DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Assessing Organic Matter and Organic Carbon Contents in Soils of Created Mitigation Wetlands in Virginia

Ahn, Changwoo;Jones, Stacy

  • Received : 2012.12.01
  • Accepted : 2013.07.11
  • Published : 2013.09.30

Abstract

Several soil properties were studied from three young created mitigation wetlands (<10 years old), which were hydrologically comparable in the Piedmont region of Virginia. The properties included soil organic matter (SOM), soil organic carbon (SOC), pH, gravimetric soil moisture, and bulk density ($D_b$). No significant differences were found in the soil properties between the wetlands, except SOM and SOC. SOM and SOC indicated a slight increase with wetland age; the increase was more evident with SOC. Only about a half of SOC variability found in the wetlands was explained by SOM ($R^2$ = 0.499, p < 0.05). The majority of the ratios of SOM to SOC for these silt-loam soils ranged from 2.0 to 3.5, which was higher than the 1.724 Van Bemmelen factor, commonly applied for the conversion of SOM into SOC in estimating the carbon storage or accumulation capacity of wetlands. The results may caution the use of the conversion factor, which may lead to an overestimation of carbon sequestration potentials of newly created wetlands. SOC, but not SOM, was also correlated to $D_b$, which indicates soil compaction typical of most created wetlands that might limit vegetation growth and biomass production, eventually affecting carbon accumulation in the created wetlands.

Keywords

Bulk density;Created mitigation wetland;Soil organic matter;Soil organic carbon;Van Bemmelen factor;Wetland soils

References

  1. Shaffer PW, Ernst TL. Distribution of soil organic matter in freshwater emergent/open water wetlands in the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area. Wetlands 1999;19:505-516. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03161689
  2. Stolt MH, Genthner MH, Daniels WL, Groover VA, Nagle S, Haering KC. Comparison of soil and other environmental conditions in constructed and adjacent palustrine reference wetlands. Wetlands 2000;20:671-683. https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2000)020[0671:COSAOE]2.0.CO;2
  3. Ahn C, Peralta RM. Soil properties are useful to examine denitrification function development in created mitigation wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 2012;49:130-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.08.039
  4. National Research Council. Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act. Washington: National Academy Press; 2001.
  5. Bishel-Machung L, Brooks RP, Yates SS, Hoover KL. Soil properties of reference wetlands and wetland creation projects in Pennsylvania. Wetlands 1996;16:532-541. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03161343
  6. Cole CA, Brooks RP, Wardrop DH. Assessing the relationship between biomass and soil organic matter in created wetlands of central Pennsylvania, USA. Ecol. Eng. 2001;17:423-428. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-8574(00)00171-3
  7. Campbell DA, Cole CA, Brooks RP. A comparison of created and natural wetlands in Pennsylvania, USA. Wetland Ecol. Manag. 2002;10:41-49. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014335618914
  8. Anderson CJ, Mitsch WJ, Nairn RW. Temporal and spatial development of surface soil conditions at two created riverine marshes. J. Environ. Qual. 2005;34:2072-2081. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2005.0168
  9. Anderson CJ, Mitsch WJ. Sediment, carbon, and nutrient accumulation at two 10-year-old created riverine marshes. Wetlands 2006;26:779-792. https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2006)26[779:SCANAA]2.0.CO;2
  10. Ballantine K, Schneider R. Fifty-five years of soil development in restored freshwater depressional wetlands. Ecol. Appl. 2009;19:1467-1480. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-0588.1
  11. Bruland GL, Richardson CJ. Comparison of soil organic matter in created, restored and paired natural wetlands in North Carolina. Wetlands Ecol. Manag. 2006;14:245-251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-005-1116-z
  12. Odum EP. The strategy of ecosystem development. Science 1969;164:262-270. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.164.3877.262
  13. Bruland G, Richardson CJ. Spatial variability of soil properties in created, restored, and paired natural wetlands. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2005;69:273-284.
  14. Wolf KL, Ahn C, Noe GB. Development of soil properties and nitrogen cycling in created wetlands. Wetlands 2011;31:699-712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-011-0185-4
  15. Nelson DW, Sommers LE. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In: Sparks DL, ed. Methods of soil analysis. Part 3: Chemical methods. Madison: Soil Science Society of America; 1996. p. 961-1010.
  16. Collins ME, Kuehl RJ. Organic matter accumulation and organic soils. In: Richardson JL, Vepraskas MJ, eds. Wetland soils: genesis, hydrology, landscapes, and classification. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers; 2001. p. 137-161.
  17. Besasie NJ, Buckley ME. Carbon sequestration potential at central Wisconsin wetland reserve program sites. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2012;76:1904-1910. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2011.0309
  18. Hook DD, McKee WH Jr, Williams TM, Jones S, Van Blaricom D, Parsons J. Hydrologic and wetland characteristics of a Piedmont bottom in South-Carolina. Water Air Soil Pollut. 1994;77:293-320. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00478424
  19. Gardner WH. Water content. In: Klute A, ed. Methods of soil analysis. Part 1: Physical and mineralogical methods. 2nd ed. Madison: Soil Science Society of America; 1986. p. 493-544.
  20. Thomas GW. Soil pH and soil acidity. In. Sparks DL, ed. Methods of soil analysis. Part 3: Chemical methods. Madison: Soil Science Society of America; 1996. p. 475-490.
  21. Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG. Wetlands. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2000.
  22. Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. Federal manual for identifying and delineating jurisdictional wetlands. Washington: US Army Corps of Engineers; 1989.
  23. Nair VD, Graetz DA, Reddy RK, Olila OG. Soil development in phosphate-mined created wetlands of Florida, USA. Wetlands 2001;21:232-239. https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2001)021[0232:SDIPMC]2.0.CO;2
  24. Fajardo GI. Physical and chemical soil properties of ten Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) mitigation wetlands [master's thesis]. Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Master Thesis, 2006.
  25. Moser K, Ahn C, Noe G. Characterization of microtopography and its influence on vegetation patterns in created wetlands. Wetlands 2007;27:1081-1097. https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2007)27[1081:COMAII]2.0.CO;2
  26. Logsdon SD, Karlen DL. Bulk density as a soil quality indicator during conversion to no-tillage. Soil Tillage Res. 2004;78:143-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2004.02.003
  27. Petru BJ, Ahn C, Cheschier G. Alteration of soil hydraulic properties during the construction of mitigation wetlands in the Virginia Piedmont. Ecol. Eng. 2013;51:140-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.12.073
  28. Farrell JD, Ware S. Edaphic factors and forest vegetation in the Piedmont of Virginia. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 1991;118:161-169. https://doi.org/10.2307/2996857
  29. Sherwood WC, Hartshorn AS, Eaton LS. Soils, geomorphology, landscape evolution, and land use in the Virginia Piedmont and Blue Ridge. GSA Field Guide 2010;16:31-50.
  30. Reddy KR, DeLaune RD. Biogeochemistry of wetlands: science and applications. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2008.
  31. Sollins P, Glassman C, Paul EA, et al. Soil carbon and nitrogen: pools and fractions. In: Robertson GP, et al, eds. Standard soil methods for long-term ecological research. New York: Oxford University Press; 1999. p. 89-105.
  32. Beauchamp EG, Trevors JT, Paul JW. Carbon sources for bacterial denitrification. Adv. Soil Sci. 1989;10:113-142. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-8847-0_3
  33. Giese LA, Aust WM, Trettin CC, Kolka RK. Spatial and temporal patterns of carbon storage and species richness in three South Carolina coastal plain riparian forests. Ecol. Eng. 2000;15:S157-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-8574(99)00081-6
  34. D'Angelo EM, Karathanasis AD, Sparks EJ, Ritchey SA, Wehr- McChesney SA. Soil carbon and microbial communities at mitigated and late successional bottomland forest wetlands. Wetlands 2005;25:162-175. https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2005)025[0162:SCAMCA]2.0.CO;2
  35. Euliss NH Jr., Gleason RA, Olness A, et al. North American prairie wetlands are important nonforested land-based carbon storage sites. Sci. Total Environ. 2006;361:179-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.06.007
  36. Kayranli B, Scholz M, Mustafa A, Hedmark A. Carbon storage and fluxes within freshwater wetlands: a critical review. Wetlands 2010;30:111-124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-009-0003-4
  37. Lal R. Carbon sequestration. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2008;363:815-830. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2185
  38. Hossler K, Bouchard V. Soil development and establishment of carbon-based properties in created freshwater marshes. Ecol. Appl. 2010;20:539-553. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-1330.1
  39. Spieles DJ. Vegetation development in created, restored, and enhanced mitigation wetland banks of the United States. Wetlands 2005;25:51-63. https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2005)025[0051:VDICRA]2.0.CO;2

Cited by

  1. Environmental Engineering Research in September 2013 pp.2005-968X, 2013, https://doi.org/10.4491/eer.2013.18.3.115
  2. Increased Power in Sediment Microbial Fuel Cell: Facilitated Mass Transfer via a Water-Layer Anode Embedded in Sediment vol.10, pp.12, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145430
  3. Determining the Spatial Variability of Wetland Soil Bulk Density, Organic Matter, and the Conversion Factor between Organic Matter and Organic Carbon across Coastal Louisiana, U.S.A. vol.333, pp.1551-5036, 2017, https://doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-16-00014.1
  4. Detecting soil and plant community changes in restored wetlands using a chronosequence approach pp.1572-9834, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-017-9574-7
  5. Carbon storage dynamics of temperate freshwater wetlands in Pennsylvania vol.26, pp.5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-018-9619-6