Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi, Orman Fakültesi Araştırma ve Uygulama Ormanında Humus Formlarının Belirlenmesi ve Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Humus, uzun yıllardır kullanılmakta olan bir terimdir ve 18. yüzyılda önemi anlaşılarak humus ekolojisi hakkında bilimsel çalışmalar yapılmaya başlanmıştır. Son yıllarda Avrupa sınıflandırma yöntemi geliştirilmiş ve mull, moder, mor, amphi ve tangel olmak üzere beş farklı takım tanımlanmıştır. Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Araştırma ve Uygulama Ormanında yürütülen çalışma dört alanda gerçekleştirilmiş olup bir sarıçam (Pinus sylvestris L.) ve farklı gelişim çağlarındaki üç karaçam (Pinus nigra subsp. pallasiana (Lamb.) Holmboe) meşceresinde humus formları teşhis edilmiştir. Belirlenen örnek alanlarda 25 cm × 25 cm ölçülerindeki çerçeveler içerisinde alınan ölüörtü örneklerinde OL, OF ve OH ve A horizonları ayrıntılı incelenmiştir. Ölüörtü horizonları morfolojik incelenirken toprak faunasının varlığı dikkatlice belirlenmiş ayrıca A horizonunun pH değeri dikkate alınarak humus formu ortaya konulmuştur. Sonuç olarak ölüörtünün ayrıntılı morfolojik ve biyolojik incelenmesi ile sarıçam meşceresinde Eumacroamphi humus formu olduğu belirlenirken farklı gelişim çağlarındaki karaçam (Çkb, Çkc ve Çkd) meşcerelerinde sırası ile Leptoamphi, Eumesoamphi ve Eumacroamphi humus tipleri olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

• Humus formu
• orman toprağı
• meşcere gelişimi
• ölüörtü
• toprak faunası

Determination and Evaluation of Humus Forms in Çankırı Karatekin University, Faculty of Forestry Research and Application Forest

Abstract

Humus is a term that has been used for many years, and in the 18th century, scientific studies on humus ecology began with its importance understood. In recent years, the European classification method has been developed and five different sets have been defined as mull, modern, purple, amphi, and tangel. The study conducted in Çankırı Karatekin University Faculty of Forestry Research and Application Forest was carried out in four areas, and humus forms were identified in one scotch pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and three black pine (Pinus nigra subsp. pallasiana (Lamb.) Holmboe) stands in different developmental stages. OL, OF and OH, and A horizons were examined in detail in the litter samples taken in frames of 25 cm × 25 cm in the determined sample areas. While the morphological examination of the litter horizons, the presence of soil fauna was carefully determined and the humus form was identified by taking into account the pH value of the A horizon. As a result, by detailed morphological and biological examination of the litter, it was determined that there is Eumacroamphi humus form in the scotch pine stand, while it was determined that there are Leptoamphi, Eumesoamphi and Eumacroamphi humus types in black pine stands in different developmental stages, respectively.

Keywords

• Humus form
• forest soil
• stands development
• litter
• soil fauna

References

1. Abay, G., Ursavaş, S., 2009. Çankırı ili Araştırma Ormanı Karayosunu (Musci) Flora ve Ekolojisi. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi 11, 61-70.
2. Andreetta, A., Ciampalini, R., Moretti, P., Vingiani, S., Poggio, G., Matteucci, G., Tescari, F., Carnicelli, S., 2011. Forest humus forms as potential indicators of soil carbon storage in Mediterranean environments. Biology and Fertility of Soils. 47, 31-40.
3. Badía-Villas, D., Girona-García, A., 2018. Soil humus changes with elevation in Scots pine stands of the Moncayo Massif (NE Spain). Applied Soil Ecology. 123, 617-621.
4. Bayranvand, M., Kooch, Y., Hosseini, S.M., Alberti, G., 2017. Humus forms in relation to altitude and forest type in the Northern mountainous regions of Iran. Forest Ecology And Management. 385, 78-86.
5. Berg, B., McClaugherty, C., 2014. Plant litter, Decomposition, humus formation, carbon sequestration. Third Edition. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.
6. Bernier, N., 2018. Hotspots of biodiversity in the underground: A matter of humus form? Applied Soil Ecology. 123, 305-312.
7. Blake, G.R., Hartge, K.H. (Eds.), 1986. Bulk density and particle density. SSSA Book Series: 5, Madison.
8. 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.

9. Coleman, D.C., Crossley, D.A., Hendrix, P.F., 2004. Fundamentals of soil ecology. Academic Press, USA.
10. Çakır, M., 2019. The negative effect of wood ants (Formica rufa) on microarthropod density and soil biological quality in a semi-arid pine forest. Pedobiologia. 77, 150593.
11. Çakır, M., Günlü, A., Şenyurt, M., Ercanlı, İ., 2020. ÇAKÜ Orman Fakültesi Araştırma Ormanının Yetişme Ortamı Sınıflandırılması ve Haritalanması, ÇAKÜ BAP.
12. Çakır, M., Makineci, E., 2018. Community structure and seasonal variations of soil microarthropods during environmental changes. Applied Soil Ecology. 123, 313-317.
13. Çepel, N., 1995. Orman Ekolojisi. İstanbul Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi, İstanbul.
14. Darwin, C., 1881. The formation of vegetable mould, through the action of worms, with observations on their habits. J. Murray, London.
15. De Vos, B., Cools, N., Ilvesniemi, H., Vesterdal, L., Vanguelova, E., Carnicelli, S., 2015. Benchmark values for forest soil carbon stocks in Europe: Results from a large scale forest soil survey. Geoderma. 251, 33-46.
16. Ferré, C., Comolli, R., 2020. Effects of Quercus rubra L. on soil properties and humus forms in 50-year-old and 80-year-old forest stands of Lombardy plain. Annals of Forest Science. 77, 1-19.
17. Genç, M., 2012. Silvikültürün Temel Esasları. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Yayın No: 44, Isparta. Green, R., Trowbridge, R., Klinka, K., 1993. Towards a taxonomic classification of humus forms. Forest Science. 39, 1-49.
18. Hillel, D., 1991. Out of the Earth: Civilization and the Life of the Soil. Free Press, New York.
19. Irmak, A., 1946. Yetişme Muhiti ve Meşcere Tanıtımı Klavuzu T.C. Tarım Bakanlığı Orman Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları, İstanbul.
20. Irmak, A., 1970. Orman Ekolojisi. İstanbul Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Yayınları, İstanbul.
21. Irmak, A., 1977. Bazı batı karadeniz ormanlarında tabii gençleştirme imkânları bakımından humus durumu. İstanbul Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi. 27, 93-108.
22. Irmak, A., Çepel, N., 1974. Bazı karaçam, kayın ve meşe meşcerelerinde ölü örtünün ayrışma ve humuslaşma hızı üzerine araştırmalar. Taş matbaası, İstanbul.
23. Jabiol, B., Zanella, A., Ponge, J.-F., Sartori, G., Englisch, M., Van Delft, B., De Waal, R., Le Bayon, R.-C., 2013. A proposal for including humus forms in the World Reference Base for Soil Resources (WRB-FAO). Geoderma. 192, 286-294.
24. Karaöz, M.Ö., 1989. Toprakların bazı kimyasal özelliklerinin (pH, karbonat, tuzluluk, organik madde, total azot, yararlanılabilir fosfor) analiz yöntemleri. Journal of the Faculty of Forestry Istanbul University. 39, 64-82.
25. Klinka, K., Fons, J., Krestov, P., 1997. Towards a taxonomic classification of humus forms: third approximation. Scientia Silvica. 9, 1-4.
26. Klinka, K., Wang, Q., Carter, R., 1990. Relationships Among Humus Forms, Forest Floor Nutrient Properties, and Understory Vegetation. Forest Science. 36, 564-581.
27. Labaz, B., Galka, B., Bogacz, A., Waroszewski, J., Kabala, C., 2014. Factors influencing humus forms and forest litter properties in the mid-mountains under temperate climate of southwestern Poland. Geoderma. 230, 265-273.
28. Miltner, A., Zech, W., Çepel, N., Eler, Ü., 1996. Soil organic matter composition in three humus profiles of the western Taurus, Turkey, as revealed by wet chemistry and CP/MAS 13C NMR spectroscopy. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science. 159, 257-262.
29. Mori, K., Bernier, N., Kosaki, T., Ponge, J.F., 2009. Tree influence on soil biological activity: What can be inferred from the optical examination of humus profiles? European Journal of Soil Biology. 45, 290-300.
30. Müller, P.E., 1887. Studien über die natürlichen Humusformen und deren Einwirkung auf Vegetation und Boden. Springer, Berlin.
31. Müller, P.E., 1889. Recherches sur les formes naturelles de l'humus et leur influence sur la végétation et le sol. Berger-Levrault, Paris.
32. Odabaşı, T., Çalışkan, A., Bozkuş, F.H., 2004. Orman Bakımı. İstanbul Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Yayınları, İstanbul.
33. Pansu, M., Gautheyrou, J., 2006. Handbook of soil analysis: mineralogical, organic and inorganic methods. Springer.
34. Ponge, J.-F., Jabiol, B., Gégout, J.-C., 2011. Geology and climate conditions affect more humus forms than forest canopies at large scale in temperate forests. Geoderma. 162, 187-195.
35. Ponge, J.-F., Zanella, A., Sartori, G., Jabiol, B., 2010. Terrestrial humus forms: ecological relevance and classification.
36. Ponge, J.F., Chevalier, R., 2006. Humus Index as an indicator of forest stand and soil properties. Forest Ecology And Management. 233, 165-175.
37. Salmon, S., 2018. Changes in humus forms, soil invertebrate communities and soil functioning with forest dynamics. Applied Soil Ecology. 123, 345-354.
38. Trap, J., Bureau, F., Perez, G., Aubert, M., 2013. PLS-regressions highlight litter quality as the major predictor of humus form shift along forest maturation. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 57, 969-971.
39. Waksman, S.A., 1936. Humus origin, chemical composition, and importance in nature. In. The Williams & Wilkins Company, Baltimore.
40. Wilde, S., 1966. A new systematic terminology of forest humus layers. Soil Science. 101, 403-407.
41. Wilde, S., 1971. Forest humus: Its classification on a genetic basis. Soil Science. 111, 1-12.
42. Zanella, A., Jabiol, B., Ponge, J.-F., Sartori, G., De Waal, R., Van Delft, B., Graefe, U., Cools, N., Katzensteiner, K., Hager, H., 2011a. European humus forms reference base. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00541496/file/Humus_Forms_ERB_31_01_2011.pdf.
43. Zanella, A., Jabiol, B., Ponge, J.F., Sartori, G., De Waal, R., Van Delft, B., Graefe, U., Cools, N., Katzensteiner, K., Hager, H., 2011b. A European morpho-functional classification of humus forms. Geoderma. 164, 138-145.
44. Zanella, A., Jabiol, B., Ponge, J.F., Sartori, G., De Waal, R., Van Delft, B., Graefe, U., Cools, N., Katzentsteiner, K., Hager, H., 2009. Toward a European humus forms reference base. Studi Trentini di Scienze Naturali. 85, 145-151.
45. Zanella, A., Ponge, J.-F., Jabiol, B., Sartori, G., Kolb, E., Gobat, J.-M., Le Bayon, R.-C., Aubert, M., De Waal, R., Van Delft, B., 2018a. Humusica 1, article 4: terrestrial humus systems and forms—specific terms and diagnostic horizons. Applied Soil Ecology. 122, 56-74.
46. Zanella, A., Ponge, J.-F., Jabiol, B., Sartori, G., Kolb, E., Le Bayon, R.-C., Gobat, J.-M., Aubert, M., De Waal, R., Van Delft, B., 2018b. Humusica 1, article 5: Terrestrial humus systems and forms—Keys of classification of humus systems and forms. Applied Soil Ecology. 122, 75-86.