Passive and Active Restoration Strategies to Activate Soil Biogeochemical Nutrient Cycles in a Degraded Tropical Dry Land

Table 4

Mean monthly values (±SD) for leaf litter nutrient concentration (LLC, %) and potential nutrient return (PNR, kg ha⁻¹) via leaf litter in successional patches of mosquero (SPM) and forest plantations of neem (FPN) studied. Coefficient of variation (%) in parentheses.

Nutrient^a	LLC (%)		PNR (kg ha^−1)		𝑡 value	𝑒-value	𝑛
	SPM	FPN	SPM	FPN
N	1.08 ± 0.13; (11.9)	1.29 ± 0.31; (24.2)	0.44 ± 0.35; (78.9)	0.20 ± 0.18; (114.4)	2.105	0.047*	12
P	0.05 ± 0.01; (15.6)	0.03 ± 0.01; (19.0)	0.02 ± 0.02; (79.2)	0.005 ± 0.004; (86.7)	3.052	0.006**	12
Ca	1.75 ± 0.33; (18.9)	2.16 ± 0.65; (30.1)	0.76 ± 0.60; (79.7)	0.39 ± 0.44; (82.0)	1.721	0.099^NS	12
Mg	0.59 ± 0.08; (13.9)	0.46 ± 0.06; (13.9)	0.25 ± 0.21; (83.4)	0.07 ± 0.06; (64.5)	2.829	0.010**	12
K	0.28 ± 0.13; (44.9)	0.29 ± 0.14; (49.3)	0.09 ± 0.08; (80.2)	0.04 ± 0.03; (89.0)	2.226	0.036*	12

aAnalytical methods in Westerman [8]. ^{*, **}Denote significant differences between means of PNR at  P values ≤ 0.05 and ≤ 0.01, respectively (𝑡-test).