Skip to main content

Table 3 Comparisons for carbon content (t C ha−1) of total, biomass allocations and categories of forest reservoirs (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

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

 

Treatment

Level

Total

Above-ground

Below-ground

Trees

Deadwood

Understory plants

Soil layer

(i)

Forest types

PF

440.63a

245.38b

195.25

223.72b

63.64a

0.30a

152.98

VRH

363.87b

177.60a

186.28

107.04a

101.28b

1.14b

154.41

F

15.18

21.48

0.59

70.60

13.24

32.21

0.02

p

< 0.001

< 0.001

0.466

< 0.001

< 0.001

< 0.001

0.893

(ii)

A: Retention types

AG

421.54b

236.67b

184.87

218.66b

60.35a

0.36a

142.18

DR

341.11a

154.28a

186.83

62.99a

117.43b

1.45b

159.24

F

15.97

31.40

0.02

135.79

17.41

44.5

2.41

p

< 0.001

< 0.001

0.876

< 0.001

< 0.001

< 0.001

0.131

B: YAH

2

433.21b

207.92

225.29b

161.14

88.03

0.84ab

183.20b

4

346.59ab

170.90

175.70ab

151.49

59.80

0.91ab

134.41ab

9

337.90a

186.17

151.73a

117.15

96.65

1.44b

122.67a

12

401.20ab

208.42

192.78ab

137.41

102.47

0.55a

160.77ab

18

387.73ab

203.97

183.76ab

136.92

97.52

0.78ab

152.51ab

F

3.07

1.00

3.71

1.25

1.25

3.18

3.66

p

0.031

0.421

0.014

0.312

0.312

0.027

0.015

Interactions AxB

F

2.65

1.64

1.50

0.20

2.21

4.46

0.95

p

0.053

0.189

0.226

0.939

0.092

0.006

0.452

  1. F: Fisher test, p: probability. Different letters show significant differences in means using Tukey tests at p < 0.05