We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
The responses of soil, litter and root carbon stocks to the conversion of forest regrowth to crop and tree production systems used by smallholder farmers in eastern Amazonia.
- Authors
Lemos, E. C. M.; Vasconcelos, S. S.; Santiago, W. R.; de Oliveira Junior, M. C. M.; de A. Souza, C. M.; Goss, Michael
- Abstract
The impact of substituting forests for smallholder agricultural production systems on soil carbon (C) stocks is not well understood in Brazilian Amazonia. Most surveys of soil C stocks are restricted to the top 30 cm of soil and do not include measurements of litter and root stocks. Here, we quantify the stocks of C in soil (0-100 cm depth), aboveground litter and coarse roots of traditional (slash-and-burn) and alternative ( Schizolobium amazonicum-planted forest and silvopastoral system) smallholder agricultural systems, which were compared with a reference area (forest regrowth) in the eastern Amazonia. The soil C stocks in the 0-100 cm layer were larger in the forest regrowth treatment (156.8 ± 15.5 Mg/ha) than in the other treatments ( S. amazonicum = 85.3 ± 6.5, silvopastoral = 108.0 ± 4.4 Mg/ha) but did not differ from the soil C stock in the slash-and-burn treatment (127.2 ± 6.1 Mg/ha). The soil C stocks at the 0-30 cm layer, which represented 33-50% of the total C of the 0-100 cm layer, did not differ among the treatments. The litter C stocks were ranked in the following order: silvopastoral > forest regrowth > S. amazonicum > slash-and-burn. The forest regrowth treatment had a greater coarse root C stock (0.84 ± 0.10 Mg/ha) than the other treatments (silvopastoral = 0.28 ± 0.03, S. amazonicum = 0.18 ± 0.03, slash-and-burn = 0.27 ± 0.04 Mg/ha). Soil, litter and root C stocks were negatively impacted by the conversion of forest regrowth to cultivation systems.
- Subjects
AMAZON River Region; FOREST regeneration; SMALL farms; FOREST litter; STOCKS (Horticulture)
- Publication
Soil Use & Management, 2016, Vol 32, Issue 4, p504
- ISSN
0266-0032
- Publication type
Academic Journal
- DOI
10.1111/sum.12308