Doğal ve plantasyon ormanların toprak biyolojik kalite indeksinin mikroeklembacaklılar ile belirlenmesi

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 1, 38 - 45, 07.08.2019

Meriç Çakır

Öz

Toprak kalitesi, su ve hava kalitesi ile birlikte çevre
kalitesinin üç bileşeninden biridir. Toprak kalite göstergeleri fiziksel,
kimyasal ve biyolojik toprak kalite parametreleri olarak ayrılmaktadır. Biyolojik
toprak kalite parametresi olarak toprak canlıları, antropojenik bozulmalara
verdikleri hızlı tepkilerden dolayı önemli bir ölçüt olarak belirlenmiştir. Toprak
biyolojik kalitesinin belirlenmesinde son yıllarda tasarlanan ve geliştirilen
indekslerden biri QBS-ar dır. QBS-ar indeksi, mikroeklembacaklıların toprak
ekosistemine adaptasyonlarını gösteren morfolojik karakterlerin varlığına
odaklanır ve tür düzeyinde karmaşık taksonomik tanımlama gerektirmez.

 

Yedi farklı ağaç türü (Abies
cilicica Carr., A. nordmanniana
ssp. bornmülleriana Mattf.
ve A. nordmanniana ssp. nordmanniana
Mattf., Pinus sylvestris, Pinus nigra Arnold  ve Quercus petraea L. ve
Fagus orientalis L.) altından
belirlenen QBS-ar değerleri arasında hem zamana göre hem de ağaç türlerine göre
istatistiksel fark bulunmuştur. En düşük QBS-ar değeri Abies
cilicica (66)’da en yüksek değer
ise Pinus sylvestris (91) de bulunmuştur. Sonuç olarak QBS-ar, farklı ağaç türleri altında farklı
toprak biyolojik kalitesi olduğunu göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Mesofauna, QBS-ar, toprak kalitesi, göknar, çam, kayın, meşe

Kaynakça

• Akburak, S., Oral, H.V., Ozdemir, E., Makineci, E., 2013. Temporal variations of biomass, carbon and nitrogen of roots under different tree species. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 28, 8-16.
• Bastida, F., Zsolnay, A., Hernández, T., García, C., 2008. Past, present and future of soil quality indices: a biological perspective. Geoderma 147, 159-171.
• Best, E.P.H., Haeck, J., 1984. Ecological indicators for the assessment of the quality of air, water, soil and ecosystems. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Boston.
• Bird, S.B., Coulson, R.N., Fisher, R.F., 2004. Changes in soil and litter arthropod abundance following tree harvesting and site preparation in a loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) plantation. Forest Ecology and Management. 202, 195-208.
• Bünemann, E.K., Bongiorno, G., Bai, Z., Creamer, R.E., De Deyn, G., de Goede, R., Fleskens, L., Geissen, V., Kuyper, T.W., Mäder, P., 2018. Soil quality–A critical review. Soil Biology Biochemistry 120, 105-125.
• Cakir, M., Makineci, E., 2013. Humus characteristics and seasonal changes of soil arthropod communities in a natural sessile oak (Quercus petraea L.) stand and adjacent Austrian pine (Pinus nigra Arnold) plantation. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 185, 8943-8955.
• Cakir, M., Makineci, E., 2015. Community Structure and Seasonal Changes of Soil Microarthropods in a Native Oak Stand and Scots Pine Plantation. Ekoloji 24, 23-31.
• Coleman, D.C., Crossley, D.A., Hendrix, P.F., 2004. Fundamentals of soil ecology. Academic press, USA.
• Çakır, M., 2018. Richness and diversity of litter and soil fauna as affected by differences in three fir species. Bosque 39, 441-447.
• Çakır, M., Makineci, E., 2019. Litter decomposition in pure and mixed Quercus and Fagus stands as influenced by arthropods in Belgrad Forest, Turkey. Journal of Forestry Research, 1-15.
• Dindal, D.L., 1990. Soil biology guide. Wiley, New York.
• Doran, J.W., Zeiss, M.R., 2000. Soil health and sustainability: managing the biotic component of soil quality. Applied soil ecology 15, 3-11.
• Drobnik, T., Greiner, L., Keller, A., Grêt-Regamey, A., 2018. Soil quality indicators–From soil functions to ecosystem services. Ecological indicators 94, 151-169.Erşahin, S., Öztaş, T., Namlı, A., Karahan, G., 2015. Toprak amenajmanı. Gazi Kitapevi, Ankara.
• Gessner, M.O., Swan, C.M., Dang, C.K., McKie, B.G., Bardgett, R.D., Wall, D.H., Hättenschwiler, S.J.T.i.e., evolution, 2010. Diversity meets decomposition. 25, 372-380.
• Günal, H., Özgöz, E., Çelik, İ., Acir, N., 2015. Toprak kalitesi. In: Erşahin, S., Öztaş, T., Namlı, A., Karahan, G. (Eds.), Toprak Amenajmanı. Gazi Kitapevi, Ankara, pp. 111-133.
• Havlicek, E., 2012. Soil biodiversity and bioindication: from complex thinking to simple acting. European Journal of Soil Biology 49, 80-84.
• Karlen, D., Mausbach, M.J., Doran, J., Cline, R., Harris, R., Schuman, G., 1997. Soil quality: a concept, definition, and framework for evaluation (a guest editorial). Soil Science Society of America Journal 61, 4-10.
• Meehan, T.D., Drumm, P.K., Schottland Farrar, R., Oral, K., Lanier, K.E., Pennington, E.A., Pennington, L.A., Stafurik, I.T., Valore, D.V., Wylie, A.D., 2006. Energetic equivalence in a soil arthropod community from an aspen–conifer forest. Pedobiologia 50, 307-312.
• Nortcliff, S., 2002. Standardisation of soil quality attributes. Agriculture, Ecosystems Environment 88, 161-168.
• Parisi, V., Menta, C., Gardi, C., Jacomini, C., Mozzanica, E., 2005. Microarthropod communities as a tool to assess soil quality and biodiversity: a new approach in Italy. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 105, 323-333.
• Paz‐Ferreiro, J., Fu, S., 2016. Biological indices for soil quality evaluation: perspectives and limitations. Land Degradation and Development 27, 14-25.
• Salmon, S., Artuso, N., Frizzera, L., Zampedri, R., 2008. Relationships between soil fauna communities and humus forms: Response to forest dynamics and solar radiation. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 40, 1707-1715.
• SPSS, 2011. IBM SPSS statistics base 20. SPSS Incorpo- rated, Chicago, IL.
• Vogt, K.A., Grier, C.C., Vogt, D., 1986. Production, turnover, and nutrient dynamics of above-and belowground detritus of world forests. Advances in ecological research 15, 303-378.
• Wallwork, J.A., 1976. The distribution and Diversity of Soil fauna. Academic Press, London.
• WRB, 2006. IUSS Working Group, World reference base for soil resources 2006. 2nd edition. World Soil Resources Reports No. 103. FAO, Rome.