(logo)   det humanistiske fakultet
syddansk universitet
Foranderlige Landskaber
- center for strategiske studier i kulturmiljø, natur og landskabshistorie
 
Formål  |  Undersøgelsesområder  |  Centeret  |  Status  |  Deltagere  |  Institutioner  |  Publikationer  

Tilbage til Startside

Soil nutrient regimes – who is poor and who is rich?

Evaluation framework for forest soils, set-aside land and arable soils

Callesen, I., K. Raulund-Rasmussen

1Danish Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning

email ica@fsl.dk; www.fsl.dk

 

Concepts of soil nutrient regimes

Forest ecologists and botanists use ordinal scales (oligothroph -> mesotroph-> eutroph) to characterise nutrient availability and nutrient cycling in ecosystems. Other concepts are acid vs. neutral soils or calcareous/ non calcareous soils. In respect of the soil component these definitions are somewhat ambiguous and not quantitative. Substrate properties should be characterised by quantitative edaphic parameters. These parameters should be stable in the long term (several tree generations). We propose six soil nutrient regimes based on available soil data.

Inherited soil properties and present status depend on:

  • Parent material
  • Climate
  • Topography
  • Pedological age
  • Natural vegetation and succession
  • Decomposer environment, Nitrogen mineralisation

 

Effect of land-use history

  • Litter raking
  • Wildfires
  • Deforestation, agriculture
  • Erosion, wind and water
  • Livestock grazing

Furthermore present land-use, treespecies, silviculture (slashburning, clear felling), afforestation of set-aside land, fertilisation and liming, deep ploughing

N-deposition, S-deposition affect the nutrient availability in forest soils or non-cultivated soils covered by (semi)natural vegetation.

 

Proposed SNR’s

In principle all plant nutrients should be evaluated and the chemical along with chemical and physical restrictions in the soil hampering nutrient availability or root growth, i.e. cementation, dense horizons or strong gleying. We used total pools (concentration x soil volume x bulk density) in depth 0-100 cm + the organic layer to establish a framework of available nutrient pools (i.e. exchangeable cations). The pools were tested against a forest soil data base (NORDSOIL). Data on long term nutrient supply (e.g. extractions in weak acids) are less abundant.

Tabel 1. Total reserves of soil nutrient regimes (kg ha-1) 0-100 cm soil depth. Phosphorus- concentrations (mg kg-1).

SNR

Soil nutrient regime

1

very poor

g

2

poor

 

3

medium poor

4

medium rich

5

rich

6

very rich

Indicator:

           

pH (CaCl2) in depth 100 cm

<4.5

>4.5

>5.0

>5.5

6.5 - 7.5

>7.5

Nutrients:

     

   

Exchangeable Calcium (0-100 cm), kg ha- 1

0-200

200-500

500-2000

2000- 4000

4000 –8000

>8000

Exchangeable Potassium (0-100 cm), kg ha-1

0- 150

150-200

200-400

400- 600

600-800

>800

Exchangeable Magnesium (0-100 cm), kg ha-1

0- 100

100-200

200-500

500- 1000

1000- 2000

>2000

Extractable Phosphorus, kg ha-1

(0.2 N H2SO4 ) mg kg-1

0-250

0-20

250-700

20-50

700-1500

50-120

1500-2500

120-200

2500-4000

200-300

>4000

>300

Total Phosphorus kg ha-1

mg kg-1

0-1000

0-75

1000-2000

75- 150

2000-4000

150-300

4000- 6000

300-450

6000-9000

450-700

>9000

>700

Inorganic Phosphorus kg ha-1

mg kg-1

0-500

0-35

500-1000

35- 75

1000-2000

75-150

2000- 3000

150-230

3000-4500

230-350

>4500

>350

 

 

 

Test of SNR’s class approach

Tested on a population of 98 Danish forest soil profiles covering most sediment types, it appeared that the distributions were not even and may need adjustment.

Table 2 98 forest soil profiles distributed in the proposed SNR’s.

SNR

/Indicator

1

very poor

g

2

poor

 

3

medium poor

4

medium rich

5

rich

6

very rich

Ca

46

23

10

3

5

11

Mg

59

18

6

4

8

3

K

34

19

22

8

8

7

P

14

51

17

13

2

0

pH

31

55

0

4

1

7

 

Conclusions

  • 76% of the profiles classified deviated by two classes or less among the 5 indicators
  • deviations up to five classes occured
  • deviating soils were mainly:

- rather acid soils with high pools of exchangeable base cations

- soils with good reserves of most elements except one, e.g. K or P.

soil SNR’s should be evaluated on the basis of multiple criteria

PCA analysis - continuous approach

 

Table 3 PCA analysis (proc princomp, SAS), meancorrected data. N=98. Correlation matrix and the eigen vectors of the 1. and 2. principal component

 

pH 100 cm

Ca

Mg

K

P

pH 100 cm

         

Ca

0.7

       

Mg

0.5

0.9

     

K

0.3

0.8

0.8

   

P

0.3

0.6

0.6

0.6

 

1. pc

0.4

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

2. pc

0.9

0.1

-0.2

-0.4

-0.2

Eigenvalue of 1.pc: 3.4 (67%) of 2. pc 0.75 (15%).

 

 

Conclusions

The element pools were highly correlated, whereas correlation with pH was lower.

82% of the total variation was explained by the two principal components.

The univariate class approach is intuitively pleasant, whereas the multivariate approach performs better dealing with the highly collinear soil properties.

Perspectives

SNR’s based on chemical and physical soil properties are meaningful for reference of status. They should furthermore related to long term element pools and ecosystem properties such as net primary producion or other yield measures

Til oversigt Landskab og Arealresurser

Tilbage til Startside


SDU home | tilbage
Siden redigeret 03/02/2004 af Ken Rasmussen, webmaster.