Printer Friendly

Influence of environmental factors on the spatial distribution and diversity of forest soil in Latvia/Keskkonnategurite moju metsamuldade ruumilisele levikule ja mitmekesisusele Latis.

INTRODUCTION

In recent decades soil scientists have turned their attention to soil diversity research and measurement to analyse spatial patterns (McBratney & Minasny 2007; Minasny et al. 2010). Furthermore, there has been increasing research into the optimization of obtaining and use of soil information according to secondary data of environmental parameters (topography, geology, soil, land cover) in the world (Grimm & Behrens 2010). The environmental factors determine soil-forming processes and soil development, e.g. humus accumulation, podzolization, lessivage and gleyzation. The time of interaction of these processes is very diverse within various environmental conditions and determines soil diversity (Phillips & Marion 2004; Targulian & Krasilnikov 2007). In order to determine the influence of environmental factors on soil genesis (Jenny 1941; Bockheim 2005), soil-forming processes (Targulian & Krasilnikov 2007) and development, the spatial distribution of soil cover has been widely and protractedly studied (McBratney 1992, 1998; Burrough 1993; Ibanez et al. 1995, 1998; Burrough et al. 1997; Ibanez & De-Alba 2000; Guo et al. 2003; Phillips & Marion 2004, 2005; Bockheim et al. 2005; Saldana & Ibanez 2007; Uuemaa et al. 2008; Gray et al. 2009). Such research is necessary because incomplete knowledge about environmental conditions may sometimes lead to the overestimation of soil-forming processes and cause problems in the application and comparison of soil classifications (Reintam 2002).

Still, the investigation and distinguishing of soil-forming factors pose problems related to the examination of relationships and interpretation of results according to different soil classifications. As a result, soil scientists have so far not reached an agreement on the influence of various environmental conditions on the spatial distribution of soil in regional and local aspects (Gray et al. 2009).

Despite the increasing demand for soil data, the cost and time required for traditional soil mapping mean that often they are not available; therefore, digital soil mapping technologies (Dobos et al. 2006) have been developed to provide fast and accurate methods to predict soil variables spatially (Grimm & Behrens 2010). Digital soil mapping depends on statistical relationships between measured soil observations and environmental covariates in sample locations. If there is an error in sample locations, it will spread to the inferred relationships and soil observations and covariates will not actually correspond (Cressie & Kornak 2003). Another source of error in inferred relationships stems from spatial uncertainty in environmental predictors used for digital soil mapping, which are often of varying provenance, age, scale, resolution, mapping scheme and/or aggregation level (Bishop et al. 2006; Grimm & Behrens 2010).

Thus, the study of relationships between soil and environmental factors strengthens the knowledge about soil distribution rules (Bui & Moran 2001). The inclusion of these rules into the mapping procedure and modelling improves spatial prediction and allows extrapolation of data from reference areas to a wider scale (Lagacherie et al. 2001).

At the same time McBratney et al. (2003) have observed that it is difficult to find studies in which relationships between different soil-forming factors and multivariate functions are clearly described. In addition, it is hard to make correct predictions of soil properties at each point of the landscape due to high spatial diversity of these properties (Burrough et al. 1997). For these reasons finding relationships between soil-forming factors and variables in soil maps is one of the largest problems in soil surveys. Although research into factors determining the spatial distribution of soil has been conducted in different regions of the world, statistically reliable information is lacking on soil distribution patterns in the boreo-nemorial region, where soils have developed mainly on the Late Weichselian glacial deposits that have been variously altered by postglacial aeolian, marine, lacustrine or fluvial processes and in about 10% of the territory are overlain by mires (Karklins et al. 2009; Zelcs et al. 2011).

This study aims to find out the relationship between environmental factors (geological structure, topographical situation, land cover, forest site types, tree species, soil texture) and soil groups and their prefix qualifiers determined according to the international World Reference Base (WRB) for Soil Resources in Latvia. The fact that the aforementioned classification has thus far not been used in the mapping of Latvian soils adds to the relevance of the study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study area

Latvia is located in the Northeastern part of Europe (Fig. 1), within the boreo-nemorial region, where coniferous forests are mixed with broad-leaved species (Hytteborn et al. 2005).

The climate of Latvia is moderate. The average annual precipitation is 700-800 mm, of which about 500 mm falls in the warm period. The mean annual temperature is + 5.5[degrees]C. Soils have developed mainly on

Late Weichselian glacial deposits (loamy sand, sandy clay, loam, clay, gravel, sand), altered to some extent by postglacial aeolian, marine, lacustrine, alluvial and mire sediments (Zelcs et al. 2011).

Forests cover 3.53 million hectares or 54.7% of the country's territory (Latvijas Statistika 2010). Forest stands mainly consist of three tree species, Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.), Norway spruce (Picea abies [L] Karst.) and birch (Betula L. spp.), which take up 74% of the whole of the forest area.

Data material and methodology of investigations

From 2006 till 2011, under the international project 'Inventarization of forest soils and assessment of forest biological diversity "BioSoil" ' of the Focus Forest research programme of the International Co-operative Programme (ICP) and forest monitoring, investigations were carried out on 95 sampling plots of ICP Forest monitoring and in 18 sampling plots within relatively poorly represented regions of this monitoring by digging deep soil profiles and soil profile description according to the international WRB soil classification (IUSS Working Group WRB 2007). The soil samples were collected from soil profile diagnostic horizons, and physical and chemical analyses were done in the laboratory according to the methodology of ICP Forest monitoring (United Nations 2006).

The field works were carried out to determine site topography (United Nations 2006), parent material Quaternary deposits and pre-Quaternary sedimentary rock, the dominant tree species of the forest stand and forest site types in the sampling plots. Land cover was described by using data from CORINE Land Cover 2005, which characterize (bio)physical cover of the earth surface at a scale of 1 : 100 000. Forests in Latvia fall into three classes according to CORINE Land Cover 2005: deciduous forests (11 sampling plots), coniferous forests (47 sampling plots) and mixed forest (55 sampling plots). Quaternary deposits were analysed, taking into account their granulometric composition and occurrence in surface topography.

The forest site types were described according to the Latvian forest ecosystem classification (Buss 1997), which was originally developed in the early 1900s based on Braun-Blanquet methods and subsequently modified, taking into account forest typology based on forest management and ecology (Buss 1987). The described forest site types, divided into five major groups, have been determined by stand productivity and ecological and biological attributes (Buss 1997). Three major groups of natural forest ecosystems defined by the water regime are recognized (although they differ in the trophic level): upland dry forests, wet mineral soil forests and forests on wet peat soil. Due to the large areas of drained forests in Latvia, in the typology these forests are treated as two separate groups: forests on drained mineral soil and drained forests on peat soil. Each of these five major groups is further subdivided into forest site types on the basis of their position along nutrient and species composition gradients (Buss 1997).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

A generalized linear model analysis, using the R 2.11.1 software, was carried out to investigate the relationships (the level of significance p < 0.05) between soil spatial distribution and parent material, topographical situation, land cover, soil texture, forest site type and tree species. Akaike's An Information Criterion (AIC) is a generalized information criterion for a fitted parametric model (Sakamoto et al. 1986). Lower AIC values better describe fitting generalized linear models. Each type of factors was defined by the quantitative value of occurrence (0--not observed, 1--observed) in the sampling plots to clarify the influence of different Quaternary deposits, topographical situation, land cover and forest site type on the spatial distribution of soil. Nelder & Wedderburn (1972) gradually introduced and McCullagh & Nelder (1989) further developed the use of generalized linear models for statistical processing of data, which are also used in this study, because they allow us to process other types of data distribution besides normal (Quinn & Keough 2002) and do not cause problems with non-normal error terms, so that it is possible to avoid situations when data transformations are not effective in making errors normal (e.g., when the response variable is categorical). Corrections of p-values were performed by Hommel's adjustment method (Hommel 1988). This method is valid when the hypothesis tests are independent or when they are non-negatively associated (Sarkar & Chang 1997; Sarkar 1998). The adjustment methods include the Bonferroni correction (bonferroni) in which the p-values are multiplied by the number of comparisons. Variables (soil groups--Phaeozems, Umbrisols; geological sediments--Litorina Sea, Alluvial sediments; forest site types--Vaccinioso-sphagnosa, Sphagnosa, Caricoso-phragmitosa, Vacciniosa turf. mel and Vacciniosa mel.) occurring in less than three sampling plots were not included in p-value adjustment.

Quantitative values (1-100%) of tree species in forest stands and soil texture were used to confirm the relationships between the spatial distribution of soils and Quaternary deposits.

Relationships between soil sampling plots (80) and soil texture (top and bottom: sand, silt, clay) were determined, using principal component analysis (PCA). (1) A Monte Carlo test was used to test the significance of the PCA axes. Pearson correlation coefficients were determined between environmental factors and PCA scores for samples.

RESULTS

In Latvia, forests are situated on soils of relatively high diversity, formed on different, mainly unconsolidated Quaternary deposits, in some places, also on weakly consolidated pre-Quaternary terrigenous or hard carbonate sedimentary rock (Table 1). In total, soils of high spatial diversity cover a relatively larger area and are developed on top of glacigenic (31 sampling plots), glaciolacustrine (27 sampling plots) or glaciofluvial (20 sampling plots) deposits and sediments from different stages of the Baltic Sea (11 sampling plots) (Table 1). From the viewpoint of soil diversity, aeolian dune sediments (7 sampling plots), where Arenosols (6 sampling plots) and Podzols (1 sampling plot) are common, are relatively homogeneous (Table 1). Histosols are common on organic deposits (16 sampling plots).

The diversity of soils is greatest on glacigenic and glaciolacustrine deposits, with the highest variety in granulometric composition (sand, loamy sand, loam, silt, clay). Luvisols (10 sampling plots), Albeluvisols (7 sampling plots), Cambisols (6 sampling plots) and Stagnosols (5 sampling plots) occur most frequently in the areas of glacigenic deposits, while in glaciolacustrine deposits Planosols (6 sampling plots), Stagnosols (5 sampling plots), Gleysols (5 sampling plots) and Luvisols (4 sampling plots) are mainly distributed (Table 1).

Using a generalized linear model, on the basis of analysis of the obtained data, it was established (Table 2) that the prevalence of a soil group is closely linked to specific parent material. A significant relationship (p < 0.05) of spatial distribution exists between the Baltic Ice Lake sediments and Podzols; glaciofluvial deposits, aeolian sediments and Arenosols; organic deposits and Histosols; and glacigenic deposits and Cambisols, Luvisols and Albeluvisols. Gleysols and Planosols are closely associated with glaciolacustrine deposits. Furthermore, the spatial distribution of Stagnosols is not linked to specific parent material, but they occur most frequently in glaciolacustrine and glacigenic deposits, where the parent material has a relatively heavy soil texture.

When specifying the main groups of particular soils and their prefix qualifier relationships with plots in geological structures, a significant relationship (p < 0.05) to the Quaternary deposits was generally established for a part of the soil groups (Table 3). Albic Arenosols occur most frequently in aeolian dunes and glaciofluvial sand and gravel sediments (Table 3). These sediments have a relatively low cation exchange capacity (CEC = 2.8-10.4 [cmol.sub.c] [kg.sup.-1]), which promotes the process of podzolization and development of the Albic horizon.

Owing to the flat surface topography with disturbed natural drainage in the area, there is a significant relationship (p < 0.05) between the spatial distribution of the Baltic Ice Lake sands and the occurrence of Endogleyic Histic Podzols (Table 3). Endogleyic Arenosols are commonly found in sandy plains of the Baltic Ice Lake.

Albic Podzols, however, are not linked to specific parent material and occur in various sediments of different genesis, where sandy parent material is distributed. Furthermore, the spatial distribution of Calcic Endostagnic Endogleyic Cutanic Luvisols, Stagnic Cutanic Albeluvisols and Stagnic Cambisols is closely related to glacigenic deposits. Surface water filtration is disturbed in tills, where the subsoil has a relatively heavy soil texture (loam, silt loam, clay loam and clay), resulting in a stagnic and gleyic colour pattern that morphologically indicates Stagnic and Endogleyic prefix qualifiers.

Although most soil groups (Gleysols and Planosols) are closely related to glaciolacustrine deposits, no significant correlation between these deposits and soil prefix qualifiers was established.

The study results show that soil texture is the most important factor determining the forest soil diversity in the Late Weichselian glacial deposits and Holocene aeolian, marine, lacustrine, alluvial and mire sediments. The occurrence of Arenosols and Podzols is mostly related to sandy sediments. The existence of other soil groups is not so closely related to the dominance of a particular fraction of soil texture; rather, it depends on such factors as different drainage conditions and texture in soil horizons. Principal components analysis clearly shows the role of soil texture in the spatial distribution of certain groups of soil. The PCA ordination of soil profiles extracted two principal components which together accounted for 85.60% of the total variation (Fig. 2). However, only the first axis, which explained 75.91% of the total variation, was statistically significant (p < 0.05).

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

The sample scores on the first axis were positively correlated with the top and bottom sand contents (r = 0.78, r = 0.97). The silt (r = -0.86) and clay (r = -0.85, r = -0.92) contents in the top and bottom of soil profiles were negatively correlated with this gradient. This suggests that a soil texture characterized by a higher sand content provides more favourable conditions for the development of Arenosols and Podzols.

Forest monitoring soil sampling plots were established in 16 of the 23 forest site types distributed in Latvia. Sixty-seven profiles of the 113 studied sampling plots were located in forest site types on dry mineral soil. There, the most common soils were Arenosols (24 sampling plots), Luvisols (13 sampling plots), Albeluvisols (9 sampling plots), Podzols (6 sampling plots), Planosols (5 sampling plots) and Stagnosols (4 sampling plots) (Table 4), while Cambisols (3 sampling plots), Phaeozems (2 sampling plots) and Umbrisols (1 sampling plot) occurred less frequently. Eleven sampling plots were located in forest site types on wet mineral soil, where the following soils were found (in accordance with the FAO WRB soil classification): Stagnosols, Cambisols, Planosols, Gleysols, Podzols and Arenosols. In forest site types on drained mineral soil (19 sampling plots), in most cases one could find the same soils as in the forest types on wet mineral soil, whereas Luvisols, Umbrisols and Cambisols were detected in addition in 3 sampling plots. Furthermore, 4 forest site types on wet peat soil and 12 forest site types on drained peat soil were prevalent in Histosols (Table 4). Due to the fact that the determination criteria (thickness of the peat layer) for Histosols forest site types on peat soil and drained peat soil are similar, the incidence of the aforementioned forest site types fully corresponded to that of Histosols.

Although several forest site types were related to most soil groups, only in some cases there was a significant relationship (p < 0.05) between the spatial distributions of soil groups and forest site types, e.g. Albeluvisols and Hylocomiosa; Arenosols and Vacciniosa; Stagnosols and Myrtilloso-polytrichosa; Gleysols and Mercurialiosa mel. and Myrtillosa mel.; Luvisols and Aegopodiosa (Tables 5, 6). Cladinoso-callunosa and Myrtillosa are common only on Arenosols within the studied sampling sites. The spatial distribution of Myrtilloso-polytrichosa is close to significant relationship with Cambisols, while Aegopodiosa is near to close relationship with Stagnosols. However, no significant correlation of certain forest site types with Podzols and Planosols was established, because it occurs relatively equally often within forest site types on dry and wet mineral soil and drained mineral soil.

The usage of the prefix qualifier of soil groups in data processing enabled us to define more precisely the significant relationships between some particular distribution of site types of forests and soils (Tables 7, 8). The statistical analysis of generalized linear models also enabled us to specify the significant relationship (p < 0.05) between site types of forests and Arenosols. Albic Arenosols are found mostly in aeolian dunes, where the Vacciniosa and Myrtillosa forest site types are common. Endogleyic Arenosols have been formed mostly in the sandy plains of the Baltic Ice Lake, where the Myrtillosa forest site type is spread. Rubic Hypoferralic Arenosols have been formed in the glaciofluvial deposits, hosting the Vacciniosa and Myrtillosa forest site types. Furthermore, there was a significant relationship (p < 0.05) between the spatial distribution of Endogleyic Endostagnic Calcic Luvisols and glacigenic deposits, where the Aegopodiosa forest site type is common. At the same time, independently of geological deposits, significant correlation between Endogleyic Calcic Luvic Stagnosols and the Aegopodiosa spatial distribution was found. However, in this case no significant relationship between the forest site types on dry mineral soil Oxalidosa, Hylocomiosa and prefix qualifiers of soil groups was established.

A significant relationship (p < 0.05) was established between Cutanic Albeluvisols, Calcic Endogleyic Cutanic Luvisols and glacigenic deposits that are found in poorly drained mineral soils of relatively heavy soil texture. Endostagnic Luvisols, Stagnic Cambisols and Stagnic Albeluvisols are distributed on glacigenic deposits.

The Myrtilloso-polytrichosa forest site type is common within Endogleyic Stagnosols, Luvic Gleysols, Endogleyic Planosols and Stagnic Cambisols. However, in this case no significant relationship between Myrtillosopolytrichosa and soil prefix qualifiers was established.

A significant relationship (p < 0.05) was determined between the forest site type on drained mineral soil Mercurialiosa mel. and Luvic Gleysols. In this case, however, no significant correlation between Myrtillosa mel. forest site type and prefix qualifiers of soil groups was established.

The study results showed that, in general, the spatial distribution of forest site types is not determined by soil groups, except dry forest ecosystems, where Cladinosocallunosa, Vacciniosa and Myrtillosa are closely related to Arenosols, Hylocomiosa to Albeluvisols, Aegopodiosa to Luvisols, and all of the investigated forest site types on wet and drained peat soil are related to Histosols. Assessing the correlation between the soil group prefix qualifiers and forest site types, in most cases within dry mineral soil, we detected a significant relationship between a specific soil group and Vacciniosa, Myrtillosa and Aegopodiosa (Table 7).

As a result of the study, we found that the distribution of the dominant tree species in a forest site stand is relatively less associated with a particular soil group, compared to the forest site type and soil group occurrence. The dominant tree species in the forest stands of the forest ecosystems of Latvia, such as pine, spruce and birch, are found on all of the studied groups of soils (Table 9). In the sampling sites, pine is common on Arenosols (32.8% of cases), Histosols (16.4%) and Podzols (11.9%). Spruce stands are mainly distributed on Luvisols (14.4%), Histosols (13.0%), Stagnosols (13.0%), Planosols (13.0%) and Arenosols (11.59%), and birch stands on Histosols (18.8%), Stagnosols (15.0%) and Planosols (15.0%). In Latvia, oak stands occur mostly on Luvisols (33.3%). A similar spatial distribution is characteristic of aspen stands. Other tree species (ash, black alder, grey alder, acer) were relatively poorly represented within the sampling sites. Only black alder was common on a specific soil group, Planosols, while other forest stand tree species within the sampling plots were distributed on different soils.

Generalized linear model analysis (Table 10) revealed a significant relationship (p < 0.05) between pine stands and Arenosols, spruce stands and Cambisols, and oak stands and the Luvisols soil group.

Overall, the generalized linear model approach suggests that there are weak significant relationships between the spatial distribution of soil groups and topographical situation and land cover.

DISCUSSION

Quaternary deposits, their granulometric and chemical composition have the highest bearing on the spatial distribution of soil groups. In Latvia, soils with sandy soil texture are mainly related to the Baltic Ice Lake and Litorina Sea, aeolian deposits, and glacioaquatic (glacio-fluvial and glaciolacustrine) deposits, where Podzols and Arenosols are the dominant soils. The age of Quaternary deposits also plays a significant role in the spatial distribution of these soils. Although Podzols in the Latvian forest ecosystems are present in relatively different types of deposits, they are more closely associated with the Baltic Ice Lake deposits that are comparatively older (13 500-10 000 cal yr BP) (Gelumbauskaite 2009) than the Litorina Sea (8800-6600 cal yr BP) (Raukas 1997; Saarse et al. 2006; Reintam et al. 2008) and aeolian sediments (Reintam et al. 2001). This conclusion coincides with the results of investigations carried out by Fransmeier et al. (1963) and Protz et al. (1984), which show that the full development of the Podzols profile in similar climatic conditions in Latvia occurred over a time period from 3000 to 10 000 years, just as in the U.S.A., Sweden, Finland and Norway (Lundstrom et al. 2000; Mokma et al. 2004; Sauer et al. 2008). In Latvia, Arenosols are predominant in the aeolian sediments that are relatively young. According to Nartiss et al. (2009), the age of even inland dunes is 6.4 to 11.9 OSL ka. Arenosols have a low cation exchange capacity (2.8-5.4 cmol [kg.sup.-1]), which is a precondition for the relatively rapid development of the Spodic horizon (IUSS Working Group WRB 2007).

Luvisols and Albeluvisols are closely related to free carbonates containing glacigenic deposits (Table 2). The illuvial accumulation of clay on the vertical macroaggregate surfaces of B horizons and formation of Argic diagnostic horizon were observed in these soils. The fundamental difference is the albeluvic tonguing between both soil groups that developed over a time period of 4600-6200 years (Sauer et al. 2009). Reintam (2002), Kuhn (2003) and Sauer et al. (2009) emphasize the duration of the soil evolution process. In this case in Latvia, the age of the soil could not be the limiting factor in the evolution of Luvisols and Albeluvisols, because the age of these soils in all the sampling sites of forest ecosystems that developed on glacial till deposits exceeds 10 000 cal yr BP. The distribution of Luvisols, Albeluvisols and geological deposits is closely related to the mineral topsoil texture. Albeluvisols contain relatively more sand and less clay particles than Luvisols (Table 11). The topsoil horizon is acidic and has a lower cation exchange capacity, which confirms that the decarbonatization process is an important factor in the development of Albeluvisols (Kuhn 2003; Sauer et al. 2008). We agree with Reintam (2002) that in Latvia, similarly to Estonia, the Albic horizon that can be formed either as a result of lessivage, podzolization or reductomorphic processes is characteristic of Albeluvisols. In the forest ecosystems of Latvia, a weakly expressed podzolization process that morphologically becomes apparent as the E horizon, which diagnostically mismatches the Albic horizon, is only occasionally observed in Luvisols.

Significant relationships between Gleysols, Planosols and glaciolacustrine deposits (Table 11) is determined by the soil texture and relatively flat topography. A heavy soil texture (clay, silty clay, sandy clay loam) affects the development of seasonal reducing conditions and the stagnic colour pattern within the soil profile. Lithological discontinuity, which is the criterion for the determination of Planosols, is characteristic of most of the glaciolacustrine deposits.

The most essential factor for vegetation is soil, the parameter expressing the development potential of plant communities (Kolli & Ellermae 2001). The forest soil research in Latvia showed that spatial distribution relationships do not always exist between forest site types and soil groups, and prefix qualifiers according to the international FAO WRB soil classification (Tables 5-8). In forest ecosystems on dry mineral soil, Cladinosocallunosa, Vacciniosa and Myrtillosa are closely related to the nutrient-poor Arenosols, Aegopodiosa has significant relationships to the nutrient-rich Luvisols and the mesotrophic Hylocomiosa forest site type is related to Albeluvisols. Similar relationships were observed also in Estonia, where soil texture and soil productivity determine the distribution of the vegetation site type and nutrient-poor soils have good correlation with vegetation site types (Palo 2005). Forest site types on wet peat and drained peat soil are related to Histosols, because, as already described before, their determination criteria are similar. Assessing the relation of the spatial distribution of soils with the forest stand composition and forest site types, one should take into account that forest stands in different stages, forming due to the overgrowing of agricultural lands and clearings, can often be found in Latvian forests. As a result, a very different stand composition may develop on soils of the same kind (Ruskule et al. in press) and higher correlation develops only when ecosystems reach their climax stage. The planting of homogeneous spruce monocultures in the 1960s (Laivins 1998), when, notwithstanding the soil texture and territory drainage, the Latvian forests were renewed by planting spruce, has an equally important effect on the disparity between soils and forest stand composition in Latvia.

Estimating the interrelationships between the prefix qualifiers of soil groups and forest site types, in most cases we found a significant relationship between soil groups and prefix qualifiers in dry forest site types Vacciniosa, Myrtillosa and Aegopodiosa. This can be explained by the fact that the complex of prefix qualifiers of soil groups is used for characterizing one specific soil. For instance, in the Myrtillosa forest site type, the most characteristic soils are Ferralic Hypoferralic Endogleyic Rubic Albic Arenosols, and Aegopodiosa, in most cases, occurs on Luvic Calcic Endogleyic Stagnosols and Calcic Endostagnic Endogleyic Luvisols.

The spatial distribution of the mesotrophic Hylocomiosa and eutrophic Oxalidosa forest site types is closely related to the relatively high diversity of soil groups and their prefix qualifiers. Therefore, there are more variation options, and the current data are insufficient to establish specific interrelationships of impact.

The importance of the diversity of soil groups and prefix qualifiers is also reflected in the analysis of interrelationships between tree species, Land Cover classes and soil groups. With the generality increase of a vegetation characteristics unit (forest site type--dominant tree species in a forest stand--Land Cover class), a decrease in interrelationships between the vegetation characteristic type and soil group and their prefix qualifiers was observed. Better interrelationships could be provided by the improvement of biotic environment information.

In general, the study showed that there is always no close relationship between vegetation types and soils. Therefore, it is very difficult to make predictions with regard to the future vegetation on the basis of the relationships between soils and the vegetation type (Palo et al. 2005; Uuemaa et al. 2008). Hence, according to the international FAO WRB soil classification, it is difficult to use soil information in the boreo-nemorial region, where the soil parent material has varying soil texture formed by glacial melting water and glacial deposits, for the prediction of potential soil, vegetation and forest site types.

CONCLUSIONS

The study results show that it is possible to determine the relationships between the distribution of basic soil groups and environmental factors, using the generalized linear models of data statistical analysis provided by the R 2.11.1 software.

This study has shown that a very high diversity of soil groups exists in lithologically similar Quaternary deposits. Furthermore, several forest site types are related to most soil groups, depending on the parent material, location and moisture conditions.

On the one hand, the solutions for the acquisition of information on Quaternary deposits and forest spatial distribution in Latvia proposed in this article might facilitate soil mapping on a regional scale in the future. On the other hand, to concede, the information given hereinabove cannot improve large-scale soil mapping. Therefore, detailed investigations on the changes of soil morphology and soil properties in catene, also depending on soil texture, are due. In any case, taking geological contours as a basis, it is possible to single out soil group associations in soil mapping, although it is difficult to single out separate soil groups.

Determining the existing relationships facilitates the future mapping of the boreo-nemorial region soils that have formed mainly on the Late Weichselian Glacial deposits, altered by postglacial aeolian, marine, lacustrine, alluvial and mire sediments (on a regional scale of 1 : 50 000, because information on the spatial distribution of geological sediments and forest site types is available on this scale and it is a standard scale in Latvia).

The study results show that, in perspective, it would be necessary to continue studies, clarifying the strengths and weaknesses of the FAO WRB soil classification and its application in the research of forest ecosystems.

The relationships of drained and undrained soils with environmental factors have been ascertained. It was found that the impact of environmental conditions on ameliorated soils is reflected in forest site types, not in the soil profile according to the FAO WRB soil classification.

doi: 10.3176/earth.2012.1.04

Acknowledgements. This research was supported by the ICP Forest monitoring and Forest Focus research programme International project 'Inventarization of forest soils and assessment of forest biological diversity "BioSoil" We thank Andis Lazdins for his helpful comments. We are grateful to Dr Guntis Brumelis, Dr Didzis Elferts, the University of Latvia Faculty of Biology, also to Dr Guntis Tabors and Ingus Liepins of the University of Latvia, who assisted in the fieldwork, our colleague from the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Dr Pieter Dirk Jungerius for helpful review of earlier drafts and to two anonymous reviewers for their instructive comments.

REFERENCES

Bishop, T. F. A., Minasny, B. & McBratney, A. B. 2006. Uncertainty analysis for soil-terrain models. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 20, 117-134.

Bockheim, J. G. 2005. Soil endemism and its relation to soil formation theory. Geoderma, 129, 109-124.

Bockheim, J. G., Gennadiyev, A. N., Hammer, R. D. & Tandarich, J. P. 2005. Historical development of key concepts in pedology. Geoderma, 124, 23-36.

Bui, E. N. & Moran, C. J. 2001. Disaggregation of polygons of surficial geology and soil maps using spatial modelling and legacy data. Geoderma, 103, 79-94.

Burrough, P. A. 1993. Soil variability: a late 20th century view. Soils and Fertilizers, 56, 529-562.

Burrough, P. A., van Gaans, P. F. M. & Hootsmans, R. 1997. Continuous classification in soil survey: spatial correlation, confusion and boundaries. Geoderma, 77, 115-135.

Buss, M. 1987. Meza tipologija [Forest taxonomy] In Latvijas mezi [Forests of Latvia] (Buss, M. & Vanags, J., eds), pp. 72-81 [in Latvian].

Buss, K. 1997. Forest ecosystem classification in Latvia. Proceedings of the Latvian Academy of Sciences. Section B, 51, 204-218.

Cressie, N. & Kornak, J. 2003. Spatial statistics in the presence of location error with an application to remote sensing of the environment. Statistical Science, 18, 436-456.

Dobos, E., Carre, F., Hengl, T., Reuter, H. I. & Toth, G. 2006. Digital Soil Mapping as a Support to Production of Functional Maps. EUR 22123 EN. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxemburg, 68 pp. Available: http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/esdb_archive/ eusoils_docs/other/eur22123.pdf [accessed 14 November 2011].

Fransmeier, D. P., Whiteside, E. P. & Mortland, M. M. 1963. A chronosequence of Podzols in Northern Michigan: III Mineralogy, micromorphology, and net changes occurring during soil formation. Michigan Quarterly Bulletin, 46, 37-57.

Gelumbauskaite, L. Z. 2009. Character of sea level changes in the subsiding south-eastern Baltic Sea during Late Quaternary. Baltica, 22, 23-36.

Geological map of Latvia, scale 1 : 500 000. 1981. State Geological Survey. Riga. Available: kartes.geo.lu.lv [in Latvian].

Gray, J. M., Humphreys, G. S. & Deckers, J. A. 2009. Relationships in soil distribution as revealed by a global soil database. Geoderma, 150, 309-323.

Grimm, R. & Behrens, T. 2010. Uncertainty analysis of sample locations within digital soil mapping approaches. Geoderma, 155, 154-163.

Guo, Y., Gong, P. & Amundson, R. 2003. Pedodiversity in the United States of America. Geoderma, 117, 99-115.

Hommel, G. 1988. A stagewise rejective multiple test procedure based on a modified Bonferroni test. Biometrika, 75, 383-386.

Hytteborn, H., Maslov, A. A., Nazimova, D. I. & Rysin, L. P. 2005. Boreal forests of Eurasia. In Ecosystems of the World, 6: Coniferous Forests (Andersson, F. A., ed.), pp. 23-99. Elsevier.

Ibanez, J. J. & De-Alba, S. 2000. Pedodiversity and scaling laws: sharing Martins and Rey's opinion on the role of the Shannon index as a measure of diversity. Geoderma, 98, 5-9.

Ibanez, J. J., De-Alba, S., Bermudez, F. F. & Garcia-Alvarez, A. 1995. Pedodiversity: concepts and measures. Catena, 24, 215-232.

Ibanez, J. J., De-Alba, S., Lobo, A. & Zucarello, V. 1998. Pedodiversity and global soil patterns at coarse scales (with Discussion). Geoderma, 83, 171-192.

IUSS Working Group WRB. 2007. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2006, first update 2007. World Soil Resources Reports 103. FAO, Rome, 128 pp. Available: http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/agll/wrb/doc/wrb2007_corr.pdf [accessed 14 November 2011].

Jenny, H. 1941. Factors of Soil Formation. A System of Quantitative Pedology. McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, NY, USA. 281 pp.

Karklins, A., Gemste, I., Mezals, H., Nikodemus, O. & Skujans, R. 2009. Latvijas augsnu noteicejs [Taxonomy of Latvian soils]. Latvian University of Agriculture, Jelgava, 240 pp. [in Latvian].

Kolli, R. & Ellermae, O. 2001. Soils as basis of Estonian landscapes and their diversity. In Development of European Landscapes, Vol. 2 (Mander, U., Printsmann, A. & Palang, H., eds), Publicationes Instituti Geographici Universitatis Tartuensis, 92, 445-448. IALE, Tartu.

Kuhn, P. 2003. Micromorphology and Late Glacial/Holocene genesis of Luvisols in Mecklenburg--Vorpommern (NE-Germany). Catena, 54, 537-555.

Lagacherie, P., Robbez Masson, J. M., Nguyen-The, N. & Barthes, J. P. 2001. Mapping of reference area representativity using a mathematical soilscape distance. Geoderma, 101, 105-118.

Laivins, M. 1998. Latvijas borealo priezu mezu sinantropizacija un eitrofikacija [Synantrophisation and eutrophisation of Latvian boreal pine forests]. Latvijas vegetacija, 1, 1-137 [in Latvian].

Latvijas Statistika. 2010. Forestry-key indicators. Available: http://www.csb.gov.lv/en/statistikas-temas/forestry-keyindicators-30729.html [accessed 14 November 2011].

Lundstrom, U. S., Van Breemen, N. & Bain, D. 2000. The podzolization process. A review. Geoderma, 94, 91-107. McBratney, A. B. 1992. On variation, uncertainty, and informatics in environmental soil management. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 30, 913-935.

McBratney, A. B. 1998. Some considerations on methods for spatially aggregating and disaggregating soil information. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 50, 51-64.

McBratney, A. & Minasny, B. 2007. On measuring pedo diversity. Geoderma, 14, 149-154.

McBratney, A. B., Santos, M. L. M. & Minasny, B. 2003. On digital soil mapping. Geoderma, 117, 3-52.

McCullagh, P. & Nelder, J. A. 1989. Generalized Linear Models. 2nd edition. Chapman & Hall, New York, 532 pp.

Minasny, B., McBratney, A. B. & Hartemink, A. E. 2010. Global pedodiversity, taxonomic distance, and the World Reference Base. Geoderma, 155, 132-139.

Mokma, D. L., Yli-Halla, M. & Lindqvist, K. 2004. Podzol formation in sandy soils of Finland. Geoderma, 120, 259-272.

Nartiss, M., Celins, I., Zelcs, V. & Dauskans, M. 2009. Stop 8: History of the development and palaeogeography of ice-dammed lakes and inland dunes at Seda sandy plain, north western Vidzeme, Latvia. In Extent and Timing of Weichselian Glaciation Southeast of the Baltic Sea: Abstracts and Guidebook, The INQUA Peribaltic Working Group Field Symposium in Southern Estonia and Northern Latvia, September 13-17, 2009 (Kalm, V., Laumets, L. & Hang, T., eds), pp. 79-81. Tartu Ulikooli Kirjastus, Tartu.

Nelder, J. & Wedderburn, R. W. M. 1972. Generalized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, A135, 370-384.

Palo, A. 2005. Relationships Between Landscape Factors and Vegetation Site Types: Case Study from Saare County, Estonia. Dissertationes Geographicae Universitatis Tartuensis, 114 pp.

Palo, A., Aunap, R. & Mander, U. 2005. Predictive vegetation mapping based on soil and topographical data: a case study from Saare County, Estonia. Journal of Nature Conservation, 13, 197-211.

Phillips, J. D. & Marion, D. A. 2004. Pedological memory in forest soil development. Forest Ecology and Management, 188, 363-380.

Phillips, J. D. & Marion, D. A. 2005. Biomechanical effects, lithological variations, and local pedodiversity in some forest soils of Arkansas. Geoderma, 124, 73-89.

Protz, R., Ross, G. J., Martini, I. P. & Terasmae, J. 1984. Rate of Podzolic soils formation near Hudson Bay, Ontario. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 64, 31-19.

Quinn, G. P. & Keough, M. J. 2002. Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists. Cambridge University Press, 556 pp.

Raukas, A. 1997. Evolution of the Baltic Sea. In Geology and Mineral Resources of Estonia (Raukas, A. & Teedumae, A., eds), pp. 268-274. Estonian Academy Publishers, Tallinn.

Reintam, L. 2002. Correlation of the diagnostic properties of soil genetic units for harmonisation of soil map units. In Soil Classification 2001 (Micheli, E., Nachtergaele, F. O., Jones, R. J. A. & Montanarella, L., eds), European Soil Bureau Research Report, 7, EUR 20398 EN, 205-210. Available: http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/esdb_archive/ eusoils_docs/esb_rr/n07_ESBResRep07/505Reintam.pdf [accessed 14 November 2011].

Reintam, L., Raukas, A., Kleesment, A., Moora, T. & Kahrik, R. 2001. Podzolization in Aeolian sands underlain by Gleysol formation, during nine millennia in southwestern Estonia. Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences, Geology, 50, 254-281.

Reintam, L., Moora, T. & Raukas, A. 2008. Gleysols on sandy deposits of the Litorina Sea underlain by Histosol formations of Ancylus Lake age in western Estonia. Estonian Journal of Earth Sciences, 57, 231-240.

Ruskule, A., Nikodemus, O., Kasparinska, Z., Kasparinskis, R. & Brumelis, G. Patterns of afforestation on abandoned agriculture land in Latvia. Agroforestry systems [in press].

Saarse, L., Vassiljev, J., Miidel, A. & Niinemets, E. 2006. Holocene buried organic sediments in Estonia. Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences, Geology, 55, 296-320.

Sakamoto, Y., Ishiguro, M. & Kitagawa, G. 1986. Akaike Information Criterion Statistics. D. Reidel Publishing Company, 290 pp.

Saldana, A. & Ibanez, J. J. 2007. Pedodiversity, connectance and spatial variability of soil properties, what is the relationship? Ecological Modelling, 208, 342-352.

Sarkar, S. 1998. Some probability inequalities for ordered MTP2 random variables: a proof of Simes conjecture. Annals of Statistics, 26, 494-504.

Sarkar, S. & Chang, C. K. 1997. Simes' method for multiple hypothesis testing with positively dependent test statistics. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 92, 1601-1608.

Sauer, D., Schulli-Maurer, I., Sperstad, R., Sorensen, R. & Stahr, K. 2008. Podzol development with time in sandy beach deposits in southern Norway. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 171, 483-497.

Sauer, D., Schulli-Maurer, I., Sperstad, R., Sorensen, R. & Stahr, K. 2009. Albeluvisol development with time in loamy marine sediments of southern Norway. Quaternary International, 209, 31-43.

Targulian, V. O. & Krasilnikov, P.V. 2007. Soil system and pedogenic processes: self-organization, time scales, and environmental significance. Catena, 71, 373-381. [United Nations] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution. 2006. Manual on Methods and Criteria for Harmonized Sampling, Assessment, Monitoring and Analysis of the Effects of Air Pollution on Forests. International Co-operative Programme on Assessment and Monitoring of Air Pollution Effects on Forests. Part IIIa, Expert Panel on Soil Forest Soil Co-ordinating Centre, Research Institute for Nature and Forest, Belgium, 26 pp. Available: http://www.icp-forests.org/pdf/Chapt_3a_2006(1).pdf [accessed 14 November 2011].

Uuemaa, E., Roosaare, J., Kanal, A. & Mander, U. 2008. Spatial correlograms of soil cover as an indicator of landscape heterogeneity. Ecological Indicators, 8, 783-794.

Zelcs, V., Markots, A., Nartiss, M. & Saks, T. 2011. Chapter 18: Pleistocene glaciations in Latvia. In Ouaternary Glaciations--Extent and Chronology (Ehlers, J., Gibbard, P. L. & Hughes, P. D., eds), Developments in Quaternary Science, 15, 221-229.

Raimonds Kasparinskis and Olgerts Nikodemus

Faculty of Geography and Earth Sciences, University of Latvia, 19 Raina Blvd., LV 1580 Riga, Latvia; Raimonds.Kasparinskis@lu.lv, Olgerts.Nikodemus@lu.lv

Received 22 June 2011, accepted 4 November 2011

(1) PCA software PC ORD 5.10.
Table 1. Occurrence of soil groups (IUSS Working Group WRB 2007) in
sampling plots within the areas of Quaternary deposits

 Soil groups (n)
Types of
Quaternary Histosols Gleysols Podzols
deposits (n) (16) (8) (9)

Aeolian dunes (7) -- -- 1
Litorina Sea (2) -- -- 1
Baltic Ice Lake (9) -- 1 4
Alluvial (1) -- -- --
Glaciofluvial (20) -- -- 2
Glaciolacustrine (27) -- 5 1
Glacigenic (31) -- 2 --
Organic (16) 16 -- --

 Soil groups (n)
Types of
Quaternary Planosols Stagnosols Phaeozems
deposits (n) (10) (12) (2)

Aeolian dunes (7) -- -- --
Litorina Sea (2) -- 1 --
Baltic Ice Lake (9) -- -- --
Alluvial (1) -- -- --
Glaciofluvial (20) 3 1 --
Glaciolacustrine (27) 6 5 2
Glacigenic (31) 1 5 --
Organic (16) -- -- --

 Soil groups (n)
Types of
Quaternary Albeluvisols Luvisols Umbrisols
deposits (n) (9) (14) (2)

Aeolian dunes (7) -- -- --
Litorina Sea (2) -- -- --
Baltic Ice Lake (9) -- -- 1
Alluvial (1) -- -- --
Glaciofluvial (20) 1 -- 1
Glaciolacustrine (27) 1 4 --
Glacigenic (31) 7 10 --
Organic (16) -- -- --

 Soil groups (n)
Types of
Quaternary Arenosols Cambisols
deposits (n) (25) (6)

Aeolian dunes (7) 6 --
Litorina Sea (2) -- --
Baltic Ice Lake (9) 3 --
Alluvial (1) 1 --
Glaciofluvial (20) 12 --
Glaciolacustrine (27) 3 --
Glacigenic (31) -- 6
Organic (16) -- --

n, number in sampling plots; -- not found.

Table 2. Relationships between Quaternary deposits and soil groups
(IUSS Working Group WRB 2007). The cases of significant relationships
(the level of significance p < 0.05) are highlighted

 Types of Soil groups (n)
 Quaternary
 deposits (n) Histosols Gleysols Podzols
 (16) (8) (8)

Aeolian AIC -- -- 66
 (7) p -- -- 0.71
Baltic Ice Lake AIC -- 62 56
 (8) p -- 0.87 0.002#
Glaciofluvial AIC -- -- 67
 (19) p -- -- 0.71
Glaciolacustrine AIC -- 56 66
 (25) p -- 0.03# 0.71
Glacigenic AIC -- 62 --
 (31) p -- 0.87 --
Organic AIC 4 -- --
 (16) p * -- --

 Types of Soil groups (n)
 Quaternary
 deposits (n) Planosols Stagnosols Albelusisols
 (10) (11) (9)

Aeolian AIC -- -- --
 (7) p -- -- --
Baltic Ice Lake AIC -- -- --
 (8) p -- -- --
Glaciofluvial AIC 71 80 66
 (19) p 0.29 0.38 0.59
Glaciolacustrine AIC 65 78 66
 (25) p 0.03# 0.37 0.59
Glacigenic AIC 70 78 56
 (31) p 0.29 0.38 0.009#
Organic AIC -- -- --
 (16) p -- -- --

 Types of Soil groups (n)
 Quaternary
 deposits (n) Luvisols Arenosols Cambisols
 (14) (24) (6)

Aeolian AIC -- 109 --
 (7) p -- 0.006# --
Baltic Ice Lake AIC -- 123 --
 (8) p -- 0.40 --
Glaciofluvial AIC -- 106 --
 (19) p -- 0.0004# --
Glaciolacustrine AIC 88 121 --
 (25) p 0.66 0.24 --
Glacigenic AIC 75 -- 34
 (31) p 0.001# -- *
Organic AIC -- -- --
 (16) p -- -- --

n, number in sampling plots; -- not found; * occurrence of soil
groups only within specific Quaternary deposits.

Note: The cases of significant relationships (the level of
significance p < 0.05) indicated with #.

Table 3. Relationships between Quaternary deposits and soil groups
with prefix qualifiers (IUSS Working Group WRB 2007). The cases of
significant relationships (the level of significance p < 0.05) are
highlighted

 Types of Soil groups with prefix qualifiers (n)
 Quaternary
 deposits Albic Endogleyic Ferralic
 (n) Arenosols Arenosols Arenosols
 (12) (5) (6)

Aeolian AIC 69 -- 56
 (7) p 0.0004# -- 0.37
Baltic Ice Lake AIC 85 41 54
 (8) p 0.97 0.06 0.15
Glaciofluvial AIC 81 45 54
 (19) p 0.18 0.93 0.20
Glaciolacustrine AIC 82 44 --
 (25) p 0.34 0.78 --
Glacigenic AIC -- -- --
 (31) p -- -- --

 Types of Soil groups with prefix qualifiers (n)
 Quaternary
 deposits Hypoferralic Rubic Albic
 (n) Arenosols Arenosols Podzols
 (5) (10) (6)

Aeolian AIC 44 69 56
 (7) p 0.44 0.24 0.54
Baltic Ice Lake AIC -- 72 54
 (8) p -- 0.80 0.24
Glaciofluvial AIC 41 62 56
 (19) p 0.09 0.004# 0.54
Glaciolacustrine AIC 45 70 56
 (25) p 0.83 0.60 0.54
Glacigenic AIC -- -- --
 (31) p -- -- --

 Types of Soil groups with prefix qualifiers (n)
 Quaternary
 deposits Histic Endogleyic Endogleyic
 (n) Podzols Podzols Planosols
 (4) (3) (8)

Aeolian AIC -- -- --
 (7) p -- -- --
Baltic Ice Lake AIC 35 27 --
 (8) p 0.002# * --
Glaciofluvial AIC -- -- 60
 (19) p -- -- 0.32
Glaciolacustrine AIC 45 -- 59
 (25) p 0.83 -- 0.24
Glacigenic AIC -- -- 61
 (31) p -- -- 0.36

 Types of Soil groups with prefix qualifiers (n)
 Quaternary
 deposits Luvic Stagnic Endogleyic
 (n) Planosols Cambisols Stagnosols
 (6) (4) (6)

Aeolian AIC -- -- --
 (7) p -- -- --
Baltic Ice Lake AIC -- -- --
 (8) p -- -- --
Glaciofluvial AIC 50 -- --
 (19) p 0.57 -- --
Glaciolacustrine AIC 49 -- 49
 (25) p 0.42 -- 0.19
Glacigenic AIC 51 28 49
 (31) p 0.57 * 0.19

 Types of Soil groups with prefix qualifiers (n)
 Quaternary
 deposits Luvic Calcic Luvic
 (n) Stagnosols Stagnosols Gleysols
 (5) (6) (6)

Aeolian AIC -- -- --
 (7) p -- -- --
Baltic Ice Lake AIC -- -- 51
 (8) p -- -- 0.70
Glaciofluvial AIC 45 -- --
 (19) p 0.93 -- --
Glaciolacustrine AIC 39 49 49
 (25) p 0.78 0.19 0.42
Glacigenic AIC 45 49 51
 (31) p 0.93 0.19 0.70

 Types of Soil groups with prefix qualifiers (n)
 Quaternary
 deposits Stagnic Cutanic Endogleyic
 (n) Albeluvisol Albeluvisols Luvisols
 s (7) (6)
 (4)
Aeolian AIC -- -- --
 (7) p -- -- --
Baltic Ice Lake AIC -- -- --
 (8) p -- -- --
Glaciofluvial AIC -- 56 --
 (19) p -- 0.76 --
Glaciolacustrine AIC -- -- 51
 (25) p -- -- 0.67
Glacigenic AIC 28 45 42
 (31) p * 0.01# 0.02#

 Types of Soil groups with prefix qualifiers (n)
 Quaternary
 deposits Cutanic Calcic Endostagnic
 (n) Luvisols Luvisols Luvisols
 (7) (7) (4)

Aeolian AIC -- -- --
 (7) p -- -- --
Baltic Ice Lake AIC -- -- --
 (8) p -- -- --
Glaciofluvial AIC -- -- --
 (19) p -- -- --
Glaciolacustrine AIC 56 56 --
 (25) p 0.76 0.76 --
Glacigenic AIC 50 50 28
 (31) p 0.02# 0.02# *

n, number in sampling plots; -- not found; * occurrence of soil groups
with prefix qualifiers only within specific Quaternary deposits.

Note: The cases of significant relationships (the level of significance
p < 0.05) indicated with #.

Table 4. Occurrence of forest site types in sampling plots within
different soil groups (IUSS Working Group WRB 2007)

 Forest site types
 Soil groups
 (n) On dry
 mineral soil (n)

 Cladinoso-- Vacciniosa Myrtillosa
 callunosa (6) (6)
 (3)

Histosols -- -- --
 (16)
Gleysols -- -- --
 (8)
Podzols -- 1 --
 (9)
Planosols -- -- --
 (10)
Stagnosols -- -- --
 (12)
Phaeozems -- -- --
 (2)
Albeluvisols -- -- --
 (9)
Luvisols -- -- --
 (14)
Umbrisols -- -- --
 (2)
Cambisols -- -- --
 (6)
Arenosols 3 5 6
 (25)

 Forest site types
 Soil groups
 (n) On dry
 mineral soil (n)

 Hylocomiosa Oxalidosa Aegopodiosa
 (23) (14) (15)

Histosols -- -- --
 (16)
Gleysols -- -- --
 (8)
Podzols 4 1 --
 (9)
Planosols 3 2 --
 (10)
Stagnosols -- -- 4
 (12)
Phaeozems 1 -- 1
 (2)
Albeluvisols 5 2 2
 (9)
Luvisols 4 2 7
 (14)
Umbrisols -- 1 --
 (2)
Cambisols 1 2 --
 (6)
Arenosols 5 4 1
 (25)

 Forest site types
 Soil groups
 (n) On wet On wet
 mineral soil (n) peat soil (n)

 Vaccinioso- Myrtilloso- Sphagnosa Caricoso-
 sphagnosa polytrichosa (2) phragmitosa
 (2) (9) (2)

Histosols -- -- 2 2
 (16)
Gleysols -- 1 -- --
 (8)
Podzols 1 -- -- --
 (9)
Planosols -- 2 -- --
 (10)
Stagnosols -- 4 -- --
 (12)
Phaeozems -- -- -- --
 (2)
Albeluvisols -- -- -- --
 (9)
Luvisols -- -- -- --
 (14)
Umbrisols -- -- -- --
 (2)
Cambisols -- 2 -- --
 (6)
Arenosols 1 -- -- --
 (25)

 Forest site types
 Soil groups
 (n) On drained
 mineral soil (n)

 Vacciniosa Myrtillosa Mercurialiosa
 mel. (2) mel. (13) mel. (4)

Histosols -- -- --
 (16)
Gleysols -- 4 3
 (8)
Podzols 1 1 --
 (9)
Planosols -- 3 --
 (10)
Stagnosols -- 3 1
 (12)
Phaeozems -- -- --
 (2)
Albeluvisols -- -- --
 (9)
Luvisols 1 -- --
 (14)
Umbrisols -- 1 --
 (2)
Cambisols -- 1 --
 (6)
Arenosols -- -- --
 (25)

 Forest site types
 Soil groups
 (n) On drained
 peat soil (n)

 Vacciniosa Myrtillosa Oxalidosa
 turf. mel. turf. mel. turf. mel.
 (1) (8) (3)

Histosols 1 8 3
 (16)
Gleysols -- -- --
 (8)
Podzols -- -- --
 (9)
Planosols -- -- --
 (10)
Stagnosols -- -- --
 (12)
Phaeozems -- -- --
 (2)
Albeluvisols -- -- --
 (9)
Luvisols -- -- --
 (14)
Umbrisols -- -- --
 (2)
Cambisols -- -- --
 (6)
Arenosols -- -- --
 (25)

n, number in sampling plots; -- not found.

Table 5. Relationships between the forest site types on mineral and
peat soil and soil groups (IUSS Working Group WRB 2007). The cases of
significant relationships (the level of significancep < 0.05) are
highlighted

 Soil groups Forest site types
 (n)
 On dry mineral soil (n)

 Cladinoso- Vacciniosa Myrtillosa
 callunosa (6) (6)
 (3)

 AIC p AIC p AIC p

Histosols (16) -- -- -- -- -- --
Gleysols (8) - -- -- -- -- --
Stagnosols (12) -- -- -- -- -- --
Podzols (9) -- -- 50 0.43 -- --
Cambisols (6) -- -- -- -- -- --
Albeluvisols (9) -- -- -- -- -- --
Luvisols (14) -- -- -- -- -- --
Planosols (10) -- -- -- -- -- --
Arenosols (25) 22 * 40 0.01# 32 *

 Soil groups Forest site types
 (n)
 On dry mineral soil (n)

 Hylocomiosa Oxalidosa Aegopodiosa
 (23) (14) (15)

 AIC p AIC p AIC p

Histosols (16) -- -- -- -- -- --
Gleysols (8) -- -- -- -- -- --
Stagnosols (12) -- -- -- -- 89 0.12
Podzols (9) 115 0.35 89 0.90 -- --
Cambisols (6) 118 0.96 87 0.78 -- --
Albeluvisols (9) 112 0.05# 88 0.90 92 0.41
Luvisols (14) 118 0.96 89 0.90 79 0.0004#
Planosols (10) 118 0.96 88 0.90 -- --
Arenosols (25) 118 0.96 88 0.90 90 0.30

 Soil groups
 (n) On wet On wet peat soil (n)
 mineral soil
 (n)

 Myrtilloso- Sphagnosa Caricoso-
 polytrichosa (2) phragmitosa
 (9) (2)

 AIC p AIC p AIC p

Histosols (16) -- -- 16 * 16 *
Gleysols (8) 67 0.62 -- -- -- --
Stagnosols (12) 59 0.01 -- -- -- --
Podzols (9) -- -- -- -- -- --
Cambisols (6) 63 0.09 -- -- -- --
Albeluvisols (9) -- -- -- -- -- --
Luvisols (14) -- -- -- -- -- --
Planosols (10) 65 0.32 -- -- -- --
Arenosols (25) -- -- -- -- -- --

n, number in sampling plots; -- not found; * occurrence of forest site
types only within specific soil groups.

Note: The cases of significant relationships (the level of significance
p < 0.05) indicated with #.

Table 6. Relationships between the forest site types on drained
mineral and peat soil and soil groups (IUSS Working Group WRB 2007).
The cases of significant relationships (the level of significance p <
0.05) are highlighted

 Soil groups Forest site types
 (n) On drained
 On drained mineral soil (n) peat soil (n)

 Myrtillosa Mercurialiosa 1 Vacciniosa
 mel. (13) mel. (4) turf. mel. (1)

 AIC p AIC p AIC p

Histosols (16) -- -- -- -- 11 *
Gleysols (8) 77 0.01# 26 0.001# -- --
Stagnosols (12) 83 0.39 38 0.36 -- --
Podzols (9) 85 0.97 -- -- -- --
Cambisols (6) 85 0.97 -- -- -- --
Albeluvisols (9) -- -- -- -- -- --
Luvisols (14) -- -- -- -- -- --
Planosols (10) 82 0.26 -- -- -- --
Arenosols (25)

 Soil groups Forest site types
 (n)
 On drained peat soil (n)

 1 Myrtillosa Oxalidosa
 turf. mel. (8) turf. mel. (3)

 AIC p AIC p

Histosols (16) 26 * 19 *
Gleysols (8) -- -- -- --
Stagnosols (12) -- -- -- --
Podzols (9) -- -- -- --
Cambisols (6) -- -- -- --
Albeluvisols (9) -- -- -- --
Luvisols (14) -- -- -- --
Planosols (10) -- -- -- --
Arenosols (25)

n, number in sampling plots; --not found; * occurrence of forest site
types only within specific soil groups.

Note: The cases of significant relationships (the level of significance
p < 0.05) indicated with #.

Table 7. Relationships between forest site types on dry mineral soil
and soil groups with prefix qualifiers (IUSS Working Group WRB 2007).
The cases of significant relationships (the level of significancep <
0.05) are highlighted

 Forest site types on dry
 Soil groups with mineral soil (n)
 prefix qualifiers (n)
 Cladinoso- Vacciniosa
 callunosa (6)
 (3)

 AIC p AIC p

Albic Arenosols (13) 18 0.99 45 0.02#
Endogleyic Arenosols (5) -- -- 49 0.30
Ferralic Arenosols (7) 30 0.25 -- --
Hypoferralic Arenosols (5) -- -- 38 0.001#
Rubic Arenosols (10) 30 0.34 43 0.01#
Albic Podzols (7) -- -- 50 0.30
Histic Podzols (5) -- -- -- --
Endogleyic Podzols (4) -- -- -- --
Endogleyic Planosols (8) -- -- -- --
Luvic Planosols (6) -- -- -- --
Stagnic Cambisols (4) -- -- -- --
Endogleyic Stagnosols (6) -- -- -- --
Luvic Stagnosols (5) -- -- -- --
Calcic Stagnosols (6) -- -- -- --
Luvic Gleysols (6) -- -- -- --
Stagnic Albeluvisols (4) -- -- -- --
Cutanic Albeluvisols (7) -- -- -- --
Endogleyic Luvisols (6) -- -- -- --
Cutanic Luvisols (7) -- -- -- --
Calcic Luvisols (7) -- -- -- --
Endostagnic Luvisols (4) -- -- -- --

 Forest site types on dry
 Soil groups with mineral soil (n)
 prefix qualifiers (n)
 Myrtillosa Hylocomiosa
 (6) (23)

 AIC p AIC p

Albic Arenosols (13) 45 0.009# 115 0.97
Endogleyic Arenosols (5) 45 0.009# 115 0.97
Ferralic Arenosols (7) 41 0.003# 113 0.97
Hypoferralic Arenosols (5) 45 0.009# -- --
Rubic Arenosols (10) 43 0.009# 115 0.97
Albic Podzols (7) -- -- 113 0.97
Histic Podzols (5) -- -- 114 0.97
Endogleyic Podzols (4) -- -- 113 0.97
Endogleyic Planosols (8) -- -- 114 0.97
Luvic Planosols (6) -- -- 115 0.97
Stagnic Cambisols (4) -- -- -- --
Endogleyic Stagnosols (6) -- -- -- --
Luvic Stagnosols (5) -- -- -- --
Calcic Stagnosols (6) -- -- -- --
Luvic Gleysols (6) -- -- -- --
Stagnic Albeluvisols (4) -- -- 113 0.97
Cutanic Albeluvisols (7) -- -- 113 0.97
Endogleyic Luvisols (6) -- -- 115 0.97
Cutanic Luvisols (7) -- -- 115 0.97
Calcic Luvisols (7) -- -- 115 0.97
Endostagnic Luvisols (4) -- -- -- --

 Forest site types on dry
 Soil groups with mineral soil (n)
 prefix qualifiers (n)
 Oxalidosa Aegopodiosa
 (14) (15)

 AIC p AIC p

Albic Arenosols (13) 88 0.99 -- --
Endogleyic Arenosols (5) -- -- -- --
Ferralic Arenosols (7) -- -- -- --
Hypoferralic Arenosols (5) -- -- -- --
Rubic Arenosols (10) 89 0.99 -- --
Albic Podzols (7) 89 0.99 -- --
Histic Podzols (5) -- -- -- --
Endogleyic Podzols (4) -- -- -- --
Endogleyic Planosols (8) 89 0.99 -- --
Luvic Planosols (6) 87 0.99 -- --
Stagnic Cambisols (4) 85 0.44 -- --
Endogleyic Stagnosols (6) -- -- 87 0.04#
Luvic Stagnosols (5) -- -- 86 0.03#
Calcic Stagnosols (6) -- -- 83 0.006#
Luvic Gleysols (6) -- -- -- --
Stagnic Albeluvisols (4) 88 0.99 92 0.49
Cutanic Albeluvisols (7) 87 0.99 91 0.46
Endogleyic Luvisols (6) 89 0.99 83 0.006#
Cutanic Luvisols (7) 89 0.99 88 0.09
Calcic Luvisols (7) 89 0.99 79 0.002#
Endostagnic Luvisols (4) -- -- 75 *

n, number in sampling plots; -- not found; * occurrence of forest site
types only within a specific soil group.

The cases of significant relationships (the level of significancep <
0.05) are highlighted # indicate

Table 8. Relationships between forest site types on wet and drained
mineral soil and soil groups with prefix qualifiers (IUSS Working
Group WRB 2007). The cases of significant relationships (the level of
significance p < 0.05) are highlighted

 Soil groups with Forest site types
 prefix qualifiers (n)
 On wet mineral
 soil (n)

 Myrtilloso-
 polytrichosa
 (9)

 AIC p

Albic Arenosols (13) -- --
Endogleyic Arenosols (5) -- --
Ferralic Arenosols (7) -- --
Hypoferralic Arenosols (5) -- --
Rubic Arenosols (10) -- --
Albic Podzols (7) -- --
Histic Podzols (5) -- --
Endogleyic Podzols (4) -- --
Endogleyic Planosols (8) 67 0.62
Luvic Planosols (6) -- --
Stagnic Cambisols (4) 66 0.62
Endogleyic Stagnosols (6) 63 0.12
Luvic Stagnosols (5) -- --
Calcic Stagnosols (6) -- --
Luvic Gleysols (6) 66 0.62
Stagnic Albeluvisols (4) -- --
Cutanic Albeluvisols (7) -- --
Endogleyic Luvisols (6) -- --
Cutanic Luvisols (7) -- --
Calcic Luvisols (7) -- --
Endostagnic Luvisols (4) -- --

 Soil groups with Forest site types
 prefix qualifiers (n)
 On drained mineral soil (n)

 Myrtillosa Mercurialiosa
 mel. (13) mel. (4)

 AIC p AIC p

Albic Arenosols (13) -- -- -- --
Endogleyic Arenosols (5) -- -- -- --
Ferralic Arenosols (7) -- -- -- --
Hypoferralic Arenosols (5) -- -- -- --
Rubic Arenosols (10) -- -- -- --
Albic Podzols (7) 89 0.87 -- --
Histic Podzols (5) 88 0.87 -- --
Endogleyic Podzols (4) 88 0.87 -- --
Endogleyic Planosols (8) 85 0.28 -- --
Luvic Planosols (6) 87 0.72 -- --
Stagnic Cambisols (4) 88 0.87 -- --
Endogleyic Stagnosols (6) -- -- 37 0.11
Luvic Stagnosols (5) 88 0.87 36 0.11
Calcic Stagnosols (6) -- -- 37 0.11
Luvic Gleysols (6) 83 0.08 32 0.01#
Stagnic Albeluvisols (4) -- -- -- --
Cutanic Albeluvisols (7) -- -- -- --
Endogleyic Luvisols (6) -- -- -- --
Cutanic Luvisols (7) -- -- -- --
Calcic Luvisols (7) -- -- -- --
Endostagnic Luvisols (4) -- -- -- --

n, number in sampling plots; -- not found.

Note: The cases of significant relationships (the level of
significance p < 0.05) indicated with #.

Table 9. Occurrence of tree species in sampling plots within different
soil groups (IUSS Working Group WRB 2007)

 Soil groups Tree species
 (n)

 Pine Spruce Birch Black Grey
 (67) (69) (53) alder alder
 (4) (6)

Histosols 11 9 10 -- --
Gleysols 5 4 5 -- 1
Stagnosols 2 9 8 -- 1
Podzols 8 5 2 -- --
Cambisols 1 5 3 -- --
Albeluvisols 4 7 4 1 2
Luvisols 7 10 6 -- 1
Planosols 5 9 8 3 --
Arenosols 22 8 4 -- --
Umbrisols 1 2 2 -- 1
Phaeozems 1 1 1 -- --

 Soil groups Tree species
 (n)

 Ash Oak Aspen Acer
 (6) (21) (8) (1)

Histosols 1 1 -- --
Gleysols 2 1 -- 1
Stagnosols 1 4 2 --
Podzols -- -- -- --
Cambisols -- -- -- --
Albeluvisols 1 3 1 --
Luvisols -- 7 4 --
Planosols -- -- -- --
Arenosols -- 4 1 --
Umbrisols -- -- -- --
Phaeozems 1 1 -- --

n, occurrence in sampling plots; -- not found.

Table 10. Relationships between dominant tree species and soil groups
(IUSS Working Group WRB 2007). The cases of significant relationships
(the level of significance p < 0.05) are highlighted

 Soil groups Tree species
 (n) (n)

 Pine Spruce
 (47) (21)

 AIC p AIC p

Histosols (16) 159 0.97 113 0.98
Gleysols (8) 159 0.97 -- --
Stagnosols (12) 151 0.18 112 0.98
Podzols (9) 154 0.24 112 0.98
Cambisols (6) 157 0.80 105 0.05
Albeluvisols (9) 158 0.97 111 0.96
Luvisols (13) 155 0.40 112 0.98
Planosols (10) 153 0.25 110 0.48
Arenosols (25) 141 0.0004 -- --

 Soil groups Tree species
 (n) (n)

 Birch Oak
 (22) (18)

 AIC p AIC p

Histosols (16) 117 0.88 105 0.90
Gleysols (8) 117 0.88 106 0.90
Stagnosols (12) 117 0.88 104 0.55
Podzols (9) 118 0.88 -- --
Cambisols (6) 118 0.88 -- --
Albeluvisols (9) 118 0.88 106 0.90
Luvisols (13) -- -- 97 0.006
Planosols (10) 113 0.16 -- --
Arenosols (25) 111 0.28 106 0.90

n, number in sampling plots; -- not found.

Note: The cases of significant relationships (the level of
significance p < 0.05) indicated with #.

Table 11. Average particle size distribution and chemical
characteristics of the mineral topsoil layers of Albeluvisols and
Luvisols (IUSS Working Group WRB 2007)

 Soil group Clay, Silt, Sand, PH
 (layer depth) % % % (Ca[Cl
 .sub.2])

Albeluvisols (0-20 cm) 5.96 27.64 66.43 4.18
Albeluvisols (20-40 cm) 12.08 29.55 58.39 5.12
Luvisols (0-20 cm) 17.82 34.90 47.27 4.63
Luvisols (20-40 cm) 33.34 35.49 31.18 5.63

 Soil group Cation exchange
 (layer depth) capacity, cmol
 [kg.sup.-1]

Albeluvisols (0-20 cm) 15.23
Albeluvisols (20-40 cm) 10.33
Luvisols (0-20 cm) 27.58
Luvisols (20-40 cm) 21.60
COPYRIGHT 2012 Estonian Academy Publishers
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

 
Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Kasparinskis, Raimonds; Nikodemus, Olgerts
Publication:Estonian Journal of Earth Sciences
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:4EXLA
Date:Mar 1, 2012
Words:9467
Previous Article:Devonian stratigraphy in Estonia: current state and problems/Eesti Devoni stratigraafia: hetkeseis ja probleemid.
Next Article:Taphonomy of the vertebrate bone beds from the Klunas fossil site, Upper Devonian Tervete Formation of Latvia/Ulem-Devoni Tervete kihistu...
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters