Variation of ground cover and forest litter phytomass stocks in pine forests on automorphic soils (Republic Of Karelia)

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription Access

Abstract

The influence of the type of forest vegetation and the phytogenic field of pine on the parameters of forest litter (thickness, stock, actual acidity) and phytomass of the components of the ground cover in lingonberry and bilberry pine forests on automorphic soils is studied. The highest values of phytomass (absolute dry mass) were found in communities of bilberry pine forests on sandy soils (596 ± 67 g/sq.m.), and the lowest in bilberry pine forests on two-layered deposits (460 ± 83 g/sq.m.) due to a lower presence of mosses in the ground cover. In all types of forest, the average values of aboveground phytomass (in total, herb-dwarf shrub and moss-lichen layers) exceeded the underground one. At the same time, the underground phytomass was on average 1.4–2.6 times higher than the mass of the herb-dwarf shrub layer, depending on the type of forest. The type of forest influenced the phytomass of the moss-lichen layer and the characteristics of the forest floor. The lowest indicators of litter thickness and stock were observed in the driest conditions of lingonberry pine forests (less than 5 cm and 39.6 ± 2.9 t/ha), and the highest (5–10 cm and 58.1 ± 5.6 t/ha) – in bilberry pine forests on two-layered deposits. The pH value of the forest floor also depends on the forest type: the lowest values are typical for lingonberry pine, and the highest – for bilberry forest. Differences in the phytomass of the underground parts of the herb-dwarf shrub layer, aboveground phytomass, mass of green mosses, dwarf shrubs and bilberry in the inter-crown and under-crown areas were revealed. Under the Scots pine crowns, the mass of dwarf shrubs is lower and the mass of green mosses is higher, compared to the inter-crown areas.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

N. V. Genikova

Forest Research Institute of the Karelian Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Author for correspondence.
Email: genikova@krc.karelia.ru
Russian Federation, Petrozavodsk

A. Y. Karpechko

Forest Research Institute of the Karelian Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: genikova@krc.karelia.ru
Russian Federation, Petrozavodsk

G. V. Akhmetova

Forest Research Institute of the Karelian Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: genikova@krc.karelia.ru
Russian Federation, Petrozavodsk

References

  1. Bazilevich N. I., Grebenshchikov O. S., Tishkov A. A. 1986. [Geographical regularities of structure and functioning of ecosystems]. Moscow. 297 p. (In Russian)
  2. Cornelissen J. H. C., Lang S. I., Soudzilovskaia N. A., During H. J. 2007. Comparative cryptogam ecology: a review of bryophyte and lichen traits that drive biogeochemistry. — Ann. Bot. 99(5): 987–1001. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcm030
  3. Sergeeva O. V., Mukhortova L. V., Krivobokov L. V. 2020. Distribution of forest litter and live ground cover biomass in northern taiga of the Central Evenkia depending on relief. — Sibirskij Lesnoj Zhurnal. 1: 38–46. https://doi.org/10.15372/SJFS20200104 (In Russian)
  4. Turetsky M. R. 2003. The role of bryophytes in carbon and nitrogen cycling. — The Bryologist. 106(3): 395–409. https://doi.org/10.1639/05
  5. Gilliam F. S. 2007. The ecological significance of the herbaceous layer in temperate forest ecosystems. — BioScience. 57(10): 845–858. https://doi.org/10.1641/B571007
  6. Kuznetsova A. I. 2021. Influence of vegetation on soil carbon stocks in forests (review). — Forest Science Issues. 4(4): 1–54. https://doi.org/10.31509/2658-607x-2021-44-95
  7. Ehrenfeld J. G., Kourtev P., Huang W. 2001. Changes in soil functions following invasions of exotic understory plants in deciduous forests. — Ecol. Appl. 11(5): 1287–1300. https://doi.org/10.2307/3060920
  8. Sedia E. G., Ehrenfeld J. G. 2005. Differential effects of lichens, mosses and grasses on respiration and nitrogen mineralization in soils of the New Jersey Pinelands. — Oecologia. 144(1): 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-005-0037-0
  9. Kazimirov N. I., Morozova R. M. 1973. [Biological cycle of substances in spruce forests of Karelia]. Leningrad. 175 p. (In Russian)
  10. Sennov S. N. 1984. [Forest management practices. Ecological basis]. Moscow. 218 p. (In Russian)
  11. Mel’nikov E. S. 1999. [Complex care of forests: theoretical and practical aspects of forestry techniques: Abstr. … Dis. Doct. (Agricultural) Sci.]. Saint Petersburg. 42 p. (In Russian)
  12. Smirnov A. P., Truong W. W., Potokin A. F., Smirnov A. A. 2016. The dynamic of live ground vegetation in different pine plantations of drained, passed by felling. — Izvestia Sankt-Peterburgskoj Lesotehniceskoj Akademii. 217: 57–70. https://doi.org/10.21266/2079-4304.2016.217.57-70 (In Russian)
  13. Kazimirov N. I., Volkov A. D., Zyabchenko S. S., Ivanchikov A. A., Morozova R. M. 1977. [Community metabolism and energy flows in pine forests of European North]. Leningrad. 304 p. (In Russian)
  14. Bobkova K. S. 1987. [Biological productivity of coniferous forests of the European Northeast]. Leningrad. 156 p. (In Russian)
  15. Osipov A. F., Kutyavin I. N. 2016. [Ground vegetation productivity in middle-taiga pine forests]. — In: [Contemporary problems in biology and ecology. Proceedings of XХIII All-Russian conference and scientific school of youth researchers]. Syktyvkar. P. 114–116. https://www.elibrary.ru/zbuxdr (In Russian)
  16. Semenyuk O. V., Telesnina V. M., Bogatyrev L. G., Benediktova A. I., Kuznecova YA. D. 2020. Assessment of intra-biogeocenotic variability of forest litters and dwarf shrub–herbaceous vegetation in spruce stands. — Eurasian Soil Science. 53(1): 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229320010135
  17. Karpechko Y., Karpechko A., Tuyunen A. 2022. The effect of growth conditions on the relationship between fine root and foliage biomass. — J. For. Res. 33(5): 1585–1591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-021-01444-3
  18. Konovalova I. S., Konovalov D. Yu. 2023. Living ground cover dynamics at initial stages of forest crops formation in middle taiga subzone. — Lesnoy Vestnik / Forestry Bulletin. 27(2): 27–37. https://doi.org/10.18698/2542-1468-2023-2-27-37 (In Russian)
  19. Bogatyryov L. G., Sventitsiш I. A., Sharafutdinov R. N., Stepanov A. A. 1998. Forest litters and the diagnostics of the modern trend in humus formation in different geographical zones. — Eurasian Soil Science. 31(7): 787–796.
  20. Bogatyrev L. G., Demin V. V., Matyshak G. V., Sapozhnikova V. A. 2004. On some theoretical aspects of studying forest litters. — Russ. J. For. Sci. (Lesovedenie). 4: 17–29. (In Russian)
  21. Karpachevskii L. O., Zubkova T. A., Tashninova L. N., Rudenko R. N. 2007. Soil cover and parcel structure of forest biogeocenosis. — Russ. J. For. Sci. (Lesovedenie). 6: 107–113. https://www.elibrary.ru/ibjwqn (In Russian)
  22. Solomatova E. A., Krasil’nikov P. V., Sidorova V. A. 1999. Intra-stand structure and variability of forest litter (case study of Piceetum myrtillosum forest type). — Eurasian Soil Science. 32(6): 692–700.
  23. Karpachevskii L. O., Zubkova T. A., Projsler T., Kennel M., Gitl G., Gorcharuk N. Yu., Minaeva T. Yu. 1998. [Effect of complex spruce canopy on the chemical composition of sediments]. — Russ. J. For. Sci. (Lesovedenie). 1: 50–59. (In Russian)
  24. Archegova I. B., Kuznetsova E. G. 2011. The influence of woody plants on the chemical composition of atmospheric precipitation in the course of restoration of middle taiga forests. — Russ. J. For. Sci. (Lesovedenie). 3: 34–43. https://www.elibrary.ru/nueinb (In Russian)
  25. Karpechko Yu. V., Lozovik P. A., Potapova I. Yu. 2015. [Transformation of chemical composition of atmospheric precipitations by forest vegetation]. — In: [Proceedings of IV All-Russ. sci. conf. “Fundamental problems of water and water resources”]. Moscow. P. 155–158. (In Russian)
  26. Karpechko Yu. V., Lozovik P. A., Fedorets N. G. 2018. Balance of chemicals in pine and spruce forests of Karelia. — Contemp. Probl. Ecol. 11(7): 762–770. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1995425518070053
  27. Bakhmet O. N., Medvedeva M. V., Moshkina E. V., Tkachenko Yu. N., Mamaj A. V., Novikov S. G., Moshnikov S. A., Timofeeva V. V., Karpechko A. Yu. 2022. Spatial variability of podzol properties depending on the plant microgroups on the example of the cowberry pine forests. — Russ. J. For. Sci. (Lesovedenie). 1: 47–60. https://doi.org/10.31857/S002411482105003X (In Russian)
  28. Moshkina Ye. V., Bakhmet O. N., Medvedeva M. V., Karpechko A. Yu., Mamaj A. V. 2022. Spatio-temporal dynamics of soils’ biological activity in phytogenous field of scots pine in Karelia Republic’s middle taiga. — Russ. J. For. Sci. (Lesovedenie). 4: 351–363. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0024114822040076 (In Russian)
  29. Hokkanen T. J., Järvinen E., Kuuluvainen T. 1995. Properties of top soil and the relationship between soil and trees in a boreal Scots pine stands. — Silva Fenn. 29(3): 189–203. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.a9207
  30. Nazarova L. E. 2014. [Variability of average long-term air temperature values in Karelia]. — Proceedings of the Russian Geographical Society. 146(4): 27–33. https://www.elibrary.ru/sjbxsf (In Russian)
  31. Nazarova L. E. 2015. Precipitation over the territory of Karelia. — Trudy KarNC RAN. 9: 114–120. https://www.elibrary.ru/ummfyl (In Russian)
  32. R Core Team. 2023. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
  33. Mölder A., Bernhardt-Römermann M., Schmidt W. 2008. Herb-layer diversity in deciduous forests: Raised by tree richness or beaten by beech? – For. Ecol. Manag. 256(3): 272–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.04.012
  34. Sciama D., Augusto L., Dupouey J.-L., Gonzalez M., Dominguez C. M. 2009. Floristic and ecological differences between recent and ancient forests growing on non-acidic soils. — For. Ecol. Manag. 258(5): 600–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.04.027
  35. Geraskina A. P., Smirnova O. V., Korotkov V. N., Kudrevatykh I. Yu. 2020. Productivity and content of macro- and microelements in the phytomass of ground vegetation of typical and unique taiga forests of the Northern Urals (example of spruce-fir forests of the Pechora-Ilych nature reserve). — Russ. J. Ecosyst. Ecol. 5(2). https://doi.org/10.21685/2500-0578-2020-2-1
  36. Belonogova T. V. 1974. [Ground vegetation productivity in Pinetum myrtillosum and P. vacciniosum forest types (Southern part of Karelia)]. — In: [Forest resources of Karelia]. Petrozavodsk. 315 p. (In Russian)
  37. Grozovskaya I. S., Khanina L. G., Smirnov V. E., Bobrovskii M. V., Romanov M. S., Glukhova E. M. 2015. The ground cover biomass of a spruce forest in Kostroma Oblast. — Russ. J. For. Sci. (Lesovedenie). 1: 63–76. https://elibrary.ru/tkizdj (In Russian)
  38. Lyanguzova I. V., Primak P. A. 2019. Distribution of ground vegetation and forest litter stock in middle-aged pine forests of the Kola Peninsula. — Rastitelnye Resursy. 55(4): 473–489. https://doi.org/10.1134/S003399461904006X (In Russian)
  39. Belonogova T. V. 1973. [Biological productivity of plants in the undergrowth layer of pine-dominated forest communities (Southern part of Karelia): Abstr. … Diss. Cand. (Biology) Sci.]. Petrozavodsk. 23 p. (In Russian)
  40. Karpachevskij L. O. 1981. [Forest and forest soils]. Moscow. 264 p. (In Russian)
  41. Fedorets N. G., Bakhmet O. N. 2003. Ecological settings of carbhydrate and nitrogen transformations in forest soils. Petrozavodsk. 240 p. https://elibrary.ru/oudwjt (In Russian)
  42. Karpachevskij L. O. 1977. [Color diversity of soil cover in forest biogeocoenosis]. Moscow. 312 p. (In Russian)
  43. Lukina N. V., Polyanskaya L. M., Orlova M. A. 2008. [The supply of nutrients to soils in boreal forest]. Moscow. 342 p.
  44. Orlova M. A., Lukina N. V., Smirnov V. E. 2015. Methodology of forest litter sampling taking into account the patchiness of forest biogeocoenoses. — Russ. J. For. Sci. (Lesovedenie). 3: 214–221. https://elibrary.ru/uahmnh (In Russian)
  45. Kristensen T., Ohlson M., Bolstad P., Nagy Z. 2015. Spatial variability of organic layer thickness and carbon stocks in mature boreal forest stands – implications and suggestions for sampling designs. — Environ. Monit. Assess. 187: 521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-015-4741-x
  46. Lukina N. V., Gorbacheva T. T., Nikonov V. V., Lukina M. A. 2002. Spatial variability of soil acidity in Al-Fe-humus podzols of northern taiga. — Eurasian Soil Science. 35(2): 144–155.
  47. Lukina N. V., Nikonov V. V., Isaeva L. G. 2006. [Soil acidity and nutritional status of spruce forests. Primary spruce forest’s biodiversity, structure, functions]. Saint Petersburg. 298 p.
  48. Acidic precipitation and forest soils. 1999. Apatity. 320 p.
  49. Sokolova T. A., Dronova T. Ya., Artyukhov D. B., Korobova N. L. 1997. Spatial and time variability of pH values in podzolic soils of the Central Forest Biospheric Reserve. — Eurasian Soil Science. 30(11): 1199–1206.
  50. Akhmetova G. V. 2022. Forest litter in middle-taiga pine stands of Eastern Fennoscandia: Chemical composition and its spatial heterogeneity. — Contemp. Probl. Ecol. 15(7): 750–758. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1995425522070022
  51. Akhmetova G. V. 2021. Distribution patterns of macro- and microelements in the “soil – plant” system in the middle taiga of Eastern Fennoscandia. — Trudy KarNC RAN. 5: 5–19. https://elibrary.ru/wunadq (In Russian)
  52. Orlova M. A., Lukina N. V., Smirnov V. E., Artemkina N. A. 2016. The influence of spruce on acidity and nutrient content in soils of Northern Taiga dwarf shrub–green moss spruce forests. — Eurasian Soil Science. 49(11): 1276–1287. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229316110077
  53. Uranov A. A. 1965. [Phytogenic field]. — In: [Challenges of modern botany]. Moscow, Leningrad. P. 251–254. (In Russian)
  54. Yastrebov A. B., Lychanaya N. V. 1993. The study of phytogenic fields of trees in the lichen-moss pine forests. — Botanicheskii Zhurnal. 78(5): 78–92. (In Russian)
  55. Kryshen’ A. M. 2000. The phytogenic field: theory and manifestations in nature. — Biology Bulletin. 27(4): 364–369.
  56. Ipatov V. S., Zhuravleva E. N., Lebedeva V. H., Tikhodeyeva M. Yu. 2009. Ecological field of Picea abies and P. obovata (Pinaceae). — Botanicheskii Zhurnal. 94(4): 558–568. https://elibrary.ru/oifmwn (In Russian)
  57. Tikhodeeva M. Yu., Lebedeva V. H. 2008. [Assessment of the impact of the stand on the structure of the forest community]. — In: [Fundamental and applied problems of botany at the beginning of the XXI century. Part 5: Geobotany]. Petrozavodsk. P. 304–307. (In Russian)
  58. Gorelov A. M. 2013. Illumination features of wooden plants intercrown space. — Izvestiya SamNC RAN. 15(3): 135–140. https://elibrary.ru/rcmdkz (In Russian)
  59. Genikova N. V. 2012. [Structure and dynamics of forest plant communities on automorphic sandy soils in Karelia: Abstr. … Diss. Cand. (Biology) Sci.]. Saint Petersburg. 21 p. (In Russian)
  60. Maslov A. A. 1986. On the interaction of phytogenic fields of trees in bilberry-cowberry pine forest. — Botanicheskii Zhurnal. 71(12): 1646–1652. (In Russian)
  61. Lebedeva V. Ch., Tykсhodeeva M. U. 2003. Plant interaction of living soil-cover species on different stages of development of bilberry-green moss spruce forest. — Vestnik SPbU. Ser. 3. Biology. 1: 30–47. (In Russian)

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download
2. Fig. 1. Examples of communities belonging to groups of different habitat productivity: A – С1, B – С2, C – С3.

Download (2MB)
Indexing metadata
3. Fig. 2. The stock of underground and aboveground phytomass (mean value and standard error) of the living ground cover (A) and different layers of the ground cover (B) in the studied community groups. Horizontally – community groups (1 – C1, 2 – C2, 3 – C3); y-axis – left scale – the stock of absolutely dry phytomass, g/m2; right scale – the ratio of the underground and aboveground phytomass stocks in the herbaceous-dwarf shrub layer.

Download (278KB)
Indexing metadata
4. Fig. 3. Thickness (A) and stock (B) of forest floor in the studied groups of forest communities. Horizontally – community groups (1 – C1, 2 – C2, 3 – C3); y-axis: A – thickness, cm; B – stock of the absolute dry mass, t/ha.

Download (86KB)
Indexing metadata
5. Fig. 4. Actual acidity of forest floor in the studied community groups. A – OL subhorizon; B – OFH subhorizon. Horizontally – community groups (1 – C1, 2 – C2, 3 – C3); y-axis – pHwater value.

Download (85KB)
Indexing metadata
6. Fig. 5. Stock of underground phytomass in the under-crown and inter-crown areas of Scots pine trees. X-axis: 1 – inter-crown plots, 2 –under-crown plots; y-axis – absolute dry mass, g/m2.

Download (43KB)
Indexing metadata
7. Fig. 6. Stock of the grass-shrub (A) and moss-lichen (B) layers phytomass in the under-crown and inter-crown areas of Scots pine trees. Horizontally: 1 – inter-crown plots, 2 – under-crown plots; y-axis – absolute dry mass, g/m2.

Download (85KB)
Indexing metadata
8. Fig. 7. The phytomass stock of different components of the ground cover. Horizontally: community groups (1 – C1, 2 – C2, 3 – C3), inter-crown plots (мк) and under-crown plots (пк); y-axis: absolute dry mass, g/m2.

Download (77KB)
Indexing metadata
9. Fig. 8. Paired correlation of different indicators of ground cover and forest floor (Spearman’s coefficient).

Download (469KB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright (c) 2025 Russian Academy of Sciences