Die europäische Humusformenklassifikation ERB 2010 und ... · Jahrestagung der Deutschen...

Jahrestagung der Deutschen Bodenkundlichen Gesellschaft, 3.-9. September 2011 in Berlin

Die europäische Humusformenklassifikation ERB 2010und Perspektiven ihrer Weiterentwicklung

Ulfert Graefe, IFAB GmbH, Hamburg

Rainer Baritz, BGR, Hannover

Gabriele Broll, Universität Osnabrück

Eckart Kolb, Technische Universität München

Gerhard Milbert, Geologischer Dienst NRW

Christine Wachendorf, Universität Kassel


http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/54/14/96/PDF/Humus_Forms_ERB.pdf



1. Hintergrund und Entstehungsgeschichte derERB 2010

2. Kurze Vorstellung der Klassifikation: Vokabular,Systematik, Hierarchie, diagnostische Horizonte

3. Kritische Beleuchtung der Schwachstellen

4. Mögliche Perspektiven für die Weiterentwicklung

Gliederung des Vortrags


2003 1. Treffen europäischer Humusformen-Spezialisten in Trento (Italien)

2004 Vorstellung des Projekts auf der Eurosoil 2004 in Freiburg (Deutschland)Gründung der European Humus Research Group http://humusresearchgroup.grenoble.cemagref.fr/

2005 2. Treffen der Gruppe in San Vito di Cadore (Italien)

2006 Posterpräsentation auf dem 18. World Congress of Soil Science, Philadelphia (USA)

2007 3. Treffen in Cagliari, Sardinien (Italien): Mediterrane Humusformen

2008 Workshop auf der Eurosoil 2008 in Wien (Österreich): "Humus as an EcologicalIndicator"

2009 Seminario nazionale "Suoli e Humus degli Ambienti Alpini", Trento (Italien)

2010 Online-Veröffentlichung im Archiv HAL des Centre pour la CommunicationScientifique Directe: http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/54/14/96/PDF/Humus_Forms_ERB.pdf

2011 Veröffentlichung einer Kurzfassung in der Zeitschrift GEODERMA

Entstehungsgeschichte und Meilensteine

1.1

http://humusresearchgroup.grenoble.cemagref.fr/



1. Meeting in Trento (Italien) 2003


1.2



Präsentation von Jabiol et al. auf der Eurosoil 2004 in Freiburg

http://www.bodenkunde2.uni-freiburg.de/eurosoil/abstracts/id372_Jabiol_full.pdf

1.3

http://www.bodenkunde2.uni-freiburg.de/eurosoil/abstracts/id372_Jabiol_full.pdf


Meeting in San Vito di Cadore, Dolomiten (Italien) 2005


1.4



Diskussionsstand in San Vito 2005

hum

usre

sear

chgr

oup

1.5


Posterpräsentation, 18th World Congress of Soil Science, Philadelphia, July 9-15, 2006

1.6


Meeting in Cagliari, Sardinien (Italien) 2007

Foto

: Gra

efe

1.7


Zahl der beteiligten Personen nach Herkunftsland aufgeschlüsselt

Herkunftsländer Autoren(Langfassung)

Zahl der Beteiligten(insgesamt)

Italy 9 24

France 5 9

Germany 5 7

Austria 3 4

The Netherlands 3 4

Belgium 2 2

Czech Republic 1 2

Switzerland 1 1

Estonia 1 1

Bulgaria 2

Sweden 2

Denmark 1

Finland 1

Slovenia 1

Total 30 61

1.8


The first dichotomy of the classification

Zanella et al. 2010

2.1


Zanella et al. 2010

2.2


Zanella et al. 2010

2.3


Zanella et al. 2010

2.4


Specific terms:

Zoogenically vs. non-zoogenically transformed material

Zoogenically transformed material is made of recognizable remains

and humic components processed by animals, i.e. leaves, needles and

other plant residues more or less degraded by soil animals, mixed with

animal droppings.

Non-zoogenically transformed material is made of recognizable

remains and humic components processed by fungi or other nonfaunal

processes, i.e. leaves, needles and other plant residues more or less

fragmented and transformed into fibrous matter by fungi.

Zanella et al. 2010

2.5


Mostly from Anecic and Endogeic (meso, endo-anecic,oligohumic) earthworms: hemorganic, homogeneous matrix withmineral grains, cylindrical, often “bowled”M

AC

RO

Ø 4 mm

Ø >1-3 mm

From Diplopods and Myriapods:asymmetrical pills with prismatic tip,holorganic, heterogeneous, composed of recognizable plant debris incluster.From insects (almost always larval stages of Coleoptera andDiptera): spherical grains lumped together in 2 or 3, holorganic,homogeneous, composed of unrecognizable plant debris

Ø 4 mm

MIC

RO

Ø 1 mm

From Enchytraeids, Epigeic earthworms: holorganic andhemorganic, often in clusters, ovoid, regularly boundFrom Collembola: holorganic and hemorganic, not in clusters,cylindrical, lengthened, curved, irregularly bound

Ø 1 mm

Ø << 1 mm From Acari: holorganic, spherical, very regularly bound

Mostly from Epigeic and Endogeic (polyhumic, mesohumic, endo-anecic) earthworms: holorganic and hemorganic, finelyhomogeneous matrix, spherical grain or short cylinder with conic tip

Ø >1- 4 mm

MES

OX

10 le

nsna

ked

eye

nake

dey

e

Field classification of droppings of the most common groups of pedofaunaGalvan et al. 2005

2.6


Specific terms: Organo-mineral horizons (A horizons)

Zoogenic A horizons:1) Biomacrostructured A (code: maA) = Aneci-endovermic;2) Biomesostructured A (meA) = Endo-epivermic;3) Biomicrostructured A (miA) = Enchy-arthropodic.

Non-Zoogenic A horizons:4) Single grain A (sgA);5) Massive A (msA).

A types (zo, noz and other suffixes):Azo = zoogenic A horizon. Azo = maA (implied maAzo) or meA (meAzo) ormiA (miAzo).Anoz = A horizon considered as non-zoogenic. To the naked eye, or with thehelp of a hand lens, this horizon does not show relevant signs of animalactivity (absence of burrows, droppings, mucus, animal remains etc… < 5% ofthe soil volume). Zoological agents are not involved in soil aggregation. Fungalstructures can be visible. Anoz = sgA (implied sgAnoz) or msA (msAnoz).

Zanella et al. 2010

2.7


Zanella et al. 2010

2.8


AmphiTo be identified as Amphi, the topsoil must display the following properties:

1. simultaneous presence of OH and A biomacro or A biomeso horizons; and2. absence of OFnoz; and3. thickness of A horizon thickness of ½ OH horizon; and4. absence of A massive or single grain; and5. presence of A biomacro and one of the following:

living earthworms in the A horizon;sharp transition between A and OH;pHwater of the A horizon 5,

or5. presence of A biomeso and one of the following:

living earthworms in the A horizon;no sharp transition between OH and A;pHwater of the A horizon 5.

Diagnostic features:

Zanella et al. 2010

2.9


Zanella et al. 2010

2.10


ModerTo be identified as Moder, the topsoil must display the following properties:

1. presence of OH horizon (even if sometimes discontinuous); and2. absence of OFnoz; and3. absence of A biomacro; and4. absence of A biomeso and one of the following:

no sharp transition OH/A horizon (transition 5 mm);pHwater of the A horizon < 5;

or4. presence of A biomicro, or A massive, or A single grain, and one of the following:

no sharp transition OH/A horizon (transition 5 mm);pHwater of the A horizon < 5.

Diagnostic features:

Zanella et al. 2010

2.11


Zanella et al. 2010

2.12


Fig. 9. Diagnostichorizons and featuresof five references(= biological activitytypes) of Terroforms.

Zanella et al. 2010

2.13


Second level classification of Terroforms. Lines: diagnostic horizons, superposed as in a real topsoil profile. Columns: secondlevel of classification (examples of Mull: eumull, mesomull, oligomull, dysmull). Mull is considered as central form, divided intosub-forms evolving on calcareous (left) or acid (right) substrates. All gradual series from more to less biologically active forms(eu meso oligo dys) are possible as well under calcareous, neutral and siliceous soil/substrate influences.

Zanella et al. 2011

2.14


Semiterrestrial humus forms

Zanella et al. 2010

2.15


Zanella et al. 2010

2.16


Zanella et al. 2010

2.17


Zanella et al. 2010

2.18


Schematische Übernahme der Begriffe Mull, Amphi, Moder, Mor fürsemiterrestrische Humusformen. Hierdurch verwischen sich dieklaren Definitionen dieser ursprünglich terrestrisch verstandenenHumusformen.

Die schematisch vollzogene hierarchische Gliederung erzeugttheoretische Konstrukte, die im Gelände noch niemand beschriebenhat, z.B. Epihistoamphi, Rhizohydrotangel.

Vermischung von Substratklassifikation und Humusklassifikation beiden Histoformen. Torf kann in dränierten Moorböden das Ausgangs-substrat aeromorpher Humusformen sein. Biologisch und morpho-funktionell gehören diese zu den terrestrischen Humusformen.

Terrestrische OH Horizonte sind immer das Resultat tierischerFraßaktivität. Auch ein wenig belebter OHnoz ist zoogen entstanden.

Kritische Punkte der Klassifikation

3.1


Vorschlag für die Entwicklung einer

Internationalen Humusformenklassifikation

auf Basis der ERB 2010

und der

World Reference Base for Soil Resources

4.1


Zweistufige Hierarchie:

First level: The main humus types Mull, Moder, Amphi, Anmoor, Moor, ...

Second level: The combination of main humus types with qualifiers

Qualifiers related to parent materials: Arenic, Siltic, Clayic, Histic, ...

Qualifiers related to plant materials: Rhizic, Lignic, ...

Qualifiers related to physical characteristics: Epilithic, Peyric, ...

Qualifiers related to chemical characteristics: Eutric, Dystric, ...

Qualifiers related to biological characteristics: Vermic, Mycotic, ...

Qualifiers related to hydrological characteristics: Hydric, Ombric, Rheic, ...

Qualifiers related to diagnostic horizons: Fibric, Hemic, Sapric, ...

Qualifiers related to ...

Übernahme von Prinzipien der WRB in die Klassifikationvon Humusformen

4.2


Case of Moors

Prefix qualifiers Suffix qualifiers

Fibric Dystrophic

Hemic Mesotrophic

Sapric Eutrophic

Ombric

Rheic

Example: Fibric Moor (Dystrophic, Ombric)

4.3


Herzlichen Dank für die Aufmerksamkeit !

Foto

: Milb

ert

Die europäische Humusformenklassifikation ERB 2010 und ... · Jahrestagung der Deutschen...

Documents

Transcript of Die europäische Humusformenklassifikation ERB 2010 und ... · Jahrestagung der Deutschen...