Effects of topography and forest stand dynamics on soil morphology in three natural Picea abies mountain forests
- 607 Downloads
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.
KeywordsSoil 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.
- 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
- Borcard D, Gillet F, Legendre P (2011) Numerical ecology with R, Use R! Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
- 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. www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/22650506/evaluation-of-the-key-to-the-european-humus-classification-system. Accessed 16 May 2015
- 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
- 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
- Experiment Station for Spruce Silviculture, Suceava, Romania. http://www.icassv.ro/. Accessed 29 January 2013
- FAO (2006) Guidelines for soil description. 4th edition. RomeGoogle Scholar
- IUSS Working Group WRB (2007) World reference base for soil resources 2006, first update 2007. World Soil Resources Reports No. 103. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
- Jabiol B, Zanella A, Englisch M et al (2004) Towards an European classification of terrestrial humus forms. Eurosoil Congress,4–12 September 2004. www2.alterra.wur.nl/internet/webdocs/Internet/Bodem/freiburg_fullpap.pdf. Accessed 16 Mar 2015
- Jenny H (1941) Factors of soil formation. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Kaňa J, Tahovská K, Kopáček J (2012) Response of soil chemistry to forest dieback after bark beetle infestation. Biogeochemistry 113:369–383Google Scholar
- Klinka K, Fons J, Krestov P (1997) Towards a taxonomic klassification of humus forms: third approximation. Sci Silvica 9:1–4Google Scholar
- Legendre P, Legendre LFJ (2012) Numerical ecology, 3rd edn. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- Oksanen J (2011) Mutlivariate analysis of ecological communities in R: vegan tutorial. http://cc.oulu.fi/~jarioksa/opetus/metodi/vegantutor.pdf. Accessed 16 May 2014
- Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, et al. (2013) vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.0-10. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan. Accessed 20 Oct 2014
- Parker AL (1982) The topographic relative moisture index: an approach to soil-moisture assessment in mountain terrain. Phys Geogr 3:160–168Google Scholar
- R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 4 Dec 2014
- Schaetzl RJ, Anderson S (2005) Soils: genesis and geomorphology, 5th edn. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
- Targulian VO, Goryachkin SV (2004) Soil memory: types of record, carriers, hierarchy and diversity. Rev Mex Cienc Geológicas 21:1–8Google Scholar
- ter Braak CJF, Prentice IC (1988) A theory of gradient analysis. Adv Ecol Res 18:271–317Google Scholar