See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/313010743

BONITAREA TERENURILOR AGRICOLE AFLATE SUB

FOLOSINŢA FÂNEAŢĂ DIN BAZINUL AMPOIULUI ÎN CONDITII
NATURALE ŞI DE POLUARE CU M....

Article · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

0 126

4 authors, including:

Alexandrina Manea Sorina Dumitru

National Research and Development Institute for Soil Science, … National Research and Development Institute for Soil Science, …
27 PUBLICATIONS   29 CITATIONS    19 PUBLICATIONS   22 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Standards of colors and hatches for developing digital soil map legends in Romania View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alexandrina Manea on 28 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Analele Universității din Craiova, seria Agricultură – Montanologie – Cadastru
(Annals of the University of Craiova – Agriculture, Montanology, Cadastre Series) Vol. XLII-2012/1

BONITAREA TERENURILOR AGRICOLE AFLATE SUB FOLOSINŢA

FÂNEAŢĂ DIN BAZINUL AMPOIULUI ÎN CONDITII NATURALE ŞI DE
POLUARE CU METALE GRELE

LAND EVALUATION UNDER MEADOWS USE FROM AMPOI BASIN

INDER NATURAL AND HEAVY METAL POLLUTION CONDITIONS

MANEA ALEXANDRINA 1, DUMITRU MIHAIL1, RISNOVEANU ION1, DUMITRU

SORINA1
INCDPAPM-ICPA Bucuresti, Mărăşti 61, Sect. 1, Bucuresti
alexandrinamanea@yahoo.com

Keywords: soil, land evaluation, Zlatna, heavy metals

ABSTRACT

In Zlatna area, because of Ampellum S.A activity were issued large quantities of
heavy metal and oxides sulfates that caused the soil and plants contamination. Due to
heavy metal pollution, the soils have suffered loss of production.
Soil quality assessment was made by land evaluation system both under natural
and heavy metal pollution conditions.
Land evaluation, in natural conditions, was based on indicators of ecological
characterization of soil - land territorial associations (TEO) provided by the methodology
for studied soils, (ICPA, 1987 – Volume II (MESP) and for the pollution condition with
heavy metals was used the methodology proposed by Dumitru et al. (1994; 2008).
As a result, were established on meadows the average land evaluation marks and
the areas for each class of land evaluation, under natural conditions and correction
according to pollution.
In natural conditions, the quality classes of the land under meadows land uses
varies between I and V classes. The largest areas belong to III (22.120 ha) and II (21.120
ha), followed by IV (2.500 ha), I (1.660 ha) and V quality classes (920 ha). On the whole
area, the average evaluation mark being 59, that belong to the III quality class.
Land evaluation marks of meadows, in pollution condition, ranged from 5 to 73
points and on the whole area the average mark was 41 points belongs to Class III of the
quality.
Compared with natural conditions, the average evaluation mark obtained under
pollution conditions decreased with 18 points without changes of average quality class.

INTRODUCTION

Soil quality is a holistic picture of soil in the landscape and the way that the
ecosystem works (Larsen and Pierce, quoted by Cârstea, 2001).
Also, soil quality reflects his own attributes: structure, porosity and the pore size
distribution, effective rooting depth of plants, retention of water, reaction, organic matter
content, and soil nutrient reserves available to plant (Doran şi colab., 1994; Lal, 1993;
Larson şi Pierce, 1994; Nrc, 1993; Parr şi colab., 1992, quoted by Cârstea, 2001).
Teaci (1980) proposed to assess the quality of agricultural land using land
evaluation method.Land evaluation is a complex operation for basic knowledge of growth
308
 Analele Universității din Craiova, seria Agricultură – Montanologie – Cadastru
(Annals of the University of Craiova – Agriculture, Montanology, Cadastre Series) Vol. XLII-2012/1

and fruit-bearing of plants and to determine the degree of favourability of these conditions
for each land use and culture, through a system of technical indices and land evaluation
marks (Teaci et al., 1985).
Since the capacity of land is affected, in addition to natural factors and
anthropogenic, land conditional evaluation should reflect this. In the first case, it is
conditional evaluation for natural conditions (Predel, 1987).
Because of heavy metals pollution from the former S.C. Ampellum Zlatna S.A plant,
the production capacities of lands from Zlatna area have been affected. To assess the
impact of heavy metal pollution on the yields, the land evaluation was made both under
natural conditions, and in pollution conditions, for one of the prevailing agricultural land
uses in this area: meadows.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Soil surveys were conducted during the field investigation phase on an area of
48320 ha. The assignment of work itineraries was made according to ICPA Methodology
(vol. I) (1) for mountain area. Soils samples were collected on genetic horizons; the soil
profile was characterized by soil texture and basic chemical properties (pHH2O, cationic
exchange capacity, content of organic carbon, nitrogen, available phosphorus and
potassium, base saturation percentage).
Land evaluation, in natural conditions, was based on indicators of ecological
characterization of soil - land territorial associations (TEO) provided by the methodology
for soil studies, (ICPA, 1987 – Volume II (MESP) and for the pollution condition with heavy
metals was used the methodology proposed by Dumitru et al. (1994; 2008).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Natural condition
Geomorphology. In terms of geomorphologic, investigated area comprises the
Mureş Mountain, Zlatna-Meteş depression and Ampoi valley. Mountainous terrain covers
41.180 ha, representing 85, 2% of the total area studied and include peaks nipple (27,
7%), slopes (55, 6%) and knolls (1, 3%), steep and rocky (0, 6%). Fluvial accumulation
relief cover 7140 ha, representing 14, 8 % of total studied area, and is represented by
terrace (1, 9%) and alluvial plain (12, 8%).
Geology. In Ampoi basin, in terms of geological, sedimentary rocks are dominant and
are represented by cretaceous sandstones and conglomerates and isolated moments of
Jurassic limestone. Metamorphic rocks are located in North West side of the studied area are
represented by micaschists and paragneisses. Igneous rocks cover smal surfaces in south-
west part of the area and are formed by amphiboles andesite interleaved in sedimentation
rocks.
Soil formation deposits are different both genesis, particule size, mineralogical
composition.
Hydrology. Watercourse with permanent character in the area is Ampoi River that
crosses the territory from west to east. The Ampoi river has a large meadow in the
depression Zlatna Meteş and structural narrow paths succession where meadow become
narrows or disappears completely.
Climate. The multi-annual average temperature is 8oC with seasonal variations and
the multi-annual average precipitation is about 630 mm at Zlatna. Dominant winds are
westerly (north west) and east (south-east).

309
 Analele Universității din Craiova, seria Agricultură – Montanologie – Cadastru
(Annals of the University of Craiova – Agriculture, Montanology, Cadastre Series) Vol. XLII-2012/1

Vegetation. Forest vegetation primarily consists of Fagus silvatica and Querqus

petraea. Accompanying species are Carpinus betulus, Betula verrucosa, Quercus robur.
On small area there are Robinia pseudocacia and Pinus silvestris.
Soil cover. The soil cover is relatively diverse in term of type and sub-type and
particularly at lower taxonomic levels where a number of soil characteristics (thickness,
parent material, particle size of deposit, texture class and skeleton content) are associated
with site characteristics (relief, slope gradient and subjacent rock). In the study area were
delineated six soil classes and 22 soil associations (Manea et al., 2009).
The main soil classes in the studied area are: Protisols, Cernisols, Cambisols, Luvisols,
Hidrisols and Anthrisols. Most of the soils belong to Dystric Cambisols (29.5%) and Eutric
Cambisols (47.3%).

Land evaluation marks for meadows in natural conditions

Land evaluations marks in Zlatna area was made for natural conditions in the aim to
determine the evaluation marks, the quality classes for the meadows.
In soil from Zlatna area (Basin Ampoiului: Spring Ampoiului sector - Zlatna - Sard -
Ighiu - Alba Iulia) attended 13 of the 17 indicators proposed for land evaluation under
natural conditions.
Ecopedological indicators involved in determining of the evaluation mark for
meadows are presented in table no. 1: mean annual temperature (values corrected
according to land slope and aspect), average annual rainfall (values corrected according to
slope and soil

310
 Analele Universității din Craiova, seria Agricultură – Montanologie – Cadastru
(Annals of the University of Craiova – Agriculture, Montanology, Cadastre Series) Vol. XLII-2012/1

Table 1
Legend with ecopedology indicators used for agricultural land evaluation from Ampoi Basin
Denumirea şi codurile indicatorilor de bonitare

Volumul edafic util indicator 133

Gradul de stagnogleizare indice

Textura îm Ap sau 20 cm indice

Nr.Asociaţiei de sol de pe hartă

Porozotatea în Ap sau în primii

Adâncimea apei freatice indice

Inundabilitatea prin revarsare-

Reacţia în Ap sau în primii 20

Temperatura medie anuală –

adâncimea de 50 cm –indice
Precipitaţi medii anualevalori

Gradul de gleizare indice 14

Conţinutul de CaCo3 total-

valori corectate indice 3C
Nr.TEO şi procentul de

Rezerva de humus pe
20 cm –indicator 63
corectate indice 4C

cm-indicator 63
Panta indic. 33

indicator 40

indicator 61
participare

23A

144
15

39
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1 1a (25%) 08,5 525 30 75 15,0 - -10 14 8,1 015 090
1b (75%) 09,5 475 30 75 15,0 -10 14 8,1 005 015
2 2a(50%) 08,5 525 30 42 15 -10 10 8,1 015 045
2b(50%) 08,5 475 30 75 15 -10 14 8,1 005 015
3 3a(50%) 07,5 0650 30 07,0 2 10 6,6 063 140
3b(50%) 07,5 0650 30 07,0 2 10 6,6 063 090
4 4a (50%) 07,5 0650 3 40 02,0 2 10 6,1 063 140
4b(50%) 07,5 0650 3 40 02,0 2 10 6,1 063 140
5 5(100%) 07,5 0650 2 60 07,0 +10 7,5 088 180
6 6a(50%) 07,5 0650 40 17 15,0 -10 5,2 063 140
6b(50%) 07,5 0650 40 12 15,0 -10 5,2 063 140
7 7a (50%) 07,5 0575 40 30 15,0 -10 5,2 063 140
7b (50%) 09,5 0525 40 42 15,0 -10 5,6 015 090
8 8a (50%) 07,5 0750 40 07 15,0 -10 5,6 063 140
8b (50%) 08,5 0575 40 30 15,0 -10 5,6 015 090
9 9a (50%) 08,5 0575 40 30 15,0 10 5,2 063 140
9b (30%) 08,5 0650 40 22 15,0 10 4,7 063 140
9c (20%) 08,5 0525 30 42 15,0 10 5,2 015 090
10 10a(50%) 07,5 0750 40 07 15,0 +10 5,2 035 140
10b(30%) 07,5 0750 30 07 15,0 +10 5,2 035 140
10c(20%) 08,5 0650 30 22 15,0 +10 5,2 005 045

311
 Analele Universității din Craiova, seria Agricultură – Montanologie – Cadastru
(Annals of the University of Craiova – Agriculture, Montanology, Cadastre Series) Vol. XLII-2012/1

Table 1 (continuation)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
11 11a(60%) 08,5 0650 40 22 15,0 -10 5,6 035 140
11b(40%) 08,5 0575 40 30 15,0 -10 4,7 035 140
12 12a(70%) 07,5 0750 40 07 15,0 -10 5,2 035 090
12b(30%) 08,5 0650 30 17 15,0 -18 5,2 005 045
13 13a(70%) 07,5 0650 40 17 15,0 -10 5,2 035 090
13b(30%) 08,5 0650 40 22 15,0 -10 5,2 015 045
14 14a(50%) 08,5 0650 30 17 15,0 -10 3,9 035 090
14b(50%) 08,5 0650 30 22 15,0 -10 3,9 035 045
15 15a(60%) 07,5 0650 40 12 15,0 +10 5,2 063 140
15b(40%) 08,5 0650 50 17 15,0 +10 5,2 035 090
16 16a(60%) 07,5 0650 40 12 15,0 +10 5,2 063 140
16b(40%) 07,5 0750 40 07 15,0 +10 4,7 063 140
17 17a(50%) 07,5 0750 40 07 15,0 +10 5,2 063 140
17b(25%) 07,5 0650 30 17 15,0 -10 4,7 063 090
17c(25%) 08,5 0650 40 22 15,0 -10 5,2 015 045
18 18a(60%) 07,5 0650 3 40 15,0 +15 4,7 088 140
18b(40%) 07,5 0650 3 40 15,0 +15 3,9 088 140
19 19a(60%) 07,5 0750 30 07 15,0 -15 4,7 035 140
19b(40%) 07,5 0650 30 12 15,0 -15 4,7 015 090
20 20a(50%) 07,5 0650 6 50 00,7 2 +25 7,5 035 090
20b(50%) 07,5 0650 6 50 00,7 2 +25 7,5 035 140
21 21a(60%) 08,5 0650 40 17 15,0 -15 3,9 035 090
21b(20%) 08,5 0575 30 30 15,0 -15 5,2 015 045
21c(20%) 08,5 0575 30 30 15,0 +5 3,9 035 045
22 22a(60%) 08,5 0575 40 30 15,0 -15 14 7,5 015 045
22b(40%) 08,5 0650 30 22 15,0 -15 14 7,5 015 090

312
 Analele Universității din Craiova, seria Agricultură – Montanologie – Cadastru
(Annals of the University of Craiova – Agriculture, Montanology, Cadastre Series) Vol. XLII-2012/1

permeability) soil texture in the Ap horizon or in the top, slope, landslides, ground water
depth, total soil porosity restrictive horizon, total CaCO3 content of 0-50 cm, soil reaction in
the top, the degree of base saturation in the top; useful edaphic volume, humus reserve on
the 0-50 cm depth). That contributed to the conditional evaluation of land and related
codes for these indicators, as MASP, Volume II (1987), for meadows, which are most
representative in the territory.
The calculation of these ecopedological indicators was carried out by territorial units
of soil-land (UT). On the whole are were determined 47 UT.
For meadows, note of evaluation varies from 8 points to 81 points (Table 2). The
highest evaluation marks belongs to TEO's 4, 5, and 18, corresponding Phaeozems (TEO
5), Luvisols (TEO's 18) and soil association consists of Fluvisols and Eutric Cambisols
(TEO's 4). About 1.660 ha belong to I quality class, the average mark being 81 points.

Table 2
Table on quality classes of meadows according to land evaluation marks in natural
condition from Ampoi Bazin
Nr. Suprafaţa Clasa de calitate
Asociaţiei totală a I II III IV V
de sol de asociaţiei ha nota ha nota ha nota ha nota ha nota
pe hartă de soluri
(ha)
1 90 90 8
2 830 830 14
3 5230 5230 62
4 660 660 81
5 760 760 81
6 7290 7290 70
7 2100 2100 39
8 600 600 59
9 530 530 47
10 6250 6250 67
11 6040 6040 54
12 7240 7240 57
13 6020 6020 52
14 420 420 42
15 960 960 67
16 560 560 76
17 300 300 63
18 240 240 81
19 530 530 63
20 70 70 42
21 1200 1200 47
22 400 400 32
Total 48320 1660 81 21120 67 22120 54 2500 38 920 13
Nota medie ponderată – 59 puncte (clasa a III-a de calitate)
The TEO's 3, 6, 10, 15, 16, 17, 19 belong to II class and the evaluation mark range
from 62 to 76 points. These evaluation marks characterizes to Fluvisols (TEO's 3),
Luvisols (TEO's 16), Dystric Cambisols (TEO's 19), Luvisols associated with Erodisols

313
 Analele Universității din Craiova, seria Agricultură – Montanologie – Cadastru
(Annals of the University of Craiova – Agriculture, Montanology, Cadastre Series) Vol. XLII-2012/1

(TEO-15), Luvisols associated with Dystric Cambisols and Erodisols (TEO-17). About 44%
of studied area (21,120 ha) belongs to II quality class and average evaluation mark being
67 points.
The most of the studied area belong to III quality class with a evaluation marks
between 42 and 59 points (Fig.1). These are specific District Cambisols (TEO 13, TEO
14), Eutric Cambisols associated with Dystric Cambisols (TEO 11), Eutric Cambisols
associated with Lepti-eutric Cambisols Lithic Erodososls (TEO 8), Dystric Cambisols
associated with Leptosols (TEO 12), Gleysols (TEO 20), Erodisols associated with
Regosols (TEO 21).
About 46% of studied area is in III quality classes with an average evaluation mark
of 54 points.
Quality classes of IV characterized Eutric Cambisols associated with Lepti-eutric
Cambisols and Leptosols (TEO 7) and with Calcaro-rhodic Erodosols and Calcaro-rhodic
Regosols (TEO 22).
The lowest evaluation marks 8 and, respectively, 14 points, are in TEO 1 and 2 that
correspond Leptosols and Rendzic Leptosols from this area and belong to V quality class.
The quality classes of meadows from Zlatna area range from I to V class. The
largest areas belong to III (22.120 ha) and II (21.120 ha), followed by IV (2.500 ha), I
(1.660 ha) and V quality classes (920 ha). On the whole area, the average evaluation mark
being 59, that belong to the III quality class.

Land evaluation marks for meadows in pollution conditions

In order to assess the effect of heavy metal pollution on soil production from Zlatna
area, was applied the land evaluation methodology proposed by Dumitru et al. (1994,
2008) specific to the land loading with heavy metals.
For meadows in pollution conditions, evaluation marks range from 5 points to 73
points (Table 3). In all the studied TEO were recorded decreases of evaluation marks, that,
in generaly, changes the quality classes. In the most of the stuied TEO 's quality classes
decreased with one class, beeing lost between 8 and 27 points.
In the TEO's 3, 10, 21, as a result of pollution, was found a decrease of soil quality
with two classes and in the TEO's 17 and 18 the decrees was with three quality classes,
being lost between 28 and 46 evaluation points. The worst situation was recorded in sites
6, 17, 18 and 21 located in the heavily polluted area (table 3).
Decreases of evaluation marks without changing of soil quality classes were
recorded in TEO's 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16 and 22. Within the same quality class,
evaluation points were reduced up to 13 points (TEO 8, 11). After correction of evaluation
marks according to heavy metals soil pollution, no longer lands belong to I quality class
(Fig.2). Also, were recorded significant changes of land from II quality classes, that
decreased by almost 87% (18,380 ha) and were recorded increases of land belong to IV
quality class, which is found on 15,065 ha, with over 12 565 ha more than in natural land
evaluation.
Thus, due to pollution, about 56% of land belongs to III quality class, followed by IV
(31%), V (7%) and II quality class (6%).On the whole area, in terms of pollution, evaluation
mark was 41 points, belongs to III quality class, at the limit.
Compared with the evaluation mark obtained under natural conditions, the decline
was 18 points and was not accompanied by changes of quality class.

314
 Analele Universității din Craiova, seria Agricultură – Montanologie – Cadastru
(Annals of the University of Craiova – Agriculture, Montanology, Cadastre Series) Vol. XLII-2012/1

Fig. 1. Map of meadows quality classes according to land evaluation marks in natural conditions from Ampoi Basin
(Izvorul Ampoiului-Zlatna-Meteş-Alba Iulia Sector)

315
 Analele Universității din Craiova, seria Agricultură – Montanologie – Cadastru
(Annals of the University of Craiova – Agriculture, Montanology, Cadastre Series) Vol. XLII-2012/1

Table 3
Table about/on qualituy classes of meadows according to land evaluation marks in
pollution condition from Ampoi Bazin

Nr. Suprafaţa Clasa de calitate

Asociaţiei totală a II III IV V
de sol de asociaţiei ha nota ha nota ha nota ha nota
pe hartă de soluri
(ha)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 90 90 7
2 830 830 13
3-a 965 965 31
3-b 690 690 6
3-c 1170 1170 37
3-d 1120 1120 56
3-e 680 680 43
3-f 605 605 50
4 660 660 73
5 760 760 73
6-a 1160 1160 35
6-b 320 320 21
6-c 960 960 28
6-d 2770 2770 42
6-e 1320 1320 56
6-f 760 760 63
7 600 600 23
7-a 700 700 27
7-b 800 800 35
8-a 360 360 41
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
8-b 240 240 53
9 330 330 33
9-b 200 200 42
10 3690 3690 34
10-a 2560 2560 47
11 1320 1320 32
11-a 760 760 38
11-b 1160 1160 49
11-c 2800 2800 43
12 7240 7240 46
13 5180 5180 47
13-a 840 840 36
14-a 200 200 17
14-b 220 220 34

316
 Analele Universității din Craiova, seria Agricultură – Montanologie – Cadastru
(Annals of the University of Craiova – Agriculture, Montanology, Cadastre Series) Vol. XLII-2012/1

Nr. Suprafaţa Clasa de calitate

Asociaţiei totală a II III IV V
de sol de asociaţiei ha nota ha nota ha nota ha nota
pe hartă de soluri
(ha)
15 640 640 40
15-a 320 320 60
16 560 560 68
17 300 300 19
18-a 120 120 24
18-b 60 60 41
18-c 60 60 49
19 530 530 50
20 70 70 38
21 1200 1200 5
22 400 400 29
Total 48320 2740 69,2 27205 46,4 15065 32,9 3310 9,3
Clasa şi nota medie ponderată - 41 puncte (clasa a III-a de calitate)

CONCLUSIONS

For meadows, evaluation marks range from 8 points to 81 points. The land quality
of meadows from Zlatna area range from I to V quality classes. The largest areas belong
to III (46%) and II (44%) quality classes, followed by IV (5%), I (3% ha) and V (2%) quality
classes.
For the whole area, the meadows have average land evaluation marks of 59 points,
belong to III quality class.
In pollution condition, land evaluation marks of meadows ranged from 5 to 73
points.
Due to pollution, about 56% of land belongs to III quality class, followed by IV
(31%), V (7%) and II quality class (6%).
On the whole area, in pollution condition, the average evaluation marks belong to III
class with 41 points.
Compared with land evaluation marks obtained under natural conditions, the
decline was 18 points, that was not accompanied by changes of quality class.

317
 Analele Universității din Craiova, seria Agricultură – Montanologie – Cadastru
(Annals of the University of Craiova – Agriculture, Montanology, Cadastre Series) Vol. XLII-2012/1

Fig. 2. Map of meadows quality classes according to land evaluation marks, in pollution conditions, from Ampoi Basin
(Izvorul Ampoiului-Zlatna-Meteş-Alba Iulia Sector)

318
 Analele Universității din Craiova, seria Agricultură – Montanologie – Cadastru
(Annals of the University of Craiova – Agriculture, Montanology, Cadastre Series) Vol. XLII-2012/1

REFERENCES
1. Carstea S. 2001 – Soil quality – expression of its multiple functions; its conservation
an imperative requirements, Lucrările celei de a XVI-a Conferinte Nationale pentru
Stiinta Solului, Vol 30C: 20-46.
2. Dumitru M., Borza I., Simota C., Ţărău D., 2008 – Evaluarea Impactului şi a riscului
ecologic. Principii generale şi aspecte legislative, Eurobit, Timişoara.
3. Dumitru M., Răuţă C., Toti M., Gamenţ E., 1994 – Evaluarea gradului de poluarea;
Măsuri de limitare a efectului poluant, Publicaţiile SNRSS, Nr. 28E: 33-56.
4. Manea A, Dumitru M, Vranceanu N, Tanase V., 2009 – Invelişul de sol din Bazinul
Ampoiului in corelaţie cu factorii de mediu şi influenţa antropică, Ştiinţa Solului, vol.
XLIII (1), Seria III, 38-54.
5. Predel Fl., 1987 – Metodologia de bonitare a terenurilor agricole, in MESP, vol. II,
Redactia de propagandă tehnică agricolă: 30-67.
6. Teaci D., 1980 – Bonitarea terenurilor agricole. Bonitarea şi caracterizarea
tehnologică a terenurilor agricole, Editura Ceres, Bucureşti, 296 p.
7. Teaci D., Puiu Şt., Amzăr Gh., Voiculescu N., Popescu I., 1985 – Influenţa
condiţiilor de mediu asupra creşterii pomilor in România, Editura Ceres, Bucureşti.
8. xxx 1987 – Metodologia elaborarii studiilor pedologice, vol II (Redactori coord:
Florea N., Bălăceanu V., Răuţă C., Canarache A.), Red. Prop. Tehn. Agr.
Bucuresti, 191, 349, 226 p.

319

View publication stats