Elemental composition of Pinus contorta Dougl. and Pinus sylvestris L. in experimental plantation in the Syktyvkar Forest district of the Komi Republic
https://doi.org/10.21266/2079-4304.2023.245.55-70
Abstract
The concentrations of 9 elements (N, Mg, Ca, K, Na, Mn, Fe, Al, S) were determined in the aboveground parts of two species (Pinus contorta Dougl and P. sylvestris L.) in the mixed plantation in the middle taiga of the Komi Republic. It was revealed that both species, as representatives of the genus Pinus, have much in common in their elemental composition. It has been established that the accumulative series of elements for the studied species is identical and the above-ground parts of the trees belong to the nitrogen-potassium-calcium or nitrogen-calcium-potassium type of chemistry. A high total content of elements is typical for needles, a low one for wood of both species, while about 50% of mineral nutrition elements are N, and 64-78% of ash elements are Ca and K. It is shown that lodgepole pine has a number of chemical features in composition, compared with Scots pine. The main difference is manifested in the higher content of mineral elements in perennial needles (excluding N and S), wood (excluding Mn and K) and bark (excluding Ca) of lodgepole pine. The species specificity of lodgepole pine is manifested in a higher accumulation of Al and Na in almost all above-ground parts of the tree. A feature of lodgepole pine is a lower consumption of nitrogen and potassium by assimilating organs and a higher level of accumulation of mineral elements in wood and stem bark compared to Scots pine.
About the Authors
T. A. Pristova
Institute of Biology of Komi Science Centre of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
PRISTOVA Tatiana A. – PhD (Biological), Researcher
167982. Kommunisticheskaya str. 28. Sykyyvkar. Komi Republic
A. L. Fedorkov
Institute of Biology of Komi Science Centre of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
FEDORKOV Aleksey L. – DSc (Biological), Leading Research Scientist
167982. Kommunisticheskaya str. 28. Sykyyvkar. Komi Republic
References
1. Babich N.A., Merzlenko M.D. Biological productivity of forest plantations. Arkhangelsk: AGTU Publ., 1998. 89 p. (In Russ.)
2. Berg B., Lundmark J.-E. Decomposition of needle litter in Pinus sylvestris monocultures – a comparison. Scand. J. For. Res., 1987, no. 2, pp. 3-12.
3. Drozdov Yu.I. Lodgepole pine plantations in the of the European part of Russia. Forestry information, 2002, no. 9, pp. 21–23. (In Russ.)
4. Ekologo-fiziologicheskie osnovy produktivnosti sosnovyh lesov evropejskogo Severo-Vostoka. Syktyvkar: Komi SC of UrB of RAS, 1993. 97 p. (In Russ.)
5. Elais T.S. North American trees: determinant. Ed. by I.Yu. Koropachinsky. Novosibirsk: Izdatel'stvo Geo, 2014. 959 p. (In Russ.)
6. Elfving B., Ericsson T., Rosvall O. The introduction of lodgepole pine for wood production in Sweden – a review. Forest Ecology and Management, 2001, no. 141(1–2), pp. 15–29.
7. Fedorkov A., Gutiy L. Performance of lodgepole pine and Scots pine in field trials located in north-west Russia. Silva Fennica, 2017, vol. 51, no.1. 10 p. DOI: 10.14214/af. 1692
8. Fedorkov A.L., Turkin A.A. Experimental plantations of lodgepole pine in the Komi Republic. Forest Science, 2010, no. 1, pp. 70–74. (In Russ.)
9. Feklistov P.A., Biryukov S. Yu., Fedyaev A. L. Comparative ecological and biological features of lodgepole and scots pine in the northern subzone of the European taiga. Arhangel'sk: Arhangel'skij gosudarstvennyj tekhnicheskij universitet, 2008. 118 p. (In Russ.)
10. Gutiy L., Fedorkov A.L. Experimental Plantations of Longepole Pine in the Syktyvkar Forestry in the Komi Republic. Russian forestry journal, 2016, no. 1, pp. 48–54. DOI: 10.17238/issn0536-1036.2016.1.48. (In Russ.)
11. Kazimirov N.I., Volkov A.D., Zyabchenko S.S., Ivanchikov A.A., Morozova R.M. Metabolism and energy in the pine forests of the European North. Leningrad: Nauka, 1977. 304 p. (In Russ.)
12. Kofman G.B. Growth and shape of trees. Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1986. 211 p. (In Russ.)
13. Melekhov I.S. Introduction of coniferous trees in forestry. Forest Science, 1984, no. 6, pp. 72–78. (In Russ.)
14. Nilsson P., Cory N. Skogsdata 2010, Аktuella uppgifter om de svenska skogarna från Riksskogstaxeringen. Forestry statistics 2010. Umeå: Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet, 2010. 119 p.
15. Perelman A.I. Geochemistry of landscape. Moscow: Geografgiz, 1961. 496 p. (In Russ.)
16. Raevsky B.V., Pekkoev A.N. Prospects for growing Lodgepole pine in Southern Karelia. Innovations and technologies in forestry-2013: materials of the III International Conference Scientific and practical conference. St. Peterburg. 2013. P. 2, pp. 182–193. (In Russ.)
17. Robakidze E.A., Bobkova K.S., Naimushina S.I. Elemental composition of dominant plant species in middle taiga pine forests of different ages (on the example of the Komi Republic). Plant resources, 2020, vol. 56, iss.. 1, pp. 53–65. (In Russ.)
18. Varmola M., Salminen H., Rikala R., Kerkela M. Survival and early development of Lodgepole pine. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 2000, no. 15, pp. 410–423.
19. Zhigunov A.V., Butenko O.Y. Estimating the growth of 20-to 26-year-old lodgepole pine plantations in the Leningrad Region of Russia. Folia Forestalia Polonica series A-Forestry, 2019, vol. 61(1), pp. 58–63. DOI: 10.2478/ffp-2019-0006
Review
For citations:
Pristova T.A., Fedorkov A.L. Elemental composition of Pinus contorta Dougl. and Pinus sylvestris L. in experimental plantation in the Syktyvkar Forest district of the Komi Republic. Izvestia Sankt-Peterburgskoj lesotehniceskoj akademii. 2023;(245):55-70. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21266/2079-4304.2023.245.55-70
Views:
70
Email this article 