| Literature DB >> 29497216 |
Justyna Likus-Cieślik1, Marcin Pietrzykowski1, Marcin Chodak2.
Abstract
The impact of tree litter on soil chemistry leachate andEntities:
Keywords: Frasch method; Organic matter; Remediation; Sulfur contamination
Year: 2018 PMID: 29497216 PMCID: PMC5816133 DOI: 10.1007/s11270-018-3716-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Water Air Soil Pollut ISSN: 0049-6979 Impact factor: 2.520
Fig. 1a Composite scheme. b General scheme of leaching experiment with different litterfall application (birch or pine litter) to substrate with varied sulfur concentration and control (substrate with no litter application); abbreviations: LS soil substrate with low sulfur concentration, HS soil substrate with high sulfur concentration, B common birch litter, P Scots pine litter, c control samples with no litter addition
Changes in birch and pine litter chemical parameters during a 12-weeks experiment under controlled conditions
| Properties | B | LS-B | HS-B | P | LS-P | HS-P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pH | 5.3a ± 0.1 | 5.8b ± 0.2 | 5.2a ± 0.3 | 4.2c ± 0.0 | 5.6d ± 0.1 | 5.4ad ± 0.1 | |
| St | [mg kg−1] | 1415a ± 29 | 1913 a ± 380 | 5236b ± 1388 | 877 a ± 40 | 1301 a ± 266 | 4386b ± 1215 |
| C | [g kg−1] | 475.87ac ± 11.72 | 415.03b ± 45.51 | 414.33b ± 23.53 | 499.47c ± 2.29 | 427.55b ± 49.63 | 438.90ab ± 23.12 |
| Nt | 17.20a ± 0.19 | 18.91b ± 2.16 | 18.73ab ± 1.01 | 6.45c ± 0.35 | 6.01c ± 0.80 | 6.44c ± 0.17 | |
| Ca | 8.43a ± 0.25 | 14.49b ± 2.22 | 14.21b ± 1.92 | 14.64b ± 0.24 | 9.01ac ± 0.40 | 10.29c ± 0.65 | |
| Mg | 0.47a ± 0.02 | 0.91bc ± 0.14 | 0.84b ± 0.10 | 1.01c ± 0.04 | 0.45a ± 0.03 | 0.50a ± 0.03 | |
| Al | 0.11a ± 0.01 | 0.55b ± 0.26 | 0.58b ± 0.26 | 0.23a ± 0.02 | 0.25a ± 0.12 | 0.37ab ± 0.19 | |
| C/N | 28a | 22b | 22b | 77c | 68d | 71d | |
| RESP | [μg CO2/g/24 h] | n.d. | 1736bc ± 195 | 1506c ± 549 | n.d. | 2926a ± 370 | 2340ab ± 329 |
Mean values with the same letter are not significantly different at p = 0.5, 2.53 ± 0.04—mean and SD
B birch litter before the experiment, LS-B birch litter after the experiment on substrate with 5090 mg kg−1 S, HS-B birch litter after the experiment on substrate with 42,500 mg kg−1 S, P birch litter before the experiment, LS-P pine litter after the experiment on substrate with 5090 mg·kg−1 S, HS-P pine litter after the experiment on substrate with 42,500 mg kg−1 S, n.d. no data
Chemical parameter changes of soil substrates during a 12-weeks experiment under controlled conditions
| Properties | LS | LS-c | LS-B | LS-P | HS | HS-c | HS-B | HS-P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pH | 2.1a ± 0.0 | 2.6bc ± 0.0 | 2.5bd ± 0.1 | 2.9e ± 0.3 | 2.5bc ± 0.0 | 2.6c ± 0.0 | 2.3d ± 0.0 | 2.5bc ± 0.1 | |
| EC | [mS cm−1] | 1.87a ± 0.057 | 0.39b ± 0.032 | 0.59c ± 0.11 | 0.23d ± 0.23 | 2.59e ± 0.053 | 2.53e ± 0.075 | 2.98f ± 0.123 | 2.58e ± 0.047 |
| St | [mg kg−1] | 5090a ± 483 | 6447a ± 397 | 5947a ± 1319 | 6178a ± 1870 | 42521b ± 2670 | 35634c ± 9568 | 33247c ± 4033 | 34157c ± 4291 |
| SOC | [g kg−1] | 3.22a ± 0.09 | 2.89a ± 0.32 | 2.97a ± 0.16 | 3.09a ± 0.20 | 7.78b ± 0.13 | 7.23b ± 0.34 | 7.80b ± 1.14 | 7.20b ± 0.44 |
| Nt | 0.03a ± 0.03 | 0.02a ± 0.01 | 0.03a ± 0.01 | 0.02a ± 0.00 | 0.16b ± 0.02 | 0.19bc ± 0.04 | 0.22c ± 0.04 | 0.18b ± 0.01 | |
| Ca | 7.06a ± 0.50 | 0.07b ± 0.05 | 0.06b ± 0.00 | 0.38b ± 0.36 | 11.68c ± 1.56 | 4.21de ± 2.25 | 2.95d ± 0.73 | 5.99de ± 2.23 | |
| Mg | 0.09ac ± 0.01 | 0.04b ± 0.01 | 0.04b ± 0.00 | 0.05b ± 0.00 | 0.11a ± 0.00 | 0.08c ± 0.04 | 0.11a ± 0.01 | 0.11a ± 0.01 | |
| Al | 0.97ab ± 0.09 | 0.37c ± 0.25 | 0.43c ± 0.03 | 0.49c 0.04 | 1.51e ± 0.00 | 0.77ad ± 0.44 | 1.02ab ± 0.18 | 1.25be ± 0.17 | |
| RESP | [μg CO2/g/24 h] | n.d. | 2.49a ± 0.48 | 2.75a ± 1.38 | 1.91a ± 0.71 | n.d. | 2.40a ± 0.57 | 0.99a ± 0.48 | 2.24a ± 0.59 |
Mean values with the same letter are not significantly different at p = 0.5, 2.53 ± 0.04—mean and SD
LS soil substrate with 5090 mg kg−1 S before the experiment, LS-c control sample of soil substrate with 5090 mg kg−1 S after the experiment, LS-B birch litter after the experiment on substrate with 5090 mg kg−1 S, LS-P pine litter after the experiment on substrate with 5090 mg kg−1 S, HS soil substrate with 42,500 mg kg−1 S before the experiment, HS-c control sample of soil substrate with 42,500 mg kg−1 S after the experiment, HS-B birch litter after the experiment on substrate with 42,500 mg kg−1 S, HS-P pine litter after the experiment on substrate with 42,500 mg kg−1 S, n.d. no data
Fig. 2Sulfur content (St) in the substrate at the beginning and at the end of the experiment under controlled conditions; Explanation: letters (a, b) specify the significant differences between the mean values of composite at the beginning and the end of the experiment at p = 0.05; abbreviations: LS soil substrate with low sulfur concentration, HS soil substrate with high sulfur concentration, B common birch litter, P Scots pine litter, c control samples with no litter addition
Fig. 3Factor analysis (FA) loading plot for different microbial (RESP) and chemical (SOC, Nt, St, Mg, Ca, Al, pH, and EC) properties of the LS and HS substrates after 12 weeks of the leaching experiment
Fig. 4Changes in pH (a) and EC (b) of the solutions during the experiment under controlled conditions; abbreviations: LS soil substrate with low sulfur concentration, HS soil substrate with high sulfur concentration, B common birch litter, P Scots pine litter, c control samples with no litter addition
Mean values and standard deviations for pH, EC, content of dissolved organic carbon (DOC), and the concentrations of St, Nt, Ca, Mg and Al in leachates at the beginning and after 12 weeks of leaching through soil substrates and composites in controlled conditions
| LS-c | LS-B | LS-P | HS-c | HS-B | HS-P | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pH | s | 1.8b§ ± 0.04 | 1.8b ± 0.02 | 1.8b ± 0.10 | 2.2b ± 0.03 | 2.2 ± 0.10 | 2.3b ± 0.10 |
| f | 2.5a ± 0.08 | 2.8a ± 0.12 | 3.8a ± 0.26 | 2.6a ± 0.18 | 2.2 ± 0.22 | 2.9a ± 0.26 | |
| EC [mS cm−1] | s | 10.80a ± 1.38 | 11.48a ± 0.42 | 10.91a ± 3.07 | 4.85a ± 0.29 | 5.52 ± 0.77 | 4.51a ± 0.49 |
| f | 1.12b ± 0.32 | 0.71b ± 0.23 | 0.10b ± 0.03 | 2.74b ± 0.34 | 4.75 ± 1.00 | 2.40b ± 0.36 | |
| St [mg kg−1] | s | 1570.8a ± 156.5 | 1585.9a ± 100.1 | 1583.3a ± 428.6 | 814.3a ± 31.4 | 841.4 ± 73.6 | 741.0a ± 74.4 |
| f | 71.0b ± 20.3 | 53.7b ± 17.2 | 9.6b ± 4.6 | 625.7b ± 36.6 | 725.4 ± 63.6 | 588.0b ± 24.0 | |
| DOC [mg l−1] | s | 82.84a ± 8.95 | 92.97a ± 9.38 | 117.13a ± 18.80 | 101.41a ± 9.54 | 127.00a ± 33.11 | 110.37a ± 15.38 |
| f | 5.08b ± 0.33 | 20.47b ± 3.17 | 37.20b ± 10.72 | 9.78b ± 1.65 | 32.00b ± 4.03 | 29.56b ± 2.48 | |
| Nt [mg l−1] | s | 14.65a ± 1.97 | 18.05a ± 1.02 | 16.42a ± 4.11 | 5.72a ± 0.31 | 7.68a ± 1.55 | 6.54a ± 0.69 |
| f | 0.53b ± 0.04 | 1.46b ± 0.17 | 1.17b ± 0.33 | 0.43b ± 0.02 | 2.58b ± 0.67 | 0.82b ± 0.05 | |
| Ca [mg l−1] | s | 474.41a ± 39.07 | 445.30a ± 26.10 | 442.78a ± 33.14 | 550.23a ± 17.79 | 552.79a ± 14.18 | 553.38 ± 50.04 |
| f | 5.84b ± 1.28 | 13.66b ± 4.08 | 5.20b ± 6.11 | 467.27b ± 24.03 | 494.78b ± 21.99 | 495.56 ± 17.26 | |
| Mg [mg l−1] | s | 2.21a ± 1.73 | 7.85a ± 1.48 | 8.01a ± 3.14 | 0.01c ± 0.00 | 1.62ad ± 0.96 | 0.85d ± 1.70 |
| f | 0.01b ± 0.00 | 0.68b ± 0.12 | 0.07b ± 0.14 | 0.01c ± 0.03 | 2.24a ± 0.49 | 0.48d ± 0.09 | |
| Al [mg l−1] | s | 73.24a ± 12.42 | 61.17a ± 6.95 | 60.68a ± 25.23 | 42.95a ± 6.32 | 32.42a ± 10.98 | 21.66a ± 9.22 |
| f | 0.22b ± 0.16 | 0.05b ± 0.04 | 0.06b ± 0.04 | 0.74b ± 0.41 | 1.77b ± 0.47 | 0.21b ± 0.14 |
Different letters indicate significant differences in the measured values at the beginning and at the end of the experiment (p = 0.05, pairwise t test)
s at the beginning of experiment, f after 12 weeks
Fig. 5Changes in sulfur content (St) in solutions during the experiment under controlled conditions; abbreviations: LS soil substrate with low sulfur concentration, HS soil substrate with high sulfur concentration, B common birch litter, P Scots pine litter, c control samples with no litter addition
Fig. 6Load of sulfur leached from substrates in various combinations of composites used in the experiment. Explanations: letters (a, b) specify the significant difference between the mean values of composite at the beginning and the end of the experiment at p = 0.05; abbreviations: LS soil substrate with low sulfur concentration, HS soil substrate with high sulfur concentration, B common birch litter, P Scots pine litter, c control samples with no litter addition
Fig. 7Changes in the DOC (a), Nt (b), Ca (c), Mg (d), and Al (e) content in solutions during the experiment under controlled conditions; abbreviations: LS soil substrate with low sulfur concentration, HS soil substrate with high sulfur concentration, B common birch litter, P Scots pine litter, c control samples with no litter addition