Geostatistical Analysis and Zoning of Soil Primary Particles for optimal land use management. (Case Study: Shabankareh Plain, Bushehr Iran)

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Sci. faculty of Fars agricultural research center

2 Prof. of Dep. of Soil Science, Agriculture Faculty, University of Shiraz

3 prof. of Dep. of Soil Science, Agriculture Faculty, University of Shiraz

4 Associate Prof. Dep. of Soil Science, Agriculture Faculty, University of Shiraz.

5 Assistant Prof. Soil and Water Research Institute,

Abstract

Over the last three decades, there has been a general tendency to change methods in research on soil resource management from conventional and mainly qualitative methods to Quantitative ones based on spatial correlation models which are called digital soil mapping (DSM). The present study was carried out in Shabankareh plain with an area of ​​15,000 hectares with different physiographic units that are mainly used as agricultural farms in Bushehr province, Southern Iran. Target sites (172 points) were selected for soil sampling at depths of 0-30 and 30-60 based on hypothetical networking on satellite images and visual differences observed in the study area. Digital soil texture maps were drawn for both old soil texture triangle (include sand, silt and clay particles) and the new one (include Geometric mean particle diameter and geometric standard deviation of soil particle diameter). Soil texture is considered as one of the most important characteristics in determining the type and density of agricultural activities and types of land use. Two geostatistical programs include GS+ and ArcGIS and various methods of data estimators such as inverse distance weighting and ordinary Kriging method were used in this project. The results showed the strongest spatial structure class was observed in geometric standard deviation of the soil particle diameter (0.48) and the weakest in silt (0.73). The highest and lowest effective range among soil texture parameters were related to soil clay particles and geometric standard deviation of soil particle diameter with 684 and 336 meters, respectively. Number of drilled profiles (11 ones) was based on digital uniformity map. The generated digital maps can provide spatial information of important soil properties such as permeability and drainage, water holding capacity, fertility, soil erosion and salinity which increases the accuracy in the optimal management of agricultural lands.

Keywords

References

Abdollahi S., Pourghasemi H. R., Ghanbarian G. A., and R. Safaeian. 2019. Prioritization of effective factors in the occurrence of land subsidence and its susceptibility mapping using an SVM model and their different kernel functions. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 78(6), 4017-4034.‏
Akpa S. I., Odeh I. O., Bishop T. F., and A. E. Hartemink. 2014. Digital mapping of soil particle‐size fractions for Nigeria. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 78(6), 1953-1966.‏
Arabameri A., Pradhan B., and D. T. Bui. 2020. Spatial modelling of gully erosion in the Ardib River Watershed using three statistical-based techniques. Catena, 190, 104545.‏
Arrouays D., Grundy M. G., Hartemink A. E., Hempel J. W., Heuvelink G. B., Hong S. Y., and M. Mendonca-Santos. 2014. Global Soil Map: toward a fine-resolution global grid of soil properties. In Advances in agronomy.  Academic Press.‏ Vol. 125, pp. 93-134.
Arrouays D., McBratney A., Bouma J., Libohova Z., Richer-de-Forges A. C., Morgan C. L andV.L. Mulder.2020. Impressions of digital soil maps: The good, the not so good, and making them ever better. Geoderma Regional, 20, e00255.‏
Bui E. N. 2004. Soil survey as a knowledge system. Geoderma, 120(1-2) 17-26.‏
Bui E. N., Searle R. D., Wilson P. R., Philip S. R., Thomas M., Brough D., and D. Van Gool. 2020. Soil surveyor knowledge in digital soil mapping and assessment in Australia. Geoderma Regional, e00299.‏
Castro Franco M., Domenech M. B., Borda M. R., andJ. L. Costa. 2018. A spatial dataset of topsoil texture for the southern Argentine Pampas. ‏Geoderma Regional 12:18–27.
Design G.2004. Geostatistics for the environmental science version 7. Gamma Design, USA, 159 p.‏
Dharumarajan S., Hegde R., Janani N., and S. K. Singh. 2019. The need for digital soil mapping in India. Geoderma Regional 16, e00204.‏
Dobarco M. R., Arrouays D., Lagacherie P., Ciampalini R., and N. P. Saby. 2017. Prediction of topsoil texture for Region Centre (France) applying model ensemble methods. Geoderma, 298, 67-77.‏
Ersahin S. 2003. Comparing ordinary kriging and cokriging to estimate infiltration rate. 
Soil Science Society of America Journal, 67(6), 1848-1855.‏
Gee G. W. 1986. Particle size analysis. In: Klute A (Eds) Methods of Soil Analysis Part I.‏ 383-409.‏
Greve M. H., Kheir R. B., Greve M. B., and P. K. Bocher. 2012. Quantifying the ability of environmental parameters to predict soil texture fractions using regression-tree model with GIS and LIDAR data: The case study of Denmark. Ecological Indicators 18, 1-10.‏
Ji W., Adamchuk V., Chen S., Biswas A., Leclerc M., and R. V. Rossel. 2017. The use of proximal soil sensor data fusion and digital soil mapping for precision agriculture. Pedometrics 2017 .p 298.
Kalambukattu J. G., Kumar S., and R. A. Raj. 2018. Digital soil mapping in a Himalayan watershed using remote sensing and terrain parameters employing artificial neural network model. Environmental earth sciences 77(5), 203.‏
Kidd D., Searle R., Grundy M., McBratney A., Robinson N., O'Brien L. and Jones, E. 2020. Operationalising digital soil mapping–Lessons from Australia. Geoderma Regional, e00335.‏
McKenzie N. J., and M. J. Gurndy. 2008. Approaches to land resource survey.‏ 230 p.
Mikhailova E. A., Post C. J., Gerard P. D., Schlautman M. A., Cope M. P., Groshans G. R., and J. M. Galbraith. 2019. Comparing Field Sampling and Soil Survey Database for Spatial Heterogeneity in Surface Soil Granulometry: Implications for Ecosystem Services Assessment.‏ 128 p.
Mondejar J. P., and Tongco A. F. 2019. Estimating topsoil texture fractions by digital soil mapping-a response to the long-outdated soil map in the Philippines. Sustainable Environment Research, 29(1), 1-20.‏
Moosavi A. A., and Sepaskhah A. R. 2012. Spatial variability of physico-chemical properties and hydraulic characteristics of a gravelly calcareous soil. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 58(6), 631-656. ‏
Robinson N. J., Dahlhaus P. G., Wong M., MacLeod A., Jones D., andC. Nicholson. 2019. Testing the public–private soil data and information sharing model for sustainable soil management outcomes. Soil Use and Management, 35(1), 94-104.‏
Santra P., Kumar M., and N. Panwar. 2017. Digital soil mapping of sand content in arid western India through geostatistical approaches. Geoderma Regional, 9, 56-72.‏
Searle R. 2015. The Australian site data collation to support the Global Soil Map. 
Basis of the global spatial soil information system. GlobalSoilMap. 127-132p.‏
Seyedmohammadi J., Navidi M. N., and L. Esmaeelnejad. 2019. Geospatial modeling of surface soil texture of agricultural land using fuzzy logic, geostatistics and GIS techniques. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 50(12), 1452-1464.‏
Shirazi M. A., and L. Boersma. 1984. A unifying quantitative analysis of soil texture. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 48(1), 142-147.‏
Ungaro F., Ragazzi F., Cappellin R., and P. Giandon. 2008. Arsenic concentration in the soils of the Brenta Plain (Northern Italy): mapping the probability of exceeding contamination thresholds. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 96(2-3), 117-131.‏
Zhao Z., Chow T. L., Rees H. W., Yang Q., Xing Z., and Meng F. R. 2009. Predict soil texture distributions using an artificial neural network model. Computers and electronics in agriculture, 65(1), 36-48.‏

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 14 May 2021
  • Revise Date: 23 October 2021
  • Accept Date: 23 April 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics