Physical parameters of Fluvisols on flooded and non-flooded terraces

Abstract

The heterogeneity of soil physical properties of Fluvisols, lack of large pristine areas, and different moisture regimes on non-flooded and flooded terraces impede the possibility to find a soil profile which can serve as a baseline for estimating the impact of natural or anthropogenic factors on soil evolution. The aim of this study is to compare the pore size distribution of pristine Fluvisols on flooded and non-flooded terraces using the method of the soil water retention curve, mercury intrusion porosimetry, nitrogen adsorption isotherms, and water vapour sorption. The pore size distribution of humic horizons of pristine Fluvisols on the non-flooded terrace differs from pore size distribution of Fluvisols on the flooded terrace. The peaks of textural and structural pores are higher in the humic horizons under more humid conditions. The structural characteristics of subsoil horizons depend on soil texture and evolution stage. The peaks of textural pores at about 1 mm diminish with lowering of the soil organic content. Structureless horizons are characterized by uni-modal pore size distribution. Although the content of structural pores of the subsoil horizons of Fluvisols on the non-flooded terrace is low, these pores are represented by biopores, as the coefficient of filtration is moderately high. The difference between non-flooded and flooded profiles is well expressed by the available water storage, volume and mean radius of pores, obtained by mercury intrusion porosimetry and water desorption, which are higher in the surface horizons of frequently flooded Fluvisols.

The effects of temporary occupation of agricultural land by gravel deposits and construction on selected soil properties

“…Notable is a large difference between the soil density of the uppermost 30 cm and the depth from 40 cm, where soil bulk density was from 1.41 to 1.54 g cm −3 ) (Figure 3). Soil bulk density of the upper 30 cm exceeds values, commonly found in the soils of alluvial plains (Kercheva et al, 2017). These results confirm the findings from the field, namely that the uppermost soil layer is highly compacted, hindering the flow of water to depth.…”

“…by higher hydraulic conductivities ranging from 2 to 180 m day -1 in the subsoil) compared to upper laying parts of the watershed (Miller et al, 2016;Šípek et al, 2019). Soils are usually enriched with nutrients and characterized by high vertical and horizontal heterogeneity, which is explained with the varying characteristics of alluvial sediments, regime of deposition, age of formation (distance to the river), and land use (Kercheva et al, 2017). In some cases, Fluvisols may be subjected to contamination of deposits (Antić et al, 2006;Schwartz et al, 2006;Mabit et al, 2012).…”

Morphology and Physicochemical Properties of Alluvial Soils in Riparian Forests after River Regulation

“…Although many authors reported the transformation of drained alluvial soils towards the development of mollic or cambic horizons, which excluded these soils from Fluvisols group according to the statements of WRB classification, Fluvisols are still reported from regulated and drained valleys [10][11][12]32,54,55]. This may indicate that many authors still apply the term "Fluvisols" as a synonym of alluvial soils on the Holocene river terraces, irrespective of the actual stage of their pedogenic transformation.…”

“…One of the most important factors in the variability of valley and/or floodplain ecosystems are soils composed of spatially and vertically differentiated alluvial sediments [6][7][8]. Sedimentation conditions can significantly change over time; therefore, stratification is a basic feature of valley/floodplain soils, affecting their physicochemical and water properties, as well as the productivity of alluvial soils [9][10][11][12]. Moreover, the sequences of sediment layers and soil horizons in the soil profiles on floodplain terraces demonstrate the successions of stable periods with distinct pedogenesis and unstable (i.e., geomorphologically active) periods, in which fresh alluvial layers were accumulated [6,13].…”

The Relationship between the Physicochemical Properties and Permeability of the Fluvisols and Eutric Cambisols in the Zagreb Aquifer, Croatia

“…Unsaturated hydraulic conductivities can also vary widely-from about 50 cm/day up to less than 1 × 10 -32 cm/day, depending on the level of saturation. Kercheva et al [56] reported similar hydraulic soil properties in the Fluvisols. In Profile 1 (Figure 3, Table 5), it can be seen that the impermeable boundary is reached when the water content is 0.16 and 0.18, and the effective saturation is between 29% and 41%.…”