*
 

iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry

*

Evaluating humus forms variation in an unmanaged mixed beech forest using two different classification methods

SM Waez-Mousavi   , H Habashi

iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry, Volume 5, Issue 5, Pages 272-275 (2012)
doi: https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor0632-005
Published: Oct 24, 2012 - Copyright © 2012 SISEF

Technical Reports


Humus is an important part of terrestrial ecosystems and can be considered as an indicator of ecosystem functioning status. Morphologic method is an inexpensive and easy way to study humus forms. This study investigated two morphological methods that have been applied in beech stands of Hyrcanian forest and compared them to assess which one is more appropriate for these ecosystems. Therefore an unmanaged beech stand was selected and 320 humus profiles were considered in it. In each profile the humus form was determined as to suborder level according to two morphological methods. The results showed that the average thickness of organic and organo-mineral horizons (OL, OF, OH and Ah) in the study site was 2, 0.6, 0.3 and 3.6 cm, respectively. Also the two different morphological methods used in the study site had different functions and outputs. According to both methods the Mull order was the dominant humus form in the study site. The number of humus suborders found in the study site was different in the two methods and indicates their different ability in describing humus forms in the study site

  Keywords


Humus Classification, Mixed Beech Forests, Hyrcanian Forest, Organic Horizons

Authors’ address

(1)
SM Waez-Mousavi
H Habashi
Faculty of Forest Sciences, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan (Iran)

Corresponding author

 
SM Waez-Mousavi
waezmousavi@gau.ac.ir

Citation

Waez-Mousavi SM, Habashi H (2012). Evaluating humus forms variation in an unmanaged mixed beech forest using two different classification methods. iForest 5: 272-275. - doi: 10.3832/ifor0632-005

Academic Editor

Alberto Santini

Paper history

Received: Dec 04, 2011
Accepted: Sep 27, 2012

First online: Oct 24, 2012
Publication Date: Oct 30, 2012
Publication Time: 0.90 months

Breakdown by View Type

(Waiting for server response...)

Article Usage

Total Article Views: 19647
(from publication date up to now)

Breakdown by View Type
HTML Page Views: 15656
Abstract Page Views: 661
PDF Downloads: 2543
Citation/Reference Downloads: 14
XML Downloads: 773

Web Metrics
Days since publication: 2810
Overall contacts: 19647
Avg. contacts per week: 48.94

Article Citations

Article citations are based on data periodically collected from the Clarivate Web of Science web site
(last update: Jun 2020)

Total number of cites (since 2012): 6
Average cites per year: 0.67

 

Publication Metrics

by Dimensions ©

Articles citing this article

List of the papers citing this article based on CrossRef Cited-by.

 
(1)
Aubert M, Margerie P, Ernoult A, Decaens T, Bureau F (2006)
Variability and heterogeneity of humus forms at stand level: comparison between pure beech and mixed beech-hornbeam forest. Annals of Forest Science 63: 177-188.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(2)
Ampe C, Langhor R (2003)
Morphological characterization of humus forms in recent coastal dune ecosystems in Belgium and northern France. Catena 54: 363-383.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(3)
Babel U (1971)
Gliederung und beschreibung des humusprofils in mitteleuropäischen wäldern. Geoderma 5: 297-324.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(4)
Behjou FK, Majnounian B, DvoÅák J, Namiranian M, Saeed A, Feghhi J (2009)
Productivity and cost of manual felling with a chainsaw in Caspian forests. Journal of Forest Science 55(2): 96-100.
Online | Gscholar
(5)
Brandtberg PO, Lundkvist H, Bengtsso J (2000)
Changes in forest floor chemistry caused by birch admixture in Norway spruce stands. Forest Ecology and Management 130: 253-264.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(6)
Brethes A, Brun JJ, Jabiol B, Ponge J, Toutai F (1995)
Classification of forest humus forms: a French proposal. Annals of Forest Science 52: 535-546.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(7)
Graefe U, Beylich A (2006)
Humus forms as tool for upscaling soil biodiversity. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Bodenkundlichen Gesellschaft 108: 6-7.
Online | Gscholar
(8)
Green RN, Trowbridge RL, Klinka K (1993)
Towards a taxonomic classification of humus forms. Forest Science Monograph 29: 1-48.
Gscholar
(9)
Habashi H (2007)
Relationship between soil properties and spatial pattern of trees and tree groups in mixed beech forest, Shast Kalate, Gorgan. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Natural Resources and Marine sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Iran, pp. 101.
Gscholar
(10)
Ponge JF (1999)
Horizons and humus forms in beech forests of the Belgian Ardennes. Soil Science Society of America Journal 63: 1888-1901.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(11)
Ponge JF, Zanella A, Sartori G, Jabiol B (2010)
Terrestrial humus forms: ecological relevance and classification. In: “European atlas of soil biodiversity” (Jefferey S, Gardi C, Jones A, Montanarella L, Marmo, L Miko L, Ritz K, Peres G, Rombke J, Van Der Putten WH eds). Publication Office of the European Union, cat. no. LB-NA-24375-EN-C, European Commission, Luxembourg, pp. 14-15.
Gscholar
(12)
Poorzady M, Bakhtiari F (2009)
Spatial and temporal changes of Hyrcanian forest in Iran. iForest 2: 198-206.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(13)
Pourmajidian MR, Rahmani A (2009)
The Influence of single - tree selection cutting on silvicultural properties of a northern hardwood forest in Iran. American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Science 5 (4): 526-532.
Online | Gscholar
(14)
Sagheb-Talebi KH, Sajedi T, Yazdian F (2004)
Forests of Iran. Technical Publication No. 339, Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands, Tehran, Iran, pp. 28.
Gscholar
(15)
Sajedi T, Zahedi Amiri Gh, Marvie-Mohadjer MR (2004)
Variation of humus forms and nutrient properties in pure and mixed beech stands in north of Iran. In: Proceeding of the "7th International beech symposium, improvement and silviculture of beech" (Sagheb-Talebi Kh, Madsen P, Terazawa K eds). Tehran (Iran), 10-15 May 2004. Research Institute of Forest and Rangelands, Tehran, Iran, pp. 105-113.
Gscholar
(16)
Sluiter R, Smit N (2001)
Gap size effect on microclimate and soil moisture. In: “Forest filled with gaps. Effects of gap size on water and nutrient cycling in tropical rain forest. A Study in Guyana” (Van Dam O ed ). PhD Thesis, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands, pp. 208.
Gscholar
(17)
Van Delft B, De Waal R, Kemmers R, Mekkink P, Sevink J (2006)
Field guide humus forms, description and classification of humus forms for ecological applications. Research Institute for the Green Environment, Alterra, Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 92.
Gscholar
(18)
Waez-Mousavi SM (2010)
Effects of gap size and shape on humus forms, with regard to landform elements, in Shast-kalate forest, Gorgan, Iran. MSc Thesis, Faculty of Forest sciences, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Tehran, Iran, pp. 63.
Gscholar
(19)
Zanella A, Jabiol B, Ponge JF, Sartori G, Waal De R, Delft Van B, Graefe U, Cools N, Katzensteiner K, Hager H, English M, Brethes A (2009)
Toward a European humus forms reference base. Studi Trentini di Scienze Naturali 85: 145-151.
Online | Gscholar
(20)
Zanella A, Jabiol B, Ponge JF, Sartori G, Waal De R, Delft Van B, Graefe U, Cools N, Katzensteiner K, Hager H, Englisch M (2011)
A European morpho-functional classification of humus forms. Geoderma 164: 138-145.
CrossRef | Gscholar
 

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. More info