Biology and Fertility of Soils

, Volume 47, Issue 1, pp 31–40 | Cite as

Forest humus forms as potential indicators of soil carbon storage in Mediterranean environments

  • Anna Andreetta
  • Rossano Ciampalini
  • Pierpaolo Moretti
  • Simona Vingiani
  • Giorgio Poggio
  • Giorgio Matteucci
  • Francesca Tescari
  • Stefano Carnicelli
Original Paper

Abstract

The aim of this work was to investigate the potential of forest humus forms as indicators of soil C storage. To this purpose, Mediterranean forest soils in Southern and Central Italy were examined. Sites differed for elevation, climate, parent material and vegetation conditions, while summer drought was the common ecological factor. A morpho-functional criterion, based on holorganic layers thickness and A horizon properties, was used to classify humus forms, which ranged from Dysmoder to Eumull. Such variability allowed understanding of factors influencing organic matter storage. The relations between carbon stock and humus form were investigated for the topsoil layer (0–20 cm), which was supposed to contain the soil C pools most sensitive to climate change. We found that humus forms can be grouped in statistically different populations, with respect to topsoil C stocks. The use of A horizon structure was the main diagnostic criterion and represented the most effective approach to humus classification in Mediterranean conditions. It appears that humus forms have a clear potential as indicators of organic carbon status in Mediterranean forest soils.

Keywords

Humus forms Carbon sequestration Mediterranean forests Stabilization Carbon pools 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Data were supplied by the Italian Forest Service (CONECOFOR Office) and were gathered within the Pilot Project BioSoil, co-funded by the European Commission, following Regulation (EC) No. 2152/2003 concerning monitoring of forests and environmental interaction in the community (Forest Focus).

References

  1. Aubert M, Hedde M, Decaëns T, Margerie P, Alard D, Bureau F (2005) Facteurs contrôlant la variabilité spatiale de la macrofaune du sol dans une hêtraie pure et une hêtraie-charmaie. Compte Rendues–Biologie 328:57–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batjes NH (1996) Total carbon and nitrogen in the soils of the world. Eur J Soil Sci 47:151–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bens O, Buczko U, Sieber S, Hüttl RF (2006) Spatial variability of O layer thickness and humus forms under different pine beech-forest transformation stages in NE Germany. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 169(1):5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernier N, Ponge JF (1994) Humus form dynamics during the sylvogenetic cycle in a mountain spruce forest. Soil Biol Biochem 26:183–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bossuyt H, Six J, Hendrix PF (2005) Protection of soil carbon by microaggregates within earthworm casts. Soil Biol Biochem 37:251–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brêthes A, Brun JJ, Jabiol B, Ponge JF, Toutain F (1995) Classification of forest humus forms: a French proposal. Ann Sci For 52:535–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brovkin V, Cherkinsky A, Goryachkin S (2008) Estimating soil carbon turnover using radiocarbon data: a case study for European Russia. Ecol Model 216:178–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chabbi A, Köegel-Knabner I, Rumpel C (2009) Stabilised carbon in subsoil horizons is located in spatially distinct parts of the soil profile. Soil Biol Biochem 41:256–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Descheemaeker K, Muys B, Nyssen J, Sauwens W, Haile M, Poesen J, Raes D, Deckers J (2009) Humus form development during forest restoration in exclosures of the Tigray highlands, Northern Ethiopia. Res Ecol 17:280–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. FAO (2006) Guidelines for soil description. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, p 97Google Scholar
  11. Fons J, Klinka K (1998) Chemical and biotic properties and temporal variation of moder humus forms in the rain forest near Vancouver, British Columbia. Geoderma 86:83–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Green RN, Trowbridge RL, Klinka K (1993) Towards a taxonomic classification of humus forms. For Sci 39:1–49Google Scholar
  13. IUSS, ISRIC, FAO (2006) World reference base for soil resources—a framework for international classification, correlation and communication. World Soil Resources Report 103, FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  14. Jabiol B, Brethes A, Ponge JF, Toutain F, Brun JJ (2007) L’humus sous toutes ses formes, 2e éd. AgroParisTech-ENGREF, NancyGoogle Scholar
  15. Jobbágy EG, Jackson RB (2000) The vertical distribution of soil organic carbon and its relation to climate and vegetation. Ecol Appl 10:423–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kleber M, Mikutta R, Torn MS, Jahn R (2005) Poorly crystalline mineral phases protect organic matter in acid subsoil horizons. Eur J Soil Sci 56:717–725Google Scholar
  17. Köegel-Knabner I, Guggenberger G, Kleber M, Kandeler E, Kalbitz K, Scheu S, Eusterhues K, Leinweber P (2008) Organo-mineral associations in temperate soils: integrating biology, mineralogy, and organic matter chemistry. Zeits Pflanzenern Bodenk 171:61–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lavelle P (1988) Earthworms and the soil system. Biol Fertil Soils 6:237–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marschner B, Brodowski S, Dreves A, Gleixner G, Gude A, Grootes PM, Hamer U, Heim A, Jandl G, Rong J, Kaiser K, Kalbitz K, Kramer C, Leinweber P, Rethemeyer J, Schaeffer A, Schmidt MWI, Schwark L, Wiesenberg LB (2008) How relevant is recalcitrance for the stabilization of organic matter in soils? J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 171:91–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Martel YA, Paul EA (1974) The use of radiocarbon dating of organic matter in the study of soil genesis. Soil Sci Soc Am Proc 38:501–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mikutta R, Kleber M, Torn MS, Jahn R (2006) Stabilization of soil organic matter: association with minerals or chemical recalcitrance? Biogeochem 77:25–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mummey DL, Rillig MC, Six J (2006) Endogeic earthworms differentially influence bacterial communities associated with different soil aggregate size fractions. Soil Biol Biochem 38:1608–1614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Northup RR, Dahlgren RA, McColl JG (1998) Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions in northern California’s pygmy forest: a positive feedback? Biogeochem 42:189–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Page G (1968) Some effects of conifer crops on soil properties. Commonw For Rev 47:52–62Google Scholar
  25. Page G (1974) Effects of forest cover on the properties of some Newfoundland forest soils. CAN Forestry Service, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  26. Peltier A, Ponge JF, Jordana R, Ariño A (2001) Humus form in Mediterranean scrublands with Aleppo Pine. Soil Sci Soc Am J 65:884–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ponge JF (2003) Humus forms in terrestrial ecosystems: a framework to biodiversity. Soil Biol Biochem 35:935–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ponge JF (2009) Effects of amendments on biological performance of forest soils—gaining a better understanding of the meso- and macrofauna in soil development. Rev For Fr 61:217–222Google Scholar
  29. Ponge JF, Delhaye L (1995) The heterogeneity of humus profiles and earthworm communities in a virgin beech forest. Biol Fertil Soils 20:24–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ponge JF, Chevalier R, Loussot P (2002) Humus index: an integrated tool for the assessment of forest floor and topsoil properties. Soil Sci Soc Am J 66:1996–2001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Qian H, Klinka K (1995) Spatial variability of humus forms in some coastal forest ecosystems of British Columbia. Ann Sci For 52(6):653–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rumpel C, Kögel-Knabner I, Bruhn F (2002) Vertical distribution, age, and chemical composition of organic carbon in two forest soils of different pedogenesis. Org Geochem 33:1131–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sadaka N, Ponge JF (2003) Climatic effects on soil trophic networks and the resulting humus profiles in holm oak (Quercus rotundifolia) forests in the high Atlas of Morocco as revealed by correspondence analysis. Eur J Soil Sci 54:767–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schulze K, Borken W, Muhr J, Matzner E (2009) Stock, turnover time and accumulation of organic matter in bulk and density fractions of a Podzol soil. Eur J Soil Sci 60:567–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Six J, Bossuyt H, Degryze S, Denef K (2004) A history of research on the link between (micro) aggregates, soil biota, and soil organic matter dynamics. Soil Tillage Res 79:7–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Spielvogel S, Prietzel J, Kögel-Knabner I (2008) Soil organic matter stabilisation in acidic forest soils is preferential and soil type-specific. Eur J Soil Sci 59:674–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Strandberg B, Kristiansen SM, Tybirk K (2005) Dynamic oak-scrub to forest succession: effects of management on understorey vegetation, humus forms and soils. For Ecol Manag 211(3):318–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. UN/ECE ICP Forests (2006) Manual on methods and criteria for harmonized sampling, assessment, monitoring and analysis of the effects of air pollution on forests. 2006 edition. Manual part IIIa on sampling and analysis of soils. Programme co-ordinating centre. http://www.icp-forests.org/pdf/Chapt_3a_2006(1).pdf.
  39. Vacca A (2000) Effect of land use on forest floor and soil of a Quercus suber L. forest in Gallura (Sardinia, Italy). Land Degrad Dev 11:167–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vitousek PM, Reiners WA (1975) Ecosystem succession and nutrient retention: a hypothesis. Bioscience 25:376–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. von Lüetzow M, Köegel-Knabner I, Ekschmitt K, Matzner E, Guggenberger G, Marschner B, Flessa H (2006) Stabilization of organic matter in temperate soils: mechanisms and their relevance under different soil conditions—a review. Eur J Soil Sci 57:426–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. von Lüetzow M, Kögel-Knabner I, Ludwig B, Matzner E, Flessa H, Ekschmitt K, Guggenberger G, Marschner B, Kalbitz K (2008) Stabilization mechanisms of organic matter in four temperate soils: development and application of a conceptual model. Zeits Pflanzenern Bodenk 171:111–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wilson SM, Pyatt DG, Malcolm DC, Connolly T (2001) The use of ground vegetation and humus type as indicators of soil nutrient regime for an ecological site classification of British forests. For Ecol Manag 140(2–3):101–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zanella A, Jabiol B, Ponge JF, Sartori G, De Waal R, Van Delft B, Graefe U, Cools N, Katzensteiner K, Hager H, English M, Brethes A (2009) Toward a European humus forms reference base. Studi Trent Sci Nat 85:145–151Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna Andreetta
    • 1
  • Rossano Ciampalini
    • 1
  • Pierpaolo Moretti
    • 3
  • Simona Vingiani
    • 3
  • Giorgio Poggio
    • 2
  • Giorgio Matteucci
    • 4
  • Francesca Tescari
    • 1
  • Stefano Carnicelli
    • 1
  1. 1.University of FirenzeFirenzeItaly
  2. 2.CNR-ISEPisaItaly
  3. 3.University of Napoli Federico IIPorticiItaly
  4. 4.CNR-ISAFOMRendeItaly

Personalised recommendations