ISSN 10642293, Eurasian Soil Science, 2015, Vol. 48, No. 4, pp. 359–372. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2015. Original Russian Text © S.V. Loiko, L.I. Geras’ko, S.P. Kulizhskii, I.I. Amelin, G.I. Istigechev, 2015, published in Pochvovedenie, 2015, No. 4, pp. 410–423.

GENESIS AND GEOGRAPHY OF SOILS

Soil Cover Patterns in the Northern Part of the Area of Aspen–Fir Taiga in the Southeast of Western Siberia S. V. Loikoa, L. I. Geras’koa, S. P. Kulizhskiia, I. I. Amelinb, and G. I. Istigecheva a

b

Tomsk State University, ul. Lenina 36, Tomsk, 634015 Russia Institute of Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Geophysics, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, pr. Akademika Lavrent’eva 6, Novosibirsk, 630090 Russia email: [email protected] Received March 19, 2014

Abstract—Soil cover patterns in the northern part of the area of aspen–fir taiga on the Tom’–Yaya interfluve at 170–270 m a.s.l. are analyzed. Landscapes of the subtaiga piedmont province are found at somewhat lower heights. The three major forms of the local mesotopography include virtually flat interfluve surfaces, slopes (that predominate in area), and the network of ravines and small river valleys. Modal soil combinations on the slopes consist of the typical soddypodzolic soils with very deep bleached eluvial horizons and dark gray (or gray) residualhumus gleyic soils with dark humus coatings. With an increase in the degree of drainage of the territory (toward the local erosional network), the portion of gleyic soil subtypes decreases from nearly 100% on the flat interfluves to 10–15% on the slopes; the portion of soils with residual humus features decreases from 80–90 to 10–15%, respectively. These two soil subtypes can be considered intergrades between typical soils of the aspen–fir taiga (soddypodzolic soils with very deep bleached horizons) and dark gray and gray residualhumus soils characteristic of the subtaiga zone in the south of Western Siberia. Keywords: Luvisols, aspen–fir taiga, soil cover, texturedifferentiated soils, soddypodzolic soils, dark gray soils, Western Siberia DOI: 10.1134/S1064229315040067

INTRODUCTION In 2014, we celebrated the 95th anniversary of the birth of Vladimir Markovich Fridland, the founder of the theory of soil cover patterns. This theory has proved its efficiency in different natural zones. How ever, despite the long period of special studies of soil cover patterns, they remain poorly studied in vast regions of Russia. One of these regions in the south of Western Siberia is confined to western windward slopes of the foothills of the Altay–Sayan mountain system, where specific humid hemiboreal forests are developed under conditions of the increased precipita tion because of the barrier effect of the mountains. These are aspen–fir forests with tall herbs in the ground cover; this plant community includes relict species [20, 27, 34, 53]. The litter horizon is virtually absent. Geobotanists distinguish between typical aspen–fir (dark, Chernevye) forests and aspen–fir taiga, in which the portion of boreal species in the plant cover is larger. Among various boreal and hemi boreal forests, tallherb forests represent the most complicated (in terms of their structure and functions) ecosystems [3, 44]. The largest area of these forests in Russia is confined to the foothills and mountains in the south of Siberia. The aspen–fir taiga is characterized by the very high biological productivity; it is also characterized by

the high degree of alteration of the parent material [47] and by the specific microclimate [54]. In compar ison with the typical southern taiga on the Western Siberian Plain, where Abies sibirica is also one of the major edificators, the total phytomass in the tallherb taiga is 1.5–2.0 times higher, and the reserves of cal cium and nitrogen in the phytomass are 1.4–1.8 and 2.0–2.5 times higher, respectively. The amount of cal cium entering the soil with plant litter is four times greater. The rate of litter decomposition is very high: plant litter is completely decomposed in 1.0–1.5 years [2, 45, 47]. The soils are rich in nutrients. For exam ple, the phosphorus content in the humus horizons reaches 879–1042 mg/kg, which is close to the upper limit of the phosphorus content in forest soils [56]. Soddypodzolic soils with extremely deep bleached horizons (according to [24]) predominate in the soil cover of the tallherb aspen–fir taiga of the piedmont zone and on low mountains. Some specific features of these soils were noted by many researchers, which led to the appearance of numerous “regional” soil names. Thus, these soils were described under the names of deeply podzolized mountainous taiga soils, soddy pseudopodzolic mountainous taiga soils, soddy deep podzolic lessivated mountainous forest soils, light gray strongly podzolized soils, and deeply podzolized soils of the Altay “Chern” (tallherb aspen–fir forests) [21,

359

360

LOIKO et al.

26, 38, 45, 47]. The soils of tallherb aspen–fir taiga are devoid of the litter horizon and are not subjected to winter freezing; a characteristic feature of these soils is the development of active soil water flows above the sur face of the illuvial horizon [18, 25–27, 36, 45, 47, 51]. According to the World Reference Base for Soil Resources [58], they can be classified as Albic Stagnic Luvisols (Clayic, Cutanic). In recent years, several works devoted to the genesis, evolution, and classifi cation of these soils have been published [57, 59, 60, 62, 63]. In our study, we consider the genesis and com position of the soil cover with the dominant participa tion of these soils. The morphology and analytical properties of the soils of the tallherb aspen–fir taiga and some aspects of their functioning have been studied sufficiently well [21, 25, 26, 28, 37–39, 42, 43, 45, 47]. However, the reasons (factors) of the specificity of these soils remain insufficiently studied; a comparative genetic and geo graphic analysis of these soils in different regions has yet to be performed, and data on the soil cover patterns with participation of these soils are virtually absent. Some ideas on the diversity of particular soils in the soil cover can be found in the works by Trofimov [47] and Petrov [37, 38]. Thus, it was shown that the pedo genesis in the tallherb aspen–fir taiga may follow the podzolic and burozemic (brown forest) types. Pod zolic soils are confined to the areas with brown silty clay mantle loams and clays. These substrates predom inate in the considered region and cover the middle and lower parts of slopes. They have an eolian genesis with further redeposition by various slope processes, during which the eolian sediments were enriched with the debris of local bedrocks [4, 13, 35, 42, 52]. Burozems (brown taiga soils, Cambisols) tend to develop from the bedrock residuum and colluvial deposits without the cover of brown loams and clays. Though it is generally believed that the soil cover under the tallherb aspen–fir forests is relatively homogeneous, special studies performed in the area of the Mountain Shoria and Kuznetsk Alatau ranges have proved the diversity of the soil components: elu vozems, soddy eluvozems, soddypodzolic and pod zolic soils, burozems and dark burozems, darkhumus soils, and grayhumus soils have been described there. The morphology and properties of the very deep bleached horizons differ in different parts of the area of tallherb aspen–fir taiga. For example, the humus profile of light gray soils on the western part of the Salair Ridge is characterized by the presence of a sec ond humus horizon with a predominance of humic acids of the first fraction among the humic acids [28]. On the eastern part of this ridge, humic acids of the second fraction predominate in the composition of the humus [23]. These differences point to the intrar egional specificity of the genesis of the soils under the tallherb aspen–fir taiga. To understand this specific ity, more detailed studies of the soil cover of the eco tone zones are required. In this paper, we consider the

results of the soil cover study in the northern ecotone of the tallherb aspen–fir taiga. A factorgenetic scheme of the soil cover development, the dominant and subdominant components of the soil cover, and their spatial relationships are discussed. OBJECTS AND METHODS The soils and soil cover patterns were studied in the northern part of the Kuznetsk Alatau area of tallherb aspen–fir taiga ecosystems extending to the north of the Kuznetsk Alatau Ridge (up to 57° N) within the upper part of the Tom’–Yaya interfluve [8, 30, 51]. In this region, the tallherb aspen–fir taiga ecosystems occupy the highest positions of the relief (up to 270 m a.s.l.) amidst the subtaiga zone occupying lower positions. In the north, these ecosystems are bordered by typical southern taiga ecosystems. Thus, we studied a latitudi nal ecotone between the subtaiga, southern taiga, and tallherb aspen–fir taiga. Lower parts of the Tom’–Yaya interfluve are occupied by the zonal subtaiga herba ceous–grassy pine–broadleaved (birch, aspen, alder) forests developing on gray and dark gray soils in the autonomous positions. In the central part of the inter fluve with higher elevations (>170–200 m a.s.l.), the subtaiga ecosystems are replaced by the tallherb aspen–fir taiga [8]. The calcareous loesslike clayey mantle with rela tively homogeneous properties in the studied region serves as the parent material [35]. This substrate is characterized by the dominance of the clay (30–50%) and coarse silt (40–50%) fractions. At a depth of 3– 5 m, it is underlain by the lacustrine–bog lowcarbon ate Taiginsk clay overlying the products of weathering and disintegration of bedrock slates. The mean annual temperature is –1.0°C, and the mean annual precipitation reaches 700–750 mm; the precipitationtopotential evaporation ratio (accord ing to Ivanov) is 1.3. The soils virtually do not freeze in the winter because of the very deep (60–80 cm; >1 m in the snowy winters) snow cover. The vegetation dif fers from the typical tallherb aspen–fir taiga of the low mountains in the greater phytocenotic role of Abies sibirica, somewhat lower height and phytomass of tall herbs, and less diverse relict species. The mesotopography of the studied area is repre sented by three major landforms (Fig. 1): flat surfaces of the central parts of interfluves of the first and second orders, very gentle and gentle slopes (in some places, moderately steep slopes) from flat interfluves to the brows of local valleys, and ravines and river valleys with moderately steep to steep slopes. Field studies were mainly performed on a key poly gon in the area of typical aspen–fir forests at the late succession stages; in some places, these mature forests are disturbed by recent cuts. Key plot 09 (KP09) (100 × 100 m) was studied on a virtually flat interfluve surface. The soilgeomorphological profile across this EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE

Vol. 48

No. 4

2015

SOIL COVER PATTERNS IN THE NORTHERN PART N 56°18.50 E 85°29.01

II

6

E

D

361

I B C

A

N 56°18.22 E 85°27.58

100 m 1

2

3

4

5

Fig. 1. Schematic map of the key site. Key plots: (I) KP09 and (II) KP08. Transects: AC, AB, and DE. Designations: (1) flat interfluves, (2) mesoslopes, (3) ravines and upper reaches of rivulets, (4) paleohollow, (5) railway, and (6) trench Tr12.

plot and the soil map of the plot were developed with the use of the methods of digital soil mapping [49, 50]. The upper parts of gentle mesoslopes drained by erosional hollows were studied on KP08, for which the soil map was compiled using the landscape indication method. A transect (DE) across the local hollow was specially studied. To study lower parts of the mesoslopes between ravines, a soilgeomorphological profile (AC) was examined. For the detailed analysis of the soil hori zonation on the slope of a ravine in the area of contact between two major components of the soil cover, a soil trench (Tr12) was studied. The soils of local ravines were characterized by transect (AB) (Fig. 1). Field studies were performed in agreement with the methodology of pedogenetic and soilgeographical studies. The names of the soil combinations were given according to Goryachkin [12]. The regularities of the soil cover patterns on the key polygon were then tested in soil trips across the entire interfluve. Overall, more than 100 soil profiles were examined. To diagnose the soils and soilforming pro cesses, a set of analytical and macro and mesomor phological methods was applied. The soil horizons and soils were diagnosed accord ing to the new classification system of Russian soils [9, 24, 40] with the following amendments aimed to enlarge the possibilities for the proper description of the real diversity of soils. (1) Light gray soils were distinguished at the type level as suggested in [17]. Earlier, Tonkonogov [46] analyzed the materials obtained in the noncher nozemic zone of European Russia and placed light gray soils and soddypodzolic soils into the same type (soddypodzolic soils) on the basis of similar values of the coefficient of textural differentiation in these soils. This decision was fixed in the new classification [24]. It was also noted that the humus content in light gray EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE

Vol. 48

No. 4

2015

soils is similar to that in soddypodzolic soils and dif fers from the humus content in gray soils. However, the properties of these soils in the southeast of Western Siberia are somewhat different. Though the coefficient of textural differentiation in them is similar to that in light gray soils of European Russia [41, 55], the humus content in the eluvial horizons is higher. Thus, in the light gray soils under tallherb aspen–fir taiga, the loss of clay from the eluvial (EL) horizon is combined with a relatively high humus content (up to 2%). This is considered indicative of the humuseluvial AEL hori zon. In turn, the latter is a diagnostic horizon of the type of gray soils with lower values of the coefficient of textural differentiation. We distinguished eluvial hori zons with a considerable content of humus (up to 2%) as ELa horizons with Munsell values of 6.5–7.5. Thus, the described light gray soils have a coefficient of tex tural differentiation similar to that in soddypodzolic soils, and the humus content in the eluvial horizon is close to that in the AEL horizon of gray soils. (2) Symbol “HH” was used to designate the resid ualhumus (second humus) horizons, and symbol “hh” was used to designate the other soil horizons with residual humus. These two kinds of horizons specify corresponding soil subtypes. Residualhumus hori zons represent the lower part of the humus profile with an enlarged Cha/Cfa ratio [7, 16]. In the case when a continuous horizon is absent and the features of resid ual humus are seen in mottles at the contact zone between the eluvial and textural (with illuviated clay) horizons, they are designated by the “hh” symbol [24]. Residualhumus horizons in the soils of the tallherb aspen–fir taiga have the following characteristic fea tures: (1) their color is usually (but not always) darker than the color of the overlying horizons; (2) their structure is angular blocky or prismatic–angular blocky; in some loci, it is defined as a coprolitic granu

362

LOIKO et al.

lar–fine crumb structure; (3) the HH horizon is usually found between the AU (dark humus), AEL (rarely, EL) (humuseluvial and eluvial, respectively), and BTth (textural horizon with humus–clay coatings) horizons; (4) the intraped mass of the HH horizon is of a brownish (dark) gray color; ped faces are darker and are covered by humus–clay coatings (in some cases, with overlying skeletans) that become more pronounced in the lower part of the horizon; (5) the intraped mass is rich in fine ocherous “punctuations” and small nodules; and (6) the clay content is 1.5 to 2.0 times higher than that in the overlying horizon (so the HH horizon represents the upper part of the illuvial soil layer). (3) The character of the parent materials and relief conditions in the south of Western Siberia favors the widespread distribution of taiga soils containing car bonates at a relatively shallow depth [7, 14]. Such soils were also described in the area of our studies under the tallherb aspen–fir taiga. Typical carbonate pedofea tures are represented by large nodules (loess dolls) and filaments. These soils are separated into the subtype of shalloweffervescing soils [16]; the line of efferves cence in them is within the BT horizon or immediately under it. (4) Textural (BT) horizons containing brownish dark gray humus–clay coatings were designated as BTth horizons; they specify the separation of the cor responding subtype of darkcutan soils. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A factorgenetic scheme of the soil cover (table) was developed by us on the basis of the approaches suggested by Goryachkin [12]. The groups of cover determining and coverforming processes were distin guished. The coverdetermining processes are respon sible for fundamental differences in the soil covers at the level of soil mesocombinations. For the upper parts of the Tom’–Yaya interfluve, these were the lacus trine–bog sedimentation, which led to the develop ment of the Taiginsk clay sediments followed by the regional lowering of the base of erosion and, then, by the formation of covering loesslike clayey deposits that contained carbonates in their lower part and were carbonatefree in their upper part. The latter deposits serve as the major type of parent materials for the modern soils [6, 13, 14]. After the formation of the major features of the macro and mesotopography, the coverforming pro cesses (table) specified the development of a specific microtopography with small mounds, intermound troughs, and hollows. Their formation was due to the melting of ice wedges at the beginning of the Holocene. It is probable that a similar microtopography was formed in the European territory of Russia [5, 32]. On the mesoslopes, the development of the modern meso and microtopography proceeded in two stages. After the end of active sedimentation, surface subsid ence, denudation, and cryogenic (?) processes shaped

the hollows and microdivides of the first generation; their pattern followed the pattern of the underlying surface topography buried under the deposited sedi ments. In the hollows, soils with large calcareous nod ules were formed [31]. During the second stage, the activation of erosional processes took place; new ravines dissected the former hollows, so the remaining part of the ancient hollows on the interfluves is rela tively short (150–200 m). Some growth of these ravines continues at present, though the stage of their active growth is already in the past. Coverdetermining and coverforming processes control the particular mechanisms of the soil cover differentiation. Among them, a leading process speci fying the maximum number of boundaries between soil combinations is to be distinguished [12]. In the studied tallherb aspen–fir taiga, this is the differenti ation of the soil moistening. The differentiation of soils on moderately steep (>5°–6°) slopes is also affected by the slope aspect. The differentiation of soils near the brows of paleohollows and microdepres sions is influenced by the depth of carbonates in the soil profile. Below, the soil cover of the major forms of mesoto pography is characterized. Flat interfluve surfaces. The soil cover of flat inter fluves was studied in detail on KP09. Five forms of the local microtopography were distinguished on this plot (Fig. 2): microdivides (mounds) characterized by divergent water flows, microdivides (mounds) with flat tops, small intermound depressions (microlows), shallow hollows with indistinct brows, and slopes between the mounds and the hollows. Among the soil horizons, the most continuous spa tial pattern is typical of the grayhumus AY horizon (Fig. 3). Its thickness varies from 5–6 to 10–14 cm. The transitional AY/ELa,g horizon is characterized by larger variations in the thickness; on the slope between the mound and the hollow, it is transformed into the eluvialhumus AEL horizon diagnostic of the gray soil. Eluvial horizons within KP09 contain considerable amounts of manganese–iron nodules. They are diag nosed as gleyic (stagnic) horizons with an increased humus content (ELa,g). Their maximum bleaching is observed on the flattopped mounds. With an increase in the catchment area on the slope toward the hollow, the ELa,g horizon is replaced by the residualhumus HH horizon. The clay content in it increases by almost three times (from 11% in the lower part of the ELa,g horizon of the mound to 32% in the lower part of the HH horizon). The pattern of soil water flows also changes from the mound toward the hollow. The boundaries of the areas of the EL and HH hori zons are specified by the local microtopography. The maximum thickness of the eluvial horizon is seen under the apical parts of the mounds, where optimum conditions for the discharge of temporary perched water are observed. In these places, the residual forms of humus are represented by lowcontrasting whitish EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE

Vol. 48

No. 4

2015

SOIL COVER PATTERNS IN THE NORTHERN PART I

m 100 A

0.9

Fig. 2. Key plot KP09: (I) microtopography; black dots indicate the position of the studied pits, and arrows show the direction of the studied transect (Fig. 3) with the begin ning at point A; (II) relative thickness of the HH horizon; (III) the soil cover pattern: (1) lowcontrasting microcom bination of gleyic light gray shalloweffervescent soils and soils with residual humus; (2) gleyic light gray residual humus soil; (3) microcombination of gleyic light gray and gray shalloweffervescent residualhumus soils; (4) micro combination of gleyic gray and dark gray residualhumus soils.

363

1.2 1.0

1.05

E

D

5

C

50 0.9

gray mottles in the lower part of the EL horizon and in the underlying BEL horizon. In the soils under flat topped mounds, the ELg horizon is often combined with the HH horizon, and this is the only position at which both horizons are clearly distinguished in the soil profile. The presence of the residualhumus hori zon in the soils of flattopped mounds attests to the residual nature of this horizon and contradicts the hypothesis about its buried character. Note that anal ogous secondhumus horizons in the opolie regions of European Russia with similar topographic conditions were mainly formed due to burying of humus horizons in microdepressions [32]. Textural (clayilluvial) horizons of the key plot are characterized by relatively even thickness; in the hol lows, their thickness increases by 10–20 cm. Textural horizons in the hollows are also characterized by the high amount of black coatings on the walls of large fis sures; similar coatings in smaller amounts can also be present in the soils of other elements of the microto pography. The effervescence line is at the depth of 100–120 cm in the soils of the mounds and 2 m and more in the soils of the hollows. The soils are affected by the temporarily perched water. Even in dry years, watersaturated horizons on the microdivides appear within the upper 2 m. Water fills fine pores in the clayey material; it is recharged due to water infiltration from the upper soil horizons. Bluish zones with ocherous fringes appear around waterfilled pores and fissures owing to gleyzation pro cesses. The longterm saturation of the pores with water does not favor the development of illuviation coatings [22], so the textural horizons of the flat sur faces have a lower degree of the development of clayey coatings in comparison with the textural horizons on the better drained mesoslopes dissected by the ero sional network. The thickness of the HH horizon is subjected to considerable variations within the plot (Fig. 2II). It depends on the position of the soil in the relief and on the former phytoturbation (due to uprooting) pro cesses. In places where the soil water flows have a divergent pattern, the HH horizon virtually disap pears. The position of a soil with residual humus in the form of separate mottles in the lower part of the ELa,g horizon is indicated by arrow a (Fig. 2II). This is a microsaddle with oppositely directed divergent soil EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE

Vol. 48

No. 4

2015

0.9

D

5 1.0 B 0.9

0. 9

0

0.9

50

100

m

II

m 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30

a

20 b

10 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 m

III

m 100 80 60 40 20

0

20

1

40

60

2

80

3

100 m

4

364

LOIKO et al.

1.6

m

I

IV

III

IV

III

II

III

V

III

I

1.2 0.8 0.4

0

20

40 1

60

80 2

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 m 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Fig. 3. Soil transect across KP09 (see Fig. 2). Horizons: (1) AY, (2) AY/ELa, (3) AEL, (4) ELg/ELa,g, (5) HH, (6) BELhh, (7) BTg,th, (8) BCg, and (9) BCca,g. Soils: (I) gleyic shalloweffervescent light gray; (II) gleyic residualhumus light gray; (III) microcombinations of gleyic shalloweffervescent light gray and gray residualhumus soils.

water flows that favor the destruction of the residual humus horizon. Near this place, on the slope of a mound with slightly divergent soil water flows (arrow b), the HH horizon has a thickness of 17–20 cm. The average depth of the lower boundary of hori zons BEL or HH/BT (transitional to the textural BT horizon) is 50 ± 4 cm. Such a considerable thickness of the eluvial layer allows us to attribute these soils to the species of very deeply bleached soils. The obtained data on the distribution patterns of the soils with somewhat different horizonation allowed us to compile a schematic map of the soil cover patterns on KP09. Overall, four microcombinations of soils are distinguished. Microdivides (mounds with an apical part) are occupied by the gleyic light gray soils with a relatively shallow line of effervescence and by the soils with the residualhumus horizon. This combination occupies about 10–15% of the area. A flattopped mound on the plot is occupied by the gleyic light gray residualhumus soil with participation of the soil dis turbed by windfalls with mixed fragments of the HH and EL horizons. The largest area on the slopes between the microdivides and hollows is occupied by a lowcon trasting combination of gleyic light gray and gray soils with the residualhumus horizon and a relatively shal low line of effervescence. In the hollows, a combination of gleyic gray and dark gray soils with a residualhumus horizon about 25 cm in thickness is developed. At the level of soil mesocombinations, the soil cover of flat interfluves belongs to the class of lowcon trasting mesocombinations (spottiness patterns) of gleyic shalloweffervescent light gray soils with resid ual humus and gleyic gray and dark gray residual humus soils. Mesoslopes drained by the network of ravines and hollows. The soil cover of the upper parts of these

mesoslopes was examined on KP08 and transect DE across this plot (Figs. 4 and 5). Transect DE crosses a combination of a typical soddypodzolic soil and a gleyic dark gray residualhumus soil. The former soil occupies microdivides and their slopes, and the latter soil is found in the hollow. A relatively narrow (10 m) transitional zone between these two soils is occupied by a gray soil with residual humus and dark coatings in the BT horizon. The boundary between these two soil units represents a transitional area of a gleyic gray soil with residual humus and with dark coatings in the BT horizon. The width of this transitional area is about 10 m. In the soddypodzolic soil of the microdi vide, the subeluvial horizon has a thickness of 45 to 70 cm and is composed of the BELct and BTel subho rizons. The BELct subhorizon consists of the material of the eluvial horizon and the remains of the textural horizon; the BTel subhorizon is specified by the abun dant bleached skeletans over clayey coatings. On the slope to the hollow, these transitional horizons disap pear; the upper boundary of the BT horizon is found at the depth of about 65 cm; in the hollow, the BT hori zon contains numerous dark coatings on ped faces (the BTth horizon). The depth of effervescence varies from 170–200 cm on the microdivide to 270 cm in the bottom of the hollow. This profile illustrates the geo morphic “niche” of the HH horizon under conditions of convergent runoff flows with relatively good drain age conditions (slopes and bottom of the hollow). Thus, in contrast to flat interfluves, mesoslopes are characterized by microcombinations of light gray and soddypodzolic soils. They are typical of the tallherb aspen–fir forests of the low mountains and occupy more than 30% of the surveyed territory on the mesos lopes with divergent water flows. The most wide spread soil combination (>40%) is a microcombina EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE

Vol. 48

No. 4

2015

SOIL COVER PATTERNS IN THE NORTHERN PART

365

(a) m 290 1 1

1.5

280

E

0.7

1

0.5

270 0.7

0.5 0.2

260 D 1.5

250 90

80

100

110

I

130

120 (b) II

140

III

m

150

II

I

m 3

2

1

0

20 1

2

40 3

4

5

80 m

60 6

7

8

9

10

11

Fig. 4. Micromesocombination of light gray/soddypodzolic and gleyic dark gray residualhumus soils: (a) location of transect DE and contour lines and (b) scheme of the DE transect (see Fig. 5). Horizons: (1) AY, (2) AU, (3) EL+ELa, (4) AELhh, (5) AU/HH, (6) HH, (7) BEL+BT, (8) BTth, (9) BC, and (10) BCca; (11) sampling points. Soils: (I) light gray/soddypodzolic, (II) gleyic gray residualhumus (or with residual humus) soils, (III) gleyic residualhumus dark gray soil.

tion of light gray and gray soils with residual humus on gentle slopes of the microdepressions and hol lows. Microcombinations of gray and dark gray resid ualhumus soils in hollows occupy about 26% of the area. The soils of these three microcombinations are linked together by the flows of temporary perched water above the textural horizon. In the spring, this water is discharged onto the surface in the lower parts EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE

Vol. 48

No. 4

2015

of the hollows, where it erodes the surface of the humus horizon, so that abraded residualhumus gleyic dark gray soils are formed. In these soils, the upper boundary of the BTth horizon lies at a depth of no more than 35–40 cm. In the hollows on slopes of 0.5°–3°, soil water flows are discharged onto the sur face to form surface runoff in places with a catchment area of about 1 ha. We estimated the volumes of tempo

366

LOIKO et al.

1 2 E D

3 4

B

50 m Fig. 5. Soil microcombinations on gentle slopes (KP08): (1) lowcontrasting microcombination of light gray and soddypodzolic soils, (2) microcombination of light gray and gray residualhumus (or with residual humus) soils with dark coatings in the BT horizon and with deep gleyic features, (3) microassociations of gleyic gray and dark gray residualhumus soils, and (4) dark gray residualhumus gleyic and abraded soils with residual humus.

rary perched water flowing through the upper soil hori zons in a place somewhat higher than the place of the soil water discharge onto the surface (point B, Fig. 5). The calculations were made for the upper soil layer (AU + AU/HH + HH) with a total thickness of 70 cm on the basis of data on the water discharge per unit of area (according to [11]) and the climatic characteris tics. It was supposed that the entire flow of temporary perched water from a catchment of 1 ha takes place above the BT horizon. The water infiltration and its further discharge with the groundwater flow were not taken into account because of the very low infiltration capacity of the underlying clay sediments. In both cal culations (from the hydrological data and from the cli matic data), similar values of the soil water discharge rates were obtained: 500 L/yr per area of 10 × 10 cm. These data indicate that the differentiation of the soil moistening is a significant factor in the genesis of soil microcombinations with residualhumus soils. To characterize the transition from the light gray to the dark gray soil, let us analyze data on the trench crossing the hollow (Fig. 6). It can be seen that the changes in the upper soil horizons (above the BT hori zon) are accompanied by the appearance of several sharp boundaries between morphological elements of the horizons. They are related to the soil disturbances by uprooting. The traces of these disturbances are pre served in the soil even after the leveling of the surface nanotopography [3, 29]. The longterm (for several

millennia) preservation of such disturbances in the soil profiles was proved by the method of radiocarbon dat ing [1, 61]. The boundaries between the disturbed ele ments of the soil profiles may occur within areas of particular soils or coincide with the boundaries between them. The most contrasting boundary is the boundary between the dark gray and gray soils. The changes in the properties of the textural hori zons along the trench have a more gradual character, though several distinct subvertical boundaries can also be seen in them. Thus, at the section of 5–6.5 m, the BT horizon contains an inclusion of the dark humus material admixed into the BT horizon during the deep (130 cm) ancient uprooting. At the section of 2.5–4 m, we can see several large vertical fissures; the thickness of the BT horizon in this zone increases by two times (Fig. 6). This microcatena crosses an ancient paleohollow. The parent material has gleyic features and is rich in carbonates, including large hard nodules. In the upper part of the slope towards the hollow, the upper boundary of effervescence is found at a relatively shallow depth (in contrast with the analogous soils of transect DE (KP08) beyond the paleohollow. Within the section of 0–4 m, the line of effervescence descends down to 3.5 m and more. This cannot be related to changes in the intensity of the leaching processes. It is probable that the sharp changes in the position of the line of effervescence are indicative of the ancient washout of the calcareous material from the paleohollow; then, it was filled with the noncal careous clay. The flank of the paleohollow is marked by deep vertical fissures. The inherited character of the analogous paleohollows was shown earlier for the soils of the East European Plain [19]. The soil cover of the lower and better drained parts of the mesoslopes dissected by ravines was studied on transect AC (Fig. 7). It consisted of the micro and mesocombinations of soddypodzolic soils of the microdivides and gleyic residualhumus dark gray soils of the hollows. The boundaries between these modal components of geomorphic positions with divergent (divides) and convergent (hollows) water flows are rather distinct. Thus, the minimum distance between the clearly distinguished soddypodzolic and gleyic residualhumus dark gray soils was only about 3–4 m; this boundary was confined to the bend of the slope (6°) of the hollow in its transition to the hollow bottom (1°). Convex geomorphic positions are occupied by the soils with a thick (35 cm) subeluvial horizon. The catchment area in such positions is very small, which prevents the formation of temporary perched water in the soil profile. In turn, this reduces the risk of uproot ing. Note that the uprooting disturbance creates a more contrasting boundary between the subeluvial and textural horizons. On the long slopes to the local ravines and valleys, light gray and gray soils with resid ual humus and with dark coatings in the BT horizon are developed in the slightly concave positions. In gen EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE

Vol. 48

No. 4

2015

SOIL COVER PATTERNS IN THE NORTHERN PART I

II

0

1

2

3

4

5

367 III

6

7

8

9

10

m

0.5 15 1.0

BT1 BT[a]1

BTth1

BCca,g

BT2

1.5

BT[a]2 BTth2

BCg

BTth,g 2.0 m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 13 14

Fig. 6. Soil horizonation on the slope of the hollow, trench 12. Horizons and their elements: (1) AU, (2) AY, (3) AY/AEL, (4) AU/HH, (5) HH, (6) AELhh, (7) AEL, (8) AEL of a lighter color (in place of the former uprooted zone), (9) ELa, (10) accu mulation of elements from the BT horizon, (11) bleached silty material, (12) darkhumus fragment of the former uprooting, (13) boundaries between separate morphological blocks of the soils disturbed by uprooting and characterized by more pro nounced bleaching of the soil material in comparison with the adjacent soils, (14) large subvertical fissures with thick (>1 mm) coatings on their walls, and (15) part of the BT horizon with the highest amount of illuviation coatings. Soils and soil cover pat terns: (I) gleyic dark gray residualhumus soil with dark coatings, (II) microcombination of residualhumus gray soils and gleyic gray soils with residual humus, (III) microcombination of light gray and gleyic shalloweffervescent gray soils with residual humus.

eral, in the lower parts of the mesoslopes, very deeply bleached light gray and soddypodzolic soils become the modal components of the soil cover; they occupy more than 80–85% of the territory. Thus, the soil cover of the mesoslopes is character ized by mesocombinations of the soddypodzolic and light gray soils with residualhumus dark gray soils with dark coatings in the BTth horizon. This type of the soil cover predominates on the studied territory. Ravines. The ravines are separated from the adja cent slopes by a sharp bend in the brow area; their slopes are moderately steep to steep (the slopes of northern aspects, 7°–12°; the slopes of southern aspects, 10°–23° (up to 30°). The differentiation of the soil cover within the ravines is affected by the dif ferentiation of the moistening, the slope aspect, and the groundwater discharge onto the surface (in the lower parts of the ravines). In the upper parts of the ravines, their southfacing slopes are occupied by the shalloweffervescing soddypodzolic soils (Fig. 8). These are the warmest and the driest soils of the tall herb aspen–fir taiga; they are formed under fir stands with sedges in the ground cover. In these soils, the zone of illuviation (the BT horizon) is superposed over the horizon containing carbonates; a specific BTca hori zon is formed. Instead of a typical blocky prismatic pedogenic structure of the BT horizon, it has a platy sedimentation structure with thick coatings on the surface of the plates (up to 0.5–1 cm in thickness). Thick coatings are also found on the walls of vertical fissures dissecting this horizon. The surface of the EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE

Vol. 48

No. 4

2015

plates bears features attesting to sliding of the soil material (under the impact of creep processes). Strat ified soils (stratozems) are found on the slopes of 28°– 30°; they were formed due to the alternation of ero sional and accumulative processes. In these soils, some aggregates in the BCca horizon effervesce from HCl at a depth of about 9 cm. The thickest eluvial horizons in the soils of ravines are formed in the soddypodzolic soils on the north facing slopes. The EL horizon in these soils may extend down to the depth of 55 cm. The transitional BEL–BTel horizons are also rather deep. On the lower parts of the slopes of northern aspects, the depth of the soil bleaching is much shorter. Gleyic soddypodzolic soils with shallow bleaching are developed. The thick ness of their humus (AY) horizon is also short (4–6 cm). The soils developed on the northfacing slopes of the ravines have higher coefficients of textural differentia tion of their profiles in comparison with the soils developed on the southfacing slopes. Inwashed and outwashed soils occur in the bottoms of the ravines. In dependence on the intensity of the erosional or accumulative processes, they may be repre sented by stratified gleyzems, gleyed grayhumus soils, and darkhumus gleyic soils overlying buried gleyed darkhumus soils of microterraces. At the mesolevel, the soil cover of the ravines can be described as a meso combination of soddypodzolic and light gray (with dif ferent degrees of bleaching and gleying) soils of the slopes and organoaccumulative and gleyed soils of the bottoms.

368

LOIKO et al. 0

40

AY

AY

AU

EL

EL

HH

ELct

BEL

AY

AU

AY AEL

EL

AU/HH

AEL/HH

HH

HH HH/BT

ELa ELa,ct, i BEL

BTel

BEL

BEL

HH/BT

BTg, th

BTel

80

HH/BT

AY

BTth1

BT

BTg,th

BC

120

BTth2

BCca

ELa

ELa

I

BTth

BC

BEL

BEL

BT1

BT1

BT2

BT2

BC BCg

BC

160 BCg

ELi ELi,ct

BT BCg

AY

ELa,ct

BTth, [au] BTth, [au]

BT

AY

BCca

BCg

BCca

BCg,ca BCca

200

BCg,ca

cm

BCg,ca

m 6 C

A

4 2

I

II

I

III

I

II

I

0 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

m

Fig. 7. Soil cover in the lower parts of mesoslopes dissected by ravines (transect AC): (I) microcombination of soddypodzolic and light gray soils, (II) microcombination of gleyic gray and dark gray residualhumus soils with dark coatings in the BT horizon, and (III) light gray soils with dark coatings.

Northern part of the area of tallherb aspen–fir taiga in the system of soilgeographic division of Russia. In the scheme of soilecological zoning of Russia [48], the subtaiga of the southeast of the Western Siberian Plain is divided into two provinces differing in their geomorphic conditions: the plain province of the Ob–Irtysh inter fluve and the piedmont CisAltay province to the east of the Ob River valley around the Tom’–Kolyvan folding zone and the spurs of Kuznetsk Alatau. The studied area lies in the CisAltay province within the Tom’–Kiya region of gray forest and soddy deeply podzolic soils developing from clayey and loamy loesslike deposits [48] with the Tomsk district of deeply podzolized soils [15]. In this district, the northern part of the area of the tallherb aspen–fir taiga is found at the heights from 170–200 to 270 m a.s.l.; it can be considered the first step of the altitudinal zonality on piedmonts in the sub taiga zone. In comparison with the Western Siberian subtaiga, the tallherb aspen–fir taiga is characterized by the lower role of erosional processes and landslides [10]; the extent of agricultural loads on the soil cover of the tallherb aspen–fir taiga is much lower. In this zone, the differentiation of the soil cover is almost entirely dictated by the differentiation of the soil moistening.

Thus, the modern boundary between the subtaiga and aspen–fir taiga zones within the studied interfluve is controlled by the height of the territory with corre sponding differences in the lithological and biocli matic conditions. In the past four centuries, active agricultural colonization of this area by Russian farm ers led to some advancement of the subtaiga forb– grassy forests into the tallherb aspen–fir taiga. Local boundaries between these two ecosystems often fallow the valleys of rivers and rivulets that also served as the boundaries of the agricultural development of the ter ritory. The same phenomenon was noted for the sub taiga/aspen–fir taiga boundary on the Salair Range [21, 27]. It was found that tallherb communities are replaced by grassy communities even upon relatively weak human loads (e.g., upon regular mowing) [33]. In the course of vegetation successions, grassdomi nated meadows are overgrown with pine and birch rather than aspen and fir, and this favors the advance ment of the subtaiga ecosystems towards higher posi tions previously occupied by the aspen–fir taiga. Our data on the soil cover in the northern piedmont part of the area of the tallherb aspen–fir taiga indicate that its differences from the typical soil cover of the aspen–fir taiga in the low mountains are due to the dif EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE

Vol. 48

No. 4

2015

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE

Vol. 48

No. 4

2015

Hollows

SP/LGshe (dc)grh

Water dis charge/meso (hydr)

LGshe(dc)grh GdcgrH Gshedcgrgh DGdcgrH

Weak water in Water inflow; flow/mesohydr GW/hydr

Differentiation of moistening; depth of calcareous clays

Microslopes

Slopes toward ravines: SPt LGt Slopes toward hollows: LG(rh)(dc) Grhdcg

Differences in the hy drothermic regimes of warm and cold slopes and their upper and lower parts Grhtcg Northern aspect SPskshe GrHgdc Psheglshbl DGrHgdc Southern aspect DGrHgdcabr SPshegdbl EIg LGshegshbl Bottoms of hollows EIGGl

Water discharge/xe Weak water in Water in romeso flow/meso flow/(meso) shydr

Slope aspect; creep

Differentiation of moistening; depth of calcareous clays; soil washout in the hol lows

Slopes towards Network of hol Ravines and river val hollows and lows leys ravines

Topography of the second postsedimentation stage Microdivides

ELGl (in wide SPshesk hollows with in SPt(sk) distinct slopes) LGt(sk) MGl (in narrow hollows with dis tinct hollows)

Water stagna tion/hydr

Wide and long hollows with indistinct boundaries

Tectonic shifts and/or humidization of the climate; lowering of the base of ero sion; activation of denudation and erosional processes

Microdepressions Microdivides between hollows

The soil types are designated as follows: SP—soddypodzolic, LG—light gray, G—gray, DG—dark gray, ElGl—eluvialgley, MGl—muckygley, P—podzolic, E—eroded and inwashed, and EIGGl—eroded and inwashed grayhumus gleyed soils. The soil subtypes are indicated by the following symbols: t—typical, dc—with dark coatings, g—gleyic, gl— gleyed, rh—with residual humus, rH—with residualhumus horizon, she—with shallow effervescence, sk—with skeletans in the BTel horizon. At the species level, bleached (dbl) and shallowbleached (shbl) soils are distinguished. The types of soil moistening are as follows: xero—xeromorphic, meso—mesomorphic, shydr—semihydromorphic, and hydr— hydromorphic; GW indicates the influence of groundwater. Nonobligatory characteristics are indicated by symbols in parentheses.

Modal soils

Mechanisms the soil cover differentiation

Microdivides (mounds)

Cryogenesis (?), surface subsidence, and denudation phenomena developed in the renewed substrate; the spatial pattern of the newly formed drainage networks inherits the features of the paleonetwork in the bedrock

Cryogenesis (?), surface subsidence, weak denudation

Coverforming processes Topography of the first postsedimentation stage

Mesoslopes; meso and macrodivides

Flat interfluvial surfaces

Lacustrinebog sedimentation in the Middle and Late Pleistocene with the formation of the Taiginsk clayey suite; regional lowering of the base of erosion and the formation of covering loesslike clay

Territories

Coverdetermin ing processes

Factorgenetic scheme of the soil cover

SOIL COVER PATTERNS IN THE NORTHERN PART 369

370

LOIKO et al. 10

m

B

A NE

8 AY

SW AEL

ELpal

EL1

6 EL2

AEL

0

EL BTel

AY

80 BTel

40

120

BCg

2 BCca

BCg,ca

120 10

20

30

Gox G

40

120

BT

R Cca

160

80

BCca

0

80

BTel BT1 BT2 BCca

ELpal BTel

0

0

AEL

BT1 BT2

40

BEL

40

BEL

4

0

AY

0

80

160

40 50

60

70

m

Fig. 8. Soils of ravines: NE—southeastern slope with combinations of very deeply bleached shalloweffervescent soddypodzolic soils and gleyed shallowbleached podzolic soils; SW—southwestern slope with microcombinations of soddypodzolic palecol ored deeply bleached and shalloweffervescent soil with gleyic soddypodzolic palecolored soil with shallow effervescence.

ferences in the lithological and geomorphic rather than climatic conditions. Thus, in the northern piedmont zone, there are no brown taiga soils developing from the hard bedrock or from the earthy materials underlain by the hard bedrock at a shallow depth. Soils with a rela tively shallow effervescence appear on the slopes toward the paleohollows and microdepressions under condi tions of relatively poor drainage. In the concave posi tions of the microtopography, residualhumus soils are developed. The presence of these soils under the aspen– fir taiga on the Tom’–Yaya interfluve makes this region similar to plain regions in the southern taiga zone of Western Siberia. However, there are no rawhumus and peaty soils under the tallherb aspen–fir taiga even in the locations with impeded drainage. The altitudinal zonality of the soils on the Tom’– Yaya interfluve can be considered a somewhat modi fied altitudinal zonality pattern typical of the westfac ing slopes in the mountains of Southern Siberia, where the lowest positions occupied by the foreststeppe and subtaiga ecosystems are replaced at higher elevations by the tallherb aspen–fir taiga ecosystems. CONCLUSIONS (1) The northern ecotone of the tallherb aspen–fir taiga is found on the Tom’–Yaya interfluve in the southeast of Western Siberia at the heights above 170– 200 m a.s.l.; it forms the first step in the altitudinal

zonality of the CisAltay piedmont soil province. The soil cover of this ecotone bears the features typical of the hemiboreal typical mountainous tallherb aspen– fir taiga of the low mountains with very deeply bleached soddypodzolic soils and the subtaiga zone of Western Siberia with residualhumus dark gray and gray soils. (2) Three major elements of the local mesotopogra phy are characterized by their own soil combinations. They are as follows: (1) the flat interfluve surface with slightly contrasting combinations of gleyic lightgray soils with relatively shallow effervescence and with residual humus features and gleyic gray or dark gray residualhumus soils; (2) the mesoslopes drained by the network of ravines with combinations of soddypod zolic, light gray, and residualhumus dark gray soils with dark coatings in the BT horizon; and (3) ravine and hol low combinations of soddypodzolic and light gray soils with different degrees of bleaching and gleyzation on their slopes and organoaccumulative soils and gley soils (gleyzems) in the bottoms of the ravines. (3) It is suggested that the kind of residualhumus horizon can be introduced into the new classification and diagnostic system of Russian soils; special symbols are suggested for the dark coatings in the BT horizon and for the residualhumus mottles. A characteristic feature of the residualhumus horizons in the tallherb aspen–fir taiga is the presence of thin humus–clayey EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE

Vol. 48

No. 4

2015

SOIL COVER PATTERNS IN THE NORTHERN PART

coatings on ped faces. These horizons are mainly allo cated to the hollows and to the slopes with convergent water flows. (4) In the direction from the flat interfluve surfaces towards their slopes dissected by ravines, the portion of gleyic soils in the soil cover decreases from nearly 100% to 10–15%; the portion of the soils with the presence of residual humus also decreases from 80–90 to 10–15%. (5) The composition of the soil cover on the flat interfluves is closer to that of the zonal subtaiga and southern taiga landscapes on the Western Siberian Plain. The soil cover of mesoslopes dissected by the network of ravines and hollows is characterized by the widespread occurrence of the very deeply bleached light gray and soddypodzolic soils that are considered to be typical of the tallherb aspen–fir taiga of the low mountains.

10. 11. 12. 13.

14. 15. 16.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported by the BIOGEOCLIM grant No. 14.B25.31.0001 of the Russian Ministry of Science and Education, by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (project no. 140400967a), and by the research program of the Ministry of Science and Edu cation of the Russian Federation (no. 37.901.2014/K). REFERENCES

Vol. 48

18.

19.

1. A. L. Aleksandrovskii, “Age and evolution of soils of ancient uprootings,” in Proceedings of the VI Congress of the Dokuchaev Soil Science Society (Petrozavodsk, 2012), pp. 27–28. 2. N. I. Bazilevich and A. A. Titlyanova, Biological Turn over on the Five Continents: Nitrogen and Ash Elements in Natural Terrestrial Ecosystems (Izd. Sib. Otd. RAN, Novosibirsk, 2008) [in Russian]. 3. M. V. Bobrovskii, Forest Soils of European Russia (KMK, Moscow, 2010) [in Russian]. 4. A. L. Budnikov and G. G. Rusanov, “Lacustrine sedi ments of the Last (Sartan) Glaciation in the valleys of Salair, in Fundamental Problems of Quarter: Results and Major Directions of Further Studies (Geos, Moscow, 2007), pp. 441–443. 5. A. A. Velichko, T. D. Morozova, V. V. Berdnikov, V. P. Nechaev, and A. I. Tsatskin, “Paleogeographic prerequisites of the soil cover differentiation and the development of erosion,” Pochvovedenie, No. 10, 102–112 (1987). 6. G. A. Vorob’eva, Soil as a Record of Natural Conditions in the Baikal Region: Problems of Evolution and Classifi cation of Soils (Irkutsk State University, Irkutsk, 2010), pp. 54–60. 7. I. M. Gadzhiev, Evolution of Soils in the Southern Taiga of Western Siberia (Nauka, Novosibirsk, 1982) [in Russian]. 8. I. M. Gadzhiev and A. G. Dyukarev, “Specific soils of the dark taiga on the Tom’–Yaya interfluve,” in Geogra phy, Fertility, and Bonitation of Soils in Western Siberia (Nauka, Novosibirsk, 1984), pp. 56–79. 9. M. I. Gerasimova, I. I. Lebedeva, and N. B. Khitrov, “Soil horizon designation: state of the art, problems, and EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE

17.

No. 4

2015

20. 21. 22. 23.

24. 25. 26.

27. 28. 29.

371

proposals,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 46 (5), 599–609 (2013). doi: 10.7868/S0032180X13050031 L. I. Geras’ko, “Subtaiga of Western Siberia: landscape dynamic aspects,” Sib. Ekol. Zh., No. 5, 719–725 (2007). Hydrochemical Studies of the Kolyvan’–Tomsk Folding Zone (Tomsk State University, Tomsk, 1971) [in Rus sian]. S. V. Goryachkin, Soil Cover of the North (Geos, Mos cow, 2010) [in Russian]. O. P. Dobrodeev, “Composition and origin of cover loams from the Sayan and Kuznetsk Alatau moun tains,” Vestn. Mosk. Univ., Ser. 5: Geogr., No. 4, 33–40 (1965). A. G. Dyukarev, LandscapeDynamics Aspects of Soil Formation in West Siberian Taiga (NTL, Tomsk, 2005) [in Russian]. A. G. Dyukarev and N. N. Pologova, “Soilgeographic zoning of Tomsk oblast,” Pochvovedenie, No. 3, 282– 294 (2002). A. G. Dyukarev and N. N. Pologova, “Soils with com plex organic profiles on the Vasyugan Plain,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 44 (5), 480–492 (2011). A. G. Dyukarev and N. N. Pologova, “Soils of the Ob’– Tom’ interfluve,” Vestn. Tomsk. Univ., Biol., No. 3 (15), 16–37 (2011). A. G. Dyukarev, N. N. Pologova, and E. A. Dyukarev, “Temperature regime of the deep podzolic soils on the Tom’–Yaya interfluve,” in Modern Problems of the Gene sis, Geography, and Cartography of Soils (Tomsk, 2011), pp. 35–38. E. A. Eremenko and A. V. Panin, Hollowtype Mesoto pography of the East European Plain (Miros, Moscow, 2010) [in Russian]. N. B. Ermakov, Diversity of Boreal Vegetation in Central Asia. Hemiboreal Forests. Classification and Ordination (Izd. Sib. Otd. RAN, Novosibirsk, 2003) [in Russian]. A. A. Zavalishin, “Soils of Kuznetsk foreststeppe,” in The Results of Kuznetsk–Barnaul Soil Expedition of 1931 (Moscow, 1936), Part 3, pp. 201–202. F. R. Zaidel’man, “Lessivage and its relation to the hydrological regime of soils,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 40 (2), 115–125 (2007). E. V. Kallas and P. A. Nikitich, “Humic profiles of soddypodzolic soils of Salair,” in Proceedings of the VI Congress of the Dokuchaev Soil Science Society (Petrozavodsk, 2012), Book 3, pp. 67–68. Classification and Diagnostic System of Russian Soils (Oikumena, Smolensk, 2004) [in Russian]. R. V. Kovalev, V. M. Korsunov, and V. N. Shoba, Pro cesses and Products of Soil Formation in Dark Coniferous Forests (Nauka, Novosibirsk, 1981) [in Russian]. V. M. Korsunov, “Genetic specificity of deep podzolic soils of the dark taiga of Salir and some elements of modern soil formation,” in Forest Soils of Mountainous Ring of Southeastern West Siberia (Nauka, Novosibirsk, 1974), pp. 133–192. N. N. Lashchinskii, Vegetation of the Salair Ridge (Geo, Novosibirsk, 2009) [in Russian]. Forest Soils of the Altay–Sayan Region (Krasnoyarsk, 1977), pp. 48–56. S. V. Loiko, M. V. Bobrovskii, and T. A. Novokreshchen nykh, “Windfall morphogenesis in background soils of the dark taiga (by the example of the Tom’–Yaya inter

30.

31.

32. 33. 34.

35.

36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

43.

44. 45. 46. 47. 48.

LOIKO et al. fluve),” Vestn. Tomsk. Univ., Biol., No. 4(24), 20–35 (2013). S. V. Loiko and L. I. Geras’ko, “Differentiation factors and composition of the soil cover of taiga ecosystems on the Tom’–Yaya interfluve,” Vestn. Tomsk. Univ., Biol., No. 1(5), 63–70 (2009). S. V. Loiko, L. I. Geras’ko, and S. P. Kulizhskii, “Aggre gation of the soil memory carriers (by the example of the northern part of the area of dark taiga ecosystems),” Vestn. Tomsk. Univ., Biol., No. 3(15), 38–49 (2011). A. O. Makeev, Surface Paleosols on Loess Watersheds of the Russian Plain (Molnet, Moscow, 2012) [in Russian]. T. V. Mal’tseva and N. I. Makunina, “Meadows of the northwestern part of Kuznetsk Alatau,” Rastit. Ross., No. 7, 78–81 (2005). D. I. Nazimova, E. I. Nazimova, E. I. Ponomarev, N. V. Stepanov, and E. V. Fedotova, “Dark coniferous forests on the south of Krasnoyarsk region and the problem of their total mapping,” Lesovedenie, No. 1, 12–18 (2005). B. F. Petrov, “Ancient crust of wind erosion and post Tertiary sediments in the western part of Kuznetsk Alatau (mountainous Shoria),” Tr. Pochv. Inst. im. V.V. Dokuchaeva 19 (2), 3–37 (1939). B. F. Petrov, “Shallowfreezing soils of Siberia,” Tr. Komit. Vechnoi Merzlote 7, 125–129 (1939). B. F. Petrov, “Soils of the Altay–Sayan region,” Tr. Pochv. Inst. im. V.V. Dokuchaeva 35, 245 (1952). B. F. Petrov, “Soils of Kuznetsk Alatau,” Pochvovede nie, No. 11, 649–660 (1946). O. I. Podurets, “Soils of the mountainous ring of the Kuznetsk Depression,” Vestn. Kuzbas. Gos. Pedagog. Akad., No. 4(29), 103–111 (2013). Field Handbook for Soil Correlation in Russia (Dokuchaev Soil Science Institute, Moscow, 2008) [in Russian]. Soil Cover of the Nonchernozemic Region and Its Ratio nal Use (Agropromizdat, Moscow, 1986) [in Russian]. A. V. Saltykov and A. V. Puzanov, “Soils of dark forests of the Altay–Sayan mountainous country: geography, ecology, properties, and biogeochemistry,” Polzunovskii Vestn., No. 2, 295–301 (2006). A. V. Saltykov and A. V. Puzanov, “Soils of dark conif erous forests of Western Siberia,” in Modern Problems of the Genesis, Geography, and Cartography of Soils (Kopi M, Tomsk, 2011), pp. 99–103. O. V. Smirnova, D. V. Lugovaya, and T. S. Prokazina, “Model reconstruction of restored taiga forest cover,” Biol. Bull. Rev. 3 (6), 493–504 (2013). S. A. Taranov, Candidate’s Dissertation in Biology (Moscow, 1970). V. D. Tonkonogov, ClayDifferentiated Soils of European Russia (Dokuchaev Soil Science Institute, Moscow, 1999) [in Russian]. S. S. Trofimov, Ecology of Soils and Soil Resources of Kemerovo Oblast (Nauka, Novosibirsk, 1975) [in Rus sian]. I. S. Urusevskaya, I. O. Alyabina, V. P. Vinyukova, L. B. Vostokova, E. I. Dorofeeva, S. A. Shoba, and L. S. Shchipikhina, A Map of Soil Ecological Zoning of the Russian Federation, Scale 1 : 2.5 M (Moscow, 2013) [in Russian].

49. N. B. Khitrov, “The development of detailed soil maps on the basis of interpolation of data on soil properties,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 45 (10), 918–928 (2012). 50. N. B. Khitrov and S. V. Loiko, “Soil cover patterns on flat interfluves in the Kamennaya Steppe,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 43 (12), 1309–1321 (2010). 51. V. A. Khmelev, V. P. Panfilov, and A. G. Dyukarev, Gen esis and Physical Properties of TextureDifferentiated Soils (Nauka, Novosibirsk, 1988) [in Russian]. 52. G. P. Khorol’skaya, Candidate’s Dissertation in Geol ogy (Tashkent, 1978). 53. L. V. Shumilova, Botanical Geography of Siberia (Tomsk State University, Tomsk, 1962) [in Russian]. 54. Ecology of Communities of the Dark Coniferous Forests of Salair, Ed. by N. N. Lashchinskii (Nauka, Novosibirsk, 1991) [in Russian]. 55. Elementary Patterns of the Soil Cover in the Noncher nozemic Zone, Byull. Pochv. Inst. im. V.V. Dokuchaeva, No. 8, 207 pp. (1975). 56. D. L. Achat, M. R. Bakker, L. Augusto, D. Derrien, N. Gallegos, N. Lashchinskiy, S. Milin, P. Nikitich, T. Raudina, O. Rusalimova, B. Zeller, and P. Barsukov, “Phosphorus status of soils from contrasting forested ecosystems in southwestern Siberia: effects of microbi ological and physicochemical properties,” Biogeo sciences 10, 733–752 (2013). doi: 10.5194/bg10733 2013 57. S. Cornu, L. Quenard, I. Cousin, and A. Samouelian, “Experimental approach of lessivage: quantification and mechanisms,” Geoderma 213, 357 (2014). doi: 370.10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.08.012 58. IUSS Working Group WRB, World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014. International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps, in World Soil Resources Reports, No. 106 (FAO, Rome, 2014). 59. P. Kuehn, K. Billwitz, A. Bauriegel, D. Kuhn, and W. Eckelmann, “Distribution and genesis of Fahlerden (Albeluvisols) in Germany. Review article,” J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 169, 420–433 (2006). doi: 10.1002/jpln.200521963 60. L. Quénard, A. Samouëlian, B. Laroche, and S. Cornu, “Lessivage as a major process of soil formation: a re visitation of existing data,” Geoderma 167–168, 135– 147 (2011). doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.07.031 61. P. Samonil, R. J. Schaetzl, M. Valtera, V. Goliáš, P. Baldrian, I. Vašíc ková, D. Adam, D. Janík, and L. Hort, “Cross dating of disturbances by tree uproot ing: Can tree throw microtopography persist for 6000 years?” For. Ecol. Manage. 307, 123–135 (2013). doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2013.06.045 62. D. Sauer, I. SchulliMaurer, R. Sperstad, R. Sørensen, and K. Stahr, “Albeluvisol development with time in loamy marine sediments of southern Norway,” Quat. Int. 209, 31–43 (2009). doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2008.09.007 63. W. Szyma n´ ski, M. Skiba, and S. Skiba, “Fragipan hori zon degradation and bleached tongues formation in Albeluvisols of the Carpathian Foothills, Poland,” Geoderma 167–168, 340–350 (2011). doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.07.007

ˆ

372

Translated by D. Konyushkov

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE

Vol. 48

No. 4

2015