Water, Air, and Soil Pollution

, Volume 85, Issue 3, pp 1789–1794 | Cite as

Modeling the transport of acidity in soil profiles with front — A dynamic transport model

  • E. Eriksson
  • E. Karltun
Part VII Recovery from Acidification

Abstract

A dynamic transport model, FRONT, that describes the downwards transport of acidity in podzolized forest soils is presented. In this model the downward transport of acidity with the soil solution is counteracted by a production of alkalinity through the weathering of primary minerals and delayed by the adsorption of sulfate and hydrogen ions on iron- and aluminium oxides. The heart of the model is a massbalance equation that describes the transport of bulk acidity/alkalinity. The FRONT model was tested on 23 deep soil profiles situated along three transects in west-to-east direction across Sweden. Using a deposition scenario starting at 1910 the model was able to account for the large regional differences in the present depth of the acid front. Assuming a linearly decreasing deposition until 30% of present deposition is reached in 2010 the model was used to simulate a scenario for profiles in different parts of Sweden. The scenarios indicated that the upper parts of soil profiles that are severely acidified today will recover and assume a new steady-state in 2030. However, for soil profiles that have large stores of adsorbed sulfate in the B horizon the simulations indicate that one can expect an increased acidity in the deep soil layers several decades after the deposition has ceased due to downward transport of acidity.

Keywords

soil acidification sulfate adsorption dynamic model recovery 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albertsen, M.: 1977, Dissertation, Kiel.Google Scholar
  2. Fuller, R.D., Driscoll, C.T., Lawrence, G.B. and Nodvin, S.C.: 1987, Nature 325, 707–710.Google Scholar
  3. Johnson, D.W.: 1980, In: Hutchinson, T.C. and Havas, M. (Eds), “Effects of acid precipitation on terrestrial ecosystems”, pp. 525–535 Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  4. Karltun, E.: 1994, Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal., 25, 207–214.Google Scholar
  5. Karltun, E.: 1995, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Report 4427, 76pp.Google Scholar
  6. Lövblad, G., Amann, M., Andersen, B., Hovmand, F., Joffre, S., and Pedersen, U.: 1992, Ambio 21, 339–347.Google Scholar
  7. McColl, J.G. and Cole, D.W.: 1968, Northwest Sci., 43, 134–140.Google Scholar
  8. Olsson, M. and Melkerud, P.A.: 1991, In: Pulkkinen, E. (Ed), “Environmental geochemistry in northern Europe”, Geological Survey of Finland, Special paper no. 9, pp. 69–78.Google Scholar
  9. Reuss, J.O. and Johnson, D.W.: 1985, J. Environ. Qual. 14, 26–31.Google Scholar
  10. Sverdrup, H. and Warvfinge, P.: 1991, In: Rosén, K. (Ed) “Chemical weathering under field conditions” Dep. Forest Soils, Swedish Univ. of Agr. Sci., Uppsala, pp. 79–118.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Eriksson
    • 1
  • E. Karltun
    • 2
  1. 1.Div. of Hydrology, Dep. of GeosciencesUppsala Univ.Uppsala
  2. 2.Dep. of Soil SciencesSwedish Univ. of Agr. Sci.UppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations