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

Ecological Processes

Table 4 Comparisons for carbon content (t C ha⁻¹) of the different components of trees category (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	LEA	BRA	BAR	WOO	COR	FIR
(i)	Forest types	PF	32.57b	19.39b	22.50b	113.80b	25.56b	9.89
		VRH	10.93a	8.88a	10.33a	52.13a	11.63a	13.13
		F	203.86	62.95	62.02	62.91	60.27	3.15
		p	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	0.084
(ii)	A: Retention types	AG	30.01b	19.00b	22.10b	111.52b	24.85b	11.2
		DR	3.40a	4.89a	5.68a	28.69a	6.41a	13.9
		F	201.62	124.35	116.50	123.48	145.23	1.50
		p	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	0.230
	B: YAH	2	17.66	13.62	16.05	80.07	17.07	16.68
		4	16.75	12.69	14.80	74.48	16.43	16.35
		9	15.58	9.92	11.00	57.92	14.95	7.78
		12	16.93	11.77	13.82	69.17	14.93	10.80
		18	16.61	11.73	13.79	68.91	14.79	11.10
		F	0.13	0.94	1.20	0.97	0.37	2.36
		p	0.972	0.455	0.332	0.439	0.827	0.075
	Interactions AxB	F	0.06	0.11	0.09	0.10	0.54	1.33
	Interactions AxB	p	0.993	0.979	0.985	0.981	0.709	0.283

LEA: leaves; BRA: branches; BAR: bark; WOO: wood; COR: coarse roots; and FIR: fine roots
F: Fisher test, p probability. Different letters show significant differences in means using Tukey tests at p < 0.05