Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Using edaphic parameters to validate forest site conditions on the plots of Ukrainian National Forest Inventory Cover

Using edaphic parameters to validate forest site conditions on the plots of Ukrainian National Forest Inventory

Open Access
|Sep 2026

Figures & Tables

Table 1.

Expected relationships between forest site condition, soil properties and humus forms used for rule-based ecological validation of NFI data

Forest site typeTypical soilsTypical soil textureTypical humus formTypical tree species
A (poor sites)Sod-podzolic soilsSandModer (Mor)Scots pine, birch
B (relatively poor sites)Sod-podzolic soilsSandy loams – light loamsModerScots pine, oak
C (moderately fertile sites)Grey forest soilsSandy loams – light loamsMull (Moder-Mull transitional forms)Oak, hornbeam, maple, lime
D (fertile sites)Dark grey forest soils, Chernozems, Brown forest soilsMedium to heavy loams and claysMullOak, ash, hornbeam, maple

[i] Source: Compiled by the authors based on the Ukrainian forest typology (Pogrebnyak 1955, Ostapenko & Tkach 2002), forest soil fertility studies (Raspopina 2017, 2023) and forest floor classification (Zanella et al. 2011).

Table 2.

Results of the rule-based consistency check of edaphic records on subset of NFI plots (n=878)

Indicator (logical check)Number of plots with consistent recordsShare of plots with consistent records (%)
Tree Species composition vs Forest site condition77488.2
Forest site condition vs Soil type67176.4
Forest site condition vs Soil texture*62471.1

* Soil texture was assessed using field methods and is considered an indicative, not laboratory verified, parameter.

Table 3.

Agreement between original NFI field records and independent expert assessment for the subset of plots with available soil profile photographs (n = 120)

IndicatorNumber of plots with consistent records (n)Share of plots with consistent records (%)
Forest site condition8570.8
Soil type8873.1
Humus form2319.1
Soil texture*8368.9

* Notes: Soil texture was interpreted by the expert based on profile morphology and field descriptions; however, this assessment is less direct than for soil type or humus form and should be interpreted with caution.

Figure 1.

Examples of soil profile morphology illustrating differences in humus horizon thickness among major ecological zones of Ukraine (photos by the authors)

Table 4.

Reference humus horizon depth thresholds for forest site fertility classes in Ukraine (adapted from Raspopina, 2017; 2023)

Site fertility classThe humus horizon depth (thickness), cm
Polissia Forest-Steppe, Northern Steppe
A<10 (15)<15
AB1015
B1515
BC2035
C, D2540
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ffp-2026-0013 | Journal eISSN: 2199-5907 | Journal ISSN: 0071-6677
Language: English
Page range: 164 - 172
Submitted on: Apr 3, 2026
Accepted on: Jul 15, 2026
Published on: Sep 16, 2026
Published by: Forest Research Institute
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Related subjects:

© 2026 Svitlana Raspopina, Tetiana Pyvovar, Ihor Buksha, Volodymyr Pasternak, Anastasia Suska, published by Forest Research Institute
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.