Interrelationships between soil cover and plant cover depending on land use

Abstract

Interrelationships between soil cover and plant cover of normally developed (or postlithogenic) mineral soils are analysed on the basis of four sampling soil groups. The four-link pedo-ecological sequence of analysed soils, rendzinas → brown soils → pseudopodzolic soils → gley-podzols, forms a representative cross section in relation to the normal mineral soils of Estonia. All groups differ substantially from each other in terms of soil properties (calcareousness, acidity, nutrition conditions, profile fabric and humus cover). The primary tasks of the research were (1) to elucidate the main pedo-ecological characteristics of the four soil groups and their suitability for plant cover, (2) to evaluate comparatively soils in terms of productivity, sustainability, biodiversity and environmental protection ability and (3) to analyse possibilities for ecologically sound matching of soil cover with suitable plant cover. On the basis of the same material, the influence of land-use change on humus cover (epipedon) fabric, properties of the entire soil cover and soil–plant interrelationship were also analysed. An ecosystem approach enables us to observe particularities caused by specific properties of a soil type (species, variety) in biological turnover and in the formation of biodiversity

Biocultural Diversity in Europe

“…In low-intensity agriculture, the soil properties do not change very much, specially the subsoils (Köster and Kõlli 2013). Some impacts of fire may persist for 50 years or more (Viro 1974), but this do not change the soil type.…”

Pedodiversity of three experimental stations in Estonia

“…In the pedocentric viewpoint, the soil cover of natural areas is the main determinant of the formation of plant communities and their species composition (Rossiter, 1996;Kasparinskis and Nikodemus, 2012;Köster and Kõlli, 2013). In arable areas, soil cover composition is the main factor influencing the choice of suitable agricultural crops (Kõlli, 1994;Fisher et al, 2002).…”

“…The conservation and maintenance of biodiversity requires understanding of the linkages between geodiversity, pedodiversity and biodiversity (Serrano and Ruiz-Flano, 2007;Jeffery et al, 2010;Kasparinskis and Nikodemus, 2012;Köster and Kõlli, 2013). We postulate that a pedocentric perspective on ecoystem functions can yield valuable information on biodivisity and local environmental heterogeneity.…”