Evaluating humus forms variation in an unmanaged mixed beech forest using two different classification methods
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 fo...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Italian Society of Silviculture and Forest Ecology (SISEF)
2012-10-01
|
| Series: | iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://iforest.sisef.org/contents/?id=ifor0632-005 |
| _version_ | 1818854361583845376 |
|---|---|
| author | Waez-Mousavi SM Habashi H |
| author_facet | Waez-Mousavi SM Habashi H |
| author_sort | Waez-Mousavi SM |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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 |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-19T07:51:29Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-34defe93b092465aacc02df3699659f9 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1971-7458 1971-7458 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-19T07:51:29Z |
| publishDate | 2012-10-01 |
| publisher | Italian Society of Silviculture and Forest Ecology (SISEF) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry |
| spelling | doaj.art-34defe93b092465aacc02df3699659f92022-12-21T20:30:09ZengItalian Society of Silviculture and Forest Ecology (SISEF)iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry1971-74581971-74582012-10-015127227510.3832/ifor0632-005632Evaluating humus forms variation in an unmanaged mixed beech forest using two different classification methodsWaez-Mousavi SM0Habashi H1Faculty of Forest Sciences, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan (Iran)Faculty of Forest Sciences, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan (Iran)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 sitehttps://iforest.sisef.org/contents/?id=ifor0632-005Humus ClassificationMixed Beech ForestsHyrcanian ForestOrganic Horizons |
| spellingShingle | Waez-Mousavi SM Habashi H Evaluating humus forms variation in an unmanaged mixed beech forest using two different classification methods iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry Humus Classification Mixed Beech Forests Hyrcanian Forest Organic Horizons |
| title | Evaluating humus forms variation in an unmanaged mixed beech forest using two different classification methods |
| title_full | Evaluating humus forms variation in an unmanaged mixed beech forest using two different classification methods |
| title_fullStr | Evaluating humus forms variation in an unmanaged mixed beech forest using two different classification methods |
| title_full_unstemmed | Evaluating humus forms variation in an unmanaged mixed beech forest using two different classification methods |
| title_short | Evaluating humus forms variation in an unmanaged mixed beech forest using two different classification methods |
| title_sort | evaluating humus forms variation in an unmanaged mixed beech forest using two different classification methods |
| topic | Humus Classification Mixed Beech Forests Hyrcanian Forest Organic Horizons |
| url | https://iforest.sisef.org/contents/?id=ifor0632-005 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT waezmousavism evaluatinghumusformsvariationinanunmanagedmixedbeechforestusingtwodifferentclassificationmethods AT habashih evaluatinghumusformsvariationinanunmanagedmixedbeechforestusingtwodifferentclassificationmethods |