Application of microscopic features of soil pores in the assessment of soil physical quality

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of soil science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of ZANJAN, ZANJAN, IRAN.

2 Department of soil science, Faculty of agriculture, university of Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran

3 Department of soil science, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural resource, University of TEHRAN, ALBORZ, IRAN.

Abstract

Researchers consistently seek methods that minimize data requirements and decrease soil quality assessment costs. Soil pores are recognized as indicators of soil physical quality due to their environmental sensitivity. This study identified key parameters related to soil pores and physico-chemical properties to assess their potential as indicators of soil physical quality. Conducted between 2020 and 2022 at the University of Tehran's Soil Sciences Department Micromorphology Laboratory, the study used image analysis to determine the parameters related to pores resulting from 126 experimental units, including ammendments, removals and disruptive experimental treatments and affected by 22 cycles of wetting and drying which were determined in two types of soils, sandy loam and silty clay. Parameters included sphericity, elongation, area, and compactness. The first two principal components (PC1 and PC2) represent more than 70% of the variations in the studied soils. Parameters like sphericity (81% and 80% correlation with PC1 and PC2) and elongation (77% and 83% correlation with PC1 and PC2) in loamy sand, and elongation (53% and 87% correlation with PC1 and PC2) and pore area (48% and 68% correlation with PC1 and PC2) in silty clay loam were identified as quality indicators. Comparing soil quality based on pores in different treatments with control showed 32% and 18% differences in loamy sand and silty clay loam, respectively, demonstrating indicator efficacy in reflecting soil quality changes. The microscopic features of pores that possess fractal properties were successfully utilized in this study for assessing soil quality. Based on this method, it is possible to employ this approach for determining soil quality on a field scale.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Application of Microscopic Features of Soil Pores in the Assessment of Soil Physical Quality

 

Extended Abstract

 

Background

 In the pursuit of efficient soil quality assessment methods, researchers continuously seek strategies that minimize data requirements and reduce associated costs. Among the multitude of indicators contributing to a comprehensive understanding of soil health, soil pores stand out due to their intricate relationship with environmental conditions.

Objective:

 This study aimed to conduct a comprehensive exploration of a wide range of parameters associated with soil pores, alongside specific physical and chemical properties. The overarching goal was to establish a minimal yet effective dataset necessary for rigorous analysis, while simultaneously evaluating the potential of these identified parameters as robust indicators of soil's physical quality.

Methodology:

This study was conducted based on concepts introduced for determination of soil quality and image analysis used for collected some soil porosity properties. Orange. 3 software used for apply PCA procedure. The research was carried out between 2020 and 2022 at the Micromorphology Laboratory of the Soil Sciences Department at the University of Tehran. Advanced image analysis techniques were employed to delve into the intricate world of soil pores. The study focused on assessing parameters related to pores resulting from experimental treatments and affected by 22 cycles of wetting and drying were determined in two types of soils, sandy loam and silty clay. Parameters under investigation included sphericity, elongation, area, and compactness of pores.

Findings:

The investigation yielded insightful outcomes that shed light on the potential of pore-related parameters as effective indicators of soil quality. The first two principal components (PC1 and PC2) represent more than 70% of the variations in the studied soils. Furthermore, due to the strong correlations observed, parameters such as porosity (with 81% and 80% correlation to PC1 and PC2) and pore connectivity (with 77% and 83% correlation to PC1 and PC2) were identified as quality indicators for loamy sand soils, while parameters like cohesion (with 53% and 87% correlation to PC1 and PC2) and pore area (with 48% and 68% correlation to PC1 and PC2) were identified as quality indicators for silty clay soils. Furthermore, the study compared soil quality assessments based on the identified pore-related indicators across different treatments with a control group. The results highlighted significant variations of 32% and 18% for loamy sand and silty clay loam soils, respectively. These discrepancies underscored the sensitivity of the identified parameters to shifts in soil quality and their potential as effective indicators.

Conclusion:

By harnessing the power of advanced image analysis techniques, this research has effectively expanded our understanding of soil pores and their potential as indicators of soil's physical quality. The findings provide valuable insights for streamlining soil quality assessment practices, making them more cost-effective and efficient. As sustainable land management gains increasing importance, these identified indicators hold promise for monitoring and enhancing soil health. Given the ability to express soil changes, the microscopic features of pores were successfully employed in this study for soil quality determination. Moreover, due to the fractal nature of these pores, this method can also be used for soil quality assessment on a larger scale.

References

Andrews, S. S., Karlen, D. L., & Cambardella, C. A. (2004). The soil management assessment framework: a quantitative soil quality evaluation method. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 68(6), 1945-1962.
Angelaki, A., Bota, V., & Chalkidis, I. (2023). Estimation of Hydraulic Parameters from the Soil Water Characteristic Curve. Sustainability. 15(8), 6714.
Armenise, E., Redmile-Gordon, M. A., Stellacci, A. M., Ciccarese, A., & Rubino, P. (2013). Developing a soil quality index to compare soil fitness for agricultural use under different managements in the Mediterranean environment. Soil and Tillage Research. 130, 91-98.
Askari, M. S., & Holden, N. M. (2014). Indices for quantitative evaluation of soil quality under grassland management. Geoderma. 230, 131-142.
Bakhshi, A., Heidari, A., Mohammadi, M. H., & Ghezelbash, E. (2023). Estimation of Water Retention at Low Matric Suctions Using the Micromorphological Characteristics of Soil Pores. Eurasian Soil Science, 1-14.
Bastida, F., Moreno, J. L., Hernandez, T., & García, C. (2006). Microbiological activity in a soil 15 years after its devegetation. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 38(8), 2503-2507.
Bian, X., Zhang, W., Li, X., Shi, X., Deng, Y., & Peng, J. (2022). Changes in strength, hydraulic conductivity and microstructure of superabsorbent polymer stabilized soil subjected to wetting–drying cycles. Acta Geotechnica, 17(11), 5043-5057.
Davidson, D. A. (2000). Soil quality assessment: recent advances and controversies. Progress in Environmental Science. 2(4), 342-350.
Farahani, E., Emami, H., & Keller, T. (2018). Impact of monovalent cations on soil structure. Part II. Results of two Swiss soils. International Agrophysics, 32(1).
Fu, B. J., Liu, S. L., Chen, L. D., Lü, Y. H., & Qiu, J. (2004). Soil quality regime in relation to land cover and slope position across a highly modified slope landscape. Ecological Research. 19, 111-118.
Guo, L., Sun, Z., Ouyang, Z., Han, D., & Li, F. (2017). A comparison of soil quality evaluation methods for Fluvisol along the lower Yellow River. Catena. 152, 135-143.
Hussain, I. M. T. I. A. Z., Olson, K. R., Wander, M. M., & Karlen, D. L. (1999). Adaptation of soil quality indices and application to three tillage systems in southern Illinois. Soil and tillage Research. 50(3-4), 237-249.
Karlen, D. L., Ditzler, C. A., & Andrews, S. S. (2003). Soil quality: why and how?. Geoderma. 114(3-4), 145-156.
Karlen, D. L., Hurley, E. G., Andrews, S. S., Cambardella, C. A., Meek, D. W., Duffy, M. D., & Mallarino, A. P. (2006). Crop rotation effects on soil quality at three northern corn/soybean belt locations. Agronomy journal. 98(3), 484-495.
Karlen, D. L., Mausbach, M. J., Doran, J. W., Cline, R. G., Harris, R. F., & Schuman, G. E. (1997). Soil quality: a concept, definition, and framework for evaluation (a guest editorial). Soil Science Society of America Journal. 61(1), 4-10.
Lehmann, P., Assouline, S., & Or, D. (2008). Characteristic lengths affecting evaporative drying of porous media. Physical Review E, 77(5), 056309.
Li, P., Shi, K., Wang, Y., Kong, D., Liu, T., Jiao, J., & Hu, F. (2019). Soil quality assessment of wheat-maize cropping system with different productivities in China: Establishing a minimum data set. Soil and Tillage Research, 190, 31-40.
Masto, R. E., Chhonkar, P. K., Purakayastha, T. J., Patra, A. K., & Singh, D. (2008). Soil quality indices for evaluation of long‐term land use and soil management practices in semi‐arid sub‐tropical India. Land degradation & development. 19(5), 516-529.
Moncada, M. P., Penning, L. H., Timm, L. C., Gabriels, D., & Cornelis, W. M. (2014). Visual examinations and soil physical and hydraulic properties for assessing soil structural quality of soils with contrasting textures and land uses. Soil and Tillage Research, 140, 20-28.
Mukherjee, A., & Lal, R. (2014). Comparison of soil quality index using three methods. PloS one. 9(8), e105981.
Nakajima, T., Lal, R., & Jiang, S. (2015). Soil quality index of a crosby silt loam in central Ohio. Soil and Tillage Research. 146, 323-328.
Navas, M., Benito, M., Rodríguez, I., & Masaguer, A. (2011). Effect of five forage legume covers on soil quality at the Eastern plains of Venezuela. Applied soil ecology. 49, 242-249.
Obade, V., & Lal, R. (2016). A standardized soil quality index for diverse field conditions. Science of the total environment. 541, 424-434.
Pagliai, M., & Vignozzi, N. (2002). The soil pore system as an indicator of soil quality. Advances in GeoEcology. 35, 69-80.
Paz-Kagan, T., Shachak, M., Zaady, E., & Karnieli, A. (2014). A spectral soil quality index (SSQI) for characterizing soil function in areas of changed land use. Geoderma. 230, 171-184.
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(3-4), 325-334.
Rahmanipour, F., Marzaioli, R., Bahrami, H. A., Fereidouni, Z., & Bandarabadi, S. R. (2014). Assessment of soil quality indices in agricultural lands of Qazvin Province, Iran. Ecological indicators. 40, 19-26.
Ringrose-Voase, A. J. (1996). Measurement of soil macropore geometry by image analysis of sections through impregnated soil. Plant and Soil. 183, 27-47.
Sarkar, D., De, D. K., Das, R., & Mandal, B. (2014). Removal of organic matter and oxides of iron and manganese from soil influences boron adsorption in soil. Geoderma, 214, 213-216.
Shukla, M. K., Lal, R., & Ebinger, M. (2006). Determining soil quality indicators by factor analysis. Soil and Tillage Research, 87(2). 194-204.
Vereecken, H., Huisman, J. A., Bogena, H., Vanderborght, J., Vrugt, J. A., & Hopmans, J. W. (2008). On the value of soil moisture measurements in vadose zone hydrology: A review. Water resources research, 44(4).
Wang, S., Lv, L., Xue, K., Zhang, D., Li, M., Li, D., & Yuan, C. (2022). Micropore structure and fractal characteristics of clays due to freeze-thaw and compression based on mercury intrusion porosimetry. Frontiers in Earth Science, 10, 851673.
Wei, T., Fan, W., Yu, N., & Wei, Y. N (2019). Three-dimensional microstructure characterization of loess based on a serial sectioning technique. Engineering Geology. 261, 105265.
Yu, P., Liu, S., Zhang, L., Li, Q., & Zhou, D. (2018). Selecting the minimum data set and quantitative soil quality indexing of alkaline soils under different land uses in northeastern China. Science of the Total Environment. 616, 564-571.
Iranian Journal of Soil and Water Research
Volume 54, Issue 10
January 2024
Pages 1581-1596

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics