Advertisement

Journal of Mountain Science

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 132–138 | Cite as

Micromorphology of solonetzic horizons as related to environmental events in the Caspian Lowland

  • M. Lebedeva (Verba)
  • M. Gerasimova
  • M. Konyushkova
Article

Abstract

Micromorphology of solonetz species with special attention to natric horizon was studied in microcatenas at the Dzhanybek Research Station (northwestern Caspian Lowland). The solonetzic (natric) horizon is easily identified, and it occurs at varying depths, which are the criteria for subdividing solonetzes into 4 species, namely, crusty, shallow, medium and deep. In this sequence, the depth of humus-accumulative horizons increases, and the upper boundary of salinity manifestations goes down.

The following micromorphological features are assumed as typical for natric horizons: angular blocky microstructures with partially accommodated aggregates having sharp boundaries and narrow plane-like packing voids; b-fabric speckled in the aggregates’ centers and monostriated at their peripheries merging into stress coatings; very few interpedal voids; organo-clay coatings; humusenriched infillings; no calcite and gypsum pedofeatures. A complete set of “natric” features was found only in the crusty solonetz; the shallow solonetz lacks only illuviation coatings, while the medium and deep species have several modifications of fabric elements: blocky aggregates have a rounded shape and are penetrated by biogenic channels favoring their further biogenic reworking; plant residues became more abundant and diverse, and blackened tissues occur; illuviation clay coatings evolved into papules; stress coatings gave birth to striated bfabrics, thus maintaining a high plasma orientation.

The thin sections of natric horizons made 50 and 20 years ago were examined to study the influence of environmental changes (increase in precipitation and rise of ground water table) on micropedofeatures. The following processes took place: (i) in the topsoil: humus accumulation and biogenic structurization; (ii) in the natric horizon — re-arrangement of clay coatings into micromass b-fabrics; and (iii) in the lower part of the natric horizon — development of pseudosand fabric, calcite and gypsum formation. The trends revealed are in good agreement with the environmental events.

Keywords

Pedogenic trend natric horizon biogenic feature salt 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bazykina G.S. 1978. Reclamation-Induced Changes in Agrophysical Properties of Solonchakous Solonetzes of the Northern Caspian Lowland. Problems of Soil Hydrology and Genesis. M.: Nauka Publ. Pp. 5–31. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  2. Bol’shakov A.F., Borovskiy V.M. 1937. Soils and Microrelief o the Caspian Lowland (data from Dzhanybek Station of Soil Inst. Ac.Sc. USSR). Materials of Research, Investigations an Designing Irrigation Systems in the Transvolga Region. In: “Solonetzes of Transvolga Region”. M.-L.: VASKhNIL Publ. Iss. VII. Pp. 134–169. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  3. Gerasimova M.I., Gubin S.V., Shoba S.A. Ed. By R. Miedema. 1996. Soils of Russia and Adjacent Countries: Geography and Micromorphology. Moscow-Wageningen. 204 pp.Google Scholar
  4. Guiliarov M.S. 1965. Zoological Method of Soil Diagnostics. M. Nauka Publ. Pp. 275. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  5. Demkin V.A., Ivanov I.V. 1985. Soil Evolution in the Caspian Lowland During the Holocene. Pushchino. Pp. 165. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  6. Dimo N.A., Keller B.A. 1907. In the Semidesert. In: Soil and Botanical Studies in the South of Tzaritzyn County, Saratov District. Saratov. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  7. Dobrovol’skiy G.V. (Ed.). 1991. A Methodological Manual of Soil Micromorphology. Int.Training centre, Ghent. Publication series # 3. Pp. 68.Google Scholar
  8. Field Guide for Russian Soils. 2008. Dokuchaev Soil Inst. Moscow. Pp. 182. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  9. Khitrov N.B. 2004. Changes in Microrelief and Soil Cover in the Solonetzic Complexes During the Second Half of the XX Century. Soils, Biogeochemical Cycles and Biosphere. M.: KMK Publ. Pp. 271–284. (In RussianGoogle Scholar
  10. Khitrov N.B. 2005. The relationship between the Soils of Solonetzic Complexes in the Northern Caspian Lowland and the Local Microtopography. Eurasian Soil Science 38(3): 237–249.Google Scholar
  11. Kroonenberg S.B., Badyukova E.N., Storms J.E.A., Ignatov E.I., Kasimov N.S. 2000. A Full Sea-level Cycle in 65 Years: Barrier Dynamics Along Caspian Shores. Sedimentary Geology, Elsevier. V. 134. Pp. 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lebedeva (Verba) M.P., Gabchenko M.V. 2006. Micromorphologi Analysis of Current Processes in Soils of Solonetzic Complex in the Northern Caspian Lowland. Soil-Forming Processes. Dokuchaev Soil Inst. Pp. 236–245. (In Russian)Google Scholar
  13. Mozeson D.L. 1956. Main Types of Depressional Microrelief in the Volga-Ural Interfluve and Their Genesis. Proc. Inst. Geogr. RAS. Iss. 69. Pp. 37–91. (In Russian)Google Scholar
  14. Pol’skiy M.N. 1958. Agrophysical Properties of Solonchalou Solonetzes as Reclamation Objects. Proc. Inst. Forest, V. 38, M.: AN SSSR Publ. Pp. 59–72. (In Russian)Google Scholar
  15. Rode A.A., Pol’skiy M.N. 1961. Soils of Northwestern Caspian Semidesert and Their Reclamation. Proc. V.V.Dokuchaev Soil Institute. M.: AN SSSR Publ. Vol. 56. Pp. 3–214. (In Russian)Google Scholar
  16. Rychagov G.I. 1997. Holocene Oscillations of the Caspian Sea, and Forecasts Based on Paleogeographic Reconstructions. Quaternary Int. 41/42. Pp. 167–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shabanova N.P., Khitrov N.B., Gerasimova M.I. 2008. Relationships between Soil Properties and Morphometric Parameters of Depressions in Clayey Semidesert of the Trans-Volga Region. Eurasian Soil Science 41(9): 914–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Soil Micromorphology and Classification. Ed. By L.A. Douglas & M.L. Thompson. 985. SSSA Special publication # 15. Madison. Pp. 201–203.Google Scholar
  19. Sokolova T.A., Sizemskaya M.L., Sapanov M.K., Tolpeshta I.I. 2000. Variations in the Content and Composition of Salts in the Soils of the Solonetzic Complex at the Dzhanybek Research Station during the Last 40–50 Years). Eurasian Soil Science 33(11): 1166–1177.Google Scholar
  20. Sotneva N.I. Dynamics of Climatic Conditions. Izv. AN SSSR. Ser.Geogr. 2004. # 5. Pp. 74–83. (In Russian)Google Scholar
  21. Stoops G. Guidelines for Analysis and Description of Soil and Regolith Thin Section. Published by Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Inc. Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 2003. Pp. 184.Google Scholar
  22. Szendrei G. 1988. Micromorphology of Solonetz Soils. In: “Solonetz Soils: Problems, Properties, Utilization. Osijek, Subcom.of Salt-affected Soils. Pp. 178–183.Google Scholar
  23. Yarilova E.A. 1958. Mineralogical Characterization of Solonetzes in the Chernozem Zone. Proc. of Dokuchaev Soil Science Institute. Vol. 53. Pp. 131–142.Google Scholar
  24. Yarilova E.A. 1966. Micromorphology of Solonetzes in the Zone of Chernozems and Chestnut Soils. Mciromorphological Methods in Soil Genesis Studies. M.: Nauka Publ. Pp. 58–76. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  25. World Reference Base for Soil Resources. 2006, FAO, Rome. Pp. 128.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS and Springer-Verlag GmbH 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Lebedeva (Verba)
    • 1
  • M. Gerasimova
    • 1
  • M. Konyushkova
    • 1
  1. 1.Dokuchaev Soil InstituteMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations