Skip to main content

DAAC Home > Data > Field Campaigns > LBA (Amazon) > Data Set Documentation
LBA-ECO ND-04 Termite Mound and Soil Characterization, Amazonas, Brazil: 1999-2001
Get Data
Revision date: March 26, 2012

Summary:

This data set reports the results of a comprehensive study of mound building termites 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. Study areas included a primary forest site, an adjacent 7-8 year old secondary forest site, and two abandoned pasture sites which were being used for agroforest purposes.

Reported are (1) the termite species occurrence and areal abundance of mounds, (2) characterization of the mound soil microbiological community, root biomass, seedling emergence success, soil respiration, nitrogen mineralization, and (3) the characterization of the termite mound soil physical, chemical, and hydraulic properties. Analyses were also performed on samples from adjacent control soils for comparison. This data set contains 15 comma-delimited data files.

teeermite mounds  large termite mound

View of a pasture with a high termite mound density and an active termite mound around a pasture stump.

Data Citation:

Cite this data set as follows:

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

Implementation of the LBA Data and Publication Policy by Data Users:

The LBA Data and Publication Policy [http://daac.ornl.gov/LBA/lba_data_policy.html] is in effect for a period of five (5) years from the date of archiving and should be followed by data users who have obtained LBA data sets from the ORNL DAAC. Users who download LBA data in the five years after data have been archived must contact the investigators who collected the data, per provisions 6 and 7 in the Policy.

This data set was archived in March of 2012. Users who download the data between March 2012 and April 2017 must comply with the LBA Data and Publication Policy.

Data users should use the Investigator contact information in this document to communicate with the data provider. Alternatively, the LBA website  [http://lba.inpa.gov.br/lba/] in Brazil will have current contact information. Data users should use the Data Set Citation and other applicable references provided in this document to acknowledge use of the data.

Table of Contents:

1. Data Set Overview:

Project: LBA-ECO

Activity: Biogeochemical Cycles in Degraded Lands

LBA Science Component: Nutrient Dynamics

Team ID: ND-04 (Fernandes / Wandelli)

The investigators were Ackerman, Ilse Lieve; Rondon, Marco Antonio; Wandelli, Elisa Vieira; Riha, Susan J. and Fernandes, Erick C.M.  You may contact Ackerman, Ilse L. (ila1@cornell.edu).

LBA Data Set Inventory ID: ND04_Termite_Mounds

This data set 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 data set also contains a comparison of the termite species composition of low- and high-diversity agroforestry systems with primary forest.

2. Data Characteristics:

Data are provided in 15 comma-delimited ASCII files. Please refer to the companion file Ackerman_dissertation_2006.pdf  for additional information.

File #1: Land_use_species_composition.csv

This data file is a comparison of the termite species composition of low- and high-diversity agroforestry systems with primary forest (Ackerman et al. 2009).

Column Descriptions
Column 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)
Column 2, Land_use: Dominant land use in the sampling area: Home garden agroforest, Palm-based agroforest or Primary forest
Column 3, Transect_num: Transect identification number within each sampling site
Columns 4 through 70 represent the presence (1) or absence (0) of the termite species named in the column heading
 
Column Heading
1 Sample_ID
2 Land_use
3 Transect_num
4 Agnathotermes_glaber
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

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
...
PBA11,Palm-based agroforest,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
...
PF310,Primary forest,3,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0, 0,0,0,0,0,0,1

File #2: Termite_mound_area_and_abundance.csv

Termite mound abundance and area covered (density) were determined at the secondary forest site in April of 2000.

ColumnHeading Units/format Description
1Land_use   Dominant land use at the sampling site: Secondary forest
2Transect_ID   Transect line identification: transects were line transects, spaced 20 m apart, perpendicular to the access road (Figure 1); 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 mDistance 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 cmMeasured length of the longest axis of the object in centimeters (cm)
10 Width cmMeasured 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 m2Surface 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)
 
Missing data values indicated as -9999

Example data records

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,E,log,-9999,78.66,West,66,rectangle,568,15,30
,0.85,0.26,not applicable,-9999,not recorded,not recorded
Secondary forest,E,log,mound,173,73.69,East,60.circle,26,22,100,
0.05,0.05,gray,0,no,stump
Secondary forest,E,log,-9999,71.65,East,18,rectangle,1627,38,15,
6.18,0.93,not applicable,-9999,not recorded,not recorded
...
Secondary forest,I,mound,182,54.7,West,82,oval,185,24,50,
0.44,0.22,-9999,0,no,not recorded
Secondary forest,I,mound,183,53.95,East,106,oval,35,28,50
0.1,0.05,-9999,0,yes,stump
Secondary forest,I,stump,-9999,6-9999,West,-9999,circle,18,16,100,
0.02,0.02,not applicable,-9999,not recorded,not recorded

File #3: Termite_mound_N_mineralization.csv

Termite mounds and control sites were sampled at the secondary forest site for nitrogen mineralization determinations.

ColumnHeading Units/format Description
1Land_use   Dominant land use at the sampling site: Secondary forest
2Location_ID   Sampling location id
3Field_treatment   Sampling location: Termite mound, 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
5Aggregation   Samples were either left physically Intact or Broken by hand into equal-sized granules
6Day  Day since inception of the experiment
7Total_N g N/kgTotal soil N measured in grams of nitrogen per kilogram of soil
8NO3 ug NO3/gExtractable 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
9NH4 ug NH4/gExtractable ammonium in the soil measured in micrograms of ammonium per gram of soil (ug NH4/g ) on a Skalar continuous flow analyzer after extraction with KCl
10NO3_min_rate ug NO3/g N/dayRate of nitrate mineralization reported  over 66 days as micrograms of nitrate mineralized per gram of total soil nitrogen per day (ug NO3 per g N per day)
11NH4_min_rate ug NH/g N/dayRate of ammonium mineralization reported  over 66 days as micrograms of ammonium mineralized per gram of total soil nitrogen per day (ug NH4 per g N per day)

Example data records

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,174,Termite mound,Normal,Intact,8,3.09,6.41,11.5,2.08,3.6
Secondary forest,174,Termite mound,Normal,Broken,8,3.06,6.41,11.65,2.26,3.64
Secondary forest,174,Termite mound,Normal,Intact,8,2.75,6.1,3.03,2.22,3.19
...
Secondary forest,174,Control soil,Normal,Broken,66,2.72,53.7,3.38,19.72,2.94
Secondary forest,174,Control soil,Elevated,Intact,2.06,51.95,2.22,25.24,2.71
Secondary forest,174,Control soil,Elevated,Broken,2.06,55.09,1.75,26.68,2.46

File #4: Termite_mound_root_density.csv

Root biomass samples were collected at the secondary forest site in June 2001.

ColumnHeading Units/format Description
1Land_use   Dominant land use at the sampling site: Secondary forest
2Location_ID   Sampling location identification number
3Field_treatment   Sampling location: Termite mound or Control soil (adjacent to termite mound)
4 Cylinder_number   Unique soil sample cylinder ID
5Vegetation   Plant ID based on root identification: Vismia or unidentified
6Root_density g/cm3 Total root biomass density in grams dried roots per centimeter cubed (g/cm3) measured to a depth of 5 centimeters

Example data records

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,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
...
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 #5: Termite_mound_seedling_experiment.csv

Soil cores were collected in 100 cm3 stainless steel cylinders from the secondary forest site. The material was ground to a texture favorable to seedling development.

ColumnHeading Description
1Experiment_IDData from two separate experiments are reported here; each experiment is identified by a label (II or IVE)
2Soil_typeSampling location: Termite mound or Control soil (adjacent to termite mound)
3Mechanical_treatmentSoil cores were either Ground or left Intact
4Allelopathy_treatmentTreated samples were autoclaved, while control samples were untreated (not autoclaved)
5Acidity_treatmentIn 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). Control soils were not treated
6RepReplicate identification number
7EVIEmergence velocity index for the seedlings calculated according to Mendonça (1997) (unitless)

Example data records

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
...
IVE,Termite mound,Intact,not autoclaved,control,1,0.17
IVE,Termite mound,Intact,not autoclaved,control,2,0.07
IVE,Termite mound,Intact,not autoclaved,control,3,0
...
IVE,Control soil,Ground,not autoclaved,control,18,0.08
IVE,Control soil,Intact,not autoclaved,control,19,0.39
IVE,Control soil,Intact,not autoclaved,control,20,0

File 6. Microbial_groups.csv

Termite mounds were randomly selected from the secondary forest site for sampling for microbial group determination.

ColumnHeadingUnits/format Description
1Land_use  Dominant land use in the sampling area: 7-8 year old Secondary forest
2Field_treatment  Sampling location: Termite mound or Control soil (adjacent to termite mound)
3Sample_no Sample number: 1 - 5
4Sample_wet_wtg Weight of sample at field moisture in grams (g)
5Sample_dry_wtg Weight of sample after drying in an oven at 105 degrees C in grams (g)
6Water_wtgWeight of water in sample under field moisture conditions in grams (g)
7GWC %Gravimetric soil content (%) calculated as water weight divided by sample dry weight
8Dilution  Dilution factor of sample in water for analysis
9Lab_rep   Replicate number
10Color 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
12Cellulose_decomposers  Presence or absence of cellulose decomposers in the sample: 0 indicates absence and 1 indicates presence

Example data records

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,
...
Secondary forest,Control soil,5,10,7.384,2.616,0.35,10000000,1,gold,
0,0
Secondary forest,Control soil,5,10,7.384,2.616,0.35,10000000,2,gold,
0,0
Secondary forest,Control soil,5,10,7.384,2.616,0.35,10000000,3,rose,
1,0

File #7: Soda_lime_data.csv

Termite mounds were selected randomly at the secondary forest study site for soda lime assessment of soil respiration.

ColumnHeadingUnits/format Description
1Land_use  Dominant land use at the sampling site: Pasture or Secondary forest
2Location_ID  Termite mound identfication code: 6, 146, or 178
3Field_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)
5Rep  Replicate number: 1 - 8
6 Date_startyyyymmdd Date the soda lime was inserted (yyyymmddd)
7Time_start hh:mm Time of day the soda lime was inserted reported as hh:mm
8Date_endyyyymmdd Date the soda lime was removed (yyyymmdd)
9Time_endhh:mm Time of day the soda lime was removed reported as hh:mm
10Total_timedays Total length of time the soda lime was exposed in days
11Weight_startg Weight of the soda lime prior to exposure reported in grams (g)
12Weight_endg Weight of the soda lime after exposure reported in grams (g)
13CO2_stored_grossg CO2 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_correctedg CO2 Amount of CO2 stored in the soda lime in grams minus any CO2 stored in the blank reported in grams (g)
15 CO2_C_storedg CO2-C 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_correctedg CO2-C 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_chamberg CO2-C/day Amount of carbon emitted as CO2 per day in the chamber (g CO2-C/day)
18 CO2_C_emission_per_m2g CO2-C/day/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

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,0,1,20020624,14:03,20020625,14:11,1.006,
79.663,81.643,1.98,1.526,0.416,0.703,0.699,22.265
Secondary forest,-9999,Control soil,1,1,20020624,14:06,20020625,14:12,1.004,
82.969,84.834,1.865,1.411,0.385,0.65,0.648,20.615
Secondary forest,-9999,Control soil,0,1,20020624,14:09,20020625,14:12,1.002,
75.743,77.993,2.25,1.796,0.49,0.828,0.826,26.295
...
Secondary forest,6,Termite mound,0,2,20020617,14:24,20020618,14:24,1,
96.02,97.9,1.785,1.724,0.47,0.795,0.795
Secondary forest,6,Control soil,1,2,20020617,14:25,20020618,14:24,0.999,
82.463,84.4,1.842,1.781,0.486,0.821,0.821
Secondary forest,6,Control soil,0,2,20020617,14:26,20020618,14:24,0.999,
81.371,83,1.534,1.473,0.402,0.679,0.68
...
Secondary forest,-9999,Control soil,0,8,20020605,14:25,20020606,13:44,0.972
80.486,81.1,1.762,0.897,0.245,0.413,0.426,13.546
Secondary forest,-9999,Blank,-9999,1,-9999,-9999,-9999,-9999,-9999,-9999,-9999,
79.83,78.1,0.546,-9999,-9999,-9999,-9999,-9999
Secondary forest,-9999,Blank,-9999,2,-9999,-9999,-9999,-9999,-9999,-9999,-9999,
76.478,75.1,0.865,-9999,-9999,-9999,-9999,-9999

File #8: Termite_mound_soil_chemistry_and_respiration.csv

The soil chemistry samples were collected in May 2000 at the secondary forest site.

ColumnHeadingUnits/format Description
1Land_use  Dominant land use at the sampling site: Secondary forest
2Field_treatment  Sampling location: Termite mound or Control soil (adjacent to termite mound)
3Replicate  Replicate identification number
4 Lab_treatment Sieved soil (normal) or aggregate
5 Basal_respirationul/h/g Control soil Basal respiration rate calculated as ul of CO2 per hour per gram of control soil (adjacent to termite mound)
6 Basal_resp_C_rateul/h/g C Basal respiration rate calculated as ul of CO2 per hour per gram of carbon in the control soil
7 SIRul/h/g Control soil Substrate-induced respiration rate calculated as ul of CO2 per hour per gram of control soil
8 SIR_C_rateul/h/g C Substrate-induced respiration rate calculated as ul of CO2 per hour per gram of carbon in the control soil
9 Microbial_C ug C/g Control soil 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 Pg/kgAvailable 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 Kg/kgAvailable 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 Nag/kg Exchangeable soil sodium extracted with 1 N potassium chloride measured in grams Na per kilogram soil (g/kg)
19 Cag/kg Exchangeable soil calcium extracted with 1 N potassium chloride reported in grams Ca per kilogram soil (g/kg)
20 Mgg/kg Exchangeable soil magnesium extracted with 1 N potassium chloride reported in grams Mg per kilogram soil (g/kg)
21 Alg/kg Exchangeable soil aluminum extracted with 1 N potassium chloride reported in grams Al per kilogram soil (g/kg)
22 H_Alg/kgTotal soil hydrogen and aluminum ion concentration measured in grams Al + H per kilogram soil (g/kg)
23 Ng/kg Total soil nitrogen determined by the Kjeldahl technique reported in grams N per kilogram soil (g/kg)
24 Cg/kgTotal soil carbon determined by the Walkley-Black method and reported in grams C per kilogram soil (g/kg)
25 Feg/kg 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 g/kgExtractable soil zinc extracted with a Mehlich 1 solution in a 1:5 ratio and reported in grams Zn per kilogram soil (g/kg)
27 Mng/kg 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 Cug/kg Extractable soil copper extracted with a Mehlich 1 solution in a 1:5 ratio and reported in grams Cu per kilogram soil (g/kg)
 
Missing data is indicated by -9999

Example data records

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,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 #9: Termite_mound_soil_physical_characteristics.csv

The soil water content samples were collected on July 13, 2000 from the secondary forest site and on September 4 and 5, 2000 from the pasture site.

ColumnHeadingUnits/format Description
1Land_use  Dominant land use at the sampling site: Pasture or Secondary forest
2Location_ID  Sampling location id (see attached documentation for georeferences)
3Field_treatment  Sampling location: Termite mound or Control soil (adjacent to termite mound)
4 Cylinder  Unique cylinder ID for bulk density sampling
5Bulk_densityg/cm3Soil 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
 
Missing data reported as -9999

Example data records

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, 89, Termite mound, 153 0.94, 0.36, 0.39,
Secondary forest, 89, Termite mound, 155 0.93, 0.41, 0.44,
Secondary forest, 89, Termite mound, 156 0.92, 0.34, 0.37,
...
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 #10: Soil_hydrophobicity.csv

The soil hydrophobicity samples were collected in May of 2001 from the secondary forest site.

ColumnHeading Units/format Description
1Land_use   Dominant land use at the sampling site: Secondary forest
2Field_treatment   Sample type: Termite mound, Burnt mound (termite mound with evidence of recent burning) or Control soil (adjacent to termite mound)
3Sample_no   Laboratory sample number: 1 - 16
4Initial_weight g sample Weight of sample at start of experiment in grams (g)
5Weight_15s g sampleWeight of sample after 15 seconds of water exposure in grams (g)
6Weight_30s g sampleWeight of sample after 30 seconds of water exposure in grams (g)
7H2O_absorb_15s g H2OAmount of water absorbed by sample after 15 seconds in grams (g) calculated as sample weight after 15 seconds of exposure minus initial sample weight
8H2O_absorb_30s g H2OAmount of water absorbed by sample after 30 seconds in grams (g) calculated as sample weight after 30 seconds of exposure minus initial sample weight
9Absorption_rate_15s g H2O/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
10Absorption_rate_30s g H2O/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 are reported as -9999

Example data records

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,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,14,9.231,10.102,10.884,0.871,1.653,
3.484,2.204,
Secondary forest,Burnt mound,15,8.217,8.984,9.834,0.767,1.617,
3.068,2.156
Secondary forest,Burnt mound,16,5.446,6.38,7.377,0.934,1.931,
3.736,2.575

File #11: Soil_infiltration.csv

Soil infiltration samples were collected September 5, 2000 at the secondary forest site.

ColumnHeadingUnits/format Description
1Land_use  Dominant land use at the sampling site: Secondary forest
2Location_ID  Sampling location id (see attached documentation for georeferences)
3Field_treatment  Sampling location: Termite mound, Control soil (adjacent to termite mound)
4 Infiltration_rateL/min/m2Rate of infiltration of water into the soil measured in liters per minute per meter squared (L/min/m2)

Example data records

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 #12: Soil_resistance_all.csv

Soil resistance to penetration was measured in the secondary forest site on August 2, 2000 and in the pasture site on September 5, 2000.

ColumnHeadingUnits/format Description
1Dateyyyymmdd Sampling date
2Land_use  Dominant land use in the sampling area: Pasture or Secondary forest
3Location_ID  Sampling location ID (see attached documentation for georeferences)
4Field_treatment  Sampling location: Termite mound, Control soil (adjacent to termite mound)
5 Depthcm Sampling depth in centimeters (cm)
6Penetrometer_reading  Direct reading from penetrometer
7 Resistancekgf/cm2 Calculated resistance in kilograms of force per centimeter squared
8Observations   Field notes


Example data records

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
...
20000802,Secondary forest,other 53,Control soil,5,90,45,not recorded
20000802,Secondary forest,other 53,Control soil,5,150,75,not recorded
20000802,Secondary forest,other 53,Control soil,5,10,5,not recorded

File #13: Soil_texture_all.csv

Soil texture samples were collected in May 2000 at the secondary forest and August 4, 2000 at the pasture sites.

ColumnHeading Units/format Description
1Year yyyySample collection year (yyyy)
2Month mmSample collection month (mm)
3Day dd Sample collection day of the month (dd) or "not reported"
4Land_use   Dominant land use at the sampling site: Pasture or Secondary forest; either sampled directly from the termite mound, or control soil within 1.5 meters of the mound
5Location_ID   Transect location ID (for pasture sites only)
6Field_treatment   Sampling location: Termite mound or Control soil (within 1.5 meters of the mound)
7Sample_ID   Sample identification number
8Coarse_sand % Percent of soil classified as coarse sand (diameter between 0.5 and 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 (%)
10Total_sand % Percent of soil classified as sand (diameter between 0.1 and 2.0 mm) on a weight basis in percent (%)
11Silt %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 (%)
13Comments Field notes

Example data records

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

2000,05,not reported,Secondary forest,not reported,Termite mound,2487,4.4,1.5,5.9,14.6,79.5,none
2000,05,not reported,Secondary forest,not reported,Control soil ,2488,3.6,1.4,5.1,21.3,73.7,none
2000,05,not reported,Secondary forest,not reported,Termite mound,2489,3.6,1.7,5.3,14.5,80.2,none
...
2000,08,04,Pasture,C26,Termite mound,2766,7.2,1,8.2,21,70.8,very clayey
2000,08,04,Pasture,C27,Termite mound,2767,10.7,2.5,13.2,17.8,68.9,very clayey
2000,08,04,Pasture,C35,Termite mound,2768,9,3.3,12.3,16.7,71,very clayey
...
2000,08,04,Pasture,C52,Control soil,2779,9.1,2.5,11.6,25.8,62.7,very clayey
2000,08,04,Pasture,C53,Control soil,2780,11.9,2.3,14.3,27,very clayey
2000,08,04,Pasture,C54,Control soil,2781,9.4,2.7,12.1,21.9,21.9,very clayey

File #14: Water_retention_curve_data.csv

The water retention samples were collected from control soils, termite, and burnt termite mounds in the secondary forest site.

ColumnHeadingUnits/format Description
1Land_use  Dominant land use in the sampling area (all data in this file are from Secondary forest)
2Sample_ID  Sample identification code for laboratory purposes
3Field_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, yes or no
5PressurepFPressure in pF
6 dry_wt g Sample dry weight in grams (g)
7 Water_wtg 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

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,Q17,Burnt mound,yes,3,6.517,1.923,0.295
Secondary forest,Q18,Burnt mound,yes,3,6.517,1.923,0.295
Secondary forest,Q19,Burnt mound,yes,3,9.528,2.799,0.294

File #15: Water_stable_aggregates_data.csv

Water-stable aggregate samples were collected from termite mounds, control soil, and from a burnt mound at the secondary forest site in May and June of 2001.

ColumnHeadingUnits/format Description
1Land_use  Dominant land use at sampling site: secondary forest was 7 to 8 years old
2Location_ID  Termite mound identification code
3Field_treatment  Sample type: Termite mound, Burnt mound (termite mound with evidence of recent burning) or Control soil (adjacent to termite mound)
4 Soil_weightgDry weight of sample prior to dispersal in water in grams (g)
5Very_coarsegDry weight of water-stable aggregates between 2-4 mm in diameter in grams (g)
6 Coarse g Dry weight of water-stable aggregates between 1-2 mm in diameter in grams (g)
7 Mediumg Dry weight of water-stable aggregates between 0.5-1 mm in diameter in grams (g)
8 FinegDry weight of water-stable aggregates between 0.25-0.5 mm in diameter in grams (g)
9 Recovered_wtgSum of the recovered aggregates reported in grams (g)
10 ErrorgDifference between the dry weight of the initial sample and the recovered weight reported in grams (g)

Example data records

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,92,Termite mound,49.9,28.2,12.5,4.6,1.7,47,2.9
Secondary forest,92,Control soil,34,9.8,9.1,4.4,2.1,25.4,8.6
Secondary forest,69,Burnt mound,25.1,19.7,3.4,0.5,0.2,23.8,1.3

Site boundaries: (All latitude and longitude given in decimal degrees)

Site (Region) Westernmost Longitude Easternmost Longitude Northernmost Latitude Southernmost Latitude Geodetic Datum
Amazonas (Manaus) - EMBRAPA DAS Experiment - km 54 (CPAA) (Amazonas (Manaus)) -60.030000 - 60.030000-2.51800 -2.51800 World Geodetic System, 1984 (WGS-84)

Time period:

Platform/Sensor/Parameters measured include:

3. Data Application and Derivation:

These data provide a picture of the impact of termite mounds on the 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.

4. Quality Assessment:

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

5. Data Acquisition Materials and Methods:

The soils used in this study were 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 2,200 mm.

Three land uses were chosen for this study: a secondary 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 secondary forest transects were in a 7-8 year old secondary forest dominated by Vismia spp. Three plots were chosen at the same distance apart as the plots in the agroforests.

Termite mound abundance, area, collection, and identification:

Termite species composition was assessed using a modified rapid biodiversity assessment protocol (Land_use_species_composition.csv). 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.

Termite mound abundance and area covered (density) (Termite_mound_area_and_abundance.csv) were determined at the secondary forest site in April of 2000. Transects were made and surveyed through the secondary forest site (figure 1). Seventeen mounds were sampled for termite species. Termites were hand-collected with forceps and transferred to vials containing 80% ethyl alcohol for preservation and subsequent identification (Ackerman et al., 2007).

 

map of transect lines

Figure 1. Diagram of transect lines surveyed for termite mound area and abundance.

Nitrogen mineralization

Nitrogen mineralization (Termite_mound_N_mineralization.csv): Five termite mounds and control sites from the secondary forest site 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 allow 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.

Root biomass

Root biomass determination (Termite_mound_root_density.csv): Samples were collected at the secondary forest site on Jun 26 2001. Biomass measurements were made by sampling with 5 cm long and 100 cubic cm cylinders on the soil surface. Nineteen randomly selected termite mounds, 19 adjacent control areas, and 1 burnt mound were sampled. A flat intact surface was chosen for sampling on each mound. The sampling point for the control soil was 1.5 m from the border of the termite mound in a randomly chosen cardinal direction. Roots were washed, identified where possible, and dried (Ackerman et al., 2007).

Seedling studies

Soil cores (Termite_mounds_seedling_experiment.csv) were collected in 5 cm long and 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.

Microbial groups

Microbial group determination (Microbial_groups.csv): 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 aggregated 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 1:1,000 or 1:10,000,000.

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).

Soil  properties:

Soda lime assessment of soil respiration (Soda_lime_data.csv): 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.

Soil analysis (Termite_mound_soil_chemistry_and_respiration_rates.csv): 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. There were 6 samples for control soil and 6 samples of termite soil, and each of the six samples were normal (sieved soil) or aggregate. The control adjacent soil sample was taken 1.5 m from the base of the termite mound. Each sampling point was a composite of three samples.

Soil 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 (Mehlich-1). Exchangeable calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), and aluminum (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 (w/v) and determined on an atomic absorption spectrophotometer (AA-1475, Varian Associates, Palo Alto, CA). ) Soil microbial in vitro respiration was measured by an infrared gas analyzer (Ackerman 2006). The instrument was run in open flow mode using ambient air from outdoors. Temperature during the experiment ranged from 17 to 23 C.

Soil bulk density data (Termite_mound_soil_physical_characteristics.csv): 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 5 cm long and 100 cubic cm cylinders on the soil surface. Nine termite mounds and 9 adjacent control areas were sampled in the secondary forest, and 4 each in the pasture. Three samples were taken from each mound and each treatment.

Soil hydrophobicity (Soil_hydrophobicity.csv): The soil hydrophobicity data were collected in May of 2001, using soil from the secondary forest site. Soil clod samples from termite mound, control soil, and a termite mound that had been exposed to fire were evaluated for their rate of water absorption by an absorption curve method. A tray of washed sand was saturated with water. Sixteen soil clods of each treatment category (termite mound, control soil, and termite mound that had been exposed to fire) were dried and weighed. Each clod was re-weighed after every 5 s in contact with the bed of sand until it ceased to gain mass (Ackerman et al., 2007).

Soil infiltration (Soil_infiltration.csv): Nine samples of termite and control soils each were collected on September 5, 2000, at the secondary forest site. Soil infiltration was measured by inserting a stainless steel cylinder 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.

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

Soil texture (Soil_texture_all.csv): Forty-one soil texture samples were collected in May 2000 at the secondary forest and 16 samples August 4, 2000, at the pasture sites. 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 for 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).

Water retention (Water_retention_curve_data.csv): The water retention curve of termite mound and control soil cores was evaluated by the tension table method (Reeve & Carter, 1991) for 27 samples  including control soils, termite and burnt mounds. 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.

Water-stable aggregation (Water_stable_aggregates_data.csv:): Water-stable aggregation was measured using 19 samples from termite mounds, control soil, and 1 sample from a burnt mound, 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 particles 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.

 

6. Data Access:

This data is available through the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC).

Data Archive Center:

Contact for Data Center Access Information:
E-mail: uso@daac.ornl.gov
Telephone: +1 (865) 241-3952

7. References:

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. (LBA-ECO Pub ID # 875).

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. (LBA-ECO Pub ID # 831).

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. Maual de Metodos de Analises de Solo. Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Solos, Rio de Janeiro, 212 pp.

Grogan, P. 1998. CO2 flux measurement using soda lime: Correction for water formed during CO2 adsorption. Ecology 79:1467-1468.

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.