J. For. Sci., 2009, 55(1):9-14 | DOI: 10.17221/74/2008-JFS

How does legacy of agriculture play role in formation of afforested soil properties?

D. Kacálek, J. Novák, D. Dušek, J. Bartoš, V. Černohous
Forestry and Game Management Research Institute, Strnady, Opočno Research Station, Opočno, Czech Republic

Soil properties of forest ecosystems depend on synergy of both parent material and organisms living in the soil, i.e. tree species communities including related plant and animal species. However these soils were not left intact being converted into agricultural land; addition of both nutrients and organic matter and cultivation using tillage led to increased fertility of topsoil. Even long-term afforested soils show differences which are considered as legacy of past agriculture. The change remains detectable for decades; though the altered properties are obvious especially couple of years after planting (approximately 10 years). We found increased concentrations of nutrients (P, K, Ca, and Mg) and subsequent increased base saturation (V %) in former tilled soil only. Moreover, there were no differences between topsoil and subsoil properties (69% and 72%, respectively). In addition to significantly lower saturation (both 0-10 cm and 11-30 cm layers) detected in the long-term-forest and 50-year-afforested (both covered with Norway spruce stands) soils in comparison with adjacent 10-year-old afforestations, there was found significantly lower base saturation in topsoil horizons compared to underlying ones.

Keywords: afforestation; agricultural land; soil properties; plant-available nutrients; Norway spruce

Published: January 31, 2009  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Kacálek D, Novák J, Dušek D, Bartoš J, Černohous V. How does legacy of agriculture play role in formation of afforested soil properties? J. For. Sci. 2009;55(1):9-14. doi: 10.17221/74/2008-JFS.
Download citation

References

  1. ALRIKSSON A., OLSSON M.T., 1995. Soil changes in different age classes of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) on afforested farmland. Plant and Soil, 168/169: 103-110. Go to original source...
  2. AUGUSTO L., RANGER J., BINKLEY D., ROTHE A., 2002. Impact of several common tree species of European temperate forests on soil fertility. Annals of Forest Science, 59: 233-253. Go to original source...
  3. AUGUSTO L., DUPOUEY J.L., RANGER J., 2003. Effects of tree species on understory vegetation and environmental conditions in temperate forests. Annals of Forest Science, 60: 823-831. Go to original source...
  4. BEDRNA Z., 2002. Environmentálne pôdoznalectvo. Bratislava, Veda: 352.
  5. BINKLEY D., VALENTINE D., 1991. Fifty-year biogeochemical effects of green ash, white pine, and Norway spruce in a replicated experiment. Forest and Ecology Management, 40: 13-25. Go to original source...
  6. ELLERT B.H., GREGORICH E.G., 1996. Storage of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus in cultivated and adjacent forested soils of Ontario. Soil Science, 161: 587-602. Go to original source...
  7. HAGEN-THORN A., CALLESEN I., ARMOLAITIS K., NIHLGÅRD B., 2004. The impact of six European tree species on the chemistry of mineral topsoil in forest plantations on former agricultural land. Forest and Ecology Management, 195: 373-384. Go to original source...
  8. MACLAREN P., 2004. Environmental impacts. In: BURLEY J., EVANS J., YOUNGQUIST J.A. (eds), Encyclopedia of Forest Sciences. Oxford, Elsevier: 126-131. Go to original source...
  9. MELOUN M., MILITKÝ J., HILL M., 2005. Počítačová analýza vícerozměrných dat v příkladech. Praha, Academia: 449.
  10. MÍCHAL I., BUČEK A., HUDEC K., LACINA J., MACKŮ J., ŠINDELÁŘ J., 1992. Obnova ekologické stability lesů. Praha, Academia: 169.
  11. OHEIMB G.V., HÄRDTLE W., NAUMANN P.S., WESTPHAL CH., ASSMANN T., MEYER H., 2008. Long-term effects of historical heathland farming on soil properties of forest ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management, 225: 1984-1993. Go to original source...
  12. PODRÁZSKÝ V., REMEŠ J., 2007. Humus form status in close-to-nature forest parts in comparison with afforested agricultural lands. Lesnícky časopis, 53: 99-106.
  13. RITTER E., VESTERDAL L., GUNDERSEN P., 2003. Changes in soil properties after afforestation of former intensively managed soils with oak and Norway spruce. Plant and Soil, 249: 319-330. Go to original source...
  14. SINGER M.J., MUNNS D.N., 1996. Soils, an Introduction. New Jersey, Prentice Hall: 480.
  15. TORREANO S., 2004. Forests and soil development. In: BURLEY J., EVANS J., YOUNGQUIST J.A. (eds), Encyclopedia of Forest Sciences. Oxford, Elsevier: 1208-1216. Go to original source...
  16. VALLA M., KOZÁK J., DRBAL J., 1983. Cvičení z půdoznalství II. Praha, Státní pedagogické nakladatelství: 281.
  17. WALL A., HYTÖNEN J., 2005. Soil fertility of afforested arable land compared to continuously forested sites. Plant and Soil, 275: 247-260. Go to original source...
  18. ZAR J.H., 1998. Biostatistical Analysis. New Jersey, Prentice Hall: 929.
  19. ZBÍRAL J., 1995. Analýza půd I (Jednotné pracovní postupy). Brno, Státní kontrolní a zkušební ústav zemědělský: 248.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.