Plant and Soil

, Volume 392, Issue 1–2, pp 57–69 | Cite as

Effects of topography and forest stand dynamics on soil morphology in three natural Picea abies mountain forests

  • Martin ValteraEmail author
  • Pavel Šamonil
  • Miroslav Svoboda
  • Pavel Janda
Regular Article


Background and aims

Soil evolution in mountain areas is strongly influenced by vegetation and terrain topography. In managed forests, however, relationships of the soil to the environment are modified or masked by human intervention. The objective of our study was to uncover the mutual effects of topographic and forest stand factors on the evolution and variability of soils in natural mountain spruce forests.


Ordination analyses were applied to extensive data on soil morphology, terrain topography and forest stand structure including its disturbance history, collected at three sites in the Carpathians with natural Norway spruce [Picea abies (L.) Karsten] mountain forests, each with areas ≥ 40 ha.


Slope characteristics were the most important factors explaining the main gradients in the soil data. Soil cover and organic horizons were also highly correlated with the forest stand structure and historical disturbances. Moreover, at one site that had experienced a historical stand-replacing disturbance, the more disturbed plots showed a higher incorporation of organic matter and less pronounced eluviation in the upper mineral soil compared to less disturbed areas.


Our results suggest that the long-term shift in pedogenic conditions following a high-severity disturbance may enable the rejuvenation of podzolized soils.


Soil formation Pedogenic factors Disturbance dynamics Podzolization Soil rejuvenation Spatial pattern 



We are grateful to all the people that participated in the field and in the dendrochronological research, to the local authorities that enabled field data collection, and to our colleagues from the Blue Cat research team for support. Thanks to the two anonymous reviewers whose comments contributed significantly to the quality of the paper, and to Václav Treml and Luděk Šefrna for inspiration.

Compliance with ethical standards


This study was funded by the Czech Science Foundation (the main part was elaborated within the project No. P504/10/1644, and finalized within the project No. 15-14840S). In addition, the work of M. Valtera was supported by the Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (institutional support VUKOZ-IP-00027073).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11104_2015_2442_MOESM1_ESM.docx (78 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 77 kb)


  1. Barrett LR, Schaetzl RJ (1998) Regressive pedogenesis following a century of deforestration: evidence for depodzolization. Soil Sci 163:482–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernier N, Ponge J-F (1994) Humus form dynamics during the sylvogenetic cycle in a mountain spruce forest. Soil Biol Biochem 26:183–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernier N, Ponge J-F, André J (1993) Comparative study of soil organic layers in two bilberry-spruce forest stands (Vaccinio-Piceetea). Relation to Forest Dynamics. Geoderma 59:89–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanchet FG, Legendre P, Borcard D (2008) Forward selection of explanatory variables. Ecology 89:2623–2632CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonifacio E, Caimi A, Falsone G et al (2008a) Soil properties under Norway spruce differ in spruce dominated and mixed broadleaf forests of the Southern Taiga. Plant Soil 308:149–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonifacio E, Santoni S, Cudlin P, Zanini E (2008b) Effect of dominant ground vegetation on soil organic matter quality in a declining mountain spruce forest of central Europe. Boreal Environ Res 13:113–120Google Scholar
  7. Borcard D, Gillet F, Legendre P (2011) Numerical ecology with R, Use R! Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  8. Buurman P, Jongmans AG (2005) Podzolisation and soil organic matter dynamics. Geoderma 125:71–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chauvat M, Ponge J-F, Wolters V (2007) Humus structure during a spruce forest rotation: quantitative changes and relationship to soil biota. Eur J Soil Sci 58:625–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cools N, Mikkelsen JH, De Vos B (2007) Evaluation of the key to the European humus classification system: terrestrial humus forms. 3rd meeting of the European Humus Research Group, 20–23 June 2007. Accessed 16 May 2015
  11. Corenblit D, Baas ACW, Bornette G et al (2011) Feedbacks between geomorphology and biota controlling earth surface processes and landforms: a review of foundation concepts and current understandings. Earth Sci Rev 106:307–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. D’Amico ME, Freppaz M, Filippa G, Zanini E (2014) Vegetation influence on soil formation rate in a proglacial chronosequence (Lys Glacier, NW Italian Alps). Catena 113:122–137Google Scholar
  13. Drábek O, Borůvka L, Pavlů L et al (2007) Grass cover on forest clear-cut areas ameliorates some soil chemical properties. J Inorg Biochem 101:1224–1233CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Driessen P, Deckers J, Spaargaren O, Nachtergaele F (2001) Lectures and notes on the major soils of the world. World Soil Resources Reports No. 94. RomeGoogle Scholar
  15. Dutilleul P, Nef L, Frigon D (2000) Assessment of site characteristics as predictors of the vulnerability of Norway spruce (Picea abies Karst.) stands to attack by Ips typographus L. (Col., Scolytidae). J Appl Entomol 124:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Experiment Station for Spruce Silviculture, Suceava, Romania. Accessed 29 January 2013
  17. FAO (2006) Guidelines for soil description. 4th edition. RomeGoogle Scholar
  18. Hill MO, Gauch HG Jr (1980) Detrended correspondence analysis: an improved ordination technique. Vegetatio 42:47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. IUSS Working Group WRB (2007) World reference base for soil resources 2006, first update 2007. World Soil Resources Reports No. 103. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  20. Jabiol B, Zanella A, Englisch M et al (2004) Towards an European classification of terrestrial humus forms. Eurosoil Congress,4–12 September 2004. Accessed 16 Mar 2015
  21. Jankowski M (2014) The evidence of lateral podzolization in sandy soils of Northern Poland. Catena 112:139–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jenny H (1941) Factors of soil formation. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnson DL, Watson-Stegner D (1987) Evolution model of pedogenesis. Soil Sci 143:349–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson DL, Keller EA, Rockwell TK (1990) Dynamic pedogenesis: new views on some key soil concepts, and a model for interpreting quaternary soils. Quat Res 33:306–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jonsson BG, Esseen P-A (1990) Treefall disturbance maintains high bryophyte diversity in a boreal spruce forest. J Ecol 78:924–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaňa J, Tahovská K, Kopáček J (2012) Response of soil chemistry to forest dieback after bark beetle infestation. Biogeochemistry 113:369–383Google Scholar
  27. Klinka K, Fons J, Krestov P (1997) Towards a taxonomic klassification of humus forms: third approximation. Sci Silvica 9:1–4Google Scholar
  28. Kramer MG, Hansen AJ, Taper ML, Kissinger EJ (2001) Abiotic controls on long-term windthrow disturbance and temperate rain forest dynamics in southeast Alaska. Ecology 82:2749–2768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lamedica S, Lingua E, Popa I et al (2011) Spatial structure in four Norway spruce stands with different management history in the Alps and Carpathians. Silva Fenn 45:865–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Legendre P, Birks HJB (2012) From classical to canonical ordination. In: Birks HJB, Lotter AF, Juggins S, Smol JP (eds) Tracking environmental change using lake sediments, volume 5: data handling and numerical techniques. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 201–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Legendre P, Legendre LFJ (2012) Numerical ecology, 3rd edn. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  32. Mezei P, Grodzki W, Blaženec M, Jakuš R (2014) Factors influencing the wind–bark beetles’ disturbance system in the course of an Ips typographus outbreak in the Tatra Mountains. For Ecol Manag 312:67–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Oksanen J (2011) Mutlivariate analysis of ecological communities in R: vegan tutorial. Accessed 16 May 2014
  34. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, et al. (2013) vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.0-10. Accessed 20 Oct 2014
  35. Parker AL (1982) The topographic relative moisture index: an approach to soil-moisture assessment in mountain terrain. Phys Geogr 3:160–168Google Scholar
  36. Peres-Neto PR, Legendre P, Dray S, Borcard D (2006) Variation partitioning of species data matrices: estimation and comparison of fractions. Ecology 87:2614–2625CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Phillips JD (1993) Progressive and regressive pedogenesis and complex soil evolution. Quat Res 40:169–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Phillips JD (2013) Networks of historical contingency in earth surface systems. J Geol 121:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Phillips JD, Marion DA (2004) Pedological memory in forest soil development. For Ecol Manag 188:363–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Accessed 4 Dec 2014
  41. Salmon S, Artuso N, Frizzera L, Zampedri R (2008) Relationships between soil fauna communities and humus forms: response to forest dynamics and solar radiation. Soil Biol Biochem 40:1707–1715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Šamonil P, Král K, Hort L (2010) The role of tree uprooting in soil formation: a critical literature review. Geoderma 157:65–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Šamonil P, Daněk P, Schaetzl RJ et al (2015) Soil mixing and genesis as affected by tree uprooting in three temperate forests. Eur J Soil Sci. doi: 10.1111/ejss.12245 Google Scholar
  44. Schaetzl RJ (1990) Effects of treethrow microtopography on the characteristics and genesis of Spodosols, Michigan, USA. Catena 17:111–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schaetzl RJ, Anderson S (2005) Soils: genesis and geomorphology, 5th edn. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  46. Small TW, Schaetzl RJ, Brixie JM (1990) Redistribution and mixing of soil gravels by tree uprooting. Prof Geogr 42:445–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sommer M, Halm D, Weller U et al (2000) Lateral podzolization in a granite landscape. Soil Sci Soc Am J 64:1434–1442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sommer M, Halm D, Geisinger C et al (2001) Lateral podzolization in a sandstone catchment. Geoderma 103:231–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Spielvogel S, Prietzel J, Kögel-Knabner I (2006) Soil organic matter changes in a spruce ecosystem 25 years after disturbance. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70:2130–2145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Svoboda M, Janda P, Bače R et al (2014) Landscape-level variability in historical disturbance in primary Picea abies mountain forests of the Eastern Carpathians, Romania. J Veg Sci 25:386–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Targulian VO, Goryachkin SV (2004) Soil memory: types of record, carriers, hierarchy and diversity. Rev Mex Cienc Geológicas 21:1–8Google Scholar
  52. ter Braak CJF, Prentice IC (1988) A theory of gradient analysis. Adv Ecol Res 18:271–317Google Scholar
  53. Trotsiuk V, Svoboda M, Janda P et al (2014) A mixed severity disturbance regime in the primary Picea abies (L.) Karst. forests of the Ukrainian Carpathians. For Ecol Manag 334:144–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Valtera M, Šamonil P, Boublík K (2013) Soil variability in naturally disturbed Norway spruce forests in the Carpathians: bridging spatial scales. For Ecol Manag 310:134–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vávrová E, Cudlín O, Vavříček D, Cudlín P (2009) Ground vegetation dynamics in mountain spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karsten) forests recovering after air pollution stress impact. Plant Ecol 205:305–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Willis KJ, Braun M, Sümegi P, Tóth A (1997) Does soil change cause vegetation change or vice versa? A temporal perspective from Hungary. Ecology 78:740–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Valtera
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pavel Šamonil
    • 1
  • Miroslav Svoboda
    • 2
  • Pavel Janda
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Forest EcologySilva Tarouca Research Institute for Landscape and Ornamental GardeningBrnoCzech Republic
  2. 2.Faculty of Forestry and Wood SciencesCzech University of Life Sciences PraguePraha 6 – SuchdolCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations