The effect of underground drainage on peat meadows and inactivation of the drainage in an attempt to restore these meadows, which failed as it reduced the ability of soils to retain water

IF 0.6 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Jimmy C. Oppong, Michal Kešner, Jana Macháčková, Jiří Kučera, Jan Frouz
{"title":"The effect of underground drainage on peat meadows and inactivation of the drainage in an attempt to restore these meadows, which failed as it reduced the ability of soils to retain water","authors":"Jimmy C. Oppong, Michal Kešner, Jana Macháčková, Jiří Kučera, Jan Frouz","doi":"10.14712/23361964.2023.7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Drainage is often used to increase agriculture production, but it has adverse effects on biodiversity and water retention. Here, the effect of subsurface pipe drainage on peat meadows near Senotín (Czechia), which were drained from the mid-1980s to 1990s, was studied. Attempts were made to restore the peat meadows by damming drainage pipes using clay-filled trenches in 1996. In this case study, the effect on the depth of the water table, soil water retention, infiltration and soil temperature were recorded. Measurements of the original peat meadow (undrained site), drained meadow (drained site) and restored meadow (restored site) before restoration and two decades after restoration were recorded. The water table in undrained areas was higher than at drained and restored sites, indicating that drainage had lasting effect on drained and restored sites. Infiltration was lowest at the undrained site, greater at the drained site, and highest at the restored sites. Field water capacity was lowest at the restored site, greater at the drained site and highest at the undrained site. Soil water content at maximum saturation was lowest at the restored site, greater at the drained site and highest at the undrained site. Soil temperature was highest at the restored site with no significant difference between the undrained and drained sites. Soil moisture levels were highest at the undrained site and lowest at the drained site. In addition, the undrained and restored sites did not differ significantly in soil moisture content. In conclusion, restoration did not have a significant effect on the level of the water table, initiation of peat formation or ability of soil to hold water.","PeriodicalId":11931,"journal":{"name":"European journal of environmental sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of environmental sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14712/23361964.2023.7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Drainage is often used to increase agriculture production, but it has adverse effects on biodiversity and water retention. Here, the effect of subsurface pipe drainage on peat meadows near Senotín (Czechia), which were drained from the mid-1980s to 1990s, was studied. Attempts were made to restore the peat meadows by damming drainage pipes using clay-filled trenches in 1996. In this case study, the effect on the depth of the water table, soil water retention, infiltration and soil temperature were recorded. Measurements of the original peat meadow (undrained site), drained meadow (drained site) and restored meadow (restored site) before restoration and two decades after restoration were recorded. The water table in undrained areas was higher than at drained and restored sites, indicating that drainage had lasting effect on drained and restored sites. Infiltration was lowest at the undrained site, greater at the drained site, and highest at the restored sites. Field water capacity was lowest at the restored site, greater at the drained site and highest at the undrained site. Soil water content at maximum saturation was lowest at the restored site, greater at the drained site and highest at the undrained site. Soil temperature was highest at the restored site with no significant difference between the undrained and drained sites. Soil moisture levels were highest at the undrained site and lowest at the drained site. In addition, the undrained and restored sites did not differ significantly in soil moisture content. In conclusion, restoration did not have a significant effect on the level of the water table, initiation of peat formation or ability of soil to hold water.
地下排水对泥炭草地的影响,以及为恢复这些草地而对排水系统进行的灭活,但由于削弱了土壤的保水能力而没有成功
排水通常被用来提高农业产量,但它对生物多样性和保水性有不利影响。在这里,我们研究了从 20 世纪 80 年代中期到 90 年代期间在塞诺廷(捷克)附近排水的地下管道对泥炭草甸的影响。1996 年,研究人员尝试利用粘土沟渠阻挡排水管道,以恢复泥炭草甸。在这项案例研究中,记录了对地下水位深度、土壤保水性、渗透和土壤温度的影响。记录了原始泥炭草甸(未排水地块)、排水草甸(排水地块)和恢复草甸(恢复地块)在恢复前和恢复后二十年的测量结果。未排水区的地下水位高于排水区和恢复区,这表明排水对排水区和恢复区产生了持久影响。未排水地块的渗透率最低,排水地块的渗透率较高,而恢复地块的渗透率最高。恢复场地的田间水容量最小,排水场地的田间水容量较大,未排水场地的田间水容量最大。最大饱和时的土壤含水量在恢复区最低,在排水区较高,在未排水区最高。土壤温度在修复地最高,在未排水地和排水地之间没有显著差异。土壤水分含量在未排水地最高,在排水地最低。此外,未排水地点和已恢复地点的土壤含水量也没有明显差异。总之,恢复对地下水位、泥炭形成的起始点或土壤的持水能力没有明显影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
12.50%
发文量
6
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Environmental Sciences offers a mixture of original refereed research papers, which bring you some of the most exciting developments in environmental sciences in the broadest sense, often with an inter- or trans-disciplinary perspective, focused on the European problems. The journal also includes critical reviews on topical issues, and overviews of the status of environmental protection in particular regions / countries. The journal covers a broad range of topics, including direct or indirect interactions between abiotic or biotic components of the environment, interactions of environment with human society, etc. The journal is published twice a year (June, December).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信