Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Differences in moisture pattern, hydrophysical and water repellency parameters of sandy soil under native and synanthropic vegetation

  • 4 Accesses

Abstract

The main goal of the study was to estimate the differences in moisture pattern, hydrophysical and soil water repellency (SWR) parameters of sandy soil profiles at two grassland sites, separated by a distance of about 100 m, near Sekule village (southwest Slovakia). Site S1 was covered with natural vegetation formed by a process of primary succession on a sand dune, whilst site S2 was covered by a synanthropic vegetation, formed by spontaneous secondary succession. Soil sampling and infiltration experiments were performed at designated plots during June 2017 to determine hydrophysical and SWR parameters. Higher measured value of organic carbon content at site S2 resulted in the greater values of repellency index (RI) and lower values of hydraulic conductivity, k(−2 cm), and sorptivity of water, Sw(−2 cm) compared to S1. For evaluating the differences between estimated hydrophysical and SWR parameters of S1 and S2, a Welch’s test of means (allowing for unequal group variances) was used, revealing significant differences in Sw(−2 cm), and RI, at p < 0.05. Simultaneously designed infiltration experiments pointed out altered distribution in wetting pattern across the soil profile with different penetration depths: below 100 cm and 80 cm at S1 and S2, respectively. Although the observed moisture patterns showed different shapes and extensions, difference in the cumulative increase in soil water storage between 0 and 50 cm was not significant (35.1% and 36.8% of applied water) at S1 and S2, respectively. According to the results we can state that grasslands at sites S1 and S2 have different soil water repellency parameters and shape of moisture pattern, induced probably by finger flow. Nevertheless, the soil water retention capacity of site S2, formed by spontaneous secondary succession is nearly the same as the retention capacity of native grassland S1.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Albert Á, Kelemen A, Valkó O, Miglécz T, Csecserits A, Rédei T, Deák B, Tóthmérész B, Török P (2014) Secondary succession in sandy old-fields: a promising example of spontaneous grassland recovery. Appl Veg Sci 17:214–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/avsc.12068

  2. Braun-Blanquet J (1964) Pflanzensoziologie. Grundzüge der Vegetationskunde. 3rd Ed. Springer-Verlag, Wien, New York, 865 p. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-8110-2

  3. Csecserits A, Czúcz B, Halassy M, Kröel-Dulay G, Rédei T, Szabó R, Szitár K, Török K (2011) Regeneration of sandy old-fields in the forest steppe region of Hungary. Plant Biosystems - An International Journal Dealing with all Aspects of Plant Biology 145(3):715–729. https://doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2011.601340

  4. Copper P (1988) Ecological succession in phanerozoic reef ecosystems: is it real? Palaios 3:136–151. https://doi.org/10.2307/3514526

  5. Decagon (2007) Minidisk Infiltrometer User’s manual. Decagon Devices, Inc., Pullman

  6. del Moral R, Titus JH (2018) Primary succession on Mount St. Helens: rates, determinism, and alternative states. In: Crisafulli CM, Dale VH (eds) Ecological responses at Mount St. Helens: revisited 35 years after. Springer, New York, NY, pp 127–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7451-1_7

  7. Doerr SH, Shakesby RA, Walsh RPD (2000) Soil water repellency: its causes, characteristics and hydro-geomorphological significance. Earth Sci Rev 51:33–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0012-8252(00)00011-8

  8. Fiala K (2001) The role of root system of Calamagrostis epigejos in its successful expansion in alluvial meadows. Ekológia (Bratislava) 20:292–300

  9. Gee GW, Bauder JW (1986) Particle-size analysis. In Klute, A. (eds) methods of soil analysis, part 1. Physical and mineralogical methods. Agronomy monograph no. 9 (2nd edition). American Society of Agronomy/soil science Society of America, Madison, pp. 383-411. doi:10.2136/sssabookser5.1.2ed.c15

  10. Gorham E, Vitousek PM, Reiners WA (1979) The regulation of chemical budgets over the course of terrestrial ecosystem succession. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 10:53–84. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.10.110179.000413

  11. Hallett PD (2008) A brief overview of the causes, impacts and amelioration of soil water repellency – a review. Soil and water research 3 (special issue 1): S21–S29. Doi:https://doi.org/10.17221/1198-swr

  12. Hegedüšová K, Senko D (2011) Successional changes of dry grasslands in southwestern Slovakia after 46 years of abandonment. Plant Biosystems - An International Journal Dealing with all Aspects of Plant Biology 145:666–687. https://doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2011.601605

  13. HilleRisLambers J, Adler PB, Harpole WS, Levine JM, Mayfield MM (2012) Rethinking community assembly through the lens of coexistence theory. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 43:227–248. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110411-160411

  14. Hobbs RJ, Cramer VA (2007) Why old fields? Socioeconomic and ecological causes and consequences of land abandonment. In: Cramer VA, Hobbs RJ (eds) Old fields: dynamics and restoration of abandoned farmland. Island Press, Washington, pp 1–15

  15. Holdsworth PM (1970) User's schedule for the Wallingford probe system. Institute of Hydrology Wallingford Report, 10 p

  16. Horváth B, Opara-Nadi O, Beese F (2005) A simple method for measuring the carbonate content of soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 69:1066–1068. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2004.0010

  17. Iovino M, Pekárová P, Hallett PD, Pekár J, Lichner Ľ, Mataix-Solera J, Alagna V, Walsh R, Raffan A, Schacht K, Rodný M (2018) Extent and persistence of soil water repellency induced by pines in different geographic regions. J Hydrol Hydromech 66:360–368. https://doi.org/10.2478/johh-2018-0024

  18. Jarolímek I, Zaliberová M, Mucina L, Mochnacký S (1997) Plant communities of Slovakia 2. Synanthropic Vegetation, Veda, Bratislava, 420 p

  19. Johnson EA, Miyanishi K (2008) Testing the assumptions of chronosequences in succession. Ecol Lett 11:419–431. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01173.x

  20. Klimatický atlas Slovenska (2015) Climate Atlas of Slovakia (in Slovak). Bratislava: Slovenský hydrometeorologický ústav. 132 s. ISBN 978–80–88907-90-9

  21. Lichner Ľ, Dušek J, Tesař M, Czachor H, Mészároš I (2014) Heterogeneity of water flow in grassland soil during irrigation experiment. Biologia 69:1555–1561. https://doi.org/10.2478/s11756-014-0467-4

  22. Lichner L, Felde VJMNL, Büdel B, Leue M, Gerke HH, Ehlerbrock RH, Kollár J, Rodný M, Šurda P, Fodor N, Sándor R (2018) Effect of vegetation and its succession on water repellency in sandy soils. Ecohydrology 11(6): Article Number: UNSP e1991. doi:10.1002/eco.1991

  23. Marhold K, Hindák F (1998) Checklist of nonvascular and vascular plants of Slovakia. Veda, Bratislava, p 687

  24. Måren IE, Kapfer J, Aarrestad PA, Grytnes JA, Vandvik V (2018) Changing contributions of stochastic and deterministic processes in community assembly over a successional gradient. Ecology 99:148–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2052

  25. Nagy V, Šurda P, Lichner Ľ, Kovács A, Milics G (2018) Impact of soil compaction on water content in sandy loam soil under sunflower. J. Hydrol. Hydromech. 66:416–420. https://doi.org/10.2478/johh-2018-0036

  26. Német E, Ruprecht E, Gallé R, Markó B (2016) Abandonment of crop lands leads to different recovery patterns for ant and plant communities in Eastern Europe. Community Ecology 17(1):79–87. https://doi.org/10.1556/168.2016.17.1.10

  27. Norden N, Angarita HA, Bongers F, Martínez-Ramos M, Granzowde la Cerda I, van Breugel M, Chazdon RL (2015) Successional dynamics in Neotropical forests are as uncertain as they are predictable. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112:8013–8018. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1500403112

  28. Oostindie K, Dekker LW, Wesseling JG, Geissen V, Ritsema CJ (2017) Impacts of grass removal on wetting and actual water repellency in a sandy soil. J. Hydrol. Hydromech. 65:88–98. https://doi.org/10.1515/johh-2016-0053

  29. Orfánus T, Dlapa P, Fodor N, Rajkai K, Sándor R, Nováková K (2014) How severe and subcritical water repellency determines the seasonal infiltration in natural and cultivated sandy soils. Soil Tillage Res 135:49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2013.09.005

  30. Pekárová P, Pekár J, Lichner Ľ (2015) A new method for estimating soil water repellency index. Biologia 70:1450–1455. https://doi.org/10.1515/biolog-2015-0178

  31. Philip JR (1957) The theory of infiltration, 1. The infiltration equation and its solution. Soil Sci 83:345–357. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-195705000

  32. Prach K, Tichý L, Lencová K, Adámek M, Koutecký T, Sádlo J et al (2016) Does succession run towards potential natural vegetation? An analysis across seres. J Veg Sci 27:515–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12383

  33. Rejmanek M, van Katwyk KP 2005 Old field succession: a bibliographic review (1901–1991). URL: http://botanika.bf.jcu.cz/suspa/pdf/BiblioOF.pdf

  34. Sheldrick BH, Wang C (1993) Particle size analysis. In: Carter MR (ed) Soil sampling and methods of analysis. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, pp 499–517

  35. Soil Survey Division Staff (1993) Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook, 18 p

  36. Štrba P, Gogoláková A (2008) The changes of vertical plant distribution in West Carpathians Mountains. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 150:172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2008.04.456

  37. Šurda P, Lichner Ľ, Nagy V, Kollár J, Iovino M, Horel Á (2015) Effects of vegetation at different succession stages on soil properties and water flow in sandy soil. Biologia 70:1474–1479. https://doi.org/10.1515/biolog-2015-0172

  38. Sumner ME (1999) Handbook of soil science. CRC Press, Boca Raton, p 2148

  39. Tallis JH, Glenn-Lewin DC, Peet RK, Veblen TT (1993) Plant succession: theory and prediction. The Journal of Ecology 81:830. https://doi.org/10.2307/2261684

  40. WRB (2006) World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2006. 2nd edition. World Soil Resources Reports No. 103. FAO, Rome. doi:https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446247501.n4190

  41. Zhang R (1997) Determination of soil sorptivity and hydraulic conductivity from the disk infiltrometer. Soil Sci Soc Am J 61:1024–1030. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1997.03615995006100040005x

Download references

Acknowledgments

This contribution was supported by the Scientific Grant Agency VEGA Project No. 2/0189/17 and Project APVV-15-0160. This publication is the result of the project implementation ITMS 26240120004 Centre of excellence for integrated flood protection of land supported by the Research & Development Operational Programme funded by the ERDF.

Author information

Correspondence to Peter Šurda.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Šurda, P., Lichner, Ľ., Kollár, J. et al. Differences in moisture pattern, hydrophysical and water repellency parameters of sandy soil under native and synanthropic vegetation. Biologia (2020). https://doi.org/10.2478/s11756-020-00415-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Grassland
  • Infiltration test
  • Moisture pattern
  • Sandy soil
  • Synanthropic and native vegetation