Advertisement

Water, Air, and Soil Pollution

, Volume 85, Issue 3, pp 1801–1806 | Cite as

Describing soil SO42− dynamics in the solling roof project with two different modelling approaches

  • C. Alewell
  • B. Manderscheid
  • A. Lükewille
  • P. Koeppe
  • J. Prenzel
Part VII Recovery from Acidification

Abstract

The release of previously stored soil SO42− is tightly connected with the reversibility of soil and water acidification. Thus soil SO42− dynamics have to be included when predicting the reversibility of acidification. Our aim was to compare two modelling approaches: The model MAGIC (Cosby et al., 1985) describes SO42− dynamics with the Langmuir sorption isotherme. In the SO-MODEL (Prenzel, 1991) a precipitation/ dissolution of jurbanite is defined.

Even though it was possible to calibrate both models to lysimeter data of the Solling D1 site in 1 m depth, the prognosis for SO42− concentrations in the soil solution differed significantly. While MAGIC predicted the observed gradual decrease of SO42− concentration with decreasing deposition, the SO-MODEL calculated stable concentrations up to the year 2026 followed by a sudden drop. Because the prognosis established with the SO-MODEL is incompatible with observed field data, we concluded that the predicted SO42− dynamic of the SO-MODEL was unrealistic.

Keywords

Precipitation SO42 Field Data Soil Solution Gradual Decrease 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alewell, C.: 1995, Bayreuther Forum Ökologie, 19, 1–187.Google Scholar
  2. Alewell, C. and Matzner, E.: 1993, Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 71:155–165.Google Scholar
  3. Blanck, K., Lamersdorf, N. und Bredemeier, M.: 1993, Forstarchiv, 64, 164–172.Google Scholar
  4. Bredemeier, M., Lamersdorf, N. and Widey, G.: 1993, Forstarchiv, 64, 154–158.Google Scholar
  5. Boxman, A.W., van Dijk, H.F.G. and Roelolfs, J.G.M.: 1991, GSF-Bericht, 43, 29–54.Google Scholar
  6. Courchesne, F. and Hendershot, W. H.: 1990, Soil Science, 150, 571–578.Google Scholar
  7. Cosby, B.J., Hornberger, G.M., Galloway, J.N. and Wright, R.F.: 1985, Water Resources Research, 21, 51–63.Google Scholar
  8. Dillon, P.J. and LaZerte, B.D.: 1992, Environmental Pollution, 77, 211–217.Google Scholar
  9. Förster, R.: 1987, Ber. d. Forschungsz. Waldökosysteme Göttingen, Reihe A, 28, 1–137.Google Scholar
  10. Furrer, G. and Westall, J.: 1989, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 53, 595–601.Google Scholar
  11. Gjessing, E.T.: 1994, Environment International, 20, No.3, 363–368.Google Scholar
  12. Gundersen, P. and Beier, C.: 1988, Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 39, 247–261.Google Scholar
  13. Johnson, D.W., Swank, W.T. and Vose, J.M.: 1991, Biogeochemistry, 23, 169–196.Google Scholar
  14. Kros, J., Groenenberg, J.E., De Vries, W. and Van der Salm, C.: 1995, Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 79, 353–375.Google Scholar
  15. Lükewille, A. and Prenzel, J.: 1993, Applied Geochemistry, Suppl., 2, 131–134.Google Scholar
  16. Manderscheid, B., Matzner, E., Meiwes, K.-J. and Xu, Y.: 1995, Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 79, 3–18.Google Scholar
  17. Matzner, E.: 1988, Ber. d. Forschungsz. Waldökosysteme Göttingen, Reihe A, 40, 1–217.Google Scholar
  18. Matzner, E. and Meiwes, K.J.: 1994, Journal of Environmental Quality, 23, 162–166.Google Scholar
  19. Meiwes, K.J.: 1979, Göttinger Bodenkundliche Berichte, 60, 1–108.Google Scholar
  20. Newell, A.D.: 1993, Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 67, 257–280.Google Scholar
  21. Prenzel, J.: 1991, Ber. des Forschungsz. Waldökosysteme Göttingen, 28, 1–51.Google Scholar
  22. Prenzel, J.: 1994, Journal of Environmental Quality, 23, 188–194.Google Scholar
  23. Prenzel, J. and Schulte-Bisping, H.: 1991, Ber. d. Forschungsz. Waldökosysteme Göttingen, Reihe B, 29, 1–47.Google Scholar
  24. Schindler, D.W.: 1985, Chemical Processes in Lakes, John Wiley & Sons LTD, New York, 225–250.Google Scholar
  25. Schober, R.: 1979, Ertragstafeln wichtiger Baumarten. J.D. Sauerländer's Verlag, Frankfurt a.M.Google Scholar
  26. Weaver, G. T., Khanna, P. K. and Beese. F.: 1985, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 49, 746–750.Google Scholar
  27. Wesselink, B.: 1994, Time Trends & mechanisms of soil acidification. Wageningen, PhD Thesis.Google Scholar
  28. Wesselink, B., van Grinsven, H. and Großkurth, G.: 1995a, Quantitative modeling of soil forming processes. SSSA Spec. Publ. ASA, CSA and SSSA, Madison, WI. (in press).Google Scholar
  29. Wesselink, B., Mulder, J. and Matzner, E.: 1995b, Geoderma (in press).Google Scholar
  30. Wright, R.F., Lotse, E. and Semb, A.: 1988, Nature, 334, 670–675.Google Scholar
  31. Wright, R.F., Lotse, E. and Semb, A.: 1993. RAIN Project: Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 50, 258–268.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Alewell
    • 1
  • B. Manderscheid
    • 1
  • A. Lükewille
    • 2
  • P. Koeppe
    • 3
  • J. Prenzel
    • 3
  1. 1.BITÖK, Dep. of Soil EcologyUniversity of BayreuthBayreuth
  2. 2.NIVAOslo
  3. 3.Dep. of Soil Science and Plant NutritionUniversity of GöttingenGöttingen

Personalised recommendations