Forest Ecosystem Responses to Acid Deposition - Hydrogen Ion Budget and Nitrogen/Tree Growth Model Approaches

  • Folke Andersson
  • Torbjörn Fagerström
  • S. Ingvar Nilsson
Part of the NATO Conference Series book series (NATOCS, volume 4)


In order to assess the nature and the extent of acid deposition in the environment an ecosystem approach is often recommended. What do we then mean with ecosystem approach? - It can be defined as studies on an areal basis of basic ecosystem processes such as primary production, decomposition, mineralization and leaching and the integration of these processes as appearing in the biogeochemical cycling of elements. Preferably, there ought to be a coupling between trophic levels or processes representing different levels in order to describe and analyze the time behaviour of different functional parts of the ecosystem.


Fine Root Acid Deposition Root Uptake Ecosystem Approach Litter Mineralization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    S. Brakenheim. Technical Report, Swedish Coniferous Forest Project 15 (1978).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. Bringmark. Silva Fennica 11: 201 (1977).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Mayer. Göttinger Bodenkundliche Berichte 19: 1 (1971).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Mayer and B. Ulrich. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-23: 737 (1976).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Sollins, C.C Grier, K. Cromack, Jr., F. Glenn and R. Rogel. The internal nutrient cycle of an old-growth Douglas-fir stand in Western Oregon, Ecological Monographs (in press).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    H. Staff and B. Berg. Silva Fennica 11: 210 (1977).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J.O. Reuss. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-23:791 (1976).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    I.T. Rosenqvist. Sur Jord - Surt Vann, Oslo. (1977).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    B. Tveite. Report, SNSF-project (1977).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Odén . USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-23:1 (1976).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E.T. Gjessing, A. Henriksen, M. Johannessen and R.F. Wright. SNSF-project, Research Report 6: 65 (1976).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    N.M. Johnson, G.E. Likens, F.H. Bormann and R.S. Pierce. Geochlmica et Chosmochimica Acta 32: 531 (1968).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    C,O. Tamm, Svenska Skogsvorsdförbundets Tidskrift 75: 189 (1977).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    I. Nilsson. (this conference).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    C.O, Tamm. Ambio 5: 235 (1976).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    N. Maimer. Ambio 5: 231 (1976).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    E. Bååth, B. Berg, U. Lohm, B. Lundgren, H. Lundkvist, T. Rosswall, B. Söderström and A. Wirén. (this conference).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    T. Fagerström. Internal Report, Swedish Coniferous Forest Project 51: (1977).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    T. Fagerström and U. Lohm. Oecologia 26: 305 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Folke Andersson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Torbjörn Fagerström
    • 1
    • 2
  • S. Ingvar Nilsson
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Swedish Coniferous Forest ProjectUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Environmental ResearchSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations