| |
|
|
 | Acesso ao texto completo restrito à biblioteca da Embrapa Amazônia Oriental. Para informações adicionais entre em contato com cpatu.biblioteca@embrapa.br. |
|
Registro Completo |
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Amazônia Oriental. |
|
Data corrente: |
12/03/2019 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
27/12/2019 |
|
Tipo da produção científica: |
Artigo em Periódico Indexado |
|
Autoria: |
LENNOX, G. D.; GARDNER, T. A.; THOMSON, J. R.; FERREIRA, J. N.; BERENGUER, E.; LEES, A. C.; NALLY, R. M.; ARAGÃO, L. E. O. C.; FERRAZ, S. F. B.; LOUZADA, J.; MOURA, N. G.; OLIVEIRA, V. H. F.; PARDINI, R.; SOLAR, R. R. C.; MELLO, F. Z. V. de; VIEIRA, I. C. G.; BARLOW, J. |
|
Afiliação: |
Gareth D. Lennox, Lancaster University; Toby A. Gardner, Stockholm Environment Institute / International Institute for Sustainability; James R. Thomson, University of Canberra / Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research; JOICE NUNES FERREIRA, CPATU; Erika Berenguer, Lancaster University / University of Oxford; Alexander C. Lees, Manchester Metropolitan University / Cornell University; Ralph Mac Nally, University of Canberra / Sunrise Ecological Research Institute; Luiz E. O. C. Aragão, INPE / University of Exeter; Silvio F. B. Ferraz, ESALQ/USP; Julio Louzada, UFLA; Nárgila G. Moura, MPEG; Victor H. F. Oliveira, UFLA; Renata Pardini, USP; Ricardo R. C. Solar, UFMG; Fernando Z. Vaz-de Mello, UFMT; Ima C. G. Vieira, MPEG; Jos Barlow, Lancaster University / UFLA / MPEG. |
|
Título: |
Second rate or a second chance? Assessing biomass and biodiversity recovery in regenerating Amazonian forests. |
|
Ano de publicação: |
2018 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
Global Change Biology, v. 24, n. 12, p. 5680-5694, 2018. |
|
DOI: |
10.1111/gcb.14443 |
|
Idioma: |
Inglês |
|
Conteúdo: |
Secondary forests (SFs) regenerating on previously deforested land account for large, expanding areas of tropical forest cover. Given that tropical forests rank among Earth?s most important reservoirs of carbon and biodiversity, SFs play an increasingly pivotal role in the carbon cycle and as potential habitat for forest biota. Nevertheless, their capacity to regain the biotic attributes of undisturbed primary forests (UPFs) remains poorly understood. Here, we provide a comprehensive assessment of SF recovery, using extensive tropical biodiversity, biomass, and environmental datasets. These data, collected in 59 naturally regenerating SFs and 30 co‐located UPFs in the eastern Amazon, cover >1,600 large‐ and small‐stemmed plant, bird, and dung beetles species and a suite of forest structure, landscape context, and topoedaphic predictors. After up to 40 years of regeneration, the SFs we surveyed showed a high degree of biodiversity resilience, recovering, on average among taxa, 88% and 85% mean UPF species richness and composition, respectively. Across the first 20 years of succession, the period for which we have accurate SF age data, biomass recovered at 1.2% per year, equivalent to a carbon uptake rate of 2.25 Mg/ha per year, while, on average, species richness and composition recovered at 2.6% and 2.3% per year, respectively. For all taxonomic groups, biomass was strongly associated with SF species distributions. However, other variables describing habitat complexity?canopy cover and understory stem density?were equally important occurrence predictors for most taxa. Species responses to biomass revealed a successional transition at approximately 75 Mg/ha, marking the influx of high‐conservation‐value forest species. Overall, our results show that naturally regenerating SFs can accumulate substantial amounts of carbon and support many forest species. However, given that the surveyed SFs failed to return to a typical UPF state, SFs are not substitutes for UPFs. MenosSecondary forests (SFs) regenerating on previously deforested land account for large, expanding areas of tropical forest cover. Given that tropical forests rank among Earth?s most important reservoirs of carbon and biodiversity, SFs play an increasingly pivotal role in the carbon cycle and as potential habitat for forest biota. Nevertheless, their capacity to regain the biotic attributes of undisturbed primary forests (UPFs) remains poorly understood. Here, we provide a comprehensive assessment of SF recovery, using extensive tropical biodiversity, biomass, and environmental datasets. These data, collected in 59 naturally regenerating SFs and 30 co‐located UPFs in the eastern Amazon, cover >1,600 large‐ and small‐stemmed plant, bird, and dung beetles species and a suite of forest structure, landscape context, and topoedaphic predictors. After up to 40 years of regeneration, the SFs we surveyed showed a high degree of biodiversity resilience, recovering, on average among taxa, 88% and 85% mean UPF species richness and composition, respectively. Across the first 20 years of succession, the period for which we have accurate SF age data, biomass recovered at 1.2% per year, equivalent to a carbon uptake rate of 2.25 Mg/ha per year, while, on average, species richness and composition recovered at 2.6% and 2.3% per year, respectively. For all taxonomic groups, biomass was strongly associated with SF species distributions. However, other variables describing habita... Mostrar Tudo |
|
Thesagro: |
Biodiversidade; Biomassa; Floresta Tropical; Regeneração. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
P Recursos Naturais, Ciências Ambientais e da Terra |
|
Marc: |
LEADER 03097naa a2200373 a 4500
001 2106956
005 2019-12-27
008 2018 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
024 7 $a10.1111/gcb.14443$2DOI
100 1 $aLENNOX, G. D.
245 $aSecond rate or a second chance? Assessing biomass and biodiversity recovery in regenerating Amazonian forests.$h[electronic resource]
260 $c2018
520 $aSecondary forests (SFs) regenerating on previously deforested land account for large, expanding areas of tropical forest cover. Given that tropical forests rank among Earth?s most important reservoirs of carbon and biodiversity, SFs play an increasingly pivotal role in the carbon cycle and as potential habitat for forest biota. Nevertheless, their capacity to regain the biotic attributes of undisturbed primary forests (UPFs) remains poorly understood. Here, we provide a comprehensive assessment of SF recovery, using extensive tropical biodiversity, biomass, and environmental datasets. These data, collected in 59 naturally regenerating SFs and 30 co‐located UPFs in the eastern Amazon, cover >1,600 large‐ and small‐stemmed plant, bird, and dung beetles species and a suite of forest structure, landscape context, and topoedaphic predictors. After up to 40 years of regeneration, the SFs we surveyed showed a high degree of biodiversity resilience, recovering, on average among taxa, 88% and 85% mean UPF species richness and composition, respectively. Across the first 20 years of succession, the period for which we have accurate SF age data, biomass recovered at 1.2% per year, equivalent to a carbon uptake rate of 2.25 Mg/ha per year, while, on average, species richness and composition recovered at 2.6% and 2.3% per year, respectively. For all taxonomic groups, biomass was strongly associated with SF species distributions. However, other variables describing habitat complexity?canopy cover and understory stem density?were equally important occurrence predictors for most taxa. Species responses to biomass revealed a successional transition at approximately 75 Mg/ha, marking the influx of high‐conservation‐value forest species. Overall, our results show that naturally regenerating SFs can accumulate substantial amounts of carbon and support many forest species. However, given that the surveyed SFs failed to return to a typical UPF state, SFs are not substitutes for UPFs.
650 $aBiodiversidade
650 $aBiomassa
650 $aFloresta Tropical
650 $aRegeneração
700 1 $aGARDNER, T. A.
700 1 $aTHOMSON, J. R.
700 1 $aFERREIRA, J. N.
700 1 $aBERENGUER, E.
700 1 $aLEES, A. C.
700 1 $aNALLY, R. M.
700 1 $aARAGÃO, L. E. O. C.
700 1 $aFERRAZ, S. F. B.
700 1 $aLOUZADA, J.
700 1 $aMOURA, N. G.
700 1 $aOLIVEIRA, V. H. F.
700 1 $aPARDINI, R.
700 1 $aSOLAR, R. R. C.
700 1 $aMELLO, F. Z. V. de
700 1 $aVIEIRA, I. C. G.
700 1 $aBARLOW, J.
773 $tGlobal Change Biology$gv. 24, n. 12, p. 5680-5694, 2018.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Amazônia Oriental (CPATU) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
URL |
Voltar
|
|
|
| Acesso ao texto completo restrito à biblioteca da Embrapa Pesca e Aquicultura. Para informações adicionais entre em contato com cnpaf.biblioteca@embrapa.br. |
Registro Completo
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Pesca e Aquicultura. |
|
Data corrente: |
30/06/2020 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
01/07/2020 |
|
Tipo da produção científica: |
Artigo em Periódico Indexado |
|
Circulação/Nível: |
A - 1 |
|
Autoria: |
OLIVEIRA, S. M. de; CIAMPITTI, I. A.; ALMEIDA, R. E. M. de; PIEROZAN JUNIOR, C.; TRIVELIN, P. C. O.; FAVARIN, J. L. |
|
Afiliação: |
SILAS MACIEL DE OLIVEIRA, ESALQ; IGNACIO A. CIAMPITTI, KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY; RODRIGO ESTEVAM MUNHOZ DE ALMEIDA, CNPASA; CLOVIS PIEROZAN JUNIOR; PAULO CESAR OCHEUZE TRIVELIN, CENA; JOSE LAERCIO FAVARIN, ESALQ. |
|
Título: |
Closing the nitrogen budget of intercropped maize and palisadegrass. |
|
Ano de publicação: |
2020 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
European Journal of Agronomy, v. 119, 126093, 2020. |
|
ISSN: |
1161-0301 |
|
DOI: |
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2020.126093 |
|
Idioma: |
Inglês |
|
Conteúdo: |
In tropical agriculture, maize (Zea mays L.) intercropped with palisadegrass (Brachiaria brizantha cv. Marandu) is considered a highly relevant cropping system to deliver both residue and forage. However, the benefits of inclusion of palisadegrass in maize systems and its influence on fertilizer dynamics and nitrogen (N) budget as well as the period after maize harvest for which palisadegrass continues to grow remain unclear. Thus, we conducted field studies to determine crop growth, end-season biomass, N fertilizer recovery, and overall N budget between an intercrop and a monoculture at two different sites during conventional and late-planted maize seasons. The cropping systems evaluated were maize and palisadegrass in monocultures and two intercrop patterns, serving as cover crop or forage with simulated grazing. From planting to grain harvest, intercrop patterns did not affect grain yield, final N content, and N fertilizer dynamics. Post-harvest, palisadegrass from intercrop patterns improved biomass from 1 to 10 Mg ha?1 and N content from 8 to 300 kg ha?1, relative to fallow after maize monoculture. Contribution of palisadegrass intercropping on N fertilizer recovery was low at approximately 4.5 kg ha-1 when both the crops were growing simultaneously and approximately 2.4 kg ha?1 following maize grain harvest. In three out of four sites over 2 years, intercrop patterns did not affect total N fertilizer recovery compared with their monocultures, averaging at approximately 51 %. Advantages of maize-palisadegrass intercropping on biomass, yield, and N cycling were documented at the site where maize was planted during the conventional season, despite the yearly variation in weather conditions. A negative N budget of ?230 kg ha?1 was estimated when grazing was simulated during the conventional maize planting season, suggesting greater N requirements of the intercropped palisadegrass when serving as forage. MenosIn tropical agriculture, maize (Zea mays L.) intercropped with palisadegrass (Brachiaria brizantha cv. Marandu) is considered a highly relevant cropping system to deliver both residue and forage. However, the benefits of inclusion of palisadegrass in maize systems and its influence on fertilizer dynamics and nitrogen (N) budget as well as the period after maize harvest for which palisadegrass continues to grow remain unclear. Thus, we conducted field studies to determine crop growth, end-season biomass, N fertilizer recovery, and overall N budget between an intercrop and a monoculture at two different sites during conventional and late-planted maize seasons. The cropping systems evaluated were maize and palisadegrass in monocultures and two intercrop patterns, serving as cover crop or forage with simulated grazing. From planting to grain harvest, intercrop patterns did not affect grain yield, final N content, and N fertilizer dynamics. Post-harvest, palisadegrass from intercrop patterns improved biomass from 1 to 10 Mg ha?1 and N content from 8 to 300 kg ha?1, relative to fallow after maize monoculture. Contribution of palisadegrass intercropping on N fertilizer recovery was low at approximately 4.5 kg ha-1 when both the crops were growing simultaneously and approximately 2.4 kg ha?1 following maize grain harvest. In three out of four sites over 2 years, intercrop patterns did not affect total N fertilizer recovery compared with their monocultures, averaging at approximately... Mostrar Tudo |
|
Palavras-Chave: |
Difference method; Integrated farming; Nitrogen recovery efficiency. |
|
Thesagro: |
Brachiaria Brizantha; Consorciação de Cultura; Milho; Nitrogênio; Zea Mays. |
|
Thesaurus NAL: |
Corn; Nitrogen balance. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
F Plantas e Produtos de Origem Vegetal |
|
Marc: |
LEADER 02892naa a2200325 a 4500
001 2123518
005 2020-07-01
008 2020 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
022 $a1161-0301
024 7 $ahttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2020.126093$2DOI
100 1 $aOLIVEIRA, S. M. de
245 $aClosing the nitrogen budget of intercropped maize and palisadegrass.$h[electronic resource]
260 $c2020
520 $aIn tropical agriculture, maize (Zea mays L.) intercropped with palisadegrass (Brachiaria brizantha cv. Marandu) is considered a highly relevant cropping system to deliver both residue and forage. However, the benefits of inclusion of palisadegrass in maize systems and its influence on fertilizer dynamics and nitrogen (N) budget as well as the period after maize harvest for which palisadegrass continues to grow remain unclear. Thus, we conducted field studies to determine crop growth, end-season biomass, N fertilizer recovery, and overall N budget between an intercrop and a monoculture at two different sites during conventional and late-planted maize seasons. The cropping systems evaluated were maize and palisadegrass in monocultures and two intercrop patterns, serving as cover crop or forage with simulated grazing. From planting to grain harvest, intercrop patterns did not affect grain yield, final N content, and N fertilizer dynamics. Post-harvest, palisadegrass from intercrop patterns improved biomass from 1 to 10 Mg ha?1 and N content from 8 to 300 kg ha?1, relative to fallow after maize monoculture. Contribution of palisadegrass intercropping on N fertilizer recovery was low at approximately 4.5 kg ha-1 when both the crops were growing simultaneously and approximately 2.4 kg ha?1 following maize grain harvest. In three out of four sites over 2 years, intercrop patterns did not affect total N fertilizer recovery compared with their monocultures, averaging at approximately 51 %. Advantages of maize-palisadegrass intercropping on biomass, yield, and N cycling were documented at the site where maize was planted during the conventional season, despite the yearly variation in weather conditions. A negative N budget of ?230 kg ha?1 was estimated when grazing was simulated during the conventional maize planting season, suggesting greater N requirements of the intercropped palisadegrass when serving as forage.
650 $aCorn
650 $aNitrogen balance
650 $aBrachiaria Brizantha
650 $aConsorciação de Cultura
650 $aMilho
650 $aNitrogênio
650 $aZea Mays
653 $aDifference method
653 $aIntegrated farming
653 $aNitrogen recovery efficiency
700 1 $aCIAMPITTI, I. A.
700 1 $aALMEIDA, R. E. M. de
700 1 $aPIEROZAN JUNIOR, C.
700 1 $aTRIVELIN, P. C. O.
700 1 $aFAVARIN, J. L.
773 $tEuropean Journal of Agronomy$gv. 119, 126093, 2020.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Pesca e Aquicultura (CNPASA) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
Fechar
|
| Expressão de busca inválida. Verifique!!! |
|
|
