| Literature DB >> 23079794 |
Cezary Kabala1, Oskar Bojko, Agnieszka Medynska, Agnieszka Szczepaniak.
Abstract
An appropriate sampling method that provides for the representation of the collected material and the reliability of results plays a crucial role in environmental monitoring. This is especially important in soil quality investigations on sites with a differentiated surface microrelief, as in the case of afforested post-arable soils that have a specific, deep furrow-and-ridge microrelief. The present research was carried out on three sites afforested with pine (4-, 8-, and 15-year-old stands) located near a large tailings pond collecting the wastes from copper ore enrichment. Soils were sampled at depths of 0-10 and 0-30 cm, separately in the furrows and ridges. The "wide-furrow plow" contributed to the spatial variation in soil properties, including higher pH, organic carbon, and Cu content in soils of the ridges. The difference in Cu content in the ridges and furrows initially reached 300 %, and decreased with the decline of the furrow-and-ridge microrelief to 60 % at 15 years after the plowing. Observed rate of the furrow shallowing allows for an estimation of the time necessary for the complete disappearance of the furrow-and-ridge microrelief and associated variability in soil properties to at least 30-40 years after the plowing. Afforestation plowing had little impact on the Zn variability which was not influenced by the emissions from the tailings pond. Soil sampling in contaminated sites with furrow-and-ridge microrelief must collect equal quantities of soil samples from both furrows and ridges to allow a reliable estimation of the mean trace elements' concentration.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23079794 PMCID: PMC3641293 DOI: 10.1007/s10661-012-2931-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Monit Assess ISSN: 0167-6369 Impact factor: 2.513
Fig. 1“Fresh” furrow-and-ridge microrelief created recently by an afforestation plowing (“wide-furrow plow”) in the surrounding of the study sites (an area not involved in this study)
Basic characteristics of the sites
| Site | Age of the stand (years) | Microrelief depth (cm) | Stand composition | Soil unit according to WRB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | – | – | Arable field | Brunic Arenosol (Dystric) |
| 1 | 4 | 28 ± 3a | Pine (95 %), Birch (5 %) | Brunic Arenosol (Dystric) |
| 2 | 8 | 20 ± 3b | Pine (95 %), Birch (5 %) | Brunic Arenosol (Dystric) |
| 3 | 15 | 15 ± 2c | Pine (100 %) | Brunic Arenosol (Dystric) |
Homogeneous groups of means calculated by Duncan’s multiple range test (significant at p < 0.05). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between the mean microrelief depths (a lack of homogenous groups)
Fig. 2Reference arable land with flat microrelief (site 0) and the “furrow-and-ridge microrelief” on sites afforested 4, 8, and 15 years previously (sites 1, 2, and 3, respectively)
Particle size distribution, pH, and the content of organic carbon in soils under study
| Site | Soil layer | Particle size fraction (mm) | Texture class | Ridges | Furrows | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sand | Silt | Clay | TOC | pH | TOC | pH | |||
| 2.0–0.05 | 0.05–0.002 | <0.002 | |||||||
| cm | % | % | % | ||||||
| 0 | 0–10 | 90.5 | 6.4 | 3.1 | S | 0.58a | 6.8 | – | – |
| 0–30 | 91.4 | 6.2 | 2.4 | S | 0.43b | 6.7 | – | – | |
| 1 | 0–10 | 88.5 | 8.3 | 3.2 | S | 0.42aa | 6.5 | 0.31Ab | 6.4 |
| 0–30 | 88.5 | 8.4 | 3.1 | S | 0.59ba | 6.6 | 0.26Bb | 6.1 | |
| 2 | 0–10 | 92.5 | 6.1 | 1.4 | S | 0.71ca | 6.7 | 0.50Cb | 6.2 |
| 0–30 | 92.5 | 6.2 | 1.3 | S | 0.65ca | 6.6 | 0.45Cb | 5.7 | |
| 3 | 0–10 | 91.7 | 7.2 | 1.1 | S | 0.94da | 6.8 | 0.78Db | 6.7 |
| 0–30 | 91.6 | 7.3 | 1.1 | S | 0.91da | 7.3 | 0.74Db | 6.6 | |
Site “0” has a flat microrelief, not differentiated into ridges and furrows. Number of samples used for calculations was N = 15 in each layer. Homogeneous groups of mean values calculated by Duncan’s multiple range test (significant at p < 0.05): lowercase letters represent a comparison of the layers 0–10 and 0–30 cm in the ridges of the same age, uppercase letters represent comparison of the layers 0–10 and 0–30 cm in the furrows of the same age. a,bComparison of the same layers (0–10 or 0–30 cm) in ridges and furrows. The same letters indicate no significant difference between the means (a “homogenous group”)
Variability of the total copper concentration in soils of the ridges and furrows (N = 15 samples in each layer)
| Site | Soil layer | Ridges | Furrows | Average content | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Min–max | SD |
| Mean | Min–max | SD |
| |||
| cm | mg kg−1 | % | mg kg−1 | % | mg kg−1 | |||||
| 0 | 0–10 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 29.1 |
| 0–30 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 26.5 | |
| 1 | 0–10 | 27.9aa | 25.5–32.5 | 2.61 | 9.5d | 18.5Bb | 9.5–24.0 | 5.62 | 30e | 23.2 |
| 0–30 | 31.5aa | 29.5–34.0 | 1.52 | 4.8c | 10.5Ab | 6.0–12.5 | 2.37 | 22e | 21.0 | |
| 2 | 0–10 | 43.5ba | 34.0–58.0 | 8.60 | 20e | 30.2Cb | 26.5–32.0 | 2.17 | 7.2c | 36.9 |
| 0–30 | 39.3ba | 33.0–43.5 | 3.60 | 9.2d | 15.8Bb | 13.0–21.5 | 3.36 | 21e | 27.6 | |
| 3 | 0–10 | 47.5ca | 40.5–59.0 | 7.28 | 15d,e | 30.8Cb | 18.5–40.0 | 7.77 | 25e | 39.2 |
| 0–30 | 37.0ba | 34.5–41.5 | 2.72 | 7.4c | 21.5Bb | 16.0–31.0 | 5.37 | 25e | 29.3 | |
SD standard deviation, v coefficient of variation (v = SD/mean)
Homogeneous groups of mean values calculated by Duncan’s multiple range test (significant at p < 0.05): lowercase letters represent comparison of the layers 0–10 and 0–30 cm in the ridges of the same age, uppercase letters represent comparison of the layers 0–10 and 0–30 cm in the furrows of the same age. a,bComparison of the same layers (0–10 or 0–30 cm) in ridges and furrows. c,d,eComparison of the v coefficients. The same case letters indicate no significant difference between the means (a “homogenous group”)
Fig. 3Temporal changes in the ratio of Cu and Zn content in soils of ridges and furrows. R/F ratio the ratio of metal content in the soil of a ridge to its content in the soil of a furrow
Variability of the total zinc concentration in soils of the ridges and furrows (N = 15 samples in each layer)
| Site | Soil layer | Ridges | Furrows | Average content | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Min–max | SD |
| Mean | Min–max | SD |
| |||
| cm | mg kg−1 | % | mg kg−1 | % | mg kg−1 | |||||
| 0 | 0–10 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 31.4 |
| 0–30 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 25.5 | |
| 1 | 0–10 | 34.1aa | 31.5–38.0 | 3.09 | 9.1d | 31.7Aa | 25.5–40.0 | 5.02 | 16e | 32.9 |
| 0–30 | 35.3aa | 32.5–37.5 | 1.88 | 5.3c | 25.6Ab | 20.5–30.5 | 3.41 | 13d,e | 30.5 | |
| 2 | 0–10 | 24.3ba | 20.0–28.5 | 3.11 | 13d,e | 23.9Aa | 20.5–30.5 | 3.63 | 15e | 24.1 |
| 0–30 | 26.3ba | 23.5–30.5 | 2.50 | 9.5d | 21.2Aa | 19.0–26.0 | 3.39 | 16e | 23.8 | |
| 3 | 0–10 | 21.6ba | 16.0–26.5 | 4.71 | 22e | 24.8Aa | 16.0–31.5 | 6.01 | 24e | 23.2 |
| 0–30 | 26.0ba | 24.5–27.5 | 1.10 | 4.2c | 21.9Ab | 19.0–24.5 | 1.93 | 8.8d | 24.0 | |
Explanations as in Table 3