Sources and Forms of Soil Chemical Degradation

  • Serafim Andries
Conference paper
Part of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security book series (NAPSC)


The main sources of soil pollution, the types and the forms of chernozem degradation are presented in the present article. It was established that in a period of 100 years, as a result of the mineralization processes, 40–47% of the initial humus reserves were lost, which constitutes 0.5–0.6 t/ha or 0.013–0.018% annually. In the course of 105 years, 3.4 t/ha of N, 0.9 tons of P2O5 and 6.8 t/ha of K2O were extracted and exported with the harvest from the soils of the Republic of Moldova. The chemical degradation of the soils led to the intensification of the physical and biological degradation processes, and as consequence the production capacity of the agricultural fields decreased. In order to stabilize or to increase the humus contents in the chernozems, it is necessary to minimize the soil erosion to the admissible limits, to observe the scientifically proven crop rotation system with the quota of perennial grasses of 10–15% and to incorporate an average of 10 t/ha manure and 150–180 kg/ha of NPK per crop rotation annually.


chernozem humus degradation soil degradation soil nutritive elements 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Soil Degradation and Desertification (ed. Ursu A) (2000), Pontos, Chisinau: pp. 19–25.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Land Cadastre of the Republic of Moldova of January 1, 2008 (2008) Chisinau: pp. 4–8.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cerbari V (2000) Informational System Regarding the Quality of Soil Cover of the Republic of Moldova (Database). Pontos, Chisinau: pp. 48–84.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    The National Complex Plan of Soil Fertility Increase (2001) Pontos, Chisinau: pp. 23–47.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Complex Plan for the Improvement of Degraded lands and the Increase of Soil Fertility. Part II. Soil Fertility Increase (2004). Pontos, Chisinau: pp. 8–29.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Andries S (2007) Optimization of Nutritive Regimes and Cultural Plant Productivity. Pontos, Chisinau: pp. 14–29Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krupenikov IA (2008) Chernozems. Appearance, Improvement, Tragedy of Degradation, Ways of Protection and Rebirth. Pontos, Chisinau: pp. 51–168.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lacatusu R (2002) Agro-Chemical Dictionary. UNI-PRE-SSS-C-68, Bucharest: 312 p.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dokuchaev VV (1900) On the issue of bassarabian soils. Pedology, 1:1–22.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chesneak GYA, Gavriliuk FYA, Krupenikov IA, et al. (1983) The humus status of chernozems. In: Russian chernozem — 100 years after Dokuchaev. Nauka, Moscow: pp. 186–198.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krupenikov IA (1992) Soil Cover in Moldova. The Past, the Present, the Management, the Prognosis. Stiinta, Chisinau: pp. 168–171.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ursu A (2003) The Chernozem from Soroca — 135 years after Dokuceaev. Bul ASM 2 (291): 120–123.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ecopedologic Monitoring Bulletin (Agrochemical) (2000) Chisinau: 67 p.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zagorcea C (1998) The evolution of the circuit and the balance of biophile elements in the Republic of Moldova in the last century. In: The Land and Water Resources. Their Evaluation and Protection. Vol. 2. September 3–4 1998, Kishinev Conference Proceedings.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of PedologyAgrochemistry and Soil Protection named after “Nicolae Dimo”ChisinauRepublic of Moldova

Personalised recommendations