DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Compare Physicochemical Properties of Topsoil from Forest Ecosystems Damage patterns

산림생태계 훼손 유형별 표토의 이화학적 특성 비교

  • Kim, Won-Tae (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Cheonam Yonam College)
  • Received : 2015.11.16
  • Accepted : 2015.11.26
  • Published : 2015.12.31

Abstract

This study was carried out to evaluate the physicochemical properties of different types of topsoil in forest ecosystems by damage pattern and analyse the possibility of using the topsoil as a planting ground construction material. There were 72 samples from 36 sites of 12 damaged areas and 36 sites of 12 non-damaged areas. The results showed that the physicochemical properties of topsoil from non-damaged areas of forest ecosystems were on an average clay loam~sandy loam in soil texture, showing $0.95{\sim}1.10Mg/m^3$ in soil bulk density, $35.7{\sim}44.0m^3/m^3$ in solid phase, 56.0~64.3 in soil porosity, 8.4~35.8% in aggregate stability, 5~13 mm in soil hardness, 5.3~6.1 in pH, 0.14~0.65 dS/m in EC, 0.28~0.42% in T-N, $14{\sim}22cmol^+/kg$ in CEC, $0.15{\sim}0.31cmol^+/kg$ in Ex. $K^+$, $2.07{\sim}2.84cmol^+/kg$ in Ex. $Ca^{2+}$, $0.45{\sim}1.97cmol^+/kg$ in Ex. $Mg^{2+}$, 17~96 mg/kg in Av. $P_2O_5$ and 3.2~5.6% in OM. On the other hand, damaged areas were on an average clay loam~loamy sand in soil texture, showing $1.54{\sim}1.75Mg/m^3$ in soil bulk density, $52.8{\sim}58.0m^3/m^3$ in solid phase, 42.0~47.2 in soil porosity, 4.2~22.5% in aggregate stability, 13~25 mm in soil hardness, 4.8~5.5 in pH, 0.13~0.62 dS/m in EC, 0.02~0.12% in T-N, $5{\sim}15cmol^+/kg$ in CEC, $0.11{\sim}0.18cmol^+/kg$ in Ex. $K^+$, $0.45{\sim}2.36cmol^+/kg$ in Ex. $Ca^{2+}$, $0.39{\sim}0.96cmol^+/kg$ in Ex. $Mg^{2+}$, 15~257 mg/kg in Av. $P_2O_5$ and 0.4~2.2% in OM. After conducting a comparison of physicochemical characteristics of non-damaged forest area and damaged areas, it was found that the physicochemical characteristics of damaged areas were more deteriorated compared to that of non-damaged areas. Therefore, it is judged that it is necessary to establish countermeasures for the conservation and management of the damaged areas for topsoil recycling in the future.

본 연구에서는 산림생태계 훼손 유형별 표토의 이화학적 특성 비교와 식재기반 조성 재료로서의 활용 여부를 평가하였다. 표토는 산림생태계 훼손 유형별 훼손지역 12개 지역, 36개 지점과 각 훼손지 주변에 위치한 자연지역 12개 지역, 36개 지점, 총 72개 지점에서 채취하여 분석하였다. 분석 결과, 자연지역의 토성은 식양토~사양토, 용적밀도는 $0.95{\sim}1.10Mg/m^3$, 고상률은 $35.7{\sim}44.0m^3/m^3$, 공극률은 $56.0{\sim}64.3m^3/m^3$, 내수성입단율은 8.4~35.8%, 토양경도는 5~13 mm, 토양산도는 5.3~6.1, 전기전도도는 0.14~0.65 dS/m, 전질소량은 0.28~0.42%, 양이온치환용량은 $14{\sim}22cmol^+/kg$, 치환성칼륨함량은 $0.15{\sim}0.31cmol^+/kg$, 치환성칼슘함량은 $2.07{\sim}2.84cmol^+/kg$, 치환성마그네슘함량은 $0.45{\sim}1.97cmol^+/kg$, 유효인산함량은 17~96 mg/kg, 유기물함량은 3.2~5.6%의 범위를 나타냈으며, 훼손지역의 토성은 식양토~양질사토, 용적밀도는 $1.54{\sim}1.75Mg/m^3$, 고상률은 $52.8{\sim}58.0m^3/m^3$, 공극률은 $42.0{\sim}47.2m^3/m^3$, 내수성입단율은 4.2~22.5%, 토양경도는 13~25 mm, 토양산도는 4.8~5.5, 전기전도도는 0.13~0.62 dS/m, 전질소량은 0.02~0.12%, 양이온치환용량은 $5{\sim}15cmol^+/kg$, 치환성칼륨함량은 $0.11{\sim}0.18cmol^+/kg$, 치환성칼슘함량은 $0.45{\sim}2.36cmol^+/kg$, 치환성마그네슘함량은 $0.39{\sim}0.96cmol^+/kg$, 유효인산함량은 15~257 mg/kg, 유기물함량은 0.4~2.2%의 범위를 나타냈다. 자연지역과 훼손지역 표토의 이화학적 특성 비교를 통해 훼손지역 표토가 자연지역 표토에 비해 이화학적 특성이 악화되었음을 확인할 수 있었다. 이에 향후 표토 재활용을 위한 보전 및 관리 대책이 필요한 것으로 판단되었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Cho, Y.H. and G.S. Kim(2000) A preliminary study on application of alluvial deposit in the Han river for planting soil. The Korea Society of Environmental Restoration Technology 3(4): 60-73.(in Korean with English abstract)
  2. Kang, C.H(2013) A study on the introduction of conservation of top soil into the environmental assessment system. Ph. D. Diss., Univ. of Kwngwoon, Seoul, Korea, 76-79.(in Korean with English abstract)
  3. Kim, W.T., Y.H. Yoon, Y.H. Cho, H.K. Kang, B.J. Park, J.K. Shin, Y.J. Eo, T.S. Yoon, K.E. Jang, M.Y. Kwak and H.S. Song(2012) Comparison of physicochemical properties of topsoil from forest development and non-development area. Journal of the Environmental Sciences 21(11): 1389-1394.(in Korean with English abstract) https://doi.org/10.5322/JES.2012.21.11.1389
  4. Korea Forest Service(2015) http://www.forest.go.kr/
  5. Korea Land and Housing Corporation(2012) Landscape Construction Standard. LH Corporation Press, Seoul, Korea, 412.(in Korean)
  6. Lee, J.M(2013) A study on topsoil management practices in development projects. M. S. Diss., Univ. of Kongju, Gongju, Korea, 109-116.(in Korean with English abstract)
  7. Minsistry of Construction and Transportation(2004) Construction Environmental Management Standard. Press, Seoul, Korea, 34.(in Korean)
  8. Park, E.J., K.Y. Kang and S.R. Yi(2008) The status of soil exposure and management practices for soil conservation in urban watersheds. Gyeonggi Research Institute 2008-06: 3-22.(in Korean with English abstract)
  9. Rural Development Administration(2000) Soil and Plant analysis method. Rural Development Administration, Suwon, Korea, 113-119.(in Korean)
  10. Rural Development Administration(2015) http://soil.rda.go.kr/
  11. The Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture(2013) Landscape Design Standard. Kimoondang Press, Seoul, Korea, 436.(in Korean)
  12. Yoo, S.H.(2000) Soil dictionary. Seoul National University Press, Seoul, Korea, 369.(in Korean)