To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This chapter presents a meta-analysis of fine root mass and productivity in tropical moist forests in terms of the dependence on various environmental factors, using 87 data-sets from both Paleo- and Neotropical forests. The present review differs from earlier analyses in that it focuses strictly on the fine root fraction (<2 mm in diameter) and applies relatively rigid criteria with respect to the selection of data (a.o. to prevent the merging of data on live and dead root mass). Forests in the upper montane belt (>2000 m.a.s.l.) have markedly higher live fine root biomass compared to mid-elevation and lowland forests, both in the Paleotropics/Australia and the Neotropics. Hence, the ratio of shoot to fine root biomass decreases significantly with elevation. Fine root production is negatively related to above-ground biomass. These findings highlight the increasing ecological importance of the fine root system of tropical moist forests with increasing elevation.
Fine roots play an important role in the functioning of trees because they are the organs of water and nutrient acquisition. Although representing a relatively small part of total tree biomass, fine roots often consume a large portion of the annual carbon gain (Grier et al., 1981; Vogt et al., 1996). Decaying fine roots are a major source of carbon addition to the soil organic matter pool. The rising interest in the below-ground compartment of forests in the last decades has led to an increasing number of studies on fine root biomass and turnover, mainly in temperate and boreal forests (see global reviews by Vogt et al., 1996; Cairns et al., 1997; Gill and Jackson, 2000).
During the last century, substantial parts of old-growth forest (OGF) in the Cordillera de Talamanca, Costa Rica, were clear-cut. However, in many areas, secondary forests (SEC) have become established on abandoned agricultural land. Based on new and published data, this chapter compares upper montane OGF and SEC stands on the Pacific slope of the Cordillera in terms of differences in plant diversity, stand structure, biogeochemical cycles, and forest use. Furthermore, an attempt is made to assess the potential for, and timescale of, recovery of various forest characteristics during regrowth. Oak species (Quercus spp.) are present in all successional stages. Alpha-diversity of terrestrial, vascular plant species is significantly higher in early- and mid-successional stands than in OGF, probably due to downslope migration of sub-alpine and alpine terrestrial herb species to cleared and abandoned sites. Beta-diversity is seen to decline during succession. Values of stand leaf area in early-successional stages were similar to those observed in OGF, but biomass of epiphytes was significantly lower in SEC (160–520 kg ha−1) compared to OGF (3400 kg ha−1). Rainfall interception was much higher in OGF (25% of gross precipitation) than in SEC (9% and 15% for early- and mid-successional SEC, respectively), despite similar leaf area for OGF and SEC. A combined experimental and modeling study suggested that the epiphyte layer contributed little (6%) to overall rainfall interception in the OGF and could, therefore, not explain the observed hydrological differences between the various successional stages. Instead, these are thought rather to reflect differences in canopy roughness. […]
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.