| Literature DB >> 28710736 |
Justyna Likus-Cieślik1, Marcin Pietrzykowski2.
Abstract
The paper presents an assessment of vegetation (composition and cover-abundance), nutrient supply, and especially sulfur accumulation in the trees foliage (birch and pine) used in reforestation and wood small-reed (Calamagrostis epigejos (L.) Roth) appearing in succession on reclaimed areas of the former Jeziórko sulfur mine (southern Poland, Tarnobrzeg region). In researched area, three categories of vegetation cover were determined: category D-degraded and unsuccessfully reforested plots, and two categories with successful reforestation: P-pine and B-birch stands. On each category, four study plots (4-6 areas each, depends on site category) were established. Soil and vegetation samplings (current year and 2-year-old pine needles, birch leaves, and wood small-reed foliage) were collected on the subplots established in regular grid square (10 × 10 m) in each category. Basic soil properties and nutrient content in soils and vegetation were analyzed. Trees grew well in areas where neutralization and reclamation treatments were carried out properly and showed a good supply of nutrients (exception of phosphorus and nitrogen), while on category D, only herbaceous vegetation with low cover-abundance and dominated by wood small-reed were noted. Linear correlations between the soil and trees nutrients content occurred, while the correlations between the soil and wood small-reed did not occur. Wood small-reed did not display increased sulfur uptake which may indicate a strategy of blocking pollutant uptake from the soil and may be recommended as a species resistant to sulfurous soils.Entities:
Keywords: Frasch method; Plant nutrition; Reclamation; Reforestation; Sulfur contamination; Sulfur extraction by underground melting method
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28710736 PMCID: PMC5574934 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-017-9638-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ISSN: 0944-1344 Impact factor: 4.223
Fig. 1Location of study site (a), investigated part of the Forest District with reclaimed ecosystem (b), and sample plot location (c)
Basic soil characteristics
| Elements | Category and soil horizon | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D | P | B | ||||||
| 0–20 | 20–50 | 0–20 | 20–50 | 0–20 | 20–50 | |||
| pH | [μS cm−1] | Median (mean) | 3.1ac (3.8) | 2.7a (3.3) | 7.0b,* (6.0) | 4.4c,** (4.6) | 7.0b,* (6.7) | 4.6c,** (5.0) |
| Range | 1.7–7.7 | 1.5–7.1 | 2.5–7.8 | 2.4–7.1 | 1.7–9.0 | 2.7–8.0 | ||
| EC | Median (mean) | 1960a (1885) | 1730a (1932) | 162b (396) | 61b (345) | 164b (707) | 67b (421) | |
| Range | 55–5580 | 40–6500 | 10–1709 | 23–1600 | 37–5920 | 14–2230 | ||
| St | [mg kg−1] | Median (mean) | 9595a (25303) | 10949a (24868) | 639b,* (2246) | 50b,** (943) | 545b (17610) | 156b (12718) |
| Range | 107–179,370 | 50–245,740 | 50–32,462 | 50–19,779 | 50–330,160 | 50–162,470 | ||
| Nt | [%] | Median (mean) | 0.02a (0.02) | 0.02a (0.02) | 0.05b* (0.06) | 0.03a** (0.03) | 0.04b* (0.05) | 0.01a** (0.01) |
| Range | bdl-0.08 | bdl-0.07 | 0.01–0.11 | bdl-0.12 | bdl-0.12 | bdl-0.06 | ||
| SOC | [%] | Median (mean) | 0.98a (1.33) | 0.89a (1.14) | 1.57a* (1.36) | 0.55b** (0.75) | 1.38a* (1.80) | 0.28b** (0.60) |
| Range | 0.08–4.82 | 0.03–3.03 | 0.28–3.59 | 0.06–4.37 | 0.11–4.92 | 0.04–6.09 | ||
a, b, cSignificant differences between categories, *, ** significant differences between soil horizon in category
B birch stand category, P pine stand category, D degraded category, bdl below detection level i.e., 0.01%
Vegetation occurring on the FJSM (divided into categories of pine stands P, birch stands B, and treeless degraded areas D)
| Layer | Species | Category | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | P | D | ||
| Layer c |
| + | ||
|
| + | |||
|
| 2 | 2 | 2 | |
|
| 2 | 1 | ||
|
| + | |||
|
| + | |||
|
| + | + | ||
|
| + | |||
|
| + | |||
|
| + | |||
|
| + | |||
|
| + | |||
|
| + | |||
|
| + | + | ||
|
| + | |||
|
| + | + | ||
|
| + | |||
|
| + | |||
|
| + | |||
|
| + | |||
| Seedlings |
| + | ||
|
| + | + | ||
|
| + | + | ||
|
| + | + | ||
| Layer d |
| 1 | 2 | + |
|
| + | |||
|
| + | |||
The Braun-Blanquet cover abundance scale was used
+ rare, with a very small degree of covers, 1 numerous individuals but not abundant, 2 range of cover from 5 to 25%, (Braun-Blanquet 1964)
The supply of macronutrients of birch and pine foliage (broken down into needles from 2 years) in sulfurous soils of FSMJ
| Elements | Category and research material | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | P | ||||
| Pc | Pc+1 | ||||
| N | [%] | Median (mean) | 1.68a (1.71) | 1.07b (1.12) | 1.10b (1.11) |
| Range | 1.58–1.89 | 1.05–1.30 | 1.05–1.81 | ||
| P | [mg kg−1] | Median (mean) | 2309.3a (2320.4) | 1358.3b (1348.1) | 1049.6b (1045.4) |
| Range | 1695.8–2969.3 | 1221.3–1454.3 | 970.6–1111.8 | ||
| Ca | [%] | Median (mean) | 1.30a (1.35) | 0.32b (0.33) | 0.78c (0.75) |
| Range | 1.15–1.63 | 0.25–0.44 | 0.52–0.93 | ||
| Mg | [mg kg−1] | Median (mean) | 1494.9a (1525.7) | 705.2b (705.2) | 710.6b (715.0) |
| Range | 1039.9–2073.1 | 645.0–765.5 | 687.5–751.5 | ||
| K | [%] | Median (mean) | 0.72a (0.80) | 0.49b (0.50) | 0.49b (0.50) |
| Range | 0.68–1.07 | 0.46–0.56 | 0.48–0.53 | ||
| Na | [mg kg−1] | Median (mean) | 37.1a (34.9) | 11.0b (10.3) | 8.5b (10.0) |
| Range | 17.46–47.88 | bdl.—19.1 | 1.3–21.74 | ||
a, bSignificant difference between categories
B birch stand category, P pine stand category, P current year needles, P 2-year-old pine needles, bdl below detection level
Graph 1Sulfur concentration in tree (birch and pine) foliage with distinction into current year and 2-year-old needles in sulfurous soils of FSMJ
Graph 2Plot of hierarchical tree (supply of macronutrients of birch, pine foliage, and soil characteristics)
Nutrient content and N:P ratio in wood small-reed leaves occurring in designated categories in reforested areas of FSMJ
| Category | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P | B | D | |||
| S | [mg kg−1] | Mean (median) | 2249.1a (2262.8) | 1717.3a (1689.1) | 1778.5a (2042.4) |
| Range | 2087.8–2383.0 | 1406.6–2084.4 | 790.6–2238.5 | ||
| N | [%] | Mean (median) | 0.93a (0.97) | 0.75ab (0.73) | 0.62b (0.67) |
| Range | 0.71–1.09 | 0.56–0.99 | 0.40–0.72 | ||
| P | [mg kg−1] | Mean (median) | 1351.2a (1381.1) | 1132.5a (1182.3) | 904a (739.3) |
| Range | 1235.3–1407.3 | 749.2–1416.3 | 519.3–1618.3 | ||
| K | [%] | Mean (median) | 0.95a (0.87) | 0.72a (0.76) | 0.57a (0.57) |
| Range | 0.82–1.25 | 0.37–0.98 | 0.23–0.91 | ||
| Ca | [%] | Mean (median) | 0.34a (0.33) | 0.27a (0.31) | 0.22a (0.24) |
| Range | 0.20–0.50 | 0.15–0.33 | 0.09–0.28 | ||
| Mg | [mg kg−1] | Mean (median) | 706.1a (644.1) | 485.5ab (506.1) | 363.9b (390.6) |
| Range | 603.4–932.5 | 296.8–633.1 | 175.1–499.5 | ||
| Na | [mg kg−1] | Mean (median) | 25.0a (15.8) | 22.2a (22.4) | 11.3a (5.9) |
| Range | 13.6–54.7 | 13.3–30.4 | 4.2–29.3 | ||
| N:P ratio | Mean (median) | 6.9 | 6.7 | 7.7 | |
a, bSignificant difference between categories
B birch stand category, P pine stand category, D degraded category
Graph 3Plot of hierarchical tree (supply of macronutrients of wood small-reed leaves and soil characteristics)
Graph 4Scatter plots S (plant) vs St (soil)
Graph 5Scatter plots S (plant) vs EC (soil)
Graph 6Scatter plots S (plant) vs Nt (soil)