European Journal of Forest Research

, Volume 130, Issue 6, pp 1075–1091 | Cite as

Soil variability through spatial scales in a permanently disturbed natural spruce-fir-beech forest

  • Pavel Šamonil
  • Martin Valtera
  • Stanislav Bek
  • Barbora Šebková
  • Tomáš Vrška
  • Jakub Houška
Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Soil variability was assessed in a 74.2-ha area within the Žofínský prales natural forest. Parameters evaluated for 1765 soil profiles inside 353 graticule plots were as follows: (1) thickness of organic horizons, (2) thickness and form of mineral horizons, (3) humus form (HF), (4) soil taxonomic unit (STU) and (5) anomalies. In addition, soil reaction (pHKCl) and oxidizable carbon content (Cox) were measured in the laboratory for 734 samples from the upper mineral (A) and lower mineral (B) horizons. The most frequently occurring humus form was mor followed by moder, hydromor and peaty T-horizon. Entic Podzols, Dystric Cambisols, Haplic Cambisols, Albic Podzols, Histic (or Haplic) Gleysols, Endogleyic Stagnosols, Fibric or Hemic or Sapric Histosols and Stagnic Gleysols were all present at the site despite its homogeneous geological bedrock. Overall coefficient of variance (CV) was lower in terrestrial soils compared with (semi-)hydromorphic soils. Overall variance decreased in both soil groups with increasing depth, as did CV differences between the fine (up to 10 m) and the locality scales. The lowest CV values occurred for Cox and pHKCl. The CV values differed between STUs as well. Compared to lower horizons, variograms of upper horizons showed greater autocorrelation at the intermediate spatial scale (10–320 m)—ranging from 50 to 150 m. Semivariance values, however, reached 70–80% of sill already at a distance of 10 m. The most significant factor of variability at all studied spatial scales is presumably the soil disturbance regime, followed by terrain micro-topography and the effect of tree species.

Keywords

Soil variability Soil diversity Spatial scales Natural forest Soil disturbance Beech 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank their colleagues from the “Blue Cat research team” for field data measurement—Dušan Adam, Petra Doleželová, Libor Hort, David Janik, Kamil Král, Hana Kučeráková, Pavel Unar. The authors would also like to thank all anonymous reviewers, as their comments and suggestions considerably improved the quality of the paper. The research was supported by the Czech Science Foundation (project No. 526/09/P335), the Czech Ministry of the Environment (project No. MSM 6293359101) and by the Mendel University in Brno (project no. IGA 12/2009).

References

  1. Agbu PA, Olson KR (1990) Spatial variability of soil properties in selected Illinois Mollisols. Soil Sci 150:777–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexandrovskiy AL (2007) Rates of soil-forming processes in three main models of pedogenesis. Revista Mexicana Ciencias Geológicas 24:283–292Google Scholar
  3. Anderson RS (2002) Modeling the tor-dotted crests, bedrock edges, and parabolic profiles of high alpine surfaces of the Wind River range, Wyoming. Geomorphology 46:35–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anonymous (1995) ISOIDIS 14235. Soil quality. Determination of organic carbon in soil by sulfochromic oxidation. International Organization for Standardization, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  5. Baniamino F, Ponge JF, Arpin P (1991) Soil acidification under the crown of oak trees I. spatial distribution. Forest Ecol Manag 40:221–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 169:5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bormann BT, Spaltenstein H, McCleellan MH, Ugolini FC, Cromack K Jr, Nay SM (1995) Rapid soil development after windthrow disturbance in pristine forests. J Ecol 83:747–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borůvka L, Mládková L, Penížek V, Drábek O, Vašát R (2007) Forest soil acidification assessment using principal component analysis and geostatistics. Geoderma 140:374–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boublík K, Lepší M, Lepší P (2009) Vegetation of the Žofínský Prales nature reserve (Novohradské Hory Mts., Czech Republic). Silva Gabreta 15:121–142 (in Czech)Google Scholar
  10. Braun-Blanquet J (1921) Prinzipien einer Systematik der Pflanzengesellschaften auf floristischer Grundlage. St. Gallen, Jahrbuch der St. Gallischen, Naturwissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft 57:305–351Google Scholar
  11. Bringmark E, Bringmark L (1998) Improved soil monitoring by use of spatial patterns. Ambio 27:45–52Google Scholar
  12. Buol SW, Southard RJ, Graham RC, McDaniel PA (2003) Soil genesis and classification, 5th edn. Iowa State Press, AmesGoogle Scholar
  13. Clément P (1993) Erosion balance and slope evolution under continental humid temperature climate: an Appalachian example (Quebec, Canada). Catena 20:303–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Collins BS, Pickett STA (1982) Vegetation composition and relation to environment in an Allegheny hardwoods forest. Am Midl Nat 108:117–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cools N, Mikkelsen JH, De Vos B (2007) Evaluation of the key to the European Humus Classification System, Terrestrial humus forms. Inbo—Instituut voor natuur- en bosonderzoek. 3rd meeting of the European Humus Research Group, 20–23 June 2007. Cagliari, SardegnaGoogle Scholar
  16. Cox MS, Gerard PD, Abshire MJ (2006) Selected soil properties’ variability and their relationships with yield in three Mississippi fields. Soil Sci 171:541–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cressie N, Wikle CK (1998) The variance-based cross-variogram: you can add apples and oranges. Math Geol 30:789–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. D’Amoto A, Orwig DA (2008) Stand and landscape-level disturbance dynamics in old-growth forests in western Massachusetts. Ecol Monogr 78:507–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Driessen P, Deckers J, Spaargaren O, Nachtergaele F (2001) Lecture notes on the major soils of the world. World Soil Resour Reports 94:1–334Google Scholar
  20. Ellenberg H (1996) Vegetation Mitteleuropas mit den Alpen in ökologischer, dynamischer und historischer Sicht. Verlag Eugen Ulmer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  21. Fraver S, White AS, Seymour RS (2009) Natural disturbance in an old-growth landscape of northern Maine, USA. J Ecol 97:289–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frelich LE, Lorimer CG (1991) Natural disturbance regimes in hemlock hardwood forests of the upper Great-Lakes Region. Ecol Monogr 61:145–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gallardo A, Paramá R (2007) Spatial variability of soil elements in two plant communities of NW Spain. Geoderma 139:199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Garten CT Jr, Kang S, Brice DJ, Schadt CW, Zhou J (2007) Variability in soil properties at different spatial scales (1 m–1 km) in a deciduous forest ecosystem. Soil Biol Biochem 39:2621–2627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gömöryová E, Gregor J, Pichler V, Gömöry D (2006) Spatial patterns of soil microbial characteristics and soil moisture in a natural beech forest. Biologia 61:329–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gruba P (2009) The influence of trees on spatial variability of pH in top horizons of forest soil. Sylwan 153:330–335Google Scholar
  27. Grundmann GL, Debouzie D (2000) Geostatistical analysis of the distribution of NH4+-and NO2-oxidizing bacteria and serotypes at the millimeter scale along a soil transect. Microb Ecol 34:57–62Google Scholar
  28. Guo D, Mou P, Jones RH, Mitchell RJ (2002) Temporal changes in spatial patterns of soil moisture following disturbance: an experimental approach. J Ecol 90:338–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Guo D, Mou P, Jones RH, Mitchell RJ (2004) Spatio-temporal patterns of soil available nutrients following experimental disturbance in a pine forest. Oecologia 138:613–621PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hruška J, Cienciala E (eds) (2003) Long-term acidification and nutrient degradation of forest soils–limiting factors of forestry today. Czech Ministry of Environment, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  31. Isaaks EH, Srivastava RM (1989) Applied geostatistics. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Kabrick JM, Clayton MK, McBratney AB, McSweeney K (1997) Cradle-knoll patterns and characteristics on drumlins in northeastern Wisconsin. Soil Sci Soc Am J 61:595–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Klinka K, Fans J, Krestov P (1997) Towards a taxonomic classification of humus forms; third approximation. Scientia Silvica, Extension Series No. 9. Forestry Sciences Department. The University of British Columbia, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  34. Korpel S (1995) Die Urwälder der Westkarpaten. Gustav Fischer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  35. Král K, Janík D, Vrška T, Adam D, Hort L, Unar P, Šamonil P (2010a) Local variability of stand structural features in beech dominated natural forests of Central Europe: Implications for sampling. For Ecol Manag 260:2196–2203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Král K, Vrška T, Hort L, Adam D, Šamonil P (2010b) Developmental phases in a temperate natural spruce-fir-beech forest: determination by a supervised classification method. Eur J Forest Res 129:339–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Legendre P (1993) Spatial autocorrelation: trouble or new paradigm? Ecology 74:1659–1673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lin H, Wheeler D, Bell J, Wilding L (2005) Assessment of soil spatial variability at multiple scales. Ecol Model 182:271–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Manzoni S, Porporato A (2009) Soil carbon and nitrogen mineralization: theory models across scales. Soil Biol Biochem 41:1355–1379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Martin WKE, Timmer VR (2006) Capturing spatial variability of soil and litter properties in a forest stand by landform segmentation procedures. Geoderma 132:169–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mayer H (1989) Windthrow. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B324:267–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Michéli E, Schad P, Spaargaren O, Dent D, Nachtergale F (2006) World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2006. World Soil Resources Reports 103. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  43. Muukkonen P, Hakkinen M, Makipaa R (2009) Spatial variation in soil carbon in the organic layer of managed boreal forest soil-implications for sampling design. Environ Monit Assess 158:67–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Němeček J, Macků J, Vokoun J, Vavříček D, Novák P (2001) Taxonomický klasifikační systém půd České republiky. Praha, ČZU, VÚMOPGoogle Scholar
  45. Okae-Anti D, Ogoe JI (2006) Analysis of variability of some properties of a semideciduous forest soil. Commun Soil Sci Plan 37:211–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Outeiro L, Asperó F, Úbeda X (2008) Geostatistical methods to study spatial variability of soil cations after a prescribed fire and rainfall. Catena 74:310–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Oyama M, Takehara H (2001) Revised standard soil color charts. Ejkelklamp Agrisearch Equipment, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  48. Peigné J, Vian J-F, Cannavacciuolo M, Bottollier B, Chaussod R (2009) Soil sampling based on field spatial variability of soil microbial indicators. Eur J Soil Biol 45:488–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Phillips JD (2001) Divergent evolution and the spatial structure of soil landscape variability. Catena 43:101–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Phillips JD (2008) Soil system modelling and generation of field hypotheses. Geoderma 145:419–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Phillips JD, Marion DA (2004) Pedological memory in forest soil development. Forest Ecol Manag 188:363–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Phillips JD, Marion DA (2006) Biomechanical effects of trees on soil and regolith: beyond treethrow. Ann Assoc Geogr 96:233–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Phillips JD, Gosweiler J, Tollinger MA, Gordon R, Mayeux S, Witmeyer M, Altieri T (1994) Edge effects and spatial variability in coastal plain Ultisols. Southeast Geogr 34:125–137Google Scholar
  54. Phillips JD, Marion DA, Luckow K, Adams KR (2005) Nonequilibrium Regolith thickness in the Ouachita mountains. J Geol 113:325–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Průša E (1985) Die böhmischen und mährischen Urwälder - ihre Struktur und Ökologie, Vegetace ČSSR A15. Academia, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  56. Qian H, Klinka K (1995) Spatial variability of humus forms in some coastal forest ecosystems of British Columbia. Ann For Sci 52:653–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Riha SJ, Senesac G, Pallant E (1986) Effects of forest vegetation on spatial variability of surface mineral soil pH, soluble aluminium and carbon. Water Air Soil Poll 31:929–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Šamonil P, Vrška T (2007) Trends and cyclical changes in natural fir-beech forests at the North-western edge of the Carpathians. Folia Geobot 42:337–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Šamonil P, Král K, Douda J, Šebková B (2008a) Variability in forest floor at different spatial scales in a natural forest in the Carpathians: effect of windthrows and mesorelief. Can J For Res 38:2596–2606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Šamonil P, Šebková B, Douda J, Vrška T (2008b) Role of position within the windthrow in forest floor chemistry in the flysch zone of the Carpathians. Can J For Res 38:1646–1660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Šamonil P, Antolík L, Svoboda M, Adam D (2009) Dynamics of windthrow events in a natural fir–beech forest in the Carpathian mountains. Forest Ecol Manag 257:1148–1156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Šamonil P, Král K, Hort L (2010a) The role of tree uprooting in soil formation: a critical literature review. Geoderma 157:65–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Šamonil P, Tejnecký V, Borůvka L, Šebková B, Janík D, Šebek O (2010b) The role of tree uprooting in Cambisol development. Geoderma 159:83–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schaetzl RI, Burns SF, Johnson DL, Small TW (1989) Tree uprooting: review of impacts on forest ecology. Vegetatio 79:165–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schöning I, Totsche KU, Kögel-Knabner I (2006) Small scale spatial variability of organic carbon stocks in litter and solum of a forested Luvisol. Geoderma 136:631–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Seastedt TR, Adams GA (2001) Effects of mobile tree islands on alpine tundra soils. Ecology 82:8–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Shukla MK, Slater BK, Lal R, Cepuder P (2004) Spatial variability of soil properties and potential management classification of a chernozemic field in lower Austria. Soil Sci 169:852–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Skvorcova EB, Ulanova NG, Basevic VF (1983) Ekologiceskaja rol vetrovalov. Lesnaja Promyslennost, MoskvaGoogle Scholar
  69. Small EE, Anderson RR, Hancock GS (1999) Estimates of the rate of regolith production using 10Be and 26Al from an alpine hillslope. Geomorphology 27:137–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stork R, Dilly O (1998) Scale-dependent spatial variability of microbiological characteristics in soil of a beech forest. Zietschrift fur pflanzenernahrung und bodenkunde 161:235–242Google Scholar
  71. Trangmar BB, Yost RS, Uehara G (1985) Application of geostatistics to spatial studies of soil properties. Adv Agron 38:45–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Ulanova NG (2000) The effects of windthrow on forests at different spatial scales: a review. Forest Ecol Manag 135:155–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Unar P (2009) Changes in the vegetation of the Žofínský Prales nature reserve in the period 1975–2008. Silva Gabreta 15:155–172Google Scholar
  74. Welzholz JC, Johann E (2007) History of Protected Forest Areas in Europe. In: Frank G, Parviainen J, Vandekerkhove K, Latrham J, Schuck A, Little D (eds) Protected forest areas in Europe–analysis and harmonisation (PROFOR): Results, conclusions and recommendations. Federal Research and Training Centre for Forests, Natural Hazards and Landscape, Vienna, pp 17–40Google Scholar
  75. Yavitt JB, Harms KE, Garcia MN, Wright SJ, He F, Mirabello MJ (2009) Spatial heterogeneity of soil chemical properties in a lowland tropical moist forest, Panama. Aust J Soil Res 47:674–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zar JH (1996) Biostatistical analysis, 3rd edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pavel Šamonil
    • 1
  • Martin Valtera
    • 1
    • 2
  • Stanislav Bek
    • 3
  • Barbora Šebková
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tomáš Vrška
    • 1
  • Jakub Houška
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Forest EcologyThe Silva Tarouca Research Institute for Landscape and Ornamental GardeningBrnoCzech Republic
  2. 2.Faculty of Forestry and Wood TechnologyMendel University in BrnoBrnoCzech Republic
  3. 3.Faculty of ScienceCharles University in PraguePrague 2Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations