Submitted:
29 April 2023
Posted:
30 April 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Field observations in stands affected by windthrows
2.2. Experimental device
2.3. Soil sampling
2.4. The organic carbon (OC) balance
2.5. Dehydrogenase activity (DA)
2.6. Number of Fungi in Soil (NF)
2.7. Statistical Processing
3. Results and Discussions
3.1. Types of representative soil
3.2. Natural regeneration of forest vegetation
3.3. Evolution of stored organic carbon
3.3.1. Losses of organic carbon from soil (SOC)
3.3.2. Losses of terrestrial organic carbon (TOC)
3.4. Dehydrogenase activity (DA)
3.4.1. Current dehydrogenase activity (CDA)
3.4.2. Potential dehydrogenase activity (PDA)
3.5. The number of fungi (NF)
3.6. Correlations and regressions
3.6.1. Correlations and regressions of microbiological properties of soil affected by windthrows.
3.6.2. The correlations and regressions of the differences in CDA, PDA, and NF between AW and WW
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kimmins, J.P. Forest ecosystem management: An environmental necessity, but is it a practical reality or simply an ecotopian ideal ? In Proceeding of the XII World Forestry Congress, Quebec City, Canada, 21-28 September 2003. https://www.fao.org/3/xii/ms18-e.htm (accesed on 19 December 2022). [Google Scholar]
- Cojocaru, O.; Bostan, R.; Jurjiu, V. Ecological reconstruction of trees – A case study from Singerei Forest District, Natural Resources and Sustainable Development 2022, 12, 87–98. 12.
- Fawzy, S.; Osman, A.I.; Doran, J.; Rooney, D.W. Strategies for mitigation of climate change: a review. Environ Chem Lett. 2020, 18, 2069–2094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nunes, L.J.R.; Meireles, C.I.R.; Pinto Gomes, C.J.; Almeida Ribeiro, N.M.C. Forest Contribution to Climate Change Mitigation: Management Oriented to Carbon Capture and Storage. Climate 2020, 8, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bragă, C.I. Analiza principalilor factori care influenţează fluxul de dioxid de carbon din sol în făgete de deal din sudul Muscelelor Argeşului (The analysis of the main factors that influence the soil carbon dioxide efflux in beech forests on hills from the South of Muscelele Argeşului Region) Universitatea Transilvnia Brașov, Romania, 2018.
- 6. Zhu, X-G.; Hasanuzzaman, M.; Jajoo,A.; Lawson,T.; Lin, R.; Liu, C-M.; Liu, L-N.; Liu, Z.; Lu, C.; Moustakas, M.; Roach, T.; Song, Q.; Yin, X.; Zhang, W. Improving photosynthesis through multidisciplinary efforts: The next frontier of photosynthesis research. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2022; 13, 1664–462X.
- Carlier, L.; Rotar, I.; Vidican, R. Fixarea dioxidului de carbon: favorabila pentru producția culturilor agricole și pentru mediu. Pro Environment 2009, 2, 73–83. [Google Scholar]
- Șandor, M. Respirația solului: concept și metode de determinare (Soil Respiration: Concept and Measurement Methods). Pro Environment 2010, 3, 180–184. [Google Scholar]
- Rian, M.G.; Law, B.E. Interpreting, measuring, and modeling soil respiration. Biogeochemistry 2005, 73, 3–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, R.; Liu, Y.; Page-Dumroese, D.S.; Dumroese, R.K.; Wang, K. Enhancing Soil Quality of Short Rotation Forest Operations Using Biochar and Manure. Forests 2022, 13, 2090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiatrowska, K.; Komisarek, J.; Olejnik, J. Variations in Organic Carbon Content and Dehydrogenases Activity in Post-Agriculture Forest Soils: A Case Study in South-Western Pomerania. Forests 2021, 12, 459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, EU. COM 699 Final, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions EU Soil Strategy for 2030 Reaping the Benefits of Healthy Soils for People, Food, Nature and Climate; EU: Bruxelles, Belgium, 2021; Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021DC0699 (accessed on 10 December 2022).
- Dalponte, M.; Jucker, T.; Liu, S.; Frizzer, L.; Gianelle, D. Characterizing forest carbon dynamics using multi-temporal lidar data, Remote Sensing of Environment 2019, 224, 412–420. 224.
- Soininen, V.; Kukko, A.; Yu, X.; Kaartinen, H.; Luoma, V.; Saikkonen, O.; Holopainen, M.; Matikainen, L.; Lehtomäki, M.; Hyyppä, J. Predicting Growth of Individual Trees Directly and Indirectly Using 20-Year Bitemporal Airborne Laser Scanning Point Cloud Data. Forests 2022, 13, 2040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frunze, N. Activitatea respirației din comunitățile microbiene ale cernoziomului arat din Republica Moldiva. Ştiinţa agricolă 2020, 1, 12–18. [Google Scholar]
- Meena, A.; Rao, K.S. Assessment of soil microbial and enzyme activity in the rhizosphere zone under different land use/cover of a semiarid region, India. Ecol Process 2021, 10, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.; Song, Y.; Dong, X.; Wang, X.; Ma, X.; Zhao, G.; Zang, S. Soil Enzyme Activities and Their Relationships With Soil C, N, and P in Peatlands From Different Types of Permafrost Regions, Northeast China. Frontiers in Environmental Science 2021, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shang, H.; Rothman, D.H.; Fournier, G.P. Oxidative metabolisms catalyzed Earth’s oxygenation. Nat Commun 2022, 13, 1328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diaconu, M.; Diaconu, A.; Pricop, M. Dinamica activității enzimatice a solului cultivat cu porumb, în condițiile aplicării mai multor strategii de producție a culturii (Dynamics of enzymattic activity of soil cultivated with maize under different pest management practices) Revista de Horticultură 2006, 49, 1063–1066. 49.
- Dotaniya, M.L. ; Aparna,K.; Dotaniya, C.K., Singh, M., Eds.; Regar, K.L. Chapter 33 - Role of Soil Enzymes in Sustainable Crop Production, In Enzymes in Food Biotechnology, Editor(s): Mohammed Kuddus, Academic Press 2019; pp. 569–589. [Google Scholar]
- Bueis, T.; Turrión, M.B.; Bravo, F.; Pando, V.; Muscolo, A. Factors determining enzyme activities in soils under Pinus halepensis and Pinus sylvestris plantations in Spain: a basis for establishing sustainable forest management strategies. Annals of Forest Science 2018, 75, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borowik, A.; Wyszkowska, J.; Kucharski, J. Bacteria and Soil Enzymes Supporting the Valorization of Forested Soils. Materials 2022, 15, 3287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gałązka, A.; Marzec-Grządziel, A.; Varsadiya, M.; Niedźwiecki, J.; Gawryjołek, K.; Furtak, K.; Przybyś, M.; Grządziel, J. Biodiversity and Metabolic Potential of Bacteria in Bulk Soil from the Peri-Root Zone of Black Alder (Alnus glutinosa), Silver Birch (Betula pendula) and Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris). Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 2633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Błońska, E.; Lasota, J.; Gruba, P. Effect of temperate forest tree species on soil dehydrogenase and urease activities in relation to other properties of soil derived from loess and glaciofluvial sand. Ecol Res 2016, 31, 655–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Z.; Li, M.; Wang, B.; Tian, Y.; Quan, Y.; Liu, J. Analysis of Factors Related to Forest Fires in Different Forest Ecosystems in China. Forests 2022, 13, 1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Myszura, M.; Żukowska, G.; Kobyłka, A.; Mazurkiewicz, J. Enzymatic Activity of Soils Forming on an Afforested Heap from an Opencast Sulphur Mine. Forests 2021, 12, 1469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bogati, K.; Walczak, M. The Impact of Drought Stress on Soil Microbial Community, Enzyme Activities and Plants. Agronomy 2022, 12, 189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samuel, A.D.; Oneț, A.; Dincă, L.; Enescu, R.; Deleanu, E.; Cristian Oneț, C.; Stanciu, A. Enzymatic indicators of soil quality and nutrients content in the forest soils from Romania. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 2022, 21, 1245–1253. [Google Scholar]
- Stein, O.; Granot, D. An Overview of Sucrose Synthases in Plants. J Frontiers in Plant Science 2019, 10, 1664–462X. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sherene, T. Role of Soil Enzymes in Nutrient Transformation: A Review. Bio Bulletin 2017, 3, 109–131. [Google Scholar]
- Monreal, C.M.; Bergstrom, D.W. Soil enzymatic factors expressing the influence of land use, tillage system and texture on soil biochemical quality. Canadian Journal of Soil Science. 2000, 80, 419–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.; Shi, Z.; Cai, J.; Wang, P.; Wang, F.; Ju, M.; Liu, J.; Yu, Q. Synthesis of Phenylboronic Acid-Functionalized Magnetic Nanoparticles for Sensitive Soil Enzyme Assays. Molecules 2022, 27, 6883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fioretto, A.; Innangi, M.; De Marco, A.; Menta, C.; Papa, S.; Pellegrino, A.; Virzo De Santo, A. Discriminating between Seasonal and Chemical Variation in Extracellular Enzyme Activities within Two Italian Beech Forests by Means of Multilevel Models. Forests 2018, 9, 219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mezeli, M.M.; Menezes-Blackburn, D.; George, T.S.; Giles, C.D.; Neilson, R.; Haygarth, P.M. Effect of citrate on Aspergillus niger phytase adsorption and catalytic activity in soil, Geoderma 2017, 305, 346–353. 305.
- Margalef, O.; Sardans, J.; Maspons, J.; Molowny-Horas, R.; Fernández-Martínez, M.; Janssens, I.A.; Richter, A.; Ciais, P.; Obersteiner, M.; Peñuelas, J. The effect of global change on soil phosphatase activity. Global Change Biology, 5989. [Google Scholar]
- Wolińska, A.; Stępniewska, Z. Dehydrogenase Activity in the Soil Environment. In Dehydrogenases, Editor Rosa Canuto. London, IntechOpen, 2012; Chapter 8, 183-210.
- Kazimierz, J.; Błońska, E.; Długa, I.; Socha, J. Dehydrogenase activity of forest soils depends on the assay used. International Agrophysics 2014, 29, 47–59. [Google Scholar]
- Nannipieri, P.; Trasar-Cepeda, C.; Dick, R.P. Soil enzyme activity: a brief history and biochemistry as a basis for appropriate interpretations and meta-analysis. Biol Fertil Soils 2018, 54, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaur, J.; Kaur, G. Dehydrogenase Activity as a Biological Indicator of Soil Health. Chem Sci Rev Lett 2021, 10, 326–329. [Google Scholar]
- Vasic, V.; Hajnal-Jafari, T.; Djuric, S.; Kovacevic, B.; Stojnic, S.; Vasic, S.; Galovic, V.; Orlovic, S. Effect of Herbicide Clopyralid and Imazamox on Dehydrogenase Enzyme in Soil of Regenerated Pedunculate Oak Forests. Forests 2022, 13, 926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qu, Z.L.; Santalahti, M.; Köster, K.; Berninger, F.; Pumpanen, J.; Heinonsalo, J.; Sun, H. Soil Fungal Community Structure in Boreal Pine Forests: From Southern to Subarctic Areas of Finland. Front Microbiol 2021, 26, 653896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sapsford, S.J.; Paap, T.; Hardy Giles, E.St.J.; Burgess, T.I. Anthropogenic Disturbance Impacts Mycorrhizal Communities and Abiotic Soil Properties: Implications for an Endemic Forest Disease Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 2021, 3.
- Ekblad, A.; Wallander, H.; Godbold, D.L.; Cruz, C.; Johnson, D.; Baldrian, P.; Björk, R.G.; Epron, D.; Kieliszewska-Rokicka, B.; Kjøller, R.; Kraigher, H.; Matzner, E.; Neumann, J.; Plassard, C. The production and turnover of extramatrical mycelium of ectomycorrhizal fungi in forest soils: role in carbon cycling. Plant Soil 2013, 366, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gahfif, O.; Souagui, Y.; Djoudi, F.; Zerroug, A.; Azzouz, Z.; Boucherba, N.; Moussi, K.; Benallaoua, S.; Kecha, M.; Bettache, A. Screening of fungal strains isolated from Algerian soil for the production of extracellular enzymes. Natural Resources and Sustainable Development 2022, 12, 255–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Qu, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Ge, Y.; Sun, H. Soil Fungal Community and Potential Function in Different Forest Ecosystems. Diversity 2022, 14, 520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alem, D.; Dejene, T.; Geml, J.; Oria-de-Rueda, J.A; Martin-Pinto, P. Metabarcoding analysis of the soil fungal community to aid the conservation of underexplored church forests in Ethiopia. Sci Rep 2022, 12, 4817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Constandache, C.; Dincă, L.; Tudor, C.; Oneț, C. The ecological reconstruction of forest ecosystems affected by landslides, Natural Resources and Sustainable Development 2019, 9, 144–159. 9.
- Weninger, T.; Scheper, S.; Lackóová, L.; Kitzler, B.; Gartner, K.; King, N.W.; Cornelis, W.; Strauss, P.; Michel, K. Ecosystem services of tree windbreaks in rural landscapes—a systematic review. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 103002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, N.; Yu, K.; Zhang, Y.; Zhai, J.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, H. Ground observed climatology and trend in snow cover phenology across China with consideration of snow-free breaks. Clim Dyn 2020, 55, 2867–2887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Onet, A.; Dinca, L.; Teusdea, A.; Crisan, V.; Braga, C.; Enescu, R.; Onet, C. The influence of fires on the biological activity of forest soils in Vrancea, Romania. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal. 2019, 18, 2643–2654. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, J.; Cheng, X.; Luo, Y.; Liu, W.; Liu, G. Identifying Carbon-Degrading Enzyme Activities in Association with Soil Organic Carbon Accumulation Under Land-Use Changes. Ecosystems 2022, 25, 1219–1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitchell, S.J. Wind as a natural disturbance agent in forests: a synthesis, Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research 2013, 86, 147–157. 86.
- Einzmann, K.; Immitzer, M.; Böck, S.; Bauer, O.; Schmitt, A.; Atzberger, C. Windthrow Detection in European Forests with Very High-Resolution Optical Data. Forests, 2017, 8, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chirici, G.; Bottalico, F.; Giannetti, F.; Del Perugia, B.; Travaglini, D.; Nocentini, S.; Kutchartt, E.; Marchi, E.; Foderi, C.; Fioravanti, M.; Fattorini, L.; Bottai, L.; McRoberts, R.E.; Næsset, E.; Corona, P.; Gozzini, B. Assessing forest windthrow damage using single-date, post-event airborne laser scanning data, Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research 2018, 91, 27–37. 91.
- Mokroš, M.; Výbošťok, J.; Merganič, J.; Hollaus, M.; Barton, I.; Koreň, M.; Tomaštík, J.; Čerňava, J. Early Stage Forest Windthrow Estimation Based on Unmanned Aircraft System Imagery. Forests 2017, 8, 306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krejci, L.; Kolejka, J.; Vozenilek, V.; Machar, I. Application of GIS to Empirical Windthrow Risk Model in Mountain Forested Landscapes. Forests 2018, 9, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ilies, G.; Ilies, M.; Hotea, M.; Bumbak, S.V.; Hodor, N.; Ilies, D.C.; Caciora, T.; Safarov, B:; Morar, C. ; Valjarević. A.; Berdenov. Z.; Lukić, T.; Mihajlović, M.; Liudmyla, N.; Vasić, P. Integrating forest windthrow assessment data in the process of windscape reconstruction: Case of the extratropical storms downscaled for the Gutai Mountains (Romania). Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 926430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pasztor, F.; Matulla, C.; Zuvela-Aloise, M.; Rammer, W.; Lexer, J.M. Developing predictive models of wind damage in Austrian forests. Annals of Forest Science 2014, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popa, I. Wind throw-risk factor in mountainous forest ecosystems, Annals of Forest Research 2005, 48, 3–28. 48.
- Sicoe, S.I.; Crainic, G.C.; Iovan, C.I.; Sabău, N.C. Changes in the common beech stand micro-relief due to windthrowss in the management unit VII Văratec. Sudrigiu forest district, Bihor county, Romania. Natural Resources and Sustainable Development 2019, 9, 203–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crainic, G.C. , Aspects relating to the evaluation of accidental wood products in the period 17.09 – 06.11 2017, in the Forestry District Sudrigiu, Bihor Forestry Department. Annals of the University of Oradea, Fascicle: Environmental Protection.
- Morimoto, J; Sugiura, M. ; Morimoto, M.; Nakamura F. Restoration of Natural Forests After Severe Wind Disturbance in a Cold, Snowy Region With a Deer Population: Implications From 15 Years of Field Experiments. Front. For. Glob. Change 2021, 4, 675475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bölter, M.; Bloem, J.; Meiners, K.; Möller, R. Enumeration and biovolume determination of microbial cells – a Methodological Review and Recommendations for Applications în Ecological Research. Biol Fert Soils 2002, 36, 249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiesmeier, M.; Barthold, F.; Spörlein, P.; Geuß, U.; Hangen, E.; Reischl, A.; Schilling, B.; Angst, G.; von Lützow, M.; Kögel-Knabner, I. Estimation of total organic carbon storage and its driving factors in soils of Bavaria (southeast Germany), Geoderma Regional 2014, 1, 67–78. 1.
- Sherene, T. Role of Soil Enzymes in Nutrient Transformation: A Review. Bio Bulletin 2017, 3, 109–131. [Google Scholar]
- Dincă, L.C.; Grenni, P.; Onet, C.; Onet, A. Fertilization and Soil Microbial Community: A Review. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quilchano, C.; Marañón, T. Dehydrogenase activity in Mediterranean forest soils. Biol Fertil Soils 2002, 35, 102–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pérez-Izquierdo, L.; Rincón, A.; Lindahl, B.D.; Buée, M. Fungal community of forest soil: Diversity, functions, and services. In Forest Microbiology, Editors: Fred O. Asiegbu, Andriy Kovalchuk, Academic Press, Finland, 2021; Chapter 13, 231-255.
- Štursová, M.; Šnajdr, J.; Cajthaml, T.; Bárta, J.; Šantrůčková, H.; Baldrian, P. When the forest dies: the response of forest soil fungi to a bark beetle-induced tree dieback. ISMEJ 2014, 8, 1920–1931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Urbanová, M.; Šnajdr, J.; Baldrian, P. Composition of fungal and bacterial communities in forest litter and soil is largely determined by dominant trees, Soil Biology and Biochemistry 2015, 84, 53–64. 84.
- Olszowska, G. Soil enzymatic activity in artificially and naturally regenerated forests after wind damage in north-eastern Poland. Forest Research Papers 2016, 77, 89–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dincă,L. ; Oneț, A.; Enescu, R.; Pantea, E.; Romocea T.; Timis Gânsac V. Chemical properties of forest soils from Bihor County. Natural Resources and Sustainable Development 2017, 7, 35–42. [Google Scholar]
- Shi, L.; Dossa, G.G.O.; Paudel, E.; Zang, H.; Xu, J.; Harrison. RD. Changes in Fungal Communities across a Forest Disturbance Gradient. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2019, 85, e00080–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vašutová, M.; Edwards-Jonášová, M.; Veselá, P.; Effenberková, L.; Fleischer, P.; Cudlín, P. Management regime is the most important factor influencing ectomycorrhizal species community in Norway spruce forests after windthrow. Mycorrhiza 2018, 28, 221–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Šimonovičová, A.; Kraková, L.; Piecková, E.; Planý, M.; Globanová, M.; Pauditšová, E.; Šoltys, K.; Budiš, J.; Szemes, T.; Gáfriková, J.; Pangallo, D. Soil Microbiota of Dystric Cambisol in the High Tatra Mountains (Slovakia) after Windthrow. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Camarero, J.J.; Colangelo, M.; Gazol, A.; Pizarro, M.; Valeriano, C.; Igual, J.M. Effects of Windthrows on Forest Cover, Tree Growth and Soil Characteristics in Drought-Prone Pine Plantations. Forests 2021, 12, 817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crișan, V.E.; Dincă, L.C.; Oneț, A.; Bragă, C.I.; Enescu, R.E.; Teușdea, A.C.; Oneț, C. Ipact of winsthrows disturbance on chemical and biological properties of the forest soils from Romania. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 2021, 20, 1163–1172. [Google Scholar]
- Mayer, M.; Rusch, S.; Didion, M.; Baltensweiler, A.; Walthert, L.; Ranft, F.; Rigling, A.; Zimmermann, S.; Hagedorn, F. Elevation dependent response of soil organic carbon stocks to forest windthrow. Science of The Total Environment 2023, Part 3, 159694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Regia Națională a Pădurilor ROMSILVA - Institutul de Cercetări și Amenajări Silvice, RNP-INCDS, Amenajamentul U.P. VII Văratec, Ocolul Silvic Sudrigiu, Direcția Silvică Bihor, 2014, 406.
- Giurgiu, V.; Decei, I.; Armășescu, S. Biometria arborilor și arboretelor din România, Tabelele pentru inventarierea statistică a arboretelor, CERES Publishing House: București, Romania, 1972.
- Ministerul Apelor, Pădurilor și Protecției Mediului, MAPPM, Ordin Nr. 1653 din 31.10,2000, privind aprobarea „Normelor tehnice pentru efectuarea controlului anual al regenerărilor”, Nr. 7.
- Săulescu, N.A.; Săulescu, N.N. Câmpul de experiență, Ed. a II –a, Agro-Silvică Publishing House, București, Romania, p. 336, 1967.
- Ardelean, M.; Sestraș, R.; Codrea, M. Tehnică Experimentală Horticolă, Revised and Added Ed.; ACADEMICPRES Publishing House: Cluj Napoca, Romania, 2005; pp. 38–53. [Google Scholar]
- Institutul de Cercetări și Amenajări Silcice, ICAS, Harta Generală, Direcția Națională a Pădurilor ROMSILVA, Direcția Silvică Bihor, Ocolul Silvic Sudrigiu, Unitatea de Producție VII Văratec, 2014.
- Institutul de Cercetare pentru Pedologie şi Agrochimie, ICPA, Metodologia elaborării studiilor pedologice. vol. I, II şi III, Edit. CERES, Bucureşti, Romania, 1987.
- Wiesmeier, M.; Barthold, F.; Spörlein, P.; Geuß, U.; Hangen, E.; Reischl, A.; Schilling, B.; Angst, G.; von Lützow, M.; Kögel-Knabner, I. Estimation of total organic carbon storage and its driving factors in soils of Bavaria (southeast Germany), Geoderma Regional 2014, 1, 67–78. 1.
- Drăgan – Bularda, M. Microbiologie generală – lucrări practice, Babeş Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 2000, p. 70.
- GNU Operating System PSPP. Available online: https://www.gnu.org/software/pspp/ (accessed on 17 april 2022).
- Meesenburg, H.; Riek, W.; Ahrends, B.; Eickenscheidt, N.; Grüneberg, E.; Evers, J.; Fortmann, H.; König, N.; Lauer, A.; Meiwes, K.J. ; Nagel, H-D.; Schimming, C-G., Ed.; Wellbrock, N. Soil Acidification in German Forest Soils. In: Status and Dynamics of Forests in Germany. Wellbrock, N., Bolte, A. (eds); Ecological Studies, Springer, 2019, Cham. 237, pp. 93-121.
- de Wit, H.A.; Eldhuset, T.D.; Mulder, J. Dissolved Al reduces Mg uptake in Norway spruce forest: Results from a long-term field manipulation experiment in Norway. Forest Ecology and Management. 2010, 259, 2072–2082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Axer, M.; Schlicht, R.; Wagner, S. Modelling potential density of natural regeneration of European oak species (Quercus robur L., Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.) depending on the distance to the potential seed source: Methodological approach for modelling dispersal from inventory data at forest enterprise level. Forest Ecology and Management 2021, 482, 118802. [Google Scholar]
- Kanjevac, B.; Krstić, M.; Babić, V.; Govedar, Z. Regeneration Dynamics and Development of Seedlings in Sessile Oak Forests in Relation to the Light Availability and Competing Vegetation. Forests 2021, 12, 384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Varrik, M. Natural regeneration after wind disturbance. Master Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Uppsala, Sweden.
- Tsvetanov, N.; Dountchev, A.; Panayotov, M.; Zhelev, P.; Bebi, P.; Yurukov, S. Short- and long-term natural regeneration after windthrow disturbances in Norway spruce forests in Bulgaria. iForest 2018, 11, 675–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heinrichs, S.; Schmidt, W. Windthrow and ice break in beech forests: A chance for oak and other tree species? Results from four strict forest nature reserves. Forstarchiv, 2013, 84, 181–197. [Google Scholar]
- Kupferschmid, A.D.; Bugmann, H. Effect of microsites, logs and ungulate browsing on Picea abies regeneration in a mountain forest, Forest Ecology and Management 2005, 205, 251–265. 205.
- Dodet, M.; Collet, C.; Frochot, H.; Wehrlen, L. Tree regeneration and plant species diversity responses to vegetation control following a major windthrow in mixed broadleaved stands. Eur J Forest Res 2011, 130, 41–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kramer, K.; Brang, P.; Bachofen, H.; Bugmann, H.; Wohlgemuth, T. Site factors are more important than salvage logging for tree regeneration after wind disturbance in Central European forests, Forest Ecology and Management 2014, 331, 116–128. 331.
- Campana, C.; Gauvin, S. ; Ponge, J-F. Influence of ground cover on earthworm communities in an unmanaged beech forest: linear gradient studies, European Journal of Soil Biology 2002, 38, 213–224. [Google Scholar]
- French, L.J.; Smith, G.F.; Kelly, D.L.; Mitchell, F.J.G.; O’Donoghue, S.; Iremonger, S.F. ; McKee, A-M. ; Ground flora communities in temperate oceanic plantation forests and the influence of silvicultural, geographic and edaphic factors, Forest Ecology and Management 2008, 255, 476–494. [Google Scholar]
- Don, A.; Bärwolff, M.; Kalbitz, K.; Andruschkewitsch, R.; Jungkunst, H.F.; Schulze, E. D. No rapid soil carbon loss after a windthrow event in the High Tatra. Forest Ecology and Management, 2017; 63, 91–96. [Google Scholar]
- Hanajík, P.; Gáfriková, J.; Zvarík, M. Dehydrogenase activity in topsoil at windthrow plots in Tatra National Park. Central European Forestry Journal 2017, 63, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gáfriková, J.; Hanajík, P.; Vykouková, I.; Zvarík, M.; Ferianc, P.; Drahovská, H.; Puškárová, A. Dystric Cambisol properties at windthrow sites with secondary succession developed after 12 years under different conditions in Tatra National Park. Biologia 2019, 74, 1099–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peterson, C.J. Within-stand variation in windthrow in southern boreal forests of Minnesota: Is it predictable? . Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 2004, 34, 365–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]









| Specification1 | Surface (ha) | Age of trees (years) |
Height of trees (m) |
Soil type2 | Hillside exhibi-tion3 | Land slope |
Average altitude (m) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
SP I 7SP+2BI+1BC |
12,48 | 48 | 19 | DC | W | 30 | 760 |
|
SP II 10 SP |
1,75 | 58 | 23 | DC | N | 6 | 840 |
|
SP III 10 SP |
5,46 | 58 | 23 | DC | N | 7 | 830 |
|
SS I 9SS+1BC |
19,63 | 113 | 28 | DC | S | 25 | 545 |
|
SS II 10 SS |
18,69 | 113 | 28 | DC | SE | 25 | 630 |
|
SS III 10 SS |
15,00 | 113 | 28 | LV | SW | 25 | 585 |
|
BC I 10 Fa |
30,92 | 108 | 30 | EC | NE | 30 | 430 |
|
BC II 10 Fa |
21,14 | 108/73 | 30/24 | DC | NE | 30 | 655 |
|
BC III 10 Fa |
35,58 | 108/73 | 29/23 | DC | NW | 25 | 740 |
| Variant | Specification | Horizons | |||||
| Ol | Ao | AB | Bv | BC | C/R | ||
| Dystric Cambisol, strongly eroded | |||||||
| a1.b0.I. | Depths (cm) | 0-5 | 5-15 | 15-40 | 40-70 | 70-100 | 100-120 |
| Texture | LL | LL | LL | LL | LL | LL | |
| Coarse fragments (%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 15 | 20 | |
| pH (H2O) | 4.55 | 4.55 | 4.55 | 4.60 | 4.65 | 4.80 | |
| Humus (%) | 4.87 | 4.00 | 3.13 | 2.30 | - | - | |
| Degree of base saturation V (% ) | 16.9 | 17.5 | 18.0 | 23.3 | 30.1 | 28.1 | |
| Lepti-dystric Cambisol, loam/loam, on shales | |||||||
| a2.b0.I. | Depths ( cm.) | 0-3 | 3-22 | - | 22-46 | - | - |
| Texture | SG | LL | - | LL | - | - | |
| Coarse fragments (%) | 0 | 15 | - | 30 | - | - | |
| pH (H2O) | 4.95 | 4.95 | - | 4.85 | - | - | |
| Humus (%) | 7.41 | 0.86 | - | 1.94 | - | - | |
| Degree of base saturation V (% ) | 30.2 | 25.2 | - | 16.7 | - | - | |
| Dystric Cambisol, loam/sandy loam, on acidic metamorphic material | |||||||
| a3.b0.III. | Depths (cm) | 0-10 | 10-30 | - | 30-50 | 50-85 | - |
| Texture | LL | LL | - | SG | SG | - | |
| Coarse fragments (%) | 0 | 0 | - | 10 | 15 | - | |
| pH (H2O) | 4.30 | 4.75 | - | 4.80 | 4.75 | - | |
| Humus (%) | 8.46 | 3.17 | - | 1.44 | - | - | |
| Degree of base saturation V (% ) | 8.3 | 13.0 | - | 14.9 | 17.2 | - | |
| Variant | Depth | SOCi | BDi | Sci | SOChz | |||
| (cm) | (%) | (g/cm3) | (%) | (m3/ha) | Differences | % | ||
| 1. | 119C Beech |
0-10 | 7.89 | 1.05 | 1.0 | 82.02 | ||
| 10-30 | 4.23 | 1.15 | 5.0 | 92.43 | ||||
| 30-50 | 1.65 | 1.24 | 7.0 | 38.06 | ||||
| Total | 212.51 | - | 100,00 | |||||
| 2. | a1b0I | 0-10 | 4.20 | 1.13 | 0 | 47.46 | ||
| 10-30 | 2.70 | 1.20 | 0 | 64.80 | ||||
| 30-50 | 2.34 | 1.26 | 5 | 45.66 | ||||
| Total | 157.92 | -54.59 | -25.69 | |||||
| 3. | a2b0I | 0-10 | 2.44 | 1.30 | 1.5 | 26,96 | ||
| 10-30 | 1.11 | 1.37 | 21.0 | 23.81 | ||||
| 30-50 | 1.40 | 1.47 | 30.0 | 28.81 | ||||
| Total | 79.58 | -132.93 | -62.55 | |||||
| 4. | a3b0III | 0-10 | 7.29 | 1.11 | 0 | 80.82 | ||
| 10-30 | 2.73 | 1.19 | 0 | 64.97 | ||||
| 30-50 | 1.24 | 1.28 | 10.0 | 28.57 | ||||
| Total | 174.36 | -38.15 | -17.95 | |||||
| Variant | Repetition | Total area (ha) |
The affected surface (ha) |
Percent (%) |
Losses of TOC (m3) |
TOC losses per unit (m3/ha) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a1b0 | I | 12.48 | 5.73 | 45.91 | 1588 | 277.14 |
| II | 1.75 | 1.50 | 85.71 | 26 | 17.33 | |
| III | 5.46 | 2.00 | 36.63 | 660 | 330.00 | |
| Average | 6.56 | 3.08 | 46.95 | 758 | 208.16 | |
| a2b0 | I | 19.63 | 2.06 | 10.49 | 802 | 389.32 |
| II | 18.69 | 5.77 | 30.87 | 2266 | 392.72 | |
| III | 15.00 | 5.93 | 39.53 | 2753 | 464.25 | |
| Average | 17.77 | 4.59 | 25.83 | 1940 | 415.43 | |
| a3b0 | I | 30.92 | 9.87 | 31.92 | 4105 | 415.91 |
| II | 21.14 | 8.28 | 39.17 | 2706 | 326.81 | |
| III | 35.58 | 16.50 | 46.37 | 5247 | 318.00 | |
| Average | 29.21 | 11.55 | 39.54 | 4019 | 353.57 | |
| Total | 160.65 | 57.64 | 35.87 | 20153 | ||
| Influence of tree species on CDA | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Factor A Species |
Average CDA |
Percent % |
Differences +/- |
Significance |
| Spurce | 4.94 | 100.00 | - | - |
| Sessile | 8.68 | 175.61 | + 3.74 | - |
| Beech | 16.54 | 334.78 | + 11.60 | *** |
|
Limit Differences (LD) |
LD 5 % | 4.55 | ||
| LD 1 % | 6.46 | |||
| LD 0.1 % | 9.36 | |||
| Influence of windthrows on CDA | ||||
|
Factor B Windthrow |
Average CDA |
Percent % |
Differences +/- |
Significance |
| AW | 26.22 | 100.00 | - | - |
| WW | 34.09 | 130.00 | - 7.87 | - |
|
Limit Differences (LD) |
LD 5 % | 9.03 | ||
| LD 1 % | 12.84 | |||
| LD 0.1 % | 18.60 | |||
| Influence of tree species and windthrows on CDA | ||||
| Variants | Average CDA |
Percent % |
Differences +/- |
Significance |
| a1b0 | 3.96 | 100.00 | - | - |
| a1b1 | 5.92 | 149.71 | + 1.97 | - |
| a2b0 | 6.33 | 159.90 | + 2.37 | - |
| a2b1 | 11.02 | 278.60 | + 7.07 | * |
| a3b0 | 15.94 | 402.78 | + 11.98 | ** |
| a3b1 | 17.14 | 433.19 | + 13.18 | ** |
|
Limit Differences (LD) |
LD 5 % | 6.42 | ||
| LD 1 % | 9.14 | |||
| LD 0.1 % | 13.23 | |||
| Influence of tree species on PDA | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor A Speciee | Average PDA |
Percent % |
Differences +/- |
Significance |
| Spruce | 10.93 | 100,00 | - | - |
| Sessile | 16.78 | 153.61 | + 5.86 | * |
| Beech | 22.03 | 201.60 | + 11,10 | ** |
|
Limit Differences (LD) |
LD 5 % | 5.76 | ||
| LD 1 % | 8.19 | |||
| LD 0.1 % | 11.86 | |||
| Influence of windthrows on PDA | ||||
|
Factor B Windthrow |
Average PDA |
Percent % |
Differences +/- |
Significance |
| AW | 50.64 | 100.00 | - | - |
| WW | 48.83 | 96.43 | 1.81 | - |
|
Limit Differences (LD) |
LD 5 % | 4.70 | ||
| LD 1 % | 6.69 | |||
| LD 0.1 % | 9.68 | |||
| Influence of tree species and windthrow on PDA | ||||
| Variant | Average PDA |
Percent % |
Differences +/- |
Significance |
| a1b1 | 10.56 | 100.00 | - | - |
| a1b0 | 11.29 | 106.98 | + 0.74 | - |
| a2b0 | 15.46 | 146.73 | + 4.91 | - |
| a2b1 | 18.10 | 171.46 | + 7.54 | - |
| a3b1 | 21.98 | 208.21 | + 11.42 | * |
| a3b0 | 22.07 | 209.06 | + 11.51 | * |
|
Limit Differences (LD) |
LD 5 % | 8.14 | ||
| LD 1 % | 11.58 | |||
| LD 0.1 % | 16.77 | |||
| bbbbb | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor A Species | Average million CFU / g soil |
Percent | Differences +/- |
Significance |
| Spruce | 25.42 | 100.00 | - | - |
| Sessile | 14.08 | 55.41 | 11.33 | oo |
| Beech | 12.78 | 50.30 | 12.63 | oo |
|
Limit Differences (LD) |
LD 5 % | -6.34 | ||
| LD 1 % | 9.02 | |||
| LD 0.1 % | 13.06 | |||
| Influence of windthrows on NF | ||||
|
Factor B Windthrow |
Average million CFU / g soil |
Percent % |
Differences +/- |
Significance |
| AW | 36,73333 | 100 | - | |
| WW | 67,83333 | 184.66 | + 31,1 | *** |
|
Limit Differences (LD) |
LD 5 % | 5.18 | ||
| LD 1 % | 7.36 | |||
| LD 0.1 % | 10.66 | |||
| Influence of tree species and windthrows on NF | ||||
| Variant | Average million CFU / g soil |
Percent % |
Differences +/- |
Significance |
| a1b1 | 33.5 | 100 | - | |
| a3b1 | 17.67 | 52.75 | 15.83 | oo |
| a1b0 | 17.33 | 51.73 | 16.17 | oo |
| a2b1 | 16.67 | 49.76 | 16.83 | oo |
| a2b0 | 11.50 | 34.33 | 22.00 | ooo |
| a3b0 | 7.90 | 23.58 | 25.6 | ooo |
|
Limit Differences (LD) |
LD 5 % | 8.97 | ||
| LD 1 % | 12.75 | |||
| LD 0.1 % | 18.47 | |||
| Specification | Spruce | Sessile | Beech | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repetition | I | II | III | I | II | III | I | II | III |
| CDA (g formazan / 10 g soil x 24 hr) | - 0.99 | - 1.74 | - 3.17 | - 4.45 | - 6.30 | - 3.34 | - 8.45 | 4.49 | 0.65 |
| Average | 1.93 | 4.49 | 1.0 | ||||||
| PDA (g formazan / 10 g soil x 24 hr) | -1.65 | 1.65 | -2.21 | -0.44 | 6.50 | 1.85 | -12.21 | 9.97 | 1.97 |
| Average | - 0.74 | 2.64 | -0.09 | ||||||
| NF (million CFU / g soil) | - 19.50 | - 11.00 | - 18.00 | - 4.50 | - 9.50 | - 1.50 | -23.30 | - 0.50 | - 5.50 |
| Average | 16.17 | 5.17 | 9.77 | ||||||
| Factors | Tree species | Windthrows | CDA | PDA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Windthrow | 0.000 | |||
| CDA | 0.768a | 0.195 | ||
| PDA | 0.796a | 0.046 | 0.732a | |
| NF | -0.580a | 0.582a | -0.224 | -0.296 |
| Factors | Trees species | CDA | PDA | NF | Age of trees | Surface | TOC | Height | Altitude | Land slope | Soil | Tree saplings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CDA | .088 | |||||||||||
| PDA | .045 | .654a | ||||||||||
| NF | .336 | .514 | .776a | |||||||||
| Age of trees | .672a | -.410 | .046 | .440 | ||||||||
| Surface | .900a. | -.050 | -.154 | .124 | .589a | |||||||
| TOC | .488 | -.351 | -.138 | .126 | .711a | .532 | ||||||
| Height | .752a | -.400 | -.050 | .342 | .939a | .591a | .603a | |||||
| Altitude | -.638a | .530 | .347 | -.042 | -.838a | -.601a | -.713a | -.819a | ||||
| Land slope | .645a | .022 | .005 | .143 | .508 | .713a | .618a | .370 | -.678a | |||
| Soil | -.217 | -.761a | -.753a | -.831a | -.065 | -.088 | -.061 | .030 | -.292 | -.098 | ||
| Tree saplings | -.439 | -.822a | -.726a | -.615a | .025 | -.211 | .275 | -.036 | -.189 | -.193 | .603a | |
| Shrubs and grasses | .467 | .430 | -.139 | -.105 | -.181 | .476 | -.104 | -.108 | -.087 | .508 | -.157 | -.384 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).