With a personal account, you can read up to 100 articles each month for free.
Already have an account?
- Access everything in the JPASS collection
- Read the full-text of every article
- Download up to 10 article PDFs to save and keep
- Access everything in the JPASS collection
- Read the full-text of every article
- Download up to 120 article PDFs to save and keep
Purchase a PDF
How does it work?
- Select the purchase option.
-
Check out using a credit card or bank account with
PayPal . - Read your article online and download the PDF from your email or your account.
(1) Production, nitrogen and phosphorus return, and decomposition of leaf litter of the invasive alien, Acacia saligna, was compared with that of the indigenous sclerophyllous shrub, Leucospermum parile, in sand-plain lowland fynbos with acid soils low in P during the early stages of alien invasion. The same was done for A. cyclops and Pterocelastrus tricuspidatus in strandveld with alkaline soils high in P (2) The Acacia spp. had twice the leaf N concentrations of the indigenous species, whereas P concentrations were highest in the strandveld species. (3) The Acacia spp. tended to produce more litter, with three times the N content of that of the indigenous species. No significant differences in P return were found between the acacias and indigenous species in either vegetation. (4) Decomposition turnover times were longer in the fynbos species than those of the strandveld. Nitrogen was immobilized in the leaf litter of the indigenous species, while the N contents of the acacias varied little. Phosphorus was immobilized in the fynbos species compared with a release of about 50% from P tricuspidatus after 2 years. (5) Soil N concentrations and litter-layer N contents were elevated under acacia canopies. (6) The N status of the fynbos and strandveld ecosystems is elevated by the invasion of alien acacias. The results for P cycling are equivocal and P availability does not appear to limit plant growth in the strandveld.
Journal of Applied Ecology publishes novel papers that apply ecological concepts, theories, models and methods to the management of biological resources in their widest sense. The editors encourage contributions that use applied ecological problems to test and develop basic ecological theory, although there must be clear potential for improving management. The journal includes all major themes in applied ecology: conservation biology, global change, environmental pollution, wildlife and habitat management, land use and management, aquatic resources, restoration ecology, and the management of pests, weeds and disease. Articles that interact with related fields are welcomed providing that their relevance to applied ecology is clear. Further details are available at www.journalofappliedecology.org. JSTOR provides a digital archive of the print version of The Journal of Applied Ecology. The electronic version of The Journal of Applied Ecology is available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117972213/home. Authorised users may be able to access the full text articles at this site.
The British Ecological Society is a welcoming and inclusive home for everyone interested in ecology. The Society was established in 1913 and has over 6,000 members worldwide, bringing people together across regional, national and global scales to advance ecological science. The BES's many activities include the publication of a range of scientific literature, including seven internationally renowned journals, the organisation and sponsorship of a wide variety of meetings, the funding of numerous grant schemes, education work and policy work.
This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our
Journal of Applied Ecology
© 1991 British Ecological Society