4.6 Article

Soil Acidification and Heavy Metals in Urban Parks as Affected by Reconstruction Intensity in a Humid Subtropical Environment

Journal

PEDOSPHERE
Volume 25, Issue 1, Pages 82-92

Publisher

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/S1002-0160(14)60078-3

Keywords

exchangeable cations; forest; park age; park management; soil depth; soil pH; soil quality

Categories

Funding

  1. Agricultural and Forestry Promotion Fund of Nanhai Agro-forestry Extension Centre, Guangdong Province, China [084101001]
  2. Guangdong Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China [8151065005000016]
  3. Research Fund of South China Botanical Garden, China [201307]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Soil quality is a major concern in the management of urban parks. In this study, the soils at 0-3, 3-13, and 13-23 cm depths were sampled from six urban parks, differing in reconstruction intensity (mainly changes made during conversion of natural forests into parklands), in the Pearl River Delta, China to determine how reconstruction intensity influenced the extent of acidification and heavy metal levels in the soils of urban parks in a humid subtropical environment. High reconstruction intensity (HRI) was practiced in three parks and low reconstruction intensity (LRI) in three other parks. The LRI soils were strongly to extremely acidic (with low exchangeable Ca, Mg, and K concentrations) while the HRI soils were much less acidic. Both total and extractable concentrations of soil heavy metals were related to the specific management practices and age of the park, but did not differ significantly between LRI and HRI parks or among soil depths. Soil pH was significantly related to soil exchangeable cation concentrations and base saturation but was weakly related or unrelated to soil heavy metal levels. Our results suggest that high intensity but not low intensity reconstruction significantly reduces the extent of soil acidification in the urban parks in a humid subtropical environment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available