References 33.2 Histosols
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Topic: Soil Classification
Programme: M.Sc.(Environmental Science) Course: Soil Science Semester: IV Code: MSESC4007E04 Topic: Soil Classification Prof. Umesh Kumar Singh Department of Environmental Science School of Earth, Environmental and Biological Sciences Central University of South Bihar, Gaya Note: These materials are only for classroom teaching purpose at Central University of South Bihar. All the data/figures/materials are taken from several research articles/e-books/text books including Wikipedia and other online resources. 1 • Pedology: The origin of the soil , its classification, and its description are examined in pedology (pedon-soil or earth in greek). Pedology is the study of the soil as a natural body and does not focus primarily on the soil’s immediate practical use. A pedologist studies, examines, and classifies soils as they occur in their natural environment. • Edaphology (concerned with the influence of soils on living things, particularly plants ) is the study of soil from the stand point of higher plants. Edaphologist considers the various properties of soil in relation to plant production. • Soil Profile: specific series of layers of soil called soil horizons from soil surface down to the unaltered parent material. 2 • By area Soil – can be small or few hectares. • Smallest representative unit – k.a. Pedon • Polypedon • Bordered by its side by the vertical section of soil …the soil profile. • Soil profile – characterize the pedon. So it defines the soil. • Horizon tell- soil properties- colour, texture, structure, permeability, drainage, bio-activity etc. • 6 groups of horizons k.a. master horizons. O,A,E,B,C &R. 3 Soil Sampling and Mapping Units 4 Typical soil profile 5 O • OM deposits (decomposed, partially decomposed) • Lie above mineral horizon • Histic epipedon (Histos Gr. -
Comparison of Swamp Forest and Phragmites Australis
COMPARISON OF SWAMP FOREST AND PHRAGMITES AUSTRALIS COMMUNITIES AT MENTOR MARSH, MENTOR, OHIO A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree Master of Science in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Jenica Poznik, B. S. ***** The Ohio State University 2003 Master's Examination Committee: Approved by Dr. Craig Davis, Advisor Dr. Peter Curtis Dr. Jeffery Reutter School of Natural Resources ABSTRACT Two intermixed plant communities within a single wetland were studied. The plant community of Mentor Marsh changed over a period of years beginning in the late 1950’s from an ash-elm-maple swamp forest to a wetland dominated by Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steudel. Causes cited for the dieback of the forest include salt intrusion from a salt fill near the marsh, influence of nutrient runoff from the upland community, and initially higher water levels in the marsh. The area studied contains a mixture of swamp forest and P. australis-dominated communities. Canopy cover was examined as a factor limiting the dominance of P. australis within the marsh. It was found that canopy openness below 7% posed a limitation to the dominance of P. australis where a continuous tree canopy was present. P. australis was also shown to reduce diversity at sites were it dominated, and canopy openness did not fully explain this reduction in diversity. Canopy cover, disturbance history, and other environmental factors play a role in the community composition and diversity. Possible factors to consider in restoring the marsh are discussed. KEYWORDS: Phragmites australis, invasive species, canopy cover, Mentor Marsh ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A project like this is only possible in a community, and more people have contributed to me than I can remember. -
State of the Wetlands in the Lake Simcoe Watershed Ontario Streams Technical Report No
July 2018 State of the Wetlands in the Lake Simcoe Watershed Ontario Streams Technical Report No. 2018-01 Alexander Kissel, Habitat Technician & Alice Choi, GIS Technician, Ontario Streams ontariostreams.ca Summary Wetlands in the Lake Simcoe Watershed are critical to the health of the Lake and its surrounding ecosystem. They cover 18.4% of the surface area around the Lake or 52 847 hectares (ha). About 62.4% of these wetlands have been evaluated using the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) Southern Manual. The distribution of wetlands vary with fewer and smaller wetlands on the Oak Ridges Moraine (7.1% of surface area), the Schomberg Clay Plains (5.5%) and the uplands west of the the Lake (10.9 to 12.7%), contrasting with the larger valley and shoreline wetlands in the lowlands around the Lake (25.7%). Small wetlands play an important role particularly in the landscapes where they make up a large portion of the wetlands. A high resolution (15 centimetre pixel) analysis of aerial imagery from 1999/2002 to 2013/2016 for the Lake Simcoe Watershed has shown that many small wetland losses, and the occasional larger ones, add up over this time period to a loss of almost eight square kilometres or 773 ha (1.5% of the total wetland area). This loss is higher than previous estimates using lower resolution (30-metre pixel) satellite imagery which cannot pick out the smaller losses that have a large cumulative impact. The highest losses have been from agriculture (46.4% of all losses), following in descending order by residential (10.5%), peat extraction (10.4%), canals (9.6%), highways/roads (6.6%), industrial/commercial (5.7%), fill (4.6%), dug-out ponds (4.3%), recreation (1.6%) and aggregates (0.3%). -
Evaluation of Approaches for Mapping Tidal Wetlands of the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays
remote sensing Article Evaluation of Approaches for Mapping Tidal Wetlands of the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays Brian T. Lamb 1,2,* , Maria A. Tzortziou 1,3 and Kyle C. McDonald 1,2,4 1 Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, The City College of New York, City University of New York, New York, NY 10031, USA; [email protected] (M.A.T.); [email protected] (K.C.M.) 2 Earth and Environmental Sciences Program, The Graduate Center, City University of New York, New York, NY 10016, USA 3 NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA 4 Carbon Cycle and Ecosystems Group, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 1 July 2019; Accepted: 3 October 2019; Published: 12 October 2019 Abstract: The spatial extent and vegetation characteristics of tidal wetlands and their change are among the biggest unknowns and largest sources of uncertainty in modeling ecosystem processes and services at the land-ocean interface. Using a combination of moderate-high spatial resolution ( 30 meters) optical and synthetic aperture radar (SAR) satellite imagery, we evaluated several ≤ approaches for mapping and characterization of wetlands of the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays. Sentinel-1A, Phased Array type L-band Synthetic Aperture Radar (PALSAR), PALSAR-2, Sentinel-2A, and Landsat 8 imagery were used to map wetlands, with an emphasis on mapping tidal marshes, inundation extents, and functional vegetation classes (persistent vs. non-persistent). We performed initial characterizations at three target wetlands study sites with distinct geomorphologies, hydrologic characteristics, and vegetation communities. -
Peat and Peatland Resources of Southeastern Ontario
THESE TERMS GOVERN YOUR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT Your use of this Ontario Geological Survey document (the “Content”) is governed by the terms set out on this page (“Terms of Use”). By downloading this Content, you (the “User”) have accepted, and have agreed to be bound by, the Terms of Use. Content: This Content is offered by the Province of Ontario’s Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM) as a public service, on an “as-is” basis. Recommendations and statements of opinion expressed in the Content are those of the author or authors and are not to be construed as statement of government policy. You are solely responsible for your use of the Content. You should not rely on the Content for legal advice nor as authoritative in your particular circumstances. Users should verify the accuracy and applicability of any Content before acting on it. MNDM does not guarantee, or make any warranty express or implied, that the Content is current, accurate, complete or reliable. MNDM is not responsible for any damage however caused, which results, directly or indirectly, from your use of the Content. MNDM assumes no legal liability or responsibility for the Content whatsoever. Links to Other Web Sites: This Content may contain links, to Web sites that are not operated by MNDM. Linked Web sites may not be available in French. MNDM neither endorses nor assumes any responsibility for the safety, accuracy or availability of linked Web sites or the information contained on them. The linked Web sites, their operation and content are the responsibility of the person or entity for which they were created or maintained (the “Owner”). -
Draft Wetland Mapping Standard
FGDC Working Draft Wetland Mapping Standard FGDC Wetland Subcommittee and Wetland Mapping Standard Workgroup Submitted by: Margarete Heber Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Date: March 26, 2007 Federal Geographic Data Committee Wetland Mapping Standard Table of Contents 1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background.......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Objective.............................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Scope.................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Applicability ........................................................................................................ 4 1.5 FGDC Standards and Other Related Practices..................................................... 4 1.6 Standard Development Procedures and Representation ...................................... 5 1.7 Maintenance Authority ........................................................................................ 5 2 FGDC requirements and Quality components............................................................ 6 2.1 Source Imagery .................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Classification....................................................................................................... -
Northern Fen Communitynorthern Abstract Fen, Page 1
Northern Fen CommunityNorthern Abstract Fen, Page 1 Community Range Prevalent or likely prevalent Infrequent or likely infrequent Absent or likely absent Photo by Joshua G. Cohen Overview: Northern fen is a sedge- and rush-dominated 8,000 years. Expansion of peatlands likely occurred wetland occurring on neutral to moderately alkaline following climatic cooling, approximately 5,000 years saturated peat and/or marl influenced by groundwater ago (Heinselman 1970, Boelter and Verry 1977, Riley rich in calcium and magnesium carbonates. The 1989). community occurs north of the climatic tension zone and is found primarily where calcareous bedrock Several other natural peatland communities also underlies a thin mantle of glacial drift on flat areas or occur in Michigan and can be distinguished from shallow depressions of glacial outwash and glacial minerotrophic (nutrient-rich) northern fens, based on lakeplains and also in kettle depressions on pitted comparisons of nutrient levels, flora, canopy closure, outwash and moraines. distribution, landscape context, and groundwater influence (Kost et al. 2007). Northern fen is dominated Global and State Rank: G3G5/S3 by sedges, rushes, and grasses (Mitsch and Gosselink 2000). Additional open wetlands occurring on organic Range: Northern fen is a peatland type of glaciated soils include coastal fen, poor fen, prairie fen, bog, landscapes of the northern Great Lakes region, ranging intermittent wetland, and northern wet meadow. Bogs, from Michigan west to Minnesota and northward peat-covered wetlands raised above the surrounding into central Canada (Ontario, Manitoba, and Quebec) groundwater by an accumulation of peat, receive inputs (Gignac et al. 2000, Faber-Langendoen 2001, Amon of nutrients and water primarily from precipitation et al. -
Stabilization and Destabilization of Soil Organic Matter: Mechanisms and Controls
13F7H GEODERLIA ELSEVIER Geoderma 74 (1996) 65-105 • Stabilization and destabilization of soil organic matter: mechanisms and controls Phillip Sollins, Peter Homann, Bruce A. Caldwell Department of Forest Science Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331, USA Receed 1 December 1993; revised 26 July 1995; accepted 3 April 1996 Abstract We present a conceptual model of the processes by which plant leaf and root litter is transformed to soil organic C and CO 2. Stabilization of a portion of the litter C yields material that resists further transformation; destabilization yields material that is more susceptible to microbial respiration. Stability of the organic C is viewed as resulting from three general sets of characteristics. Recalcitrance comprises, molecular-level characteristics of organic substances, including elemental composition, presence of functional groups, and molecular conformation, that influence their degradation by microbes and enzymes. Interactions refers to the inter-molecular interactions between organics and either inorganic substances or other organic substances that alter the rate of degradation of those organics or synthesis of new organics. Accessibility refers to the location of organic substances with respect to microbes and enzymes. Mechanisms by which these three characteristics change through time are reviewed along with controls on those mechanisms. This review suggests that the following changes in the study of soil organic matter dynamics would speed progress: (1) increased effort to incorporate results -
The Hidden Ecological Resource of Andic Soils in Mountain Ecosystems: Evidence from Italy
Solid Earth, 9, 63–74, 2018 https://doi.org/10.5194/se-9-63-2018 © Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. The hidden ecological resource of andic soils in mountain ecosystems: evidence from Italy Fabio Terribile1,2, Michela Iamarino1, Giuliano Langella1, Piero Manna2,3, Florindo Antonio Mileti1, Simona Vingiani1,2, and Angelo Basile2,3 1Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Via Università 100, 80055 Portici (Naples), Italy 2CRISP, Interdepartmental Research Centre on the Earth Critical Zone, University of Naples Federico II, Via Università 100, 80055 Portici (Naples), Italy 3Institute for Mediterranean Agricultural and Forestry Systems, National Research Council of Italy, Via Patacca 85, 80056 Ercolano (Naples), Italy Correspondence: Fabio Terribile ([email protected]) Received: 9 June 2017 – Discussion started: 9 August 2017 Revised: 1 November 2017 – Accepted: 20 November 2017 – Published: 31 January 2018 Abstract. Andic soils have unique morphological, physical, 1 Introduction and chemical properties that induce both considerable soil fertility and great vulnerability to land degradation. More- Andic soils (i.e. soils with evident andosolization process) over, they are the most striking mineral soils in terms of are known to have a unique set of morphological, physi- large organic C storage and long C residence time. This is cal, and chemical soil properties. Andosolization (Ugolini especially related to the presence of poorly crystalline clay et al., 1988; Shoji et al., 1993) is a major soil-forming pro- minerals and metal–humus complexes. Recognition of andic cess regardless of whether these soils meet or do not meet soils is then very important. -
Determining Carbon Stocks in Cryosols Using the Northern and Mid Latitudes Soil Database
Permafrost, Phillips, Springman & Arenson (eds) © 2003 Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, ISBN 90 5809 582 7 Determining carbon stocks in Cryosols using the Northern and Mid Latitudes Soil Database C. Tarnocai Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada J. Kimble USDA-NRCS-NSSC, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA G. Broll Institute of Landscape Ecology, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany ABSTRACT: The distribution of Cryosols and their carbon content and mass in the northern circumpolar area were estimated by using the Northern and Mid Latitudes Soil Database (NMLSD). Using this database, it was estimated that, in the Northern Hemisphere, Cryosols cover approximately 7769 ϫ 103 km2 and contain approxi- mately 119 Gt (surface, 0–30 cm) and 268 Gt (total, 0–100 cm) of soil organic carbon. The 268 Gt organic carbon is approximately 16% of the world’s soil organic carbon. Organic Cryosols were found to have the highest soil organic carbon mass at both depth ranges while Static Cryosols had the lowest. The accuracy of these carbon val- ues is variable and depends on the information available for the area. Since these soils contain a significant por- tion of the Earth’s soil organic carbon and will probably be the soils most affected by climate warming, new data is required so that more accurate estimates of their carbon budget can be made. 1 INTRODUCTION which is in Arc/Info format, the Soils of Northern and Mid Latitudes (Tarnocai et al. 2002a) and Northern Soils are the largest source of organic carbon in ter- Circumpolar Soils (Tarnocai et al. 2002b) maps were restrial ecosystems. -
Field Indicators of Hydric Soils
United States Department of Field Indicators of Agriculture Natural Resources Hydric Soils in the Conservation Service United States In cooperation with A Guide for Identifying and Delineating the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils Hydric Soils, Version 8.2, 2018 Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils Version 8.2, 2018 (Including revisions to versions 8.0 and 8.1) United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils Edited by L.M. Vasilas, Soil Scientist, NRCS, Washington, DC; G.W. Hurt, Soil Scientist, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL; and J.F. Berkowitz, Soil Scientist, USACE, Vicksburg, MS ii In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. -
World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014 International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps
ISSN 0532-0488 WORLD SOIL RESOURCES REPORTS 106 World reference base for soil resources 2014 International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps Update 2015 Cover photographs (left to right): Ekranic Technosol – Austria (©Erika Michéli) Reductaquic Cryosol – Russia (©Maria Gerasimova) Ferralic Nitisol – Australia (©Ben Harms) Pellic Vertisol – Bulgaria (©Erika Michéli) Albic Podzol – Czech Republic (©Erika Michéli) Hypercalcic Kastanozem – Mexico (©Carlos Cruz Gaistardo) Stagnic Luvisol – South Africa (©Márta Fuchs) Copies of FAO publications can be requested from: SALES AND MARKETING GROUP Information Division Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 00100 Rome, Italy E-mail: [email protected] Fax: (+39) 06 57053360 Web site: http://www.fao.org WORLD SOIL World reference base RESOURCES REPORTS for soil resources 2014 106 International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps Update 2015 FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Rome, 2015 The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.