Assessment of the S-index using three models of the soil water retention curve in five different Land uses in south of Kerman

Document Type : Complete scientific research article

Authors

1 Vali-e-Asr University of Rafsanjan, Rafsanjan, Iran

2 2. Professor of College of Agriculture, Vali-e-Asr University of Rafsanjan, Rafsanjan, Iran

3 3. Associate Professor of College of Agriculture, Vali-e-Asr University of Rafsanjan, Rafsanjan, Iran

4 inter3 GmbH -Institut for Ressources management, Otto-Suhr-Allee 59, 10585 Berlin, Germany. Email

5 5. Assistant Professor of College of Agriculture, Vali-e-Asr University of Rafsanjan, Rafsanjan, Iran

Abstract

Abstract
Background and Objectives: One of the ways to express physical behavior of soil is to describe the soil structure. Since physical soil could not be measured directly, therefore, the special properties defined as indicators, are used to express the soil physical quality. of different indicators, S-index is used to express the physical quality of the soil which is the slope of the soil water retention curve at inflection point. It seems that little research has been done on the effect of landuse on the S-index, then The purpose of this study was to compare the results of S-index of three different soil water retention curve models of the moisture characteristic of the soil (Van Genuchten, Brooks-Corey and Grant-Groenevelt Models) in 5 different land uses in Jiroft city.
Materials and Methods: For this reason, 350 disturbed and 350 undisturbed soil samples of different landuse (citrus, palm, arable, forest and combinatory) were analyzed. Some of the physical and chemical features of the soil, including sand, silt, and clay percentage, the electronic conductivity at saturation, Bulk Density, the percentage of the total porosity and the percentage of the Organic Matter were measured. Also, the amount of the soil moisture in suctions 0, 10, 30, 50, 100, 300, 500, 1000 and 1500 KPa was determined using pressure plates.
Results: The results showed in the study region the best physical quality of the soil was seen in palm land use. All landuses, except forest, had high physical quality. High value of S index in citrus, palm, and arable land uses can indicate better soil management at the start of farming. In combinatory land use, due to Simultaneous cropping of alfalfa and palm, alfalfa causes more organic matter to be returned to the soil and as a result, the soil structure improves. Which is displayed at high value of S index. In general, The S index was higher in landuses where the soil had better structure or management operations were improved. because of the distinction between the soils with closely physical quality, Van Genuchten model was better and more appropriate than the other two models in assessing the physical quality.
Conclusion: In general, despite the slight differences in citrus, palm and cultivate landuses, palm landuse had a higher mean of S index. So that their values in Van Genuchten, Brooks-Corey and Grant-Groenevelt models were 0.06, 0.06 and 0.04 respectively. The results of this study showed that the Van Genuchten model accuracy was better in estimating and evaluating the soil quality due to the greater differentiation between the soils with close physical quality. Because the fitting of Soil water characteristic curve had a higher R2 (R2=0.92). However, due to low differences with two other models, in particular the Brooks and Corey model (R2 =0.87), It seems that, in different landuses, a suitable model for assessing soil quality varies. Therefore, it is imperative that this index and other indicators of soil physical quality assessment in different climates are further examined.

Keywords

References

1.Blake, G.R., and Hartge, K.H. 1986. Particle Density, in: Klute, A. (eds), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1 (Physical and Mineralogical Methods), Second Edition, Madison, Wisconsin USA, Pp: 377-381.
2.Brejda, J.J., Moorman, T.B., Karlan, D.L., and Dao, T.H. 2000. Identification of regional siol quality factors and indicators: I. Central and Southern High Plains, Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 64: 2115-2124.
3.Brooks, R.H., and Corey, A.T. 1964. Hydraulic Properties of Porous Media. HydrologyPaperColoradoStateUniversity, Fort Collins. Transactions of the American Society for Agricultural Engineers. 10: 3. 400-404.
4.Bouyoucos, G.J. 1951. A recalibration of hydrometer method for making mechanical analysis of soil. Agron. J. 43: 434-438.
5.Cavalieri, K.M.V., Silva, A.P., Tormena, C.A., LeO, T.P., Dexter, A.R., and Kansson, I. 2009. Long-term effects of no-tillage on dynamic soil physical properties in a Rhodic Ferrasol in Parang, Brazil. Soil Tillage Res. 103: 158-164.
6.Calonego, J.C., and Rosolem, C.A. 2010. Soybean Root Growth and Yield In Rotation With Cover Crops Under Chiseling And No-Till, Europe. J. Agron. 33: 242-249.
 7.Calonego, J.C., and Rosolem, C.A. 2011. Soil water retention and S index after crop rotation and chiseling, R. Bras. Ci. Solo. 35: 1927-1937.
8.Camara-Ferreira, A.C., Carvalho-Leite, L.F., Ferreira de Araujo, A., and Eisenhauer, N. 2014. Land-use type effects on soil organic carbon and microbial properties in a semi-arid region of Northeast Brazil, Land Degrad. Dev. online first, doi:10.1002/ldr.2282.
9.Cooper, M., Dalla Rosa, J., Medeiros, J.C., Oliveira, T.C., Toma, R.S., and C.E.P. 2012. Hydrophysical characterization of soils under tropical semi-deciduous forest. Science Agriculture. 69: 152-159.
10.Cucci, G., Lacolla, G., Pagliai, M., and Vignozzi, N. 2015. Effect of reclamation on the structure of silty-clay soils irrigated with saline-sodic waters. Inter. Agrophysic. J. 29: 23-30.
11.Dexter, A.R. 2004a. Soil Physical Quality: Part A. Theory, Effects of Soil Texture, Density, and Organic Matter, and Effects on Root Growth. Geoderma. 120: 201-214.
12.Dexter, A.R. 2004b. Soil physical quality: Part B. Friability, tillage, tilth and hard-setting. Geoderma. 120: 215-225.
13.Dexter, A.R. 2004c. Soil physical quality: Part C. Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity and general conclusions about S-theory. Geoderma. 120: 227-239.
14.Dexter, A.R., and Bird, N.R.A. 2001. Methods for predicting the optimum and the range of soil water contents for tillage based on the water retention curve. Soil Tillage Research. 57: 203-212.
15.Dexter, R., and Czyż, E.A. 2007. Application of S Theory in the study of soil physical degradation and its consequences. Land Degradation and Development. 18: 369-381.
16.Emami, H., and Astaraei, A.R. 2012. Effect of organic and inorganic amendments on parameters of water retention curve, bulk density and aggregate diameter of a saline-sodic soil. JAST. 14: 7. 1625-1636.
17.Emami, H., Neyshabouri, M.R., and Shorafa, M. 2012. Relationships between some soil quality indicators in different agricultural soils from Varamin, Iran. JAST. 14: 4. 951-959.
18.Gelaw, A.M., Singh, B.R., and Lal, R. 2014. Soil organic carbon and total nitrogen stocks under different land uses in a semi-arid watershed in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia, Agriculture Ecosystem Environmental. 188: 256-263.
19.Groenevelt, P.H., and Grant, C.D. 2004. a new model for the soil-water retention curve that solves the problem of residual water contents. Europe. J. Soil Sci. 55: 479-485.
20.Lal, R. 2004. Carbon Seuestration to mitigate global change. Geoderma. 123: 1-22.
21.Larson, W.E., and Pierce, F.J. 1991. Conservation and enhancement of soil quality. In: Proc. Vol. 2 of Evaluation for Sustainable Land Management in the Developing World, Conference, International Board for Soil Research and Management (IBSRAM), Jatujak Thailand, Bangkok, Thailand.
22.Mijangos, I., Epelde, L., Garbisu, C., and González-Oreja, J.A. 2014. Modification of soil enzyme activities as a consequence of replacing meadows by pine plantations under temperate climate. Pedobiologia. 57: 61-66.
23.Moncada, M.P., Gabriels, D., and Cornelis, W.M. 2014. Data-driven analysis of soil quality indicators using limited data. Geoderma. 235-236: 271-278.
24.Nunes, J.S., Araújo, A.S.F., Nunes, L.A., Lima, L.M., Carneiro, R.F.V., Tsai, S.M., and Salviano, A.A.C. 2012. Land degradation on soil microbial biomass and activity in Northeast Brazil, Pedosphere. 22: 88-95.
25.Oliveira, T.C., da Silva, L.F.S., and Cooper, M. 2014. Evaluation of Physical Quality Indices of a Soil under a Seasonal Semideciduous Forest. R. Bras. Ci. Solo. 38: 444-453.
26.Olga, V., Irina, C., Ioana, P., and Simota, C. 2011. Soil physical quality as quantified by S index and hydrophysical indeces of some soil from arges, hydrographic basin. Res. J. Agric. Sci. 43. 3: 249-256.
27.RETC (Retention Curve). 2008. RETC model. USADARS U.S. Salinity Laboratory Riverside, A, USA. https://www.pc-progress.com.
28.Richards, L.A. 1954. Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils. Soil Science. 78: 2. 154.
29.Santos. G.G., Da Silva, E.M., Leandro, R., Da Silveira, M.P.M., Bruand, A., James, F., and Becquer, T. 2011. Analysis of physical quality of soil using the water retention curve: Validity of the S-index. Comptes Rendus Geoscience, Elsevier. 343: 4. 295-301.
30.Shirani, H., Habibi, M., Besalatpour, A.A., and Esfandiarpour, I. 2015. Determining the features influencing physical quality of calcareous soils in a semiarid region of Iran using a hybrid PSO-DT algorithm. Geoderma. 259-260: 1-11.
31.Singh, A.K., Bordoloi, L.J., Kumar, M., Hazarika, S., and Parmar, B. 2014. Land use impact on soil quality in eastern Himalayan region of India, Environmental Monitoring Assessment. 186: 2013-2024.
32.Tejada, M., Garcia, C., Gonzalez, J.L., and Hernandez, M.T. 2006. Use of organic amendment as a strategy for saline soil remediation Influence on the physical, chemical and biological properties of soil. Soil Bio. Biochem. 38: 1413-1421.
33.Tejada, M.A., and Gonzalez, J.L. 2006. Crushed cotton gin compost on soil biological properties and rice yield. Europe. J. Agron. 25: 22-29.
34.Tormena, C.A., Silva, A.P., Imhoff, S.D.C., and Dexter, A.R. 2008. Quantification of the soil physical quality of a tropical Oxisol using the S index. Science Agriculture. 65: 56-60.
35.Van Genuchten, M.Th. 1980. A closed form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of  unsaturated soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 44: 892-898.
36.Van Lier, D.J. 2014, Revisiting the S-Index for Soil Physical Quality and Its Use in Brazil. R. Bras. Ci. Solo. 38: 1-10.
37.Willekens, K., Vandecasteele, B., and De Vliegher, A. 2014. Soil quality and crop productivity as affected by different soil management systems in organic agriculture. Building Organic Bridges’, at the Organic World Congress 2014, 13-15 Oct., Istanbul, Turkey.
38.Walkley, A., and Black, I.A. 1934. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 37: 29-38.
39.Zhao, D., Li, F., Yang, Q., Wang, R., Song, Y., Tao, Y. 2013. The influence of different types of urban land use on soil microbial biomass and functional diversity in Beijing, China, Soil Use Manage. 29: 230-239.
40.Zornoza, R., Acosta, J.A., Bastida, F., Dominguez, S.G., Toledo, D.M., and Faz, A. 2015. Identification of sensitive indicators to assess the interrelationship between soil quality, management practices and human health, Soil. 1: 173-185.
Journal of Water and Soil Conservation
Volume 25, Issue 6
March and April 2019
Pages 87-103

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics