Carbon pool dynamics after variable retention harvesting in Nothofagus pumilio forests of Tierra del Fuego

Ecological Processes

Table 5 Comparisons for carbon content (t C ha⁻¹) of the components of the deadwood, understory and soil layer categories (see Table 1): (i) simple ANOVAs considering primary unmanaged forests (PF) and stands under variable retention harvesting (VRH), and (ii) multiple ANOVAs considering different retention types in harvested stands (AG: aggregated retention; DR: dispersed retention) and years after harvesting (YAH) as main factors

	Treatment	Level	CWD	DT	WBS	LUP	DUP	LIT	SOI
(i)	Forest types	PF	41.60a	17.62b	4.42	0.22a	0.08a	1.56b	151.41
		VRH	86.36b	9.05a	5.86	0.68b	0.46b	0.66a	153.75
		F	20.99	8.17	3.15	42.51	15.44	143.78	0.05
		p	< 0.001	0.007	0.084	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	0.827
(ii)	A: Retention types	AG	42.97a	12.40	4.99	0.31a	0.05a	1.53b	140.65
		DR	103.50b	7.73	6.21	0.83b	0.62b	0.32a	158.93
		F	24.65	1.67	1.50	32.5	35.9	150.89	2.76
		p	< 0.001	0.206	0.231	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	0.107
	B: YAH	2	73.85	6.75ab	7.43	0.51	0.33ab	1.01	182.19b
		4	43.62	8.88ab	7.30	0.69	0.22a	0.94	133.47ab
		9	72.35	20.79b	3.50	0.68	0.76b	0.84	121.83a
		12	86.82	10.85ab	4.81	0.46	0.09a	0.94	159.84ab
		18	89.52	3.05a	4.95	0.50	0.28a	0.90	151.61ab
		F	1.79	2.71	2.34	1.08	5.72	0.32	3.64
		p	0.158	0.049	0.078	0.385	0.002	0.864	0.016
	Interactions AxB	F	1.65	2.11	1.35	3.30	4.58	0.19	0.94
	Interactions AxB	p	0.188	0.104	0.276	0.024	0.005	0.941	0.454

CWD: coarse woody debris; DT: stems and coarse roots of dead trees (DET + CRT), WBS: wood and bark in soil; LUP: live understory plants; DUP: dead understory plants; LIT: litter; and SOI: soil
F Fisher test, p: probability. Different letters show significant differences in means using Tukey tests at p < 0.05