Next Article in Journal
Influence of a Green Environmental Orientation on Corporate Sustainable Performance in the Manufacturing Sector
Previous Article in Journal
Ensuring Sustainable Preservation: Fire Protection of Timber Sacral Buildings in Eastern Slovakia
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 6
10.3390/su17062431
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Paludiculture Potential on Fen Peatland: A Soil-Based Case Study from Central Poland

by
Michael Foredapwa Joel
and
Bartłomiej Glina
*
Department of Soil Science and Microbiology, Poznań University of Life Sciences, 60-656 Poznań, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(6), 2431; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062431
Submission received: 20 February 2025 / Revised: 5 March 2025 / Accepted: 7 March 2025 / Published: 10 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Soil Conservation and Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Paludiculture is crucial for peatland preservation as it maintains high water levels, preventing peat decomposition and reducing carbon emissions. This study evaluates the viability of paludiculture management on a fen peatland in the temperate climatic zone of Central Poland. The investigated peatland has been affected by agricultural drainage and a brief period of peat extraction in the 1990s. Field surveys and soil sample collection were conducted in September 2023, followed by soil morphology and physico-chemical analyses to classify the soils and assess their hydrophobicity, organic matter content, and secondary transformation. Prolonged drainage significantly altered soil properties, leading to the transition from Histosols to Gleysols. Soil profiles exhibited varying degrees of hydrophobicity, with MED values ranging from 5.0 to 8.5, indicating slight to moderate hydrophobicity. The highest degree of secondary transformation (W1 index of 0.92) was observed in profile 4. However, profiles 1–3 showed strong potential for paludiculture due to their peat composition and hydrological conditions. Paludiculture implementation is expected to support sustainable agriculture, while conservation tillage or grassland management is recommended in areas with advanced secondary transformation to prevent further organic matter depletion.

1. Introduction

Peatlands, covering just 3% of the Earth’s land surface, hold a staggering 30% of global soil carbon, more than all the world’s forests combined [1]. These unique ecosystems are crucial carbon sinks, storing approximately 550–1000 gigatons of carbon and playing a vital role in regulating the global climate [2]. However, drained peatlands are releasing massive amounts of carbon dioxide, contributing significantly to climate change and underscoring the urgent need for their protection and restoration [3]. Nearly 10% (ca. 1 000 000 km2) of Europe’s total surface area, is covered by peatlands. However, more than 50% of the peatlands in many of the EU’s peatland-rich nations are degraded; in some, like Germany and The Netherlands, it even exceeds 90–95% [3]. Artificial drainage, most frequently for forestry, agriculture, or peat extraction, is the main cause of peatland degradation [4,5]. Up to 90% of peatlands in Central and Western Europe have been used for agricultural purposes [6], which may have contributed to the 60% depletion of peatland carbon pools [7]. Simply halting peatland usage is not a viable option, as it is essential to maintain the production function for rural lives and to keep and restore wet grasslands as hotspots for biodiversity [8]. Wet peatlands can produce biomass as feedstock and fuel, which is increasingly needed to mitigate carbon emissions from industry, even while existing food production may be moved to mineral soils. A fundamental shift to “wet” land usage is therefore unavoidable [9]. Despite the urgent need for rewetting, it is not feasible to immediately convert all degraded peatlands into protected wilderness areas because these lands are necessary for rural livelihoods [4]. The productive use of wet or rewetted peatlands, known as paludiculture, has been established as a way to enable rewetting while allowing farmers to continue using their property in a different way [10]. The word “paludiculture”, which denotes the preservation of both the peat body and the production function of the land, is used to describe the environmentally responsible use of wet peatlands [11]. Since drained peatlands are unlikely to revert to their original state even after restoration, they make excellent candidates for paludiculture [4,8]. A fair strategy would be to keep this land in use, allowing farmers to stay on the property and local communities to manage their own peatland resources [10]. The Nature Restoration Law, recently adopted by the European Union, marks a significant step forward in environmental conservation, particularly for peatland rewetting efforts. This landmark legislation aims to restore degraded ecosystems across the EU, including peatlands, which are critical carbon sinks and biodiversity hotspots [12].
The main aim of this study was to evaluate the viability of paludiculture management on fen peatland in the temperate climatic zone of central Poland. Moreover, the following research hypothesis has been addressed: the uppermost layers of the study soils consist of hydrophilic materials, which allow for the future rewetting of the study area. To the best of our knowledge, this pilot project is one of the first examples of fen peatland assessment in terms of the feasibility of paludiculture implementation in Central Poland. It will result in measurable improvements in ecosystem health, carbon sequestration, and climate-smart sustainable agricultural use. Moreover, it will contribute to enhanced biodiversity, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and increased socio-economic benefits for local communities.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The study was conducted in the fen peatland located (52°32′34″ N, 16°50′39″ E—north edge; 52°32′16″ N, 16°50′65″ E—south edge) within the border of Chludowo village (Greater Poland, Figure 1). This part of Poland experiences mild summers and a fully humid, warm temperate climate, with an average air temperature of 8 °C (WorldClim, 2020). July is the warmest month with an average temperature of 19 °C, while January is the coldest with −1 to −2 °C. Despite annual precipitation reaching about 550–650 mm, the rainfall distribution is unfavorable as the increasing number of extreme weather events (heavy rainfalls) is interwoven with long dry periods. The research area’s vegetation is primarily composed of grasses (i.e., Dactylis glomerata, Festuca pratensis, Festuca rubra), sedges (Carex sp.), and weeds (i.e., Urtica dioica, Apiaceae Lindl.). Moreover, the common reed (Phragmites australis) predominates in the area surrounding the lake, which is situated in the northern part of the study area (Figure 1). Like many others, fen sites in Poland, the investigated peatland complex was drained for agricultural purposes at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. The center of the study area is traversed by a drainage ditch. Aside from agricultural use, the area underwent a brief period of peat extraction in the 1990s, and the post-extraction sites (small ponds) are still clearly visible within the study area (Figure 1). Flowing through the central part of the study area is the Chludowo channel (from south to north), which forms the hydrographic axis of the area and drains the land.

2.2. Soil Sample Collection

In September 2023, soil samples were taken from four soil profiles, dug down manually to the groundwater level. To ensure consistency and prevent soil variability, the location of soil profiles was selected on the basis of 25 drillings performed along the research transect. The mean soil sample at each sampling site was composed of three subsamples. Additionally, a peat corer was used to collect soil material from each profile to a depth of 110–150 cm. To maintain a consistent temperature, all samples were placed inside polyethylene bags and brought to the laboratory in an insulated box that was sealed against light. In the field, the soil morphology was described according to the field guide for soil description [13]. The degree of peat decomposition was determined in the field using the von Post scale [14], and the organic material thickness at each sampling site was measured by using long steel rods. The classification of the studied soils was carried out by using WRB classification [13] and Polish soil classification [15].

2.3. Laboratory Analysis

In the laboratory, plant roots were extracted and the samples were divided into two categories: standard soil samples and field-moist soil samples. For physical and chemical analysis, standard samples were air-dried and then crushed in a mortar to create homogenized material. Field-moist soil samples were kept cold, at 4 °C, until the index W1 method was used to determine the state of secondary transformation [16], and soil pH potentiometrically at a soil: solution (distilled water) ratio of 1:5 (v/v). The following properties were determined in dry samples: ash content after placing dried samples for 5 h in a muffle furnace at 550 °C as described by Heiri et al. [17]; total carbon (TC) and total nitrogen (TN) on a VarioMax analyzer (Elementar, Langenselbold, Germany); content of calcium carbonate equivalent by the Scheibler volumetric method [18]. TC content was adjusted (inorganic carbon content was subtracted from TC content) and expressed as total organic carbon (TOC) content if inorganic carbon (as carbonates) was present. The potential soil water repellency was assessed by using the Molarity of Ethanol Droplet (MED) test, following the procedure described by Doerr [19]. In this test, ethanol solutions of increasing volumetric ethanol concentrations (0%, 3%, 5%, 8.5%, 13%, 24%, and 36%) were applied to the soil. All soil analyses (except pH) were performed in three replications.

2.4. Data Processing

The basic statistical parameters (mean and standard deviation) were calculated using the statistical package, Statistica 13 (StatSoft Inc., Tulsa, OK, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Soil Morphology and Classification

According to the WRB classification [13], the uppermost soil horizons (Ah) of the studied soils (Figure 2) are composed of mulmic material (with 8–20% TOC) with a well-developed granular or subangular blocky structure and a thickness ranging from 25 to 40 cm (Table 1). This material meets the criteria (≥10 cm thickness and ≥12% TOC) for a murszik horizon according to the Polish soil classification [15]. The subsoil horizons of profiles 1–3 are composed of moderately decomposed (hemic) peat material, which includes numerous remnants of common reed vegetation fragments. In the bottom of soil profile 1 slightly decomposed (fibric) reed-sedge peat and sedge-moss peat materials were recorded, while in profile 4 from 32 to 40 cm a thin layer of strongly decomposed (sapric) peat was observed. The described peat materials are generally brown to black in color, with an amorphous, amorphous-fibrous, and fibrous structure. Additionally, an admixture of limnic material (meadow limestone) in sapric peat layer was recorded in profile 3 (Table 1). This type of mineral material predominates below 40 cm in profile 4. The thickness of organic material in the study sites (except site 4) exceeds 5 m, thus meeting the criteria for the Hyperorganic qualifier [13]. Soil profiles 1, 2, and 3 represent the soil reference group of Histosols, while profile 4 is classified as Gleysol. According to the Polish soil classification [15], the studied soils represent the peat soil type (profiles 1 and 2) and murshic soil type (profiles 3 and 4). A detailed soil classification is presented in Table 1.

3.2. Physical Properties

The ash content was the highest in the meadow limestone layers in soil profile 4 (60.8–94.3%) followed by the uppermost soil horizons built with mulmic materials at profile 3 (14.2–75.3%). Definitely lower values of ash content were recorded in the soil horizons consisting of slightly decomposed peat material (Hi horizons). The W1 index values determined in the mulmic materials across the investigated soils ranged from 0.67 to 0.92, as shown in Table 2. Profile 4 exhibited the highest degree of secondary transformation, particularly evident in its top two horizons, with a W1 index of 0.92 (0–20 cm depth) and 0.80 (20–32 cm depth), indicating strong secondary transformation. Profile 3 also displayed a notable degree of secondary transformation, with the top horizon (0–18 cm) showing a W1 index of 0.84, classified as strongly secondary transformation, and the subsequent depth (18–40 cm) demonstrating a medium secondary transformation with a W1 Index of 0.76. In contrast, the uppermost soil horizons of profile 1 and profile 2 were classified as medium secondary transformed, with W1 Index of 0.67 and 0.71, respectively (Table 2).
The MED values in the uppermost soil horizons across the four soil profiles range from 5.0 to 8.5, proving the slight to moderate hydrophobicity (Table 2). The highest potential hydrophobicity (very strong to extreme) was recorded in the peat horizons consisting of hemic and fibric materials. Only 4 soil horizons were classified as hydrophilic or very hydrophilic. In general studied soils consisted mainly of potentially hydrophobic material, with domination of very strong and moderate hydrophobicity class (Table 2).

3.3. Chemical Properties

The TOC content in studied soils was in the range of 2.68–48.4% as shown in Table 3. The lowest was recorded in the meadow limestone (profile 4, 2.68, and 3.30%). The highest TOC content (48.4%) was found in the fibric peat material in profile 1 at a depth of 45–90 cm. The TN content in studied soils was in the range of 0.14–2.69%. The highest amounts of TN were found in profile 2 at a depth of 45–90 cm (2.69%) followed by a TN value of 2.66% in profile 1 (45–90 cm depth), whereas the lowest amounts (0.14%) was recorded in the meadow limestone horizons (40–90 and 90–130 cm) of profile 4. The TOC/TN ratio content was in the range of 9.73–23.6%, and the lowest was recorded in the uppermost soil layers across each profile (Table 3). The pH across studied soil profiles ranged from slightly acidic (pH 6.65) to alkaline (pH 8.06–8.15).

4. Discussion

4.1. Current Conditions of the Soil Cover

The study reveals that soil profiles 1–3 (Histosols) and profile 4 (Gleysols) exhibit organic content (TOC ≥ 8% and <20%), indicative of partially degraded organic matter, according to the classification proposed by the IUSS Working Group WRB [13]. The development of mulmic material in the uppermost soil horizons of the studied soils explicitly illustrates how drainage has transformed organic matter, accelerated decomposition, and created carbon-depleted horizons [3,7]. The presence of mulmic materials due to artificial drainage is similar to the findings of Sokołowska et al. [20], who investigated drained peatlands in northern and central Poland and found that drainage causes accelerated aerobic decomposition, transforming peatlands into mulmic materials. Our findings are also in line with Turetsky et al. [21], who stated that drainage increases oxygen penetration, leading to enhanced aerobic microbial activity and causing carbon oxidation. This process contributes to peat transformation into mursh material, and further into mulmic materials with reduced organic content. Due to this transformation, Parish et al. [1] emphasize the importance of restoring drained peatlands to halt further aerobic decomposition and prevent continued degradation. The studied fen soils are similar to those reported for degraded peatlands in the Great Mazurian Lakeland [22] and the Biebrza River valley [20]. The mentioned authors described the complete degradation or strong secondary transformation of drained peatland soils, which have been used as grasslands for a long time.
The topsoil horizons revealed moderate-to-low MED index values (3–8.5), indicative of hydrophilicity and water retention capacity, which partially confirmed the hypothesis that the uppermost layers of the study soils consist of hydrophilic materials. Our findings are in line with Reddy and DeLaune [23] who reported that low MED values are a reliable indicator of soil health, which increase the water-holding capacity and hydrophilicity of organic soils and peatlands. According to Doerr et al. [19], soils ranked as having low MED scores were expected to have good water absorption capacity and good water retention capacity. These correspond to results that have been reported for the water retention properties of the peatlands of Northern Europe [9]. However, hydrophobicity was noted in some peat horizons, influenced by organic matter content, decomposition state, and siltation, as observed in similar studies by Łachacz et al. [24]. Such trends were also observed by Orzechowski et al. [25] in organic soils in the Northeast of Poland. This was also in line with Kalisz and Łachacz [26] who stated that the degree of hydrophobicity of peat horizons is considerably high and is found to be directly related to the organic matter content. The hydrophobicity of the peat horizons is likely to alter future agricultural utilization of this land, as the water-repellent soil surface does not absorb or allow water to penetrate the soil profile [27,28]. Secondary transformations due to drainage lead to the formation of hydrophobic materials in some layers, while others remain hydrophilic due to less advanced degradation [29]. This stratification explains why hydrophilicity and hydrophobicity may coexist in the same soil profile or study area. Soil profiles (3 and 4) exhibit strong secondary transformations and reduced organic matter content in the uppermost horizons, which have undergone significant aerobic decomposition due to drainage. This most probably results in increased microbial activity and organic carbon oxidation, corroborating the findings of Parish et al. [1] and Turetsky et al. [21]. Peat soil transformation, and soil organic matter in particular, has been shown to be linked to the process of secondary soil transformation according to Łachacz et al. [30]. The TOC/TN ratios in these profiles suggest intense mineralization of organic matter in the topsoil, particularly in profile 4 at 40–90 cm depth, while topsoil horizons with TOC/TN ratios (<15) reflect low susceptibility to further transformations [20,31].

4.2. Possibility of Paludiculture Application

The presence of mulmic materials and the observed level of secondary transformations across soil profiles indicate that continued intensive agricultural management may lead to progressively more soil degradation linked to significant carbon losses [22]. Hence, there is a need to implement climate-smart, sustainable management of these soils. As pointed out by Vanino et al. [32], the sustainable management of agricultural soils is critical for improving soil health and enhancing food and water security. Moreover, in the case of peatlands, their contribution to climate change mitigation and biodiversity preservation is of crucial importance [33]. Therefore, peatland rewetting and wet peatland management (paludiculture) are vital contributions toward achieving this goal and are in line with the Paris Agreement [11]. Rewetting strategies, including blocking drainage ditches and restoring water tables, are essential for creating saturated conditions conducive to peat-forming plant growth [34,35]. Re-establishing anaerobic conditions in drained peatland soils can halt decomposition, promote peat body preservation, and capture carbon, although secondary transformations may persist [36,37]. Effective rewetting also requires hydrological management and the reintroduction of native flora [29].
The organic nature and water retention capacity of the studied soil profiles make them suitable for paludiculture, despite varying degrees of degradation. The organic matter content contributes to the water retention capacity of peat soils. Rewetting degraded peatlands helps restore water levels, maintaining saturated conditions that are conducive to peat-forming plant growth. The organic matter acts like a sponge, holding water and preventing rapid drainage, which is essential for paludiculture [4]. However, the suitability of such soil profiles for wet agriculture depends on various factors, including the types of wetland plants being cultivated and management practices implemented to mitigate hydrophobicity effects [3]. The first two profiles, with medium levels of secondary transformation, retain characteristics favorable for paludiculture, such as organic matter content and hydrophilicity. This aligns with Joosten and Clarke [29], who explain that most of the deeper horizons with organic matter content termed moist or even weathered are inherently hydrophilic and play a significant role in ensuring water tables in peatlands remain favorable for paludiculture. Wet soil conditions support the growth of wetland vegetation such as sedges (Carex sp.), reeds (Phragmites australis), and cattails (Typha sp.), which are essential for paludiculture [38]. These plants have been widely used in several pilot projects on temperate fen peatlands in Europe and are ideal biomass for thatching, long-lasting construction, insulating materials, or bioenergy production [10]. The occurrence of reed peat and Carex vegetation within the studied area, as well as gyttja sediments, indicates the potential for rewetting and paludiculture. These findings align with other studies highlighting that such features are well-suited for paludiculture and that the presence of such vegetation suggests the area retains characteristics conducive to restoring water levels and supporting sustainable wetland agriculture [4,8,11]. However, strong secondary transformations in profile 4 may limit their suitability without tailored interventions. Addressing hydrophobicity through management practices is critical to optimizing water retention for the sustainable use of peatlands [35,37]. The presence of organic matter in deeper horizons, despite mineralization in the upper layers, suggests that water retention can still be improved through rewetting strategies [39]. This is consistent with Joosten and Clarke [29], who emphasized that hydrological restoration can help stabilize peatlands and enhance paludiculture. These findings align with studies from the Biebrza River Valley and Northern Europe, where degraded peatlands have been successfully restored for paludiculture. Long-term monitoring and adaptive management remain crucial to ensure the success of these practices [9,33]. Given that the average water table depth within the study area ranges from 65 to 80 cm below ground level, it suggests that even a slight elevation of the water level to 30–40 cm would allow for the implementation of paludiculture crops [4,33]. The current network of drainage ditches could be used to rewet the study areas, as suggested by Glina et al. [40] for different drained fen peatlands in Central Poland. In addition, the mechanical removal of the surface soil layers in study sites with very strongly hydrophobic material at the soil surface should be considered; otherwise, water absorption will be limited, and water infiltration will occur through preferential paths (i.e., cracks, holes, or biochannels) [26].

5. Conclusions

Our results showed that the drainage of the studied fen peatland has significantly influenced soil cover, leading to a transition from Histosols to Gleysols due to reduced water saturation. The MED test indicates varying degrees of hydrophobicity across soil profiles, which has important implications for paludiculture. Soil profiles exhibiting high hydrophobicity may present challenges for crops or vegetation that require consistent soil moisture, necessitating careful management to mitigate adverse effects on plant growth. Results from soil morphology and physico-chemical analyses suggest that paludiculture can support biodiversity and help preserve the remaining peat body in the area of soil profiles 1–3. The dominance of common reed and the presence of a high water table in a drainage ditch highlight the great potential of this area for paludiculture. In contrast, for the area of soil profile 4, it is strongly recommended to implement conservation tillage or grassland management to reduce further depletion of soil organic matter. The implementation of paludiculture is expected to bring measurable improvements in ecosystem health, carbon sequestration, and agricultural productivity, while also providing a habitat for species characteristic of this ecosystem. In our opinion, long-term studies are essential to assess the viability of paludiculture under various climatic conditions, as they provide the data needed to understand its sustainability, environmental impacts, and adaptability in the face of climate change.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.G. and M.F.J.; methodology, B.G.; validation, B.G. and M.F.J.; formal analysis, M.F.J.; investigation, B.G. and M.F.J.; data curation, B.G. and M.F.J.; writing—original draft preparation, M.F.J.; writing—review and editing, B.G.; supervision, B.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The publication was financed by the Polish Minister of Science and Higher Education as part of the Strategy of the Poznan University of Life Sciences for 2024–2026 in the field of improving scientific research and development work in priority research areas.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Parish, F.; Sirin, A.; Charman, D.; Joosten, H.; Minayeva, T.; Silvius, M.; Stringer, L. (Eds.) Assessment on Peatlands, Biodiversity and Climate Change: Main Report; Global Environment Centre: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; Wetlands International: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2008; p. 208. [Google Scholar]
  2. Xu, J.; Morris, P.J.; Liu, J.; Holden, J. Hotspots of Peatland-Derived Potable Water Use Identified by Global Analysis. Nat. Sustain. 2018, 1, 246–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Joosten, H.; Tapio-Biström, M.L.; Tol, S. Peatlands: Guidance for Climate Change Mitigation Through Conservation, Rehabilitation and Sustainable Use; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2012; p. 114. [Google Scholar]
  4. Tanneberger, F.; Schröder, C.; Hohlbein, M.; Lenschow, U.; Permien, T.; Wichmann, S.; Wichtmann, W. Climate change mitigation through land use on rewetted peatlands–cross-sectoral spatial planning for paludiculture in northeast Germany. Wetlands 2020, 40, 2309–2320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Łachacz, A.; Bogacz, A.; Glina, B.; Kalisz, B.; Mendyk, Ł.; Orzechowski, M.; Smólczyński, S.; Sowiński, P. Origin, transformation and classification of organic soils in Poland. Soil Sci. Ann. 2024, 75, 195241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. McCarter, C.P.R.; Price, J.S. The Hydrology of the Bois-de-Bel Bog Peatland Restoration: 10 Years Post Restoration. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 55, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lal, R. Soil Carbon Sequestration Impacts on Global Climate Change and Food Security. Science 2004, 304, 1623–1627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Joosten, H.; Gaudig, G.; Tanneberger, F.; Wichmann, S.; Wichtmann, W. Paludiculture: Sustainable Productive Use of Wet and Rewetted Peatlands; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2016; p. 272. [Google Scholar]
  9. Tanneberger, F.; Tegetmeyer, C.; Busse, S.; Barthelmes, A.; Shumka, S.; Mariné, A.M.; Jenderedjian, K.; Steiner, G.M.; Essl, F.; Etzold, J.; et al. The peatland map of Europe. Mires Peat 2017, 19, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ziegler, R. Paludiculture as a critical sustainability innovation mission. Res. Policy 2020, 49, 103979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Martens, H.R.; Laage, K.; Eickmanns, M.; Drexler, A.; Heinsohn, V.; Wegner, N.; Muster, C.; Diekmann, M.; Seeber, E.; Kreyling, J.; et al. Paludiculture can support biodiversity conservation in rewetted fen peatlands. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 18091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Grzybowski, M.; Glińska-Lewczuk, K. The principal threats to the peatlands habitats, in the continental bioregion of Central Europe–A case study of peatland conservation in Poland. J. Nat. Cons. 2020, 53, 125778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. IUSS Working Group WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources. International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps, 4th ed.; International Union of Soil Sciences (IUSS): Vienna, Austria, 2022; p. 236. [Google Scholar]
  14. Von Post, L. Sveriges geologiska undersöknings torvinventering och några av dess hittills vunna resultat. Svenska Mosskulturföreningens Tidskrift 1922, 37, 1–27. [Google Scholar]
  15. Kabała, C.; Charzyński, P.; Chodorowski, J.; Drewnik, M.; Glina, B.; Greinert, A.; Waroszewski, J. Polish Soil Classification, 6th edition–principles, classification scheme and correlations. Soil Sci. Ann. 2019, 70, 71–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gawlik, J. Division of differently silted peat formations into classes according to their state of secondary transformations. Acta Agrophysica 2000, 26, 17–24. [Google Scholar]
  17. Heiri, O.; Lotter, A.; Lemcke, G. Loss on ignition as a method for estimating organic and carbonate content in sediments: Reproducibility and comparability of results. J. Paleolimnol. 2001, 25, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Van Reeuwijk, L.P. Procedures for Soil Analysis, 6th ed.; ISRIC: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  19. Doerr, S.H. On standardizing the ‘Water Drop Penetration Time’ and the ‘Molarity of an Ethanol Droplet’ techniques to classify soil hydrophobicity: A case study using medium textured soils. Earth Surf. Proc, Land. 1998, 23, 663–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sokolowska, Z.; Szajdak, L.; Matyka-Sarzyńska, D. Impact of the degree of secondary transformation on acid-base properties of organic compounds in mucks. Geoderma 2005, 127, 80–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Turetsky, M.R.; Benscoter, B.; Page, S.; Rein, G.; Van Der Werf, G.R.; Watts, A. Global vulnerability of peatlands to fire and carbon loss. Nat. Geosci. 2015, 8, 11–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kalisz, B.; Łachacz, A.; Głażewski, R. Effects of peat drainage on labile organic carbon and water repellency in NE Poland. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2015, 39, 20–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Reddy, K.R.; aDeLaune, R.D. Biogeochemistry of Wetlands: Science and Applications; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Łachacz, A.; Nitkiewicz, M.; Kalisz, B. Water repellency of post-boggy soils with a various content of organic matter. Biologia 2009, 64, 634–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Orzechowski, M.; Smółczyński, S.; Sowiński, P.; Rybińska, B. Water repellency of soils with various content of organic matter in north-eastern Poland. Soil Sci. Annu. 2013, 64, 30–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kalisz, B.; Łachacz, A. Hydrophobicity of Dissolved Organic Carbon in Fen Peatlands. In Proceedings of the 15th International Peat Congress, Kuching, Malaysia, 15–19 August 2016; pp. 73–76. [Google Scholar]
  27. Fu, Z.; Hu, W.; Beare, M.H.; Müller, K.; Wallace, D.; Chau, H.W. Contributions of soil organic carbon to soil water repellency persistence: Characterization and modelling. Geoderma 2021, 401, 115312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Popović, Z.; Cerdà, A. Soil water repellency and plant cover: A state-of-knowledge review. Catena 2023, 229, 107213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Joosten, H.; Clarke, D. Wise Use of Mires and Peatlands: Background and Principles Including a Framework for Decision-Making; International Mire Conservation Group and International Peat Society: Jyväskylä, Finland, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  30. Łachacz, A.; Kalisz, B.; Sowiński, P.; Smreczak, B.; Niedźwiecki, J. Transformation of organic soils due to artificial drainage and agricultural use in Poland. Agriculture 2023, 13, 634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bieniek, B.; Karwowska, J.; Bieniek, A. Chemical properties of extensively utilized muck soils in the Siodmak peatland. Soil Sci. Annu. 2007, 58, 12–23, (In Polish with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  32. Vanino, S.; Pirelli, T.; Di Bene, C.; Bøe, F.; Castanheira, N.; Chenu, C.; Farina, R. Barriers and opportunities of soil knowledge to address soil challenges: Stakeholders’ perspectives across Europe. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 325, 116581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Tanneberger, F.; Moen, A.; Barthelmes, A.; Lewis, E.; Miles, L.; Sirin, A.; Joosten, H. Mires in Europe-regional diversity, condition and protection. Diversity 2021, 13, 381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ketcheson, S.J.; Price, J.S. The impact of peatland restoration on the site hydrology of an abandoned block-cut bog. Wetlands 2011, 31, 1263–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Harpenslager, S.F.; van Dijk, G.; Boonman, J.; Weideveld, S.T.; van de Riet, B.P.; Hefting, M.M.; Smolders, A.J. Rewetting drained peatlands through subsoil infiltration stabilises redox-dependent soil carbon and nutrient dynamics. Geoderma 2024, 442, 116787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Temmink, R.J.; Vroom, R.J.; van Dijk, G.; Käärmelahti, S.A.; Koks, A.H.; Joosten, H.; Fritz, C. Restoring organic matter, carbon and nutrient accumulation in degraded peatlands: 10 years Sphagnum paludiculture. Biogeochemistry 2024, 167, 347–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Van de Riet, B.P.; Hefting, M.M.; Verhoeven, J.T.A. Rewetting drained peat meadows: Risks and benefits in terms of nutrient release and greenhouse gas exchange. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2013, 224, 1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wichtmann, W.; Schröder, C.; Joosten, H. Paludiculture: Productive Use of Wet Peatlands; Schweizerbart Science Publishers: Stuttgart, Germany, 2016; 272p. [Google Scholar]
  39. Glina, B.; Piernik, A.; Mocek-Płóciniak, A.; Maier, A.; Glatzel, S. Drivers controlling spatial and temporal variation of microbial properties and dissolved organic forms (DOC and DON) in fen soils with persistently low water tables. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2021, 27, e01605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Glina, B.; Yetunde, F.M.; Mendyk, Ł.; Piernik, A. Soil water repellency and its importance for the climate-smart sustainable management of fen peatland soils in Central Poland. Geoderma Reg. 2024, 39, e00867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 02431 g001
Figure 1. Overview of the study area, and soil profile location along the research transect.
Figure 1. Overview of the study area, and soil profile location along the research transect.
Sustainability 17 02431 g001
Sustainability 17 02431 g002
Figure 2. Study soil profiles: (A) profile 1; (B) profile 2; (C) profile 3; (D) profile 4.
Figure 2. Study soil profiles: (A) profile 1; (B) profile 2; (C) profile 3; (D) profile 4.
Sustainability 17 02431 g002
Table 1. Soil morphology and classification.
Table 1. Soil morphology and classification.
Profile 1: Hypereutric Rheic Drainic Hemic Histosol (Mulmic, Hyperorganic) [13]
Hemic murshic peat soil [15]
Soil
Horizon		DepthColorStructureSoil
Moisture		CaCO3Horizon
(cm)(Moist)Boundary
Ah0–2510YR 3/2GR/SBSlightly moist+C, W
He125–4510YR 3/1A/FMoist-G
He245–9010YR 3/2A/FWet-G
Hi90–1557.5YR 4/6FWet--
Profile 2: Hypereutric Rheic Drainic Hemic Histosol (Mulmic, Hyperorganic) [13]
Hemic murshic peat soil [15]
Ah10–1010YR 3/1GR/SBSlightly moist+C, W
Ah210–252.5YR 5/2SBMoist-C
He125–5510YR 3/1A/FWet-G
He255–11010YR 3/2A/FWet--
Profile 3: Hypereutric Rheic Drainic Sapric Histosol (Mulmic, Hyperorganic) [13]
Sapric murshic soil [15]
Ah10–1810YR 3/1GR/SBDry+G
Ah218–4010YR 3/2GR/SBSlightly Moist+C, W
Ha/ƛ40–7510YR 2/1AMoist-C
He75–13010YR 3/1AWet--
Profile 4: Hypereutric Gleysol (Drainic, Limnic, Mulmic) [13]
Thin sapric murshic soil [15]
Ah10–2010YR 3/1GR/SBDry+G
Ah220–3210YR 3/2GR/SBDry+C, W
Ha32–4010YR 2/1A/FMoist+C, W
ƛ140–902.5YR 8/1ABMoist+-
ƛ290–1302.5YR 8/1M/ABWet+-
Explanation: SB—subangular blocky, AB—angular blocky, A—amorphous, GR—granular, F—fibrous, M—massive; Horizon boundaries: G—gradual, C—clear, W—wavy.
Table 2. Physical properties of the soil profiles (mean ± SD).
Table 2. Physical properties of the soil profiles (mean ± SD).
ProfileSoil
Horizon		Depth (cm)Ash Content (%)W1 IndexState of Secondary TransformationMEDMED Class
1Ah0–2562.4 ± 0.110.67 ± 0.07Medium8.5moderately hydrophobic
He125–4512.7 ± 0.12--24very strongly hydrophobic
He245–907.73 ± 0.12--36extremely hydrophobic
Hi90–15510.6 ± 0.12--24very strongly hydrophobic
2Ah10–1069.1 ± 0.810.71 ± 0.01Medium5Slightly hydrophobic
Ah210–2571.2 ± 0.060.71 ± 0.03-3hydrophilic
He125–559.56 ± 0.12--24very strongly hydrophobic
He255–11024.1 ± 0.1--24very strongly hydrophobic
3Ah10–1868.1 ± 0.000.84 ± 0.00Strongly8.5moderately hydrophobic
Ah218–4075.3 ± 0.230.76 ± 0.03Medium0very hydrophilic
Ha/ƛ40–7519.5 ± 0.1--24very strongly hydrophobic
He75–13014.2 ± 0.1--13strongly hydrophobic
4Ah10–2070.5 ± 0.10.92 ± 0.01Strongly8.5moderately hydrophobic
Ah220–3269.1 ± 0.150.80 ± 0.01Strongly0very hydrophilic
Ha32–4060.8 ± 0.06--5slightly hydrophobic
ƛ140–9093.6 ± 0.1--0very hydrophilic
ƛ290–13094.3 ± 0.15--8.5moderately hydrophobic
Explanation: MED—molarity of ethanol droplet.
Table 3. Chemical properties of the soil profiles (mean ± SD).
Table 3. Chemical properties of the soil profiles (mean ± SD).
ProfileSoil
Horizon		Depth (cm)pHTOC (%)TN (%)CaCO3TOC/TN
1Ah0–257.4117.8 ± 0.11.79 ± 0.017.85 ± 0.029.73 ± 0.55
He125–457.0342.8 ± 0.152.28 ± 0.02-18.8 ± 0.21
He245–907.0548.4 ± 0.152.66 ± 0.03-18.1 ± 0.15
Hi90–1556.6545.5 ± 0.252.47 ± 0.05-18.4 ± 0.2
2Ah10–107.5616.2 ± 0.251.56 ± 0.0233.8 ± 0.3110.4 ± 0.12
Ah210–257.6914.7 ± 0.11.25 ± 0.00648.3 ± 0.1211.8 ± 0.1
He125–557.3036.5 ± 0.12.69 ± 0.01-13.6 ± 0.1
He255–1107.3937.1 ± 0.12.27 ± 0.579.2 ± 0.0016.6 ± 0.1
3Ah10–187.7116.9 ± 0.151.52 ± 0.0334.2 ± 0.211.2 ± 0.1
Ah218–407.7212.8 ± 0.11.1 ± 0.0240.1 ± 0.1511.6 ± 0.1
Ha/ƛ40–757.0844.2 ± 0.252.41 ± 0.04-18.4 ± 0.2
He75–1307.0442.9 ± 0.22.31 ± 0.04-18.6 ± 0.1
4Ah10–207.6013.7 ± 0.11.38 ± 0.0226.2 ± 0.19.9 ± 0.1
Ah220–327.7215.1 ± 0.11.45 ± 0.0139 ± 0.210.4 ± 0.1
Ha32–407.6323.6 ± 0.12.05 ± 0.0222 ± 0.111.5 ± 0.1
ƛ140–908.063.3 ± 0.10.14 ± 0.0184.1 ± 0.223.6 ± 0.1
ƛ290–1308.152.68 ± 0.180.14 ± 0.0289.3 ± 0.219.3 ± 0.2
Explanation: pH—soil pH; TOC—total organic carbon; TN—total nitrogen; TOC/TN—carbon to nitrogen ratio.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Joel, M.F.; Glina, B. Paludiculture Potential on Fen Peatland: A Soil-Based Case Study from Central Poland. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2431. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062431

AMA Style

Joel MF, Glina B. Paludiculture Potential on Fen Peatland: A Soil-Based Case Study from Central Poland. Sustainability. 2025; 17(6):2431. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062431

Chicago/Turabian Style

Joel, Michael Foredapwa, and Bartłomiej Glina. 2025. "Paludiculture Potential on Fen Peatland: A Soil-Based Case Study from Central Poland" Sustainability 17, no. 6: 2431. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062431

APA Style

Joel, M. F., & Glina, B. (2025). Paludiculture Potential on Fen Peatland: A Soil-Based Case Study from Central Poland. Sustainability, 17(6), 2431. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062431

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop