ارزیابی رابطه مدل‌های تعیین کیفیت خاک و شاخص‌های پایداری آن در زمین‌های کشاورزی و مرتعی جنوب مشهد

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری گروه علوم خاک، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

2 استادیار گروه علوم خاک، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

3 استاد گروه علوم خاک، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

چکیده

یکی از مهمترین پبامدهای کاهش کیفیت خاک، کاهش پایداری فیزیکی و افزایش آسیب­پذیری در برابر فرسایش خاک می­باشد. در این مطالعه با هدف بررسی تأثیر کیفیت خاک بر پایداری آن، رابطه بین مدل­های کیفیت خاک و دو شاخص پایداری آن شامل شاخص پایداری­ (SI) و رتبه تجمعی (CR)، در منطقه جنوب مشهد مورد ارزیابی قرار گرفت. مقادیر SI و CR همبستگی معنی­داری با فاکتور فرسایش­پذیری معادله جهانی فرسایش خاک (K) داشتند، لذا به عنوان شاخص­های بیانگر وضعیت فرسایش خاک منطقه، مورد استفاده قرار گرفتند. نتایج نشان داد که چهار مدل کیفیت خاک شامل IQITDS، IQIMDS، NQITDS، NQIMDS دارای همبستگی معنی­داری با شاخص­های پایداری خاک بودند که این همبستگی در مورد شاخص SI بیشتر از شاخص CR بود. بنابراین به نظر می­رسد که تغییر کیفیت خاک می­تواند تأثیر معنی­داری بر وضعیت پایداری آن داشته باشد. از آنجا که شاخص SI همبستگی بالاتری با کیفیت خاک داشته و ویژگی­های کمتری برای تعیین آن لازم بود، نتیجه گیری شد که برای تعیین تغییرات کیفیت خاک شاخص SI بهتر از CR است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluation of the Relationship of Soil Quality Models And Sustainability Indices of Agricultural and RangeLand Soils in South Mashhad

نویسندگان [English]

  • H. Shahab Arkhazloo 1
  • Hojat Emami 2
  • G. H. Haghnia 3
1 Ph.D. student of Soil Science Dept. Agriculture Faculty, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
2 Assistant Professor of Soil Science Dept. Agriculture Faculty, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
3 Professor of Soil Science Dept. Agriculture Faculty, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
چکیده [English]

Reduction of soil physical stability and increasing soil susceptibility to erosion are among the most important consequences of soil quality degradation. In this study, in order to determine soil quality impact on soil physical stability, the relationships between soil quality models and two soil sustainability indices including sustainability index (SI) and cumulative rating (CR) in south Mashhad were evaluated. The SI and CR values had significant correlation with soil erodibility factor of the universal soil loss equation (K factor). Therefore, they were considered as indicators of erosion in the studied region. The results showed that four soil quality models including IQITDS, IQIMDS, NQITDS and NQIMDS   had a significant correlation with soil sustainability indices, and the correlation coefficient of SI was higher than that of CR. Therefore, it seems that changes of soil quality could have a significant impact on soil sustainability situation. Since the SI index had high correlation with soil quality and it required less parameters than those required for determianation of CR, it was concluded that SI index can describe the soil quality changes better than CR.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Cumulative rating
  • Sustainability index
  • Erodibility

مراجع

  1. Andrews, S.S., Mitchell J.P., Mancinelli R., Karlen K.L., Hartz T.K., Horwath W.R., Pettygrove G.S., Scow K.M. and D.S. Munk .2002. On-farm assessment of soil quality in California's central valley. Agronomy journal. 94:12–23.
  2. Aparicio, V., and J.L. Costa. 2007. Soil quality indicators under continuous cropping systems in the Argentinean pampas. Soil and Tillage Research. 96:155–165.
  3. Brejda, J.J., Moorman, T.B., Karlen, D.L., and T.H. Dao. 2000. Identification of regional soil quality factors and indicators: I. Central and Southern High Plains. Soil Science Society of American Journal. 64:2115–2124.
  4. Dexter, A. R. 2004. Soil physical quality. Part I. Theory, effects of soil texture, density, and organic matter, and effect on root growth. Geoderma.120:201- 214.
  5. Doran, J.W. and B.T. Parkin. 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 America, Inc., Madison, WI, USA, pp. 3–21. Special Publication. Number 35.
  6. Doran, J.W., and A.J. Jones. Quantitative indicators of soil quality: a minimum data set .1996. pp. 2-25. In: Doran, J.W., and A.J. Jones. (Eds) Methods for Assessing Soil Quality. Soil Science Society of America Special Publication, vol. 49. Soil Science Society of America,Inc., Madison, WI, USA.
  7. Dumanski, J., and C. Pieri. 2000. Land quality indicators: research plan. Agriculture Ecosystem and Environment. 81:93-102.
  8. Gee, G.W., and J.M. Bauder. 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.
  9. Gomez, A.A., Kelly, D.E.S., Syers, J.K., and K.J. Coughlan. 1996. Measuring sustainability of agricultural systems at the farm level. Pp. 401–410. In: Doran JW and Jones AJ(Eds). Methods for Assessing Soil Quality. Soil Science Society of America, Inc. Madison, WI.
  10. Govaerts, B., Sayre K.D., and J. Deckers. 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.
  11. Han, W.J., and Q.T. Wu. 1994. A primary approach on the quantitative assessment of soil quality. Chinese Journal of Soil Science. 25:245–247.
  12. Jena, A., and K. Gupta. 2002. Determination of pore volume and pore distribution by liquid extrusion porosimetry without using mercury. Ceramic Engineering and Science Proceedings. 23: 277–284.
  13. Karlen, D.L., Andrews, S.S., and J.W. Doran. 2001. Soil quality: current concepts and applications. Advances in Agronomy. 74:1 – 39.
  14. Karlen, D.L., Wollenhaupt, N.C., Erbach, D.C., Berry, E.C., Swan, J.B., Eash, N.S., and J.L. Jordahl. 1994. Crop residue effects on soil quality following 10-years of no-till corn. Soil and Tillage Research. 31:149-167.
  15. Kemper, W.D., and R.C. Rosenau. 1986. Aggregate stability and size distribution. Pp425–442. In: Klute A (ed). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part a: Physical and Mineralogical Methods. American Society of Agronomy. Soil Science Society of America. Madison, WI.
  16. Lal, R. 1994. Methods and guidelines for assessing sustainable use of soil and water resources in the tropics. Soil Management Support System, USDA-NRCS, Washington, DC. pp:1-88.
  17. Mausbach, MJ., and A. Seybold. 1998. Assessment of soil quality. Pp. 33–43. In: Lal R (Ed) Soil quality and agricultural sustainability. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI.
  18. Page, A. L., Miller R. H., and D. R. Keeney. 1982. Methods of Soil Analysis, part2, chemical and microbiological properties. American Society of Agronomy,Inc. Soil Science Society of America. Madison, WI.
  19. Qi, Y., Jeremy, L., Darilek., Biao Huang., Yongcun Zhao., Weixia Sun., and Zhiquan Gu. 2009. Evaluating soil quality indices in an agricultural region of Jiangsu Province, China. Geoderma. 149:325-334.
  20. 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.
  21. Reynolds, W.D., Drury C.F., Tan C.S., Fox A. and X.M. Yang. 2009. Use of indicators and pore volume-function characteristics to quantify soil physical quality. Geoderma. 152:252-263.
  22. SAS Institute Inc. 2000. JMP Design of Experiments, Version 4. Cary, NC, USA
  23. SAS Institute. 1989. SAS Design of Experiments, Version 9.1. Cary, NC, USA.
  24. Shukla, M K., Lal, R., and M. Ebinger. 2004. Soil quality indicators for the North Appalachian experimental watersheds in Coshocton, Ohio. Soil Science. 169:195–205.
  25. Shukla, M.K., Lal R. and M. Ebinger. 2006. Determining soil quality indicators by factor analysis. Soil and Tillage Research. 87:194–204.
  26. Singh, J., and K.L. Khera. 2009. Physical indicators of soil quality in relation to soil erodibility under different land uses. Arid Land Research and Management. 23:152-167.
  27. Sun, B., Zhou, S.L., 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.
  28. Torbert, H.A., Krueger, E., and D. Kurtene. Soil quality assessment using fuzzy modeling. International Agrophysics. 22:365-370.
  29. Walkley, A., and A. Black. 1934. An examination of Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science. 37:29-37.
  30. Wallace, A., and R.E. Terry. 1998. Soil conditioners, soil quality and soil sustainability. Marcel Dekker, New York. pp:1-41
  31. Wischmeier, W.H. and J.R. Mannering. 1969. Relation of soil properties to its erodibility. Soil Science Society of American Journal. 33:131–137.
پژوهش های خاک
دوره 26، شماره 3
آذر 1391
صفحه 227-234

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار