Spatial variability of soil physical properties in a cultivated field

Year 2016, , 192 - 200, 20.06.2016

Coşkun Gülser , Imanverdi Ekberli Feride Candemir

https://doi.org/10.18393/ejss.2016.3.192-200

Cited By: 23

Abstract

Spatial variability of soil physical properties in a cultivated field such as; bulk density (BD), penetration resistance (PNT), saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks), field capacity (FC) and permanent wilting point (PWP), were determined by geostatistical method. While BD values varied between 1.12 and 1.41 gcm^-3, PNT resistance (0.66 to 1.88 MPa), clay content (31.48 to 43.97%), Ks (1.46 to 3.37 mm h^-1), FC (30.40 to 39.66%) and PWP (19.22 to 24.42%) values showed variations with soil cultivation. In kriging interpolation for the spatial variability of soil properties, the biggest r² and cross validation r² values were determined with spherical model for PNT, Ks, FC values, and exponential model for clay, BD and PWP. Spatial dependences of the properties, except BD, were found to be strong in the field. Ks values significantly increased with increasing BD (0.340*), and decreasing clay content (-0.905**) and PNT (-0.288*) values in the field. Spatial variations of soil physical properties in the field are generally controlled by the particle size distribution as a fundamental factor. Heterogeneity and variation of soil physical parameters in a field due to soil plowing should be taken into consideration for a successful agricultural management.

Keywords

Tillage, spatial variability, soil physical properties, kriging

References

• Arshad, M.A., Lowery, B., Grossman, B., 1996. Physical tests for monitoring soil quality. In: Methods for Assessing Soil Quality Doran, J.W., Jones, A.J., (Eds.). SSSA Special Publication vol. 49. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, USA, pp. 123–141.
• Aşkın, T., Kızılkaya, R., 2006. Assessing spatial variability of soil enzyme activities in pasture topsoils using geostatistics. European Journal of Soil Biology 42(4): 230–237.
• Bo, S., Shenglu, Z., Qiguo, Z., 2003. Evaluation of spatial and temporal changes of soil quality based on geostatistical analysis in the hill region of subtropical China. Geoderma 115(1-2): 85-99.
• Bradford, J.M., 1986. Penetrability. In: Methods of Soil Analysis. Klute, A. (Ed.). Part I, 2nd ed. ASA, Madison, WI, p. 468.
• Burrough, P.A., 1993. Fractals and Geostatistical methods in landscape studies. In: Fractals in geography Lam, N., de Cola, L., (Eds.). Prentice Hall, Englewood Clifts, NJ, pp. 87-112.
• Cambardella, C.A. Moorman, T.B., Novak, J.M., Parkin, T.B., Karlen, D.L., Turco, R.F., Konopka, A.E., 1994. Field-scale variability of soil properties in central Iowa soils. Soil Science Society America Journal 58(5): 1501–1511.
• Canarache, A., 1990. PENETR- a generalized semi-empirical model estimating soil resistance to penetration. Soil and Tillage Research 16(1-2): 51–70.
• Candemir, F., Gülser, C., 2012. Influencing factors and prediction of hydraulic conductivity in fine textured-alkaline soils. Arid Land Research Management 26(1):15-31.
• Castrignanò, A., Maiorana, M., Fornaro, F., 2003. Using regionalised variables to assess field-scale spatiotemporal variability of soil impedance for different tillage management. Biosystems Engineering 85 (3): 381–392.
• Castrignanò, A., Maiorana, M., Fornaro F., Lopez, N., 2002. 3D spatial variability of soil strength and its change over time in a drum wheat field in southern Italy. Soil and Tillage Research 65(1): 95-108.
• Cerri, C.E.P., Bernoux, M., Chaplot, V., Volkoff, B., Victoria, R.L., Melillo, J.M., Paustian, K., Cerri, C.C., 2004. Assessment of soil property spatial variation in an Amazon pasture: basis for selecting an agronomic experimental area. Geoderma 123(1-2): 51-68.
• Corwin, D.L., 2012. Delineating site-specific crop management units: Precision agriculture application in GIS. USDA-ARS, George E. Brown Salinity Laboratory. Available at:
• http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc05/papers/pap1184.pdf [access date: 05.09.2015].
• Cressie, N.A.C., Horton, R., 1987. A robust-resistant spatial analysis of soil water infiltration. Water Resources Research 23(5): 911–917.
• Demiralay I. 1993. Methods of soil physical analyses. Atatürk University Agricultural Faculty Publications. Erzurum,Turkey, 131 p. [in Turkish]
• Gamma Design Software, 2010. GS+ Version 9 GeoStatistical Software for the Environmental Science. Gamma Design Software, LLC Plainwell, Michigan 49080, USA.
• Gardner, C.M.K., Laryea, K.B., Unger, P.W., 1999. Soil physical constraints to plant growth and crop production. Land and Water Development Division, FAO, Rome, pp: 96.
• Goovaerts, P., 1998. Geostatistical tools for characterizing the spatial variability of microbiological and physico-chemical soil properties. Biology and Fertility of Soils 27(4): 315–334.
• Hangen, E., Buczko, U., Bens, O., Brunotte, J., Hüttl, R.F., 2002: Infiltration patterns into two soils under conventional and conservation tillage: influence of the spatial distribution of plant root structures and soil animal activity. Soil and Tillage Research 63(3–4): 181–186.
• Iqbal, J., Thomasson, J.A., Jenkins, J.N., Owens, P.R., Whisler, F.D., 2005. Spatial variability analysis of soil physical properties of alluvial soils. Soil Science Society America Journal 69(4): 1338-1350.
• Kacar, B., 1994. Chemical analysis of plant and soil-III. Soil analysis. Ankara University Faculty of Agriculture. Ankara, Turkey, 1994, No. 3, 705 p. [in Turkish]
• Mueller, L, Schindler, U., Fausey, N., Rattan, L., 2003. Comparison of methods for estimating maximum soil water content for optimum workability. Soil and Tillage Research 72(1): 9-20.
• O’Sullivan, M.F., Diskon, J.W., Campell, D.J., 1987. Interpretaion and presentaiton of cone resistance data in tillage and traffic studies. European Journal of Soil Science 38(1): 137-148.
• Ogunkunle, A.O., 1993. Variation of some soil properties along two toposequence on quartzite schist and banded gneiss in South-western Nigeria. GeoJournal 30(4): 399-402.
• Özsoy, G., Aksoy, E., 2007. Characterization, classification and agricultural usage of vertisols developed on neogen aged calcareous marl parent materials. Journal of Biological and Environmental Sciences 1(1): 5-10.
• Richards, L.A.,. 1954. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. Agricultural Handbook, No. 60, United States Department of Agriculture. Washington DC, USA.
• Samra, J.S., Singh, V.P., Sharma, K.N.S., 1988. Analysis of spatial variability in sodic soils. 2. Point and block –kriging. Soil Science 145(4): 250-256.
• Skuodienė, R., Karčauskienė, D., Čiuberkis, S., Repšienė, R., Ambrazaitienė, D., 2013. The influence of primary soil tillage on soil weed seed bank and weed incidence in a cereal-grass crop rotation. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture 100 (1): 25–32.
• Soil Survey Staff, 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. Agricultural Handbook, No. 436, United States Department of Agriculture. Washington DC, USA. 870p.
• Strudley, M.W., Gren, T.R., James, C., Ascough II, J.C., 2008. Tillage effects on soil hydraulic properties in space and time: State of the science. Soil and Tillage Research 99: 4–48.
• Tabi, F.O., Ogunkunle, A.O., 2007. Spatial variation of some soil physico-chemical properties of an alfisol in Southwestern Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Soil and Environmental Research 7: 82-91.
• Tanji, K.K., 1990. Agricultural salinity assessment and management. America Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 7, New York, USA. 631p.
• Trangmar, B.B., Yost, R.S., Uehara, G., 1985. Application of geostatistic to spatial studies of soil properties. Advances in Agronomy 38: 45-94.
• Tsegaye, T., Hill, R.L., 1998. Intensive tillage effects on spatial variability of soil physical properties. Soil Science 163(2): 143–154.
• Tüzüner, A., 1990. Toprakların fiziksel analiz yöntemleri. In: Toprak ve su analiz laboratuarları el kitabı. A. Tüzüner (Ed.). TC Tarım Orman ve Köy İsleri Bakanlıgı Köy Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara, Turkey. [in Turkish]
• Utset, A., Cid, G., 2001. Soil penetrometer resistance spatial variability in a ferralsol at several soil moisture conditions. Soil and Tillage Research 61(1-2): 193–202.
• Veronese-Júnior, V., Carvalho, M.P., Dafonte, J., Freddj, O.S., Vidal-Vázquez, E., Ingaramo, O.E., 2006. Spatial variability of soil water content and mechanical resistance of Brazilian ferralsol. Soil and Tillage Research 85(1-2): 166–177.
• van Es, H.M., 1993. Evaluation of temporal, spatial, and tillage induced variability for parameterization of soil infiltration. Geoderma 60(1–4): 187–199.
• van Es, H.M., Ogden, C.B., Hill, R.L., Schindelbeck, R.R., Tsegaye, T., 1999. Integrated assessment of space, time, and management related variability of soil hydraulic properties. Soil Science Society of America Journal 63(6): 1599–1608.
• Warrick, A.W., Nielsen, D.R., 1980. Spatial variability of soil physical properties in the field. In: Applications of soil physics. Hillel, D. (Ed.). Academic Press, New York. pp.319-344
• Wolf, B., Snyder, G.H., 2003. Sustainable soils: The place of organic matter in sustaining soils and their productivity. CRC Press. New York. 380p.
• Zhao, C., Dong, S., Liu, S., Sylvie, I., Li, J., Liu, Q., Wang, C., 2015. Spatial distribution and environmental risk of major elements in surface sediments associated Manwan Dam in Lancang River, China. Eurasian Journal of Soil Science 4(1): 22 – 29.
• Zhao, Y., Xu, X., Darilek, J.L., Huang, B., Sun, W., Shi, X., 2009. Spatial variability assessment of soil nutrients in an intense agricultural area, a case study of Rugao County in Yangtze River Delta Region, China. Environmental Geology 57(5): 1089–1102.
• Zheng, H., Wu, J., Zhang, S., 2009. Study on the spatial variability of farmland soil nutrient based on the kriging interpolation. AICI, International conference on artificial intelligence and computational intelligence, Nowember 7-8, Shanghai, China, Vol:4, p. 550-555.