The relation of Ohio bog vegetation to the chemical nature 
of peat soils* 
ALFRED DACHNOWSKI 
The ecological relation of plants to soils, particularly to the 
chemical nature of the substratum, is especially interesting and has 
been extensively studied from the standpoint of the distribution 
of species, the succession of vegetation, and the adaptability of 
crops to certain soils. In mountainous countries and even in 
states like Ohio, with soils of morainal and of varied geognostic 
nature, one can observe sharply delimited distinctions in the 
distribution and in the whole appearance of vegetation units. 
And yet, though many species are confined to soils with a definite 
chemical relationship, a great many plants can grow on soils 
widely dissimilar in kind. Are the reasons for the generally 
observed distinctions to be sought in the chemical constitution 
of the soil, or is the distributional relationship due to the physical 
characters, particularly to relations prevailing in regard to the 
amount of available water and the specific quantity required by the 
plants, and to the thermal condition in the soil? 
Not all field work is adapted to throw light on this vexed 
question of a long standing dispute. Difficult as is the attempt 
to establish a correlation between vegetation and any one factor 
of the environment, it is possible, however, to make such a corre- 
lation with peat soils, within the area here investigated. 
It is now generally recognized that the nature of a lake and 
bog environment is constantly selective, and that the associations 
and societies of plants succeeding one another are each charac- 
terized by a definite physiognomy in response to their dependence 
upon soil conditions under atmospheric influences essentially 
similar otherwise. In an earlier paper the writer has listed the 
successions of the more genetically related vegetation units, their 
associations and societies, occurring in Ohio lakes and peat 
deposits (Plant World 15: 25-39. 1912). ee 
* Published by permission of the State Geologist as Contribution No. 66 from the 
Botanical Laboratory of Ohio State University. This paper was read at the Wash- 
ington meeting (1911) of the American Chemical Society. 
53 
