Soil Disturbance and Recovery after Coppicing a Mediterranean Oak Stand: The Effects of Silviculture and Technology
<p>Graphical interpretation of the non-linear regression analysis for BD in relation to the time (in years) post-harvesting. The polynomial curves are showed with an area describing the ± regression standard estimate error. C/Untrafficked r²<sub>adj</sub> = 0.438, F (3,176) = 39.685, <span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.001. W/Trafficked r²<sub>adj</sub> = 0.615, F (3,176) = 40.408, <span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.001. F/Trafficked r²<sub>adj</sub> = 0.623, F (3,176) = 41.686, <span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.001. W: winching; F: forwarding; C: control.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Graphical interpretation of the non-linear regression analysis for PR in relation to the time (in years) post-harvesting. The polynomial curves showed with a halo composed by ± regression standard estimate error. C/Untrafficked r²<sub>adj</sub> = 0.502, F(3,176) = 30.917, <span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.001. W/Trafficked r²<sub>adj</sub> = 0.589, F(3,176) = 43.425, <span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.001. F/Trafficked r²<sub>adj</sub> = 0.695, F(3,176) = 68.571, <span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.001. W: winching; F: forwarding; C: control.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Graphical interpretation of the non-linear regression analysis for SR in relation to the time (in years) post-harvesting. The polynomial curves showed with a halo composed by ± regression standard estimate error. W/Trafficked r²<sub>adj</sub> = 0.508, F(3,176) = 31.638, <span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.001. F/Trafficked r²<sub>adj</sub> = 0.437, F(3,176) = 23.995, <span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.001. W: winching; F: forwarding.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Graphical interpretation of the non-linear regression analysis for OM in relation to the time (in years) post-harvesting. The polynomial curves showed with a halo composed by ± regression standard estimate error. C/Untrafficked r²<sub>adj</sub> = 0.538, F(3,176) = 35.558, <span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.001. W/Trafficked r²<sub>adj</sub> = 0.695, F(3,176) = 68.479, <span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.001. F/Trafficked r²<sub>adj</sub> = 0.719, F(3,176) = 76.958, <span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.001. W: winching; F: forwarding; C: control.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Graphical interpretation of the factorial ANOVA for pH (point: average value; bar: ±standard deviation). Difference tested between trafficked and untrafficked soil for the two mechanization levels in the five periods observed. W: winching; F: forwarding; C: control.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Graphical interpretation of the non-linear regression analysis for QBS-ar index percentage of impact (referred to the untrafficked soil) in relation to the time (in years) post-harvesting. The polynomial curves showed with a halo composed by ± regression standard estimate error. C/Untrafficked r²<sub>adj</sub> = 0.882, F(3,176) = 225.15, <span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.001. W/Trafficked r²<sub>adj</sub> = 0.947, F(3,176) = 533.85, <span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.001. W: winching; F: forwarding.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) analysis of the main indexes and indicators of the logging impact on soil (BD bulk density; PR: penetration resistance; SR: shear resistance; OM: organic matter content; QBS-ar: QBS-ar index). Difference tested between the three areas and the five time periods observed (UN: untrafficked soil; W: trafficked soil by winching; F: trafficked soil by forwarding; 1-5: years after coppicing).</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- to investigate the impact of the silvicultural treatment on soil condition;
- to find out how both silvicultural treatment and forest operations influence soil characteristics;
- to compare the impact of two different harvesting techniques on soil condition;
- to assess the recovery capacity of soil after harvesting in order to project a possible treatment return time; and evaluating the existence of a proper SFO.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Sites
2.2. Silviculture and Harvesting Technique
2.3. Analytical Methods
2.4. Statistical Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Analysis of the Impacted Surface
3.2. Physical and Chemical Analyses of Soil
3.2.1. Soil Bulk Density
3.2.2. Soil Penetration Resistance
3.2.3. Soil Shear Resistance
3.2.4. Soil Organic Matter Content
3.2.5. Soil pH
3.3. Soil Biodiversity Aalysis
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Unrau, A.; Becker, G.; Spinelli, R.; Lazdina, D.; Magagnotti, N.; Nicolescu, V.N.; Buckley, P.; Bartlett, D.; Kofman, P.D. (Eds.) Coppice Forests in Europe; Freiburg i. Br.; Albert Ludwig University of Freiburg: Freiburg, Germany, 2018; 392p. [Google Scholar]
- Venanzi, R.; Picchio, R.; Grigolato, S.; Latterini, F. Soil and forest regeneration after different extraction methods in coppice forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 454, 117666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szabò, P. Driving forces of stability and change in woodland structure: A case-study from the Czech lowlands. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 259, 650–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marchi, E.; Picchio, R.; Mederski, P.S.; Vusić, D.; Perugini, M.; Venanzi, R. Impact of silvicultural treatment and forest operation on soil and regeneration in Mediterranean Turkey oak (Quercus cerris L.) coppice with standards. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 95, 475–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venanzi, R.; Picchio, R.; Piovesan, G. Silvicultural and logging impact on soil characteristics in Chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) Mediterranean coppice. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 96, 82–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matula, R.; Šrámek, M.; Kvasnica, J.; Uherková, B.; Slepička, J.; Matoušková, M.; Kutchartt, E.; Svátek, M. Pre-disturbance tree size, sprouting vigour and competition drive the survival and growth of resprouting trees. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 446, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Müllerová, J.; Hédl, R.; Szabó, P. Coppice abandonment and its implications for species diversity in forest vegetation. For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 343, 88–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Imamura, K.; Managi, S.; Saito, S.; Nakashizuka, T. Abandoned forest ecosystem: Implications for Japan’s Oak Wilt disease. J. For. Econ. 2017, 29, 56–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Picchio, R.; Spina, R.; Maesano, M.; Carbone, F.; Lo Monaco, A.; Marchi, E. Stumpage value in the short wood system for the conversion into high forest of a oak coppice. For. Stud. China 2011, 13, 252–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gimmi, U.; Bürgi, M.; Stuber, M. Reconstructing anthropogenic disturbance regimes in forest ecosystems: A case study from the Swiss Rhone valley. Ecosystems 2008, 11, 113–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Olajuyigbe, S.; Tobin, B.; Saunders, M.; Nieuwenhuis, M. Forest thinning and soil respiration in a Sitka spruce forest in Ireland. Agr. For. Meteorol. 2012, 157, 86–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Picchio, R.; Mercurio, R.; Venanzi, R.; Gratani, L.; Giallonardo, T.; Lo Monaco, A.; Frattaroli, A.R. Strip clear-cutting application and logging typologies for renaturalization of pine afforestation—A case study. Forests 2018, 9, 366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Klvac, R.; Vrána, P.; Jirousek, R. Possibilities of using the portable falling weight deflectometer to measure the bearing capacity and compaction of forest soils. J. For. Sci. 2010, 56, 130–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Korb, J.E.; Fulé, P.Z.; Gideon, B. Different restoration thinning treatments affect level of soil disturbance in ponderosa pine forests of Northern Arizona, USA. Ecol. Restor. 2007, 25, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williamson, J.R.; Neilsen, W.A. The influence of soil and forest site on rate and extent of soil compaction and profile disturbance of skid-trails during ground-based harvesting. Can. J. For. Res. 2000, 30, 1196–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grigal, D.F. Effects of extensive forest management on soil productivity. For. Ecol. Manag. 2000, 138, 167–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vusić, D.; Šušnjar, M.; Marchi, E.; Spina, R.; Zečić, T.; Picchio, R. Skidding operations in thinning and shelterwood cut of mixed stands—Work productivity, energy inputs and emissions. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 61, 216–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Picchio, R.; Pignatti, G.; Marchi, E.; Latterini, F.; Benanchi, M.; Foderi, C.; Venanzi, R.; Verani, S. The application of two approaches using GIS technology implementation in forest road network planning in an Italian mountain setting. Forests 2018, 9, 277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Spinelli, R.; Lombardini, C.; Marchi, E.; Aminti, G. A low-investment technology for the simplified processing of energy wood from coppice forests. Eur. J. For. Res. 2019, 138, 31–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tolosana, E.; Spinelli, R.; Aminti, G.; Laina, R.; López-Vicens, I. Productivity, efficiency and environmental effects of whole-tree harvesting in Spanish coppice stands using a drive-to-tree disc saw Feller-Buncher. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2018, 39, 163–172. [Google Scholar]
- Picchio, R.; Neri, F.; Maesano, M.; Savelli, S.; Sirna, A.; Blasi, S.; Baldini, S.; Marchi, E. Growth effects of thinning damage in a Corsican pine (Pinus laricio Poiret) stand in central Italy. Forest Ecol. Manag. 2011, 262, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laschi, A.; Marchi, E.; González-García, S. Forest operations in coppice: Environmental assessment of two different logging methods. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 562, 493–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bertolotto, P.; Calienno, L.; Conforti, M.; D’Andrea, E.; Lo Monaco, A.; Magnani, E.; Marinšek, A.; Venanzi, R. Assessing indicators of forest ecosystem health. Ann. Silvi. Res. 2016, 40, 64–69. [Google Scholar]
- Picchio, R.; Spina, R.; Calienno, L.; Venanzi, R.; Lo Monaco, A. Forest operations for implementing silvicultural treatments for multiple purposes. Ital. J. Agron. 2016, 11, 156–161. [Google Scholar]
- Sohrabi, H.; Jourgholami, M.; Tavankar, F.; Venanzi, R.; Picchio, R. Post-harvest evaluation of soil physical properties and natural regeneration growth in steep-slope terrains. Forests 2019, 10, 1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mederski, P. A comparison of harvesting productivity and costs in thinning operations with and without midfield. For. Ecol. Manag. 2006, 224, 286–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Picchio, R.; Latterini, F.; Mederski, P.S.; Venanzi, R.; Karaszewski, Z.; Bembenek, M.; Croce, M. Comparing accuracy of three methods based on the GIS environment for determining winching areas. Electronics 2019, 8, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cambi, M.; Certini, G.; Fabiano, F.; Foderi, C.; Laschi, A.; Picchio, R. Impact of wheeled and tracked tractors on soil physical properties in a mixed conifer stand. IForest 2016, 9, 89–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Picchio, R.; Mederski, P.S.; Tavankar, F. How and how much, do harvesting activities affect forest soil, regeneration and stands? Curr. For. Rep. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Marchi, E.; Picchio, R.; Spinelli, R.; Verani, S.; Venanzi, R.; Certini, G. Environmental impact assessment of different logging methods in pine forests thinning. Ecol. Eng. 2014, 70, 429–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Picchio, R.; Magagnotti, N.; Sirna, A.; Spinelli, R. Improved winching technique to reduce logging damage. Ecol. Eng. 2012, 47, 83–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Picchio, R.; Venanzi, R.; Tavankar, F.; Luchenti, I.; Bodaghi, A.I.; Latterini, F.; Nikooy, M.; Di Marzio, N.; Naghdi, R. Changes in soil parameters of forests after windstorms and timber extraction. Eur. J. For. Res. 2019, 138, 875–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Proto, A.R.; Macrì, G.; Visser, R.; Harrill, H.; Russo, D.; Zimbalatti, G. A case study on the productivity of forwarder extraction in small-scale Southern Italian forests. Small-Scale For. 2018, 17, 71–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Proto, A.R.; Zimbalatti, G. Firewood cable extraction in the southern Mediterranean area of Italy. For. Sci. Techn. 2016, 12, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sánchez-Moreno, S.; Minoshima, H.; Ferris, H.; Jackson, L.E. Linking soil properties and nematode community composition: Effects of soil management on soil food webs. Nematology 2006, 8, 703–715. [Google Scholar]
- Spinelli, R.; Pari, L.; Aminti, G.; Magagnotti, N.; Giovannelli, A. Mortality, re-sprouting vigor and physiology of coppice stumps after mechanized cutting. Ann. For. Sci. 2017, 74, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Buckley, G. Ecology and Management of Coppiced Woodlands; Chapman & Hall: London, UK, 1992; 336p. [Google Scholar]
- Joys, A.C.; Fuller, R.J.; Dolman, P.M. Influences of deer browsing, coppice history, and standard trees on the growth and development of vegetation structure in coppiced woods in lowland England. For. Ecol. Manag. 2004, 202, 23–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benes, J.; Cizek, O.; Dovala, J.; Konvicka, M. Intensive game keeping, coppicing and butterflies: The story of Milovicky Wood, Czech Republic. For. Ecol. Manag. 2006, 237, 353–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bugalho, M.N.; Caldeira, M.C.; Pereira, J.S.; Aronson, J.; Pausas, J.G. Mediterranean cork oak savannas require human use to sustain biodiversity and ecosystem services. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2011, 9, 278–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hédl, R.; Kopecky´, M.; Komárek, J. Half a century of succession in a temperate oakwood: From species-rich community to mesic forest. Divers. Distrib. 2010, 16, 267–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spitzer, L.; Konvicka, M.; Tropek, R.; Tuf, I.H.; Tufová, J. Does closure of traditionally managed open woodlands threaten epigeic invertebrates? Effects of coppicing and high deer densities. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141, 827–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vodka, Š.; Cizek, L. The effects of edge-interior and understorey-canopy gradients on the distribution of saproxylic beetles in a temperate lowland forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 2013, 304, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbas, D.; Di Fulvio, F.; Spinelli, R. European and United States perspectives on forest operations in environmentally sensitive areas. Scand. J. For. Res. 2018, 33, 188–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marchi, E.; Chung, W.; Visser, R.; Abbas, D.; Nordfjell, T.; Mederski, P.S.; McEwan, A.; Brink, M.; Laschi, A. Sustainable Forest Operations (SFO): A new paradigm in a changing world and climate. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 634, 1385–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Saxton, K.E.; Rawls, W.J.; Romberger, J.S.; Papendick, R.I. Estimating generalized soil-water characteristics from texture. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1986, 50, 1031–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corona, P.; Ascoli, D.; Barbati, A.; Bovio, G.; Colangelo, G.; Elia, M.; Garfì, V.; Iovino, F.; Lafortezza, R.; Leone, V.; et al. Integrated forest management to prevent wildfires under Mediterranean environments. Ann. Silvi. Res. 2015, 39, 1–22. [Google Scholar]
- Picchio, R.; Neri, F.; Petrini, E.; Verani, S.; Marchi, E.; Certini, G. Machinery-induced soil compaction in thinning two pine stands in central Italy. For. Ecol. Manag. 2012, 285, 38–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gee, G.W.; Bauder, J.W. Particle-size analysis. In Methods of Soil Analysis. Part I. Agronomy Monographs, 9, 2nd ed.; Klute, A., Ed.; ASA and SSSA: Madison, WI, USA, 1986; pp. 383–411. [Google Scholar]
- Spinelli, R.; Magagnotti, N.; Aminti, G.; De Francesco, F.; Lombardini, C. The effect of harvesting method on biomass retention and operational efficiency in low-value mountain forests. Eur. J. For. Res. 2016, 135, 755–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rigal, S.; Devictor, V.; Dakos, V. A method for classifying and comparing non-linear trajectories of ecological variables. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 112, 106113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Picchio, R.; Tavankar, F.; Nikooy, M.; Pignatti, G.; Venanzi, R.; Lo Monaco, A. Morphology, growth and architecture response of beech (Fagus orientalis Lipsky) and maple tree (Acer velutinum Boiss.) seedlings to soil compaction stress caused by mechanized logging operations. Forests 2019, 10, 771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Picchio, R.; Tavankar, F.; Bonyad, A.; Mederski, P.S.; Venanzi, R.; Nikooy, M. Detailed analysis of residual stand damage due to winching on steep terrains. Small-scale For. 2019, 18, 255–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jourgholami, M.; Majnounian, B.; Abari, M.E. Effects of tree-length timber skidding on soil compaction in the skid trail in Hyrcanian forests. For. Syst. 2014, 23, 288–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Spinelli, R.; Magagnotti, N.; Nati, C. Benchmarking the impact of traditional small-scale logging systems used in Mediterranean forestry. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 260, 1997–2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spinelli, R.; Lombardini, C.; Magagnotti, N. Salvaging windthrown trees with animal and machine systems in protected areas. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 53, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magagnotti, N.; Picchi, G.; Spinelli, R. A versatile machine system for salvaging small-scale forest windthrow. Biosyst. Eng. 2013, 115, 381–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kleibl, M.; Klvač, R.; Lombardini, C.; Porhaly, J.; Spinelli, R. Soil compaction and recovery after mechanized final felling of Italian coastal pine plantations. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2014, 35, 63–71. [Google Scholar]
- Magagnotti, N.; Spinelli, R.; Güldner, O.; Erler, J. Site impact after motor-manual and mechanised thinning in Mediterranean pine plantations. Biosyst. Eng. 2012, 113, 140–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ampoorter, E.; Goris, R.; Cornelis, W.; Verheyen, K. Impact of mechanized logging on compaction status of sandy forest soils. For. Ecol. Manag. 2007, 241, 162–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heilman, P. Root penetration of Douglas-fir seedlings into compacted soil. For. Sci. 1981, 27, 660–666. [Google Scholar]
- Cudzik, A.; Brennensthul, M.; Białczyk, W.; Czarnecki, J. Damage to Soil and Residual Trees Caused by Different Logging Systems Applied to Late Thinning. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2017, 38, 83–95. [Google Scholar]
- Dudek, T.; Sosnowski, J. Evaluation of the environmental impact of selected timber extraction technologies used in mountain forests. Sylwan 2011, 155, 413–420. [Google Scholar]
- Spinelli, R.; Magagnotti, N. Performance and cost of a new mini-forwarder for use in thinning operations. J. For. Res. 2010, 15, 358–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spinelli, R.; Magagnotti, N. The effects of introducing modern technology on the financial, labour and energy performance of forest operations in the Italian Alps. Forest Policy Econ. 2011, 13, 520–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spinelli, R.; Aalmo, G.O.; Magagnotti, N. The effect of a slack-pulling device in reducing operator physiological workload during log winching operations. Ergonomics 2015, 58, 781–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Magagnotti, N.; Aalmo, G.O.; Brown, M.; Spinelli, R. A new device for reducing winching cost and worker effort in steep terrain operations. Scand. J. For. Res. 2016, 31, 602–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spinelli, R.; Cacot, E.; Mihelic, M.; Nestorovski, L.; Mederski, P.; Tolosana, E. Techniques and productivity of coppice harvesting operations in Europe: A meta-analysis of available data. Ann. For. Sci. 2016, 73, 1125–1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ferrari, E.; Spinelli, R.; Cavallo, E.; Magagnotti, N. Attitudes towards mechanized Cut-to-Length technology among logging contractors in Northern Italy. Scand. J. For. Res. 2012, 27, 800–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bell, J. Changes in logging injury rates associated with use of feller-bunchers in West Virginia. J. Saf. Res. 2002, 33, 436–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cambi, M.; Hoshika, Y.; Mariotti, B.; Paoletti, E.; Picchio, R.; Venanzi, R.; Marchi, E. Compaction by a forest machine affects soil quality and Quercus robur L. seedling performance in an experimental field. For. Ecol. Manag. 2017, 384, 406–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tavankar, F.; Bonyad, A.E.; Nikooy, M.; Picchio, R.; Venanzi, R.; Calienno, L. Damages to soil and tree species by cable-skidding in caspian forests of Iran. For. Syst. 2017, 26, e009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vossbrink, J.; Horn, R. Modern forestry vehicles and their impact on soil physical properties. Eur. J. For. Res. 2004, 123, 259–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Picchio, R.; Proto, A.R.; Civitarese, V.; Di Marzio, N.; Latterini, F. Recent contributions of some fields of the electronics in development of forest operations technologies. Electronics 2019, 8, 1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pavari, A. Studio Preliminare Sulla Coltura di Specie Forestali Esotiche in Italia; Parte Generale, Volume I; Annali del Regio Istituto Superiore Forestale Nazionale; Tipografia Ricci: Florence, Italy, 1916; 221p. [Google Scholar]
Area | Shoots | Standards | Shoots | Standards | Shoots | Standards | Density * (Trees/ha) | Basal Area (m2/ha) | Above- Ground Biomass Stock | Above- Ground Biomass Harvested |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age (Years) | DBH * (cm) | Height * (m) | (m3/ha) | (m3/ha) | ||||||
W | 36 | 52 | 14.6 ± 2.1 | 26.0 ± 1.4 | 10.5 ± 3.2 | 13.8 ± 1.2 | 1168 ± 75 | 24.1 | 132.9 | 109.5 |
F | 34 | 54 | 14.1 ± 5.2 | 28.1 ± 4.1 | 10.9 ± 1.2 | 14.2 ± 2.3 | 1178 ± 47 | 24.6 | 136.4 | 112.8 |
C | 20 | 45 | 12.8 ± 1.5 | 22.3 ± 7.2 | 10.1 ± 2.7 | 13.1 ± 5.2 | 1188 ± 66 | 23.7 | 121.9 | - |
Area | p-Value | Trafficked Soil | Untrafficked Soil |
---|---|---|---|
W | <0.05 | 21.2 ± 4.1% a | 78.8% |
F | 31.7 ± 2.9% b | 68.3% |
Area | Soil Condition | Bulk Density (g/cm3) | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 Year | 5 Years | |||
W | Untrafficked | 1.07 ± 0.07 a | 0.97 ± 0.14 a | <0.05 |
Trafficked | 1.15 ± 0.12 b | 0.95 ± 0.11 a | <0.05 | |
F | Untrafficked | 0.89 ± 0.15 c | 0.79 ± 0.09 b | <0.05 |
Trafficked | 1.19 ± 0.29 d | 0.98 ± 0.03 a | <0.05 | |
C | Control | 1.00 ± 0.17 a,c | 1.00 ± 0.17 a | >0.05 |
p-value | <0.05 | <0.05 |
Area/Soil Condition | Regression | Beta | Beta Std. Err. | B | B Std. Err. | t | p-Level |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C/Untrafficked | Intercept | − | − | 0.976 | 0.012 | 83.162 | <0.001 |
Years | 4.395 | 0.488 | 0.219 | 0.024 | 9.007 | <0.001 | |
Years2 | −9.756 | 1.265 | −0.095 | 0.012 | −7.714 | <0.001 | |
Years3 | 5.320 | 0.838 | 0.010 | 0.002 | 6.347 | <0.001 | |
W/Trafficked | Intercept | − | − | 0.970 | 0.022 | 44.779 | <0.001 |
Years | 5.251 | 0.573 | 0.411 | 0.045 | 9.164 | <0.001 | |
Years2 | −11.895 | 1.485 | −0.182 | 0.023 | −8.010 | <0.001 | |
Years3 | 6.586 | 0.984 | 0.020 | 0.003 | 6.691 | <0.001 | |
F/Trafficked | Intercept | − | − | 0.994 | 0.025 | 39.096 | <0.001 |
Years | 4.955 | 0.567 | 0.460 | 0.053 | 8.735 | <0.001 | |
Years2 | −10.193 | 1.471 | −0.185 | 0.027 | −6.932 | <0.001 | |
Years3 | 5.213 | 0.975 | 0.019 | 0.004 | 5.349 | <0.001 |
Area | Soil Condition | Penetration Resistance (MPa) | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 Year | 5 Years | |||
W | Untrafficked | 0.59 ± 0.07 a | 0.45 ± 0.05 a | <0.05 |
Trafficked | 1.01 ± 0.12 b | 0.44 ± 0.10 a | <0.05 | |
F | Untrafficked | 0.64 ± 0.03 a,c | 0.46 ± 0.08 a | <0.05 |
Trafficked | 1.18 ± 0.07 d | 0.59 ± 0.02 b | <0.05 | |
C | Control | 0.49 ± 0.09 a | 0.49 ± 0.09 a | >0.05 |
p-value | <0.05 | <0.05 |
Area/Soil Condition | Regression | Beta | Beta Std. Err. | B | B Std. Err. | T | p-Level |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C/Untrafficked | Intercept | − | − | 0.486 | 0.018 | 26.880 | <0.001 |
Years | 2.978 | 0.596 | 0.176 | 0.035 | 5.001 | <0.001 | |
Years2 | −6.731 | 1.542 | −0.076 | 0.018 | −4.366 | <0.001 | |
Years3 | 3.335 | 1.021 | 0.008 | 0.002 | 3.266 | <0.01 | |
W/Trafficked | Intercept | − | − | 0.504 | 0.043 | 11.610 | <0.001 |
Years | 4.433 | 0.542 | 0.690 | 0.084 | 8.187 | <0.001 | |
Years2 | −9.599 | 1.402 | −0.287 | 0.042 | −6.849 | <0.001 | |
Years3 | 4.961 | 0.928 | 0.029 | 0.006 | 5.344 | <0.001 | |
F/Trafficked | Intercept | − | − | 0.487 | 0.057 | 8.628 | <0.001 |
Years | 4.827 | 0.466 | 1.136 | 0.110 | 10.354 | <0.001 | |
Years2 | −9.864 | 1.207 | −0.446 | 0.055 | −8.173 | <0.001 | |
Years3 | 4.886 | 0.799 | 0.044 | 0.007 | 6.112 | <0.001 |
Area | Soil Condition | Shear Resistance (t/m2) | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 Year | 5 Years | |||
W | Untrafficked | 4.53 ± 0.38 a | 5.16 ± 1.36 a | <0.05 |
Trafficked | 11.42 ± 1.20 b | 6.91 ± 2.57 b | <0.05 | |
F | Untrafficked | 4.29 ± 0.91 c | 4.51 ± 2.94 a,c | <0.05 |
Trafficked | 12.67 ± 2.57 d | 11.00 ± 3.76 d | <0.05 | |
C | Control | 7.04 ± 2.68 e | 7.04 ± 2.68 b | >0.05 |
p-value | <0.05 | <0.05 |
Area/Soil Condition | Regression | Beta | Beta Std. Err. | B | B Std. Err. | t | p-Level |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C/Untrafficked | Intercept | − | − | 8.305 | 1.094 | 6.180 | <0.001 |
Years | 1.195 | 0.845 | 3.005 | 2.126 | 1.414 | >0.05 | |
Years2 | −2.445 | 2.189 | −1.180 | 1.056 | −1.117 | >0.05 | |
Years3 | 1.296 | 1.450 | 0.124 | 0.139 | 0.894 | >0.05 | |
W/Trafficked | Intercept | − | − | 8.305 | 0.811 | 9.239 | <0.001 |
Years | 4.425 | 0.592 | 11.779 | 1.576 | 7.474 | <0.001 | |
Years2 | −9.655 | 1.533 | −4.934 | 0.783 | −6.300 | <0.001 | |
Years3 | 5.102 | 1.015 | 0.517 | 0.103 | 5.027 | <0.001 | |
F/Trafficked | Intercept | − | − | 8.305 | 0.660 | 12.588 | <0.001 |
Years | 4.497 | 0.634 | 9.096 | 1.282 | 7.098 | <0.001 | |
Years2 | −9.016 | 1.640 | −3.501 | 0.637 | −5.498 | <0.001 | |
Years3 | 4.684 | 1.086 | 0.361 | 0.084 | 4.313 | <0.001 |
Area | Soil Condition | Organic Matter (%) | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 Year | 5 Years | |||
W | Untrafficked | 15.6 ± 0.019 a | 18.4 ± 0.001 a | <0.05 |
Trafficked | 12.4 ± 0.054 b | 13.9 ± 0.005 b | <0.05 | |
F | Untrafficked | 9.5 ± 0.004 c | 16.7 ± 0.002 c | <0.05 |
Trafficked | 7.7 ± 0.002 d | 13.3 ± 0.004 b | <0.05 | |
C | Control | 14.2 ± 0.029 e | 14.2 ± 0.029 a,c | >0.05 |
p-value | <0.05 | <0.05 |
Area/Soil Condition | Regression | Beta | Beta Std. Err. | B | B Std. Err. | t | p-Level |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C/Untrafficked | Intercept | − | v | 0.179 | 0.005 | 36.612 | <0.001 |
Years | −3.628 | 0.574 | −0.060 | 0.010 | −6.324 | <0.001 | |
Years2 | 5.915 | 1.485 | 0.019 | 0.005 | 3.983 | <0.001 | |
Years3 | −2.238 | 0.983 | −0.001 | 0.001 | −2.276 | <0.05 | |
W/Trafficked | Intercept | − | − | 0.178 | 0.006 | 28.953 | <0.001 |
Years | −4.840 | 0.466 | −0.124 | 0.012 | −10.377 | <0.001 | |
Years2 | 8.495 | 1.208 | 0.042 | 0.006 | 7.036 | <0.001 | |
Years3 | −3.881 | 0.800 | −0.004 | 0.001 | −4.853 | <0.001 | |
F/Trafficked | Intercept | − | − | 0.164 | 0.007 | 22.798 | <0.001 |
Years | −2.912 | 0.447 | −0.091 | 0.014 | −6.510 | <0.001 | |
Years2 | 2.660 | 1.158 | 0.016 | 0.007 | 2.297 | <0.05 | |
Years3 | 0.223 | 0.767 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.291 | >0.05 |
Area | Soil Condition | pH | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 Year | 5 Years | |||
W | Untrafficked | 6.8 ± 0.02 a | 6.7 ± 0.05 | >0.05 |
Trafficked | 6.7 ± 0.12 a,b | 6.8 ± 0.105 | >0.05 | |
F | Untrafficked | 6.5 ± 0.45 b | 6.8 ± 0.05 | >0.05 |
Trafficked | 7.0 ± 0.26 a | 6.8 ± 0.01 | >0.05 | |
C | Control | 6.7 ± 0.43 a,b | 6.7 ± 0.43 | >0.05 |
p-value | <0.05 | >0.05 |
Variables | Sum of Square | Degree of Freedom | Mean of Square | F | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | 4.73 | 5 | 0.95 | 37.8 | <0.001 |
Untrafficked/W and F: Trafficked soil | 0.4 | 2 | 0.2 | 8 | <0.001 |
Year X Untrafficked/Wand F: Trafficked soil | 5.25 | 10 | 0.52 | 20.9 | <0.001 |
Error | 6.31 | 252 | 0.03 |
Area | Soil Condition | QBS-ar | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 Year | 5 Years | |||
W | Untrafficked | 201 a | 197 a | >0.05 |
Trafficked | 106 b | 110 b | >0.05 | |
F | Untrafficked | 136 c | 181 a,c | <0.05 |
Trafficked | 81 d | 173 c | <0.05 | |
C | Control | 254 e | 254 d | >0.05 |
p-value | <0.05 | <0.05 |
Area/Soil Condition | Regression | Beta | Beta Std. Err. | B | B Std. Err. | T | p-Level |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
W/Trafficked | Intercept | 4.451 | 0.386 | 0.434 | 0.038 | 11.534 | <0.001 |
Years | −6.465 | 0.946 | −0.149 | 0.022 | −6.836 | <0.001 | |
Years2 | 2.816 | 0.596 | 0.014 | 0.003 | 4.725 | <0.001 | |
Years3 | 4.451 | 0.386 | 0.434 | 0.038 | 11.534 | <0.001 | |
F/Trafficked | Intercept | 5.842 | 0.259 | 0.670 | 0.030 | 22.530 | <0.001 |
Years | −9.423 | 0.635 | −0.256 | 0.017 | −14.829 | <0.001 | |
Years2 | 4.304 | 0.401 | 0.026 | 0.002 | 10.747 | <0.001 | |
Years3 | 5.842 | 0.259 | 0.670 | 0.030 | 22.530 | <0.001 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Venanzi, R.; Picchio, R.; Spinelli, R.; Grigolato, S. Soil Disturbance and Recovery after Coppicing a Mediterranean Oak Stand: The Effects of Silviculture and Technology. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4074. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104074
Venanzi R, Picchio R, Spinelli R, Grigolato S. Soil Disturbance and Recovery after Coppicing a Mediterranean Oak Stand: The Effects of Silviculture and Technology. Sustainability. 2020; 12(10):4074. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104074
Chicago/Turabian StyleVenanzi, Rachele, Rodolfo Picchio, Raffaele Spinelli, and Stefano Grigolato. 2020. "Soil Disturbance and Recovery after Coppicing a Mediterranean Oak Stand: The Effects of Silviculture and Technology" Sustainability 12, no. 10: 4074. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104074