Determination of Soil Physical Quality Index in Medium to Coarse-textured Soils of Khorasan-Razavi Province

آب و خاک

Article 8, Volume 35, Issue 1 - Serial Number 75, March and April 2021, Pages 107-119   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jsw.2020.15000.0

Authors

M. Zangiabadi^{* 1}; manoochehr gorji; P. Keshavarz²

¹Khorasan-Razavi Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center

²Khorasan-Razavi Agricultural and natural resources research center

Abstract

Introduction: Soil quality can be considered as a comprehensive index for sustainable land management assessment. Studying the most important soil physical properties and combining them as an index of soil physical quality (SPQI) could be used as an appropriate criteria for evaluating and monitoring soil physical changes. In this regard, this study was conducted to determine the most important soil physical properties and calculate the SPQI of medium to coarse-textured soils of Khorasan-Razavi province.
Materials and Methods: Torogh Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Station of Khorasan-Razavi province is located in south-east of Mashhad city (59° 37' 33"-59° 39' 10" E, 36° 12' 31"-36° 13' 56" N). Soil texture variability in this research station is one of its outstanding features. The soil textures are classified into loam, silt loam, silty clay loam, clay loam, and sandy loam. More than 90% of agricultural soils in Khorasan-Razavi province are classified in these five texture classes. Using the available data, 30 points with different soil textures and OC contents were selected. The soil samples were collected from 0-30 cm soil depth at each point. Intact soil cores (5 cm diameter by 5.3 cm length) were used for sandbox measurements, and disturbed soil samples were used to determine other properties. Required laboratory analysis and field measurements were conducted using standard methods. In this research, 35 soil physical properties as total data set (TDS) including: soil moisture release curve (SMRC) parameters, particle size distribution and five size classes of sand particles, soil bulk and particle density, dry aggregates mean weight diameter (MWD) and stability index (SI), S-index, soil porosity and air capacity, location and shape parameters of soil pore size distribution (SPSD) curves, relative field capacity (RFC), plant available water measured in matric pressure heads of 100 and 330 hPa for the field capacity (PAW₁₀₀ and PAW₃₃₀), least limiting water range measured in matric pressure heads of 100 and 330 hPa for the field capacity (LLWR₁₀₀ and LLWR₃₃₀), integral water capacity (IWC) and integral energy (EI) of different soil water ranges were measured and calculated for 30 soil samples. The most important soil physical properties were selected using principal component analysis (PCA) method by JMP (9.02) software. Selected physical properties as minimum data set (MDS) were weighted and scored using PCA results and scoring functions, respectively. In this study, three types of linear scoring functions were used. The soil physical quality index (SPQI) was calculated by two scoring and two weighting methods for each soil sample and the differences between these four SPQIs were tested by sensitivity index.
Results and Discussion: Principal component analysis results showed that among 35 soil physical properties (TDS) which were studied at this research, six properties of mean pore diameter (d_mean), PAW₁₀₀, total porosity (POR_T), EI LLWR₃₃₀, SI and PAW₃₃₀ accounted for about 90% of the variance between soil samples. Weight of the selected properties (MDS) was calculated by the ratio of variation in the data set explained by the PC that contributed the selected property to the total percentage of variation explained by all PCs with eigenvalue ˃ 1. In this research, the parameters of PAW₁₀₀, total porosity (POR_T), SI and PAW₃₃₀ were scored using scoring function of more is better, EI LLWR₃₃₀ was scored using scoring function of less is better and d_mean was scored using scoring function of optimum by two scoring methods with score ranges of 0.1-1 and 0-1. Considering unweighted and weighted MDS and two ranges of scores, four SPQIs were calculated for each soil sample. The results showed that SPQIs which were calculated by the MDS derived from PCA method and scoring weighted MDS at the range of 0-1, had the highest sensitivity index and could represent the differences between the studied soil samples better than other SPQIs. By this method, maximum and minimum SPQI values for the studied soils were 0.82 and 0.12, respectively. SPQI is a relative comparison criterion to quantify the soil physical quality which could be applied only for the studied soils with specific characteristics.
Conclusion: The results of this research showed that minimum data set (MDS) explained about 90% of the variance between soil samples. Combining MDS into a numerical value called soil physical quality index (SPQI) could be used as a physical comparison criterion for the studied soils. From the SPQI based on the MDS indicator method, soil quality was evaluated quantitatively. Soil samples with grade I, II, III, and IV accounted for 10%, 36.7%, 30%, and 23.3% of the soil samples, respectively.   
 

Keywords

Minimum data set; Principal component analysis; Soil quality index

References

1. Aparicio V., and Costa J.L. 2007. Soil quality indicators under continuous cropping systems in the Argentinean Pampas. Soil & Tillage Research 96: 155–165.
2. Asgarzadeh H., Mosaddeghi M.R., Mahboubi A.A., Nosrati A., and Dexter A.R. 2010. Soil water availability for plants as quantified by conventional available water, least limiting water range and integral water capacity. Plant Soil 335: 229–244.
3. Asgarzadeh H., Mosaddeghi M.R., Mahboubi A.A., Nosrati A., and Dexter A.R. 2011. Integral energy of conventional available water, least limiting water range and integral water capacity for better characterization of water availability and soil physical quality. Geoderma 166: 34–42.
4. Bhardwaj A.K., Jasrotia P., Hamilton S.K., and Robertson G.P. 2011. Ecological management of intensively cropped agro-ecosystems improves soil quality with sustained productivity. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 140: 419–429.
5. Emami H., Astaraei A.R., and Fotovat A. 2014. Evaluating the effect of organic matter on soil quality score functions. Journal of Water and Soil 28(3): 565–574. (in Persian with English abstract)
6. Glover J.D., Reganold J.P., and Andrews P.K. 2000. Systematic method for rating soil quality of conventional, organic, and integrated apple orchards in Washington State. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 80: 29–45.
7. Govaerts B., Sayre K.D., and Deckers J. 2006. A minimum data set for soil quality assessment of wheat and maize cropping in the highlands of Mexico. Soil & Tillage Research 87: 163–174.
8. Hao X., Ball B.C., Culley J.L.B., Carter M.R., and Parkin G.W. 2007. Soil density and porosity. p. 743-760. In: Carter M.R., and Gregorich E.G. (ed.) Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. 2^nd ed. Canadian Society of Soil Science. Taylor and Francis.
9. Imaz M.J., Virto I., Bescansa P., Enrique A., Fernandez-Ugalde O., and Karlen D.L. 2010. Soil quality indicator response to tillage and residue management on semi-arid Mediterranean cropland. Soil & Tillage Research 107: 17–25.
10. Karlen D.L., Hurley E.G., Andrews S.S., Cambardella C.A., Meek D.W., Duffy M.D., and Mallarino A.P. 2006. Crop rotation effects on soil quality at three northern corn/soybean belt locations. Agronomy Journal 98: 484–495.
11. Kroetsch D., and Wang C. 2007. Particle size distribution. p. 713–725. In: Carter M.R., and Gregorich E.G. (ed.) Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. 2^nd ed. Canadian Society of Soil Science. Taylor and Francis.
12. Larney F.J. 2007. Dry-aggrigate size distribution. p. 821–831. In: Carter M.R., and Gregorich E.G. (ed.) Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. 2^nd ed. Canadian Society of Soil Science. Taylor and Francis.
13. Mandal U.K., Warrington D.N., Bhardwaj A.K., Bar-Tal A., Kautzky L., Minz D., and Levy G.J. 2008. Evaluating impact of irrigation water quality on a calcareous clay soil using principal component analysis. Geoderma 144: 189–197.
14. Masto R.E., Chhonkar P.K., Singh D., and Patra A.K. 2007. Soil quality response to long-term nutrient and crop management on a semi-arid Inceptisol. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 118: 130–142.
15. Masto R.E., Chhonkar P.K., Singh D., and Patra A.K. 2008. Alternative soil quality indices for evaluating the effect of intensive cropping, fertilization and manuring for 31 years in the semi-arid soils of India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 136: 419–435.
16. Qi Y., Darilek J.L., Huang B., Zhao Y., Sun W., and Gu Z. 2009. Evaluating soil quality indices in an agricultural region of Jiangsu Province, China. Geoderma 149: 325–334.
17. Rashidi M., Seilsepour M., Ranjbar I., Gholami M., and Abbassi S. 2010. Evaluation of some soil quality indicators in the Varamin region, Iran. World Applied Sciences Journal 9(1): 101–108.
18. Reynolds W.D. and Clarke Topp G. 2007. Soil water desorption and imbibition: tension and pressure techniques. p. 981-997. In: Carter M.R., and Gregorich E.G. (ed.) Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. 2^nd ed. Canadian Society of Soil Science. Taylor and Francis.
19. Reynolds W.D., Drury C.F., Tan C.S., Fox C.A., and Yang X.M. 2009. Use of indicators and pore volume-function characteristics to quantify soil physical quality. Geoderma 152: 252–263.
20. Reynolds W.D., Drury C.F., Yang X.M., and Tan C.S. 2008. Optimal soil physical quality inferred through structural regression and parameter interactions. Geoderma 146: 466–474.
21. Rezaei A., Gilkes R.J., and Andrews S.S. 2006. A minimum data set for assessing soil quality in rangelands. Geoderma 136: 229–234.
22. Romaniuk R., Giuffré L., and Romero R. 2011. A soil quality index to evaluate the vermicompost amendments effects on soil properties. Journal of Environmental Protection 2: 502–510.
23. Sahebjame A.A. 2002. The precise detailed study of soil and land classification of Torogh (Khorasan-Razavi) agricultural research station. Final report, 1146. Soil and Water Research Institute. (In Persian)
24. Schoenholtz S.H., Van Miegroet H., and Burger J.A. 2000. A review of chemical and physical properties as indicators of forest soil quality: challenges and opportunities. Forest Ecology and Management 138: 335-356.
25. Sharma K.L., Mandal U.K., Srinivas K., Vittal K.P.R., Mandal B., Kusuma J.G., and Ramesh V. 2005. Long term soil management effects on crop yields and soil quality in a dryland Alfisol. Soil & Tillage Research 83: 246–259.
26. Skjemstad J.O., and Baldock J.A. 2007. Total and organic carbon. p. 225–237. In: Carter M.R., and Gregorich E.G. (ed.) Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. 2^nd ed. Canadian Society of Soil Science. Taylor and Francis.
27. Velasquez E., Lavelle P., and Andrade M. 2007. GISQ, a multifunctional indicator of soil quality. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 39: 3066–3080.
28. Zangiabadi M., Gorji Anari M., Ghalebi S., and Ramezani Moghaddam M.R. 2017. Effects of soil pore size distribution on integral energy of different soil water ranges. Soil Research 31(3): 463–472. (In Persian with English abstract)
29. Zangiabadi M., Gorji Anari M., Shorafa M., Keshavarz P., and Saadat. S. 2017. The relationship between integral energy (EI) of different soil moisture ranges and S-index in medium to coarse-textured soils. Journal of Water and Soil 31(2): 386–398. (In Persian with English abstract)
30. Zangiabadi M., Gorji Anari M., Shorafa M., Khavari Khorasani S., and Saadat. S. 2016. The relationship between integral water capacity (IWC) index and some physical properties in Khorasan-Razavi province. Journal of Water and Soil 30(4): 1192–1201. (In Persian with English abstract)