ارزیابی کیفیت شیمیایی چند خاک زیر کشت گندم- ذرت با استفاده از مدل‌های کیفیت خاک در بخشی از جنوب شرقی مشهد

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

2 دانشیار دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

3 استاد دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

4 استادیار دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

چکیده

ارزیابی جامع از کیفیت اراضی کشاورزی به دستیابی به کشاورزی پایدار کمک می نماید. لذا ارائه روش­های مناسب ارزیابی کیفیت خاک برای بهبود راهکارهای مدیریتی و عملیات کشاورزی امری ضروری است. در این راستا مدل­های مختلف کیفیت خاک و روش­های انتخاب ویژگی­های مؤثر برای ارزیابی کیفیت شیمیایی-بیولوژیکی خاک مورد مقایسه قرار گرفتند. دوازده پارامتر شیمیایی- بیولوژیکی را به عنوان مجموعه کل ویژگی­های مؤثر برکیفیت خاک (TDS) در نظر گرفته و با استفاده از روش تجزیه مولفه­های اصلی (PCA) مجموعه حداقل ویژگی­های مؤثر انتخاب گردید. چهار ترکیب حاصل از روش­ها و مدل­های کیفیت محاسبه و مناسبترین شاخص و ویژگی­های مؤثر جهت ارزیابی کیفیت خاک انتخاب شدند. ضریب تبیین بین شاخص­های IQITDS و IQIMDS معادل 883/0  R2=و بین NQITDS و NQIMDS معادل 818/0 R2= نشان داد که شاخص کیفیت تجمعی (IQI) کارایی بهتری برای ارزیابی کیفیت خاک منطقه مورد مطالعه دارد. شاخص IQITDS ارزیابی دقیق­تر و جامع­تری از کیفیت خاک را در اختیار قرار می­دهد. با این وجود استفاده از مجموعه حداقل ویژگی­های مؤثر بر کیفیت خاک (MDS) کاهش حجم کار و هزینه را همراه با دقت مناسب موجب می­شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Chemical Quality Assessment of Wheat-Maize Cultivated Soils by Using Soil Quality Models in an Agricultural Region of Southeast Mashhad

نویسندگان [English]

  • M. Ghaemi 1
  • A. R. Astaraei 2
  • S. H. Sanaeinejad 2
  • M. Nassiri Mahalati 3
  • H. Emami 4
1 Ph.D. student, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
2 Associate Professor, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
3 Full Professor, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
4 Assistant Professor, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
چکیده [English]

Comprehensive evaluation of cultivated soil quality helps to achieve sustainable agriculture. Providing suitable methods for soil quality assessment is essential for management strategies to improve agricultural practices. In this regard, various models of soil quality and feature selection methods were compared to assess the soil chemical and biological quality. Twelve chemical and biological variables were considered as Total Data Set (TDS) and Minimum Data Set (MDS) were chosen by using the principal component analysis (PCA). Four combinations of methods and models for calculating quality and also the most effective indicators for assessment of soil quality and features were chosen. The linear relationships between IQITDS and IQIMDS (R2=0.883) and between NQITDS and NQIMDS (R2=0.818) indicated that IQI had better performance for soil quality assessment in the study area. IQITDS index provides more comprehensive and more accurate assessment of soil quality than other indices. However, the use of Minimum Data Set (MDS) reduces workload and costs associated with the care that is appropriate.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Agricultural land use
  • Integrated Quality Index
  • Minimum data set
  • Nemoro Quality Index

مراجع

  1. Andrews, S.S., J.P. Mitchell, R. Mancinelli, K.L. Karlen, T.K. Hartz, W.R. Horwath, G.S. Pettygrove, K.M.Scow, and D.S. Munk. 2002. On-farm assessment of soil quality in California's central valley. Agron, 94:12–23.
  2. Aparicio, V., J.L. Costa, 2007. Soil quality indicators under continuous cropping systems in the Argentinean pampas. Soil Tillage Res, 96:155–165.
  3. Brady, N. C., and R. R. Weil, 2002. The nature and properties of soils, 14th ed. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
  4. Bremner, J.M., and C.S. Mulvaney, 1982. Nitrogen-total. In: Page, A.L., et al. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, pp. 595–624.
  5. Carter, M. R., E. G. Gregorich, D. W. Anderson, J. W. Doran, H. H. Janzen, and F. J. Pierce, 1997. Concepts of soil quality and their significance.In: Gregorich, E. G., and M. R. Carter, (eds.), Soil quality for crop production and ecosystem health. Developments in Soil Science 25, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 1–19.
  6. Doran, J.W., and A.J. Jones, (Eds.), 1996. Methods for Assessing Soil Quality. Soil Science Society of America Special Publication, vol. 49. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI.
  7. Doran, J.W., B.T. Parkin 1994. Defining and assessing soil quality. In: Doran, J.W., D.C. Coleman, D.F. Bezdicek, B.A. Stewart, (Eds.), Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment. Soil Science Society of America, Inc., Madison, WI, USA, pp. 3–21. Special Publication. Number 35.
  8. Drury, C.F., T.Q. Zhang, and B.D. Kay. 2003. The non-limiting and least limiting water range for soil nitrogen mineralization. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 67:1388-1404.
  9. Govaerts, B., K.D. Sayre, and J. Deckers, A minimum data set for soil quality assessment of wheat and maize cropping in the highlands of Mexico. Soil & Tillage Research, 87:163–174.
  10. Han, W.J., and Q.T. Wu, 1994. A primary approach on the quantitative assessment of soil quality. Chinese J. Soil Sci, 25:245–247.
  11. Huang,B., W.X. Sun, Y.C. Zhao, J. Zhu, R.Q.  Yang,  Zou, F. Ding, and  J.P.  Su, 2007. Temporal and spatial of soil organic matter and total nitrogen in an agricultural ecosystem as affected by farming practices. Geoderma, 139: 336–345.
  12. Karlen, D. L., S. S. Andrews, and J. W. Doran, Soil quality: Current concepts and applications.Adv. Agron. 74:1–40.
  13. Karlen, D.L., and D.E. Scott, 1994. A framework for evaluating physical and chemical indicators of soil quality. In: Doran, J.W., D.C. Coleman, D.F. Bezdicek, B.A. Stewart, (Eds.), Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment. ASA and SSSA, Madison,WI, USA, pp. 53–72.
  14. Karlen, D.L., J.C. Gardner and M.J. Rosek,  A soil quality framework for evaluating the impact of CRP. J. Prod. Agric. 11: 56–60.
  15. Karlen, D.L., N.C., Wollenhaupt,  C., Erbach, E.C., Berry, J.B., Swan,  N.S., Eash,  and J.L., Jordahl, 1994.Crop residue effects on soil quality following 10-years of no-till corn. Soil Till. Res., 31: 149-167.
  16. Keeney, D.R. and Bremner, J.M. 1966. Comparison and evaluation of laboratory methods of obtaining an index of soil nitrogen availability. Agron. J. 58: 498–503.
  17. Lindsay, W.L., and W.A. Norvell, 1978. Development of a DTPA soil test for zinc, iron, manganese and copper. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 42: 421–428.
  18. Mausbach, M. J., and C. A. Seybold, 1998. Assess-ment of soil quality.In: Soil quality and agricul-tural sustainability. L. Rattan (ed.). Sleeping Bear Press, Chelsea, pp. 33–43.
  19. McBratney, A.B., and O.A.  Odeh, 1997. Application of fuzzy sets in soil science: fuzzy logic,fuzzy measurements and fuzzy decisions. Geoderma 77: 85–113.
  20. Olsen, S.R., C.V. Cole, F.S. Watanable, and L.A. Dean, 1954. Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. USDA Circular 939, Washington.
  21. Page, A.L., R.H. Miller, and D.R. Keeney, 1982.  Methods of Soil Analysis, part2, chemical and microbiological properties. American Society of Agronomy,Inc. Soil Science Society of Aamerica, Madison, WI.
  22. Pierce, F.J., W.E., Larson, R.H., Dowdy, and W.A., Graham, 1983. Productivity of soils: assessing long term changes to erosion. J. Soil Water Conserv., 38: 39-44.
  23. Popp, , D., Hoag, and J.I.,  Ascough,  2002.Targeting soil conservation policies for sustainability: new empirical evidence. J. Soil Water Conserv., 57: 66-74.
  24. Y., L.D. Jeremy, B. Huang, Y. Zhao, W. Sun, and Z. Gu, 2009. Evaluating soil quality indices in an agricultural region of Jiangsu Province, China. Geoderma, 149:325-334.
  25. Qin, M.Z., and J. Zhao, 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.
  26. Seybold, C. A., R. P. Dick, and F. J. Pierce, 2001. USDA soil quality test kit: Approaches for com-parative assessments. Soil Survey Horiz. 42:43–52.
  27. Shukla, M. K., R. Lal, and M. Ebinger, 2006. Determining soil quality indicators by factor analysis. Soil Tillage Res. 87: 194–204.
  28. Sojka, R. E., and D. R. Upchurch, 1999. Reser-vations regarding the soil quality concept. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 63:1039–1054.
  29. Sun, B., S.L. Zhou, and Q.G. Zhao. 2003. Evaluation of spatial and temporal changes of soil quality based on geostatistical analysis in the hill region of subtropical China. Geoderma, 115:85–99.
  30. Torbert, H.A., E., Krueger , and D. Kurtene,  Soil quality assessment using fuzzy modeling. International Agrophysics, 22: 365-370.
  31. Walkely, A., and I.A. Black, 1934. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 37: 29-38.
  32. Wang, X.J., and Z.T. Gong, 1998. Assessment and analysis of soil quality changes after eleven years of reclamation in subtropical China. Geoderma, 81: 339–355.
  33. Weil, R. R., K. R. Islam, M. A. Stine, J. B. Gruver, and E. Samson-Liebig, 2003.  Estimating active carbon for soil quality assessment: A simplified method for laboratory and field use, Volume 18, Number 1.
  34. Zalidis, G., S. Stamatiadis, V. Takavakoglou,   Eskridge, and N.  Misopolinos, 2002. Impacts of agricultural practices on soil and water quality in the Mediterranean region and proposed assessment methodology.Agr. Ecosyst. Environ, 88 (2):137-146.
  35. Zhang, B., Y. Zhang, D. Chen, R.E. White, and Y. Li, 2004. A quantitative evaluation system of soil productivity for intensive agriculture in China. Geoderma, 123: 319–331.
پژوهش های خاک
دوره 27، شماره 4
اسفند 1392
صفحه 463-473

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار