Comparison of Tropical Tree Plantations with Secondary Forests of Similar Age

Abstract

The structure and dynamics of small plantations of pine (Pinus caribaea; 4 and 18.5 yr old in 1980) and mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla; 17 and 49 yr old in 1980) were compared with those of paired secondary forest stands of similar age and growing adjacent to each other under similar edaphic and climatic conditions. The study was conducted in the Luquillo Experimental Forest between 1980 and 1984. Comparisons included a variety of demographic, production, and nutrient cycling characteristics of stands. Although the small unmanaged plantations had a lower number of species in understory than paired secondary forests, the understory of the older plantations developed high species richness, including many of native tree species. After 17 yr, native tree species invaded the overstory of plantations. After 50 years the species richness in the understory of a mahogany plantation approached that of its paired secondary forest. Plantation understories had important ecological roles, including high nutrient accumulation. Understory plant tissue, particularly leaf litter, had higher nutrient concentration in pine plantations than in paired secondary forests. Understory biomass in plantations accumulated a higher proportion of the total nutrient inventory in the stand than did the understory in paired secondary forests. Plantations had higher aboveground biomass and net aboveground biomass production than paired secondary forests. Higher root densities and biomass were found in secondary forests as were greater depth of root penetration, higher nutrient concentration in roots, and more microsites where roots grow, than paired plantations. These characteristics may improve the capacity of secondary forests relative to that of paired plantations to rapidly recapture nutrients that become available by mineralization and that could otherwise be lost through hydrological or gaseous pathways. Both forest types accumulated nutrients and mass, but secondary forests recirculated nutrients much faster than the plantations, which tended to store the nutrients. Plantations had higher leaf fall and total litterfall, had litterfall with lower nutrient concentrations, accumulated more nutrients in litter, decomposed more litter on an annual basis, exhibited more variation in the spatial distribution of litter mass, and had more month—to—month variation in litter storage than paired secondary forests. Litter of the secondary forests, on the other hand, had a faster nutrient turnover than plantation litter, though plantations retranslocated more nutrients before leaf fall than did secondary forests. Nutrient retranslocation increased with plantation age. Plantations, particularly pine plantations, produced more litter mass per unit nutrient return than did paired secondary forests. Total nutrient storage in soil gave the best correlation with nutrient use efficiency estimated as element: mass ratios in various compartments. Nutrient use efficiency ranked differently among forest pairs, depending upon which nutrient and ecosystem parameters were being compared. Because of high retranslocation of nutrients, and in spite of greater nutrient "need" to produce higher biomass, plantations had nutrient demands on soil similar to paired secondary forests. Among the ecosystem parameters measured, nutrients in leaf fall correlated best with differences in soil nutrients across stands. Nutrient concentrations in understory species appeared to be a sensitive indicator of whole—stand nutrient use efficiency. Some of the observations of the study could be attributed to intrinsic differences between small unmanaged plantations and secondary forests, but many could be explained by species differences (i.e., timing of leaf fall), age of plantation (i.e., accumulation of biomass or species), or the relative importance of angiosperms and gymnosperms (i.e., nutritional quality of litter). The study challenges the conventional dogma with respect to differences between plantations and native successional ecosystems and underscores the dangers of generalizing about all tropical tree plantations or all natural tropical forests, or even extrapolating from one sector of the ecosystem to another.