JOURNAL OF FOREST SCIENCE, 53, 2007 (4): 149–161 Uniqueness of limestone soil-forming substrate in the forest ecosystem classification P. Šamonil Department of Forest Ecology, Silva Tarouca Research Institute for Landscape and Ornamental Gardening, Brno, Czech Republic ABSTRACT: The uniqueness of limestone soil-forming substrate was assessed with respect to the classification of forest ecosystems. 50 soil profiles from the Bohemian Karst were studied and the results were confronted with previ- ously published works from other karst areas. The evaluation of soil profiles was based on a macroscopic description, on the results of chemical and physicochemical analyses, and on a micromorphological study. The carbonate bedrock was a cause of specific genesis of soils in these sites – both recent and relict ones (terrae calcis). However, it does not always condition the unique characteristics of these sites whose differentiation would call for ana priori special edaphic category. Unique geochemical characteristics of the substrate are modified on the gradient of advanced pedogenesis (Holocene up to mid-Pleistocene soils were assessed) by a very intensive soil-forming process connected with the im- pact of allochthonous, mostly aeolian material. Two possible approaches were designed for the classification of these sites: (i) wider conception – distinction of the basic edaphic category with small limitations for the quality of soil-form- ing substrate, (ii) narrower conception – limestone edaphic category with a number of limitations to distinguish this edaphic category. Keywords: limestone; pedology; micromorphology; Rendzic Leptosol; terra fusca; ecosystem classification; Bohemian Karst Species composition and physiognomy of plant the phenomenon must be taken into account also in communities closely correlate with site edaphic the classification of natural ecosystems. The human characteristics. At a local and regional level, ecotope impact may be taken into consideration in full – with pedological and geomorphologic characteristics can the classification focused on the actual situation, or be considered a primary factor of differentiation the situation may be modelled or even reconstructed – hence classification of natural ecosystems. The at a limited or even zero human impact – with the ecotope characteristics are used mainly in mapping classification of potential or reconstructed situa- at a scale ≤ 1:25,000 and with the basic segment size tion (Tüxen 1956; Mikyška et al. 1968; Chytrý of up to ca 1.5 ha (Haase 1989; Klijn, Udo de Haes 1998; Neuhäuslová et al. 1998; Bohn et al. 2000; 1994). On a broad supraregional scale and with a Viewegh et al. 2003, and others). In the latter case, coarse “grain” of classification the natural ecosys- slightly altered edaphic site parameters are preferred tems are differentiated especially with respect to the as classification criteria, on the basis of which the development of (macro-)climate. On this scale, the localities considerably disturbed by humans are as- considerably variable edaphic conditions rather re- sessed (mapped) vicariously – by analogy. Classifica- cede into the background (Bohn et al. 2000; Davis, tion systems constructed in this way often classify Holmgren 2001). carbonate bedrocks (consisting mainly of calcite or As the Central European landscape has been under dolomite – Hejtman 1981) as a unique geological a considerable anthropogenic impact for a long time, basement for the development of specific natural Supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic, Project No. MSM 6293359101, and the Ministry of Environment of the Czech Republic, Project No. VaV-SM/6/153/05. J. FOR. SCI., 53, 2007 (4): 149–161 149 ecosystems (Paal 1997; Zelenková 2000; Viewegh tive phytocoenoses (Šamonil 2005a; Šamonil, et al. 2003, and others). Viewegh 2005). So far unresolved questions remain If the species composition of phytocoenoses is a the measure of this uniqueness: primary classification criterion (e.g. Jurkevič et What are the characteristics in which the soil- al. 1971; Hančinský 1977; Schwarz 2005), and forming substrate (not only the parent rock) on the particularly if it is the actual situation that is to be carbonate bedrock differs from the substrate on characterized – mapped (Chytrý et al. 2001), the other bedrocks? mentioned separation of the carbonate basement How does the course of pedogenesis on the car- is not usually so pronounced – the classification of bonate bedrock differ from that of pedogenesis on soil and geological conditions is made vicariously. other bedrock types? The edaphic characteristics are taken into account At what stage of soil development are the parent intuitively (cf. Neuhäuslová et al. 1998; Moravec rock specific features still preserved? et al. 1995, 2000) although the criteria are sometimes Different approaches to this problem are obvi- concealed (Hédl 2005). On the other hand, they are ous from the analysis of systems classifying the sometimes used quite openly and may be important natural ecosystems in the Czech Republic (CR). The criteria of classification (cf. Chytrý 2000; Chytrý geobiocoenological system (Zlatník 1956; Buček, et al. 2007). It is to say that using the criteria of plant Lacina 2002) rather diverts from the unique po- community links to site characteristics the prima- sition of limestone in the course of time. On the rily fully floristico-sociological classifications (e.g. contrary, in the substitute ÚHÚL (Institute of Forest Braun-Blanquet 1921) become the classifications Management) Typological System (Anonymous of whole ecosystems to some extent (Hédl 2005). In 1971/1976; Plíva 1984, 1991; Viewegh et al. 2003) these taxonomies separate units are differentiated the limestone sites are gradually gaining independ- with a considerable affinity to the carbonate bed- ence (cf. Schwarz 2005; Jermakov 1987; Paal rock (Jermakov 1987; Neuhäuslová et al. 1998; 1997; Helmer et al. 2002). Moravec et al. 2000; Chytrý, Tichý 2003, and Objectives: (i) to assess the uniqueness of soils others). They are usually delimitated by the occur- on limestone with respect to the differentiation and rence of diagnostic calciphilous plant taxa [Sesleria classification of forest ecosystems, (ii) to propose caerulea (L.) Ard., Cephalanthera damasonium new classification criteria and approaches. (Mill.) Druce, C. rubra (L.) L. C. Richard, Cystopteris fragilis (L.) Bernh., etc.], according to which they are MATERIAL AND METHODS often given names (e.g. the association Cephalan- thero-Fagetum Oberdorfer 1957). Data sampling Thus a general view is accepted that the carbonate bedrock shows some specific features in terms of First of all, the study is based on data from the Bo- both soil development and development of respec- hemian Karst (Fig. 1). Together with the Moravian 50 0 50 km N Czech Republic Protected Landscape Area Bohemian Karst Fig. 1. Location of the area under study 150 J. FOR. SCI., 53, 2007 (4): 149–161 Karst the two karstic areas in the Czech Republic are nate rock in soil genesis. In all soils on the limestone the largest territories modelled by limestones. Ze- of the Bohemian Karst limestone was a soil-forming lenková (2000) distinguishes individual limestone substrate at the same time. The only exceptions were sites in the forest ecosystems of Bohemian Karst on profiles in Tertiary (Miocene) fluvial terraces where more than 3,500 ha. limestone was only a D-horizon, i.e. an underlying A total of 50 soil profiles were studied in the rock (Němeček et al. 2001). The cases were declined Bohemian Karst in near-natural forest ecosystems already at the beginning as the representatives of (Vrška, Hort 2003) with the developed crown limestone sites. canopy, which occurred on carbonate (39), carbon- In addition to limestone, a part of the soil profiles ate-silicate (5) and purely silicate (6) subsoils. The exhibited an admixture of the skeleton of carbon- geological basement was formed of the particularly ate-silicate or silicate rocks, often of allochthonous diverse limestone facies of Silurian and Devonian age origin – slope transport. These soils were withdrawn (from ludlow to zlichov), marl slates, altered basalts from the “limestone sites“ as well. The nature of solid (diabase), tuffaceous limestones, siltstones and gravel rock is a necessary primary criterion making these sands (namely fluvial terraces of Miocene age). sites eligible for the purposes of further analyses (Ze- lenková 2000; Viewegh et al. 2003). Data analysis At the first stage of this work, limestone sites were considered to be only the sites with soil profiles ex- The soil environment was assessed by a macroscop- hibiting the (macro-)skeleton of carbonate rock. ic description of soil profiles, on the basis of results from the chemical and physicochemical analyses Specific features of soil-forming substrate of soil samples (Anonymous 2003a; Zbíral 2002, on limestone sites 2003), and on the basis of a micromorphological study of soil sections (e.g. Kubiëna 1970; Smolíko- Development of weathering products and soils on vá 1982; Dalvigne 1998; Gregorová et al. 2002). limestone is usually seen in its continual dissolu- Some soils on the gradients of pedogenesis and soil tion and in the related surface accumulation of soil solum thickness were surveyed micromorphologi- consisting of partly transformed clay non-carbon- cally. Hydropedological soil characteristics and soil ate residues (Schaffer et al. 1962; Šály 1978). environment links to the species composition