## 3 Results
### Quantity of Total Organic Carbon in Relation to Soil Class  
The values of total organic carbon range between 0.17 \(\times\) 10\({}^{3}\) mg/kg and 59.67 \(\times\) 10\({}^{3}\) mg/kg in Cernis Soils, 0.21 \(\times\) 10\({}^{3}\) mg/kg and 67.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{3}\) mg/kg in Hidrisoils, and 0.24 \(\times\) 10\({}^{3}\) mg/kg and 70.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{3}\) mg/kg in Luvisoils. There was a statistically significant difference between the median TOC values in different soil classes (\(p\) < 0.01). The Kruskal-Wallis with [PERSON]'s post hoc test indicated a significant difference between TOC medians for the Luvisoil and Hidrisoil classes (\(p\) = 0.02) and between Luvisoil and Cernisoil (\(p\) = 0.03) (Table 2).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Land Use** & **N \({}^{*}\)** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Min** \\ **(\(\times\)10\({}^{3}\) mg/kg)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **AM** \\ **(\(\times\)10\({}^{3}\) mg/kg)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **SD** \\ **(\(\times\)10\({}^{3}\) mg/kg)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Mdn** \\ **(\(\times\)10\({}^{3}\) mg/kg)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Max** \\ **(\(\times\)10\({}^{3}\) mg/kg)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **CV** \\ **(\(\times\)10\({}^{3}\) mg/kg)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Grassland & 168 & 0.17 & 22.88 & 16.79 & 21.63 & 70.00 & 73\% \\ Arable land & 120 & 0.21 & 12.90 & 10.61 & 11.32 & 40.67 & 82\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* N–Number of measurements, Min–Minimum value, AM—Arithmetic mean, SD—Standard deviation, Mdn—median; Max—Maximum value; CV—coefficient of variance (CV = SD/AM).  
\end{table}
Table 1: Descriptive statistics of land use in relation to TOC values.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Soil Class** & **N \({}^{*}\)** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Min** \\ **(\(\times\)10\({}^{3}\) mg/kg)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **AM** \\ **(\(\times\)10\({}^{3}\) mg/kg)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **SD** \\ **(\(\times\)10\({}^{3}\) mg/kg)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Mdn** \\ **(\(\times\)10\({}^{3}\) mg/kg)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Max** \\ **(\(\times\)10\({}^{3}\) mg/kg)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **CV** \\ **(\(\times\)10\({}^{3}\) mg/kg)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Cernisoil & 72 & 0.17 & 20.59 & 13.97 & 20.67 & 59.67 & 68\% \\ Hidrisoil & 102 & 0.21 & 20.88 & 15.71 & 21.00 & 67.00 & 75\% \\ Luvisoil & 114 & 0.24 & 15.61 & 15.41 & 11.41 & 70.00 & 99\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* N–Number of measurements, Min–Minimum value, AM—Arithmetic mean, SD—Standard deviation, Mdn—median; Max—Maximum value; CV—coefficient of variance (CV = SD/AM).  
\end{table}
Table 2: Descriptive statistics of soil class in relation to TOC values.  
A repeated measures ANOVA was applied to evaluate the relationship between soil class and sampling depth, and the results show that the decreasing pattern of the TOC amount was nearly similar for all investigated soils. No significant effect was observed for soil class (\(p\) = 0.33, df = 2) or for the interaction between soil class and the sample's depth (\(p\) = 0.86, df = 4.2) (Figure 3).