Comprehensive assessment of the condition of Crimean pine (Pinus nigra subsp. pallasiana (Lamb.) Holmboe) stands on eroded lands in the Right-Bank Forest-Steppe of Ukraine

Volodymyr Maliuha; Vasyl Khryk; Viktoriia Minder; Krylov Yaroslav; Ivan Kimeichuk; Serhii Kovalevskyi; Oleksand Sytnyk; Olena Hrynyk; Heorhiy Hrynyk

doi:10.2478/ffp-2026-0011

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

Comprehensive assessment of the condition of Crimean pine (Pinus nigra subsp. pallasiana (Lamb.) Holmboe) stands on eroded lands in the Right-Bank Forest-Steppe of Ukraine

Folia Forestalia Polonica

Volume 68 (2026): Issue 3 (September 2026)

By: Volodymyr Maliuha , Vasyl Khryk , Viktoriia Minder , Krylov Yaroslav , Ivan Kimeichuk , Serhii Kovalevskyi , Oleksand Sytnyk , Olena Hrynyk and Heorhiy Hrynyk

Open Access

|Sep 2026

Figures & Tables

Location of the study area and distribution of Crimean pine (*Pinus nigra* subsp. *pallasiana* (Lamb.) Holmboe) sample plots within the Yampil Forestry, Zhmerynka Forest District, Vinnytsia Oblast, Right-Bank Forest-Steppe of Ukraine
Source: Prepared by the authors based on (Zalìsnennâ erodovanih krutoshilìv…, 1999)

Forest typological structure of Crimean pine stands within the jurisdiction of the Yampil Forestry Unit of the Zhmerynka Regional Forestry Administration, a branch of the “Central Forest Office” of the State Enterprise “Forests of Ukraine”
Source: Prepared by the authors

Table 1.

Morphological description of typical soils in the Yampil Forest District of the Zhmerynka Regional Forestry Administration, a branch of the “Central Forest Office” of the State Enterprise “Forests of Ukraine”

Soil types	Thickness of the humus horizon, cm				Depth of soil profile, cm
	H	H	Hp	HP
	uneroded soils	slightly eroded soils	moderately eroded soils	severely eroded soils
Dark grey forest soils	18–30	12–15	15	22	51–100
Podzolized chernozem	21–32	16–20	20	27	60–112
Typical chernozem	30–41	18–23	26	29	62–122

[i] Source: Compiled by the authors

Table 2.

Distribution of soil types by degree of erosion

Soil subtypes	Soil erosion degree, ha			In total, ha
Soil subtypes	low	medium	high	In total, ha
Grey forest soils	-	29.0	21.0	50.0
Dark grey forest soils	28.8	119.6	18.0	166.4
Podzolized chernozems	44.0	65.2	109.3	218.5
Typical chernozems	501.1	673.2	492.8	1667.1
Ordinary chernozems	69.8	95.1	74.4	239.3
In total	643.7	982.1	715.5	2341.3

[i] Source: Compiled by the authors

Table 3.

Mechanical composition of ordinary heavy loam chernozem in the conditions of the Murano-Kurylovetska work site of the Yampil Forestry, Zhmerynka Forest District, branch of the “Central Forest Office” State Enterprise “Forests of Ukraine”

No.	Genetic horizons	Depth of samples, cm	Losses during cultivation	Sand, %		Dust, %			Silt < 0.001 mm, %	Amount > 0.01 mm, %	Amount < 0.01 mm, %
No.	Genetic horizons	Depth of samples, cm	Losses during cultivation	1,0–0,25 mm	0,25–0,05 mm	0,05–0,01 mm	0,01–0,005 mm	0,005–0,001 mm	Silt < 0.001 mm, %	Amount > 0.01 mm, %	Amount < 0.01 mm, %
47	Hк	0–28	3.30	0.60	21.12	21.60	21.75	6.54	25.09	46.62	53.38
	HPк	30–40	2.20	0.40	7.44	37.18	19.06	3.35	30.37	47.22	52.78
	Phк	70–80	8.90	0.70	2.35	42.63	12.86	2.09	39.35	45.70	54.30
	P(h)к	90–100	37.20	2.50	25.87	25.43	9.77	5.50	30.93	50.80	46.20

[i] Source: Compiled by the authors

Table 4.

Physicochemical composition of ordinary heavy loamy chernozem in the Murovano-Kurylivetskyi work area of the Yampil Forestry Unit, Zhmerynka Forest District, “Central Forest Office” Branch State Enterprise “Forests of Ukraine”

No.	Genetic horizons	Depth of samples, cm	pH hydrogen	Total exchangeable bases, MG-eq. per 100 g of soil	Composition of the soil absorption complex in MG-eq per 100 g of soil		Humus according to Turin, %	Total nitrogen, %	C N	MG per 100 g of soil
No.	Genetic horizons	Depth of samples, cm	pH hydrogen	Total exchangeable bases, MG-eq. per 100 g of soil	calcium	magnesium	Humus according to Turin, %	Total nitrogen, %	C N	P₂O₅	K₂O	nitrogen, which hydrolyzes
47	Hк	0–28	7.5	22.93	19.65	3.28	1.83	0.16	7	0.8	22.5	8.12
	HPк	30–40	7.5	22.67	19.67	3.00	0.73	0.06	7	0.8	18.7	6.44
	Phк	70–80	7.8	24.36	21.54	2.82	0.55	0	0	0	0	0
	P(h)к	90–100	7.9	16.68	14.02	2.66	0.69	0	0	0	0	0

[i] Source: Compiled by the authors

Trends in integrated soil improvement coefficients as a function of the age periods of growth and development of pine stands
Source: Prepared by the authors

Table 5.

Forest reclamation parameters and edaphic conditions of the Crimean pine research sites within the study area

No. of the sample plot	Location		Area of the subcompartment, ha	Slope exposure	Slope, degrees	Degree of soil erosion
No. of the sample plot	forest compartment	forest sub-compartment	Area of the subcompartment, ha	Slope exposure	Slope, degrees	Degree of soil erosion
1	96	21	0.4	SE	25	moderately eroded soils
2	11	26	0.4	SW	15	slightly eroded soils
3	15	2	3.7	SE	25	moderately eroded soils
4	15	3	1.8	SW	25	slightly eroded soils
5	15	6	7.6	SW	25	slightly eroded soils
6	15	9	0.6	SW	25	moderately eroded soils
7	52	4	0.6	SE	10	slightly eroded soils
8	56	4	0.5	SW	11	slightly eroded soils
9	49	4	6.0	SW	20	slightly eroded soils
10	49	5	1.7	SW	5	slightly eroded soils
11	49	6	1.7	SW	20	slightly eroded soils
In total			25.0	-

[i] Note: SE – southeast, SW – southwest

[ii] Source: Prepared by the authors

Table 6.

Silvicultural and assessment characteristics of the study sites of Pinus nigra subsp. pallasiana

No. of the sample plot	Composition of the stand	Age, years	Average figures		Stand site indexes	Type of site conditions	Stand density, unit	Stock, m³·ha^-1
No. of the sample plot	Composition of the stand	Age, years	H, m	DBH, cm	Stand site indexes	Type of site conditions	Stand density, unit	Stock, m³·ha^-1
1	Pinus nigra - 1.0	55	16.8	24.3	II	C₂	0.80	334
2	Pinus nigra - 1.0	54	14.7	20.4	III	C₂	0.77	258
3	Pinus nigra - 1.0	43	12.6	20.5	III	C₁	0.68	216
4	Pinus nigra - 1.0	43	14.9	23.0	II	C₂	0.84	323
5	Pinus nigra - 1.0	43	15.2	24.6	II	C₂	0.81	314
6	Pinus nigra - 1.0	43	15.5	22.8	II	C₂	0.88	308
7	Pinus nigra - 1.0	42	12.8	16.6	II	C₂	0.93	272
8	Pinus nigra - 1.0	30	10.3	14.7	II	C₂	0.87	174
9	Pinus nigra - 1.0	36	12.9	24.3	II	C₁	0.78	237
10	Pinus nigra - 1.0	25	7.5	10.4	III	C₁	0.83	72
11	Pinus nigra - 1.0	25	7.3	10.2	III	C₁	0.83	77

[i] Note: H, m – average height; DBH, cm – average diameter at breast height; TSC – type of site conditions

[ii] Source: Prepared by the authors

Table 7.

Silvicultural and mensurational characteristics of the study sites in relative terms, %

No. of sample plots	Age, years	Midle		Stand density	Stock
No. of sample plots	Age, years	H, m	DBH, cm	Stand density	Stock
1	1.20	1.30	1.38	-0.04	3.34
2	1.16	1.01	1.00	-0.07	2.35
3	0.72	0.73	1.01	-0.18	1.80
4	0.72	1.04	1.25	0.01	3.19
5	0.72	1.08	1.41	-0.02	314
6	0.72	1.12	1.23	0.06	3.08
7	0.68	0.75	0.63	0.12	2. 08
8	0.20	0.41	0.44	0.05	1.26
9	0.44	0.77	1.38	-0.06	2.08
10	0	0.03	0.02	0	-0.06

[i] Note: H, m – average height; DBH, cm – average diameter at breast height

[ii] Source: Prepared by the authors

Table 8.

Physicochemical parameters of the soils at the study sites

No. of sample plots	Humus horizon, cm	Active root surface area, cm²	Water permeability, mm·min^-1	Soil hardness, kg·cm^-2	Humus, %	MG per 100 g of soil
No. of sample plots	Humus horizon, cm	Active root surface area, cm²	Water permeability, mm·min^-1	Soil hardness, kg·cm^-2	Humus, %	P₂O₅	K₂O	nitrogen, which hydrolyses
1	28	4853	6.2^±0.47	10.1^±1.05	1.92	1.7	19.8	9.86
2	27	4781	5.7^±0.23	10.7^±1.12	1.87	1.5	19.2	8.54
3	19	3989	3.4^±0.76	11.4^±1.21	1.30	1.3	14.9	6.57
4	26	4354	4.5^±0.64	12.7^±1.37	1.53	1.4	17.3	7.63
5	28	4485	4.7^±0.82	12.8^±1.25	1.82	1.2	16.7	8.16
6	17	4105	3.6^±0.61	13.5^±1.43	1.36	1.0	19.0	7.41
7	27	4420	3.0^±0.42	14.0^±1.75	1.67	0.9	18.5	7.24
8	25	4230	2.9^±0.46	15.2^±2.01	1.61	1.2	18.1	7.17
9	26	3549	2.6^±0.51	16.3^±1.07	1.43	0.9	13.0	6.98
10	27	3420	2.3^±0.48	17.2^±1.23	1.39	0.8	11.8	6.72
11	28	3389	2.1^±0.52	17.5^±1.34	1.25	0.6	12.1	6.54

[i] Source: Prepared by the authors

Table 9.

Comparative analysis of the physico-chemical characteristics of soils in relative terms

No. of sample plots	Humus horizon, %	Active root surface area, %	Water permeability, %	Soil hardness, kg/cm²	Humus %	%
No. of sample plots	Humus horizon, %	Active root surface area, %	Water permeability, %	Soil hardness, kg/cm²	Humus %	P₂O₅	K₂O	nitrogen that hydrolyses
1	0	0.43	1.95	0.42	0.54	1.83	0.64	0.51
2	-0.03	0.41	1.71	0.39	0.50	1.50	0.59	0.31
3	-0.32	0.18	0.62	0.35	0.04	1.17	0.23	0.01
4	-0.07	0.28	1.14	0.27	0.22	1.33	0.43	0.17
5	0	0.32	1.24	0.27	0.46	1.00	0.38	0.25
6	-0.39	0.21	0.71	0.23	0.09	0.67	0.57	0.13
7	-0.04	0.30	0.43	0.20	0.34	0.50	0.53	0.11
8	-0.11	0.25	0.38	0.11	0.29	1.00	0.50	0.10
9	-0.07	0.05	0.24	0.07	1.14	0.50	0.07	0.07
10	-0.04	0.01	0.10	0.02	0.11	0.33	-0.02	-0.97

[i] Source: Prepared by the authors

Relationship between soil permeability and soil hardness
Source: Prepared by the authors

Table 10.

Scale for assessing the condition of forest stands

No.	Comprehensive indicator	Value, %	Condition of the tree stand
1	very high	0–20	safe
2	high	21–40	weakened
3	medium	41–60	weak
4	low	61–80	very weak
5	critical	81–100	dangerous

[i] Source: Prepared by the authors

Table 11.

Calculation of integrated indicators of the condition of stands

No. of sample plots	Age	H_m	DBH	SD	S	Hh	ARSA	SP	SH	H	P	K	A	Condition
1	1.20	1.30	1.38	-0.04	3.34	0	0.43	1.95	0.42	0.54	1.83	0.64	0.51	1.04
2	1.16	1.01	1.00	-0.07	2.35	-0.03	0.41	1.71	0.39	0.50	1.50	0.59	0.31	0.83
3	0.72	0.73	1.01	-0.18	1.80	-0.32	0.18	0.62	0.35	0.04	1.17	0.23	0.01	0.52
4	0.72	1.04	1.25	0.01	3.19	-0.07	0.28	1.14	0.27	0.22	1.33	0.43	0.17	0.77
5	0.72	1.08	1.41	-0.02	3.14	0	0.32	1.24	0.27	0.46	1.00	0.38	0.25	0.79
6	0.72	1.12	1.23	0.06	3.08	-0.39	0.21	0.71	0.23	0.09	0.67	0.57	0.13	0.65
7	0.68	0.75	0.63	0.12	2.08	-0.04	0.30	0.43	0.20	0.34	0.50	0.53	0.11	0.51
8	0.20	0.41	0.44	0.05	1.26	-0.11	0.25	0.38	0.11	0.29	1.00	0.50	0.10	0.38
9	0.44	0.77	1.38	-0.06	2.08	-0.07	0.05	0.24	0.07	1.14	0.50	0.07	0.07	0.51
10	0	0.03	0.02	0	-0.06	-0.04	0.01	0.10	0.02	0.11	0.33	-0.02	-0.97	-0.04

[i] Note: Age – age of the stands, %; H_m – average height, %; DBH – average diameter at breast height, %; SD – stand density, %; S – stand stock, %;

[ii] Hh – humus horizon, %; ARSA – active root surface area, %; SP – soil permeability, %; SH – soil hardness, %; H – humus content, %; P – content of available phosphorus, %; K – potassium content, %; A – hydrolysable nitrogen content, %; A – hydrolysable nitrogen content, %; Condition – overall condition rating, %.

[iii] The sign for hardness has been changed from (–) to (+)

[iv] Source: Prepared by the authors

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ffp-2026-0011 | Journal eISSN: 2199-5907 | Journal ISSN: 0071-6677

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 137 - 151

Submitted on: May 12, 2026

Accepted on: Jul 10, 2026

Published on: Sep 17, 2026

Published by: Forest Research Institute

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

stand composition,

type of site conditions,

integrated soil improvement coefficient,

soil permeability and hardness,

integrated condition index

Related subjects:

Life sciences,

Plant science

© 2026 Volodymyr Maliuha, Vasyl Khryk, Viktoriia Minder, Krylov Yaroslav, Ivan Kimeichuk, Serhii Kovalevskyi, Oleksand Sytnyk, Olena Hrynyk, Heorhiy Hrynyk, published by Forest Research Institute
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Volume 68 (2026): Issue 3 (September 2026)

Comprehensive assessment of the condition of Crimean pine (Pinus nigra subsp. pallasiana (Lamb.) Holmboe) stands on eroded lands in the Right-Bank Forest-Steppe of Ukraine

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Figure 3.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

Figure 4.

Table 10.

Table 11.

Paradigm

My account