479

Soil physical characteristics of peat soils

Kai Schwrzel1*, Manfred Renger1, Robert Sauerbrey2, and Gerd Wessolek1 Institute of Ecology, Department of Soil Sciences and Soil protection, Technical University of Berlin, Salzufer 12, D-10587 Berlin, Germany 2 Institute of Crop Sciences, Department of Ecology and Use of Resources, Humboldt University of Berlin, Invalidenstr. 14, D-10115 Berlin, Germany Accepted 31 May 2002
1

Summary Zusammenfassung
Drainage and intensive use of fens lead to alterations in the physical characteristics of peat soils. This was demonstrated using parameters of water balance (available water capacity) and the evaluated unsaturated hydraulic conductivity. Deriving the distribution of the pore size from the water retention curve was flawed because of shrinkage due to drainage, especially at high soil water potentials. These errors became greater as the peat was less influenced by soil-genetic processes. The water retention curves (desorption) evaluated in the field and the laboratory satisfactorily corresponded. However, the wetting- and drainage-curves obtained in the field differed up to 30 vol.-% water content at same soil water potentials. These differences were largely due to a wetting inhibition. Key words: peat soils / soil water characteristics / hydraulic conductivity / shrinkage / water repellency / hysteresis / fen pedogenesis

Bodenphysikalische Eigenschaften von Niedermoortorfen

Die Entwsserung und intensive Nutzung der Niedermoore fhrt zu Vernderungen der bodenphysikalischen Eigenschaften der Torfe. Anhand der Kennwerte des Wasserhaushaltes und auch am Beispiel der ermittelten ungesttigten hydraulischen Leitfhigkeit wird dies gezeigt. Die Ableitung der Porengrenverteilung aus der Wasserretentionskurve ist auf Grund der entwsserungsbedingten Schrumpfung der Torfe vor allem im hohen Wasserspannungsbereich mit Fehlern behaftet. Diese Fehler sind um so grer, je weniger der Torf von bodengenetischen Prozessen geprgt wurde. Die bereinstimmung zwischen den im Labor und im Feld ermittelten Wasserretentionskurven (Desorption) ist zufriedenstellend. Unterschiede von bis zu 30 Vol.-% im Wassergehalt wurden aber bei gleicher Wasserspannung zwischen den im Feld erhobenen Be- und Entwsserungskurven festgestellt. Diese Unterschiede beruhen vor allem auf Benetzungshemmung.

1 Introduction
The key to moorland conversation is a well-balanced water management. To achieve this knowledge is needed on the demand for water by these soils in regard to different groundwater levels. Wessolek et al. (2002) used a model to predict the soil water components and CO2 release for different peat soils, various climate conditions and groundwater levels. Soil hydraulic properties were of high importance as input parameters (Weiss et al. 1998; Letts et al., 2000). Much data on lab measurements of water retention of peat soils have been reported (e.g. Zeitz, 1992; Okruszko, 1993; Schfer, 1996; Weiss et al., 1998; Silins and Rothwell, 1998). Despite promising results, the influence of shrinkage on the water retention curve is not well understood (Kellner and Halldin, 2002). Morever, for a maximum accuracy in the model prediction, in situ measurements are preferred since laboratory and field measurements can differ significantly as shown by Royer and Vachaud (1975). Aside from water retention, it is necessary to understand the relation between the hydraulic conductivity and the water tension; i.e. soil moisture for a physically wellfounded model of the water regime. In contrast to the water retention, the knowledge about the unsaturated hydraulic
* Correspondence: Dr. K. Schwrzel; E-mail: Kai.Schwaerzel@TU-Berlin.de
J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. (2002), 165, 479486 (2002)

conductivity, especially in highly degraded peat layers, is unsatisfactory. The aim of this study was to determine the hydraulic function (water retention and hydraulic conductivity) for different peat soils. These results were a basis for the modeling of CO2 release (Wessolek et al., 2002) and for practical recommendations for the preservation of fens (Renger et al., 2002).

2 Material and methods

2.1 Study area
The study area of Rhinluch is located ca. 60 km northwest of Berlin (Fig. 1). It is part of the Havelland basin, a fen area of ca. 87000 ha. The peat formation in the Rhinluch was dominated by bogginess. The filling-in processes were of minor importance in the peat sediment. The average thickness of the peat was 120 cm. Underlying are glacifluvial sands (mostly fine sand) and limnic sediments such as detritus- or calcerous mud (Zeitz, 1993). The upper peat layers are strongly decomposed and pedogenically altered. Earthified and strongly earthified peat soils can be found mostly at the surface. The deeper layers are dominated by sedge(carex) and reed-peats (phragmites), often showing a mixture of both. The average annual temperature is 8.1 oC and the average annual precipitation is 526 mm. This makes the Rhinluch one of the regions with the lowest precipitation in Germany. The climatic water balance in the summer is negative for the Rhinluch area. Between 1993 and 1998, the average was about minus 250 mm.
1436-8730/02/0408-479 $17.50+.50/0

 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH, D-69451 Weinheim, 2002

480 2.2 Research methods

The characteristics determined in the laboratory and the methods used are listed in Tab. 1.

Schwrzel, Renger, Sauerbrey, and Wessolek necessary prerequisites (standard distribution, variance homogeneity, and the necessary extent of samples) were examined as follows. The standard distribution was examined using the Komolgorov-Smirnov-test (Sachs, 1997). The variance homogeneity was tested with the Levene-test (Sachs, 1997). If ANOVA led to a significant F-value, the mean values that differed significantly from the other mean values were examined using the Scheff-test (Sachs, 1997). The stochastic context was calculated using the product-moment-correlation coefficient according to Pearson (Sachs, 1997).

2.3 Statistical evaluation

In order to summarize the distribution of the characteristics the arithmetical average to mark the central tendency and the standard deviation to mark the variation of the data were used. Variance analyses were carried out in order to verify hypotheses on the differences. The

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Influence of fen formation and pedogenesis on soilphysical characteristics The groundwater regulation of fen peat soils in the northeast of Germany led to the formation of characteristic soil horizons, depending on the intensity of drainage and use. The soil horizons differ mainly in the development of their soil structure. In order to standardize these developments of soil structure, Schmidt and Illner (1976) developed a classification system based on the differentiation of various soil structures for fens in East Germany (Tab. 2). Schmidt (1986) suggested the water index according to Ohde (1951) as an objective, easily determinable parameter for an exact classification of pedogenically altered fen peat substrates. The standardized water index (W1) corresponds to the water content of the soil after consolidation with a load of 100 kPa (W1 = Mass of water relative to the mass of dry soil). The W1, according to Ohde (1951) is suitable for describing degrees of soil development of peat soils with
Figure 1: Location of the study area Abbildung 1: Lage des Untersuchungsgebietes Table 1: Laboratory methods Tabelle 1: Labormethoden Characteristics Method Table 2: Classification of fen peat soil horizons (AG Boden, 1994; from Schfer, 1996), W1 = Water index according Schmidt (1986) Tabelle 2: Klassifikation der Niedermoorhorizonte (AG Boden, 1994; aus Schfer 1996), W1 = Einheitswasserzahl (Schmidt, 1986) Symbol nHm Description Strongly earthified horizon Characteristics Topsoil horizon of intensive drained peatlands and with an intensive tillage action, strongly earthified; high degree of decompsotion, when dry: very fine granular structure (dusty), high water repellency (W1 < 1.8) Topsoil horizon of drained mires; poorly to moderately earthified by aerobe mineralization and humification, crumb or fine subangular structure (2.2 < W1 < 1.8) Subsoil-horizon, coarse to fine angular blocky structure caused by shrinkage and swelling processes Subsoil-horizon, vertical cracks and coarse prismatic structure caused by shrinkage Permanently below the ground or perched water-table and preserved in a reduced state

Dry Bulk Density dB [g cm3] Thermogravimetrical dessication at 105 oC (DIN 19683, 1998) Mean Particle Density dF [g cm3] Ignition Loss X [M.-%] Total pore volume P Water retention curve Heliumpyknometer (Quanta Chrome) (DIN 19683) Four-hour incineration at 550 oC Mathematically out of dB and dF (DIN 19683, 1998) Up to pF 2.0 hanging water column, above pF 2.2 overpressure in a pressure pot, fourfold repetition, 100 cm3 short core samples Stationary and non-stationary according to Plagge (1991) with threefold repetition on 10 cm high short core samplers (237 i.e. 550 cm3) Measuring with a caliper rule after each pF-level nHa nHv

Earthified horizon

Aggregate horizon Shrinkage horizon Peat horizon

Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity

nHt

Shrinkage

nHr

Soil physical characteristics of peat soils

481

Table 3: Soil physical parameters of substrate-horizon-groups of drained and agriculturally used fen soils (standard deviation in brackets). X = ignition loss, P = porosity, AC = air capacity, AWC = available water capacity (pF 1.8 to pF 4.2), GPII = <50 10 mm, MPI = <10 3 mm Tabelle 3: Bodenphysikalische Kennwerte von Substrat-Horizont-Gruppen entwsserter und landwirtschaftlich genutzter Niedermoore (in Klammern Standardabweichungen). X = Glhverlust, P = Porositt, AC = Luftkapazitt, AWC = nutzbare Feldkapazitt (pF 1.8 bis pF 4.2), GPII = <50 10 mm, MPI = <10 3 mm Horizon nHm Kind of peat Strongly earthified Peat, X < 70 M.-% nHv Earthified Peat, X < 70 M.-% nHa ReedSedgeMixed-Peat, X < 80 M.-% nHt ReedSedgeMixed-Peat, X < 80 M.-% nHr ReedSedgeMixed-Peat, X < 80 M.-% Source own Zeitz (1992) Own Zeitz (1992) own Zeitz (1992) own Zeitz (1992) own Zeitz (1992) n 10 79 24 79 13 49 16 30 13 29 X M.-% 76a (2) 80b (3) 86c (2) 86c (2) 85c (2) dB g cm3 0.36a (0.04) 0.31a (0.06) 0.20b (0.03) 0.18bc (0.03) 0.14c (0.02) P V.-% 77a (4) 79 (3) 80a (3) 82 (5) 87b (2) 88 (3) 88bc (2) 88 (3) 91c (1) 91 (2) AC V.-% 13ab (4) 24 (8) 11a (6) 14 (6) 13ab (4) 16 (7) 12ab (3) 15 (7) 18b (5) 14 (6) AWC V.-% 29a (5) 27 (6) 31a (9) 38 (13) 43b (8) 42 (11) 49b (6) 44 (10) 50b (8) 58 (4) GPII V.-% 9ab (4) 6 (9) 6ab (4) 7 (6) 4a (4) 7 (6) 8ab (4) 9 (7) 9b (5) 17 (10) MP V.-% 20a (6) 21 (7) 24a (7) 39 (12) 38b (6) 35 (9) 39b (4) 35 (11) 30b (10) 42 (7)

Identical letters refer to statistically not confirmable differences between the characteristic values of peat groups from own evaluations (p 0.05). Unequal letters refer to statistically secured differences between the respective characteristic values of peat groups from the own survey (p 0.05).

ignition residues of < 30 mass-%. This is especially appropriate for differentiating between earthified and strongly earthified soils. The W1 is normally given as a decimal without dimension. Slightly earthified peat soils show a W1 greater than 2.2, earthified peat soils 2.2 to 1.8, and strongly earthified peat soils have values lower than 1.8. Based on the classification system by Schmidt and Illner (1976), Zeitz (1992) divided the fen peat soils into substratehorizon-groups (SHG) in order to evaluate locations. Zeitz (1992) assigned soil-physical parameters to these SHG. In order to examine the influence of soil developing processes on the soil-physical parameters, we organized the samples that we analyzed in SHG as well. Mean values and standard deviations of the soil-physical parameters were determined for each SHG. The methods described above were used for establishing which soil-physical parameters differed between the SHG. Tab. 3 lists the mean values and standard deviations of the soil physical parameter of individual SHG for the samples that we analyzed (see also Fig 2). Tab. 3 also shows the results published by Zeitz (1992) in order to verify the plausibility of our own results. The former are based on a set of data consisting of more then 800 samples which were collected and analyzed from various fen regions of Northern Germany (among others from the

Figure 2: Influence of soil development on the soil-physical characteristics of peat soils. SV = volume of solids, AC = air capacity, AWC = available water capacity (pF 1.8 to pF 4.2), PWP = permanent wilting point (soil moisture content at pF 4.2) (v. also Tab. 2 and Tab. 3) Abbildung 2: Einfluss der Bodenentwicklung auf die bodenphysikalischen Kennwerte von Niedermoortorfen. SV = Substanzvolumen, AC = Luftkapazitt, AWC = nutzbare Feldkapazitt (pF 1.8 bis pF 4.2), PWP = Permanenter Welkepunkt (Bodenfeuchtegehalt bei pF 4.2) (s. auch Tab. 2 und Tab. 3)

482 Rhinluch) between 1975 and 1985. The derivation of the distribution of the pore size from the water retention curve, as well as plant-available water, serves only to distinguish between peat substrates. Especially high water tensions can cause a misinterpretation of the pore size distribution due to shrinking processes and, consequently, amount of plantavailable water (see Fig. 5). The characteristic values determined by us deviated only slightly from the corresponding values of the investigations by Zeitz (1992). The high scattering of our own values, which is at times almost as high as the values from Zeitz (1992), is conspicuous. This is remarkable because the values of Zeitz (1992) were based on a much greater data set and the samples were taken from diverse regions of Northern Germany. Fig. 3 shows the high scattering of the individual values on the basis of the characteristic values for humus content (loss of weight on ignition), bulk density, and available water capacity. Furthermore, it became clear that the characteristic losses on ignition and bulk densities were excellent indicators for pedogenetic changes in peat soils. The letters behind each mean value in Tab. 3 indicate whether statistically secured differences existed between the mean values of the individual SHG. Unequal letters show differences in the mean values between the respective characteristic values. For example, the characteristic value of available water capacity (AWC) shows no differences between the mean values of strongly earthified and earthified peat soils (identical letters) but reveals differences between the earthified peat soils and the reed-sedge peat soils of the nHa horizon (unequal letters). The facts presented in Tab. 3 and Fig. 2 and 3 allow for the following conclusions regarding the influence of soil development on the soil-physical characteristics: (1) Progressive soil development increases the bulk density due to subsiding, shrinkage or mineralization. On the other hand, the content of organic substance and the porosity decrease significantly (see also McLay et al., 1992; Brandyk et al., 1995; Schfer, 1996; Silins and Rothwell, 1998). (2) The higher bulk density of pedogenically altered peat soils modifies the special structure of the pores (see also Zeitz, 1992; Schfer, 1996; Silins and Rothwell, 1998). For example, the share of medium pores in a peat of the

Schwrzel, Renger, Sauerbrey, and Wessolek

topsoil is decreased by 15 to 20 percent compared to peat soils of deeper layers. (3) The characteristic value of available water capacity illustrates the influence of pedogenic peat alteration due to use (Zeitz, 1992; Okruszko, 1993; Schfer, 1996). In contrast to peat soils of the nHr horizon, the available water capacity of strongly earthified peat soils was decreased by roughly 40 %; from 50 to < 30 vol-%. (4) There are no statistically secure differences regarding the soil physical characteristic values of earthified and strongly earthified peat topsoils. (5) There are also no statistically secure differences between the soil physical characteristic values of reedsedge-peat soils from the subsoil horizons nHa and nHt. 3.2 Shrinkage An important characteristic of organic soils is the shrinkage that accompanies the drainage and the resulting decrease of the base volume. One has to differentiate between the irreversible and the reversible shrinkage. The latter can be observed as the so called mire-breathing. Moreover, in strongly drained fen peat soils, high evaporation rates can lead to reversible shrinkage cracks and clefts (Schmidt et al., 1981; Schothorst, 1982). The shrinkage of the soil material, especially the initial shrinkage (lowering of groundwater), leads to strong alterations of the special pore structure (Sauerbrey et al., 1988). In the course of establishing a water retention curve in the laboratory, the peat shrinkage after each pressure level was quantified for some horizons by measurement with a calliper rule. The base volume of the peat was decreased due to the shrinkage, as proven for the cases illustrated in Fig. 4. The shrinking behavior of peat soils during drainage was dependent on the peat condition i.e. the type of horizon. Peat soils of a strongly earthified horizon started to noticeably shrink at pF 3.5 (5 % loss of volume). Peat soils of an aggregated horizon (nHa) showed shrinking behavior at pF 3.0 (loss of volume at pF 3.5: 7 vol.-%). Peat soils from deeper layers (nHr) showed shrinkage as early as pF 1.8 (loss of volume at pF 3.5: 37 % vol.). Our results support the conclusions of Hennings (1996) which state that the shrinking behavior of peats is dependent on the degree of secondary decompositon and the intensity of drainage.

Figure 3: Relations between humus content (ignition loss) and bulk density (left side) and available water capacity and bulk density for peat soils (right side) from the Rhinluch. Ham = strongly earthified peat (n = 10); Hav = earthified peat (n = 24); Hnp / Hnr = reed-sedge peat (n = 42) Abbildung 3: Beziehungen zwischen Humus-Gehalt (Glhverlust), Lagerungsdichte und nutzbarer Feldkapazitt fr Torfe aus dem Rhinluch. Ham = vermulmter Torf (n = 10); Hav = vererdeter Torf (n = 24); Hnp/ Hnr = Schilf-Seggen-Torf (n = 42)

Soil physical characteristics of peat soils

483 3.3 Water retention comparison between field- and laboratory measurements The benchmark figures of the laboratory water retention curves for various peat soils have already been presented in Tab. 3 and Fig. 2. Since the relation between the water content and the water tension is needed as an input value for modeling the water regime and the CO2 release (Wessolek et al., 2002), it has to be determined if the curves established in laboratory conditions can be transferred to field conditions. We ran two stations in the Rhinluch for the recording of components of the water regime. Among others, water retention curves were established under field conditions for various peat horizons with the help of the TDR- and tensiometer-technique. Fig. 6 shows the results of these experiments for two horizons from four measurement sites. It also shows the first course of desorption during spring. In Fig. 6, the water retention curves established in the laboratory are compared with those obtained from field values. The cases listed in Fig. 6 show only minor deviations between laboratory and field retention curves, an average of less than 4 vol.-%. The field values followed the laboratory curves to a satisfactory extent. However, it is remarkable that the field values from different measurement sites, especially of the earthified peat, vary up to 9 % vol. at constant water tension. This is equivalent to a standard deviation of close to 5 % vol. The individual measurement sites were only a few meters apart. Thus, the facts depicted in Fig. 6 reflect a high spatial variability of the water retention in one location. The variability is, therefore, exactly as high as recorded by Zeitz (1992). 3.4 Hysteresis

Figure 4: Loss of volume (%) of peat soils from drained fen locations. nHr: depth 95 to 100 cm, moss peat (Bryidae) H2-3, nHt: 55 to 60 cm, wood peat (Alnus glutinosa) H6-7, nHa: 35 to 40 cm, strongly decomposed peat, nHv: 10 to 15 cm, earthified peat, nHm: 10 to 15 cm, strongly earthified peat Abbildung 4: Prozentuale Verringerung des Ausgangsvolumens von Torfen entwsserter Niedermoorstandorte whrend der Erstellung von Labor-Wasserretentionskurven. nHr: Tiefe 95 bis 100 cm, Laubmoostorf (Bryidae) H2-3, nHt: 55 bis 60 cm, Erlenbruchtorf (Alnus glutinosa) H6-7, nHa: 35 bis 40 cm, stark zersetzter Torf, nHv: 10 bis 15 cm, vererdeter Torf, nHm: 10 bis 15 cm, vermulmter Torf

Figure 5: Water retention (laboratory, desorption) of peat soils with and without consideration of shrinkage. Moss peat = depth: 95 bis 105 cm, nHr; Reed-Seedge-Peat = 35 bis 45 cm, nHa Abbildung 5: Wasserretention (Labor, Desorption) von Torfen mit und ohne Bercksichtigung der Schrumpfung. Braunmoostorf = Tiefe: 95 bis 105 cm, nHr; Schilf-Seggen-Torf = 35 bis 45 cm, nHa

What influence does peat shrinkage caused by drainage have on the course of the water retention? Fig. 5 compares the water retention curves of two slightly decomposed peat soils, with and without shrinkage consideration. The water retention curves that considered shrinkageinduced decreased base volume showed a steeper ascent in high water tension than the curves that were drawn up without acknowledging the shrinkage. Taking the shrinkage into consideration, peat soils showed a substantially higher volumetric water content at ranges of high water tension and, consequently, higher shares of fine pores than without shrinkage consideration. Therefore, deriving the distribution of the pore size from the water retention is prone to errors when knowledge of the shrinkage behavior of peat soils at high water tensions is not known. These errors were greater the less the peat was subjected to pedogenic processes. Silins and Rothwell (1998) also observed an underestimation of water content owing to shrinkage.

It is well known that the relation between soil humidity and water tension is subject to the hysteresis. The causes of this phenomenon can be the inclusion of air, the formation of water-repelling films (hydophobia), effects of the pore geometry (ink-bottle-effect), as well as alterations of the spatial structure of pores due to shrinkage. During the field experiments, hysteresis loops of the water retention were recorded for different peat horizons. One can infer from Fig. 7 that the differences between the curves for

Figure 6: Water retention (desorption, without consideration of the shrinkage) from the laboratory and the field for two peat horizons (Rhinluch). ^ Laboratory values, & * ~ : Field values of various measurement sites Abbildung 6: Wasserretention (Desorption, ohne Bercksichtigung der Schrumpfung) aus Labor und Feld fr zwei Torfhorizonte (Rhinluch). ^ Laborwerte, & * ~ : Feldwerte unterschiedlicher Messpltze

484 drainage and wetting of the strongly earthified surface layer (15 to 25 cm depth, strongly earthified horizon) are more pronounced than that for the strongly decomposed peat (aggregation horizon, 35 to 45 cm depth). Whereas the soil moisture content of the peat layer from a depth of 35 to 45 cm varied by a maximum of 8 vol.-% for the same water tension, differences of almost 30 vol.-% were shown for the peat close to the surface during the first humidification period at the end of the summer drought (August). After the second humidification period, there was still a value 20 % vol. The large variations between drainage and wetting curves observed during August were mainly based on wetting inhibitory surfaces that were formed in the course of the desiccation period. The high wetting resistance of the strongly earthified peat layers inhibited water uptake; the water seeping in due to precipitation moved to greater depths and the groundwater level rose very quickly. The unusually high precipitation frequency during the months of October and November are required to achieve an intensive continuous humidification of the rooting zone which has dried out during the summer (Schwrzel, 2000). Kellner and Halldin (2002) reported that the variable peat volume was a major reason for the highly hysteretic relationship between the water content and groundwater level in a mire. However in our case, a hysteresis of the water retention due to shrinkage is unlikely. Water withdrawal caused the peat matrix to shrink. As a result, the proportional volume share of medium and fine pores increased, as seen in Fig. 5 for mildly decomposed peat soils, i.e. the ascent of the water retention curve is steeper. Thus, in cases of high water tension, more water remains in the peat and the amount of water available to the plants decreases. However, a field experiment revealed that plants exhausted the volumetric water content evaluated in the laboratory up to pF 4.2 (without consideration of the shrinkage) (Schwrzel, 2000). The second wetting curve registered for the strongly earthified peat in October shows a considerably less steep increase when compared to the wetting curve recorded in August (Fig. 7). At this time, the identifiable differences between the drainage and wetting curves are more an effect of the pore geometry than of a wetting inhibition.

Schwrzel, Renger, Sauerbrey, and Wessolek

Figure 7: Hysteresis of water retention (field experiment) Strongly earthified Peat = 15 to 25 cm, strongly decomposed peat = 35 to 45 cm Abbildung 7: Hysterese der Wasserretention (Feldversuch) Vermulmter Torf = 15 bis 25 cm, stark zersetzter Torf = 35 bis 45 cm

3.5 Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity Aside from the water retention, it is necessary to understand the relation between the hydraulic conductivity and the water tension i.e. soil humidity for a physically well-founded model of the water regime. The conductivity values registered for various peat soils in the course of this study were grouped according to pedogenic alterations. Peat soils (i) with recognizable plant substance were distinguished from earthified peat soils (ii) and strongly earthified peat soils (iii). The result of this classification is summarized in Tab. 4. However, statistically secure differences between the mean values of the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity at the respective water tensions could not be established. The observed differences in the unsaturated conductivities of the individual peat classes corresponded well to the shifts in the distribution of pore size resulting from soil development as discussed above. The proportions of wide macropores ( >100 mm) were diminished by sinking, shrinkage, and mineralization, and the proportions of narrow macropores were increased. Looking at the peat groups, this caused the observed differences in the water conductivity at water tensions between 30 and 60 hPa. The highest hydraulic conductivities were seen in strongly earthified peat soils and the lowest in peat soils with noticeable plant species. The

Table 4: Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity of the investigated peat soils in dependence on pedogenic development. mean values, standard deviation in brackets, n = number of horizons, a = 2 horizons, Hn = peat of low to medium decomposition, Hav = earthified peat, Ham = strongly earthified peat Tabelle 4: Ungesttigte hydraulische Leitfhigkeit der untersuchten Torfe in Abhngigkeit der pedogenen Entwicklung. Mittelwerte, in Klammern Standardabweichungen, n = Anzahl der Horizonte, a = 2 Horizonte, Hn = Torf geringer bis mittlerer Zersetzung, Hav = vererdeter Torf, Ham = vermulmter Torf Kind of peat Ham Hav Hn n 6 6 8 P [Vol.-%] 75 (2) 78 (3) 87 (3) X [M.-%] 75 (5) 77 (2) 83 (3) dB [g cm3] 0.39 (0.05) 0.34 (0.05) 0.20 (0.04) 30 hPa 10.4 (8.9) 7.3 (3.2) 7.4 (6.0) Hydraulic conductivity [mm d1] at 60 hPa 100 hPa 150 hPa 4.9 (3.8) 3.6 (2.9) 2.2 (1.6) 1.6 (1.0) 0.9 (0.6) 0.9 (0.9) 0.5 (0.4) 0.4 (0.2) 0.4 (0.3) 300 hPa 0.05 (0.03) 0.08 (0.06) 0.12 (0.09)

Soil physical characteristics of peat soils

485 aggregated horizon were established for one horizon only. However, Hennings (1996) also found conductivity values for a peat soil of the aggregation horizon that were ten times lower than that for the earthified horizon at the same water tension. This peat, showing a polyhedral fabric with more or less large fragments and sharp edges (see Tab. 2), had a hydraulic conductivity comparable to that of earthified and strongly earthified peat soils at water tensions of ca. 300 hPa. Due to soil genetic factors, this peat had a significantly lower hydraulic conductivity in the region close to saturation. Such layers with clearly reduced hydraulic conductivity can often be found at strongly drained and degraded peat locations. At present it is not clear whether these layers result from peat degradation or whether, in turn, the low water conductivity was the reason for degradation. However, Schmidt et al. (1981) proved that the soil development due to drainage and use of fens does not necessarily result in strongly degraded fen peat soils.

reasons for the good water conductivity of strongly earthified peat soils can also be explained by earthifying. This process is marked by increasing of a fine granular structure in the topsoil and, consequently, an increasing share of continuous macropores. At first it seems contradictory that peat soils with clearly recognizable plant tissue have a lower hydraulic conductivity at water tensions of 30 to 100 hPa than strongly earthified peat soils, regardless of a comparable air capacity. However, one has to keep in mind the sponge-like structure of peat soils with recognizable plant tissue. The high air capacity of these peat soils is ensured mainly by the high amount of macropores. Silins and Rothwell (1998) reported that greater peat bulk density after drainage and subsidence was associated with a loss of macropores (>600 mm ) with a concurrent increase in micropores (330 mm ). If these macropores are drained, the hydraulic conductivity is considerably reduced (Baird, 1997). In the water tension range of 100 to 200 hPa, there are almost no differences between the conductivity of the individual groups. The courses of the conductivity of the individual peat groups do not diverge again until water tensions of 300 hPa and above. Peat soils with recognizable plant tissue show higher conductivity values than earthified or strongly earthified peat soils. This fact can be explained by the continuously decreasing share of medium pores ( 10 to 2 mm, see Tab. 3) in the course of the secondary soil formation. Our findings do not support the conclusions of Hennings (1996) and Sauerbrey and Zeitz (1999) which state that progressive soil development decreases the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity. Silins and Rothwell (1998) found that the mean unsaturated conductivity of drained peat was roughly five times greater than undrained peat in the water tension range of 25 to 1000 cm. Fig. 8 describes graphically the relations between water tension and hydraulic conductivity for strongly pedogenetically altered peat soils. Noteworthy is the comparably low conductivity of the strongly decomposed and segregated peat. Results for the strongly decomposed peat of the

4 Conclusions
In general, the predicted soil physical parameters showed good agreement with the results of Zeitz (1992). Nevertheless, we proved that peat shrinks during draining cycles, especially at higher water tensions. Taking this shrinkage into consideration, peat soils showed a substantially higher volumetric water content at high water tensions. Therefore, deriving the pore size distribution only from water retention data leads to an underestimation of water content for high water tensions. These errors decreased with the degree of soil pedogenic processes. Results show the effect of hydrophobicity on soil wetting at the end of the summer drought. The high wetting resistance of peat soils inhibits the soil water uptake by plants. As a result of water repellency processes, the water infiltration moves faster to greater depths and the groundwater level rises very quickly. In this case, a preferential transport of water and solutes to the groundwater might be possible. In contrast to the water retention, the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity functions, especially that of high degraded peat layers, are underrepresented in the modeling literature. More research is needed to understand the relation between peat soil development and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity.

Acknowledgment
We would like to thank the German Research Association (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG) for the financial support of this work. This study was developed within the scope of the DFG research group.

References
Figure 8: Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (Ku) of pedogenically altered fen peat soils of the Rhinluch laboratory results; strongly earthified peat: n = 6; earthified peat: n = 6; strongly decomposed peat: n = 1 Abbildung 8: Ungesttigte hydraulische Leitfhigkeit (Ku) pedogen vernderter Niedermoortorfe des Rhinluchs Laborwerte; vermulmter Torf: n = 6; vererdeter Torf: n = 6; stark zersetzter Torf: n = 1 AG Boden (1994): Bodenkundliche Kartieranleitung. 4th edn. Hannover, E. Schweitzbartsche Verlagsbuchhandlung Baird, A. J. (1997): Field estimation of macropore functioning and surface hydraulic conductivity in a fen peat. Hydrol. Process. 11, 287295. Brandyk, T., J. Szuniewicz, K. Skapski, and J. Szatylowicz (1995): The soil moisture regime study of fen peat soils in the Middle Biebrza Basin as a Basis for soil protection.. Z. Kulturtechnik Landentw. 36 (2), 7883.

486
DIN 19683 (1998): Physikalische Untersuchungen von Bden. Hennings, H. H. (1996): Zur Wiedervernssbarkeit von Niedermooren. PhD, Georg-August-Universitt Gttingen, Germany. Kellner, E., and S. Halldin (2002): Water budget and surface-layer water storage in Sphagnum bog in central Sweden. Hydrol. Process. 16, 87 103. Letts, M. G., N. T. Roulet, N. T. Comer, M. R. Skarupa, and D. L. Verseghy (2000): Parametrization of peatland hydraulic properties for the Canadian Land Surface Scheme. Atmosph. Ocean. 38 (1), 141160. McLay, C. D. A., F. R. Allbrook, and K. Thompson (1992): Effect of development and cultivation on physical properties of peat soils in New Zealand. Geoderma 54, 2337. Ohde, J. (1951): Neue Erdstoff-Kennwerte. Die Bautechnik 27, 345351. Okruszko, H. (1993): Transformation of fen-peat soil under the impact of draining. Pols. Akad, zesz. 406, 3-75. Plagge, R. (1991): Bestimmung der ungesttigten hydraulischen Leitfhigkeit. PhD, TU Berlin, FG Bodenkunde, Germany. Renger, M., G. Wessolek, K. Schwrzel, R. Sauerbrey, and C. Siewert (2002): Aspects of peat conservation and water management. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 165, 487493. Royer, J. M., and G. Vachaud (1975): Field Determination of Hysteresis in Soil-Water Characteristics. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 39, 221223. Sachs, L. (1997): Angewandte Statistik. Springer Verlag, Berlin. Sauerbrey, R., E. Gebhardt, and H. Raasch (1988): Methodische Untersuchungen der pF-Bestimmungen an Niedermoortorfen und daraus ableitbare Schlufolgerungen. Tag.-Ber., Akad. Landwirtsch.-Wiss. DDR, Berlin 269, 581 584. Sauerbrey, R., and J. Zeitz (1999): Handbuch der Bodenkunde. Kap. 3.3.3.7 6. Erg. Lfg. 7/99 S. 124. Schfer, W. (1996): Changes in physical properties of organic soils induced by land use. Proc. 10th International Peat Congress, Vol. 4, 7783, Bremen.

Schwrzel, Renger, Sauerbrey, and Wessolek Schmidt, W., and K. Illner (1976): Die Bodenformen landwirtschaftlich genutzter Niedermoore. Z. Melioration. Landwirtschaftsbau 10, 166 168. Schmidt, W. (1986): Zur Bestimmung der Einheitswasserzahl von Torfen. Archiv Acker- Pflanzenbau Bodenkd. 30, 251257. Schmidt, W., G. Mundel, A., W. Scholz, and W. v. d. Waydbrink (1981): Kennzeichnung und Beurteilung der Bodenentwicklung auf Niedermoor unter besonderer Bercksichtigung der Degradierung. Forsch.-Bericht Inst. Futterproduktion Paulinenaue AdL der DDR. Schothorst, C. J. (1982): Drainage and Behaviour of Peat Soils. Proc. Symp. On Peatlands below the Sea Level, Wageningen. Schwrzel, K. (2000): Dynamik des Wasserhaushaltes von Niedermooren. PhD, TU Berlin, FG Standortkunde/Bodenschutz, Germany. Silinis, U., and R. L. Rothwell (1998): Forest Peatland drainage and subsidence affect soil water retention and transport properties in an Alberta peatland. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 62, 10481056. Weiss, R., J. Alm, R. Laiho, and J. Laine (1998): Modeling moisture retention in peat soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 62, 305313. Wessolek, G., K. Schwrzel, M. Renger, R. Sauerbrey, and C. Siewert (2002): Soil hydrology and CO2 release of peat soils. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 165, 494500. Zeitz, J. (1992): Bodenphysikalische Eigenschaften von Substrat-HorizontGruppen in landwirtschaftlich genutzten Niedermooren. Z. Kulturtechnik Landentw. 33, 301307. Zeitz, J. (1993): Zustandserfassung und Kartierung der Moorbden im Niedermoorgebiet Oberes Rhinluch als Grundlage fr die Planung von standortangepassten, umweltschonenden Nutzungsformen. MUNR Forschungsbericht, Germany. [P96/2B]