Variability of main and secondary humus forms in relation to morphometric indices at local-scale surveys

Document Type : Complete scientific research article

Authors

1 Master's student in Forestry and Forest Ecology, Faculty of Forest Sciences, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran.

2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Forest Sciences, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran.

Abstract

Background and objectives: The formation of soil humus is shaped by both biological and non-biological elements. Biological factors include vegetation type and soil organisms, while non-biological factors encompass climate, topography, and bedrock. Therefore, soil humus form serves as a crucial indicator in forest ecosystems. Previous studies have established a clear correlation between changes in humus form and variations in elevation, yet the connection between humus form and topographical morphology remains uncertain. Hence, this research seeks to elucidate the relation between local-scale changes in humus forms and topographic morphometric indices.
.
Materials and methods: Variables were derived from 510 humus profiles, categorizing the main and secondary humus forms based on the European classification method for terrestrial humus forms, which is specifically designed for temperate mountain forests. The data was collected along an altitude gradient spanning from 200 to 1000 meters within a 1700-hectare area in district one of ShastKalate forest. Primary and secondary topographic attributes were extracted from a Digital Terrain Model (DTM) with a spatial resolution of 10 meters. Discriminant and regression analysis were employed to establish the relationships between variables.
Results: The results indicated that dividing the region into two altitude ranges had a significant impact on the accuracy of humus form classification. In the low altitude range (below 599 meters), the overall accuracy coefficient for the main humus form increased by 55%, and for the secondary humus form by 83%. In the middle altitude range (above 600 meters), the overall accuracy coefficient increased by 14% for the main humus form and by 58% for the secondary humus form. Additionally, the Kappa coefficient increased by 112% and 49% for the main humus form in the low and middle-altitude regions, respectively. Regarding humus form abundance, the MULL form was more prevalent in the low altitude zone, while the MODER and AMPHI forms were more abundant in the middle zone. In terms of secondary humus forms, Eumoll was most abundant in the low altitude zone, while Eumoder dominated the middle zone. Furthermore, the frequencies of Eumacroamphi, Eumesoamphi, and Leptoamphi forms were higher in the middle zone compared to the low altitude zone. Contrary to previous research findings, it was observed that altitude had a negative relationship with changes in primary and secondary humus forms in the middle altitude range, while it had a positive relationship in the low range. Similarly, the slope had an opposite effect on humus form changes. Profile curvature and plane curvature exhibited a positive relationship with primary and secondary humus forms in both the low and middle altitude ranges. This implies that an increase in domain concavity along the slope direction and convexity perpendicular to the slope leads to the presence of all humus differential horizons and the formation of a large biological soil structure in the semi-organic Ah horizon. This, in turn, explains the presence of Eumull and Leptoamphi forms. Moreover, the topographic wetness index displayed a positive relationship with changes in both main and secondary humus forms in the low and middle altitude zones. This suggests that as soil moisture increases, facilitated by higher organic matter content in the soil surface horizons, the main humus form tends to shift towards MODER.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

1.Waez-Mousavi, S. M., & Habashi, H. (2014). Humus forms and the most important factors affecting its changes in mixed beech forest (case study: Shastkalateh forest of Gorgan). J. of Wood & Forest Science and Technology. 20 (4), 151-166. [In Persian]
2.Zanella, A., Ponge, J. F., Jabiol, B., Sartori, G., Kolb, E., Le Bayon, R. C., Gobat, J. M., Aubert, M., De Waal, R., Van Delft, B., & Vacca, A. (2018). Humusica 1, article 5: terrestrial humus systems and forms-keys of classification of humus systems and forms. Applied Soil Ecology J. 122 (1), 75-86.
3.Bayranvand, M., Akbarinia, M., Salehi Jouzani, G. H., Gharechahi, J., & Kooch, Y. (2019). The variability of humus forms in relation to forest cover and soil ecology in different altitudes. Iranian J. of Forest. 11 (3), 335-346. [In Persian]
4.Bayranvand, M., Akbarinia, M., Salehi Jouzani, G. H., Gharechahi, J., & Kooch, Y. (2021). Humus index assessment in relation to forest cover variables and altitude gradient. J. Ecology of Iranian Forests. 9 (18), 169-178. [In Persian]
5.Sadeghi, M., Habashi, H., Esmailzadeh, O., Mohammadi, J., & Sajedi, T. (2020). Model Humus forms changes in the beech and hornbeam stands in the old-growth and managed forest (case study: Shastkalateh forest of Gorgan). J. of Forest Research and Development. 6 (3), 429-444. [In Persian]
6.Descheemaeker, K., Muys, B., Nyssen, J., Sauwens, W., Haile, M., Poesen, J., Raes, D., & Deckers, J. (2009). Humus forms development during forest restoration in enclosures of the Tigray highlands, Northern Ethiopia. Restoration Ecology J. 17 (2), 280-289.
7.Labaz, B., Galka, B., Bogacz, A., Waroszewski, J., & Kabala, C. (2014). Factors influencing humus forms and forest litter properties in the mid-mountains under the temperate climate of Southwestern Poland. Geoderma J. 230 (231), 265-273.
8.Bonifacio, E., Falsone, G., & Petrillo, M. (2011). Humus forms, organic matter stocks, and carbon fractions in forest soils of northwestern Italy. Biology and Fertility of Soils J. 47 (5), 555-566.
9.Ascher, J., Sartori, G., Graefe, U., Thornton, B., Ceccherini, M. T., Pietramellara, G., & Egli, M. (2012). Are humus forms, mesofauna, and microflora in subalpine forest soils sensitive to thermal conditions? Biology and Fertility of Soils J. 48 (6), 709-725.
10.Hellwig, N., Anschlag, K., & Broll, G. (2016). A fuzzy logic-based method for modeling the spatial distribution of indicators of decomposition in a high mountain environment. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research J. 48 (4), 623-635.
11.Ma, H. P., Yang, X. L., Guo, Q. Q., Zhang, X. J., & Zhou, C. N. (2016). Soil organic carbon pools along different altitudinal levels in the Sygera mountains, Tibetan plateau. J. of Mountain Science. 13 (3), 476-483.
12.Mackey, B. G. (1996). The role of GIS and environmental modeling in the conservation of biodiversity. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference Integrating GIS and Environmental Modeling, Santa Fe, NM, Pp: 21-25.
13.Hellwig, N., Tatti, D., Sartori, G., Anschlag, K., Graefe, U., Egli, M., Gobat, J. M., & Broll, G. (2018). Modeling spatial patterns of humus forms in montane and subalpine forests: implications of local variability for upscaling. Sustainability J. 11 (48), 1-15.
14.Ponge, J. F. Jabiol, B., & Gégout, J. C. (2011). Geology and climate conditions affect more humus forms than forest canopies on a large scale in temperate forests. Geoderma J. 162 (1-2), 187-195.
15.Habashi, H., & Rafiee, F. (2019). Variables influencing humus form differentiation in the Hyrcanian forest
on the local scale (case study: Shast-Kalateh Gorgan). J. of Forest Research and Development. 5 (3), 343-356. [In Persian]
16.Abbaszadeh Afshar, F., Jalalian, A., & Ayoubi, Sh. (2010). Spatial prediction of some physicochemical soil properties and magnetic susceptibility using digital topographic model. J. Water and Soil Conservation. 17 (2), 89-105. [In Persian]
17.Baboli, H., & Negahban, S. (2020). Investigation of fermi characteristics of land surface based on morphometric indices and using GIS (case study: Fahlian watershed). J. of Geography. 19 (68), 102-117. [In Persian]
18.Bayranvand, M., Kooch, Y., Hosseini, S. M., & Alberti, G. (2017). Humus forms in relation to altitude and forest type in the Northern mountainous regions of Iran. Forest Ecology and Management J. 385 (1), 78-86.
19.Badía-Villas, D., & Girona-García, A. (2018). Soil humus changes with elevation in Scots pine stands of the Moncayo Massif (NE Spain). Applied Soil Ecology J. 123, 617-621.
20.Bayranvand, M., Akbarinia, M., Salehi Jouzani, G., Gharechahi, J., & Alberti, G. (2021). Dynamics of humus forms and soil characteristics along a forest altitudinal gradient in Hyrcanian forest. iForest-Biogeosciences and Forestry J. 14 (1), 26-33.
21.Zanella, A., Ponge, J.F., Jabiol, B., Sartori, G., Kolb, E., Gobat, J.M., Le Bayon, R.C., Aubert, M., De Waal, R., Van Delft, B., & Vacca, A. (2018). Humusica 1, article 4: terrestrial humus systems and forms-specific terms and diagnostic horizons. Applied Soil Ecology J. 122, 56-74.
22.De Nicola, C., Zanella, A., Testi, A., Fanelli, G., & Pignatti, S. (2014). Humus forms in a Mediterranean area (Castelporziano reserve, Rome, Italy): classification, functioning, and organic carbon storage. Geoderma J. 235 (236), 90-99.
23.Wilson, J.P., & Gallant, J.C. (2000). Digital terrain analysis. Terrain analysis: principles and applications. John Wiley & Sons, INC. Edition New York. Pp: 1-27.
24.Sepahavnd, M., Khormali, F., Kiani, F., & Eftekhari, K. (2017). Modeling soil depth and topographic attributes relationship for predicting soil depth in Rimeleh catchment, Lorestan province. J. of Iranian soil Research. 321 (4), 601-611. [In Persian]
25.Karamian, M., & Hosseini, V. (2014). Effect of altitude, slope, and canopy on absorbable phosphorus, carbon, and total nitrogen in forest soils (case study: The forest of Ilam province, Dalab). J. of Forest Sustainable Development. 1 (1), 57-71. [In Persian]
26.Raoof, M., Sadraddini, S.A.A., Nazemi, A.H., & Maroofi, S. (2011). Effect of land slope on infiltration and some physical properties of soil. J. of Water and Soil Science. 21 (1), 57-68. [In Persian]
27.Jokar-Sarhangi, I., Esmaeali, R., & Baba-Alipour, S. (2018). Survey of relationship between geology and topography factors with drainage density in Behrestagh watershed. J. of Hydrogeomorphology. 14, 135-156. [In Persian]
28.Maleki, S., Khormali, F., Kiani, F., & Karimi, A.R. (2013). Effect of slope position and aspect on some physical and chemical soil characteristics in a loess hillslope of Toshan area, Golestan province, Iran. J. of Water and Soil Conservation. 20 (3), 93-112. [In Persian]
29.Mahmoodi, M.B., Jalilvand, H., Hodjati, S.M., & Kooch, Y. (2019). The effect of slope position in catena landform on
soil physical and chemical features
in the Asalem beech forest. J. of
Iranian Forest and Poplar Research. 27 (75), 35-47. [In Persian]
30.Klinka, K., Green, R.N., Trowbridge, R.L., & Lowe, L.E. (1981). Taxonomic classification of humus forms in ecosystems of British Columbia. Ministry of Forests, Land Management Report, ISSN: 0702-9861, Pp: 4-5.
31.Yavitt, J.B., Pipes, G.T., Olmos, E.C., Zhang, J., & Shapleigh, J.P. (2021). Soil organic matter, soil structure, and bacterial community structure in a post-agricultural landscape. Frontiers in Earth Science J. 9, 1-15.
32.Beven, K., & Kirkby, M. (1979). A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology. Hydrological Science Bulletin J.24 (1), 43-69.
33.Sørensen, R., Zinko, U., & Seibert, J. (2006). On the calculation of the topographic wetness index: evaluation of different methods based on field observations. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences J. 10 (1), 101-112.
34.Moore, I.D., Gessler, P.E., Nielsen, G.A., & Petersen, G.A. (1993). Terrain attributes: estimation methods and scale effects. In: Jakeman, A.J., Beck, M.B., and McAleer, M. Modelling change in environmental systems. London: Wiley. Pp: 189-214.
35.Jabiol, B., Zanella, A., Ponge, F., Sartori, G., Englisch, M., Van Delft, B., De Waal, R., & Claire Le Bayon, R. (2013). A proposal for including humus forms in the world reference base for soil resources (WRB-FAO). Geoderma J. 192, 286.294.
Journal of Wood and Forest Science and Technology
Volume 30, Issue 2
July 2023
Pages 39-54

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics