Comparison of Soil Taxonomy (2014) and WRB (2015) in Classification of Soils in Iranshahr and Dalghan Regions, Sistan and Baloochestan Province

آب و خاک

Article 6, Volume 34, Issue 5 - Serial Number 73, November 2020, Pages 1081-1091   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jsw.v34i5.86203

Authors

S. Sanjari¹; M.H. Farpoor^{* 2}; M. Mahmoodabadi²; S. Barkhori³

¹Ph.D. Student Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran

²Professor Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran

³Assistant Professor, Nature Engineering Department, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Jiroft, Iran

Abstract

Introduction Increasing demand for an international classification system as a unique communication tool in soil science has caused development of different systems.  Like many other countries, Soil Taxonomy and WRB are the most popular soil classification systems in Iran. Genetic and morphologic soil properties are used for soil classification in both systems. However, correlation of the two systems and efforts to harmonize them have been a major concern among soil scientists. Comparing Soil Taxonomy and WRB in gypsiferous and calcareous soils of central Iran, Sarmast et al. (13) reported that WRB using various qualifiers is more effective than Soil Taxonomy. Since no study on soils of Iranshahr and Dalghan Regions located in Sistan and Baloochestan Province has performed and/or no reported data is available, the present research was performed to: 1) study morphological, physical, and chemical soil properties in the area, 2) classify soils based on Soil Taxonomy (2014) and WRB (2015) systems, 3) compare the two systems for soil description in Iranshahr and Dalghan regions as a part of Sistan and Baloochestan Province, central Iran.
Material and Methods: The study area starts from Iranshahr (590 m asl) in the center of the province and extends to Dalghan (390 m asl) in west. Alluvial fan, pediment, playa, and hill were among different landforms identified using field studies, topography maps (1:50000), and Google Earth image observations. To cover the maximum soil variations in the area, 10 representative pedons were selected, described, and sampled.
Results and Discussions: Calcic, gypsic, anhydritic, argillic, natric, and salic horizons identified after field work and laboratory analysis. Results of the study showed that addition of Yermic Torrifluvent, Yermic Torriorthent, Calcic Gypsiargid, Gypsic Natrsalid, Natric Gypsisalid, Anhydritic Gypsisalid, Anhydritic Calcisalid subgroups to Soil Taxonomy system from one hand, and addition of anhydrite and aquic (for Solonchak reference soil group) qualifiers to WRB system from the other hand, causes a higher correlation and more harmonization between the two classification systems. Meanwhile, the minimum percentage of calcium carbonate equivalent necessary for calcic horizon identification in coarse textured soils including gravel in Soil Taxonomy is also suggested to be added to WRB system. Besides, requirements of salic horizon in WRB system is recommended to be added to Soil Taxonomy. At the same time, soil names in WRB system provide more information and data about soil properties and characteristics in young soils (such as yermic qualifier showing desert pavement) compared to Soil Taxonomy. Soil Taxonomy is not able to properly classify saline soils of arid regions down to subgroup level which is a weak point for this system. That is why newly added Gypsic Natrsalids is suggested for soils with natric, gypsic, and salic horizons in the upper 100 cm of the soil. On the other hand, the requirements of salic horizon in WRB system (the minimum EC content of 15 dS/m and the EC multiplied by the horizon thickness of more and/or equal to 450) are also suggested for Soil Taxonomy.
Conclusion: Results of the study for both saline and sodic soils show more capability of WRB system compared to Soil Taxonomy to classify soils. From soil management point of view, natric horizon causes more negative effects compared to salic horizon because Na disperses the soil particles and destroys soil structure and sodic soils need more practices to be improved compared to saline soils. Results for gypsiferous soils also show more capability of WRB system compared to Soil Taxonomy because gypsum content which is important for gypsiferous soils management is properly concerned in WRB system. However, lack of anhydritic horizon in WRB seems to be a weak point for this classification system. That is why it is suggested to be added to WRB (13). Since Soil Taxonomy does not use independent abbreviations for anhydritic horizon compared to gypsic horizon, the Ba and Baa abbreviations are also suggested for Soil Taxonomy to be added.
 

Keywords

Iran; Calcareous; Gypsiferous; Saline; Soil correlation

References

1. 1-       Artieda O., Herrero J., and Drohan P.J. 2006. Refinement of the differential water loss method for gypsum determination in soils. Soil Science Socity American Journal 70: 1932–1935.

   2-       Bahmani M., Salehi M.H., and Esfadiarpoor I. 2014. Comparison of Soil Taxonomy and WRB for description of soil properties in some arid and semiarid regions of Central Iran. Journal of Science and Technology of Agriculture and Natural Resource, Water and Soil Science 18: 11-21. (In Persian with English abstract)

   3-       Banaie M.H. 1998. Soil Moisture and Temperature Regimes Map of Iran. Soil and Water Research Institute of Iran, Iran.

   4-       Bower C.A., and Hatcher J.T. 1966. Simultaneous determination of surface area and cation exchange capacity. Soil Science Socity American Journal 30: 525–527.

   5-       Deckers J., Driessen P., Nachtergaele F.O.F., Spaargaren O., and Berding F. 2003. Anticipated developments of the world reference base for soil resources. In: Eswaran, H., Rice, T., Ahrens, R., Stewart, B.A. (Eds.), Soil Classification: A Global Desk Reference. CRC PRESS, Boca Raton, London, New York, Washington, DC. pp. 245–256.

   6-       Esfandiarpour Boroujeni I., Farpoor M.H., and Kamali A. 2011. Comparison between Soil Taxonomy and WRB for Classifying Saline Soils of Kerman Province. Journal of Water and Soil 25(5): 1158-1171.

   7-       Esfandiarpour Borujeni I., Salehi M.H., Karimi A., and Kamali A. 2013. Correlation between soil taxonomy and World Reference Base for soil resources in classifying calcareous soils: (A case study of arid and semi-arid regions of Iran). Geoderma 197-198: 126- 136.

   8-       Gee G.W., and Bauder J.W. 1986. Particle size analysis. In: Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Agron. Monger, No Vol. 9. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI, pp. 388–409.

   9-       Gerasimova M.I. 2010. Chinese soil taxonomy: between the American and the international classification systems. Eurpean Soil Science 43(8): 945–949.

   10-   IUSS Working Group WRB. 2007. World reference base for soil resources 2006, first update 2007. World Soil Resources Reports No. 103. FAO, Rome.

   11-   Nelson R.E. 1982. Carbonate and Gypsum. P. 181-196. In: A. L. Page et al. (ed), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part II. 2^nd ed., Agron. Monogar. No: 9. ASA and SSSA. Madison, WI.

   12-   Nelson D.W. and Sommers L.E. 1982. Total Carbon, Organic Carbon and Organic Matter. p. 539-577. In: A. L. Page et al (Ed), Methods of Soil Analisis. Part II. 2^nd ed., Agron. Monogar. No: 9. ASA and SSSA. Madison, WI.

   13-   Sarmast M., Farpoor M.H., and Esfandiarpour Boroujeni I. 2016. Comparing Soil Taxonomy (2014) and updated WRB (2015) for describing calcareous and gypsiferous soils, Central Iran. Catena 145: 83–91.

   14-   Schoeneberger P.J., Wysocki D.A., Benham E.C., and Soil Survey Staff. 2012. Field book for describing and sampling soils. Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE.

   15-   Secu C.V., Patriche C., and Vasiliniuc I. 2008. Aspects regarding the correlation of the Romanian soil taxonomy system (2003) with WRB (2006). Ґрунтознавство 9: 56-62.

   16-   Soil Survey Staff. 2014. Keys to Soil Taxonomy. 12th ed. USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC.

   17-   Toomanian N., Jalalian A., and Eghbal M.K. 2003. Application of the WRB (FAO) and US taxonomy systems to gypsiferous soils in Northwest Isfahan. Iran Journal Agriculture Science Technology 5: 51–66. (In Persian with English abstract)

   18-   Wilson M.A., Shahid S.A., Abdelfattah M.A., Kelley J.A., and Thomas J.E. 2013. Anhydrite formation on the Coastal Sabkha of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. In: Shahid, S.A., Taha, F.K., Abdelfattah, M.A. (Eds.), Developments in Soil Classification, Land Use Planning and Policy Implications: Innovative Thinking of Soil Inventory for Land Use Planning and Management of Land Resources. Springer SBM Publishing, Netherlands, pp. 175–201.

   19-   WRB. 2015. World reference base for soil resources 2014, update 2015. International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. World Soil Resources Reports No. 106. FAO, Rome.