Tree species identity drives soil organic carbon storage more than species mixing in major two-species mixtures (pine, oak, beech) in Europe

[1]  John A. Stanturf,et al.  Tamm Review: Influence of forest management activities on soil organic carbon stocks: A knowledge synthesis , 2020, Forest Ecology and Management.

[2]  F. Bravo,et al.  Stand growth and structure of mixed-species and monospecific stands of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and oak (Q. robur L., Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.) analysed along a productivity gradient through Europe , 2019, European Journal of Forest Research.

[3]  N. Hasselquist,et al.  Complementary water uptake depth of Quercus petraea and Pinus sylvestris in mixed stands during an extreme drought , 2019, Plant and Soil.

[4]  N. Sokol,et al.  Pathways of mineral‐associated soil organic matter formation: Integrating the role of plant carbon source, chemistry, and point of entry , 2018, Global change biology.

[5]  Sara E. Kuebbing,et al.  Evidence for the primacy of living root inputs, not root or shoot litter, in forming soil organic carbon. , 2018, The New phytologist.

[6]  F. Bravo,et al.  Soil carbon stocks and exchangeable cations in monospecific and mixed pine forests , 2018, European Journal of Forest Research.

[7]  Sui Yang Khoo,et al.  Soil Bulk Density Estimation Methods: A Review , 2018, Pedosphere.

[8]  B. Muys,et al.  Tree species effects are amplified by clay content in acidic soils , 2018, Soil Biology and Biochemistry.

[9]  F. Chapin,et al.  Plant diversity enhances productivity and soil carbon storage , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  H. Pretzsch,et al.  What Characteristics of Soil Fertility Can Improve in Mixed Stands of Scots Pine and European Beech Compared with Monospecific Stands? , 2018 .

[11]  Per B. Brockhoff,et al.  lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models , 2017 .

[12]  C. Nock,et al.  Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning relations in European forests depend on environmental context. , 2017, Ecology letters.

[13]  M. Mohan,et al.  Litter decomposition in forest ecosystems: a review , 2017 .

[14]  L. Finér,et al.  Tree species functional group is a more important driver of soil properties than tree species diversity across major European forest types , 2017 .

[15]  L. Vesterdal,et al.  Tree species diversity affects decomposition through modified micro-environmental conditions across European forests. , 2017, The New phytologist.

[16]  B. Muys,et al.  Tree Species Identity Shapes Earthworm Communities , 2017 .

[17]  Zhengwen Wang,et al.  Species and genetic diversity affect leaf litter decomposition in subtropical broadleaved forest in southern China , 2017 .

[18]  D. Hertel,et al.  Root competition between beech and oak: a hypothesis , 2017, Oecologia.

[19]  Axel Don,et al.  Soil organic carbon stocks are systematically overestimated by misuse of the parameters bulk density and rock fragment content , 2016 .

[20]  Filippo Bussotti,et al.  Positive biodiversity-productivity relationship predominant in global forests , 2016, Science.

[21]  T. Robson,et al.  Tree species richness induces strong intraspecific variability of beech (Fagus sylvatica) leaf traits and alleviates edaphic stress , 2016, European Journal of Forest Research.

[22]  Yunqi Wang,et al.  Tree species composition rather than biodiversity impacts forest soil organic carbon of Three Gorges, southwestern China , 2016 .

[23]  L. Finér,et al.  Is Tree Species Diversity or Species Identity the More Important Driver of Soil Carbon Stocks, C/N Ratio, and pH? , 2016, Ecosystems.

[24]  P. Formánek,et al.  Tree species identity mediates mechanisms of top soil carbon sequestration in a Norway spruce and European beech mixed forest , 2016, Annals of Forest Science.

[25]  B. Berg,et al.  Late stage pine litter decomposition: Relationship to litter N, Mn, and acid unhydrolyzable residue (AUR) concentrations and climatic factors , 2015 .

[26]  L. Vesterdal,et al.  Influences of evergreen gymnosperm and deciduous angiosperm tree species on the functioning of temperate and boreal forests , 2015, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[27]  Werner Rammer,et al.  Tree species diversity mitigates disturbance impacts on the forest carbon cycle , 2015, Oecologia.

[28]  Hans Pretzsch,et al.  Canopy space filling and tree crown morphology in mixed-species stands compared with monocultures , 2014 .

[29]  D. Bates,et al.  Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 , 2014, 1406.5823.

[30]  C. Leuschner,et al.  Higher subsoil carbon storage in species-rich than species-poor temperate forests , 2014 .

[31]  H. Miegroet,et al.  Forest Overstory Effect on Soil Organic Carbon Storage: A Meta-analysis , 2014 .

[32]  L. Vesterdal,et al.  Do tree species influence soil carbon stocks in temperate and boreal forests , 2013 .

[33]  R. Standish,et al.  Benefits of tree mixes in carbon plantings , 2013 .

[34]  M. Wiesmeier,et al.  Storage and drivers of organic carbon in forest soils of southeast Germany (Bavaria) - Implications for carbon sequestration , 2013 .

[35]  Walter Jetz,et al.  Mapping the biodiversity of tropical insects: species richness and inventory completeness of African sphingid moths , 2013 .

[36]  Andrew R. Smith,et al.  Tree species diversity interacts with elevated CO2 to induce a greater root system response , 2013, Global change biology.

[37]  P. Reich,et al.  Tree species diversity increases fine root productivity through increased soil volume filling , 2013 .

[38]  R. Aerts,et al.  Highly consistent effects of plant litter identity and functional traits on decomposition across a latitudinal gradient. , 2012, Ecology letters.

[39]  C. Langenbruch,et al.  Effects of beech (Fagus sylvatica), ash (Fraxinus excelsior) and lime (Tilia spec.) on soil chemical properties in a mixed deciduous forest , 2012, Plant and Soil.

[40]  E. Díaz-Pinés,et al.  Does tree species composition control soil organic carbon pools in Mediterranean mountain forests , 2011 .

[41]  D. Manning,et al.  Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property , 2011, Nature.

[42]  M. Olsson,et al.  Differences in soil properties in adjacent stands of Scots pine, Norway spruce and silver birch in SW Sweden , 2011 .

[43]  Sanford Weisberg,et al.  An R Companion to Applied Regression , 2010 .

[44]  Alain F. Zuur,et al.  A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems , 2010 .

[45]  M. Turpault,et al.  Impact of common European tree species on the chemical and physicochemical properties of fine earth: an unusual pattern , 2010 .

[46]  David Paré,et al.  Carbon accumulation in agricultural soils after afforestation: a meta‐analysis , 2010 .

[47]  I. Schmidt,et al.  Litterfall and nutrient return in five tree species in a common garden experiment. , 2009 .

[48]  E. Cienciala,et al.  Carbon storage in post-mining forest soil, the role of tree biomass and soil bioturbation , 2009 .

[49]  A. Zuur,et al.  Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R , 2009 .

[50]  Mathieu Jonard,et al.  Tree species mediated effects on leaf litter dynamics in pure and mixed stands of oak and beech , 2008 .

[51]  S. Chapman,et al.  What type of diversity yields synergy during mixed litter decomposition in a natural forest ecosystem? , 2007, Plant and Soil.

[52]  F. Hagedorn,et al.  How strongly can forest management influence soil carbon sequestration , 2007 .

[53]  G. Glatzel,et al.  The role of calcium uptake from deep soils for spruce (Picea abies) and beech (Fagus sylvatica) , 2006 .

[54]  L. Jost.  Entropy and diversity , 2006 .

[55]  A. Bolte,et al.  Interspecific competition impacts on the morphology and distribution of fine roots in European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) and Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) , 2006, European Journal of Forest Research.

[56]  S. Hättenschwiler,et al.  Soil animals alter plant litter diversity effects on decomposition. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[57]  Terry V. Callaghan,et al.  Leaf digestibility and litter decomposability are related in a wide range of subarctic plant species and types , 2004 .

[58]  T. Curt,et al.  Rooting strategy of naturally regenerated beech in Silver birch and Scots pine woodlands , 2003, Plant and Soil.

[59]  Sandra Díaz,et al.  Chemistry and toughness predict leaf litter decomposition rates over a wide spectrum of functional types and taxa in central Argentina , 2004, Plant and Soil.

[60]  D. Binkley,et al.  Nutritional interactions in mixed species forests: a synthesis , 2001 .

[61]  C. E. SHANNON,et al.  A mathematical theory of communication , 1948, MOCO.

[62]  Björn Berg,et al.  Litter decomposition and organic matter turnover in northern forest soils , 2000 .

[63]  Karin S. Fassnacht,et al.  Comparison of the litterfall and forest floor organic matter and nitrogen dynamics of upland forest ecosystems in north central Wisconsin , 1999 .

[64]  Karin S. Fassnacht,et al.  Comparison of the litterfall and forest floor organic matter and nitrogen dynamics of upland forest ecosystems in north central Wisconsin , 1999 .

[65]  L. Vesterdal,et al.  Forest floor chemistry under seven tree species along a soil fertility gradient , 1998 .

[66]  R. K. Dixon,et al.  Carbon Pools and Flux of Global Forest Ecosystems , 1994, Science.