Purpose. At this stage of our research we study the information content of soil magnetism addressing the environmental, soil science and exploration objectives. This requires the magnetic properties data of unmodified soils at the territories of hydrocarbons prospecting, soil erosion, environmental pollution. We have collected significant soil magnetism data bank in Ukraine. At the same time the mountain-forest soils were generally not studied and poorly understood. Methods. To remove this gap we carried a series of tests at the area of Maniava Waterfall within Bohorodchany district of Ivano-Frankivsk region, in the south-west of the village Maniava. The investigated soils are brown, sometimes podzolic gleyed soils (Haplic Cambisols on the WRB international classification). We used the reconnaissance studies of soil, field magnetic measurements and soil sampling for the next laboratory magnetic research. Results. The results revealed that mass-specific magnetic susceptibility (χ) of the upper humus horizons A is in the range of 15–25×10-8 m3/kg. The transitional horizon B often included gleyed layers, loam clays, flysh rock material. At the same we identified the presence of humus in horizon B, χ = 10–1510-8 m3/kg. The underlying bedrocks in horizon C (like flysh) are characterized by values: χ = 5–10 10-8 m3/kg. The boulder rocks were recorded almost in passing to the riverbed, they are non magnetic: χ = 1×10-8 m3/kg. Novelty. The results indicate that mountain-forest soils of Ukraine Carpathian Mountains may not have a significant influence on the formation of local magnetic anomalies. But sometimes if χ is above 10-8 m3/kg the soil may be microseepaged by hydrocarbon fluid. In this case the information about soil magnetism is important for oil and gas prospecting. Soils with magnetic susceptibility lower then 20×10-8 m3/kg are not informative for oil and gas exploration. Significance. The magnetic properties of soils data of the Folded Carpathians may be used during detailed magnetometer surveys upon oil and gas fields.
1. Abd-Elmabod S. K., A. Jordán, L. Fleskens, P. Van der Ploeg, M. Mu-oz-Rojas, M. Anaya-Romero, R. J. Van der Salm., D. De la Rosa Modelling agricultural suitability along soil transects under current conditions and improved scenario of soil factors. Geophysical Research Abstracts, 17. 2015. EGU2015–1012–2.
2. Bardgett R., Szukics U., Scherme M., Lavorel S., Lamarque P., Tappeiner U., Turner K., Steinbacher M. Stakeholder perceptions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowledge on soil fertility and biodiversity. Reg Environ Change, 11, 2011, pp. 791–804.
3. Cao L., Appel E., Hu S., Yin G., Lin H., Rösler W. Magnetic response to air pollution recorded by soil and dust-loaded leaves in a changing industrial environment . Atmospheric Environment, 119. 2015, pp. 304–313.
4. Chen L. M., Zhang G. L., Rossiter D. G., Cao Z. H. Magnetic depletion and enhancement in the evolution of paddy and non-paddy soil chronosequences. European Journal of Soil Science, 2015. – DOI: 10.1111/ejss.12281, Early View (Online Version of Record published before inclusion in an issue)
5. Francis R. A., Krishnamurthy K. Human conflict and ecosystem services: finding the environmental price of warfare. International Affairs, 90. 2013, pp. 853–869.
6. Furst C., Lorz C., Zirlewagen D., Makeschin F. Testing the Indicative Value of Magnetic Susceptibility Measurements for Concluding on Site Potentials and Risks Provoked by Fly Ash Deposition . Environmental Management, 46. 2010, pp. 894–907.
7. Guerra C. Mapping Soil Erosion Prevention Using an Ecosystem Service Modeling Framework for Integrated Land Management and Policy Guerra C., Pinto-Correia T., Metzger M. Ecosystems, 17. 2014, pp. 878–889.
8. Hendriks C, Stoorvogel J., Claessens L. Lots of legacy soil data are available, but which data do we need to collect for regional land use analysis? Geophysical Research Abstracts, 17, 2015, EGU 2015–905.
9. Hrouda F., Pokorný J., Chadima M. Limits of out-of-phase susceptibility in magnetic granulometry of rocks and soils. Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica, 59, 2015, pp. 294–308.
10. Kapička A., Dlouha S., Grison H., Jaksik O., Petrovsky E., Kodesova R. Magnetic properties of soils – A basis for erosion study at agricultural land in Southern Moravia. 13th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference Surveying Geology and Mining Ecology Management. 2013, pp. 577–584. https://doi.org/10.5593/SGEM2013/BC3/S13.013
11. Kuderavets R. S., Maksymchuk V. Yu., Chobotok I. O., Klymkovych T. A., Tymoschuk V. R., Pyrizhok N. B. Practice of Magnetic Surveys over Hydrocarbon Fields in Carpathian Foredeep Ukraine. Geodynamics, 2013, no. 2 (15), pp. 186–188.
12. Menshov O., Kuderavets R., Chobotok I., Tymoschuk V. Magnetic studies associated with hydrocarbon fields in the Ukrainian part of Carpathian foredeep. 76th EAGE Conference & Exhibition. Amsterdam, Netherlands. 2014. Available at: http://earthdoc.eage.org/publications/?publication=76123 https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.20141252
13. Menshov O.б Sukhorada A. Magnetic Properties of Ukraine Soils and Their Informational Content. 72th EAGE Conference & Exhibition – Barcelona, Spain, 14–17 June 2010. Available at: http://www.earthdoc.org/detail.php?pubid=39881. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201401269
14. Yang H., Iong H., Chen X., Ang Y., Zhang F. Identifying the influence of urbanization on soil organic matter content and pH from soil magnetic characteristics . Journal Arid Land, 7(6). 2015, pp. 820–830.
15. Yang P. G., Mao R. Z., Byrne J. M. Impact of Long-Term Irrigation with Treated Sewage on Soil Magnetic Susceptibility and Organic Matter Content in North China. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 95, 1. 2015, pp. 102–107.