News

 Statistics

Number of Journals56
Number of Issues2,157
Number of Articles22,499
Article View104,254,017
PDF Download50,155,376
Zangiabadi, M. (2023). Determination of the Optimal Ranges for Soil Pore Size Distribution Curve Parameters. , 37(5), 721-731. doi: 10.22067/jsw.2023.83150.1300
Mehdi Zangiabadi. "Determination of the Optimal Ranges for Soil Pore Size Distribution Curve Parameters". , 37, 5, 2023, 721-731. doi: 10.22067/jsw.2023.83150.1300
Zangiabadi, M. (2023). 'Determination of the Optimal Ranges for Soil Pore Size Distribution Curve Parameters', , 37(5), pp. 721-731. doi: 10.22067/jsw.2023.83150.1300
Zangiabadi, M. Determination of the Optimal Ranges for Soil Pore Size Distribution Curve Parameters. , 2023; 37(5): 721-731. doi: 10.22067/jsw.2023.83150.1300

Determination of the Optimal Ranges for Soil Pore Size Distribution Curve Parameters

آب و خاک
Article 5, Volume 37, Issue 5 - Serial Number 91, November and December 2024, Pages 721-731    PDF (716.96 K)
Document Type: Research Article
DOI: 10.22067/jsw.2023.83150.1300
Author
Mehdi Zangiabadi*
Soil and Water Research Department, Khorasan-Razavi Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, AREEO, Mashhad, Iran
Abstract
Introduction
Soil pore size distribution curve and using the optimal ranges of the location and shape parameters of this curve can be used to evaluate the soil physical quality. This research was carried out in an area of about 220 hectares of Torogh Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Station, to determine the optimal ranges for soil pore size distribution curve parameters using the soil physical quality index. Different soil textures and the diversity in soil properties are the distinct features of this research station.
 
Materials and Methods
Torogh Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Station of Khorasan-Razavi province, with a semiarid climate, is located in south-east of Mashhad city. For the field measurements and laboratory analysis to determine the soil physical properties and indices, 30 points with different soil textures and structures were selected. Intact soil cores (5 cm diameter by 5.3 cm length) and disturbed soil samples were collected from 0-30 cm depth of each point. After the laboratory analysis and field measurements, 35 soil physical properties were measured and calculated. Soil 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), soil moisture release curve (SMRC) parameters, S-index, soil porosity (POR) and air capacity (AC), 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 the soil physical properties and indices which were determined in this study. Three parameters of modal, median, and mean pore sizes of the SPSD curves were considered as the location (central tendency), and three parameters of standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis of the SPSD curves were considered as the shape parameters. Selection of the most important soil physical characteristics using principal component analysis (PCA) method by JMP software (ver. 9.02), weighting and scoring of the selected characteristics using PCA and scoring functions, respectively, and the summation of multiplied characteristics weights by their scores for each soil sample, were the four steps of calculation of the 0-1 value of soil physical quality index (SPQI). Soil samples were classified into four soil physical quality classes by SPQI values. The soils of the first class with the highest SPQIs (> 0.78) were considered to determine the optimal ranges of SPSD curves location and shape parameters.
 
Results and Discussion
The texture of soil samples were loam (40 %), silt loam (23 %), silty clay loam (17 %), clay loam (13 %), and sandy loam (7 %). Soil organic carbon was between 0.26-1.05 (%), and the average soil bulk density was 1.45 (gr.cm-3). The MWD values of studied soil samples were between 0.94-2.88 (mm), an average of 1.93 (mm). The average modal, median, and mean pore sizes as the location parameters of the SPSD curves were 60.3 (μm), 12.4 (μm), and 6.5 (μm), respectively. The average of standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis as the shape parameters of the SPSD curves were 71.56 (μm), -0.36 and 1.15, respectively. The average modal pore sizes showed that the pores with a size of 60 (μm) had the highest frequency in soil samples. The range of calculated standard deviation of SPSD curves, along with the difference between the minimum and maximum mean pore sizes (24.6 μm), implied the diversity of pore sizes in the studied soils. The results of PCA showed that the four soil physical properties of PAW330 (0.1-0.2 cm3.cm-3), PORt (0.40-0.51 cm3.cm-3), LLWR100 (0.12-0.22 cm3.cm-3) and SI (0.76-2.61 %) accounted for about 88% of the variance between soil samples and were selected to calculate the SPQIs. The PAW330, PORt, LLWR100, and SI were entered into the calculation of SPQIs with weights of 0.46, 0.31, 0.15, and 0.08, respectively. All the selected physical properties were scored using the scoring function of more is better. The maximum and minimum values of SPQIs for the studied soils were 0.84 and 0.14, respectively. Five soil samples with SPQIs greater than 0.78 were classified as class 1 with the highest physical quality. The ranges between the minimum and maximum values of the SPSD curves, location, and shape parameters of these five soils were proposed as the optimal ranges. In this regard, the ranges of 29-92 (μm), 5-16 (μm), and 2-7 (μm) were suggested for optimal ranges of modal, median, and mean pore sizes, respectively. The optimal ranges of standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis of the SPSD curves were proposed as 22-81 (μm), (-0.38)-(-0.33), and 1.14-1.15, respectively.
 
Conclusion
The optimal ranges of SPSD curves location and shape parameters suggested in the literature may probably not apply to a wide range of agricultural soils. They must be evaluated in a more extensive range of land uses, soil management, and soil textures. In this research, the soils with the relatively higher physical quality had larger mean pore size and less SPSD curves standard deviation (less diversity of pore size) than the optimal ranges suggested in the literature. The optimal ranges of SPSD curves location and shape parameters proposed in this research are appropriate for medium to coarse-textured soils of regions with the semiarid climate in Iran.
Keywords
Location parameters; Shape parameters; Soil physical quality
References
  1. Al-Kayssi, A.W. (2022). Quantifying soil physical quality by using indicators and pore volume-function characteristics of the gypsiferous soils in Iraq. Geoderma Regional, 30, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2022.e00556
  2. Asgarzadeh, H., Mosaddeghi, M.R., Mahboubi, A.A., Nosrati, A., & Dexter, A.R. (2010). Soil water availability for plants as quantified by conventional available water, least limiting water range and integral water capacity. Plant and Soil, 335(1), 229–244.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-010-0410-6
  3. Asgarzadeh, H., Mosaddeghi, M.R., Mahboubi, A.A., Nosrati, A., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.06.009
  4. Castellini, M., Niedda, M., Pirastru, M., & Ventrella, D. (2014). Temporal changes of soil physical quality under two residue management systems. Soil Use Management, 30, 423–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12137
  5. Castellini, M., Pirastru, M., Niedda, M., & Ventrella, D. (2013). Comparing physical quality of tilled and no-tilled soils in an almond orchard in south Italy. Italian Journal of Agronomy, 8, 149–157. https://doi.org/10.4081/ija.2013.e20
  6. Ghiberto, P.J., Imhoff, S., Libardi, P.L., Da Silva, A.P., Tormena, C.A., & Pilatti, M. (2015). Soil physical quality of Mollisols quantified by a global index. Scientia Agricola, 72(2), 167–174. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-9016-2013-0414
  7. Hao, X., Ball, B.C., Culley, J.L.B., Carter, M.R., & Parkin, G.W. (2007). Soil density and porosity. p. 743-760. In: Carter M.R., and Gregorich E.G. (eds.) Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. 2nd Canadian Society of Soil Science. Taylor and Francis.
  8. Ibrahim, A. and Horton, R. (2021). Biochar and compost amendment impacts on soil water and pore size distribution of a loamy sand soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 85, 1021-1036. https://doi.org/10.1002/saj2.20242
  9. Kraemer, F.B., Castiglioni, M., Morras, H., Fernandez, P., & Alvarez, C. (2022). Pores size distribution and pores volume density of Mollisols and Vertisols under different cropping intensity managements with no-tillage. Geoderma, 405, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2021.115398
  10. Kroetsch, D., & Wang, C. (2007). Particle size distribution. p. 713–725. In: Carter M.R., and Gregorich E.G. (eds.) Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. 2nd Canadian Society of Soil Science. Taylor and Francis.
  11. Larney, F.J. (2007). Dry-aggrigate size distribution. p. 821–831. In: Carter M.R., and Gregorich E.G. (eds.) Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. 2nd Canadian Society of Soil Science. Taylor and Francis.
  12. Masto, R.E., Chhonkar, P.K., Singh, D., & 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(1-3), 419–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-007-9697-z
  13. Qi, Y., Darilek, J.L., Huang, B., Zhao, Y., Sun, W., & Gu, Z. (2009). Evaluating soil quality indices in an agricultural region of Jiangsu Province, China. Geoderma, 149, 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2008.12.015
  14. Reynolds, W.D., & Clarke Topp, G. (2007). Soil water desorption and imbibition: tension and pressure techniques. p. 981-997. In: Carter M.R., and Gregorich E.G. (eds.) Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. 2nd Canadian Society of Soil Science. Taylor and Francis.
  15. Reynolds, W.D., Drury, C.F., Tan, C.S., Fox, C.A., & Yang, X.M. (2009). Use of indicators and pore volume-function characteristics to quantify soil physical quality. Geoderma, 152, 252–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.06.009
  16. Reynolds, W.D., Drury, C.F., Yang, X.M., & Tan, C.S. (2008). Optimal soil physical quality inferred through structural regression and parameter interactions. Geoderma, 146, 466–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2008.06.017
  17. Reynolds, W.D., Drury, C.F., Yang, X.M., Tan, C.S., & Yang, J.Y. (2014). Impacts of 48 years of consistent cropping, fertilization and land management on the physical quality of a clay loam soil. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 94(3), 403–419. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjss2013-097
  18. Schoenholtz, S.H., Van Miegroet H., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00423-0
  19. Shahab, H., Emami, H., Haghnia, G.H., & Karimi, A. (2013). Pore size distribution as a soil physical quality index for agricultural and pasture soils in North-Eastern Iran. Pedosphere, 23(3), 312-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(13)60021-1
  20. Skjemstad, J.O., & Baldock, J.A. (2007). Total and organic carbon. p. 225–237. In: Carter M.R., and Gregorich E.G. (eds.) Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. 2nd Canadian Society of Soil Science. Taylor and Francis.
  21. Ugalde, O.F., Virto, I., Bescansa, P., Imaz, M.J., Enrique, A., & Karlen, D.L. (2009). No-tillage improvement of soil physical quality in calcareous, degradation-prone, semiarid soils. Soil and Tillage Research, 106, 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2009.09.012
  22. Velasquez, E., Lavelle, P., & Andrade, M. (2007). GISQ, a multifunctional indicator of soil quality. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 39, 3066–3080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.06.013
  23. Zangiabadi, M., Gorji, M., Ghalebi, S., &RamezaniMoghaddam, 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). https://doi.org/22092/ijsr.2017.113755
  24. Zangiabadi, M., Gorji, M., & Keshavarz, P. (2021). Determination of soil physical quality index in medium to coarse-textured soils of Khorasan-Razavi province. Journal of Water and Soil, 35(1), 107–119. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/22067/jsw.2020.15000.0
  25. Zangiabadi, M., Gorji, M., Shorafa, M., Khavari Khorasani, S., &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). https://doi.org/22067/jsw.v30i4.47544
Statistics
Article View: 4,643
PDF Download: 1,659


Journal Management System. Powered by Sinaweb