Journal of Forestry Research

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 63–74 | Cite as

Soil quality index as a tool for Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) monoculture conversion planning on afforested, reclaimed mine land

Original Paper

Abstract

In Central Europe, a large portion of post-mining sites were afforested with Scots pine, which is characterized by good adaptability and a tolerance for poor habitat at the beginning of forest ecosystem development. Conversion of monoculture on mine sites into more biodiverse mixed hardwood forests, especially on more fertile deposits, can be an emerging need in this part of Europe in next decades. The ability to classify the forests at these post-mining sites will facilitate proper species selection as well as the management and formation of the developed ecosystem’s stability. This work describes the guidelines that can be followed to assess reclaimed mine soil (RMS) quality, using the mine soil quality index (MSQI) and a classification of developed forest sites as a basis of tree-stand species selection and conversion of pine monocultures. The research was conducted on four post-mining facilities (lignite, hard coal, sulphur, and sand pit mining areas) on different RMS substrates dominant in Central Europe. Soil quality assessment takes into account the following features of the soil: texture soil nutrients (Ca, Mg, K, Na, P); acidity (pH KCl); and Corg-to-Nt ratio in the initial organic horizon. An analysis was conducted of classification systems using the MSQI validation correlation (at p =0.05) with vegetation features affected by succession: aboveground biomass of forest floor and ecological indicators of vascular plants (calculated on the basis of Ellenberg’s (2009) system). Eventually, in the analysed data set, the MSQI ranged from 0.270 for soils on quaternary sands to 0.720 for a mix of quaternary loamy sands with neogene clays. Potential forest habitat types and the role of the pine in the next generation of tree stands on different RMS parent rock substrate were proposed.

Keywords

mining sites afforestation pine monoculture conversion soil quality index forest habitat classification 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson DW. 1977. Early stages of soil formation of glacial ill mine spoils in semiarid climate. Geoderma, 19: 11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews JA, Johnson JE, Torbert JL, Burger JA, Kelting DL. 1998. Minesoil and site properties associated with early height growth of Eastern White Pine. J Environ Qual, 27: 192–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baule H, Fricker C. 1970. The fertilizer treatment of forest trees. Munchen, Germany: BLV-Verlagsges, p.259.Google Scholar
  4. Baumann K, Rumpelt A, Schneider BU, Marschner P, Hüttl RF. 2006. Seedling biomass and element content of Pinus sylvestris and Pinus nigra grown in sandy substrates with lignite. Geoderma, 136: 573–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brożek S, Lasota J, Zwydak M, Wanic T, Gruba P, Błońska E. 2011. Application of the trophic soil index (SIG) in the diagnosis of forest site types. Soil Sci Annual, 62(4): 133–149. (In Polish, English Summary)Google Scholar
  6. Buczko U, Bens O, Fischer H, Hüttl RF. 2002. Water repellency in sandy luvisols under diffrent forest transformation stages in Northest-Germany. Geoderma, 109: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burger JA, Johnson JE, Andrews JA., Torbert JL. 1994. Measuring mine soil productivity for forests. In: International Land Reclamation and Mine Drainage Conference on Reclamation and Revegetation. USDOI, Bureau of Mines, Special Publication, SP 06C-94. p. 48–56.Google Scholar
  8. Burger JA, Kelting DL, 1998. Soil qualitymonitoring for assessing sustainable forest management. In: M.B. Adams, K. Ramakrishna, E.A. Davidson (eds.) The Contribution of Soil Science to the Development and Implementation of Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management. Soil Sci Soc Am, Special Publication, 53: 17–52.Google Scholar
  9. Burger JA, Kelting DL. 1999. Using soil quality indicators to assess forest stand management. For Ecol Manage, 122: 155–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chabbi A, Sebilo M, Rumpel C, Schaaf W, Mariotti A. 2008. Origin of Nitrogen in reforested lignite-rich mine soils revealed By Stable Isotope Analysis. Environ Sci Technol, 42: 2787–2792.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Daniels WL, Genthner MH, Hodges RL. 1992. Soil development in sandy tailings derived from mineral sands mining in Florida. In: Proceedings, National Meeting of the American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation. Duluth MN, 14–18 June 1992. Lexington, KY: ASMR, pp. 37–47.Google Scholar
  12. Daniels WL, Stewart BR. 2000. Reclamation of Appalachian coal refuse disposal areas. In: R. I. Barnhisel, R.G. Darmody, W. Lee Daniels (eds.), J. Bartels (Manag. ed.), Reclamation of drastically disturbed lands. Agron. Monogr. 41. Madison, WI: ASA, CSSA, SSSA, p. 433–459.Google Scholar
  13. De Vos B, Van Meirvenne M, Quataert P, Deckers J, Muys B. 2005. Predictive quality of pedotransfer functions for estimating bulk density of forest soils. Soils, Soil Sci Am J, 69: 500–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doran JW, Parkin TB. 1996. Quantitative indicators of soil quality: a minimum data set. In: J.W. Doran, A.J. Jones (eds.), Methods for Assessing Soil Quality. Soil Sci Soc Am Special Publication, 49: 25–37.Google Scholar
  15. Dzwonko Z. 2001. Assesment of light and soil conditions in ancient and recent woodlands by Ellenberg indicator values. J App Ecol, 38(5): 942–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellenberg, H. 2009. Vegetation Ecology of Central Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 756.Google Scholar
  17. Farjon A. 2005. Pines: Drawings and Descriptions of the Genus Pinus. 2nd rev. ed. Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers, p. 236.Google Scholar
  18. Fischer H, Bens O, Hüttl RF. 2002. Changes in humus form, humus stocks and soil organic matter distribution caused by forest transformation in the northeastern lowlands of germany. Forstwiss Centralblatt, 121: 322–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gale MR, Grigal DF, Harding RB. 1991. Soil productivity index: predictions of site quality for white spruce plantations. Soil Sci Soc Am J, 55: 1701–1708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harris RF, Karlen DL, Mulla DJ. 1996. A conceptual framework for assessment and management of soil quality and health. In: J.W. Doran, A.J. Jones (eds.), Methods for Assessing Soil Quality. Soil Sci Soc Am Special Publication, 49:61–82.Google Scholar
  21. Heinsdorf D, 1996. Development of forest stands in the Lusatian Lignite Mining District after mineral fertilization adapted to site and tree species. Water, Air, Soil Pollut, 91: 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Henderson GS. 1995. Soil organic matter: a link between forest management and productivity. In: W.W. McFee, J.M. Kelly (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th North American Forest Soils Conference on Carbon Forms and Function in Forest Soils. Madison, WI: Soil Sci. Am, pp. 419–435.Google Scholar
  23. Hüttl RF, Weber E, 2001. Forest ecosystem development in post-mining landscapes, a case study of the Lusatian lignite district. Naturwissenschaften, 88: 322–329.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jackson ML. 1958. Soil chemical analysis. Verlag: Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. p. 498.Google Scholar
  25. Janssen BH. 1996. Nitrogen mineralization in relation to C:N ratio and decomposability of organic materials. Plant Soil, 181: 39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Katzur J, Haubold-Rosar M. 1996. Amelioration and Reforestation of sulfurous mine soils in Lusatia (Eastern Germany). Water, Air Soil Pollut, 91: 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Knoche D. 2005. Effects of stand conversion by thinning and underplanting on water and element fluxes of a pine ecosystem (P. sylvestris L.) on lignite mine spoil. For Ecol Manage, 212(1–3): 214–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Knoche D, Embacher A, Katzur J. 2002. Water and element fluxes of red oak ecosystems during stand development on post-mining sites (Lusatian Lignite District). Water, Air Soil Pollut, 141: 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Knoepp JD, Coleman DC, Crossley DA, Clark JS. 2000. Biological indices of soil quality: an ecosystem case study of their use. For Ecol Manage, 138: 357–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krzaklewski W, Pietrzykowski M. 2007. Site classification in post-mining areas reclaimed for forest use with special focus on phytosociological-soil method. Sylwan, 151(1): 51–57. (in Poilsh, English summary)Google Scholar
  31. Krebs CJ. 1994. The experimental analysis of distribution and abundance (4th edition). New York: Harper-Collins College Publishers, p. 801.Google Scholar
  32. Li RS, Daniels WL. 1994. Nitrogen Accumulation and form over time in young mine soils. J Environ Qual, 23(1): 166–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mchaina DM. 2001. Environmental planning considerations for the decommissioning, closure and reclamation of a mine site. International Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 15(3): 163–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nambiar EKS. 1997. Sustained productivity of forests as a continuing challenge to soil science. Soil Sci Soc Am J, 60: 1629–1642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ostrowska S, Gawlinski Z, Szczubialka Z. 1991. Procedures for soil and plants analysis. Warsaw: Institute of Environmental Protection (In Polish), p. 334.Google Scholar
  36. Pietrzykowski M. 2008. Soil and plant communities development and ecological effectiveness of reclamation on a sand mine cast. J For Sci, 54(12): 567–578.Google Scholar
  37. Pietrzykowski M. 2010. Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) ecosystem macronutrients budget on reclaimed mine sites — stand trees supply and stability. Nat Sci, 2(6): 590–599.Google Scholar
  38. Pietrzykowski M, Krzaklewski W. 2007. An assessment of energy efficiency in reclamation to forest. Ecol Eng, 30: 341–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pietrzykowski M, Socha J. 2011. An estimation of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) ecosystem productivity on reclaimed post-mining sites in Poland (Central Europe) with using of allometric equations. Ecol Eng, 37: 381–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Powers RF, Tiarks AE, Boyle JR. 1998. Assessing soil quality: practicable standards for sustainable forest productivity in the United States. In: M.B. Adams, K. Ramakrishna, Davidson, E.A. (eds.), The Contribution of Soil Science to the Development and Implementation of Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management. Soil Sci Soc Am Special Publication, 53: 53–80Google Scholar
  41. Prosser IP, Roseby SJ. 1995. A chronosequence of rapid leaching of mixed podzol soil materials following sand mining. Geoderma, 64: 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reganold JP, Palmer AS. 1995. Significance of gravimetric versus volumetric measurements of soil quality under biodynamic, conventional, and continuous grass management. J Soil Water Conserv, 50(3): 298–305.Google Scholar
  43. Rumpel C, Kögel-Knabner I, Hüttl RF. 1999. Organic matter composition and degree of humification on lignite-rich mine soils under a chronosequence of pine. Plant and Soil, 213: 161–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schafer WM, Nielsen GA. 1979. Soil development and plant succession on 1- to 50-year old strip mine spoils in southeastern Montana. In: M.K. Wali (ed.), Ecology and Coal Resources Development. Vol. 2. New Yourk, NY, USA: Pergamon Press, pp. 541–649.Google Scholar
  45. Schoenholtz SH, Van Miegroet H, Burger JA. 2000. A review of chemical and physical properties as indicators of forest soil quality: challenges and opportunities. For Ecol Manage, 138: 335–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. StatSoft, Inc. 2008. STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 8.1. Wali MK. 1999. Ecological succession and the rehabilitation of disturbed terrestrial ecosystems. Plant Soil, 213: 195–220.Google Scholar
  47. Wali MK, Freeman PG. 1973. Ecology of some mined areas in North Dakota. In: M.K. Wali (ed.), Some environmental aspects of strip mining in North Dakota. Education Series 5, Grand Froks, North Dakota Geological Survey. pp. 25–47.Google Scholar
  48. Warkentin BP. 1995. The changing concept of soil quality. J Soil Water Conserv, 50: 226–228.Google Scholar
  49. Wikum DA, Shanholtzer GF. 1978. Application of the Braun-Blanquet coverabundance scale for vegetation analysis in land development studies. Environ Manage, 2(4): 323–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zarzycki K, Trzcińska-Tacik H, Różański W, Szeląg Z, Wołek J, Korzeniak U. 2002. Ecological indicator values of vascular plants of Poland. In: Z. Mirek (ed.), Biodiversity of Poland, W. Szafer Institute of Botany, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków. p. 184.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Northeast Forestry University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest Ecology, Forest FacultyUniversity of Agriculture in KrakowKrakowPoland

Personalised recommendations