Physical Properties of Organic Soils

Abstract

Compared with research on mineral soils, the study of the physical properties of organic soils in the United States is relatively new. Always (1920) and Anderson et al. (1951) considered the value and reclamation of peats in Minnesota and nationally. Davis and Lucas (1959) summarized organic soil formation, utilization, and management in Michigan; however, most of the literature on the detailed physical properties of peat was published from 1956 to 2003. This is true in Europe as well (Parent and Ilnicki 2003), except for a study by von Post (1922) who developed a field method for determining

Carbon–Mercury Interactions in Spodosols Assessed through Density Fractionation, Radiocarbon Analysis, and Soil Survey Information

“…Sorption to SOM and the subsequent hydrologic redistribution of soluble organomineral complexes explains some of the distribution of Hg across soillandscape units (Demers et al, 2007;Driscoll et al, 2013). In catenas or toposequences, soils in low-lying landscape positions are typically net accumulators of C and Hg, because in part of in situ accumulation of both elements, as well as inputs from contributing source areas (Nave et al, 2017;Kolka et al, 2011). Because Hg and SOM solubility is strongly influenced by soil pH, and the mobility of both elements depends on soil texture and hydrologic fluxes, these soil chemical and physical factors influence C and Hg distribution (Demers et al, 2013;Mitchell et al, 2009).…”

Mercury Remediation Technology Development for Lower East Fork Poplar Creek - FY 2016 Progress Report

“…Groundwater can contribute to mercury leaching caused by infiltration through contaminated floodplain soils and subsequent discharge by groundwater into LEFPC, and recent recommendations for EFPC call for it to be studied (Looney et al 2008; US Department of Energy 2014). Further, methylmercury production can be significant in the interface between groundwater and surface water, i.e., the hyporheic zone (Stoor et al 2006;Kolka et al 2011). The current SourceID model results suggest a very small potential of mercury or methylmercury groundwater contribution to EFPC, but additional on-site data would better support those findings.…”

“…The current SourceID model results suggest a very small potential of mercury or methylmercury groundwater contribution to EFPC, but additional on-site data would better support those findings. Because of the earlier recommendations for study (Looney et al 2008; US Department of Energy 2014), and because of the potential importance of groundwater in generating methylmercury (Stoor et al 2006;Kolka et al 2011) Briefly, the FY 2016 investigations found that mercury concentrations in groundwater near EFPC are often significant, with total mercury concentrations ranging from 1 to 70 ng L -1 and variable over time and location. Concentrations of mercury may be higher or lower than stream water, depending on location and season.…”

Mercury dynamics in the pore water of peat columns during experimental freezing and thawing

“…The MEF is located within the Chippewa National Forest and is 40 km north of Grand Rapids, MN. The MEF is a long‐term research site that has been active since 1960 and has some of the longest‐term records of northern peatland hydrology and chemistry (Kolka et al., 2011). A peatland west of the well‐studied S1 bog was selected for the collection of 60‐cm‐tall intact columns (Figure 1).…”

“…Inorganic Hg in peatlands can undergo methylation, where Hg is converted into the highly toxic and bioavailable form monomethylmercury (HgCH 3 + , commonly called methylmercury and abbreviated as MeHg) (Kolka et al., 2011; Morel, Kraepiel, & Amyot, 1998). Methylmercury is the most toxic form of Hg found in the environment and can bioaccumulate in fish, animals, and humans that consume aquatic organisms (Driscoll, Mason, Chan, Jacob, & Pirrone, 2013).…”