Effects of Lime and Wood Ash on Soil-solution Chemistry, Soil Chemistry and Nutritional Status of a Pine Stand in Northern Germany

Download Effects of Lime and Wood Ash on Soil-solution Chemistry, Soil Chemistry and Nutritional Status of a Pine Stand in Northern Germany

Post on 09-Feb-2017

212 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

TRANSCRIPT

<ul><li><p>This article was downloaded by: [UAA/APU Consortium Library]On: 16 October 2014, At: 14:08Publisher: Taylor &amp; FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK</p><p>Scandinavian Journal of Forest ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sfor20</p><p>Effects of Lime and Wood Ash on Soil-solutionChemistry, Soil Chemistry and NutritionalStatus of a Pine Stand in Northern GermanyBernard Ludwig a , Sabine Rumpf b , Michael Mindrup b , Karl-Josef Meiwes b</p><p>&amp; Partap K. Khanna ca Institute of Soil Science and Forest Nutrition , University of Gttingen ,Bsgenweg 2, Gttingen, D-37077, Germanyb Forest Research Institute of Lower Saxony , Grtzelstr. 2, Gttingen,D-37079, Germanyc CSIRO Forestry and Forest Products , P. O. Box E4008, Canberra, KingstonACT, Australia , 2604Published online: 05 Nov 2010.</p><p>To cite this article: Bernard Ludwig , Sabine Rumpf , Michael Mindrup , Karl-Josef Meiwes &amp; Partap K.Khanna (2002) Effects of Lime and Wood Ash on Soil-solution Chemistry, Soil Chemistry and NutritionalStatus of a Pine Stand in Northern Germany, Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 17:3, 225-237, DOI:10.1080/028275802753742891</p><p>To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/028275802753742891</p><p>PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE</p><p>Taylor &amp; Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor &amp; Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &amp;Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out ofthe use of the Content.</p><p>This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &amp; Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions</p><p>http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sfor20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/028275802753742891http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/028275802753742891http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions</p></li><li><p>Scand. J. For. Res. 17: 225237, 2002</p><p>Effects of Lime and Wood Ash on Soil-solution Chemistry, SoilChemistry and Nutritional Status of a Pine Stand in NorthernGermany</p><p>BERNARD LUDWIG1, SABINE RUMPF2, MICHAEL MINDRUP2, KARL-JOSEF MEIWES2</p><p>and PARTAP K. KHANNA31Institute of Soil Science and Forest Nutrition, University of Gottingen, Busgenweg 2, D-37077 Gottingen, Germany,2Forest Research Institute of Lower Saxony, Gratzelstr. 2, D-37079 Gottingen, Germany, and 3CSIRO Forestry and ForestProducts, P.O. Box E4008, Kingston ACT 2604, Canberra, Australia</p><p>Ludwig, B.1, Rumpf, S.2, Mindrup, M.2, Meiwes, K.-J.2 and Khanna, P. K.3 (1Institute of SoilScience and Forest Nutrition, University of Gottingen, Busgenweg 2, D-37077 Gottingen,Germany, 2Forest Research Institute of Lower Saxony, Gratzelstr. 2, D-37079 Gottingen,Germany, and 3CSIRO Forestry and Forest Products, P.O. Box E4008, Kingston ACT 2604,Canberra, Australia). Effects of lime and wood ash on soil-solution chemistry, soil chemistry andnutritional status of a pine stand in northern Germany. Received November 2, 2000. AcceptedNovember 6, 2001. Scand. J. For. Res. 17: 225237, 2002.</p><p>Lime and wood ash may be useful to improve acidic forest soils. A eld experiment wasconducted in a pine stand on a sandy podzol at Fuhrberg, Germany, which involved anapplication of dolomitic lime (3 t ha1) with three replications or wood ash (4.8 t ha1) withoutreplications on the forest oor. During the 2 yr study period, lime affected the soil solutioncomposition only slightly. Ash had a marked effect on solution chemistry of the mineral soilat 10 cm and the pH values dropped temporarily from 3.7 to 3.1. Nineteen months after thetreatments, exchangeable calcium in the organic layer and mineral soil increased by 222 (limeaddition) or 411 kg ha1 (ash addition) and exchangeable magnesium increased by 101 (limeaddition) or 39 kg ha1 (ash addition). After ash addition, no marked change in heavy metalcontent was found below 4 cm of the organic layer. In the ash treatment, the potassiumconcentration of the 1-yr-old pine needles increased from 5.6 to 5.9 g kg1. This study suggeststhat ash from untreated wood may be recommended for amelioration of forest soils. Key words:dolomite, exchangeable cations, heavy metals, nutrients, soil acidity.</p><p>Correspondence to: B. Ludwig, e-mail: bludwig@gwdg.de</p><p>INTRODUCTION</p><p>Addition of lime on acidic forest soils increases pHand base saturation, and improves biotic conditionsin soils (for overviews see Huttl &amp; Zottl 1993,Kreutzer 1995). For instance, Aldinger (1983) investi-gated 50 limed Norway spruce and silver r stands ofthe Black Forest, Germany, which received limestoneapplications (2.53 t ha1) 1020 yrs before thestudy. He found increased pH values and a change inthe humus forms. Before the liming the mor humusaccounted for 55% and the mull layers for 18% of thearea, whereas after liming the mor humus layers andmull layers accounted for 15 and 61%, respectively.A cheaper alternative to lime might be the use of</p><p>ash produced in wood-processing mills or frompower plants using wood chips. Presently, ash mustbe disposed at city disposal places, although somestudies have reported bene cial effects on soil condi-tions when wood ash was used as a liming material.For example, application of wood ash (equivalent to</p><p>6 t CaCO3 ha1) to an acidic forest spodosol under</p><p>beech and birch stands altered soil-exchange chem-istry favourably after 2 yrs without seriously affectingthe soil-solution chemistry. However, at additions\6 t ha1, soil exchange sites were unable to retainentirely the nutrient cations released from the ash(Kahl et al. 1996). Addition of granulated wood ash(at rates of 16 t ha1) to podzolic soils under pineand spruce stands in Sweden showed that changes incation exchange capacity (CEC), pH and base satura-tion in the upper part of the humus layer werepositively related to the amount of ash added(Eriksson 1998a). Lundkvist (1998) found for twospruce stands in Sweden that the earthworm popula-tion increased after the application of wood ash.Application of lime to forest soils may have ecolog-</p><p>ical and environmental risks associated with an in-crease in decomposition of soil organic matter,nitrate leaching, displacement of heavy metal ionsand a stimulation of root development in the surfacesoil layers, increasing the susceptibility to frost,</p><p> 2002 Taylor &amp; Francis. ISSN 0282-7581</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>UA</p><p>A/A</p><p>PU C</p><p>onso</p><p>rtiu</p><p>m L</p><p>ibra</p><p>ry] </p><p>at 1</p><p>4:08</p><p> 16 </p><p>Oct</p><p>ober</p><p> 201</p><p>4 </p></li><li><p>B. Ludwig et al.226 Scand. J. For. Res. 17 (2002)</p><p>drought and windthrow (Huttl &amp; Zottl 1993,Kreutzer 1995, Meiwes 1995). Use of ash as a limingmaterial can potentially have some additional nega-tive effects on the soil chemistry and nutritionalstatus of forests, especially related to the accumula-tion or mobilization of heavy metals or other traceelements (Adriano et al. 1980, Carlson &amp; Adriano1993, Wolfer 1996). Eriksson (1998b) investigated thedissolution of hardened wood ashes in a columnexperiment and found that the heavy metals werereleased relatively slowly and most of them werebound in non-exchangeable form in the mor layer.He suggested that the greatest risk of increased con-centrations of heavy metals appears to involve atemporary mobilization of part of the mor layersreserve of heavy metals as a result of the salt effect ofthe ashes.A generalization about effects of ash additions is</p><p>dif cult, because the chemical composition of differ-ent ashes can vary considerably, depending on theorigin of the material, combustion conditions, ef -ciency of particulate removal, pretreatment (harden-ing and granulation), degree of weathering before nal disposal and the various fractions of ash (Adri-ano et al. 1980, Etiegni &amp; Campbell 1991, Carlson &amp;Adriano 1993). For example, y ash is substantiallymore enriched in trace elements than is bottom ash(Adriano et al. 1980). Wood ashes may contain con-siderably smaller quantities of trace elements than docoal y ashes (Someshwar 1996). Dinkelberg (1999)reported that wood ash contained less chromium(Cr), mercury (Hg) and nickel (Ni), but more cad-mium (Cd), lead (Pb), copper (Cu) and zinc (Zn) thanlignite ash.The objective of the present study was to assess the</p><p>effects of lime and wood ash on soil-solution chem-istry, soil chemistry and nutritional status of a pinestand in northern Germany.</p><p>MATERIALS AND METHODS</p><p>Site and soil</p><p>The study was carried out at Fuhrberg (LuneburgerHeide) in northern Germany. The site has an eleva-tion of 38 m a.s.l. and receives 650 mm mean annualprecipitation, and the mean annual temperature is8.4C (Otto 1989). The site carries a 50-yr-old pinestand (Pinus sylvestris) (diameter at breast height:21.9 cm; height of trees: 17.8 m). The groundwatertable at the site is 220350 cm below the surface. The</p><p>soil is a podzol (FAO) which has developed in Pleis-tocene valley sands. The texture ranges from nesand to medium sand. The organic layer is 10 cmthick with horizons Oi (108 cm), Oe (84 cm) andOa (40 cm). The mineral soil horizons are Ae (020cm) and Bs (2066 cm). pHCaCl2 (0.01 M) values inthe organic layer range from 3.6 (108 cm above themineral soil) to 2.7 (20 cm) and from 2.7 to 2.9 inthe Ae horizon (mineral soil) (Table 1). Aluminium(Al3) is the dominant exchangeable cation in themineral soil, with values ranging from 65.7 kg ha1</p><p>(05 cm) to 164.9 kg ha1 (1020 cm, Table 1). Thebulk deposition for the period 19961997 was (in kgha1 yr1): calcium (Ca) 3.2, magnesium (Mg) 0.9,potassium (K) 1.7, sodium (Na) 8.1, hydrogen (H)0.3, ammonia (NH4-N) 8.1, nitrate (NO3-N) 6.3,chlorine (Cl) 13.7 and sulfate (SO4-S) 8.7 (Rumpf &amp;Buttner 1998).</p><p>Experimental design</p><p>For the eld experiment, three blocks were estab-lished. In each block, there was a control plot (nolime or ash added) and a plot with 3 t dolomitic lime[dry weight (DW) ha1 added. In one block, an extraplot with addition of 4.8 t ash (DW) ha1 wasestablished. Each of the seven plots had an area of0.48 ha. Lime or ash was added to the surface of theforest oor by hand to ensure an even distributionduring 2830 April 1996. The amount of elementsadded in the experiment with lime was Ca (619 kgha1), Mg (365 kg ha1) and K (2 kg ha1) andwith wood ash was Ca (1131 kg ha1), Mg (61 kgha1) and K (105 kg ha1).Dolomitic lime was obtained from Scharzfeld</p><p>(Lower Saxony, Germany). Its carbonate content was63% and elemental composition (in g kg1 DW) wasCa (206), Mg (122), K (1) and Na (1). The content ofheavy metals in the lime (in mg kg1 DW) was lowand decreased in the order Zn (16)\Cr (3)\Cu(2)Pb (2)\Ni (1). Particle size classes were B2mm (6%), 26 mm (6%), 620 mm (17%), 2060 mm(4%), 60200 mm (14%), 0.20.6 mm (23%) and0.62 mm (29%).Wood ash consisted of bottom ash plus cyclone y</p><p>ash from a furnace used by a veneer company. Forthe furnace untreated wood was used. Ash had aninitial carbonate content of 7.9%. To decrease itsalkalinity and to stabilize it, ash was left outdoors inan open container for 50 days. Then, it was homoge-nized and sieved through a 10 mm sieve. It had awater content of 30% and a carbonate content of 39%</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>UA</p><p>A/A</p><p>PU C</p><p>onso</p><p>rtiu</p><p>m L</p><p>ibra</p><p>ry] </p><p>at 1</p><p>4:08</p><p> 16 </p><p>Oct</p><p>ober</p><p> 201</p><p>4 </p></li><li><p>Effects of lime and wood ash on soil chemistryScand. J. For. Res. 17 (2002) 227</p><p>Table</p><p>1.pH</p><p>CaCl 2,C,N</p><p>andexchangeable</p><p>cationsin</p><p>theorganiclayerandmineral</p><p>soilof</p><p>thethreecontrolplotstaken19</p><p>monthsafterthebeginningof</p><p>theexperiment</p><p>CEC</p><p>Depth</p><p>CN</p><p>Ca</p><p>Mg</p><p>KNa</p><p>Al</p><p>Fe</p><p>Mn</p><p>HpH</p><p>CaCl 2</p><p>(cm)</p><p>Horizon</p><p>(tha1)</p><p>(kgha1)</p><p>(kmolcha1)</p><p>Oi</p><p>108</p><p>3.6</p><p>7.8</p><p>218</p><p>35.8</p><p>6.4</p><p>24.2</p><p>2.9</p><p>0.1</p><p>0.1</p><p>3.0</p><p>0.3</p><p>3.5</p><p>3.43.9</p><p>(1.7)</p><p>(42)</p><p>(3.7)</p><p>(0.4)</p><p>(2.8)</p><p>(0.2)</p><p>(0.0)</p><p>(0.0)</p><p>(0.2)</p><p>(0.2)</p><p>(0.3)</p><p>Oe</p><p>86</p><p>3.2</p><p>11.4</p><p>344</p><p>48.3</p><p>5.6</p><p>12.7</p><p>4.0</p><p>0.7</p><p>0.1</p><p>1.8</p><p>2.2</p><p>5.7</p><p>3.03.5</p><p>(2.4)</p><p>(72)</p><p>(2.1)</p><p>(0.6)</p><p>(0.9)</p><p>(0.5)</p><p>(0.4)</p><p>(0.1)</p><p>(0.6)</p><p>(0.9)</p><p>(1.1)</p><p>64</p><p>2.9</p><p>13.5</p><p>405</p><p>48.6</p><p>5.2</p><p>11.1</p><p>4.8</p><p>3.8</p><p>0.2</p><p>1.1</p><p>3.8</p><p>7.6</p><p>2.73.1</p><p>(2.5)</p><p>(106)</p><p>(2.1)</p><p>(0.1)</p><p>(2.1)</p><p>(1.0)</p><p>(2.7)</p><p>(0.1)</p><p>(0.6)</p><p>(1.5)</p><p>(1.9)</p><p>Oa</p><p>42</p><p>2.8</p><p>16.5</p><p>485</p><p>49.0</p><p>4.4</p><p>9.0</p><p>6.1</p><p>8.4</p><p>0.2</p><p>0.4</p><p>5.5</p><p>9.8</p><p>2.72.9</p><p>(1.9)</p><p>(49)</p><p>(0.4)</p><p>(0.6)</p><p>(2.5)</p><p>(1.3)</p><p>(5.2)</p><p>(0.1)</p><p>(0.2)</p><p>(1.4)</p><p>(2.0)</p><p>20</p><p>2.7</p><p>16.5</p><p>487</p><p>47.5</p><p>4.2</p><p>7.3</p><p>6.9</p><p>12.4</p><p>0.1</p><p>0.2</p><p>6.5</p><p>11.1</p><p>2.72.8</p><p>(1.6)</p><p>(24)</p><p>(4.3)</p><p>(0.4)</p><p>(2.2)</p><p>(1.2)</p><p>(4.9)</p><p>(0.1)</p><p>(0.0)</p><p>(1.0)</p><p>(1.8)</p><p>Ae</p><p>05</p><p>2.7</p><p>23.7</p><p>671</p><p>42.8</p><p>4.0</p><p>6.9</p><p>9.7</p><p>65.7</p><p>14.4</p><p>0.0</p><p>15.8</p><p>26.5</p><p>2.62.9</p><p>(6.4)</p><p>(160)</p><p>(9.8)</p><p>(0.6)</p><p>(0.8)</p><p>(5.6)</p><p>(13.5)</p><p>(1.6)</p><p>(0.0)</p><p>(3.5)</p><p>(5.3)</p><p>510</p><p>2.8</p><p>21.8</p><p>600</p><p>31.2</p><p>3.0</p><p>5.1</p><p>9.9</p><p>81.1</p><p>12.4</p><p>0.1</p><p>15.3</p><p>27.0</p><p>2.72.9</p><p>(5.1)</p><p>(111)</p><p>(7.4)</p><p>(0.3)</p><p>(0.5)</p><p>(0.9)</p><p>(14.9)</p><p>(0.7)</p><p>(0.1)</p><p>(3.4)</p><p>(4.4)</p><p>1020</p><p>2.9</p><p>22.8</p><p>662</p><p>26.1</p><p>3.6</p><p>7.5</p><p>17.6</p><p>164.9</p><p>19.3</p><p>0.0</p><p>17.8</p><p>39.3</p><p>2.73.2</p><p>(8.0)</p><p>(163)</p><p>(4.6)</p><p>(0.4)</p><p>(1.8)</p><p>(1.8)</p><p>(83.3)</p><p>(9.7)</p><p>(0.0)</p><p>(5.8)</p><p>(14.2)</p><p>Dataaremeans</p><p>(SE)(n</p><p>3).For</p><p>pHCaCl 2,theminim</p><p>aandmaxim</p><p>aaregiveninsteadof</p><p>theSE</p><p>.</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>UA</p><p>A/A</p><p>PU C</p><p>onso</p><p>rtiu</p><p>m L</p><p>ibra</p><p>ry] </p><p>at 1</p><p>4:08</p><p> 16 </p><p>Oct</p><p>ober</p><p> 201</p><p>4 </p></li><li><p>B. Ludwig et al.228 Scand. J. For. Res. 17 (2002)</p><p>(DW). The elemental composition of the ash (in gkg1 DW) was Ca (236), K (22), Mg (13), S (7), P (5)and Na (3). The content of heavy metals in the ash(in mg kg1 DW) was Zn (346), Cu (115), Cr (66),Pb (42), Ni (35), Co (8) and Cd (3). Particle sizes ofthe ash were B0.1 mm (24%), 0.10.2 mm (16%),0.20.63 mm (32%), 0.631 mm (8%), 12 mm(14%) and 210 mm (6%).</p><p>Soil and needle-chemistry studies</p><p>Soil samples (n6 for the plot with addition of 4.8 tash ha1 and n3 for the other plots) were obtainedat random from each plot before lime or ash additionand 19 months later. The organic layer was separatedfor 2 cm depth intervals and the mineral soil for02.5, 2.55, 510 and 1020 cm depths. Results for05 cm depths are given as weighted means for thesurface soil layers. Needle samples (1- and 2-yr-oldneedles) were collected in December 1995 and thenagain in December 1997 (two growing seasons aftertreatments). For each plot, six trees were sampled inthe upper third of their crown following BML (1994).Half of the trees were chosen on a northsouthtransect, the other half on an eastwest transect. Thesame trees were used for both sampling dates. Thetrees sampled were not within a speci c site class. Thebranches sampled were taken from all four directions.All 1- and 2-yr-old needles were sampled from allshoot parts of the sample branches. Each sampleconsisted of 100 needles. Dried (at...</p></li></ul>

Recommended

View more >