You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
Mendeley readers
| Title |
Carbon and nutrient stocks of three Fabaceae trees used for forest restoration and subjected to fertilization in Amazonia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1590/0001-3765201720160734 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
ROBERTO K. JAQUETTI, JOSÉ FRANCISCO C. GONÇALVES |
| Abstract |
Amazonia is crucial to global carbon cycle. Deforestation continues to be one of the main causes of the release of C into the atmosphere, but forest restoration plantations can reverse this scenario. However, there is still diffuse information about the C and nutrient stocks in the vegetation biomass. We investigated the carbon and nutrient stocks of Fabaceae trees (Inga edulis, Schizolobium amazonicum and Dipteryx odorata) subjected to fertilization treatments (T1 - no fertilization; T2 - chemical; T3 - organic; and T4 - organic and chemical fertilization) in a degraded area of the Balbina Hydroelectric Dam, AM - Brazil. As an early successional species, I. edulis stocked more C and nutrients than the other two species independent of the fertilization treatment, and S. amazonicum stocked more C than D. odorata under T1 and T4. The mixed species plantation had the potential to stock 4.1 Mg C ha-1 year-1, while I. edulis alone could stock 9.4 Mg C ha-1 year-1. Mixing species that rapidly assimilate C and are of significant ecological and commercial value (e.g., Fabaceae trees) represents a good way to restore degraded areas. Our results suggest that the tested species be used for forest restoration in Amazonia. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 43 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Professor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Unknown | 9 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 33% |
| Environmental Science | 9 | 21% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 11 | 26% |