4.1 Article

How Soil Pore Distribution Could Help in Soil Quality Studies as an Appropriate Indicator

期刊

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE
卷 52, 期 6, 页码 654-660

出版社

PLEIADES PUBLISHING INC
DOI: 10.1134/S1064229319060036

关键词

deforestation; land use changes; macropores; soil quality indicators; topography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study is aimed at examining the impacts of land use and slope gradient on pore space distribution as well as some soil physicochemical properties. Three land uses were considered in this research: natural forest lands, degraded forest lands, and cultivated lands as dry farming. The study area was divided into four slope classes. Furthermore, two types of soil surface (0-10 cm) sampling were performed: a) soil samples for physicochemical analysis and b) intact samples for thin section preparation and image analysis to extract pore equivalent diameter distribution. Pore diameters were divided into three classes, including macropores, mesopores, and micropores. One hundred and eight soil surface samples were collected from the study area. The results revealed that macropores and mesopores are predominant in the natural forest soils, while micropores are dominant in the cultivated soils. Moreover, the highest contents of soil organic matter (SOM) and cation exchangeable capacity and the lowest value of bulk density are observed in the natural forest soils. Regression analysis revealed a positive regression between SOM and macropores and mesopores and a negative regression between organic matter and micropores. These results indicated the importance of SOM in the formation of macropores and mesopores. It appears that plowing cultivated lands has led to the exposure and decay of SOM. In addition, agricultural machinery traffic affects soil compaction, both resulting in the formation of micropores. Overall, soil pore distribution has the essential sensitivity to detect changes in soil quality due to land use changes or other operations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据