تعیین مؤثرترین ویژگی‌ها به منظور ارزیابی کیفیت خاک در اراضی کشاورزی دشت محمدشهر کرج

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• کورش کمالی ¹
• غلامرضا زهتابیان ²
• طیبه مصباح زاده ³
• محمود عرب خدری ⁴
• حسین شهاب آرخازلو ⁵
• علیرضا مقدم نیا ²

¹ گروه احیاء مناطق خشک و کوهستانی، دانشکده منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه تهران و مربی پژوهشی مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی گیلان، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی

² گروه احیاء مناطق خشک و کوهستانی، دانشکده منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه تهران

³ تهران

⁴ پژوهشکده حفاظت خاک و آبخیزداری، سازمان تحقیقات،‌ آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی

⁵ فردوسی مشهد

https://doi.org/10.22067/jsw.2021.15005.0

چکیده

کیفیت خاک شاخصی‌ ضروری برای مدیریت پایدار اراضی است که به ویژگی‌های فیزیکی، شیمیایی و بیولوژیکی خاک بستگی دارد. بسیاری از محققین ارزیابی کیفیت خاک را بر معدودی از ویژگی‌ها متمرکز کرده‌اند. در این تحقیق به منظور ارزیابی و انتخاب ویژگی‌های موثر در کیفیت خاکِ اراضی کشاورزی دشت محمدشهر کرج با مدیریت‌های مختلف آبیاری، از شاخص کیفیت تجمعی (IQI) و شاخص کیفیت نمرو (NQI) استفاده شد. با حفر و تشریح 12خاکرخ در چهار مزرعه و باغ و نمونه‌برداری از افق‌های سطحی و متوسط عمقی، 16ویژگی‌ مؤثر در کیفیت خاک تعیین و شاخص‌های یاد شده محاسبه گردیدند. بررسی شاخص‌های IQI و NQI نشان داد که خاک‌های این منطقه در نمونه‌های سطحی عمدتاً دارای درجه کیفیت III و در نمونه‌های متوسط عمقی به دلیل عدم تکامل پروفیلی، کربن آلی پایین و سنگریزه بالا دارای درجه کیفیت IV با محدودیت زیاد هستند. بیشترین و کمترین میانگین‌ شاخص کیفیت خاک لایه سطحی به‌ترتیب به مزرعه یونجه (آبیاری بارانی) با 64/0 و مزرعه گندم (آبیاری بارانی) با 58/0 اختصاص یافت. تأثیر مدیریت آبیاری بر شاخص‌های کیفیت خاک نشان داد که نوع سامانه‌ آبیاری نتوانسته است تفاوت معنی‌داری در کیفیت خاک ایجاد نماید. به‌طوری‌که در مزرعه گندم با آبیاری‌های بارانی و غرقابی، تفاوت معنی‌داری در شاخص‌های کیفیت خاک مشاهده نشد. شاخص IQI در مجموعه کل داده‌ها نسبت به شاخص NQI دارای دقت و حساسیت بیشتری برای ارزیابی کیفیت خاک بود؛ لیکن بررسی ضرایب تبیین، قابل اطمینان بودن استفاده از مجموعه حداقل داده‌ها به ‌جای مجموعه کل داده‌ها در هر دو مدل IQI و NQI را نشان داد. در مجموعه حداقل داده‌ها ویژگی‌های میانگین وزنی قطر خاکدانه‌ها و درصد سنگریزه دارای وزن بالاتری به ترتیب در لایه‌های سطحی و متوسط عمقی بودند. استفاده از مؤثرترین ویژگی‌های خاک در مطالعات ارزیابی کیفیت خاک اثر تکرارپذیری حاصل از ویژگی‌های با همبستگی مشابه را کاهش می‌دهد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• تجزیه به مؤلفه های اصلی
• سامانه‌های آبیاری
• شاخص کیفیت تجمعی
• شاخص کیفیت نمرو

20.1001.1.20084757.1400.35.2.8.5

عنوان مقاله [English]

Determining the Most Effective Properties to Evaluate Soil Quality of Agriculture Lands in Mohammadshahr Plain of Karaj

نویسندگان [English]

• K. Kamali ¹
• Gh. Zehtabian ²
• tayybe Mesbahzadeh ³
• M. Arabkhedri ⁴
• Hossain Shohab Arkhazloo ⁵
• A. Moghadamnia ²

¹ Department of Reclamation of Arid and Mountainous Regions, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Tehran, and Member of Scientific Board, Gilan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research,

² Department of Reclamation of Arid and Mountainous Regions, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Tehran

³

⁴ Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Tehran, Iran

⁵ Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

چکیده [English]

Introduction: Soil quality is an essential indicator for sustainable land management that generally depends on soil physical, chemical and biological properties. Due to the multiplicity of soil properties, the number of variables is usually reduced to a minimum set by statistical methods, which reduces study time, decreases monitoring cost for sustainable use of agricultural lands. The aim of this study was to introduce the most effective soil characteristics of agricultural lands in Mohammadshahr plain, Karaj, to prevent the descending trend of soil quality.
Materials and Methods: In this study, four farms and orchards which were different in terms of crop type and irrigation system were selected and evaluated with Integrated Quality Index (IQI) and Nemero Quality Index (NQI). In both indicators, the characteristics affecting soil quality are combined in the form of a mathematical model and presented as a numerical quantity. For this purpose, first 12 soil profiles were described, followed by sampling from topsoil (surface layer) and sublayers (weighting average for the depths) and testing 17 soil characteristics affecting its quality. In the next step, both indicators were calculated using two different sets of soil properties. The first category, the Total Data Set (TDS), included all measured soil characteristics, and the second group, the Minimum Data Set (MDS), included the most important properties affecting soil quality. The Principle Component Analysis was implemented to select the MDS. Soil properties were scored to calculate IQI and NQI. For this purpose, a function was defined for each soil feature to standardize all scores between zero and one. Weighting various soil quality properties was also performed by calculating the common variance of the variables, which was obtained by factor analysis method.
Results and Discussion: Calculation of IQI and NQI indices showed that the topsoil samples were in grade III and sublayer samples belonged to grade IV with major limitations due to lack of profile development, organic carbon deficiency, salinity and high gravel. Four and six items out of 16 variables were identified effective for topsoil and sublayers, respectively. The IQI index based on TDS was more accurate and sensitive than the NQI index for soil quality assessment, as more features are considered for TDS. In the IQI index, both the weight of attributes and their scores are effective, while in the NQI index, only the attribute score is considered. On the other hand, the coefficient of determination between the TDS and MDS for topsoil and sublayer samples was 0.55 and 0.56% for IQI model, respectively, and 0.48 and 0.16% for NQI model, respectively. In other words, the determination coefficients showed the reliability of using the MDS instead of TDS in both IQI and NQI models. In the MDS, mean weight diameter (MWD) showed the highest effect on the surface layer and percentage of gravel had the greatest impact on the soil quality of the sublayer.
Conclusion: Although TDS took into account all soil properties and showed a slightly higher coefficient of determinations with both soil quality indicators, the MDS obtained similar results to the TDS with only about half of the properties. In the MDS, the features with an internal correlation is eliminated rendering it more cost effective. The results of this study assist decision-makers to choose better quality management and soil sustainability strategies while decreasing the monitoring cost.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Principle Component Analysis
• Irrigation systems
• Integrated Quality Index
• Nemoro Quality Index
• Karaj

مراجع

1-       Andrews S.S., Flora C.B., and Mitchell J.P. 2002. A comparison of soil quality indexing methods for vegetable production systems in northern California, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 90: 25-45.

2-       Andrews S.S., Karlen D.L., and Cambardella C.A. 2004. The soil management assessment framework. Soil Science Society of America Journal 68(6): 1945-1962.

3-       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.

4-       Azarneshan S., Khormali F., Sarmadian F., Kiani F., and Eftekhari K. 2018. Soil quality evaluation of semi-arid and arid lands in Qazvin Plain, Iran, Journal of Water and Soil 32(2): 359-374. (In Persian with English abstract)

5-       Barrios E., Delve R.J., Bekunda M., Mowo J., Agunda J., Ramisd J., Trejo M.T., and Thomas R.J. 2006. Indicators of soil quality: A south-south development of a methodological guide for linking local and technical knowledge. Geoderma 135: 248-259.

6-       Dexter A. 2004. Soil physical quality, Part III. Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity and general conclusions about Stheory. Geoderma 120: 227-239.

7-       Doran J.W., and Parkin B.T. 1994. Defining and assessing soil quality. In: Doran, J.W., and et al.(Eds.), Defining soil quality for a sustainable Environment. Soil Science Society of American, Inc., Madison, WI, USA, pp. 3-21. Special Publication. Number 35.

8-       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. (In Persian with English abstract)

9-       Fallahzade J., and Hajabbasi M.A. 2011. Changes in Soil Quality Indicators by Reclamation of Salt–Affected Land in Abarkooh Plain, Central Iran, Journal of Science and Technology of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Water and Soil Science 15(55): 139-150. (In Persian with English abstract)

10-   Fox G.A., and Metla R. 2005. Soil property analysis using principle component analysis, soil line and regression models. Soil Science Society and American Journal 69: 1782-1788.

11-   Gee G.W., and Bauder J.M. 1986. Partical-size analysis. Pp 383-411. In: Page, A. L., and et al (Eds), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1, Physical and Mineralogical Methods. Agronomy Monogroph No. 9 (2nd edition), American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI.

12-   Ghahramanpoor R., Gorji M., Pourbabaee A.A., and Farahbakhsh M. 2018. Investigating the Effects of Conservation and Reduced Tillage Systems on Soil Quality Indices, Iranian Journal of Soil and Water Research (IJSWR) 49(6): 1355-1364. (In Persian with English abstract)

13-   Gorji M., Kakeh J., and AliMohammadi A. 2017. Quantitative soil quality assessment in different land uses at some Parts of south eastern of Qazvin, Iranian Journal of Soil and Water Research (IJSWR) 48(5): 941-950. (In Persian with English abstract)

14-   Govaerts B., Sayre K.D., and Deckers J. 2006. A minimum data set for soil quality assessment of wheat and maize cropping in the highlands of Mexico. Soil and Tillage Research 87: 163–174.

15-   Guo L., Sun Z., Ouyang Z., Han D., and Li F. 2017. A comparison of soil quality evaluation methods for Fluvisol along the lower Yellow River. Catena 152: 135-143.

16-   Han W.J., and Wu Q.T. 1994. A primary approach on the quantitative assessment  of  soil quality. Chinese Journal of Soil Science 25: 245–247.

17-   Islamic Republic of Iran Meteorological Organization (IRIMO). 2018. Meteorological Administration of Alborz province, Summary of statistics of Alborz province's meteorological station. (In Persian)

18-   Jiang P., and Telen K.D. 2004. Effect of soil and topographic properties on crop yield in a north central cornsoybean cropping system. Agronomy Journal 96: 252-258.

19-   Karlen D.L., and Scott D.E. 1994. A framework for evaluating physical and chemical indicators of soil quality. Defining soil quality for a sustainable environment, (definingsoilqua), 53-72.

20-   Karlen D.L., Mausbach M.J., Doran J.W., Cline R.G., Harris R.F., and 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.

21-   Karlen D.L., Andrews S.S., and Doran J.W. 2001. Soil quality: current concepts and Lal, R, forest soils and carbon sequestration, Forest Ecology and Management 13: 317-333.

22-   Kemper W.D., and Rosenau R.C. 1986. Aggregate stability and size distribution. In: Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part a: Physical and Mineralogical Methods. Agronomy Monograph No. 9. American Society of Agronomy. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI:425–442.

23-   Koohafkan P., Lantieri D., and Nachtergaele F. 2003. Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands (LADA): Guidelines for a Methodological Approach. Land and Water Development Division, FAO, Rome.

24-   Kouchaki A., Hasheminia S.M., and Ghahraman N. 1997.  Salt water utilization in sustainable agriculture, Mashhad University Jihad, 236p. (In Persian)

25-   Liu Z., Zhou W., Shen J., Li S., He P., and Liang G. 2014. Soil quality assessment of Albic soils with different productivities for eastern China. Soil and Tillage Research 140: 74-81.

26-   Mohaghegh P., Naderi M., and Mohammadi J. 2016. Determination of Minimum Data Set for Assessment of Soil Quality: A Case Study in Choghakhur Lake Basin, Journal of Water and Soil 30(4): 1232-1243. (In Persian with English abstract)

27-   Mohammadi J., Khademi H., and Nael M. 2005. Study the variability of soil quality in selected ecosystems of Centeral Zagros. J. of Science and Technology of Agriculture and Natural Resourses, Isfahan University of Technology 9(3): 105-120. (In Persian with English abstract)

28-   Motaghi M.M. 1998. Soil Survey Manual, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization. (In Persian)

29-   Mukherjee A., and Lal R. 2014. Comparison of Soil Quality Index Using Three Methods. PLoS ONE 9(8): e105981. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0105981.

30-   Nori N., Rostaminia M., Keshavarzi A., and Rahmani A. 2019. Quantitative Evaluation and Zoning of Spatial Distribution of Soil Quality Index in Some Parts of Arid and Semi-Arid Lands of Western Iran (Case Study: Kane Sorkh Region, Ilam Province), Iranian Journal of Soil and Water Research (IJSWR) 50(7): 1701-1719. (In Persian with English abstract)

31-   Page A.L., Miller R.H., and Keeney D.R. 1982. Methods of soil analysis. Part2- Chemical and Microbiological methods. Seconds edition. Soil Science Society of America, Inc. Publisher Madison, Wisconsin. USA.

32-   Pieri C.J.M.G. 1992. Fertility of Soils: A Future for Farming in the West African Savannah. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.

33-   Qi Y., Darilek J.L., Huang B., Zhao Y., Sun W., and Gu Z. 2009.  Evaluating  soil  quality  indices  in  an  agricultural  region  of  Jiangsu  Province,  China. Geoderma 149(3-4): 325-334.

34-   Qin M.Z., and Zhao J. 2000. Strategies for sustainable use and characteristics of soil quality changes in urban-rural marginal area: a case study of Kaifeng. Acta Geogr. Sin. 55: 545–554.

35-   Rahmani poor F., Bahrami H., Rahimi Bandarabadi S., and Fereidooni Z. 2015. Quantitative Evaluation of Soil Quality and Its Spatial Distribution in Some Agricultural Regions of Qazvin Province, Iran, Iranian Journal of Soil and Water Research (IJSWR) 43(1): 1-8. (In Persian with English abstract)

36-   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.

37-   Shukla M.K., Lal R., and Ebinger M. 2006. Determining soil quality indicators by factor analysis. Soil and Tillage Research 87: 194-204.

38-   Sun B., Zhou S., and Zhao Q. 2003. Evaluation of spatial and temporal changes of soil quality based on geostatistical analysis in the hill region of subtropical China. Geoderma 115(1): 85-99.

39-   Swanepoel P.A., Du Preez C.C., Botha P.R., Snyman H.A., and Habig J. 2014. Soil quality characteristics of kikuyu–ryegrass pastures in South Africa. Geoderma 232: 589-599.

40-   USDA. 2014. Keys to soil Taxonomy, Soil Survey Staff. Twelfth Edition.

41-   Vahdatkhah M., Farpoor M.H. and Sarcheshmehpoor M. 2013. Comparison of some Soil Quality Indicators in Different Land Uses/Covers in Mahan-Joopar Area,Journal of Science and Technology of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Water and Soil Science 17(64): 107-117. (In Persian with English abstract)

42-   Walkley A., and Black I.A. 1934. An examination of degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and aproposed modification of chromic acid titration method. Soil Science 37(1): 29-38.

43-   Yao R.J., Yang J.S., Zhao X.F., Li X.M., Liu M.X. 2013. Determining minimum data set for soil quality assessment of typical salt-affected farmland in the coastal reclamation area Soil and Tillage Research 128: 137–148.

44-   Yemefack M., Jetten V.G., and Rossiter D.G. 2006. Developing a minimum data set for characterizing soil dynamics in shifting cultivation systems. Soil and Tillage Research 86: 84–98.