–1319

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brandle JR, Wardle TD, Bratton GF (1992) Opportunities to increase tree planting in shelterbelts and the potential impacts on carbon storage and conservation. In: Sampson RN, Hair D (eds) Forest and global change, vol 1: opportunities for increasing forest cover, Ch. 9. American Forests, Washington, DC, pp 157–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Coile TS (1933) Soil reaction and forest types in the Duke forest. Ecology 14:323–333

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Davis MR, Condron LM (2002) Impact of grassland afforestation on soil carbon in New Zealand: a review of paired-site studies. Aust J Soil Res 40:675–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Droze WH (1977) Trees, prairies, and people—tree planting in the plains states. Texas Woman’s University Press, Denton, TX, 313 pp

  • Dick WA, Blevins RL, Frye WW, Peters SE, Christenson DR, Pierce FJ, Vitosh ML (1998) Impacts of agricultural management practices on C sequestration in forest-derived soils of the eastern Corn Belt. Soil Tillage Res 47:235–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Facelli JM, Pickett STA (1991) Plant litter: its dynamics and effects on plant community structure. Bot Rev 57:1–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank K, Beegle D, Denning J (1998) Phosphorus. In: Recommended chemical soil test procedures for the north central region. North Central Regional Research Publ. No. 221 (Revised). Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station, Columbia, MO, pp 21–29

  • Gale WJ, Cambardella CA (2000) Carbon dynamics of surface residue- and root-derived organic matter under simulated no-till. Soil Sci Soc Am J 64:190–195

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gee GW, Or D (2002) Particle-size analysis. In: Dane JH, Topp GC (eds) Methods of soil analysis—part 4 physical methods. SSSA Book Series No. 5. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, pp 255–293

  • Gupta JP, Rao GGSN, Gupta GN, Ramana Rao BV (1983) Soil drying and wind erosion as affected by different types of shelterbelts planted in the desert region of Western Rajasthan, India. J Arid Environ 6:53–58

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Harmon ME (2001) Carbon sequestration in forests: addressing the scale question. J Forestry 99:24–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Kern JS, Johnson MG (1993) Conservation tillage impacts on national soil and atmospheric carbon levels. Soil Sci Soc Am J 57:200–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschbaum MUF (2003) Can trees buy time? An assessment of the role of vegetation sinks as part of the global carbon cycle. Climatic Change 58:47–71

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kort J, Turnock R (1999) Carbon reservoir and biomass in Canadian prairie shelterbelts. Agroforestry Systems 44:175–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar CS (1974) Decomposition of coniferous leaf litter. In: Dickinson CH, Pugh GJF (eds) Biology of plant litter decomposition, vol 1. Academic Press, London, pp 105–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Nair PKR, Nair VD (2003) Carbon storage in North American agroforestry systems. In: Kimble JM et al (eds) The potential of U.S. forest soils to sequester carbon and mitigate the greenhouse effect, Ch. 20. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 333–346

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul KI, Polglase PJ, Nyakuengama JG, Khanna PK (2002) Change in soil carbon following afforestation. For Ecol Manage 168:241–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettapiece WW (1969) The forest-grassland transition. In: Pawluk S (ed) Pedology and quaternary research. Univ. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, pp 103–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Plate EJ (1971) The aerodynamics of shelter belts. Agric Meteorol 8:203–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Read RA, Walker LC (1950) Influence of eastern redcedar on soil in Connecticut pine plantations. J Forestry 48:337–339

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie JC, McHenry JR (1990) Application of radioactive fallout cesium-137 for measuring soil erosion and sediment accumulation rates and patterns: a review. J Environ Qual 19:215–233

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sariyildiz T, Anderson JM, Kucuk M (2005) Effects of tree species and topography on soil chemistry, litter quality, and decomposition in Northeast Turkey. Soil Biol Biochem 37:1695–1706

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder P (1994) Carbon storage benefits of agroforestry systems. Agrofor Syst 27:89–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherrod LA, Dunn G, Peterson GA, Kolberg RL (2002) Inorganic carbon analysis by modified pressure-calcimeter methods. Soil Sci Soc Am J 66:299–305

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Spurr SH (1940) The influence of two juniperus species on soil reaction. Soil Sci 50:289–294

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vesterdal L, Ritter E, Gundersen P (2002) Change in soil organic carbon following afforestation of former arable land. For Ecol Manage 169:137–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Eimern J (1964) Windbreaks and shelterbelts. World Meteorol Org Tech Note No. 59, 188 pp

  • Vitousek PM (1991) Can planted forests counteract increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide? J Environ Qual 20:348–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warncke D, Brown JR (1998) Potassium and other basic cations. In: Recommended chemical soil test procedures for the north central region. North Central Regional Research Publ. No. 221 (Revised). Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station, Columbia, MO, pp 31–33

  • Watson ME, Brown JR (1998) pH and lime requirement. In: Recommended chemical soil test procedures for the north central region. North Central Regional Research Publ. No. 221 (Revised). Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station, Columbia, MO, pp 13–16

  • West TO, Post WM (2002) Soil organic carbon sequestration rates by tillage and crop rotation: a global data analysis. Soil Sci Soc Am J 66:1930–1946

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Williams BL (1972) Nitrogen mineralization and organic matter decomposition in scots pine humus. Forestry 45:177–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors express appreciation to Paul Doi, Shannon Kulisky, Jon Huffaker, Jody Ohmacht and several student workers for assistance with sample collection and litter sorting.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. USDA-ARS, National Soil Tilth Laboratory, 2150 Pammel Drive, Ames, IA, 50011-3120, USA

    Thomas J. Sauer & Cynthia A. Cambardella

  2. School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, 68583-0974, USA

    James R. Brandle

Authors
  1. Thomas J. Sauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cynthia A. Cambardella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James R. Brandle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas J. Sauer.

Additional information

The U.S. Government's right to retain a non-exclusive, royalty-free license in and to any copyright is acknowledged.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sauer, T.J., Cambardella, C.A. & Brandle, J.R. Soil carbon and tree litter dynamics in a red cedar–scotch pine shelterbelt. Agroforest Syst 71, 163–174 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-007-9072-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-007-9072-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation