Beech Forest Density Control on the Dominant Water Flow Types in Andic Soils

Abstract

Silvicultural opera ons increasingly aim to achieve desired water-related ecological services of forests and forest soils. Therefore, the eff ects of forest stand density, site, and soil depth on the water fl ow types were studied by conduc ng dye tracer experiments in two montane beech (Fagus sylva ca L.) forests located in the Western Carpathian Volcanic Range, Central Slovakia. Prevalent fl ow types were iden fi ed under usual weather condions. Brilliant Blue FCF dye tracer was periodically applied in powder form on 1-m 2 plots in forest stands with natural and reduced stand densi es, as well as in clear-cuts. When cumula ve precipita on reached approximately 100 mm, soil pits were excavated. The dye pa erns on the exposed profi les were photographed, and dye coverage, rela ve dye concentra on, and stain widths were determined at various soil depths using image analysis. These pa erns were used to discriminate two fl ow types. Con nuous ver cal dye plumes were interpreted as an indicator of surface-controlled fl ow type, which includes heterogeneous infi ltra on and macropore fl ow. The matrix-controlled fl ow type includes both homogeneous and heterogeneous matrix fl ow, as well as fi ngering. The log-linear analysis revealed that forest stand density and soil depth were signifi cantly related to the soil water fl ow type. Preferen al fl ow resulted from heterogeneous infi ltra on and fi ngering in the clear-cuts, from heterogeneous infi ltra on in the natural stands, and from macropore fl ow in the shelterwood stands. Dis nct humus forms and skeleton frac on played a crucial role for various fl ow pa erns observed in these beech stands.Abbrevia ons: LLA, log-linear analysis; MCF, matrix-controlled fl ow; SCF, surface-controlled fl ow. While matrix fl ow enhances various interactions between water and solutes withfi ne earth, preferential fl ow substantially reduces the contact time and area between the liquid and solid phases. Th us, both fl ow types have the potential to either promote or compromise various ecosystem services provided by forests, such as buff ering the alkaline dust imission load in soils (Pichler et al., 2006), waste water purifi cation (Kermen and

Preferential Flow in a Pedological Perspective

“…6). Flury et al, 1994;Vanderborght et al, 2001;Capuliak et al, 2010). In this respect, the modified scheme implicitly assumes that the effects of finger flow can be equated with weak macropore flow (see Weiler and Flühler, 2004) in terms of accelerating flow and transport velocities.…”

The effects of rock fragment shapes and positions on modeled hydraulic conductivities of stony soils

“…Consequently, such soils can have different hydraulic conductivities in horizontal and vertical directions, producing macroscopic anisotropy. This anisotropic behavior can, for example, accelerate hypodermic flow at the hillslope scale and speed up the formation of subsurface flow (Capuliak et al, 2010).…”

Spatial Variability of Preferential Flow and Infiltration Redistribution along a Rocky-Mountain Hillslope, Northern China

“…The non-equilibrium flow phenomenon, which penetrates through and bypasses most of the soil matrix and pores along some specific paths, widely exists in heterogeneous, anisotropic permeable media, especially in mountain areas with a complex geological structures [3,4]. In comparison to matrix connective flow, preferential flow is mainly driven by gravity and greatly decreases the contact time and area between the seepage liquid and solid media [5]. It is vital to have an effective buffer for the peak and duration of surface runoff [6,7] for the immediate replenishment of groundwater and required chemical composition [8,9], and to reduce the risks of soil erosion and landslides [10].…”

“…Alaoui [19] found that large pores could transport approximately 74-100% of soil water with 0.23-2% of the total soil volume, and that different combinations of preferential types led to different water transfer rates. Studies on the influencing factors of preferential flow have mainly focused on vegetation type and plant roots [5,6,[20][21][22], soil structure [23,24], soil physical properties, and insect activities [25,26].Rock fragments in stony soil also increase the complexity of soil hydrological processes [27]. In the past 20 years, scholars have studied how rock fragments in soil influence soil moisture and solute transport from the aspects of gravel type, particle size, shape, content, and their distribution in the soil matrix [28][29][30][31].…”

“…Alaoui [19] found that large pores could transport approximately 74-100% of soil water with 0.23-2% of the total soil volume, and that different combinations of preferential types led to different water transfer rates. Studies on the influencing factors of preferential flow have mainly focused on vegetation type and plant roots [5,6,[20][21][22], soil structure [23,24], soil physical properties, and insect activities [25,26].…”