Journal of agriculture & life science (농업생명과학연구)

Institute of Agriculture & Life Science, Gyeongsang National University (경상대학교 농업생명과학연구원)
권호 표지

Root Distribution in Natural Stand and Plantation of One-Age Class Pinus densiflora for. erecta

금강소나무 1영급 천연임분과 인공임분의 직경별 뿌리발달

  • 나성준 (영남대학교 산림자원학과) ;
  • 김정환 (영남대학교 산림자원학과) ;
  • 이도형 (영남대학교 산림자원학과)
  • Received : 2011.09.05
  • Accepted : 2011.10.28
  • Published : 2011.10.31
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study was conducted to distribution characteristic of root diameter class between natural and planted stands of one-age class in Pinus densiflora for. eracta in Gangwon. Root development presented that 0.5-2.0 mm diameter class was large part in total root number and length but 0.5-2.0 mm diameter class have a low distribution in each stand. Below 5.0 mm diameter class between natural and planted stands observed outstanding natural stand more than planted stand, but reverse over 5.0 mm diameter class. Root development depending on soil level of vertical and horizontal was presented various natural stand more than planted stand because root distribution of planted stand was concentrated low soil level in 10 cm of soil depth and 20 cm of soil horizontal layer. We can understand that the root distribution presented different between natural and planted stand, therefore this result can used as a basic information for correct of outplanting.

본 연구는 강원지역 1영급 금강소나무를 대상으로 천연임분과 인공임분간의 직경별 뿌리의 분포 특성을 알아보기 위해 실시하였다. 직경별 뿌리분포는 두 임분 모두 0.5-2.0 mm 직경급의 뿌리가 가장 많았고, 10.0-20.0 mm 직경급의 뿌리가 가장 적었다. 두 임분간 직경별 뿌리발달에서 5.0 mm 이하의 직경급은 인공임분이 천연임분보다 우수하였지만, 5.0 mm 이상의 직경급 발달은 천연임분이 더 우수하였다. 토양층위별 뿌리의 직경별 발달은 천연임분이 인공임분보다 다양한 토양층위에 고르게 분포하였으며, 인공임분은 5.0 mm 이하의 직경급이 토심 10 cm, 토양 수평층위 20 cm 범위 내에 편중되어 발달하였다. 따라서 임분 성립방법의 차이는 뿌리발달의 현저한 구조적 차이를 나타낼 수 있으며, 이러한 결과는 인공조림시 올바른 식재방법과 조림지침을 제공하는데 중요한 기초자료로 사용될 수 있을 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Abod, S. A. and A. D. Webster. 1991. The influence of root pruning on subsequent root and shoot growth of Malus, Tilia and Betula. J. Hort. Sci. 66: 227-233.
  2. Aerts, R., C. Bakker, and H. de Caluwe. 1992. Root turnover as determinant of the C, N and P in a dry heathland ecosystem. Biogeochem. 15: 175-190. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00002935
  3. Anderson, L., H. N. Rasmussen, and P. E. Brander. 2000. Regrowth and dry matter allocation in Quercus robur (L.) seedlings root pruned prior to transplanting. New Forests 119: 205-213.
  4. Atkinson, D. and S. A. Wilson. 1980. The growth and distribution of fruit tree roots: some consequences for nutrient uptake, pp. 137-150. In: Atkinson, D., J. E. Jackson, R. O. Sharples, and W. M. Waller. (Eds) Mineral Nutrition of Fruit Trees. Butterworths, London.
  5. Axelsson, E. and B. Axelsson. 1986. Changes in carbon allocation patterns in spruce and pine trees following irrigation and fertilization. Tree Physiol. 2: 189-204. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/2.1-2-3.189
  6. Bergman, F. and B. Haggstrom. 1976. Some important facts considering planting with rooted forest plants. For. Chron. 52: 266-273. https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc52266-6
  7. Bohm, W. 1979. Methods of studying root systems. Springer-Verlag. Berlin. 188 p.
  8. Brantley, E. F. and W. H. Conner. 1997. Growth of root-pruned seedlings in a thermally impacted area of South Carolina. Tree Planters' Notes 48: 76-80.
  9. Cuevas, E. and E. Medina. 1988. Nutrient dynamics within Amazonian forest II. Fine root growth, nutrient availability and leaf litter decomposition. Oecologia 76: 222- 235. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00379956
  10. Eis, S. 1974. Root system morphology of western hemlock, western red cedar, and Douglas-fir. Can. J. For. Res. 4: 28-38. https://doi.org/10.1139/x74-005
  11. Farmer, J. W. and S. R. Pezeshki. 2004. Effects of periodic flooding and root pruning on Quercus nuttallii seedlings. Wetlands Ecol. Manage. 12: 205- 214. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:WETL.0000034073.74476.cc
  12. Fitter, A. H. 1985. Functional significance of root morphology and root system architecture. In Ecological interactions in soil, special publication of the British Ecological Society, No. 4. Fitter, A. H. (eds). Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.
  13. Giardina, C. P., D. Binkley, M. G. Ryan, J. H. Fownes, and R. S. Senok. 2004. Belowground carbon cycling in a humid tropical forest decreases with fertilization. Oecol. 139: 545-550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-004-1552-0
  14. Gower, S. T. 1987. Relationship between mineral nutrient availability and fine root biomass in two Costa Rican tropical wet forest: a hypothesis. Biotropica 19: 171-175. https://doi.org/10.2307/2388741
  15. Green, J. J., L. A. Dawson, J. Proctor, E. I. Duff, and D. A. Elston. 2005. Fine root dynamics in a tropical rain forest is influenced by rainfall. Plant Soil 276: 23-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-004-0331-3
  16. Halter, M. R. and C. P. Chanway. 1993. Growth and root morphology of planted and naturally-regenerated Douglas-fir and Lodgepole pine. Ann. Sci. For. 50: 71-77. https://doi.org/10.1051/forest:19930105
  17. Harrington, C. A., J. C. Brissette, and W. C. Carlson. 1989. Root system structure in planted and seeded Loblolly and Shortleaf pine. For. Sci. 35: 469-480.
  18. Hulten, H. and K-Å. Jansson. 1978. Stability and root deformation of pine plants (Pinus silvestris). In: The Root Form of Planted Trees. Proc. Symp., 16-19 May 1978. Victoria, B.C., Canada. (Eds.) Van Eerden E. and Kinghorn J.M. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria. pp. 145-150.
  19. Jensen, P. and S. Petterson. 1977. Effects of some internal and environmental factors on ion uptake efficiency in roots of pine seedlings. Swed. Conifer. For. Proj. Tech. Rep. 6: 1-19.
  20. Lindgren, O. and G. Orlander. 1978. A study on root development and stability of 6-to-7-year old container plants. In The root form of planted trees. Proc. Symp., 16-19 May 1978. Victoria, B. C. Canada. (Eds.) Van Eerden E. and J. M. Kinghorn, British Columbia Ministry of Forests. Victoria. pp. 142-145.
  21. Lindstrom, A. and G. Rune. 1999. Root deformation in plantations of container-grown Scots pine trees: effects on root growth, tree stability and stem straightness. Plant and Soil 217: 29-37. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004662127182
  22. Nadelhoffer, K. J. and J. W. Raich. 1992. Fine root production estimates and below-ground carbon allocation in forest ecosystems. Ecology 73: 1377- 1390.
  23. Na, S. J., K. S. Woo, C. S. Kim, J. H. Yoon, H. H. Lee, and D. H. Lee. 2010. Comparison of above-ground growth characteristics between naturally regenerated and planted stands of Pinus densiflora for. erecta Uyeki in Gangwon Province. J. Korean For. Soc. 99: 323-330.
  24. Nguyen, P. V., D. I. Dickmann, K. S. Pregitzer, and R. Hendrick. 1990. Late-season changes in allocation of starch and sugar to shoots, coarse roots, and fine roots in two hybrid poplar clones. Tree Physiol. 7: 95-105. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/7.1-2-3-4.95
  25. Philipson, J. J. 1978. Roots and root systems in tropical trees: morphologic and ecologic aspects. p. 323-349 In: Tropical trees as living systems. Tomlinson, P. B. and M. H. Zimmerman (eds.), Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
  26. Plourde, A., C. Krause, and D. Lord. 2009. Spatial distribution, architecture, and development of the root system of Pinus banksiana Lamb. in natural and planted stands. For. Ecol. Manage. 258: 2143-2152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.08.016
  27. SAS Institute Inc. 1999. Statistical Analysis system's User's Guide Basics, Version, 8.2 ed. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
  28. Savill, P. S. 1983. The effects of drainage and ploughing of surface water gleys on rooting and windthrow of Sitka spruce in Northern Ireland. Forestry 49: 133-141.
  29. Sayer, E. J., E. V. J. Tanner, and A. W. Cheesman. 2006. Increased litterfall changes fine root distribution in a moist tropical forest. Plant Soil 281: 5-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-005-6334-x
  30. Sutton, R. F. and R. W. Tinus. 1983. Root and root system terminology. Forest Sci. 29, 137 p.
  31. Sundstrom, E. and M. Keane. 1999. Root architecture, early development and basal sweep in containerized and bare-rooted Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). Plant and Soil 217: 65-78. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004693031375
  32. Uyeki, H. 1928. On the physiognomy of Pinus densiflora growing in Korea and silvicultural treatment of its improvement. Bull. Agr. For. Coll. Suwon, Korea. 263 p.
  33. Yavitt, J. B. and S. J. Wright. 2001. Drought and irrigation effects on fine root dynamics in a tropical moist forest, Panama. Biotropica 33: 421-434. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2001.tb00196.x
  34. Yu, E. J., T. H. Kim, and H. J. Lee. 2004. Aroma-active compounds of Pinus densiflora (red pine) needles. Flavour and Frag. J. 19: 532-537. https://doi.org/10.1002/ffj.1337