Abstract
In 2008, the Mulberry River, a National Wild and Scenic River, was listed as impaired due to low pH (below pH 6.0). Over the last 50 years, the volume of conifers in the Ozark region has increased 115% since 1978 which may result in the acidification of nearby aquatic ecosystems. The objective of this study was to determine if differences exist in soil and litter chemical properties between deciduous and coniferous tree stands. Aboveground litter (n = 200) and soil (n = 400) at 0- to 5- and 5- to 15-cm depths were collected at paired deciduous and coniferous stands at 10 locations within the Mulberry River watershed and analyzed for a suite of chemical parameters. There were no differences (P > 0.05) in several measures of soil acidity between deciduous and coniferous stands. Litter collected from the coniferous stands was more acidic than deciduous litter (4.4 vs 4.7; P < 0.05). Cation exchange capacity, exchangeable Ca and Mg, and water-soluble P and Mg contents differed (P < 0.05) by stand and depth. Cation exchange capacity and exchangeable Ca and Mg were greatest in the 0- to 5-cm depth interval of the coniferous stands. Water-soluble P and Mg contents were greatest within the 0- to 5-cm depth interval which did not differ (P > 0.05) between stand but were greater than the 5- to 15-cm depth interval. Although limited to the top 15-cm of soil, the similarity in soil acidity between stands suggests that conifer growth may not be a substantial source of acidity to the Mulberry River.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Change history
22 April 2019
Fig. 1. was amended to reduce the size of the map and improve formatting of the manuscript. The authors claim this amendment does not affect the information being conveyed.
References
Ahern CR, McElnea AE, Sullivan LA (2004) Acid sulfate soils laboratory methods guidelines. Queensland Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, Indooroopilly, Queensland, Australia
Alban DH (1982) Effects of nutrient accumulation by aspen, spruce, and pine on soil properties. Soil Sci Soc Am J 46:853–861
Beltz RC, Bertelson DF, Faulkner JL, May DM (1992) Forest resources of Arkansas, New Orleans
Billett MF, Fitzpatrick EA, Cresser MS (1988) Long-term changes in the acidity of forest soils in north-East Scotland. Soil Use Manag 4:102–107
Binkley D (1995) The influence of tree species on Forest soils: processes and patterns. Proc trees soil Work 7:1–33
Binkley D, Giardina C (1998) Why do tree species affect soils? The warp and woof of tree-soil interactions. Biogeochemistry 42:89–106
Brand DG, Kehoe P, Connors M (1986) Coniferous afforestaion leads to soil acidification in Central Ontario. Can J For Res 16:1389–1391
Burt R (2014) Kellog soil survey laboratory methods manual. Lincoln
Farley KA, Piñeiro G, Palmer SM, Jobbágy EG, Jackson RB (2009) Stream acidification and base cation losses with grassland afforestation. Water Resour Res 45:1–11
Fenwick IM, Knapp BJ (1982) Soils: process and response. Gerald Duckworth & Co
Finzi AC, Van Breemen N, Canham CD (1998) Canopy tree-soil interactions within temperate forests: species effects on soil carbon and nitrogen. Ecol Appl 8:440–446
Giddens K, Parfitt R, Percival H (1997) Comparison of some soil properties under Pinus radiata and improved pasture. N Z J Agric Res 40:409–416
Hansson K, Olsson BA, Olsson M, Johansson U, Kleja DB (2011) Differences in soil properties in adjacent stands of scots pine, Norway spruce, and silver birch in SW Sweden. For Ecol Manag 262:522–530
Holmsgaard E, Holstener-Jorgensen H (1961) Soil conditions and increment in stands of Norway spruce of first and second rotations. In: 13th congress international union forest research organization. p Sect 21 3/6
Hornung M, Reynolds B, Stevens PA, Neal C (1987) Stream acidification resulting from afforestation in the UK: evaluation of causes and possible ameliorative measures. For Hydrol Watershed Manag 65–74
Iwashima N, Masunaga T, Fujimaki R, Toyota A, Tayasu I, Hiura T, Kaneko N (2012) Effect of vegetation switch on soil chemical properties. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 58:783–792
Jenkins A, Cosby BJ, Ferrier RC, Walker TAB, Miller JD (1990) Modelling stream acidification in afforested catchments: an assessment of the relative effects of acid deposition and afforestation. J Hydrol 120:163–181
Johansson MB (1995) The chemical composition of needle and leaf litter from scots pine, Norway spruce and white birch in Scandinavian forests. Forestry 68:49–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/68.1.49
Lane CL (1975) Forest stand conversion from hardwoods to pines: Effects on soil nutrients, microorganisms and forest floor weight during the first seven years. For Sci 21(2):155–159
Lane CL (1990) Forest stand conversion from hardwoods to pine: twenty-three years later. In: Gessel SP, Lacate DS, Weetman GF, Powers RF (eds) Sustained productivity of forest soils. Proceedings of the Seventh North American Forest Soils Conference. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, p 253–256
Nilsson SI, Miller HG, Miller JD (1982) Forest growth as a possible cause of soil and water acidification: an examination of the concepts. Oikos 39:40
Ovington J (1953) Studies of the development of woodland conditions under different trees. I. Soils pH. J Ecol 41:13–44
Ovington J (1954) Studies of the development of woodland conditions under different trees. II. The Forest floor. J Ecol 42:71–80
Ovington J (1958) Studies of the development of woodland conditions under different trees. VII. Soil calcium and magnesium. J Ecol 46:391–405
Page-Dumroese DS, Brown RE, Jurgensen MF, Mroz GD (1999) Comparison of methods for determining bulk densities of rocky forest soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 63:379
Ross DJ, Tate KR, Scott NA, Wilde RH, Rodda NJ, Townsend JA (2002) Afforestation of pastures with Pinus radiata influences soil carbon and nitrogen. Aust J Soil Res 40:1303–1318
Rosson JF, Rose AK (2010) Arkansas’ forests, 2005. Resour Bull SRS–166 Asheville, NC US Dep Agric for Serv South Res Station 126 p 166
Saxton A (1998) A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in proc mixed. In: Proceedings of the 23rd SAS Users Group International, SAS Institute, Cary, pp 1243–1246
Scott DA, Messina MG (2009) Soil properties in 35 y old pine and hardwood plantations after conversion from mixed pine-hardwood forest. Am Midl Nat 163(1):197–211
Seifferlein ER, Jones P, Ferguson R et al (2005) Extractable acidity by a centrifuge method. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 36:2067–2083
Shafii M (2008) Total maximum daily load (TMDL) For pH: Mulberry River, Arkansas. Little Rock
Sparling G, Shepherd T, SChipper L (2000) Topsoil characteristics of three contrasting New Zealand soils undr four long-term land uses. N Z J Agric Res 43:569–583
Stone E (1975) Effects of species on nutrient cycles and soil change. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 271:149–162
Tamm C, Hallbacken L (1986) Changes in soil pH over a 50-yr period under different forest canopies in Southwest Sweden. Water Air Soil Pollut 31:337–341
Zarcinas B, Cartwright B, Spouncer L (1987) Nitric acid digestion and multi-element analysis of plant material by inductively coupled plasma spectrometry. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 18:131–146
Zhang H, Hardy DH, Mylavarapu R, Wang J (2014) Mehlich-3. In: Sikora FJ, Moore KP (eds) Soil test methods from the southeastern United States. Southern Coop. Ser. Bull. 419. p 101–110. Univ. of Georgia
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Philippe Garrigues
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Burgess-Conforti, J.R., Moore, P.A., Owens, P.R. et al. Are soils beneath coniferous tree stands more acidic than soils beneath deciduous tree stands?. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26, 14920–14929 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04883-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04883-y