News

 Statistics

Number of Journals52
Number of Issues2,092
Number of Articles21,684
Article View79,945,460
PDF Download25,559,273
Owliaie, H. (2023). Comparing Soil Taxonomy and WRB Efficiency for the Classification of Gypsiferous-Calcareous Soils in the West of Kohgiluye-Boyerahmad Province. , 37(4), 603-620. doi: 10.22067/jsw.2023.84009.1326
H.R. Owliaie. "Comparing Soil Taxonomy and WRB Efficiency for the Classification of Gypsiferous-Calcareous Soils in the West of Kohgiluye-Boyerahmad Province". , 37, 4, 2023, 603-620. doi: 10.22067/jsw.2023.84009.1326
Owliaie, H. (2023). 'Comparing Soil Taxonomy and WRB Efficiency for the Classification of Gypsiferous-Calcareous Soils in the West of Kohgiluye-Boyerahmad Province', , 37(4), pp. 603-620. doi: 10.22067/jsw.2023.84009.1326
Owliaie, H. Comparing Soil Taxonomy and WRB Efficiency for the Classification of Gypsiferous-Calcareous Soils in the West of Kohgiluye-Boyerahmad Province. , 2023; 37(4): 603-620. doi: 10.22067/jsw.2023.84009.1326

Comparing Soil Taxonomy and WRB Efficiency for the Classification of Gypsiferous-Calcareous Soils in the West of Kohgiluye-Boyerahmad Province

آب و خاک
Article 8, Volume 37, Issue 4 - Serial Number 90, September and October 2023, Pages 603-620    PDF (1.11 M)
Document Type: Research Article
DOI: 10.22067/jsw.2023.84009.1326
Author
H.R. Owliaie*
Department of Soil Science, Yasouj University, Yasouj, Iran
Abstract
Introduction
 Soil classification is the systematic categorization of soils based on distinguishing soil characteristics, aiding in the comprehension of soil properties through soil surveys, and establishing suitable strategies for effective soil utilization and management. One of the main reasons for creating soil classification systems is to identify the differences in important soil characteristics for management purposes. Globally, Soil Taxonomy (ST) and the World Reference Base for soil resources (WRB) are widely used for soil classification. However, these two classification systems have varying criteria which can pose difficulties when exchanging classification results. After years of intensive worldwide testing and data collection, new versions of the ST and WRB systems have been released. In its current state, ST has a strong hierarchy with six categorical levels: order, suborder, great group, subgroup, family, and series (Soil Survey Staff, 2022), while the WRB has a flat hierarchy with only two categorical levels: reference soil groups and soil units (IUSS Working Group WRB, 2022). Several scientists have endeavored to evaluate the merits and demerits of these soil classification systems and offer recommendations for their enhancement. The arid and semi-arid regions located in the western and southwestern parts of Kohgiluyeh and Boyerahmad Province, distinguished by their considerable diversity in parent materials, topography, climate, and land use, present an excellent opportunity for scrutinizing and contrasting the effectiveness of soil classification systems. Remarkably, no prior research has delved into this subject in this specific geographical area. Consequently, this research aims to compare the effectiveness of the ST and WRB systems in characterizing soil attributes. Furthermore, it seeks to analyze the alterations that these two systems have undergone during an eight-year period, spanning from 2014 to 2022.
 
Materials and Methods
This study was conducted in the western and southwestern regions of Kohgiluyeh and Boyerahmad Province, specifically in the divisions of Gachsaran, Basht, Choram and Kohgiluyeh. A total of 26 soil profiles were excavated, described, and sampled based on aerial photos, satellite images, topographical and geological maps, as well as field observations. These profiles were selected following the soil description guide provided by the Department of Soil Conservation of the US Department of Agriculture. Subsequently, after reviewing the preliminary results and aligning with the research objectives, 12 representative soil profiles were chosen for further analysis. Soil samples were collected from all genetic horizons and transferred to the laboratory. After air-drying, the samples were passed through a two-millimeter sieve and the routine physical and chemical analyses were conducted, including soil texture, pH, electrical conductivity (EC), calcium carbonate equivalent (CCE), organic carbon, cation exchange capacity (CEC), and gypsum analyses. For mineralogical studies, soil clay minerals were separated and identified using standard methods. Additionally, soil thin sections were prepared from intact soil samples of selected soil horizons and examined under a polarizing microscope. Finally, the soil profiles were classified based on the criteria outlined in Soil Taxonomy (2022) and WRB (2022).
 
Results and Discussion
Soil Taxonomy and WRB, as the two most popular classification systems, aim to encompass as many
soil characteristics as possible. According to the ST classification, the soils were classified into four orders: Entisols, Inceptisols, Alfisols, and Mollisols. In the WRB system, they were grouped into seven reference soil groups: Regosols, Flovisols, Luvisols, Cambisols, Kastanosems, Gypsysols and Glysols. The results revealed that WRB was significantly more effective in describing the characteristics of the studied soils. One of the key advantages of this two-level system is its flexibility, allowing for the inclusion of additional principal and supplementary qualifiers to cover all essential soil characteristics. Moreover, in many cases, WRB exhibits better prioritization compared to ST. For example, the presence of gypsic, combic, calcic horizons, as well as fluvic and gley properties, can allocate the soil to the reference groups of Gypsisols, Cambisols, Calsisols, Fluvisols, and Gleysols, respectively. However, a limitation of the WRB system is the absence of mineralogical information in soil classification. Enhancing this classification system's quality and making it more appealing to planners could be achieved by incorporating suitable mineralogical attributes for the reference groups or criteria that express soil fertility conditions with relatively straightforward measurements. In addition, it is proposed to add three subgroups to ST: Gypsic Haplustalfs, Fluventic Gypsiustepts and Cambic Haplustolls. Similarly, following the WRB model, it is recommended to introduce a qualifier in ST to indicate the presence of lithological discontinuity. Regarding the WRB system, suggestions include adding qualifiers such as "Cutanic" to gypsisols with clay films, "hypercalcic" to reference groups of Kastanozems and Luvisols with a calcic horizon comprising more than 50% of calcium carbonate, and "aridic" for better expression of soil characteristics with Aridic-Ustic moisture regimes.
 
Conclusion
The results of this research demonstrated that WRB is more effective in describing the conditions and characteristics of the studied soils. The WRB system, through its diverse set of qualifiers, is capable of representing field conditions more efficiently. However, it is suggested that the surveyors have the freedom to select an appropriate qualifier from the list provided by WRB without limitation, which can enhance its success in practical applications. Furthermore, it is recommended that both classification systems be used to categorize soils, not only to evaluate their efficiency for the soils in other regions but also to gain a comprehensive understanding of their suitability for different contexts.
Keywords
Arid and semi-arid regions; Classification system; Clay mineralogy; Soil
References
  1. Bahmani, M., Salehi, M.H., & Esfandiarpour Boroujeni, I. (2014). Comparison of American soil taxonomy and WRB classification systems in describing the properties of some soils in arid and semi-arid regions of central Iran. Journal of Agricultural and Natural Resources Sciences and Technology, 67, 11–21. (In Persian with English abstract)
  2. Banaie, M.H. (1998). Soil moisture and temperature regimes map of Iran. Soil and Water Research Institute of Iran, Iran.
  3. Brevik, E.C., Calzolari, C., Miller, B.A., Pereira, P., Kabala, C,. Baumgarten, A., & Jordán, A. (2016). Soil mapping, classification, and pedologic modeling: History and future directions. Geoderma, 264, 256-274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.05.017
  4. Chapman, H.D. (1965). Cation exchange capacity. In: Black CA, editor. Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Madison (WI): American Society of Agronomy. p. 891–901.
  5. Cline, M.G. (1967). Basic principles of soil classification. Soil Science, 67(2), 81–91.
  6. Esfandiarpour Boroujeni, I., Farpoor, M.H., & 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. (In Persian)
  7. Esfandiarpour Boroujeni, I., Mosleh, Z., & Farpoor, M.H. (2018). Comparing the ability of soil taxonomy (2014) and WRB (2015) to distinguish lithologic discontinuity and an abrupt textural change in major soils of Iran. Catena, 165, 63-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2018.01.018
  8. Esfandiarpour, I., Salehi, M.H., Karimi, A., & Kamali, A. (2013). Correlation between Soil Taxonomy and world reference base for soil resources in classifying calcareous soils: (a case study of arid and semiarid regions of Iran). Geoderma, 197, 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.01.002
  9. Eswaran, H., Rice, T., Ahrens, R., & Stewart, B.A. (Eds.). (2002). Soil Classification: A Global Desk Reference. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
  10. Gee, G.W., & Bauder, J.W. (1986). Particle-size analysis. In ‘Methods of soil analysis, Part 1. Agronomy Monograph, Vol. 9’. 2nd edn. (Ed. A Klute) pp. 383–411. (American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA)
  11. Gerasimova, M.I. (2010). Chinese soil taxonomy: between the American and the international classification systems. Eur. Soil Science, 43(8), 945–949.
  12. Havaee, Sh., Kamali, A., & Toomanian, N. (2019). Appraisal of the world reference base for soils (WRB) and US soil taxonomy for classification of developed soils of Zayandeh-rud River’s upper Terrace. Journal of Water and Soil, 33(1), 181-189. (In Persian with English abstract)
  13. IUSS Working Group WRB, (2014). World Reference Base for Soil Resources. International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. In: World Soil Resources Reports No. 106. FAO, Rome.
  14. IUSS Working Group WRB. (2022). World Reference Base for Soil Resources. International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. 4th edition. International Union of Soil Sciences (IUSS), Vienna, Austria.
  15. Jackson, M.L. (1975). Soil Chemical Analysis. Advanced Course Univ. of Wisconsin, College of Agric., Dept. of Soils, Madison, WI. 894 pp.
  16. Johns, W.D., Grim, R.E., & Bradley, F. (1954). Quantitative estimation of clay minerals by diffraction methods. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 24(4), 242-251.
  17. Khademi, H., & Mermut, A.R. (2003). Micromorphology and classification of Argids and associated gypsiferous Aridisols from central Iran. Catena, 54, 439–455.
  18. Khormeli, F., Abtahi, A., & Stoops, G. (2006). Micromorphology of calcitic pedofeatures in highly calcareous soils of Fars province, Southern Iran. Catena, 132, 3-46.
  19. Kittrick, J.A., & Hope, E.W. (1963). A procedure for the particle size separation of soils for X-ray diffraction analysis. Soil Science, 96(5), 319–325.
  20. Lee, D.B., Kim, Y.-N., Sonn Y.-K., & Kim, K. H. (2022). Comparison of Soil Taxonomy (2022) and WRB (2022) Systems for classifying Paddy Soils with different drainage grades in South Korea. Land, 12, 1204. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12061204
  21. Lee, D.B., Seo, B.H., Go, W.R., Cho, S.R., & Sonn, Y.K. (2023). Comparison among Soil Taxonomy (2014), WRB (2014), and WRB (2022) Systems on Anthropogenic Soils in Korea. Korean Journal Soil Science Fertility, 56(1), 68-76. https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2023.56.1.068
  22. Lee, S.B., Chun, H.C., Cho, H.J., Hyun, B.K., Song, K.C., Zhang, Y.S., Sonn, Y.K., & Park, C.W. (2013). Soil classification of anthropogenic soils in a remodeled area using soil taxonomy and world reference base for soil resources. Korean Journal of Soil Science and Fertilizer, (6), 536-541. https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2013.46.6.536
  23. Meng, Q., Li, S., Liu, B., Hu, J., Liu, J., Chen, Y, & Ci, E. (2023). Appraisal of soil taxonomy and the world reference base for soil resources applied to classify purple soils from the Eastern Sichuan Basin, China. Agronomy, 13(7), 1837. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13071837
  24. Montakhabi Kalajahi, V., Jafarzadeh, A.A., Oustan, Sh., Shahbazi, F., & Arabi Belaghi, R. (2018). Soil Taxonomy (ST) and World Reference Base (WRB) systems proficiency to describe saline and gypsiferous soils properties in some region of east Azerbaijan. Water and Soil Science, 28, 55-67. (In Persian with English abstract)
  25. Murphy C.P. (1986). Thin Section Preparation of Soils and Sediments. AB Academic Publishers, Berkhamsted, Herts, UK.
  26. Nelson, D.W., & Sommers, L.E. (1982). Total carbon, organic carbon, and matter. In ‘Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Agronomy Monograph, Vol. 9’. 2nd edn. (Eds AL Page, RH Miller, DR Keeney) pp. 539–577. American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA.
  27. Nelson, R.E. (1982). Carbonate and gypsum. In ‘Methods of soil analysis. Part 2’. (Eds AL Page, RH Miller, DR Keeney) pp. 181–197. (American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA).
  28. Owliaie, H.R. (2014). Soil Genesis along a Catena in Southwestern Iran: A Micromorphological Approach. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 60(4), 471-486. https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2013.796587
  29. Owliaie, H.R. Najafi Ghiri, M., &Shakeri, S. (2018a). Soil-landscape relationship as indicated by pedogenesis data on selected soils from Southwestern, Iran. Eurasian Journal of Soil Science, 7(2), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.18393/ejss.376284
  30. Owliaie, H.R., Najafi Ghiri, M., Adhami, E., & Shakeri, S. (2018b). Pedological investigation of a Litho-Toposequencen a semi-arid region of Southwestern Iran. Eurasian Soil Science, 51(12), 1447–1461. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229318130033
  31. Page, A.L., Miller, R.H., & Keeney, D.R. (1982). Methods of Soil Analysis, Second edition. Part 2: Chemical and Biological Properties. Soil Science Society of America Journal Publisher.
  32. Rasooli, N., Farpoor, M.H., Mahmoodabadi, M., & Esfandiarpour Borujeni, I. (2021). Capability of Soil Taxonomy (2014) compared to updated WRB (2015) in describing Lut Desert soils. Desert, 26(2), 219-235. https://doi.org/10.22059/JDESERT.2021.318248.1006804
  33. Rhoades, J.D. (1996). Salinity: Electrical Conductivity and total dissolved solids. P. 417- 436. In: Sparks D.L. et al., (eds) Methods of soil analysis. Part 3. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison. WI.
  34. Roca P.N., & Pazos M.S. (2002). The WRB applied to Argentinian soils: two case studies. European Soil
    Bureau, Research Report NO. 7. Latvia University of Agriculture, Jelgava, Latvia. pp. 191-197.
  35. Salehi, M.H. (2018). Challenges of Soil Taxonomy and WRB in classifying soils: Some examples from Iranian soils. Bull. Geogr. Phys. Geogr. Ser. 2018, 63–70. https://doi.org/10.2478/bgeo-2018-0005
  36. Salinity Laboratory Staff. (1954). Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils, Agriculture Handbook vol. 60 (Department of Agriculture, Washington).
  37. Sanjari, S., Farpoor, M.H., Mahmoodabadi, M., & Barkhori, S. (2021). Soil Taxonomy and WRB comparison to classify soils with different climatic conditions in Kerman province. Agricultural Engineering, 43(4), 479-493. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22055/AGEN.2021.34266.1575
  38. Sarmast, M., Farpoor, M.H., & Esfandiarpour Boroujeni, I. (2016). Comparing Soil Taxonomy (2014) and updated WRB (2015). for describing calcareous and gypsiferous soils, Central Iran. Catena, 145, 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2016.05.026
  39. Sarshogh, M., Salehi, M.H., & Beigie, H. (2012). The effect of slope aspect and position on Soils particle size distributionin Chelgerd region, Chaharmahal-va-Bakhtiari province. Journal Water Soil Conservation, 19, 77-97. (In Persian). https://doi.org/20.1001.1.23222069.1391.19.3.5.0
  40. Schad, P., & Micheli, E. (2010). The next steps in soil classification or how to kill 3 birds with 1 stone: pedons, landscapes, functions. 19th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil Solutions for a Changing World. pp: 40–42.
  41. Schoeneberger, P.J., Wysocki, D.A., Benham, E.C., & Broderson, W.D. (2012). Field book for describing and sampling soils, 2nd version. Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE, USA.
  42. Soil Science Division Staff. (2017). Soil Survey Manual. C. Ditzler, K. Scheffe, and H.C. Monger (eds). U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. Government Publishing Ofce, Washington, D.C.
  43. Soil Survey Staff, (2014). Keys to Soil Taxonomy. 12th ed. USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC.
  44. Soil Survey Staff, (2022). Keys to Soil Taxonomy. 1th ed. USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC.
  45. Soil Survey Staff. (2014). Kellogg Soil Survey Laboratory Methods Manual. Soil Survey Investigations Report No. 42, Version 5.0. R. Burt and Soil Survey Staff (ed). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
  46. Stoops, G. (2003). Guidelines for the Analysis and Description of Soil and Regolith Thin Sections. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin.
  47. Toomanian, N. (2006). How to develop land, soil diversity and quantitative mapping of some pedogenic characteristics in some parts of Central Iran. Ph.D. Thesis, Soil Science Dept. College of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology.
  48. Toomanian, N., Jalalian, A., & 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.
 

Statistics
Article View: 3,641
PDF Download: 933


Journal Management System. Powered by Sinaweb