Articles containing the keyword 'field layer'

Dry mass and nutrient (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, B) contents of field layer vegetation and a combination of bottom layer vegetation and litter (referred to as bottom/litter layer in the text) were studied one year before and three years after fertilization (NPK and PK) on a drained low-shrub pine bog in eastern Finland. The results of an earlier study on the tree layer were combined with those of this study in order to estimate the changes caused by fertilization in the total plant biomass and litter. Before fertilization the average dry mass of the field and bottom/litter layers was 8,400 kg ha^-1 and 7,650 kg ha^-1, respectively. The above-ground parts accounted for 25% of the total field layer biomass. The dry mass of the field and bottom/litter layers together was < 20% of the dry mass accumulated in the total plant biomass and litter. The corresponding figures for N, P, K, Ca, Mg and B were 44%, 38%, 30%, 38%, 31% and 17%, respectively. Fertilization did not significantly affect the dry mass of either the field layer vegetation or the bottom/litter layer. 33% of the applied P was accumulated in the total plant biomass and litter on the PK-fertilized plots, and 25% on the NPK-fertilized plots. For the other elements, the proportions on the PK-fertilized plots were K 31%, Ca 6%, Mg 11% and B 13%. On the NPK-fertilized plots, the corresponding figures were N 62%, K 32%, Ca 6%, Mg 9% and B 13%. Except for B and K, the accumulation of fertilizer nutrients in the understorey vegetation and litter was of the same magnitude or greater than the uptake by the tree layer.

• Finér, E-mail: lf@mm.unknown
• Nieminen, E-mail: mn@mm.unknown

The study deals with the relationship between biomass and coverage in ground vegetation of Vaccinium and Calluna forest types. The results show that the biomass of the field layer on both forest types can predict satisfactorily in both coverage values of some the most important species and groups of species. Their total height per plot was used as independent variables. The explaining power of the models constructed for Vaccinium type increased to approximately 57% and for the Calluna type to approximately 74% of the total variation in the amount of dry matter. When the biomass of the bottom layer was predicted using the same kind of variables, the explaining power for the Vaccinium type increased to approximately 35% of the total variation and for the Calluna type approximately 53% of the total variation in the amounts of dry matter. The models for field layer of both Vaccinium and Calluna types were quite well suited for describing the test material. In the case of the bottom layer, the constructed models were not suitable for describing the test material.

The PDF includes a summary in English.

• Kellomäki, E-mail: sk@mm.unknown

The possibilities of using results of coverage analyses for estimating the dry matter content of the ground vegetation has been examined in this study. The material covers 150 sample areas, 400 m² large, which represent ground vegetation of Myrtillus type in the final succession stage. When the material was subjected to linear regression analysis, the amount of dry matter in the field and ground layer has been used as dependant variables and the results of the coverage analysis as the independent variable.

The study shows that it is possible to predict satisfactorily the dry matter content of the ground vegetation by grouping the coverage, according to the coverage weight, into parts of equal size and the using them as independent explaining variables. In particular, the value of the prediction equation for the dry matter content of the field layer could be improved by using the height and density characteristics of the vegetation as explaining variables in addition to the coverage figures. Thus, slightly over 80% of the total variation of the dry matter content of the field layer could be predicted. In the case of the ground layer vegetation, the explaining power rose slightly above 70%.

The PDF includes a summary in English.

• Kellomäki, E-mail: sk@mm.unknown

• Meen, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Management, P.O. Box 5003, NO-1432 Ås, Norway E-mail: eivind.meen@umb.no
• Nielsen, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Management, P.O. Box 5003, NO-1432 Ås, Norway E-mail: an@nn.no
• Ohlson, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Management, P.O. Box 5003, NO-1432 Ås, Norway E-mail: mo@nn.no

• Vellak, Institute of Zoology and Botany, Estonian Agricultural University, 181 Riia str., 51014 Tartu, Estonia; Institute of Botany and Ecology, University of Tartu, 40 Lai Str., 51005 Tartu, Estonia E-mail: kvellak@zbi.ee
• Paal, Institute of Botany and Ecology, University of Tartu, 40 Lai Str., 51005 Tartu, Estonia E-mail: jp@nn.ee
• Liira, Institute of Botany and Ecology, University of Tartu, 40 Lai Str., 51005 Tartu, Estonia E-mail: jl@nn.ee