CONTENT OF SULPHATE SULPHUR IN DIFFERENT TYPES OF SOILS IN THE PODKARPACKIE REGION

• Authors: Jan Gąsior , Bernadeta Alvarez
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The aim of the investigation was the estimation of sulphate sulphur in soils in the Podkarpackie Province. The content of sulphate sulphur within the soils developed on flysch works subject to strong spatial variability of 0.87 g kg-1 in the Przemyoel Foothills to 2.00 g kg-1 in the Cieżkowickie and Strzyżowskie Foothills. The content of sulphate sulphur in soils is positively correlated with the content of humus in the Western Bieszczady Mountains and the content of colloidal clay fraction within the Tarnogrodzki Plateau and Rzeszów Foothills. In soil types: Haplic Cambisol, Haplic Cambisol (Dystric), Haplic Cambisol Podzolised, Haplic Podzol and Haplic Luvisol found in the Podkarpackie Province there is no significant variation of the sulphate Sulphur content (average 1.73-1.93mg100g-1), but less sulphur was found in Haplic Cambisol (Eutric) soils.

Keywords

EN

• Publisher: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej
• Journal: Polish Journal of Soil Science
• Year: 2012
• Volume: 45
• Issue: 1

Dates

published

2012

online

05 - 04 - 2016

Contributors

author

Jan Gąsior

author

Bernadeta Alvarez

References

• [1] B r a d s l e y C. E., L a n c a s t e r J. D.: Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc., 24, 265, 1960.
• [2] D i a m o n d S., H a n l e y P. K.: Sulphur in Agric., Dublin, 107, 1, 1970.
• [3] E r i k s e n J., M u r p h y M. D., S c h u n g E.: The soil sulphur cycle. In: Sulphur in Agroecosystems. Ed. E. Schung. Dordrecht-Boston-London. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998.
• [4] FAO/UNESCO: SoilMapof the World. Revised Legend. Soils Bulletin 60.FAORome, 1990.
• [5] J a k u b u s M., C z e k a ³ a J.: Zesz. Probl. Post. Nauk Roln., 456, 323, 1988.
• [6] Kaczor A., Zuzańska J.: Chemia. Dydaktyka. Ekologia. Metrologia, 14, 1-2, 69, 2009.
• [7] K o n d r a c k i J.: Geografia regionalna Polski. Warszawa, PWN, 2002.
• [8] Koter M., Grzesiuk W., Chodań J.: Zesz. Nauk.WSROlsztyn, 16, 292, 275, 1963.
• [9] K u l c z y c k i G., P a t o r c z y k - P y t l i k B.: Ekotoksykologia w Ochronie Środowiska, 203, 212, 2008.
• [10] M c G r a t h S. P., Z h a o F. J.: Soil Use and Management, 11, 110, 1995.
• [11] M o t o w i c k a - T e r e l a k T., T e r e l a k H.: Zesz. Nauk. AR Szczecin, Rolnictwo, 81, 7, 2000.
• [12] R e j m a n - C z a j k o w s k a M.: Roczn. Glebozn., 24, 2, 203, 1973.
• [13] S c h e r e r H.W.: Eur. J. Agron., 14, 81, 2001.
• [14] Singh B.R., Abrahemsen G., S t u a n e s A.: Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 44, 75, 1980.
• [15] S k ł o d o w s k i P.: Roczn. Glebozn., 19(1), 99, 1968.
• [16] S z u l c W., Rutkowska B., Łabętowicz J.: Annales UMCS, Sec. E, 59(1), 55, 2004.
• [17] T e r e l a k H., M o t o w i c k a - T e r e la k T., P a s t e r n a c k i J., W i l k o s S.: Pam. Puł, Supl., 891, 1, 1998.
• [18] Terelak H., Piotrowska M., Motowicka-Terelak T., Stuczyñski T., Budzyńska K.: Zesz. Probl. Post. Nauk Roln., 418, 45, 1995.
• [19] Właśniewski S., Kaniuczak J., Hajduk E.: Zesz. Nauk. PTG, 11, 265, 2009.
• [20] Zadrożny P., Miechówka A., N i c i a P.: Zesz. Probl. Post. Nauk Roln., 520, 571, 2007.
• [21] Z a l e w s k i W.: Problemy ochrony środowiska. Wyd. WSR-P Siedlce, 1995.

Identifiers

DOI

10.17951/pjss.2012.45.1.29