, Volume 53, Issue 1, pp 23–50 | Cite as

Sulfur isotope inventories of atmospheric deposition, spruce forest floor and living Sphagnum along a NW–SE transect across Europe

  • Martin Novák
  • Simon H. Bottrell
  • Eva Přechová


At five European sites, differing in atmospheric Sinputs by a factor of 6, and differing in S isotope signatures ofthese inputs by up to 14‰ (CDT), we investigated thedirection and magnitude of an assimilation-related δ34S shiftand the relationship between atmospheric deposition and Sretention in selected ecosystem compartments. Bulk precipitationand spruce throughfall were collected between 1994 and 1996 inthe Isle of Mull (Scotland), Connemara (Ireland), Thorne Moors(England), Rybárenská slat' and Oceán (both Czech Republic) andanalyzed for sulfate concentrations and δ34S ratios. Eighteenreplicate samples per site of living Sphagnum collected inunforested peatlands and 18 samples of spruce forest floorcollected near each of the peatlands were also analyzed for Sconcentrations and δ34S ratios. Assimilation of S was associatedwith a negative δ34S shift. Plant tissues systematicallypreferred the light isotope 32S, on average by 2‰. There wasa strong positive correlation between the non-marine portion ofthe atmospheric S input and total S concentration in forest floorand Sphagnum, respectively (R = 0.97 and R = 0.85). Elevated Sinputs lead to higher S retention in these two organic-richcompartments of the ecosystem. It follows that equal emphasismust be placed on organic S as on adsorption/desorption ofinorganic sulfate when studying acidification reversal inecosystems. The sea-shore sites had rainfall enriched in theheavy isotope 34S due to an admixture of sea-spray. The inlandsites had low δ34S reflecting δ34S of sulfur emitted from localcoal-burning power stations. Sphagnum had always lower S contentsand higher δ34S ratios compared to forest floor. The within-siterange of δ34S ratios of Sphagnum and forest floor was wide (upto 12‰) suggesting that at least six replicate samples shouldbe taken when using δ34S as a tracer.

atmospheric deposition forest soil isotopes S assimilation Sphagnum sulfur 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alewell Ch &Gehre M (1999) Patterns of stable S isotopes in a forested catchment as indicators for biological turnover. Biogeochem. 44: 317–331Google Scholar
  2. Alewell Ch,Mitchell MJ,Likens GE &Krouse HR (1999) Sources of stream sulfate at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest: Long-term analyses using stable isotopes. Biogeochem. 44: 281–299Google Scholar
  3. Autry AR,Fitzgerald JW &Cadwell PR (1990) Sulfur fractions and retention mechanisms in forest soils. Can. J. For. Res. 20: 337–342Google Scholar
  4. Bottrell S &Novák M (1998) Sulphur isotopic study of two pristine Sphagnum bogs in the western British Isles. J. Ecol. 85: 125–132Google Scholar
  5. Caufield C (1991) Thorne Moors. The Sumach Press, UK Cochran WG & Cox GM (1957) Experimental Designs. Wiley, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. de Caritat P,Krouse HR &Hutcheon I (1997) Sulphur isotope composition of stream water, moss and humus from eight Arctic catchments in the Kola Peninsula region (NW Russia, N Finland, NE Norway). Water Air Soil Pollut. 94: 191–208Google Scholar
  7. Dohnal Z,Kunst M,Mejstrík V,Raucina S &Vydra V (1965) Czechoslovak Peatlands. Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, Czechoslovakia (in Czech)Google Scholar
  8. Driscoll CT,Likens GE,Buso D &Church MR (1998) Recovery of soil and surface waters in the Northeastern U.S. from decreases in atmospheric deposition of sulfur. Water Air Soil Pollut. 105: 306–316Google Scholar
  9. Finley JB,Drever JI &Turk JT (1995) Sulfur isotope dynamics in a high-elevation catchment, West Glacier Lake, Wyoming. Water Air and Soil Pollut. 79: 227–241Google Scholar
  10. Fottová D &Skorepová I (1998) Changes in mass element fluxes and their importance for critical loads: Geomon Network, Czech Republic. Water Air Soil Pollut. 105: 365–376Google Scholar
  11. Fowler D,Cape JN &Unsworth MH (1989) Deposition of atmospheric pollutants on forests. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 324: 247–265Google Scholar
  12. Fritz P &Fontes JCh (1980) Handbook of Environmental Isotope Geochemistry. Elsevier, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  13. Fuller RD,Mitchell MJ,Krouse HR,Wyskowski BJ &Driscoll Ch (1986) Stable sulfur isotope ratios as a tool for interpreting ecosystem sulfur dynamics. Water Air Soil Pollut. 28: 163–171Google Scholar
  14. Gebauer G,Giesemann A,Schulze E-D &Jäger H-J (1994) Isotope ratios and concentrations of sulfur and nitrogen in needles and soils of Picea abies stands as influenced by atmospheric deposition of sulfur and nitrogen compounds. Plant Soil 164: 267–281Google Scholar
  15. Gélineau M,Carignan R &Tessier A (1989) Study of the transit of sulfate in a Canadian Shield lake watershed with stable oxygen isotope ratios. Appl. Geochem. 4: 195–201Google Scholar
  16. Giesemann A,Jäger H-J &Feger KH (1995a) Evaluation of sulphur cycling in managed forest stands by means of stable S-isotope analysis. Plant Soil 168/169: 399–404Google Scholar
  17. Giesemann A,Weigel HJ,Jäger H-J (1995b) Stable S isotope analysis as a tool to assess sulphur turnover in agro-ecosystems. Z. Pflanzenernähr. Bodenk. 158: 97–99Google Scholar
  18. Halas S,Shakur A &Krouse HR (1982) A modified method of SO2 extraction from sulphates for isotopic analysis using NaPO3. Isotopenpraxis 18: 11–13Google Scholar
  19. Heaton THE,Spiro B &Robertson SMC (1997) Potential canopy influences on the isotopic composition of nitrogen and sulphur in atmospheric deposition. Oecologia 109: 600–607Google Scholar
  20. Houba VGJ,van der Lee JJ,Novozamsky I &Walinga I (1989) Soil Analysis Procedures. Soil and Plant Analysis. Department of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, Wageningen Agricultural University, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  21. Houle D &Carignan R (1992) Sulfur speciation and distribution in soils and aboveground biomass of a boreal coniferous forest. Biogeochem. 16: 63–82Google Scholar
  22. Jermy AC &Crabbe JA 1978 The Island of Mull. British Museum London, UKGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnson DW (1984) Sulfur cycling in forests. Biogeochem. 1: 29–34Google Scholar
  24. Johnson DW &Lindberg SE (1992) Atmospheric Deposition and Forest Nutrient Cycling. Ecol. Studies 91. Springer, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaplan IR &Rittenberg SC (1964) Microbiological fractionation of sulfur isotopes. J. Gen. Microbiol. 26: 127–163Google Scholar
  26. Krouse HR (1980) Sulphur isotopes in our environment. In: Fritz P &Fontes JCh (Eds) Handbook of Environmental Isotope Geochemistry (pp 435–471). Elsevier, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  27. Krouse HR &Grinenko VA (1991) Stable Isotopes. Natural and Anthropogenic Sulphur in the Environment, SCOPE 43. John Wiley & Sons, UKGoogle Scholar
  28. Krouse HR,Legge AH &Brown HM (1984) Sulphur gas emissions in the boreal forest: The WestWhitecourt case study V. Stable sulphur isotopes. Water Air Soil Pollut. 22: 321–347Google Scholar
  29. Krouse HR,Giesemann A &Staniaszek P (1992) Sulphur isotope composition of co-existent sulphate and organic-S in vegetation. Sulphur transformations in soil ecosystems (pp 193–201). Workshop Proceedings, November 5–7, Saskatoon, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  30. Likens GE &Bormann FH (1995) Biogeochemistry of a Forested Ecosystem. Springer, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  31. Mach K,Žák K &Jaãková I (1999) Sulfur speciation and isotopic composition in a vertical profile of the main coal seam of the North Bohemian brown coal basin and their paleogeographic interpretation. Bull. Czech. Geol. Survey 74: 51–66Google Scholar
  32. Manskaya SM &Drozdova TV (1968) Geochemistry of Organic Substances. Pergamon Press, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  33. Mayer B,Feger KH,Giesemann A &Jäger H-J (1995) Interpretation of sulfur cycling in two catchments in the Black Forest (Germany) using stable sulfur and oxygen isotope data. Biogeochem. 30: 321–58Google Scholar
  34. McArdle NC &Liss PS (1995) Isotopes and atmospheric sulfur. Atmos. Eviron. 29: 2553–2556Google Scholar
  35. Moldan B &Černý J (1994) Biogeochemistry of Small Catchments, SCOPE 51. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
  36. Mörth C-M,Torssander P,Kusakabe M &Hultberg H (1999) Sulfur isotope values in a forested catchment over four years: Evidence for oxidation and reduction processes. Biogeochem. 44: 51–71Google Scholar
  37. Novák M,Bottrell SH,Fottová D,Buzek F,Groscheová H &Žák K (1996) Sulfur isotope signals in forest soils of Central Europe along an air pollution gradient. Environ. Sci. Technol. 30: 3473–3476Google Scholar
  38. Novák M,Bottrell SH,Groscheová H,Buzek F &Černý J (1995) Sulphur isotope characteristics of two North Bohemian forest catchments. Water Air Soil Pollut. 85: 1641–1646Google Scholar
  39. Novák M,Buzek F &Adamová M (1999) Vertical trends in δ13C, δ 15N and δ34S ratios in bulk Sphagnum peat. Soil Biol. and Biochem. 31: 1343–1346Google Scholar
  40. Novák M,Kirchner JW,Groscheová H,Havel M,Černý J,Krejcí R &Buzek F (2000) Sulfur isotope dynamics in two Central European watersheds affected by high atmospheric deposition of SOx. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 64: 367–383Google Scholar
  41. Novák M,Wieder RK &Schell WR (1994) Sulfur during early diagenesis in Sphagnum peat: Insights from δ 34S ratio profiles in 210Pb-dated peat cores. Limnol. Oceanogr. 39: 1172–1185Google Scholar
  42. Nriagu JO,Holdway DA &Coker RD (1987) Biogenic sulfur and the acidity of rainfall in remote areas of Canada. Science 237: 1189–1192Google Scholar
  43. Pichlmayer F &Seibert P (1997) Stable isotope ratios of sulphur, nitrogen and carbon in airborne pollutants as tracers of regional origins. Isotope Techniques in the Study of Environmental Change (pp 845–848). Proceedings Series, IAEA, Vienna, April 14–18. AustriaGoogle Scholar
  44. Rees CE (1970) The sulfur-isotope balance of the ocean, an improved model. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 7: 366–370Google Scholar
  45. Reuss JO &Johnson DW (1986) Acid Deposition and the Acidification of Soils and Waters. Ecol. Studies 59, Springer, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  46. Sall J &Lehman A (1996) JMP Start Statistics. Duxbury Press, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  47. Saltzman ES,Brass GW &Price DA (1983) The mechanism of sulfate aerosol formation: Chemical and sulfur isotopic evidence. Geophys. Res. Lett. 10: 513–516Google Scholar
  48. Stam AC,Mitchell MJ,Krouse HR &Kahl JS (1992) Stable sulfur isotopes of sulfate in precipitation and stream solutions in a Northern hardwood watershed. Water Res. J. 28: 231–236Google Scholar
  49. Turk JT,Campbell DH &Spahr NE (1993) Use of chemistry and stable sulfur isotopes to determine sources of trends in sulfate of Colorado lakes. Water Air and Soil Pollut. 67: 415–431Google Scholar
  50. Van Stempvoort DR,Fritz P &Reardon EJ (1992) Sulfate dynamics in upland forest soils, central and southern Ontario, Canada: Stable isotope evidence. Appl. Geochem. 7: 159–175Google Scholar
  51. Van Stempvoort DR &Wills JJ (1991) Aboveground vegetation effects on the deposition and cycling of atmospheric sulfur: Chemical and stable isotope evidence. Water Air and Soil Pollut. 60: 55–82Google Scholar
  52. Watwood ME,Fitzgerald JW,Swank WT &Blood ER (1988) Factors involved in potential sulfur accumulation in litter and soil from a coastal pine forest. Biogeochem. 6: 3–19Google Scholar
  53. Whilde T (1994) The Natural History of Connemara. IMMEL Publishing, UKGoogle Scholar
  54. Yanagisawa F &Sakai H (1983) Precipitation of SO2 for sulphur isotope ratio measurements by the thermal decomposition of BaSO4-V2O5-SiO2 mixtures. Anal. Chem. 55: 985–987Google Scholar
  55. Yang W,Spencer RJ &Krouse HR (1996) Stable sulfur isotope hydrogeochemical studies using desert shrubs and tree rings, Death Valley, California, USA. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 60: 3015–3022Google Scholar
  56. Zhang Y,Mitchell MJ,Christ M,Likens GE &Krouse HR (1998) Stable sulfur isotopic biogeochemistry of the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire. Biogeochem. 41: 259–275Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Novák
    • 1
  • Simon H. Bottrell
    • 2
  • Eva Přechová
    • 3
  1. 1.Czech Geological Survey, Geologická 6Prague 5Czech Republic (Author for correspondence: Phone
  2. 2.Department of Earth SciencesThe University of LeedsLeedsUnited Kingdom
  3. 3.Czech Geological Survey, Geologická 6Prague 5Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations