CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18Plant Ecology and Soil ScienceSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsSoil Management and Crop Yield

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Acid soil indicators in forest soils of the Cherry River Watershed, West Virginia

Farr, C., Skousen, J., Edwards, P., Connolly, S., Sencindiver, J.·2009·Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
DOI 10.1007/s10661-008-0588-8
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Declining forest health has been observed during the past several decades in several areas of the eastern USA, and some of this decline is attributed to acid deposition. Decreases in soil pH and increases in soil acidity are indicators of potential impacts on tree growth due to acid inputs and Al toxicity. The Cherry River watershed, which lies within the Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia, has some of the highest rates of acid deposition in Appalachia. East and West areas within the watershed, which showed differences in precipitation, stream chemistry, and vegetation composition, were compared to evaluate soil acidity conditions and to assess their degree of risk on tree growth. Thirty-one soil pits in the West area and 36 pits in the East area were dug and described, and soil samples from each horizon were analyzed for chemical parameters. In A horizons, East area soils averaged 3.7 pH with 9.4 cmol(c) kg(-1) of acidity compared to pH 4.0 and 6.2 cmol(c) kg(-1) of acidity in West area soils. Extractable cations (Ca, Mg, and Al) were significantly higher in the A, transition, and upper B horizons of East versus West soils. However, even with differences in cation concentrations, Ca/Al molar ratios were similar for East and West soils. For both sites using the Ca/Al ratio, a 50% risk of impaired tree growth was found for A horizons, while a 75% risk was found for deeper horizons. Low concentrations of base cations and high extractable Al in these soils translate into a high degree of risk for forest regeneration and tree growth after conventional tree harvesting.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10661-008-0588-8

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Native forest soil pH at Pre-mining Birch River and Pre-mining Catenary varied from 4.1 to 5.2, a common range for Appalachian forest soils.

    “Table 3 lists the pH of native forest soils at Pre-mining Birch River (P-BR) and Pre-mining Catenary (P-CY), which varied from 4.1 to 5.2 [36], a common range for soils in Appalachian forests [21,38-40].”

    From Early Tree Growth in Reclaimed Mine Soils in Appalachia USA (2019) · cites this paper as [38]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Mizel, N. (2005). The transport and fate of applied limestone sand and palletized lime following timber harvesting (p. 64 ). Master’s Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University.
  2. Sims, J. T. (1996). Lime requirement. In: Methods of soil analysis, part 3: Chemical methods (pp. 491–515). SSSA Book Series No. 5. Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison, WI.
  3. Sponaugle, C. (2005). Properties and acid risk assessment of soils in two parts of the Cherry River Watershed, West Virginia (169 p). M.S. Thesis, Division of Plant and Soil Sciences, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Farr, C., Skousen, J., Edwards, P., Connolly, S., & Sencindiver, J.
Affiliations
  • US Forest Service (US)
  • West Virginia University (US)
Corresponding author
Skousen, J.
ORCID
Venue
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2008-11-08
Volume
158
Issue
1-4
Pages
343-353
ISSN
  • 0167-6369 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2959
DOI
10.1007/s10661-008-0588-8
OpenAlex
W2012574448
Cited by
18
References
51
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Plant Ecology and Soil Science
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Management and Crop Yield
Keywords
forest soils, acid deposition, soil acidity, aluminum toxicity, soil pH, extractable cations, forest regeneration, Monongahela National Forest, Appalachian forests, soil horizons
MeSH terms
Acids, Environmental Monitoring, Hydrogen-Ion Concentration, Soil, Trees, West Virginia, Rivers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review