Soil
respiration and root biomass responses to burning in
calabrian
pine (Pinus brutia)
stands in Edirne,
Turkey
Aydin Tufekcioglu*1,
Mehmet Kucuk1,
Tuncay Bilmis1,
Lokman Altun2
and Murat Yilmaz3
1Faculty
of Forestry, Artvin
Coruh University, 08000, Artvin
2Faculty
of Forestry, Karadeniz
Technical University,
61040, Trabzon
3Faculty
of Forestry, Abant
Izzet Baysal University - 81100, Duzce
(Received:
March 10, 2009 ; Revised
received: May 20,
2009; Accepted: September 05, 2009)
Abstract: In this study,
soil properties and root biomass responses to prescribed fire were investigated
in 25-30 year-old calabrian pine (Pinus
brutia Ten.) stands in Edirne, Turkey. The stands were established
by planting and were subjected to prescribed burning
in July, 2005. Soil respiration rates were determined every two months using
the soda-lime method over a two-year period. Fine (>2 mm diameter)
and small root (>2-5 mm diameter) biomass were sampled approximately
bimonthly using the sequential coring method. Soil respiration rates in burned
sites were significantly higher than in control sites during the summer season
but there was no significant difference in the other seasons. Soil respiration
rates were correlated significantly with soil moisture and soil temperature.
Fine and small root biomass were significantly lower in burned sites than in
control sites. Mean fine root biomass values were 3204 kg ha-1 for burned and 3772 kg ha-1 for control
sites. Annual soil CO2 releases totaled 515 g C m-2 for burned and 418 g C m-2 for control
sites. Our results indicate that, depending on site conditions, fire could be
used successfully as a tool in the management of calabrian
pine stands in the study area.
Key words: Calabrian pine, Forest
fire, Root biomass, Soil respiration, Soil
properties
PDF of full length
paper is available online
Â
Copyright © 2010Triveni Enterprises. All rights reserved. No part of the Journal can be reproduced in any
form without prior permission. Responsibility regarding the authenticity of
the data, and the acceptability of the conclusions enforced or derived, rest
completely with the author(s).
Â
Â