NOTICE -- The LBA-ECO Project website is no longer being supported.  This archive is a snapshot, as it existed in 2013, of the LBA-ECO website, maintained by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, and now archived at the ORNL DAAC.  Links to external websites may be inactive. Final data products from the LBA project can be found at the ORNL DAAC.
banner
banner banner banner banner banner banner
banner banner banner banner banner banner banner
home aboutlibrarynews archivecontacts banner

spacer
banner
Investigations
Overview
Abstracts & Profiles
Publications
Research Sites
Meetings
Synthesis Groups
LBA-HYDROMET
LBA-Air-ECO
Logistics
Overview
Field Support
Travel
Visa
Shipping
Data
  Overview
Find LBA Data
Investigator Checklist
Process & Policy
Documentation & Archive
Training & Education
  Overview
Activities Summary
T&E Goals
Student Opportunities
  Folha Amazônica
 
spacer

Investigation:

ND-04 (Fernandes / Wandelli)

LBA Dataset ID:

ND04_TERMITE_MOUNDS

Originator(s):

ACKERMAN, I.

Point(s) of Contact:

ORNL DAAC User Services Office Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37 (ornldaac@ornl.gov)

Dataset Abstract:

This dataset examines the impact of termite mounds on an array of soil properties at a secondary forest site in Central Amazonia. Soil physical, chemical, hydraulic, and microbiological properties are measured in comparison to adjacent control soil. Comparisons of some measures of carbon and nitrogen cycling are also made. This dataset also contains a comparison of the termite species composition of low- and high-diversity agroforestry systems with primary forest.

Beginning Date:

1999-12-15

Ending Date:

2002-06-26

Metadata Last Updated on:

2012-03-29

Data Status:

Archived

Access Constraints:

PUBLIC

Data Center URL:

http://daac.ornl.gov/

Distribution Contact(s):

ORNL DAAC User Services Office Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37 (ornldaac@ornl.gov)

Access Instructions:

PUBLIC

Data Access:

IMPORTANT: The LBA-ECO Project website is no longer being supported. Links to external websites may be inactive. Final data products from the LBA project can be found at the ORNL DAAC. Please follow the fair use guidelines found in the dataset documentation when using or citing LBA data.
Datafile(s):

LBA-ECO ND-04 Termite Mound and Soil Characterization, Amazonas, Brazil: 1999-2001:  http://daac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/dsviewer.pl?ds_id=1072

Documentation/Other Supporting Documents:

LBA-ECO ND-04 Termite Mound and Soil Characterization, Amazonas, Brazil: 1999-2001:  http://daac.ornl.gov/LBA/guides/ND04_Termite_Mounds.html

Citation Information - Other Details:

Ackerman, I. 2012. LBA-ECO ND-04 Termite Mound and Soil Characterization, Amazonas, Brazil: 1999-2001. Data set. Available on-line [http://daac.ornl.gov] from Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Active Archive Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, U.S.A. http://dx.doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1072

Keywords - Theme:

Parameter Topic Term Source Sensor
MICRONUTRIENTS/TRACE ELEMENTS LAND SURFACE SOILS LABORATORY AA (ATOMIC ABSORPTION SPECTROMETER)
SOIL BULK DENSITY LAND SURFACE SOILS LABORATORY WEIGHING BALANCE
SOIL INFILTRATION LAND SURFACE SOILS LABORATORY SOIL CORING DEVICE
SOIL STRUCTURE LAND SURFACE SOILS FIELD INVESTIGATION HUMAN OBSERVER
SOIL TEXTURE LAND SURFACE SOILS FIELD INVESTIGATION HUMAN OBSERVER
SPECIES/POPULATION INTERACTIONS BIOSPHERE ECOLOGICAL DYNAMICS FIELD INVESTIGATION HUMAN OBSERVER

Uncontrolled Theme Keyword(s):  BIODIVERSITY, BULK DENSITY, CARBON, INFILTRATION, MACROFAUNA, NITROGEN, SOIL FAUNA, SOIL TEXTURE, SOIL WATER CONTENT, SOIL WATER-REPELLENCY, TERMITE, TERMITE MOUNDS, TERMITE SPECIES, WATER-STABLE AGGREGATES

Keywords - Place (with associated coordinates):

Region
(click to view profile)
Site
(click to view profile)
North South East West
Amazonas (Manaus) EMBRAPA DAS Experiment - km 54 (CPAA) -2.51800 -2.51800 -60.03000 -60.03000

Related Publication(s):

Ackerman, I. L., W. G. Teixeira, S. J. Riha, J. Lehmann, and E. C. M. Fernandes. 2007. The impact of mound-building termites on surface soil properties in a secondary forest of Central Amazonia. Applied Soil Ecology 37: 267-276.

Ackerman, I.L. 2006. Termites in ecosystems of central Amazonia: species composition, soil properties, and nutrient cycling. Thesis, Cornell University.

Ackerman, I.L., R. Constantino, H.G. Gauch, J. Lehmann, S.J. Riha, and E.C.M. Fernandes. 2009. Termite (Insecta: Isoptera) Species Composition in a Primary Rain Forest and Agroforests in Central Amazonia. Biotropica 41(2):226-233.

Data Characteristics (Entity and Attribute Overview):

Data Characteristics:

<pre><p class=i2 style=font-family: times, sans-serif; font-size:11pt; >

File Organization and Contents</b>



Data are provided in 15 comma-delimited ASCII files. </b>



===============================================================

File #1: Land_use_species_composition.csv </b>



File Organization and Contents</b>

Col. Heading Units/format Variable description

1 Sample_ID Sample identification composed of a letter code for landuse, the transect identification number ( 1-3) and the transect section number (1-10)

2 Land_use Dominant land use in the sampling area: Home garden agroforest, Palm-based agroforest or Primary forest

3 Transect_num Transect identification number within each sampling site

4 Agnathotermes_glaber Columns 4 through 70 represent the presence (1) or absence (0) of the termite species named in the column heading

5 Amitermes_excellens

6 Angularitermes_sp

7 Anhangatermes_macarthuri

8 Anoplotermes_banksi

9 Anoplotermes_sp_06

10 Anoplotermes_sp_07

11 Anoplotermes_sp_09

12 Anoplotermes_sp_18

13 Armitermes_holmgreni

14 Atlantitermes_snyderi

15 Cornicapritermes_mucronatus

16 Cylindrotermes_parvignathus

17 Dihoplotermes_sp

18 Dolichorhinotermes_cf_longilabius

19 Genuotermes_spinifer

20 Nasutitermes_sp

21 Nasutitermes_major

22 Neocapritermes_talpa

23 Neocapritermes_unicornis

24 Orthognathotermes_humilis

25 Rotunditermes_bragantinus

26 Ruptitermes_sp_01

27 Ruptitermes_sp_02

28 Termes_fatalis

29 Termes_medioculatus

30 Anoplotermes_sp_05

31 Anoplotermes_sp_16

32 Embiratermes_cf_brevinasus

33 Nasutitermes_acangassu

34 Nasutitermes_guayanae

35 Nasutitermes_macrocephalus

36 Rhinotermes_marginalis

37 Spinitermes_trispinosus

38 Araujotermes_parvellus

39 Paraconvexitermes_junceus

40 Crepititermes_verruculosus

41 Nasutitermes_surinamensis

42 Neocapritermes_pumilis

43 Velocitermes_n_sp

44 Anoplotermes_sp_15

45 Atlantitermes_sp

46 Coptotermes_testaceus

47 Labiotermes_pelliceus

48 Nasutitermes_similis

49 Neocapritermes_angusticeps

50 Neocapritermes_braziliensis

51 Anoplotermes_sp_04

52 Anoplotermes_sp_10

53 Anoplotermes_sp_13

54 Anoplotermes_sp_19

55 Anoplotermes_sp_20

56 Neocapritermes_taracua

57 Planicapritermes_planiceps

58 Cyrilliotermes_angulariceps

59 Armitermes_peruanus

60 Orthognathotermes_cf_brevipilosus

61 Syntermes_molestus

62 Anoplotermes_sp_12

63 Anoplotermes_sp_11

64 Anoplotermes_sp_02

65 Cornitermes_pugnax

66 Anoplotermes_sp_01

67 Anoplotermes_sp_17

68 Anoplotermes_sp_03

69 Anoplotermes_sp_14

70 Heterotermes_tenuis



Example data records from File #1: Land_use_species_composition.csv </b>

Sample_ID,Land_use,Transect_num,Agnathotermes_glaber,Amitermes_excellens,Angularitermes_sp,Anhangatermes_macarthuri,Anoplotermes_banksi,Anoplotermes_sp_06,Anoplotermes_sp_07,Anoplotermes_sp_09,Anoplotermes_sp_18,Armitermes_holmgreni,Atlantitermes_snyderi,Cornicapritermes_mucronatus,Cylindrotermes_parvignathus,Dihoplotermes_sp,Dolichorhinotermes_cf_longilabius,Genuotermes_spinifer,Nasutitermes_sp,Nasutitermes_major,Neocapritermes_talpa,Neocapritermes_unicornis,Orthognathotermes_humilis,Rotunditermes_bragantinus,Ruptitermes_sp_01,Ruptitermes_sp_02,Termes_fatalis,Termes_medioculatus,Anoplotermes_sp_05,Anoplotermes_sp_16,Embiratermes_cf_brevinasus,Nasutitermes_acangassu,Nasutitermes_guayanae,Nasutitermes_macrocephalus,Rhinotermes_marginalis,Spinitermes_trispinosus,Araujotermes_parvellus,Paraconvexitermes_junceus,Crepititermes_verruculosus,Nasutitermes_surinamensis,Neocapritermes_pumilis,Velocitermes_n_sp,Anoplotermes_sp_15,Atlantitermes_sp,Coptotermes_testaceus,Labiotermes_pelliceus,Nasutitermes_similis,Neocapritermes_angusticeps,Neocapritermes_braziliensis,Anoplotermes_sp_04,Anoplotermes_sp_10,Anoplotermes_sp_13,Anoplotermes_sp_19,Anoplotermes_sp_20,Neocapritermes_taracua,Planicapritermes_planiceps,Cyrilliotermes_angulariceps,Armitermes_peruanus,Orthognathotermes_cf_brevipilosus,Syntermes_molestus,Anoplotermes_sp_12,Anoplotermes_sp_11,Anoplotermes_sp_02,Cornitermes_pugnax,Anoplotermes_sp_01,Anoplotermes_sp_17,Anoplotermes_sp_03,Anoplotermes_sp_14,Heterotermes_tenuis

HGA11,Home garden agroforest,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0

HGA12,Home garden agroforest,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0

HGA13,Home garden agroforest,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0

HGA14,Home garden agroforest,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0

HGA15,Home garden agroforest,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0

HGA16,Home garden agroforest,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0

HGA17,Home garden agroforest,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0



===============================================================

File #2: Microbial_groups.csv </b>



File Organization and Contents</b>

Col. Heading Variable description

1 Land_use Dominant land use in the sampling area: 7-8 year old Secondary forest

2 Field_treatment Sampling location: Termite mound or Control soil (adjacent to termite mound)

3 Sample_no Sample number: 1 - 5

4 Sample_wet_wt Weight of sample at field moisture in grams (g)

5 Sample_dry_wt Weight of sample after drying in an oven at 105 degrees C in grams (g)

6 Water_wt Weight of water in sample under field moisture conditions in grams (g)

7 GWC Gravimetric soil content (%) calculated as water weight divided by sample dry weight

8 Dilution Dilution factor of sample in water for analysis

9 Lab_rep Replicate number

10 Color Color of the Sarathchandra's medium after a 5 day incubation

11 Ammonifiers Presence or absence of ammonifiers in the sample: 0 indicates absence and 1 indicates presence

12 Cellulose_decomposers Presence or absence of cellulose decomposers in the sample: 0 indicates absence and 1 indicates presence



Example data records from File #2: Microbial_groups.csv </b>

Land_use,Field_treatment,Sample_no,Sample_wet_wt,Sample_dry_wt,Water_wt,GWC,Dilution,Lab_rep,Color,Ammonifiers,Cellulose_decomposers

Secondary forest,Termite mound,1,10,7.599,2.401,0.32,1000,1,pink,1,1

Secondary forest,Termite mound,1,10,7.599,2.401,0.32,1000,2,yellow,1,1

Secondary forest,Termite mound,1,10,7.599,2.401,0.32,1000,3,yellow,1,1

Secondary forest,Termite mound,1,10,7.599,2.401,0.32,10000,1,yellow,1,1

Secondary forest,Termite mound,1,10,7.599,2.401,0.32,10000,2,pink,1,1

Secondary forest,Termite mound,1,10,7.599,2.401,0.32,10000,3,yellow,1,1

Secondary forest,Termite mound,1,10,7.599,2.401,0.32,100000,1,rose,1,1

Secondary forest,Termite mound,1,10,7.599,2.401,0.32,100000,2,gold,0,0

Secondary forest,Termite mound,1,10,7.599,2.401,0.32,100000,3,yellow,1,0

Secondary forest,Termite mound,1,10,7.599,2.401,0.32,1000000,1,gold,0,0

Secondary forest,Termite mound,1,10,7.599,2.401,0.32,1000000,2,gold,0,0

Secondary forest,Termite mound,1,10,7.599,2.401,0.32,1000000,3,gold,0,0

Secondary forest,Termite mound,1,10,7.599,2.401,0.32,10000000,1,gold,0,0

Secondary forest,Termite mound,1,10,7.599,2.401,0.32,10000000,2,gold,0,0

Secondary forest,Termite mound,1,10,7.599,2.401,0.32,10000000,3,gold,0,0



===============================================================

File #3: Soda_lime_data.csv </b>



File Organization and Contents</b>

Col. Heading Variable description

1 Land_use Dominant land use at the sampling site: Pasture or Secondary forest

2 Location_ID Termite mound identfication code: 6, 146, or 178

3 Field_treatment Sampling location: Termite mound, Control soil (adjacent to termite mound), or Blank

4 Litter For the control soil samples, one replicate retained surface litter (1) while the other did not (0)

5 Rep Replicate number: 1 - 8

6 Date_start Date the soda lime was inserted (yyyy/mm/dd)

7 Time_start Time of day the soda lime was inserted reported as hh:mm

8 Date_end Date the soda lime was removed (yyyy/mm/dd)

9 Time_end Time of day the soda lime was removed reported as hh:mm

10 Total_time Total length of time the soda lime was exposed in days

11 Weight_start Weight of the soda lime prior to exposure reported in grams (g)

12 Weight_end Weight of the soda lime after exposure reported in grams (g)

13 CO2_stored_gross Amount of CO2 stored in the soda lime in grams calculated as the difference between weight start and weight end reported in grams (g)

14 CO2_stored_corrected Amount of CO2 stored in the soda lime in grams minus any CO2 stored in the blank reported in grams (g)

15 CO2_C_stored Amount of carbon as CO2 stored in the soda lime based on the blank corrected calculation of CO2 stored reported in grams (g)

16 CO2_C_water_corrected Amount of carbon as CO2 stored in the soda lime corrected with the Grogan correction for water formed reported in grams (g)

17 CO2_C_emission_chamber Amount of carbon emitted as CO2 per day in the chamber (g CO2-C/day)

18 CO2_C_emission_per_m2 Amount of carbon emitted as CO2 per day divided by the area of the chamber (g CO2-C/day/m2)





Missing data or data not reported are represented by -9999

Example data records from File #3: Soda_lime_data.csv </b>

Land_use,Location_ID,Field_treatment,Litter,Rep,Date_start,Time_start,Date_end,Time_end,Total_time,Weight_start,Weight_end,CO2_stored_gross,CO2_stored_corrected,CO2_C_stored,CO2_C_water_corrected,CO2_C_emission_chamber,CO2_C_emission_per_m2

Secondary forest,-9999,Termite mound,0,1,2002/06/24,14:03,2002/06/25,14:11,1.006,79.663,81.643,1.98,1.526,0.416,0.703,0.699,22.265

Secondary forest,-9999,Control soil,1,1,2002/06/24,14:06,2002/06/25,14:12,1.004,82.969,84.834,1.865,1.411,0.385,0.65,0.648,20.615

Secondary forest,-9999,Control soil,0,1,2002/06/24,14:09,2002/06/25,14:12,1.002,75.743,77.993,2.25,1.796,0.49,0.828,0.826,26.295

Secondary forest,6,Termite mound,0,2,2002/06/24,14:13,2002/06/25,14:13,1,96.183,98.415,2.232,1.778,0.485,0.819,0.819,26.085

Secondary forest,6,Control soil,1,2,2002/06/24,14:15,2002/06/25,14:13,0.999,82.64,84.871,2.231,1.777,0.485,0.819,0.82,26.107

Secondary forest,6,Control soil,0,2,2002/06/24,14:16,2002/06/25,14:14,0.999,81.5,83.398,1.898,1.444,0.394,0.666,0.666,21.215

Secondary forest,178,Termite mound,0,3,2002/06/24,14:19,2002/06/25,14:14,0.997,87.213,89.393,2.18,1.726,0.471,0.796,0.798,25.411

Secondary forest,178,Control soil,1,3,2002/06/24,14:21,2002/06/25,14:15,0.996,78.977,81.433,2.456,2.002,0.546,0.923,0.927,29.495

Secondary forest,178,Control soil,0,3,2002/06/24,14:22,2002/06/25,14:15,0.995,94.068,97.058,2.99,2.536,0.692,1.169,1.175,37.388



===============================================================

File #4: Soil_hydrophobicity.csv </b>



File Organization and Contents</b>

Col. Heading Units/format Variable description

1 Land_use Dominant land use in the samling area: Secondary forest

2 Field_treatment Sample type: Termite mound, Burnt mound (termite mound with evidence of recent burning) or Control soil (adjacent to termite mound)

3 Sample_no Laboratory sample number: 1 - 16

4 Initial_weight g Weight of sample at the start of the experiment in grams (g)

5 Weight_15s g Weight of sample after 15 seconds of water exposure in grams (g)

6 Weight_30s g Weight of sample after 30 seconds of water exposure in grams (g)

7 H2O_absorb_15s g Amount of water absorbed by sample after 15 seconds in grams (g) calculated as sample weight after 15 seconds of exposure minus initial sample weight

8 H2O_absorb_30s g Amount of water absorbed by sample after 30 seconds in grams (g) calculated as sample weight after 30 seconds of exposure minus initial sample weight

9 Absorption_rate_15s g/min Rate of water absorption in grams of water per minute calculated as amount of water absorbed after 15 seconds divided by total time in minutes

10 Absorption_rate_30s g/min Rate of water absorption in grams of water per minute calculated as amount of water absorbed after 30 seconds divided by total time in minutes



Missing data is reported as -9999



Example data records from File #4: Soil_hydrophobicity.csv </b>

Land_use,Field_treatment,Sample_no,Initial_weight,Weight_15s,Weight_30s,H2O_absorb_15s,H2O_absorb_30s,Absorption_rate_15s,Absorption_rate_30s

Secondary forest,Termite mound,1,9.022,9.088,9.155,0.066,0.133,0.264,0.177

Secondary forest,Termite mound,2,12.324,12.404,12.468,0.08,0.144,0.32,0.192

Secondary forest,Termite mound,3,9.899,9.93,9.986,0.031,0.087,0.124,0.116

Secondary forest,Termite mound,4,8.464,8.571,8.628,0.107,0.164,0.428,0.219

Secondary forest,Termite mound,5,-9999,8.49,8.54,-9999,-9999,-9999,-9999

Secondary forest,Termite mound,6,11.666,12.159,12.414,0.493,0.748,1.972,0.997

Secondary forest,Termite mound,7,10.334,10.404,10.45,0.07,0.116,0.28,0.155

Secondary forest,Termite mound,8,7.686,7.749,7.779,0.063,0.093,0.252,0.124

...[records intentionally omitted]

Secondary forest,Control soil,14,6.799,7.753,8.158,0.954,1.359,3.816,1.812

Secondary forest,Control soil,15,9.252,11.417,12.272,2.165,3.02,8.66,4.027

Secondary forest,Control soil,16,6.829,7.92,8.231,1.091,1.402,4.364,1.869

Secondary forest,Burnt mound,1,6.876,7.689,8.634,0.813,1.758,3.252,2.344

Secondary forest,Burnt mound,2,6.135,-9999,7.04,-9999,-9999,-9999,-9999

Secondary forest,Burnt mound,3,6.463,7.302,-9999,-9999,-9999,-9999,-9999

Secondary forest,Burnt mound,4,4.877,5.118,-9999,-9999,-9999,-9999,-9999



===============================================================

File #5: Soil_infiltration.csv</b>

Data description: Soil infiltration measured September 5 2000 for the secondary forest (capoeira) site



File Organization and Contents</b>

Col. Heading Units/format Variable description

1 Land_use Dominant land use in the sampling area: Secondary forest

2 Location_ID Sampling location ID (see attached documentation for georeferences)

3 Field_treatment Sampling location: Termite mound or Control soil (adjacent to termite mound)

4 Infiltration_rate L/min/m2 Rate of infiltration into the soil measured in liters per minute per meter squared (L/min/m2)



Example data records from File #5:Soil_infiltration.csv </b>

Land_use,Location_ID,Field_treatment,Infiltration_rate

Secondary forest,36,Termite mound,6.6

Secondary forest,36,Control,4.5

Secondary forest,8,Termite mound,8.8

Secondary forest,8,Control,1.2

Secondary forest,17,Termite mound,45.2

Secondary forest,17,Control,1.7

Secondary forest,13,Termite mound,36.8

Secondary forest,13,Control,5.4

Secondary forest,32,Termite mound,1.2

Secondary forest,32,Control,0.8

Secondary forest,89,Termite mound,1.5

Secondary forest,89,Control,1.6

Secondary forest,91,Termite mound,9.5

Secondary forest,91,Control,3.5

Secondary forest,1,Termite mound,35.6

Secondary forest,1,Control,8.4

Secondary forest,65,Termite mound,14.4

Secondary forest,65,Control,0.6



===============================================================

File #6: Soil_resistance_all.csv </b>



File Organization and Contents</b>

Col. Heading Units/format Variable description

1 Date yyyy/mm/dd Sampling date

2 Land_use Dominant land use in the sampling area: Pasture or Secondary forest

3 Location_ID Sampling location ID (see attached documentation for georeferences)

4 Field_treatment Sampling location: Termite mound or Control soil (adjacent to termite mound)

5 Depth cm Sampling depth in centimeters (cm)

6 Manometer_reading Direct reading from penetrometer

7 Resistance kgf/cm2 Calculated resistance in kilograms of force per centimeter squared

8 Observations Field notes



Example data records from File #6: Soil_resistance_all.csv </b>

Date,Land_use,Location_ID,Location,Depth,Manometer_reading,Resistance in kgf/cm2,Observations

2000/09/05,Pasture,26,Termite mound,5,500,500,greater than 500; in sun

2000/09/05,Pasture,26,Termite mound,5,500,500,greater than 500; in sun

2000/09/05,Pasture,26,Termite mound,5,500,500,greater than 500; in sun

2000/09/05,Pasture,26,Control soil,5,450,450,in sun

2000/09/05,Pasture,26,Control soil,5,500,500,greater than 500; in sun

2000/09/05,Pasture,26,Control soil,5,500,500,greater than 500; in sun

2000/09/05,Pasture,27,Termite mound,5,500,500,greater than 500; in sun

... [records intentionally omitted]

2000/09/05,Pasture,52,Termite mound,5,210,210,by shade, not really mound, log

2000/09/05,Pasture,52,Termite mound,5,240,240,by shade, not really mound, log

2000/09/05,Pasture,52,Control soil,5,240,240,shade

2000/09/05,Pasture,52,Control soil,5,255,255,shade



===============================================================

File #7: Soil_texture_all.csv </b>



File Organization and Contents</b>

Col. Heading Units/format Variable description

1 Year yyyy Sample collection year

2 Month mm Sample collection month

3 Day dd Sample collection day of the month

4 Land_use Dominant land use at the sampling site: Pasture or Secondary forest

5 Location_ID Transect location ID (for pasture sites only)

6 Field_treatment Sampling location: Termite mound or Control soil (within 1.5 meters of the mound)

7 Sample_ID Sample identification number

8 Coarse_sand % Percent of soil classified as coarse sand (diameter between 0.5and 2 mm) on a weight basis in percent (%)

9 Fine_sand % Percent of soil classified as fine sand (diameter between 0.1 and 0.5 mm) on a weight basis in percent (%)

10 Total_sand % Percent of soil classified as sand (diameter between 0.1 and 2.0 mm) on a weight basis in percent (%)

11 Silt % Percent of soil classified as silt (diameter between 0.002 and 0.05 mm on a weight basis in percent (%)

12 Clay % Percent of soil classified as clay (diameter less than 0.002 mm) on a weight basis in percent (%)

13 Comments Field notes



Example data records from File #7: Soil_texture_all.csv </b>

Year,Month,Day,Land_use,Location_ID,Field_treatment,Sample_ID,Coarse_sand,Fine_sand ,Total_sand,Silt,Clay,Comments

2000,5,not reported,Secondary forest,not reported,Termite mound,2487,4.4,1.5,5.9,14.6,79.5,none

2000,5,not reported,Secondary forest,not reported,Control soil ,2488,3.6,1.4,5.1,21.3,73.7,none

2000,5,not reported,Secondary forest,not reported,Termite mound,2489,3.6,1.7,5.3,14.5,80.2,none

2000,5,not reported,Secondary forest,not reported,Control soil ,2490,7.4,1.7,9.1,22.1,68.9,none

2000,5,not reported,Secondary forest,not reported,Termite mound,2491,2.8,1.2,3.9,15,81.1,none



===============================================================

File #8: Termite_mound_area_and_abundance.csv</b>



File Organization and Contents</b>

Col. Heading Units/format Variable description

1 Land_use Dominant land use in the sampling area: Secondary forest

2 Transect_ID Transect line identification: transects were line transects, spaced 20 m apart, perpendicular to the access road (see sketch); transects were varied in length, ending at the edge of the plateau

3 Object Identification of the type of object located along the transect (log, stump, mound, or a combination)

4 Label Unique identification label for each object along the transect

5 Distance m Distance from the access road in meters (m)

6 Direction Location of the object relative to the transect, i.e. East or West of the transect

7 Lateral Distance east or west of the transect line to the highest point of the object in centimeters (cm)

8 Shape Approximate geometric shape of the measured object: circle, cylinder, linear, oval, rectangle, square or triangle

9 Length cm Measured length of the longest axis of the object in centimeters (cm)

10 Width cm Measured length of the axis perpendicular to the longest axis of the object in centimeters (cm)

11 Percent_in % Percentage of the object's area that falls within the area of the transect

12 Area_tot m2 Total surface area of the object in meters squared (m2) based on the measured axis and estimated geometric shape

13 Area_in m2 Surface area of the object within the transect in meters squared (m2) calculated as the total surface area multiplied by the percent in transect

14 Mound_type Primarily an indication of mound color

15 Burrows Number of observed armadillo burrows

16 Burnt Observed indications of burning

17 Mound_association Features associated with the termite mound (log, stump, tree)



Example data records from File #8: Termite_mound_area_and_abundance.csv </b>

Land_use,Transect_ID,Object,Label,Distance,Direction,Lateral,Shape,Length,Width,Percent_in,Area_tot,Area_in,Mound_type,Burrows,Burnt,Mound_association

Secondary forest,B,mound,126,10.16,West,46,circle,64,52,100,0.26,0.26,gray,0,no,burnt stump

Secondary forest,B,mound,127,13.38,West,143,rectangle,87,35,50,0.3,0.15,lt. gray,0,no,burnt log

Secondary forest,B,mound,16,18.06,East,83,rectangle,120,48,100,0.58,0.58,gray,0,no,not recorded

Secondary forest,B,mound,128,18.67,West,87,oval,56,31,100,0.17,0.17,gray,0,no,not recorded

Secondary forest,B,mound,129,19.56,West,62,circle,20,13,100,0.02,0.02,gray,0,no,not recorded

... [records intentionally omitted]

Secondary forest,F,log,-9999,58.48,West,5,rectangle,60,13,100,0.08,0.08,not applicable,not applicable,not recorded,not recorded

Secondary forest,F,log&mound,165,59.62,West,70,rectangle,80,8,100,0.06,0.06,gray in log,0,no,log

Secondary forest,F,mound,166,61.69,East,108,circle,32,17,50,0.05,0.02,gray,0,no,Vismia

Secondary forest,F,mound,167,61.71,West,64,oval,68,50,100,0.34,0.34,intricate,0,no,Vismia

Secondary forest,F,mound,51,66.45,West,113,rectangle,246,70,70,1.72,1.21,gray,0,no,not recorded

Secondary forest,F,stump,-9999,66.28,West,13,circle,16,10,100,0.01,0.01,not applicable,not applicable,not recorded,not recorded

Secondary forest,F,mound,168,68.52,East,120,circle,62,58,60,0.28,0.17,gray,1,no,not recorded



===============================================================

File #9: Termite_mound_N_mineralization.csv </b>



File Organization and Contents</b>

Col. Heading Units/format Variable description

1 Land_use Dominant land use in the sampling area: Secondary forest

2 Location_ID Sampling location identification number

3 Field_treatment Sampling location: Termite mound or Control soil (adjacent to termite mound)

4 Soil_moisture Samples were maintained at field moisture content (Normal) or at 110% of field moisture content (Elevated) over the course of the measurements

5 Aggregation Samples were either left physically intact or broken by hand into equal-sized granules

6 Day Day since inception of the experiment

7 Total_N g/kg Total soil N measured in grams of nitrogen per kilogram of soil

8 NO3 ug/g Extractable nitrate in the soil measured in micrograms of nitrate per gram of soil (ug NO3 / g soil) on a Skalar continuous flow analyzer after extraction with KCl

9 NH4 ug/g Extractable ammonium in the soil measured in micrograms of ammonium per gram of soil (ug NH4 / g soil)on a Skalar continuous flow analyzer after extraction with KCl

10 NO3_min_rate ug/g/day Rate of nitrate mineralization reported as micrograms of nitrate mineralized per gram of total soil nitrogen per day (ug NO3 per g N per day)

11 NH4_min_rate ug/g/day Rate of ammonium mineralization reported as micrograms of ammonium mineralized per gram of total soil nitrogen per day (ug NH4 per g N per day)



Example data records from File #9: Termite_mound_N_mineralization.csv </b>

Land_use,Location_ID,Field_treatment,Soil_moisture,Aggregation,Day,Total_N,NO3,NH4,NO3_min_rate,NH4_min_rate

Secondary forest,6,Termite mound,Normal,Intact,0,2.26,3.06,2.5,1.35,3.38

Secondary forest,6,Termite mound,Normal,Broken,0,2.34,3.88,2.8,1.66,3.5

Secondary forest,6,Termite mound,Elevated,Intact,0,2.22,11.64,1.73,5.25,3.26

Secondary forest,6,Termite mound,Elevated,Broken,0,2.35,1.48,2.05,0.63,3.36

Secondary forest,6,Control soil,Normal,Intact,0,1.97,0.34,4.15,0.17,3.95

Secondary forest,6,Control soil,Normal,Broken,0,1.98,0.31,3.83,0.15,3.99

Secondary forest,6,Control soil,Elevated,Intact,0,1.91,0.39,3.19,0.2,3.9

Secondary forest,6,Control soil,Elevated,Broken,0,1.89,0.39,3.66,0.21,3.97



===============================================================

File #10: Termite_mound_root_density.csv </b>



File Organization and Contents</b>

Col. Heading Variable description

1 Land_use Dominant land use in the sampling area: Pasture or Secondary forest

2 Location_ID Sampling location identification number

3 Field_treatment Sampling location: Termite mound or Control soil (adjacent to termite mound)

4 Cylinder_number Unique soil sample cylinder ID

5 Vegetation Plant ID based on root identification: Vismia or unidentified

6 Root_density Total root biomass density in grams roots per centimeter cubed (g/cm3) measured to a depth of 5 centimeters



Example data records from File #10: Termite_mound_root_density.csv </b>

Land_use,Location_ID,Field_treatment,Cylinder_number,Vegetation,Root_density

Secondary forest,105,Termite mound,44,Vismia,0.0006

Secondary forest,108,Termite mound,45,unidentified,0.0004

Secondary forest,116,Termite mound,32,Vismia,0.0002

Secondary forest,125,Termite mound,39,Vismia,0.0053

Secondary forest,170,Termite mound,21,Vismia,0.0032

Secondary forest,169,Termite mound,158,Vismia,0.0017

Secondary forest,168,Termite mound,157,Vismia,0.0028

Secondary forest,25,Termite mound,173,unidentified,0.0002

Secondary forest,159,Termite mound,30,Vismia,0.0029

Secondary forest,156,Termite mound,38,unidentified,0.0011

Secondary forest,6,Termite mound,31,Vismia,0.0015

Secondary forest,138,Termite mound,155,Vismia,0.0017

...[records intentionally omitted]

Secondary forest,146,Control soil,145,Vismia,0.0011

Secondary forest,147,Control soil,160,Vismia,0.0013

Secondary forest,136,Control soil,147,Vismia,0.0043

Secondary forest,134,Control soil,48,Vismia,0.0028

Secondary forest,69,Burnt mound,27,Vismia,0.0003



===============================================================

File #11: Termite_mound_seedling_experiment.csv </b>



File Organization and Contents</b>

Col. Heading Variable description

1 Experiment_ID Data from two separate experiments are reported here; each experiment is identified by a label (II or IVE)

2 Soil_type Sampling location: Termite mound or Control soil (adjacent to termite mound)

3 Mechanical_treatment Soil cores were either ground or left intact

4 Allelopathy_treatment Treated samples were autoclaved, while control samples were untreated

5 Acidity_treatment In the treated soils acidity was buffered with a lime addition ( 20 mg per sample for the ground soils and 12 mg per sample for the intact samples)

6 Rep Replicate identification number

7 EVI Emergence velocity index for the seedlings calculated according to Mendonca (1997) (unitless)



Example data records from File #11: Termite_mounds_seedling_experiment.csv </b>

Experiment_ID,Soil_type,Mechanical_treatment,Allelopathy_treatment,Acidity_treatment,Rep,EVI

II,Termite mound,Intact,autoclaved,treated,1,1.5

II,Termite mound,Intact,autoclaved,treated,2,0.31

II,Termite mound,Intact,autoclaved,treated,3,1.42

II,Termite mound,Intact,autoclaved,treated,4,0.6

II,Termite mound,Intact,autoclaved,treated,5,0.87

II,Control soil,Intact,autoclaved,treated,1,0.6

II,Control soil,Intact,autoclaved,treated,2,1.29

...[records intentionally omitted]

IVE,Termite mound,Ground,not autoclaved,control,7,0.27

IVE,Termite mound,Ground,not autoclaved,control,8,0.2

IVE,Termite mound,Ground,not autoclaved,control,9,0.08

IVE,Termite mound,Ground,not autoclaved,control,10,0.07

IVE,Control soil,Intact,not autoclaved,control,1,0.43

IVE,Control soil,Intact,not autoclaved,control,2,0

IVE,Control soil,Intact,not autoclaved,control,3,0.5



===============================================================

File #12: Termite_mound_soil_chemistry_and_respiration.csv </b>



File Organization and Contents</b>

Col. Heading Variable description

1 Land_use Dominant land use in the sampling area: Secondary forest

2 Field_treatment Sampling location: Termite mound or Control soil (adjacent to termite mound)

3 Replicate Replicate identification number

4 Lab_treatment Sieved soil (normal) or aggregate

5 Basal_respiration Basal respiration rate calculated as ul of CO2 per hour per gram of control soil (adjacent to termite mound)

6 Basal_resp_C_rate Basal respiration rate calculated as ul of CO2 per hour per gram of carbon in the control soil

7 SIR Substrate-induced respiration rate calculated as ul of CO2 per hour per gram of control soil

8 SIR_C_rate Substrate-induced respiration rate calculated as ul of CO2 per hour per gram of carbon in the control soil

9 Microbial_C Microbial biomass carbon pool calculated according to Anderson and Domsch (1978), reported as ug C/g Control soil

10 Cmic/Corg Ratio of microbial biomass carbon to total soil organic carbon

11 QR Metabolic quotient calculated as the ratio of basal respiration rate to substrate induced respiration rate

12 Q_BR Metabolic quotient measured as the ratio of basal respiration rate to soil microbial biomass

13 Q_SIR Metabolic quotient measured as the ratio of substrate induced respiration rate to soil microbial biomass

14 C_N_soil Soil carbon to nitrogen ratio calculated on a mass basis

15 pH Soil pH

16 P Available soil phosphorus extracted using a double-acid solution of 0.05 N hydrochloric acid and 0.025 N sulfuric acid reported in grams P per kilogram soil (g/kg)

17 K Available soil potassium extracted using a double-acid solution of 0.05 N hydrochloric acid and 0.025 N sulfuric acid reported in grams K per kilogram soil (g/kg)

18 Na Exchangeable soil sodium measured in grams Na per kilogram soil (g/kg)

19 Ca Exchangeable soil calcium extracted with 1 N potassium chloride reported in grams Ca per kilogram soil (g/kg)

20 Mg Exchangeable soil magnesium extracted with 1 N potassium chloride reported in grams Mg per kilogram soil (g/kg)

21 Al Exchangeable soil aluminum extracted with 1 N potassium chloride reported in grams Al per kilogram soil (g/kg)

22 H_Al Total soil hydrogen and aluminum ion concentration measured in grams Al + H per kilogram soil (g/kg)

23 N Total soil nitrogen determined by the Kjeldahl technique reported in grams N per kilogram soil (g/kg)

24 C Total soil carbon determined by the Walkley-Black method and reported in grams C per kilogram soil (g/kg)

25 Fe Extractable soil iron extracted with a Mehlich 1 solution in a 1:5 ratio and reported in grams Fe per kilogram soil (g/kg)

26 Zn Extractable soil zinc extracted with a Mehlich 1 solution in a 1:5 ratio and reported in grams Zn per kilogram soil (g/kg)

27 Mn Extractable soil manganese extracted with a Mehlich 1 solution in a 1:5 ratio and reported in grams Mn per kilogram soil (g/kg)

28 Cu Extractable soil copper extracted with a Mehlich 1 solution in a 1:5 ratio and reported in grams Cu per kilogram soil (g/kg)



Example data records from File #12: Termite_mound_soil_chemistry_and_respiration.csv </b>

Land_use,Field_treatment,Replicate,Lab_treatment,Basal_respiration,Basal_resp_C_rate,SIR,SIR_C_rate,Microbial_C,Cmic/Corg,QR,Q_BR,Q_SIR,C_N_soil,pH,P,K,Na,Ca,Mg,Al,H_Al,N,C,Fe,Zn,Mn,Cu

Secondary forest,Termite mound,14,normal,0.7,19.5,4.1,114.08,136.6,0.0038,0.17,0.0051,0.03,16.9,4.43,4.8,22,4,0.08,0.04,2.17,12.76,2.13,35.97,200,34.23,0.53,0.17

Secondary forest,Termite mound,16,normal,1.06,30.06,3.84,108.98,111.7,0.0032,0.28,0.0095,0.034,16.8,4.39,5.5,22,4,0.01,0.04,1.87,10.51,2.1,35.25,233,19.57,0.43,0.24

Secondary forest,Termite mound,6,normal,1.73,48.28,3.64,101.55,76.7,0.0021,0.48,0.0225,0.047,12.4,4.45,3.4,22,5,0.08,0.04,1.97,11.73,2.89,35.8,256,23.2,0.68,0.2

Secondary forest,Termite mound,75,normal,0.6,16.73,7.94,222.29,294.3,0.0082,0.08,0.002,0.027,19.5,4.49,4.8,30,6,0.05,0.05,1.97,10.99,1.83,35.71,375,36.92,3.19,0.29

Secondary forest,Termite mound,76,normal,1.07,34.41,6.98,225.48,237.2,0.0077,0.15,0.0045,0.029,14,4.34,3.4,24,5,0.07,0.05,1.64,9.3,2.22,30.96,155,15.85,1.05,0.27

Secondary forest,Termite mound,13,normal,0.25,5.14,5.89,120.58,226.3,0.0046,0.04,0.0011,0.026,20.2,4.36,5.5,28,4,0.07,0.05,2.25,13.12,2.42,48.88,253,23.47,0.66,0.24

Secondary forest,Control soil,14,normal,1.24,47.76,5,192.63,150.9,0.0058,0.25,0.0082,0.033,14.3,4.49,2.1,20,5,0.12,0.09,1.23,7.41,1.82,25.95,206,30.48,1.84,0.44

Secondary forest,Control soil,16,normal,0.98,48.94,4.38,219.32,136.6,0.0068,0.22,0.0072,0.032,14.4,4.31,2.7,14,4,0.05,0.05,1.08,6.3,1.39,19.97,172,24.35,0.84,0.31

Secondary forest,Control soil,6,normal,1.06,53.36,3.44,172.57,95.4,0.0048,0.31,0.0111,0.036,13.7,4.33,2.1,14,4,0.16,0.06,1.24,6.63,1.46,19.91,230,4.3,1.53,0.13





===============================================================

File #13: Termite_mound_soil_physical_characteristics.csv </b>



File Organization and Contents</b>

Col. Heading Variable description

1 Land_use Dominant land use in the sampling area: Pasture or Secondary forest

2 Location_ID Sampling location ID (see attached documentation for georeferences)

3 Field_treatment Sampling location: Termite mound or Control soil (adjacent to termite mound)

4 Cylinder Unique cylinder ID for bulk density sampling

5 Bulk_density Soil bulk density in grams per centimeter cubed (g/cm3) calculated after drying soil overnight in a 110 degree oven

6 VWC Volumetric soil water content (%) calculated as the volume of water divided by the total sample volume

7 GWC Gravimetric soil water content (%) calculated as the fresh soil weight minus the dry soil weight divided by the fresh soil weight



Example data records from File #13: Termite_mound_soil_physical_characteristics.csv </b>

Land_use,Location_ID,Field_treatment,Cylinder,Bulk_density,VWC,GWC

Secondary forest,36,Termite mound,169,1.07,0.39,0.36

Secondary forest,36,Termite mound,170,0.93,0.32,0.35

Secondary forest,36,Termite mound,171,0.91,0.29,0.32

Secondary forest,36,Control soil,173,0.97,0.37,0.38

Secondary forest,36,Control soil,174,0.77,0.3,0.39

Secondary forest,36,Control soil,175,0.96,0.43,0.45

Secondary forest,8,Termite mound,176,0.87,0.33,0.38

Secondary forest,8,Termite mound,177,0.92,0.31,0.34

... [records intentionally omitted]

Pasture,53,Termite mound,-9999,1.08,0.36,0.15

Pasture,53,Termite mound,-9999,1.06,0.34,0.14

Pasture,53,Termite mound,-9999,1.11,0.27,0.12

Pasture,53,Control soil,-9999,1.06,0.34,0.14

Pasture,53,Control soil,-9999,1.17,0.28,0.12



===============================================================

File #14: Water_retention_curve_data.csv </b>



File Organization and Contents</b>

Col. Heading Variable description

1 Land_use Dominant land use in the sampling area (all data in this file are from Secondary forest)

2 Sample_ID Sample identification code for laboratory purposes

3 Field_treatment Sample type: Termite mound, Burnt mound (termite mound with evidence of recent burning) or Control soil (adjacent to termite mound)

4 Burnt Evidence of recent burning at field site

5 Pressure Pressure in pF

6 Dry_wt Sample dry weight in grams (g)

7 Water_wt Weight of water absorbed by sample in grams (g)

8 GWC Gravimetric water content calculated as water weight divided by sample dry weight



Example data records from File #14: Water_retention_curve_data.csv </b>

Land_use,Sample_ID,Field_treatment,Burnt,Pressure,Dry_wt,Water_wt,GWC

Secondary forest,C11,Termite mound,no,0.5,11.953,3.195,0.267

Secondary forest,C2,Termite mound,no,0.5,11.246,3.676,0.327

Secondary forest,F3,Control soil,no,0.5,6.26,2.554,0.408

Secondary forest,F5,Control soil,no,0.5,6.652,2.431,0.365

Secondary forest,Q7,Burnt mound,yes,0.5,8.904,3.89,0.437

Secondary forest,Q8,Burnt mound,yes,0.5,8.056,3.378,0.419

Secondary forest,C5,Termite mound,no,1,8.484,2.865,0.338

Secondary forest,C6,Termite mound,no,1,11.663,4.047,0.347



===============================================================

File #15: Water_stable_aggregates_data.csv </b>



File Organization and Contents</b>

Col. Heading Variable description

1 Land_use Dominant land use at sampling site: secondary forest was 7 to 8 years old

2 Location_ID Termite mound identification code

3 Field_treatment Sample type: Termite mound, Burnt mound (termite mound with evidence of recent burning) or Control soil (adjacent to termite mound)

4 Soil_weight Dry weight of sample prior to dispersal in water in grams (g)

5 Very_coarse Dry weight of water-stable aggregates between 2-4 mm in diameter in grams (g)

6 Coarse Dry weight of water-stable aggregates between 1-2 mm in diameter in grams (g)

7 Medium Dry weight of water-stable aggregates between 0.5-1 mm in diameter in grams (g)

8 Fine Dry weight of water-stable aggregates between 0.25-0.5 mm in diameter in grams (g)

9 Recovered_wt Sum of the recovered aggregates reported in grams (g)

10 Error Difference between the dry weight of the initial sample and the recovered weight reported in grams (g)



Example data records from File #15: Water_stable_aggregates_data.csv </b>

Land_use,Location_ID,Field_treatment,Soil_wt,Very_coarse_wt,Coarse_wt,Medium_wt,Fine_wt,Recovered_wt,Error

Secondary forest,105,Termite mound,25.1,12.3,7.3,2.4,1,23,2.1

Secondary forest,105,Control soil,25,8.5,9.2,4.1,1.6,23.4,1.6

Secondary forest,116,Termite mound,36.2,22.3,7.9,2.9,1.2,34.3,1.9

Secondary forest,116,Control soil,25.7,6.1,9.1,5.6,2.7,23.5,2.2

Secondary forest,125,Termite mound,25.8,10.4,8.8,3.2,1.4,23.8,2

Secondary forest,125,Control soil,65.4,16.3,17.3,16.8,7.6,58,7.4

Secondary forest,132,Termite mound,25.2,16.6,5.6,1.1,0.5,23.8,1.4



===============================================================

</p>

</pre>

Data Application and Derivation:

These data provide a picture of the impact of termite mounds on on physical, chemical, microbiological, and hydraulic properties of the soil of a secondary forest site in Central Amazonia. Few data are available on the impact of termite mounds on soil and land productivity in Amazonia in general, so these data could be useful to compare to other sites. In comparisons to other locations, researchers should note that the study site was chosen in order to investigate an area with an apparently high density of termite mounds, so this site is not necessarily representative of any particular area.

Quality Assessment (Data Quality Attribute Accuracy Report):

Quality Assessment:

Data have been checked and no further changes to the data are anticipated.

Process Description:

Data Acquisition Materials and Methods:

The soils used in this study was collected from sites located at the Embrapa research station in the Distrito Agropecuario da SUFRAMA, located at km 53 of the federal highway BR 174 outside Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil. Soils on the plateau of the study site are classified as dystrophic, isohyperthermic, clayey kaolinitic Hapludox. The climate is tropical humid, and mean annual rainfall is 2200 mm.



The site was first cleared for pasture in the late 1970s and later abandoned to secondary vegetation. The secondary forest transects were in a 7-8 year old secondary forest dominated by Vismia spp and located at 2 30\' 42 S and 60 01\' 29 W. The pasture site was located at approximately 2 31\' 02 S and 60 01\' 50 W. The agroforestry site was located at 02 31\' 04 S, 60 01\' 50 W.



Methods:



Termite mound abundance and area:

Termite mound abundance and area covered were determined at the secondary forest site in April of 2000. To estimate termite mound abundance and area covered, transects were made and surveyed through the secondary forest site.



Land use and termite species composition survey:

Three land uses were chosen for this study: a primary forest, a home-garden agroforest, and a palm-based agroforest. The home-garden and palm-based agroforests had been established on pastureland abandoned 10 yr prior to this study. Each plot measured 50 x 60 m. The agroforests were replicated on three blocks according to their land-use history: blocks one, two, and three had been in pasture for 4, 5, and 8 yr previously, and in fallow for 3, 4, and 5 yr prior to the establishment of the agroforests. These sites occurred on the plateau of the study site, and were surrounded by primary forest on the surrounding slopes. The primary forest site sampled was 3500 m away, selected as the nearest accessible primary forest on the study site that also occurred on the plateau. Three plots were chosen in the primary forest, at the same distance apart as the plots in the agroforests.



Termite species composition was assessed using a modified rapid biodiversity assessment protocol. The method employs a 100-m belt transect with 20 contiguous 2 x 5 m sections sampled sequentially. Transect length was limited to 50 m, the width of the agroforestry plots. A transect was established through the middle of each plot, amounting to three transects in each land cover, nine in total. A team of two collectors sampled as many species as possible in 30 min in each 2 x 5 m section. Collection was done in soil, litter, dead wood, mounds, nests, soil to 5 cm depth, and runways to 2 m height in the vegetation. The presence of a species in each section was considered an encounter and used as a surrogate for relative abundance. Observations on feeding substrates and nesting locations were recorded simultaneously.



Termites were preserved in vials of 80 percent ethanol and labeled with section number for later identification to species or morphospecies. The collection was deposited in the Entomological Museum of the National Institute for Amazonian Research (INPA), Brazil.





Soil hydraulic properties:

Water-stable aggregates:

Water-stable aggregation was measured using samples from the secondary forest site, in May and June of 2001. To evaluate water-stable aggregates, an auger was used to sample the surface 10 cm of soil. The two treatments were termite mound and adjacent soil. The adjacent soil sample was taken 1.5 m from the base of the termite mound. Each mound was selected randomly from a previous survey of the area. Roots and charcoal were removed from the samples. 25 g of soil composed of particulates of between 2 and 4 mm was selected from each sample. Around 10 g of soil was used to determine the moisture content of each sample. The 25 g of soil was agitated mechanically in water for 10 minutes, through sieves of 2 mm, 1 mm, 0.5 mm, and 0.25 mm aperture. The soil in each category was dried at 105 C for at least 24 hours and weighed.



Soil hydrophobicity:

The soil hydrophobicity data were collected in May of 2001, using soil from the secondary forest site. For the soil hydrophobicity experiment, soil clods from termite mound, control soil, and a termite mound that had been exposed to fire were evaluated for their rate of water absorption.



Soil infiltration:

Data were collected on September 5 2000 at the secondary forest site. Soil infiltration was measured by inserting a stainless steel 20 cm tall 10 cm into the soil surface. A constant head of water was maintained in the cylinder for 10 minutes, and the amount of water lost was recorded.



Water retention:

The water retention curve of termite mound and control soil cores was evaluated by the tension table method (Reeve & Carter, 1991). Cores were saturated and then re-weighed at 0, 4, 10, 25, 30, 63, and 80 cm of water of tension. After 80 cm of tension, the samples were transferred to a pressure-plate apparatus and weighed after equilibrating at pressures equivalent to columns of 100 and 1000 cm of water. Oven dry weights were determined after the experiment.





Soil physical and chemical characteristics:



Soil texture:

Soil texture samples were collected in May 2000 at the secondary forest and Aug 4 2000 at the pasture sites. For soil texture measurements, an auger was used to sample the surface 10 cm of soil. The two treatments were termite mound and adjacent soil. The adjacent soil sample was taken 1.5 m from the base of the termite mound. Each sampling point was a composite of three samples. Sand fractions were separated by wet sieving and clay and silt fractions were determined using the sieve-pipette sedimentation method fro clay (EMBRAPA 1997). Dispersion was done using 1N NaOH and mechanical agitation. The Brazilian classification system was used to determine particle size classes (EMBRAPA 1997)



Resistance:

Soil resistance to penetration was measured in the secondary forest site on Aug 2, 2000 and in the pasture site on September 5, 2000. Resistance measurements were made using an Ejkelkamp penetrometer with a cone with surface area of 2 sq. cm and penetration depth of 5 cm. 10 termite mounds and 10 adjacent control areas were sampled in the secondary forest and 7 in the pasture. 5 readings were taken on each mound and each treatment in the secondary forest, and 3 each in the pasture.



Soil water content:

The soil water content samples were collected on July 13 2000 from the secondary forest site, and on 4-5 September of 2000 from the pasture site. Measurements were made by sampling with 100-cubic-cm cylinders on the soil surface. 9 termite mounds and 9 adjacent control areas were sampled in the secondary forest and 4 each in the pasture. 3 samples were taken from each mound and each treatment. Samples were reweighed after being dried at 105C.



Soil bulk density data:

The pasture soil bulk density samples were collected on September 4 and 5 of 2000. and the secondary forest soil bulk density samples were collected on July 13, 2000. Bulk density measurements were made by sampling with 100 cubic cm cylinders on the soil surface. 9 termite mounds and 9 adjacent control areas were sampled in the secondary forest, and 6 each in the pasture. 3 samples were taken from each mound and each treatment.



Soil chemistry:

The soil chemistry data were collected in May 2000 at the secondary forest site. For the soil chemistry data, an auger was used to sample the surface 10 cm of soil. The two treatments were termite mound and adjacent soil. The adjacent soil sample was taken 1.5 m from the base of the termite mound. Each sampling point was a composite of three samples.



Methods:

Carbon was determined by the Walkley-Black method, and total soil nitrogen (N) by the Kjeldahl technique. Available phosphorus (P) and exchangeable potassium (K) were extracted using a double-acid solution of 0.05 N hydrochloric acid and 0.025 N sulfuric acid. Exchangeable calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), and Al were extracted with 1 N potassium chloride. Iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), manganese (Mn), and copper (Cu) were extracted with a Mehlich 1 solution in a 1:5 ratio and determined on an atomic absorption spectrophotometer (AA-1475, Varian Associates, Palo Alto, CA).



Nitrogen mineralization:

Five termite mounds and control sites were sampled. Termite mound material was collected from the upper 10 cm of the mound surface using a composite of four samples. Control soil was similarly collected from an area 1.5 m from the border of the termite mound.

Moisture content of each sample was determined in the laboratory. In the broken treatment, aggregates were broken by hand to a consistent size. For the elevated moisture treatment, gravimetric water content was increased to a moisture level 10% higher than field content. Water was added three times a week to maintain the desired water contents. Closed containers with a large headspace were used, and a hole in the lid was made to maintain gas exchange.

At 0, 8, 43, and 66 days, 25 g subsamples from the incubations were extracted with 75 mL KCl by shaking for 30 minutes. NH4+ and NO3- determinations were made using a Skalar continuous flow analyzer.





Soil biology:



Root biomass:

Root biomass samples were collected at the secondary forest site on Jun 26 2001. Root biomass measurements were made by sampling with 100 cubic cm cylinders on the soil surface. 19 randomly selected termite mounds and 19 adjacent control areas were sampled. A flat intact surface was chosen for sampling on each mound.



Microbial groups



Twenty termite mounds were randomly selected from the secondary-forest study site for sampling. Three 10-cm surface samples from each mound were collected with an auger and bulked into a composite sample. The adjacent soil (1.5 m in distance in a random direction) was likewise sampled. Each sample was shaken with sterilized water and glass beads for ten minutes and a dilution series was made from 10-3 to 10-7.



40 g of soil from each sample were dried at 105 C for 24 h and the loss in weight measured. A strip of Whatman No. 1 filter paper was added to a vial containing 10 mL of Jensens medium. The cellulose medium was composed of 1.0 g (NH4)2SO4, 1.0 g K2HPO4, 0.5 g MgSO4 7H2O, 0.2 g NaCl, 2.0 g CaCO3, and 1000 mL tap water. The vials were incubated for seven days and counted as positive if microbial growth or break-up of the paper strip was observed.



The same dilutions used for determining populations of cellulose-decomposing microorganisms were used in an experiment to compare ammonifier populations. Methods for estimating the population of ammonifying microorganisms were followed according to Andrade et al. (1994). Vials with orange coloration were counted as negative for ammonifying microorganisms and vials with pink or yellow coloration were counted as positive. The most probable number of microorganisms was calculated using the DOS application MPNES (Woomer et al., 1990).





Soda lime assessment of soil respiration



Eight termite mounds were selected randomly from the termite mounds at the secondary forest study site. A 20-cm polyvinyl chloride ring 10 cm in height was pushed into the soil to a depth of 2-3 cm in each sampling location. Two corresponding rings were likewise installed at 1.5 m from the termite mound in the control soil to comprise the two control treatments. All litter was removed from the surface of the soil in one of the control treatments.



At sampling an open tin of soda lime was placed inside a covered chamber for 24 hours, then capped and re-weighed. A blank was used at each sampling session. The increase in dry mass of the soda lime was converted to carbon dioxide (CO2) using the factor 1.69 to correct for the chemical formation of water (Grogan, 1998). Respiration was measured at three sampling events. During each event, four of the eight sites were measured on the first day, and the other four sites on the next.





Seedling studies

Soil cores were collected in 100 cm3 stainless steel cylinders. To remove mechanical barriers to germination, the material was ground to a texture favorable to seedling development. Autoclaving was used to denature any allelopathic organic substances, as in Rogers et al. (1999). Soil acidity, a potential barrier to germination and seedling development, was corrected by amendment with lime (20 and 12 mg of lime per cylinder in the ground and intact treatments,respectively).Six seeds of the native Sesbania exasperata were planted per experimental unit. Each factorial combination of the experiment

had five experimental units, for a total of 480 seeds. Each of the eighty 100 cm3 cylinders received 10 mL of water daily as needed. Germination was recorded daily for nine days. The emergence velocity index (EVI) (Mendonca, 1997) of the seeds was calculated.

References:

Andrade, D.d.S., M. Miyazawa, and P.J. Hamakawa. 1994. Microrganismos amonificadores e nitrificadores, p. 355-367, In M. Hungria and R. S. Araujo, eds. Manual de Metodos Empregados em Estudos de Microbiologia Agricola. Embrapa, Brasilia.



EMBRAPA, 1997. Manual de Metodos de Analises de Solo. Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Solos, Rio de Janeiro, 212 pp.



Mendonca, M.A.F., 1997. Selecao de leguminosas arboreas para plantios de enriquecimento florestal: germinacao das sementes e acompanhamento do crescimento apos a introducao em capoeira em solo Podzolico Vermelho

Amarelo. Monograph Thesis. FCA/FUA, Manaus, 61 pp.



Reeve, M.J., Carter, A.D., 1991. Water release characteristics. In: Smith, K.A., Mullins, C.E. (Eds.), Soil Analysis: Physical Methods. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp. 111-160.



Rogers, L.K.R., French, J.R.J., Elgar, M.A., 1999. Suppression of plant growth on the mounds of the termite Coptotermes lacteus Froggatt (Isoptera, Rhinotermitidae). Insectes Sociaux 46, 366-371



Woomer, P., J. Bennett., and R. Yost. 1990. Overcoming the inflexibility of most-probable-number procedures. Agronomy Journal 82:349-353.

Skip navigation linksHOME | ABOUT | LIBRARY | NEWS ARCHIVE | CONTACTS | INVESTIGATIONS | LOGISTICS | DATA |TRAINING & EDUCATION

NASA logo
ORNL DAAC
Get Acrobat Reader