, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 119–130 | Cite as

Estimating primary and secondary subsidence in an organic soil 15, 20, and 30 years after drainage

  • Justin M. Ewing
  • Michael J. Vepraskas


Wetland hydrology can be restored to soils that have been drained by plugging ditches to return the water table to its original elevation. Organic soils subside after drainage, and when ditches are plugged the restored water table may rise above the soil surface, killing newly planted vegetation. This study developed a method to estimate amounts of primary (settling) and secondary (oxidation) subsidence that could be applied to any organic soil. Primary subsidence was estimated from differences in bulk density between the drained and representative undrained sites. Secondary subsidence was estimated from accumulation of sand in the surface (Oap) horizons and changes in bulk density between oxidized and unoxidized organic horizons. Total subsidence was the sum of primary and secondary subsidence. Bulk density, particle size, and organic carbon data were gathered from one drained (Juniper Bay) and three undrained Carolina bay wetlands. Juniper Bay was drained with a network of ditches in three stages, 15, 20, and 30 years ago. Mean total subsidence was not significantly different (0.10 level) over time and averaged 121 cm for the three drainage periods. The mean rate of primary subsidence across the three drainage periods was 4 cm yr−1, while secondary subsidence was approximately 2 cm yr−1. Subsidence values were variable across Juniper Bay and were not related to distance from a field ditch. Restoration of the hydrology in Juniper Bay to predrainage water-table elevations could result in a water table that is > 1 m above the existing soil surface.

Key Words

ditching oxidation soil weathering Carolina bays 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Brandof, K. L. 1992. Impact of ditching and road construction on Red Lake Peatland. p. 163–172. In H. E. Wright, Jr., B. A. Coffin, and N. E. Aaseng (eds.) The Patterned Peatlands of Minnesota. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, USA.Google Scholar
  2. Brewer, R. 1976. Fabric and Mineral Analysis of Soils. Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, Huntington, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Brooks, J. E. and E. F. Lowe. 1984. U.S. EPA clean lakes program, phase I. Diagnostic feasibility study of the Upper St. Johns River Chain of Lakes. Vol. II-Feasibility Study. St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, FL, USA. Technical Publications SJ 84-15.Google Scholar
  4. Buol, S. W., R. J. Southard, R. C. Graham, and P. A. McDaniel. 2003. Soil Genesis and Classification 5th ed. Iowa State Press. Ames, IA, USA.Google Scholar
  5. Burke, W. 1963. Drainage of blanket peat at Glenamory. p. 809–817. In R. A. Robertson (ed.) Proceedings of the Second International Peat Congress, Leningrad, USSR.Google Scholar
  6. Daniels, R. B., S. W. Buol, H. J. Kleiss, and C. A. Ditzler. 1999. Soil Systems in North Carolina. Technical Bulletin 314, North Carolina State University, Dept. of Soil Science, Raleigh, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Dolman, J. D. and S. W. Buol. 1967. A Study of Organic Soils (Histosols) in the Tidewater Region of North Carolina. North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Raleigh, NC, USA. Technical Bulletin Number 181.Google Scholar
  8. Everett, K. R. 1983. Histosols. p. 1–53. In L. P. Wilding, N. E. Smeck, and G. F. Hall (eds.) Pedogenesis and Soil Taxonomy II. The Soil Orders. Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ewing, J. M., M. J. Vepraskas, and C. W. Zanner. 2005. Using historical records of land use to improve wetland mitigation. Southeastern Geographer 45(1): 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eyre, S. R. 1963. Vegetation and Soils, a World Picture. Aldine Publishing Co., Chicago, IL, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Fennema, R. J., C. J. Neidrauer, R. A. Johnson, W. A. Perkins, and T. K. MacVicar. 1994. A computer model to simulate natural Everglades hydrology. p. 249–289. In S. M. Davis and J. C. Ogden (eds.) Everglades: the Ecosystem and its Restoration. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Gee, G. W. and J. W. Bauder. 1986. Particle-size analysis. p. 383–411. In A. Klute (ed.) Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. 2nd ed. American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
  13. Glaz, B. 1995. Research seeking agricultural and ecological benefits in the Everglades. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 50: 609–613.Google Scholar
  14. Jongedyk, H. A., R. B. Hickok, I. D. Mayer, and N. K. Ellis. 1950. Subsidence of muck soils in northern Indiana. Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station Special Circular 366: 1–10.Google Scholar
  15. Leab, R. J. 1990. Soil Survey of Bladen County North Carolina. U.S. Department of Agriculture-Soil Conservation Service, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Lee, G. B. and B. Manoch. 1974. Macromorphology and micromorphology of a Wisconsin Saprist. p. 47–62. In A. R. Aandahl, S. W. Buol, D. E. Hill, and H. H. Bailey (eds.) Histosols: Their Characteristics, Classification and Use. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, USA. SSSA Special Publication Number 6.Google Scholar
  17. Levesque, M. P. and S. P. Mathur. 1984. The effect of using copper for mitigation on Histosol subsidence: 3. The yield and nutrition of minicarrots, carrots, and onions grown in Histosols, mineral sublayers, and their mixtures. Soil Science 138: 127–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mathur, S. P., M. P. Levesque, and P. J. H. Richard. 1982. The establishment of synchrony between subsurface layers and estimation of overall subsidence of cultivated organic soils by a palynological method. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 62: 427–431.Google Scholar
  19. McCachren, C. M. 1978. Soil Survey of Robeson County North Carolina. U.S. Department of Agriculture-Soil Conservation Service, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
  20. Millette, J. A. 1976. Subsidence of an organic soil in southwestern Québec. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 56: 499–500.Google Scholar
  21. Pons, L. J. and I. S. Zonneveld. 1965. Soil Ripening and Soil Classification Initial Soil Formation in Alluvial Deposits and a Classification of the Resulting Soils. International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement pub 13. H. Veenman & Zonen N.V., Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  22. SAS Institute, Inc. 2000. The SAS system for Windows. Release 8.2. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  23. Schafale, M. P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  24. Shih, S. F., B. Glaz, and R. E. Barnes, Jr. 1998. Subsidence of organic soils in the Everglades Agricultural Area during the past 19 years. Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida 57: 20–29.Google Scholar
  25. Slusher, D. F., W. L. Cockerham, and S. D. Matthews. 1974. Mapping and interpretation of Histosols and Hydraquents for urban development. p. 95–109. In A. R. Aandalh, S. W. Buol, D. E. Hill, and H. H. Bailey (eds.) Histosols: Their Characteristics, Classification, and Use. SSSA Special Publication Number 6, Soil Science Society of America, Inc., Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
  26. Stephens, J. C. 1956. Subsidence of organic soils in the Florida Everglades. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 20: 77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Soil ScienceNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations