ارزیابی کیفیت خاک در بخشی از اراضی منطقه خشک و نیمه‌خشک دشت قزوین، ایران

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی گرگان

2 دانشگاه تهران

3 موسسه تحقیقات خاک و آب کشور

چکیده

ارزیابی کیفیت خاک اراضی کشاورزی امری ضروری برای موفقیت‌های اقتصادی و پایداری محیط‌زیست در مناطق درحال‌توسعه می‌باشد. در حال حاضر انواع بسیار زیادی از روش‌ها برای ارزیابی کیفیت خاک استفاده می‌شوند که هر کدام معیارهای متفاوتی را به کار می‌گیرند. با توجه به اینکه قزوین یکی از مهم‌ترین قطب‌های تولید کننده در منطقه و نیز ایران می‌باشد و نظر به اهمیت ارزیابی کیفیت خاک به‌عنوان شاخصی از کشاورزی پایدار و بهره‌برداری بهینه از منابع طبیعی، در این تحقیق کیفیت خاک بخشی از اراضی دشت قزوین با استفاده از شاخص کیفیت خاک تجمعی (Integrated quality index) و شاخص کیفیت نمرو (Nemero quality index) در ترکیب با دو روش انتخاب معیار کل مجموعه داده‌ها (Total data set) و حداقل مجموعه داده‌ها (Minimum data set) ارزیابی شد. مجموعاً 19 پارامتر خاک درروش TDS مورد استفاده قرار گرفتند. سپس این چهار ترکیب روش-های ارزیابی کیفیت خاک به‌منظور تعیین بهترین روش در منطقه مورد مطالعه از طریق مقایسه با عملکرد آنالیز شدند. نتایج نشان داد روش TDSIQI بیشترین همبستگی را در منطقه با میزان عملکرد دارد و نتایج حاصل از ارزیابی کیفیت خاک طبق این روش به ترتیب: 82/2% اراضی دارای درجه کیفیت خیلی خوب (I)،56/53% اراضی دارای درجه کیفیت خوب (II)،65/30% اراضی دارای درجه کیفیت متوسط (III) و 97/12% اراضی دارای درجه ضعیف (IV). همچنین روش TDSIQI بالاترین میزان همبستگی را با MDSIQI (9/77= R2) نشان داد؛ بنابراین روش MDS جایگزین خوبی برای سایر روش-های مطالعه کیفیت خاک می‌باشد و استفاده از آن می‌تواند موجب صرفه‌جویی در وقت و هزینه مطالعات گردد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Soil Quality Evaluation of Semi-arid and Arid Lands in Qazvin Plain, Iran

نویسندگان [English]

  • Sona Azarneshan 1
  • farhad khormali 1
  • fereydoon sarmadian 2
  • farshad kiani 1
  • kamran Eftekhari 3
1 Agriculture sciences and natural resources university of Gorgan
2 University of Tehran
3 Soil and water research institute
چکیده [English]

Introduction: Assessing the soil quality of agricultural land is essential for the economic success and sustainability of the environment in developing countries. Recently, there are many types of methods for assessing soil quality, each of them uses different criteria. Considering that Qazvin plain is one of the most important regions of agricultural products in Iran as well as Middle East, so the assessment of the soil status using quantitative models of soil quality can be used as an indicator of the status of soils in relation to sustainable agriculture, optimal utilization of resources Natural and better land management. Among the quantitative models of soil quality index, cumulative model integrated quality index (IQI) and Nomero (NQI) index can be mentioned. Therefore, this study intends to evaluate the best quantitative and quality index model by examining and comparing two methods of selecting the appropriate criteria, Total data set (TDS) and Minimum (MDS) and the second order soil quality index, integrated quality index(IQI) and Nomero (NQI) index in Qazvin plain lands.
Material and Methods: The study area with 25220 hectares is located in east of Qazvin Province. The average annual precipitation is 275 mm and the soil moisture and temperature regimes are Thermic, Dry xeric and Weak Aridic, respectively. A total of 76 samples from the depth of 0-20 cm of the soil surface were studied and based on uniformity, soil type and land use. In this study, four types of criteria that affect the quality of soil in terms of their performance, including: upper limit, lower limit, optimal limit and descriptive function were selected. To qualify (normalize), the upper limit, lower limit and peak limit were selected. In the following, the Total Data Set (TDS) and the Minimum Data Set (MDS) set of data were used. In the TDS method, all of the measured characteristics (a total of 19 physicals, chemical and biological properties of the soil) were considered. Then, the degree of soil quality indices was determined based on the combination of TDS and MDS criteria and the final NQI and IQI quality indices.
Result and Dissection: Comparison of soil types in the region showed that the Aridisols had good, moderate and poor quality (19.35% of soil with good quality, 67.76% with moderate quality and 12.94% with poor quality), Entisols have good and medium quality (53.21% of the soil with good quality and 46.79% with moderate quality) and Inceptisols have very good, good, moderate and poor quality (96.9% Soils with very good quality, 66.73% with good quality, 15.85% with moderate quality and 13.44% with poor quality).
According to the TDS standard and the NQI model, the soils with qualities I, II and III were 30.67%, 66.86%, 47.2% of the total soils of the area (lands with poor quality soil quality were not observed in TDSNQI method). Therefore, according to this method, Aridisols has a very good, good and medium quality (13.26% of the soil with a very good quality rating, 73.88% with a good quality and 12.84% with a moderate quality grade), Entisols with The good quality (100% of the soil with good quality degree) and Inceptisols have a very good and good quality (28.11% of the soil with a very good quality grade, 71.88% with a good quality grade). The results of quantitative soil quality by using the MDS standard method and IQI model were showed, soils with very good, good, moderate and poor degree are 2.45, 16.45, 48.93 and 46.3 percent of total land area respectively.
The results of the combination of the MDS and the NQI model also showed that the soils with a very good, good and average grade are 30.67%, 66.86% and 47.2% of the total land, respectively. Also, the results of the combination of the MDS and NQI model showed that the soils with very good, good and average quality are 30.67%, 66.86% and 47.2% of the total land area respectively. The results of the evaluation based on 4 indicators showed that good quality (II) was prevalent in the studied soils and accounted for about 47% of the total area studied in Qazvin plain lands. The map of distribution of soil quality degrees, the distribution of soil degrees is relatively similar to all of four combination methods, the choice of criteria and model. By examining the linear relationship between the indices obtained from TDS and MDS criteria and the IQI and NQI indexes, it is observed that the correlation coefficient is more and more reliable than the NQI model when used in the IQI model (R2 = 0.77). So the highest correlation coefficient we observed two methods for selecting the TDS and MDS criteria when using the IQI model. In general, the results of this study indicate a better performance of the MDS criteria than TDS.
Conclusions: Therefore, the main results of this study suggest using the IQI model with the MDS selection method as the starting point in the global standard path for future studies. Special attention should be paid to the criteria chosen by the MDS. In addition, conducting a series of research into the future in order to modify the MDSIQI model can make it more relevant to international standards.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • GIS
  • MDS
  • Soil quality index
  • TDS

مراجع

1- Andrews S.S., Flora C.B., Mitchell J.P., and Karlen D.L. 2003. Growers perceptions and acceptance of soil quality indices. Geoderma, 114:187-213.
2- Andrews S.S., Mitchell J.P., Mancinelli R., Karlen K.L., Hartz T.K., Horwath W.R., Pettygrove G.S., Scow K.M., and Munk D.S. 2002. On-farm assessment of soil quality inCalifornia's central valley. Agronomy Journal, 94:12–23.
3- Aparicio V. Costa J. L. 2007. Soil quality indicators under continuous cropping systems in the Argentinean pampas. Soil and Tillage Research, 96:155–165.
4- Armenise E., Redmile-Gordon M.A., Stellacci A.M., Ciccarese A., and 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.
5- Beinat E., and Nijkamp P. 1998. Multicriteria Analysis for Land-Use Management. Kluwer Academic Publishing, Boston.
6- Bindraban P.S., Stoorvogel J.J., Jansen D.M., Vlaming J., and Groot J.J.R. 2000. Land quality indicators for sustainable land management: proposed method for yield gap and soil nutrient balance. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 81:103–112.
7- Burrough P.A. 1989. Fuzzy mathematical methods for soil survey and land evaluation. European Journal of Soil Science, 40:477–492.
8- Dexter A. R. 2004. Soil physical quality: Part I. Theory, effects of soil texture, density, and organic matter, and effects on root growth. Geoderma. 120: 201–214.
9- Ditzler C.A., and Tugel A.J. 2002. Soil quality field tools of USDANRCS soil quality institute. Agronomy Journal 94:33–38.
10- Dobermann A., and Oberthur T. 1997. Fuzzy mapping of soil fertility — a case study onirrigated riceland in the Philippines. Geoderma, 77:317–339.
11- Doran J.W., Coleman D.C., Bezdicek D.F., and Stewart B.A. 1994. Defining soil quality for asustainable environment. SSSA Special Publication. 35. Soil Science Society ofAmerica, Madison, WI, USA.
12- Doran J.W., and Jones A.J. 1996. Methods for Assessing Soil Quality. Soil ScienceSociety of America Special Publication, vol. 49, Madison.
13- Doran J.W., and Parkin T.B. 1994. Defining and assessing soil quality. P. 3-21. In: Doran J.W., Coleman D.C., Bezdicek D.F., Stewart B.A. (Eds.), Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment. 35. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI.
14- Dumanski J., and Pieri C. 2000. Land quality indicators: research plan. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 81:93–102.
15- Emami H., Neyshabouri M.R., and Shorafa M. 2012. Relationships between Some Soil Quality Indicators in Different Agricultural Soils from Varamin, Iran. Agriculture science and technology, 14:951-959.
16- FAO. 1996. Agro-ecological zoning guidelines. FAO Rome.
17- Fu B. 1991. Theory and practice of land evaluation. China Science and Technology Press, Beijing.
18- Glover J.D., Reganold J.P., and Andrews P.K. 2000. Systematic method for rating soil quality of conventional, organic, and integrated apple orchards in Washington State. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 80:29-45.
19- Govaerts B., Sayre K.D., and Deckers J. 2006. A minimum data set for soil quality assessmentof wheat and maize cropping in the highlands of Mexico. Soil &Tillage Research, 87:163–174.
20- Gullin Li., Chen J., Sun Z., and Tan M. 2007. Establishing a minimum dataset for soil quality assessment based on soil properties and land-use changes. Acta ecological sinica, 27: 2715-2724.
21- Han W.J., and Wu Q.T. 1994. A primary approach on the quantitative assessment of soilquality. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 25:245–247. (In Chinese with English Abstract).
22- Herrick J. E., Brown J. R., Tugel A. J., Shaver P. L., and Havstad K. M. 2002. Application of soil quality to monitoring and management: paradigms from rangeland ecology. Agronomy Journal, 94:3–11.
23- Hillel D. 1991. Out of the Earth: Civilization and the Life of the Soil. University of California Press, Berkeley.
24- Imaz M.J., Virto I., Bescansa P., Enrique A., Fernandez-Ugalde O., and Karlen D.L. 2010. Soil quality indicator response to tillage and residue management on semi-arid Mediterranean cropland. Soil and Tillage Research, 107:17-25.
25- Karlen D.L., Gardner J.C., and Rosek M.J. 1998. A soil quality framework for evaluating theimpact of CRP. Journal of production agriculture, 11:56–60.
26- Karlen D.L., M.J. Mausbach J.W., Doran R.G., Cline R.F., Harris G.E., and Schuman. 1997. Soil quality: a concept, definition and framework for evaluation (a guest editorial). Soil Science Society of America Journal, 61:4-10.
27- Karlen D.L., and Scott D.E. 1994. A framework for evaluating physical and chemicalindicators of soil quality. P. 53-72. In: Doran J.W., Coleman D.C., Bezdicek D.F., Stewart B.A. (Eds.), Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment. ASA and SSSA, Madison,WI.
28- Karlen D.L., Tomer M.D., Neppel J., and Cambardella C.A. 2008. A preliminary watershed scale soil quality assessment in north central low a, USA. Soil and Tillage Research, 99:291-299.
29- Karlen D.l., Wollenhaupt N.C., Erbach D.C., Berry E.C., Swan J.B., Eash N.S., and Jordahl J.L. 1994. Long-term tillage effects on soil quality. Soil and Tillage Research 32:313-327.
30- Lal R. 1999. Soil quality and food security: the global perspective. P. 3-16. In: Lal, R. (Ed.), Soil Quality and Soil Erosion. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
31- Larson W.E., and Pierce F.J. 1994. The dynamics of soil quality as a measure of sustainablemanagement. Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin.
32- Masto R.E., Chhonkar P.K., Singh D., and Patra A.K. 2008. Alternative soil quality indices for evaluating the effect of intensive cropping, fertilization and manuring for 31 years in the semi-arid soils of India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 136:419-435.
33- McBratney A.B., and Odeh I.O.A. 1997. Application of fuzzy sets in soil science: fuzzy logic, fuzzy measurements and fuzzy decisions. Geoderma, 77:85–113.
34- Mohaghegh P., Naderi M., and Mohamadi. 2016. Determination of effective indicators for soil quality assessment in different land use typesof Chughakhor basin. Soil and Water Conservation Journal, 3:55-71. (In Persian with English abstract)
35- Monreal C.M., Dinel H., Schnitzer M., Gamble D.S., and Biederbeck V.O. 1998. Impact of carbon sequestration on functional indicators of soil quality as influenced by management in sustainable agriculture. P. 435-457. In: Lal R., Kimble J.M., Follett R.F., Stewart B.A. (Eds.), Soil Processes and the Carbon Cycle. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
36- National Research Council. 1993. Soil and Water Quality: an Agenda for Agriculture. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
37- Nazzareno D., and Michele C. 2004. Multivariate indicator kriging approach using a GIS toclassify soil degradation for Mediterranean agricultural lands. Ecological Indicators, 3:177–187.
38- Pieri C., Dumanski J., Hamblin A., and Young A. 1995. Land Quality Indicators.World BankDiscussion Papers. Washington DC.
39- Qi Y., Darilek J., Huang B., Zhao Y., Sun W., and Gu Zh. 2009. Evaluating soil quality indices in an agricultural region of Jiangsu Province, China. Geoderma, 149:325–334.
40- Qin M.Z., and Zhao J. 2000. Strategies for sustainable use and characteristics of soil qualitychanges in urban-rural marginal area: a case study of Kaifeng. Acta Geographica Sinica-chinese edition, 55:545–554 (In Chinese with English abstract).
41- Rasouli M.H., Ghodrat K., Ashrafi S., Jafari M., and Khodaverdiloo H. 2016. Evaluation of soil quality indices in Northern Zagros Forests (case study:Oshnaviye-west Azirbaijan). Soil management and sustainable production. 3:83-89. (In Persian with English abstract)
42- Reeves D.W. 1997. The role of organic matter in maintaining soil quality in continuous cropping systems. Soil & Tillage Research, 43:131–167.
43- Reynolds W. D., Bowman B. T., Drury C. F., Tan C. S., and Lu X. 2002. Indicators of good soil physical quality: density and storage parameters. Geoderma, 110:131–146.
44- Reynolds W. D., Drury C. F., Tan C. S., Fox C. A., and Yang X. M. 2009. Use of indicators and pore volume-function characteristics to quantify soil physical quality. Geoderma, 152:252–263.
45- Rezaei S.A., Gilkes R.J., and Andrews S.S. 2006. A minimum data set for assessing soilquality in rangelands. Geoderma, 136:229–234.
46- Shahab H., Emami H., Haghnia G.H., and Karimi A. 2013. Pore size distribution as a soil physical quality index for agricultural and pasture soils in northeastern Iran. Pedosphere, 23:312-320.
47- Shukla M.K., Lal R., and Ebinger M. 2006. Determining soil quality indicators by factoranalysis. Soil & Tillage Research, 87:194–204.
48- Singer M.J., and Ewing S. 2000. Soil quality. In: Sumner, M.E. (Ed.), Handbook of SoilScience. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
49- Singh M. J., and Khera K. L. 2009. Physical indicators of soil quality in relation to soil erodibility under different land uses. Arid land research and management, 23:152–167.
50- Smith J.L., Halvaorson J.J., and Papendick R.I. 1994. Using multiple-variable indicatorkriging for evaluating soil quality. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 57:743–749.
51- Stamatiadis S., Doran J.W., and Kettler T. 1999. Field and laboratory evaluation of soilquality changes resulting from injection of liquid sewage sludge. Applied Soil Ecology, 12:263–272.
52- Sun B., Zhou S.L., and Zhao Q.G. 2003. Evaluation of spatial and temporal changes of soilquality based on geostatistical analysis in the hill region of subtropical China. Geoderma, 115:85–99.
53- Tang X. 1997. Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of the productivity of purple soil in SichuanProvince, China. The Advance in Soil Research, 28:107–109. (In Chinese with English abstract).
54- Topp G. C., Reynolds W. D., Cook F. J., Kirby J. M., and Carter M. R. 1997. Chapter 2: Physical attributes of soil quality. P. 21-58. In Gregorich E. G. and Carter M. R. (eds.) Soil Quality for Crop Production and Ecosystem Health. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
55- Van der Ploeg R.R., Böhm W., and Kirkham M.B. 1999. On the origin of the theory of mineralnutrition of plants and the law of the minimum. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 63:1055–1062.
56- Wander M.M., Walter G.L., Nissen T.M., Billero G.A., Andrews S.S., and Cavanaugh Grant D.A. 2002. Soil quality: science and process. Agronomy Journal, 94:23–32.
57- Wang X.J., and Gong Z.T. 1998. Assessment and analysis of soil quality changes after elevenyears of reclamation in subtropical China, Geoderma, 81:339–355.
58- Wienhold B.J., Pikul J., Liebig M.A., Mikha M.M., Varvel G.E., Doran J.W., and Andrews S.S. 2006. Cropping system effects on soil quality in the Great Plains: synthesis from a regional project. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 21:49-59.
59- Yao R.J., Yang J.S., Zhao X.F., Li X.M., and Liu M.X. 2013. Dtermining minimum data set for soil quality assessment of typical salt-affected farmland in the coastal reclamation area. Soil and Tillage Research, 128:137-148.
60- Zhang B., Zhang Y., Chen D., White R.E., and Li Y. 2004. A quantitative evaluation system ofsoil productivity for intensive agriculture in China. Geoderma, 123:319–331.
ارسال نظر در مورد این مقاله
CAPTCHA Image
آب و خاک
دوره 32، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 58
خرداد و تیر 1397
صفحه 359-374

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 05 تیر 1396
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 05 تیر 1396
  • تاریخ اولین انتشار: 01 تیر 1397

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار