Increasing the Homogeneity of Soil Map Units Using the Level of Landform Phase in the Geopedologic Approach

آب و خاک

Article 8, Volume 35, Issue 6 - Serial Number 80, January and February 2022, Pages 890-873   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jsw.2021.72597.1094

Authors

F. Ebrahimi Meymand¹; H. Ramezanpour^{* 2}; N. Yaghmaeian Mahabadi³; K. Eftekhari⁴

¹Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

²Associated Professor Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Guilan, Rasht

³Assistant Professor, Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Guilan, Rasht

⁴Research Assistant Professor, Soil and Water Research Institute, Agriculture Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran

Abstract

Introduction: Delineating landscape into homogenous units is fundamental to managing resources and delivering sustainable development. The importance of this has long been recognized as a critical issue in various studies and it has been examined from different aspects. In soil mapping, the geopedologic approach is used for landscape classification, which was defined by Zinck (1989). This approach differentiates landscapes into landforms to increase the purity of soil map units. Therefore, the aim of this study was preparing geopedologic maps of the study area on the level of landform phases intending to make more homogeneous soil units.
Materials and Methods: Honam sub-basin in Lorestan province is one of the most important agricultural areas in the Karkheh River watershed. Soil moisture and temperature regimes of the area were Xeric and Mesic, respectively. After a primary interpretation, a geopedology map of the study area at the landform level was prepared according to the geopedologic approach. After soil surveying, 31 profiles were excavated, described, and sampled in the largest delineation of this map. Ultimately, this landform unit was differentiated to the landform phase units using morphometric features and normalized difference vegetation index. Pedodiversity index was computed for each landform phase unit to investigate the credibility of the geopedological approach for this unit. The conditional probability of each soil family was also measured in each landform phase unit to compare statistical differences between landform phase units. Furthermore, statistical comparisons were made between the Shannon indices of each unit.
Results and Discussion: The soils of the study area were classified into seven soil families according to Soil Survey Staff (2014). Based on the geopedology map, this area includes two landscapes of Piedmont plains and valleys. These two landscapes were differentiated to 6 and 3 relief/molding, respectively. Geologically, the study area has 5 lithologic units. Finally, 22 landform units were identified in this area. The area of the widest landform with the code of Pi461 was 1223.35 ha. With individual use of NDVI, TRI, and aspect map, this landform unit was differentiated into 3 phases, and with the use of these 3 maps collectively, 11 phases were differentiated. The results showed landform map unit of Pi641 with 31 soil profiles and 7 soil families has the highest value of diversity indices, such as 1.59 for the Shannon index. In addition, this map unit is a compound map unit consisting of several soils, where the highest probability of observing soils is related to soils A and B with 32.5% probability. By differentiating this landform unit into phases, the Pi461 map unit is separated into smaller units that are more homogeneous. For example, when it is separated according to the vegetation characteristics, the three phases Pi4611 (N), Pi4612 (N), and Pi4613 (N) were differentiated that have medium, low, and high vegetation, respectively. In this case, Pi4612 (N) map unit with 75% probability of soil C observation and Pi4613 (N) map unit with 87.50% probability of soil B observation are two homogeneous map units. The Shannon index of these two units is 0.56 and 0.37, respectively, which indicates the purity of these map units. The results also showed that diversity indices and conditional probabilities, respectively, were decreased and increased in most of the landform phase map unit compared to the landform map unit. The use of normalized difference vegetation index compared to other environmental features has been effective in separating the landform phase units and preparation of homogeneous map units. So, the most probability of observing the dominant soils of the study area increased from 32.25% in the landform unit to 52.63, 75.75, and 87.50% in the landform phase unit, and the Shannon index decreased from 1.59 in the landform unit to 1.36, 0.56, and 0.37 in the landform phase units. The use of other environmental features to increase the purity of the landform phase map unit is suggested in future studies.
Conclusion: Results of using geopedological approach at landform level in the study area showed that this level is useful at highest levels of soil classification (from order to great group), but due to the complex nature of soils at lower levels of classification (family and soil series) does not have enough efficiency. Therefore, for improving the geopedology method accuracy and to present more uniform map units at lower levels of classification, landform phase maps were presented according to the environmental characteristics of the selected landform. The statistical comparisons between Shannon indices calculated for each map unit in the landform phase map showed a significant difference at the 90% probability level between most of the units, which indicates an increase in the purity of these units at the soil family level.

Keywords

Conditional probability; Geomorphology map; Pedodiversity indices; Terrain Ruggedness Index

References

• Abbaszadeh Afshar F., Ayoubi S.H., and Jafari A. 2018. The extrapolation of soil great groups using multinomial logistic regression at regional scale in arid regions of Iran. Geoderma 315: 36-48.
• Ahmadi Sani N., and Babaie Kafaky S. 2017. Mapping of soil properties in environmental science studies based on geopedological principles using remote sensing and geo-information system (GIS). Journal of Renewable Natural Resources Research 8(1): 55-68. (In Persian with English abstract)
• Alijani Z., Sarmadian F., and Musavi S. 2013. Comparison of traditional and geopedologic soil surveys: a case study in kuhin, iran. Iranian Natural Resources Journal 67(1): 93-102. (In Persian)
• Bagheri Bodaghabadi M., and Toomanian N. 2019. Investigation of the relationship between geopedology and soil taxonomy in the soil-landscape models using conditional probabilities. Iranian Journal of Soil and Water Research 50(5): 1152-1168. (In Persian with English abstract)
• Banai M.H. 1998. Soil thermal-moisture regimes map of Iran on 1:1,250,000 scales. Soil and Water Research Institute, Tehran. Iran.
• Butler D. 2001. Geomorphic process-disturbance corridors: A variation on a principle of landscape ecology .progress in physical geography: erth and environment 2: 237-248.
• Caroline Chartin C., Bourennane H., Salvador-Blanes S., Hinschberger F., and Macaire J.J. 2011. Classification and mapping of anthropogenic landforms on cultivated hillslopes using DEMs and soil thickness data - Example from the SW Parisian Basin, France. Geomorphology, Elsevier 135(1-2): 8-20.
• Esfandiarpoor I., Salehi M.H., Toomanian N., and Mohammadi J. 2009. The effect of location of sample area and expert knowledge on the results of geopedological approach in soil mapping. Journal of Soil and Water Sciences 49: 113-147. (In Persian with English abstract)
• Esfandiarpoor I., Toomanian N., Salehi M.H., and Mohammadi J. 2009. Assessing geopedological soil mapping using diversity and similarity indices (A case study: Borujen area, Chaharmahal-Va-Bakhtiari province) Journal of Soil and Water 23: 100-114. (In Persian with English abstract)
• Esfandiarpoor I., Mohammadi J., Salehi M.H., Toomanian N., and Poch R.M. 2010. Assessing geopedological soil mapping results by statistical and geostatistical methods: a case study in the borujen region, central iran". Catena 82: 1-14.
• Esfandiarpoor I., and Safari Y. 2014. Comparison of functional soil dispersion in two units of detailed soil map (Case study of Faradonbeh plain, Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari province). Journal of Agricultural Science, Technology and Natural Resources, Soil and Water Sciences 18(67): 269-277. (In Persian)
• Esfandiarpour I., Shahini-Shamsabadi M., Shirani H., Mosleh Z., Bagheri-Bodaghabadi M., and Salehi M.H. 2020. Assessment of Different Digital Soil Mapping Methods for Prediction of Soil Classes in the Shahrekord Plain, Central Iran. Catena 193: 104648.
• Farajnia A., and Yar Ahmadi J. 2015. Evaluation of the efficiency of geopedology method in preparing soil map and comparing it with physiographic method. Quantitative Geomorphological Research 4(2): 154-166. (In Persian)
• Farshad A., Udomsri S., Yadav R.D., Shrestha D.P., and Sukchan S. 2005. Understanding geopedologic is clue for improving the management of salt-affected soil in NongSuang district, NakhonRatchasima. Land Development Department, Thailand.
• Gerçek D. 2017. A conceptual model for delineating land management units (LMUS) using geographical object-based image analysis. International Journal of Geo-information 6(170): 1-18.
• Gessler P.E., Moore I.D., McKenzie N.J., and Ryan P.J. 1995. Soil-landscape modelling and spatial prediction of soil attributes. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 9: 421-432.
• Guo Y., Gong P., and Amundson R. 2003. Pedodiversity in the United States of America. Geoderma 117: 99-115.
• https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov.
• https://www.accuweather.com/fa/ir/alashtar.
• Ibanez J.J., De Alba S., Bermudes F.F., and Garcia-Alvarez A. 1995. Pedodiversity: concepts and measurements. Catena 24: 215-232.
• Jafari A., Ayoubi S.H., Khademi H., Finke P.K., and Toomanian N. 2013. Selection of a taxonomic level for soil mapping using diversity and map purity indices: A case study from an Iranian arid region. Geomorphology 201: 86-97.
• Keshtkar S., Jafari A., and Farpoor M.H. 2018. The effect of environmental and pedogenic factors on soil diversity in Kerman and Lalehzar regions. Journal of Soil Management and Sustainable Production 8(1): 89-106. (In Persian with English abstract)
• Maleki S., Khormali F., Bodaghabadi M.B., Mohammadi J., Hoffmeister D., and Kehl M. 2020. Role of geomorphic surface on the above-ground biomass and soil organic carbon in a semi-arid region of Iranian loess plateau, Quaternary International 552: 111-121.
• McBratney A.B., and Minasny B. 2007. On measuring pedodiversity. Geoderma 141: 149-154.
• McKenzie N.J., and Ryan P.J. 1999. Spatial prediction of soil properties using environmental correlation. Geoderma 89: 67–94.
• Momeni A. 2015. Determining the geomorphic levels of sloping lands in the east and west of Alamut region of Qazvin province as basic information for soil studies. research project, Soil and Water Research Institute. (In Persian)
• Phillips J.D., and Marion D. 2007. Soil geomorphologic classification, soil taxonomy and effects on soil richness assessments. Geoderma 141: 89-97.
• Rasheed M.A., Wahab M.A., and Youssef R.A. 2010. Digital geopedological mapping of some study areas in western desert, Egypt. Journal of American Science 6(9): 23-29.
• Rashidi Koochi1 Z., Esfandiarpoor Borujeni I., Abbaspour A., Kamali A., and Naderi N.N. 2012. Effect of Scale and type of classification system on the results of soil mapping using geopedologic approach (a case study: damavand region, tehran province). Journal of Water and Soil 26(5): 1247-1256. (In Persian with English abstract)
• Riley S.J., DeGloria S.D., and Elliot R. 1999. Index that quantizes topographic heterogeneity. Intermountain Journal of Sciences 5: 23–2.
• Rossiter D.G. 2000. Methodology for soil resource inventories (2nd ed.). Soil Science Division, International Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Science (ITC), Enschede, The Netherlands.
• Rossiter D.G., and Hengl T. 2001. Technical note: creating geometrically-correct photo-interpretation, photomosaics, and base maps for a project GIS. http://www.itc.nl/~rossiter.
• Schoeneberger P.J., Wysocki D.A., Benham E.C., and Broderson W.D. (Eds.). 2002. Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils (2nd ed.). Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE, 228 pp.
• Sepahvand 2017. Modeling soil –landscape relationships for predicting the soil properties in small watersheds of middle Zagros (Case study: Rimeleh watershed, Lorestan province, Iran). Ph.D. Thesis. Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources.
• Shahini-Shamsabadi M., Esfandiarpour-Boroujeni I., Shirani H., and Salehi M.H. 2019. Application of soil properties, auxiliary parameters, and their combination for prediction of soil classes using decision tree model. Desert 24(1): 153-169.
• Soil and water research institute. 2008. Guidelines for Soil Survey. No: 466.
• Soil Survey Staff. 2014. Keys to Soil Taxonomy (12th ed.). NRCS, USDA.
• Taylor L.R. 1978. A variety of diversities. In: Mound I.A. et al. (eds.) Diversity of Insect Faunas. Ninth Symposium of the Royal Entomological Society. Blackwell.Oxford. pp. 1-18.
• Udomsri S. 2006. Application of computer assisted geopedology to predictive soil mapping and its use in assessing soil erosion prone areas: a case study of Doi Ang Khang, Ang Khang Royal Agricultural Station, Thailand. MSc. Thesis, International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), Enschede, The Netherlands.
• Wilson J.P., and Gallant J.C. 2000. Secondary topographic attributes. Terrain Analysis-Principles and Applications. Wiley, NewYork, 87–132.
• Zinck J.A. 1989. Physiography and soils. Lecture-notes for soil students. Soil Science Division. Soil survey courses subject matter: K6 ITC, Enschede, The Netherlands.
• Zinck J.A. 2016. Geopedology. An integration of geomorphology and pedology for soil and landscape studies. 1. Twenty: Springer International Publishing.