Variability of CO2 flow in the soil in two experimental plans of the ESECAFLOR Project / Caxiuaná - PA
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X30728Keywords:
Flow of Carbon, Soil moisture, AmazonAbstract
The present work was carried out in the National Forest of Caxiuanã, located in the municipality of Melgaço / PA, at the experimental site of the Forest Drought Study Project (ESECAFLOR), which has been developed since 2000 at the Ferreira Penna Scientific Station. The experiment consists of the artificially created creation of a drought period in the tropical rainforest, aiming to evaluate the impacts of drought on the water and CO2 flows in this ecosystem. The physical structure of ESECAFLOR consists of two plots of one hectare. The data used refer to the period from August 2009 to December 2011. The main objective was to study the monthly variability of soil carbon flux in the two experimental plots of the project with different soil water contents. The results indicated significant variability between the flows observed in the two treatments, and in both plots, the highest values were always observed in the places with the highest amount of organic material.Downloads
References
DAVIDSON, E. A.; SAVAGE, K.; BOLSTAD, P.; CLARK, D.A.; CURTIS, P.S.; ELLSWORTH, D. S.; HANSON, P. J.; LAW, B. E.; LUO, Y.; PREGITZER, K.S.; RANDOLPH, J.C.; ZAK, D. Belowground carbon allocation in forests estimated from litterfall and IRGA-based soil respiration measurements. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2002;113(1-4):39-51.
OLIVEIRA, A. A. R. Estudo de respiração do solo na Floresta Nacional de Caxiuanã, Projeto ESECAFLOR/LBA [dissertation]. Pará: Universidade Federal do Oeste do Pará/ UFOPA; 2014. 62 p.
OLIVEIRA, D.; PEREIRA, J. P.; RAMOS, A.L.M.; CARAMORI, P.H.; MARUR, C.J.; MORAIS, H.; WAGNER-RIDDLE, C.; VORONEY, P. Carbono na biomassa e na respiração do solo em plantio comercial de seringueiras no Paraná. In: ALVARENGA, A.P.; CARMO, C.A.F.S. (ed.) Seqüestro de carbono: quantificação em seringais de cultivo e na vegetação natural. 2006:201-214.
SILVA JUNIOR, J.A.; COSTA, A.C.L.; AZEVEDO, P. V.; DA COSTA, R.F.; METCALFE, D. B.; GONÇALVES, P. H. L.; BRAGA, A.P.; MALHI, Y. S.; DE ARAGÃO, L. E. O. C.; MEIR, P. Fluxos de CO2 do solo na Floresta Nacional de Caxiuanã, Pará, durante o experimento ESECAFLOR/LBA. Rev. Bras. Meteorol. 2013;28(1):85-94.
SOTTA, E. D.; VELDKAMP, E.; GUIMARÃES, B.; PAIXÃO, R. K.; RUIVO, M. L. P. Landscape and climatic controls on spatial and temporal variation in soil CO2 efflux in an Eastern Amazonian Rainforest, Caxiuanã, Brazil. For. Ecol. Manag. 2006;237:57-64.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
